DOCUMENT RESUME

ED 078 531 EA 005 126

TITLE Improving Education in Florida. A Report.INSTITUTION Governor's Citizens' Committee on Education,

Tallahassee, Fla.SPONS AGENCY Florida State Legislature, Tallahassee.; Ford

Foundation, Neil York, N.Y.PUB DATE 15 Mar 73NOTE 296p.

EDRS PRICE MF--$0.65 HC-$9.87DESCRIPTORS *Advisory Committees; Citizen Participation;

Community Responsibility; Educational Change;Educational Finance; *Educational Improvement;Educational Innovation; Educational Legislation;*Educational Objectives; *Educational Programs;Educational Research; Governance; ProfessionalContinuing Education; *Public Schools; SchoolCommunity Relationship; School Services; StaffImprovement; Technical Reports

IDENTIFIERS *Florida; State Responsibility

ABSTRACTThis document begins with clarifications of the State

and the local responsibility for education. The main body of thereport is given over to committee recommendations covering (1) schoolprogram and services; (2) professional development for board memb &s,school administrators, teachers, and other noninstructionalpersonnel; (3) educational improvement through assessment at theState and district levels and by educational research anddevelopment; (4) post-secondary education; (5) a concept of funding,capital outlays, compensatory education, migrant education, schooltransportation, a financial accounting system, and property taxassessment; and (6) governance. Five sets of appendixes contain asummary of recommendations, the technical report of the FloridaSchool Finance Study, the technical report analyzing tne Governor'sCitizens' Committee Survey, a list of additional technical aeports,and a list of resource personnel used by the committee. (,yes 96 and255-258 may reproduce poorly.) (Author/D

This public report was promulgated at a cost of $15,224 or $7.61per copy to inform the general public about recommended changesin our Florida education system. The cost is shared equally by theState and the Ford Foundation.

..

FILMED FROM BEST AVAILABLE COPY

ite`NU.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH,

COEOUCATION &WELFARENATIONAL INSTITUTE OF

EOUCATIONTHIS DOCUMENT HAS BEEN REPROOUCEO EXACTLY AS RECEIVE() FROM

THE PERSON OR ORGANIZATION ORIGINATING IT POINTS OF VIEW OR OPINIONS

STATED 00 NOT NECESSARILY REPRE

111.1

SENT OFFICIAL NATIONAL INSTITUTE OFEDUCATION POSITION OR POLICY

IMPROVING EDUCATION IN FLORIDA

A REPORT BYTHE GOVERNOR'S CITIZENS' COMMITTEE

ON EDUCATION

Tallahassee, FloridaMarch 15, 1973

GOVERNOR'S CITIZENS' COMMITTEEON EDUCATION

THECOMMITTEE: Appointed in the summer of 1971by Governor Reubin Askew, and funded by the Legis-lature, the Citizens' Committee on Education wascharged with the responsibility of studying all levelsof education and making recommendations to thepeople of Florida for ways to improve our s:hools.

Chaired by the Honorable Fred Schultz, formerSpeaker of the Florida House of Representatives, thistwenty-two member Committee was composed of citi-zens representing the State Legislature, business,industry, labor, the professions, and minority groups:men and women from all walks of life and of all persua-sions.

The Committee met each month and had the benefitof a professional staff to prepare materials and conductresearch. Over 100,000 man hours have been spentin researching, deliberating and writing the Commit-tee's Report.

Of special importance was the generous supportafforded the Committee by many educators andinterested citizens both within and outside of Florida.In the state these resource persons included those fromthe Department of Education, the _Florida SchoolBoard Association, the Superintendents Association,county-level education officials, teacher groups,

parent-teacher organizations and student groups. (Afull list ofcontributors is provided in Appendix E.)

During our second year of operation. the Committeereceived a substantial grant from the Ford Foundationto conduct a thorough, in-depth. examination of educa-tional finance in Florida. Recommendations based onthis study are included in the body of our report; thetechnical documentation of this study is presented inAppendix B.

In addition. the Committee had the benefit of anumber of technical documents developed by leadingexperts. (See Appendix D.) In many instances thesedocuments formed the basis of recommendations madeby the Committee, and we are most grateful for thevaluable assistance provided us by those who helpedin their preparation.

Furthermore, to insure that we had the benefit ofideas concerning educational 1eform held by thoseinvolved at the local level, the Committee's staff con-ducted a survey of over 1700 persons, includingteachers, principals, supervisors. superintendents andschool board members. (See Appendix C.) The resultsof the study were highly beneficial to the Committeein its deliberations and many of our recommendationshave been formulated using the information obtainedthrough the survey.

COMMITTEE MEMBERS

FRED SCHULTZ, CHAIRMANChairman of the Board, BarnettInvestment Services, Inc.; formerSpeaker of the Florida House ofRepresentatives; Jacksonville, Florida.

JAMES A. CLENDINENEditor, The Tampa Tribune;Tampa, Florida.

TIPPEN DAVIDSONVice President, Daytona BeachNews Journal; Chairman, Florida FineArts Council; Daytona Beach, Florida.

WILLARD D. DOVERAttorney; Chairman of the FloridaCouncil of 100's Education Committee;Fort Lauderdale, Florida.

GREGORY E. FAVREExecutive Editor, Daytona BeachNews Journal; Daytona Beach, Florida.

CANON THEODORE GIBSONRector of Christ Episcopal Church;Miami, Florida.

SAMUEL J. GILLOTTVice President, Washington FederalSavings and Loan Association; Miami,Florida.

RALEIGH GREENEPresident, First Federal Savings andLoan Association; Co-Chairman ofthe Florida Council of 100's EducationCommittee; St. Petersburg, Florida.

MRS. SARA SCOTT HARLLEECivic Leader; Member of theformer State Public School Board;Palmetto, Florida.

MRS. GLATYS HARSINExecutive Vice President, FloridaAFL-CIO; Plant City, Florida.

ROBERT M. JOHNSONState Representative and Attorney,Sarasota, Florida.

KENNETH H. MacKAY, JR.State Representative and Attorney;Ocala, Florida.

C. CARL MERTINS, JR.President, Barnett Bank ofPensacola; Pensacola, Florida.

ELLIOTT MESSERAttorney; Tallahassee, Florida.

GEORGE S. PALMER, M.D.Executive Director, FloridaBoard of Medical Examiners;Tallahassee, Florida.

CLIFF S. REUTERFormer State Senator, Engineer;Vero Beach, Florida.

HENRY SAYLERState Senator, l'nsurance Executive;St. Petersburg, Florida.

T. TERRELL SESSUMSSpeaker, Florida House of Representatives;Attorney; Tampa, Florida.

MRS. BETTY ANNE STATONPresident, Florida League ofWomen Voters; Orlando, Florida.

SAMUEL TAYLORPresident of the Student Government,University of Florida; Gainesville,Florida.

LATIMER H. TURNERRancher and Businessman; formerPresident, Florida Cattlemen'sAssociation; Sarasota, Florida.

Dr. William L. MaloyDr. Marshall A. Harris

Mr. George I. Barrett

Dr. Walter I. GarmsDr. Michael W. KirstDr. Roger E. Bolton

JAMES H. WILLIAMSState Senator and Businessman;Ocala, Florida,

THE FOLLOWING PERSONS HAVE ALSOSERVED ON THE COMMITTEE.

JOHN R. BROXSONFormer State Senator; Real Estateand Insurance Executive; GuIr Breeze,Florida.

MARVIN.DAVIESExecutive Secretary, Florida NAACP;St. Petersburg, Florida.

ROBERT ELLISPresident, Gulf Power Company;President, Associated Industries of Florida;Pensacola, Florida.

ROBERT M. HAVERFIELDFormer State Senator; Judge, ThirdDistrict Court of Appeals; Attorney;Miami, Florida.

MALLORY HORTONAttorney; former Judge of the ThirdDistrict Court of-Appeals; Miami, Florida.

ED. H. PRICE, JR.Executive Vice President, Tropicana, Inc.;Chairman of the State Citrus Commission;former President, Florida Chamberof Commerce; Bradenton, Florida.

DONALD H. REED, JR.Former State Representative and Attorney;Boca Raton, Florida.

COMMITTEE STAFF

Executive DirectorFinance Study

CoordinatorResearch Associate

Mr. F. Stan CroweMr. Gerald D. OlsonMrs. Irene BrewtonMrs. Linda Logan

CONSULTANTS, FINANCE STUDY

Principal ConsultantPrincipal ConsultantSpecial Consultant,Post-SecondaryEducation

Dr. Gene A. Barlow

Mr. David C. FloodMr. William S. Furry

Research AssociateResearch AssociateStaff SecretaryStaff Secretary

Special ConsultantSimulation ModelResearch AssociateResearch Associate

TABLE OF CONTENTS

GOVERNOR'S CITIZENS'PAGE

COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION

Management-Training for EducationalAdministrators and Other Non-

PAGE

INTRODUCTION 1 Instructional PersonnelTenure for Administrators 30

Teacher Education 30

Professional Evaluation 31

SECTION I. Differentiated Staffing 32

STATE RESPONSIBILITYIntroduction 5

SECTION VI

A New State Role 5EDUCATIONAL IMPROVEMENT

Manpower PlanningAn Educational Information System

56

IntroductionState-Level and District-Level

37

Regional Resource Centers for Education 7Assessment 37

Non-Public School Education 7Educationai Research and Development 39

SECTION VIISECTION II POST-SECONDARY EDUCATION

THE COMMUNITY AND THE SCHOOL Introduction 43

IntroductionCitizen Participation in Educational

Affairs

11

11

Institutional FlexibilityAccess to Post-Seconc try. Education

4344

The Annual Report of School Progress 11SECTION VIII

The Community School 12FINANCE

Introduction 47

SECTION I I I A Concept of Funding 47

THE SCHOOL PROGRAM Minimum Foundation Program 47

Introduction 15 Capital Outlay 49

Basic Skills 15- Compensatory Education 50

Citizenship Education 15 Migrant' Education 50

Career Education 15 School Transportation 50

Exceptional Child Education 16 Employee Retirement Matching 51

Education for Gifted Students 17 Financial Accounting System 51

Early Childhood Education 18 Property Tax Assessment 52

Non-Traditional Programs 18 A Recommended Study 52

SECTION IV SECTION IXSCHOOL SERVICES GOVERNANCE

Introduction Part i 55

Pupil Personnel Services 23 Part II 55

School Health Services' 24 APPENDIXESEducational Programs fez- Disruptive

StudentsEducational Materials and Equipment

2425

A Summary of RecommendationsB Florida School Finance Study

Technical ReportSECTION V C Analysis of the Governor's Citizens'

PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT Committee SurveyTechnical Report

Introduction 29 D List of Additional Technical Reports

Board Training 29 E Resource Personnel

INTRODUCTIONEducation in Florida has made great strides over

-the last twenty-five years. Students read approximatelyone grade level higher than their parents; they aretaught by better trained teachers; and they scoreincreasingly 'better on college entrance examinations.

But in a complex and changing society the need hasincreased even faster. What is satisfactory today willhardly suffice to meet the problems of the world oftomorrow. And these problems are already upon us.That one-third of the students who enter first gradefail to complete high school is both an intolerable lossof human potential and a strong criticism of ourschools. Teachers are increasingly frustrated by work-ing conditions: by the number of students in the class-room; by disruptive children; and by the restrictionsplaced upon them in carrying out their responsibilities.

Parents are upset by discipline problems, by whatthey perceive to be the lack of achievement by theirchildren, and by what appears to them to be an educa-tional system less and less concerned with either theproblems of making a living or making a life. In eachschool district taxpayers are growing uneasy with therising cost of educationparticularly as schools com-pete with other governmental services for scarce dol-lars.

Furthermore, a growing number of people believethat the schools should be educating people for thefuture by developing in a student the capacity of self-renewal, the ability to respond to sudden dislocationsin his job or in his social situation and the ability tomake his life more worthwhile.

Up to now, we have not asked education to respondto this kind of a challenge. To the contrary, we haveasked the schools to solve all the problems of the pres-entpolitical, social and economic. Schools do notsolve problems, they produce the people to do so. Oureducational energies have been dissipated and the pub-lic has become discouraged with the results.

1

Quite predictably, a nation faced with acceleratingchange, campus unrest, teacher strikes, limited waysin which parents can be meaningfully involved withtheir schools, and differing expectations for educationwill become critical of traditional institutions. So ithas been for education, as is shown by comparing Har-ris polls taken over ,a five-year period. In 1966 thepoll indicated that 61 percent of the people in our coun-try expressed confidence in their system of publiceducation; in 1971, confidence had dropped to 37 per-ceht.

What must be done?"How do we restore lost con-fidence, especially at a time in history when many ofmankind's ancient enemies are in full retreat and whenwe have at our fingertips the tools to develop anenlightened citizenry? These were the questions beforethe Committee. We do not have all the answers tothe complexities of achieving quality education for thetwenty-first century. Indeed, we do not pretend toknow all the questions.

Nevertheless, we have labored long and hard withthe problems of education. And with the help of thosewho have labored with us, we have set forth in thisReport recommendations both broad and specific. Webelieve these recommendations will go far towardanswering many of the questions before us.

In our recommendatiOns we have attempted toclarify the state and the local responsibility foreducation. The state must set broad educational objec-tives and provide funding to local districts for achievingthese objectives; the districts must have the flexibilityto determine the manner in which these objectives willbe implemented.

Children are not alike. They cannot be taught withmass production methods. Our schools must accom-modate children who are different in learning styles,in attitudes, in background, and in ability. To do thisour schools must change from the present group- and

time-based system of education to one which isindividualized and based upon educational objectives,objectives which insure that competencies in the basicskills are attained by all students. Assessment pro-grams must be broadened to insure that these educa-tional objectives are to be achieved.

Students, however, must receive much more thanthe basic skills:- Schools should help students findways to make life more worthwhile. Schools must showall students how education relates to life and toemployment. The community must become a labora-tory where young people can learn firsthand from thesociety rather than about the society.

The key to education is people; and our recommen-dations stress the importance of involving more andbetter qualified adults in our schools. In particular,we need counselors, teacher aides, and volunteer par-ents. Better use can then be made of teachers in theirprofessional capacity.

We believe this will meet many of the problemscaused by high pupil-teacher ratios. It is our hope thatthis will give students more adult contact to provideavailable models for the development of values andit will help parents become more interested in andinvolved with their schools once more.

If the confidence of the public is to_be restored wemust create a new partnership between parents andprofessional educators. Toward this end we haverecommended that each school establish a SchoolAdvisory Council made up of parents, teachers,administrators, and, in some cases, students.

For the same purpose we have advocated thedevelopment of an Annual Report of School Progressto be disseminated widely throughout the school com-munity. The people must know how well a school isdoing and how it intends to improve.

The schools should be more intimately involved withthe community. The doors of the school should beopen day and night. It should be the center for commu-nity functions and community services.

Better training for all who are involved in schoolsis vital. Programs should be established to providetraining for school board members, superintendents,principals and teachers. Certification should be basedto a greater extent upon competencies and teachert-aining should bedome a life-long process. It shouldbe based on a partnership between post-secondary

institutions, school districts and the professionalorganizations.

Florida's future depends upon access to post-secondary education for all qualified students. Toachieve this the Student Lean Program should bebroadened and the Student Assistance Grant Programshould be funded adequately. The Committee alsobelieves that the state should decide, as a matter ofpublic policy, what percentage of the cost of highereducation should be borne by tuition fees. State univer-sities should be relieved of cumbersome controls ifcombined with a requirement of greater operationalefficiency.

Our educational system must insure that each childhas an opportunity to receive a good education regard-less of his family's income or the wealth of his schooldistrict. To achieve this goal the state must assumea larger share of educational costs and should initiatea new method of financing education designed toachieVe greater equity, simplicity, and flexibility.

If we are to realize education as a life-longopportunityand necessityfor our citizens, we mustinsure that our educational system is managed properlyat all levels. The Committee believes that long-rangeplanning, overall policy making and coordinationbetween levels of the system are of such overridingimportance- that they should be brought about evenif no other changes are made in the governance ofeducation in Florida. For this reason a state-level layboard appointed to perform these tasks is essential.

In summary, the Committee believes the people ofFlorida must understand that education is the mostimportant function of state government. It representsthe foundation for the changes necessary to bring abouta better life in America. It represents the best chanceto bring some sense out of the cultural collisions whichso often have left us in a state of conflict and confusion.

The taxpayer wants to be shown what his tax dollarswill accomplish in education as in any area of govern-ment. Until we have an educational system whichcan relate dollars to performance, we will have diffi-culty in getting the kind of public support educationneeds and deserves.

If we can achieve such a systemif we can demon-strate that an effective job in education can bedonethe people will willingly pay the bill. In thisway we will restore public confidence in educationand produce great benefits for Floridiansfor ourschools, our children and our future.

SECTION ISTATE RESPONSIBILITY

INTRODUCTION

It is the belief of the Citizens" Committelocal school district should have as muchflexibility as practicable in conducting itstional program. In this section the Cornrecommendations which we believeactual practice this philosophy: the OHresponsibility for education is theeducational goals and objectives anand supervision of broad.educatio

As an important step towardmended that the Legislaturestatutes placing unnecessary cdistrict. Furthermore, recombase educational policy on sning, to coordinate educatistate agencies, to establition system and to improschool districts.

e that theoperationalown educa-

mIt tee makeswill bring into

mary state-levelestablishment of

d the coordinationnal planning.

this end, it is recom-refrain from passing

onstraints upon the localmendations are made to

tate-level manpower plan-onal policy with that of otherh a comprehensive informa-

ve regional cooperation among

A NEW STATE ROLE

Over the years the educational statutes passed bythe Legislature of Florida and the regulations estab-lished by the State Board of Education have developedinto a maze of requirements imposed on local schooldistricts by the state. While many of these statutesand regulations may have been necessary, the resultingmorass of red tape has become far too confining andrestrictive to local school districts.

1. The Role of the Legislature andthe State Board of Education

The Legislature should not pass statutes whichunduly restrict the power of the local district. At pres-ent the statute books are replete with requirementsconcerning, for example, the fumigation of textbooks,the use of barbed wire around school buildings, andthe inclusion of certain courses in the curriculum. StateBoard regulations are just as restrictive. School dis-tricts must be given more latitude than this. In recentyears the Legislature has attempted to repeal statuteswhich unduly restrict the local district. Therefore, werecommend that:

5

Recommendation 1: The Legislature should dContinueto repeal statutes tvhich unduly restrict the local schooldistricts. The Legislature should establish new policythrough the use of educational objectives which specifyonly what is to be accomplished, not the way in vi,hichthe local district is to implement the objective.

Recommendation 2: The State Board of Educationshould thoroughly review existing regulations andremove those tvhich are unduly restrictive to localschool districts. Regulations of the Board shouldspecify objectives and state policy, not prescribeexactly how state policy is to be implemented.

2. The Role of the Department of Education

As the state begins to provide more and more flexibil-ity to the local school district, the prime role of theDepartment of Education must be shifted from thatof a regulatory agency and the roles of providing leader-ship in the establishment of educational goals andobjectives, school assessment and technical assistanceshould be emphasized. This shift should include a newtype of staffing pattern which emphasizes short-termemployment as well as career-long employment. Thisstaffing pattern should emphasize the utilization ofexisting resources such as those of universities, com-munity colleges, vocational schools and school dis-tricts. Therefore, we recommend that:

Recommendation 3: The State Board of Educationshould prepare for presentation to the 1974 Legislaturea complete staffing plan which will allow the Depart-ment of Education to place a greater emphasis on pro-viding leade hip in the establishment of educationalgoals and objectives, school assessment and technicalassistance to districts. To accomplish this, plansshould be made for the use of short-term employmentas well as career-long employment.

MANPOWER PLANNING

Educational policy should be formulated using long-range manpower planning. This will benefit the

economy of the state and will help insure that in thefuture Florida has trained personnel for the job open-ings available. In addition, it will benefit the generalwelfare of all citizens since it will bring about the max-imum development of human potential and enablestudents to match their talents with the training thatis needed for their professions. For example, if it ispredicted that the future demands for teachers willbe much smaller than at present, the state should notexpand undergraduate teacher education programs.Similiarly, if it is predicted that in the futtr- .therewill be a great demand for skilled medical and para-medical workers, this field should receive a high prior-ity in planning new programs.

1. Manpower Planning -ndEducational Policy

At present some manpower planning ;3 conductedby the state, and some educational decisic .; are based

on projected manpower needs. However, the use ofmanpower projections as a basis for educational deci-sion making should be greatly increased. Therefore,we recommend that:

Recommend tion 4: The Legislature should direct thatthe State Comprehensive Plan, pre pared by the Divisionof State Planning, identify areas where manpowerplanning and development is most needed and recom-mend goals, objectives and.policies required to meetthese needs. By statute, the State Manpower Councilshould then be responsible for conducting manpowerplanning required by the state. Specific responsibilityfor coordinating and planning programs for the disad-vantaged should be assigned to the State ManpowerCouncil.

2. Educational Policy andInteragency Coordination

The schools do not operate in a vacuum: they cannotprovide all services to all students. For this reason,education must be closely coordinated in planning andoperating, with other agencies which provide humanservices to insure maximum efficiency of all educa-tional programs. In this way, unnecessary duplicationof programs should be eliminated, and new programsthat are begun should complement other state pro-grams. Therefore, we recommend that:

Recommendation 5: The State Board of Educationshould coordinate its educational programs with theStare Manpower Council and with those of other stateagencies which provide human services, including, but

6

not limited to, the Department of Health andRehabilitative' Services. the Department of Commu-nity Affairs, and the Department of Commerce.

AN EDUCATIONALINFORMATION SYSTEM

As the state provides greater flexibility to the localschool districts, it will be essential that there be avail-able at both the state and district level full and accurateinformation regarding education in Florida. It will benecessary to know, for example, how state funds foreducation are being spent, numbers of studentsenrolled, kinds of programs available, data on certifica-tion of teachers, information on the construction ofnew buildings, etc. Sound decisions cannot be madewithout pertinent data. At present, however, neededinformation is often either not collected or soorganized that it is not available when needed.

Despite the lack of a comprehensive system, mucheducational information is collected by the state.However, sections of the education community collectthe same type of data and report it to various agencieswithout central planning or review of the collectionprocess. There is no single, comprehensive, data bank.Often information that is available has serious gapsor is so controlled or organized that it cannot be usedfor decision making. Obtaining reports and analysesis often time consuming and frequently it is impossibleto know how state funds are being spent for education.Of equal importance, there is little help available todistricts which will allow them to utilize existing datafor decision making.

Modern technology provides for the centralizedassembly of information without storing all pertinentdata at a central point. Such a system has already beenma4idated by law and by a regulation of the State Boardof Education, but this requirement has not yet pro-duced a functioning information system. The Depart-ment of Education already has plans to develop suchan information system, but a functioning system hasnot yet become operational. Therefore, we recommendthat:

Recommendation 6: By 1974 the State Board of Educa-tion should complete a plan for the establishment ofa comprehensive educational information system toprovide information for all levels of education. Thisplan should identify what information is needed at thestate level; how the information is to be assembled,stored, summarized and distributed to appropriatedecision makers; and, it should indicate how the infor-mation systgm will be used to meet local needs. Finally,the plan should present procedures for establishing

' state technical advisory committee for educationalinformation and suggest incentives to districtsdeveloping exemplary information systems.

REGIONAL SOURCE CENTERSFOR EDUCATION

It has long been recognized that small school districtsare often unable to provide a full range of educationalservices to students. Because of this there has beena sharp drop in the number of school districts nation-wide through consolidation. In 1932 there were132,000 districts, while in 1971 there were only 17,000.In 1947 Florida school district lines were made coter-

.:7 minus with county boundaries, thus reducing thenumber of school districts in the state to sixty-seven.This number while relatively low, still leaves a situa-tion in which-some school districts are not able, ontheir own, to provide complete educational servicesto all students, and further consolidation of school dis-tricts should receive the continued interest of theFlorida,Legislature. In the meantime, another way toimprove the delivery of educational services is throughthe creation of Regional Resource Centers.

1. Regional Resource Centers

These centers would be designed to stimulate coop-eration between and among districts so that theresources of one district may be available to other dis-tricts as well. Small costly programs, such as thosefor exceptional children, can benefit from regionalcooperation by allowing a group of counties to jointogether to provide a full range of programs for a largernumber of children with learning disabilities. Similarly,as the state develops regional health programs andspecific health services in the local schools, inter-district cooperation can help avoid duplication and canallow counties, working together, to have a full rangeof health services available for students. Pre.:serviceand in-service training of teachers and administratorscan be best achieved through regional cooperativeprograms. The cooperative use of curriculum expertsby a`number of districts can also be beneficial, espe-cially in cases in which a district is too small to provide"in-house" personnel for every field.

In a region in which there are large school districtssurrounded by smaller ones, Regional Resource Cen-ters should facilitate the smaller districts' entering intocontractual arrangements with larger districts for ser-vices which are otherwise wiavailable to them. Inregions which include only small districts, new servicescan be created through cooperation and contractualarrangements. Expensive services such as computers

7

and testing equipment can be used more efficientlyif shared by a number of school districts. Furthermore,the talent and resources of post-secondary institutionscan and should be available to a greater extent to dis-tricts thrnugh regional cooperation. The opportunityfor impro vernent exists in all these areas. Carefulplanning and cooperation can bring benefits to boththe state and the districts.

Two recent actions can form the basis for the estab-lishment of Regional Resow-ce Centers. The 1972Legislature created a regional resource center for visu-ally handicappea students as the first of 15-25 centersto be located around the state. The Departmirot ofEducation also recently created regional education dis-

tricts to be usea for comprehensive planning, da% col-lection and data analysis. These are first steps but muchmore remains to be done. Therefore, we recommend

that:

Recommendation 7: The State Board of Educationshould present to the 1974 Legislature a plan for thecreation of multi-county Regional Resource Centers toenable clusters of local school districts to: sharefacilities; cooperate in the development of programs;engage in joint planning efforts; and vork togetherfor the pre-service and in-service training of teachersand administrators. The use of existing resources forthese centers should he encouraged in every way pos-sible.

2, regional Planning

Consistent with the use of Regional ResourceCenters, there needs to be regional planning for educa-tional policy.%,At present, however, regional planningis conducted' without the inclusion of institutions ofhigher education. Therefore, we recommend that:

Recommendation 8: Public and private post-secondary institutions, including vocational centers,comma?' colleges, colleges and universities, shouldbe included in all regional educational planning.

NON-PUBLIC SCHOOL EDUCATION

The Committee recognizes private educationalinstitutions as a viable force in our society and theymot remain as such. Because of this the state hascertain responsibilities to children who attend non-public schools. T erefore, we recommend that:

Recommendation 9: The Legislature should authorizethat s :hool health and assessment programs be madeavailable to students in pr ate schools.

At present there is no accurate way to determinehow many students are attending private schools, whatthe enrollment is in these schools and what programsthey offer. If the state is to have a satisfactory informa-tion system, the registration of all schools, both publicand private, is necessary. Therefore, we recommendthat:

8

Recommendation 10: The Legislature should requireprivate schools to register with the state for informa-tional purposes. This should be done by removingpresent exemptions and enforcing present statutes.

SECTION IITHE COMMUNITY AND THE SCHOOL

INTRODUCTION

Opinion polls reveal that in recent years there hasbeen a -ious decline in the public's confidence inmany institutions, including education. The public'sconfidence in the schools must be improved. This, webelieve, can be done by improving the channels ofcommunifmtion between the people and their schools.There has been a long history of public involvementwith formal education from the earliest days of thethirteen colonies to the present day parent-teacherassociation. But public understanding of education canbe greatly improved and this must be encouraged.

To strengthen this involvement we recommend inthis section that each school establish a School Advis-ory Council composed of parents, administrators,teachers, and, where practicable, students to help guidepolicy at each school. This group would then be respon-sible for producing an Annual Report of School Prog-ress which would detail the accomplishments and theareas in need of improvement for that school. Thecouncil would also disseminate its report to schoolorganizations such as the PTA, the media and the dis-trict board of education. In this way the active, on-goingparticipation of the citizensand future citizenscanbe insured.

CITIZEN PARTICIPATION INEDUCATIONAL AFFAIRS

One of the outstanding features of the Americaneducational system has long been the participation ofcitizens at the local school district level. This includesvoting for and serving on school boards or on advisoryboards to districts and through the PTA movement.Citizen participation at the individual school, however,should be strengthened.

To improve citizen participation in the functioningof the individual school there should be a SchoolAdvisory Council (SAC) whose membership shouldbe broadly representative of those persons served bythe school. It should function as an advisory groupto the principal and in general should work with himon the development of budget, program, personnel pol-icy and to improve the quality of education. This coun-cil should serve on a continuing basis.

11

One of the most important functions of the SACwould be assisting the principal in preparation of theAnnual Report of School Progress, detailed below.The School Advisory Council would thus have respon-sibility for evaluating the school's educational effec-tiveness and reporting this to parents, students andthe public at large in a plain, simple, easily readmanner. Therefore, we recommend that:

Recommendation 11: The Legislature should mandatelocal school boards to establish School Advisory Coun-cils at each school. They should be broadly representa-tive of the community served by the school, includingparents, teachers, administrators and students, wherepracticable; and they should have the responsibility toassist in the preparation of theAnnual Report ofSchoolProgress. Plans for establishing these councils shouldbe developed by each local school district.

THE ANNUAL REPORT OFSCHOOL PROGRESS

The individual school should be the basic unit ofeducational accountability in Florida. To achieve thisaccountability there should be an Annual Report ofSchool Progress which details the improvements madein education at the school during the yearand whichidentifies the areas in need of further improvement.Serving as a basic performance audit instrument,hopefully, the Annual Report will become a powerfultool for achieving school level improvements and inno-vations. It will be a "report card" of the school tothe parents written in a plain, simple, brief style. There-fore, we recommend that:

Recommendation 12: Legislation should be enacted torequire that the State Board of Education, through StateBoard regulations, insures that there will be at eachschool an Annual Report of School Progress and thatthis report is broadly disseminated each year. Thislegislation should insure that the Annual Report ir com-patible with both state accreditation and accountabilityprograms. The report should include school populationdata, fiscal data, results of assessment programs,attitudes toward the school as well as plans and pro-grams for school improvement. The principal should

be responsible for the preparation of this report withthe assistance of the School Advisory Council.

Recommendation 13: Unusually promising innovationsin citizen involvement, School Advisory Council servi-ces and school-level improvement accomplished asa result of the Annual Report should be reported indetail to the state as part of the district's comprehensiveplan. These innovations should be reviewed for possibledissemination to other districts.

THE COMMUNITY SCHOOL

Schools need to be more involved with the commu-nity of which they are a part. Closer ties with the com-munity will'allow a much greater use of the resourcesthat surround the school; students will begin to learnfrom the community not about the community. As theschools become more tied to the community, oppor-tunities for volunteer work in the schools will be greatlyexpanded and the schools will use persons skilled invarious areas (such as music or agriculture) as learningresources. The schools will come to provide a varietyof social services as the school plant will be used formore than just education. There will be greater easeof moving in and out of formal education as studentsgain experience in the community as well as in theclassroom. Adult education will be furthered as theschools begin to serve more fully all citizens, not justthe young. Career education will be improved as theentire community is used as a learning tool.

12

In recent years Florida and other states have begunprograms in some areas which are designed to havethe school plant play an increasingly important rolefor all persons in the community. Examples of thisconcept are many: some schools have established after-school recreational programs, some educational pro-grams for retired persons, and yet others have begunprograms to teach English as a foreign language aspart of evening educational programs. The possibilitiesof the "community school" are as varied as the com-munity involved. No longer does the school have toclose its doors in the early afternoon. On the contrary,the school of the future must broaden its services andit must encourage other agencies to use the facilityto serve the entire community by providing a varietyof social services around the clock if necessary.

The Florida Community School Act of t970 beganto foster this concept by providing funds for certaincommunity education pilot programs. Through this actthere have been established sixty-three communityschool projects in seventeen counties. These projects,however, represent only a small beginning in the typeof community-based programs which Florida shouldhave. Therefore, we recommend that:

Recommendation 14: The Legislature should increasefunding of the Community School Act of 1970so thatthe benefits of community education can be broadenedconsiderably.

oit

SECTION IIITHE SCHOOL PROGRAM

i

INTRODUCTION

The school programthat is, what is taught in theschoolsis the essence of education. Consistent withour philosophy that maximum flexibility should bevested in the local school district, we have carefullyavoided making recommendations as to how skills andcompetencies should be taught in the schools. Instead,we have addressed those areas of the school programwhich are properly a part of state educational policy.The one central part of the school curriculum whichthe state may expect all students to complete is thatof basic skills, including reading, writing, and com-putation. In addition to basic skills, state policy shouldseek to improve aesthetic and cultural education, citi-zenship education, career education, exceptional childeducation, early childhood education, education forthe disadvantaged child, programs for gifted childrenand experimentation with non-traditional forms ofeducation.

BASIC SKILLS

In the Accountability Act of 1971, the Legislatureof Florida required the State Board of Education toestablish measurable performance objectives in theareas of basic skills. Based on this, objectives in reading,writing, and computation are being developed and theCitizens' Committee supports this action.

There are, however, other areas of education inwhich objectives need to be established. Aesthetic andcultural studies must also be seen as important toeducation, for these areas give direction, meaning andquality to life. In addition, students should be ableto master the basic problems faced by the consumerin our society. They should be able to figure tax percen-tages, per-unit prices of goods and interest payments;they should know how to read labels and obtain helpwith consumer problems. Teaching these skills, how-ever, does not necessarily have to be accomplishedthrough a particular course and may be done throughthe entire curriculum. Therefore, we recommend that:

Recommendation 15: The Legislature should requirethe State Board of Education to accelerate its effortsto develop state performance objectives in the areas

, 15

of reading, writing and computation. Once these basicskill priorities are completed, the Board should estab-lish performance objectives in other important areasof education.

CITIZENSHIP EDUCATION

Florida's educational system has the responsibilityfor providing young people with basic attitudes, under-standings, and skills to better fulfill their role as par-ticipating citizens in a democracy. Throughout the his-tory of our country we have consistently called uponpublic education to develop future citizens who arededicated to, and have a good understanding of, ourdemocratic institutions and who have learned theresponsibilities of freedom. Now that the vote has beenextended to all eighteen-year olds, the school has aneven greater responsibility for citizenship training.

To help students become the kinds of citizens weneed, schools should go far beyond the four walls ofthe classroom to provide each student with a chanceto actively participate in building a better community.Therefore, we recommend that:

Recommendation 16: The Legislature should requireschool districts to provide a series of community ser-vice experiences for students prior to their leaving theschool. These experiences should be voluntary or paid-work experiences to bring students into direct contactwith the community. Where appropriate, credit shouldbe given for graduation. Procedures for developingand evaluating these programs should be included inthe comprehensive plan of the school district.

CAREER EDUCATION

Career education merges the world of work and theacademic world in order to redirect the educationalprocess toward meeting the needs of the communityat large. Going Tar beyond vocational education whichprimarily seeks to train a student for a specific task,career education involves a blending of academicstudies with career skills. Career education includestwo very compelling advantages. For one, basic sub-jects such as math and reading can be structured around

the theme of career opportunities and requirementsin the world of work, thereby bringing added realismand understandable goals into the educational sys-tem. Secondly, the total resources of a commu-nitybusiness, industry and citizenscan be com-bined with those of education to meet the needs ofstudents.

A comprehensive educational program focused oncareer development should begin in the elementaryschool and continue through the adult years. At pres-ent it is envisioned that career education might beimplemented as follows. In elementary school studentsare informed about the wide range of jobs in our societyand the roles and requirements involved. In the middleschool years, students may explore several specificclusters of occupations through firsthand experiencesand field observation, as well as classroom instruction.They will be assisted in selecting occupational areasfor further study at the senior high level. In seniorhigh school, students pursue their selected occupa-tional areas, exercising one of three options: intensivejob preparation for entry into the world of workimmediately upon leaving high school, preparation forpost-secondary occupational education, or preparationfor four-year college. Easy access both into and outof educational settings must be a part of careereducation, with no punitive effects from trying onealternative and later coming back and going anotherroute. Provisions should be made for persons presentlyat the adult career level.

An essential aspect of career education is that ofcounseling with students concerning their future voca-tional choices and supplying information relating tovarious types of careers. In addition, public schoolcounselors must concern themselves with the problemsof transition from school to work. (See Student Person-nel Services Section.) Implementing career educationwill involve comprehensive curriculum revisionbeginning in the first grade or earlier and continuingthrough the adult years as well as this new approachto counseling and pupil personnel services.

Local school districts must establish placement andfollow-up services for all students graduating or leavingthe public school system, including area vocationalcenters and community colleges. The Florida StateEmployment Service and private personnel agenciesalready serve a large number of students, but the place-ment of students in both full-time and part-time jobswould be greatly facilitated if job placement serviceswere available.

Florida has been in the forefront n recognizing theneed for career education and attempting to implementthe concept. During the past two years, several pilotprojects in career education have been in progress,

16

and four career education program models have beendeveloped as outcomes of these pilot programs. Thiseffort should be continued and expanded. Therefore,we recommend that:

Recommendation 17: The Legislature should mandatecareer education as an integral part of the Floridaschool program at all levels and for all students andprovide developmental funds for a specified period oftime. In doing so, the Legislature should require theState Board of Education to develop guidelines for:

(A) The revision of curricula throughout all levelsof education to insure' its being more directlyrelated to the world of work so that it enableseach child to understand the relevance of formaleducation to career choices.

(B) The retraining of teachers throughout all levelsof education for the concept of career educationso that they can provide students with careerunderstandings and career exposures as part oftheir instructional programs.

Recommendation 18: In keeping with the guidelinesissued by. the Commissioner of Education, the StateBoard of Education should require school districts tosubmit, as part of their comprehensive plan, a three-year developmental plan to implement career educa-tion at all levels of the public school program.

Recommendation 19:As part of their career educationprograms, each school district should establish withinits secondary schools job placement services. Thedesign of these services should be developed in coop-eration with the Florida Employment Service. In addi-tion to job placement, they should provide follow-upand feedback information to the school districts, sothat the school's educational program can be improvedto increase the employability of students.

EXCEPTIONAL CHILD EDUCATION

The Committee recognizes that "Exceptional ChildEducation" has been an all encompassing term appliedto children with a range of physical and mental hand-icaps as well as'those endowed with special academictalents. We believe that this has tended to cause confu-sion in the minds of the people. Therefore, we havechosen to deal with academically gifted children asa separate topic in this section. All other excep-tionalities covered under Florida Statutes are includedin the recommendations covered by this topic area.

In 1968 legislation was passed which provided thatwithin a few years special programs for exceptional

children will be available to virtually all such studentsin the state. However, there are a number of areasin which current programs should be expanded.

1. Regional Programs forExceptional Children

Educational programs for exceptional childrenrequire specially trained teachers, special facilities,support services, and modification in curriculum andmethodology. These programs, because of theirexpense and because of the small number of studentswith certain exceptionalities residing in some areas,can best be developed through the Regional ServiceCenter concept. Such centers should provide profes-sional diagnosis , evaluation and curriculum services andmight serve as education centers utilizing already exist-ing facilities such as those of a university or a stateagency. In other states special education districtswhich incorporate a number of school districts are com-monplace. In Florida this concept is not as commonbut has been used, for example, for programs for thedeaf, blind, trainable retarded and other low prevalencegroups. The delivery of services to exceptional chil-dren should not be limited by county lines. Therefore,we recommend that:

Recommendation 20: The Legislature should fund theestablishment of regional and sub-regional multi-county exceptional child education services for diag-nosis, evaluation and education in areas where thereare only a few children with a particular learning dis-ability.

2. Early Childhood Educationfor Exceptional Children

The earlier exceptional children can be helped, thebetter the chance they will have to cope with theirlearning difficulties. It is imperative that we beginto work with exceptional children before they reachkindergarten age. Such instruction does not have tobe provided at the school, but may be given by teacherswho travel to the child's home. At present, it is legallypermissible to spend exceptional child education fundsfor three- to five-year olds, but the number of childrenwho receive these services is extremely small. There-fore, we recommend that:

Recommendation 21: The Legislature should increasefunding for exceptional child education to provide fortraining pre-kindergarten age children.

3. Non-Public ExceptionalChild Education

Thirty-three states permit school districts to contractwith private schools for handicapped children to pro-vide services when it is impractical or impossible for

17

the school system to do so. Next year Florida willbegin to do this, but at present there is no accreditationsystem which will allow parents and educators to makewise decisions on the use of these schools. Floridahas established minimum standards for private highereducational institutions through a board which operatesfor that specific purpose. So it should be for excep-tional child education. Therefore, we recommend that:

Recommendation 22: The Legislature should establisha Council for Exceptional Child Education empoweredvith the responsibility of recommending the extendingof accreditation by the State Board of Education toonly those non-public schools which seek accreditationand whose prbgrams are consistent vith best educa-tional policy. Non-public schools that contract withthe state must undergo-this accreditation procedureprior to receiving state funds.

4. Support for the Department ofEducation Exceptional Child Program

Since 1968 the size of the exceptional child programhas tripled, but the budget of the State ExceptionalChild Section has decreased. In fact, the onlyincreased funding for the Section has been fromresidual federal funds. This type of finding is clearlyinadequate since it depends on the vagaries of federallegislation and does not meet the need for the develop-ment of exceptional child programs throughout thestate. Therefore, we recommend that:

Recommendation 23: The Legislature should fund theDepartment of Education's Exceptional Child Educa-tion Section from state resources to provide adequatelyfor the dev.gopment of exceptional child programsthroughout the state.

EDUCATION FOR GIFTED STUDENTS

In all groups of students, there are some who areable to move through the subject matter with extraordi-nary comprehension and speed. These students, oftenreferred to as "gifted students," should be able to studyat their own level, and should be encouraged to inves-tigate- problems that interest them and to engage ina higher degree of independent study. Often these stu-dents are exceptionally creative and become bored anddisenchanted with school unless they receive the free-dom and the encouragement they need.

At present, there are about 200 teachers of the giftedin the schools of Florida. However, experts agreethat this figure is a good deal less than adequate. Itshould be enlarged substantially through state action.Therefore, we recommend that:

Recommendation 24: The Legislature should provideadequate funding to the Department of Education'sExceptional Child Education Section so as to enablethis office to encourage local districts to establishgifted child education programs and to provide themtechnical assistance in doing so.

EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATION

Without doubt, the early years of a child's life areof unparalleled significance to emotional and intel-lectual development. The experiences a child has inthe pre-school years can deeply shape his later life:experiences which are rich and meaningful can benefitthe child:throughout his life; experiences which hinderhis proper development can be a handicap that maynever be overcome.

Because the Legislature recognized the criticalnature of the early childhood years, in 1972 the Officeof Early Childhood Development was created andplaced within the Office of the Governor. This Officeis charged with the responsibility of conducting a majorstudy of early childhood programs which assist thefamily in its primary role of providing an environmentconducive to the full development of. small children.An interim report will be presented to the 1973 Legisla-ture and will give particular attention to the followingareas:

1. Requirements for interagency program coordi-nation.

2. Requirements for the effective state regulation ofearly childhood and day-care programs.

3. The extent to which districts, state agencies, uni-versities and private agencies cooperate in thedesign of training programs for early childhood andfamily development personnel and for implement-ing local programs.

4. Consideration of priorities and alternative fundingmechanisms for the recommended plan.

To further this important study of early childhoodprograms, we recommend that:

Recommendation 25: The Legislature should continuefunding for the Office of Early Childhood Developmentin the Office of the Governor. The extension of thisoffice and organization should run through June 30,1974, and should include funds for an in-depthinteragency review and evaluation of the plan for earlychildhood and family development to be submitted tothe Legislature June 30, 1973.

NON-TRADITIONAL PROGRAMS

For a century, "education" has been a term thatmeant basically one thing to all people: it implied a

18

classroom with one teacher, about thirty students,recitations from textbooks, a school year from Sep-tember to June, and so on. Today, this stereotype isbeing challenged as hundreds of innovations areintroduced into the schools.

Some schools have experimented with textbookswritten by students and others have moved to year-round programs. The "Parkway School" ideathatis, education without buiidings and classroomshasbeen tried, as have the use of programmed learningdevices, "modular classes" and computer-assistedinstruction. The numbers of innovations seem almostendless.

1. Elimination of BarriersTo Change

Innovation is healthy and beneficial for educationand must be encouraged at the state level. However,there are at present numerous barriers which hinderthe development of innovations in education. Fundingformulas often are so inflexible that change is difficult.Personnel policies can discourage the creative use ofinstructional personnel, and building plans can makethe 30-student classroom almost a necessity. Accredi-tation procedures can institutionalize traditional con-cepts of education, and the lack of in-service trainingfor educators can result in programs which are stag-nated in superannuated ideas of the past.

To stimulate change and create an environment thatis hospitable to the development of non-traditionaleducational ideas, the Committee believes that addi-tional revisions of statutes and state policies may beneeded to achieve greater diversity in educational pro-grams at the local level. Therefore, we recommend that:

Recommendation 26: The Legislature should authorizethe State Board of Education to waive requirementsthat restrict the development of innovative educationalprograms.

2. Removal of CourseRequirement Barriers:

Of equal concern is the manner in which thenineteenth-century Carnegie unit and traditionalcourse requirements have caused schools throughoutthe nation to be very much the same. Therefore, werecommend that:

Recommendation 27: The State Board of Educationshould provide local districts with flexibility in the areasof course requirements, time requirements andprogram of study requirements. In turn, local school

districts should require school-level pilot programswhich replace course, grade and time requirementswith performance -based competency requirements.

Recommendation 28: The State Board of Educationshould provide guidelines for the development of more

19

appropriate criteria for the assessment of students intheir transition from one educational level to another.Initially, particular attention should be given to pilotprograms for returning veterans who have obtainedequivalency qualifications from service-related experi-ences.

--/-

SECTION IVSCHOOL SERVICES

INTRODUCTION

If students are to learn effectively, the schools mustbe deeply concerned with factors which affect the abil-ity of students to learn. The schools must have trainedspecialists in pupil personnel work who can diagnosethe sources of learning difficulties and provide afriendly ear for students. Students who arc plaguedwith health problems cannot learn well, so in theschools there must be trained health workers who canidentify health problems and refer students to theproper health care facilities. Students who, becauseof emotional problems or other reasons, create a dis-ruptive situation in the classroom prevent other stu-dents from learning. These students need special atten-tion given to solving their problems and helping themact in a responsible manner. Yet another factor whichaffects learning is instructional materials. They mustbe up-to-date, have a wide range of uses and be readilyavailable throughout the system. Recommendationsare made in this section in each of these areas: pupilpersonnel services, school health services, handlingdisruptive students and selecting instructional materi-als and equipment.

PUPIL PERSONNEL SERVICES

In recent years the Legislature has taken someimportant actions to make pupil personnel servicesmore available in the schools of Florida. There is,however, much to be done, and we believe that therecommendations made below will help eliminate manyof the existing deficiencies in the area of pupil personnelservices.

A major change must be made in the role of thecounselor. At present, the counselor is often unableto perform actual counseling; rather, he is expectedto perform a variety of tasks which might best be han-dled by aides. The Committee is of the mind that coun-selors shall be engaged in those professional dutiesfor which they are trained: working with students intime of crisis, providing career information, referringstudents for help, and working-with teachers to improvethe atmosphere of the classroom.

Another major change which must be instituted isthat of career counseling. A recent survey of first-year

23

college students revealed overwhelmingly that they feltthis to be an area in which they needed much morehelp.

If career education is to be successful, it is essentialthat counselors have the proper training for this kindof counseling and that they are provided the time neces-sary for this activity.

Still another area in which state policy is requiredto improve the services available to students is thatof insuring there are enough pupil personnel workersto meet the needs of the students of Florida. At presentthere is a serious shortage of trained personnel. Forexample, there is a ratio of only one elementary coun-selor to every 3,000 elementary students on a statewidebasis. Likewise, there are only 210 school psycholo-gists and only 600 visiting teachers in the entire state.If the schools are to provide adequate services, itis apparent that the numbers of counselors, schoolpsychologists and visiting teachers must be greatlyexpanded.

To bring about these improvements in pupil person-nel services, we recommend that:

Recommendation 29: Local boards of educationshould provide for the training and employment ofaides to assist the school counselor in providing guid-ance services.

Recommendation 30: The Legislature should review theOccupational Specialist Program to make certain thatit is being utilized by districts to provide better careercounseling and placement services to students. Fullfunding should be provided for this program with theproviso that local districts insure job placement andfollow-up services be included as individual orcooperatively developed programs in every secondaryschool in Florida. In addition, incentive funds shouldbe provided to encourage the development of:

(A) Programs which are designed for one or more sec-ondary schools working cooperatively with otheragencies such as youth opportunity centers toachieve placement and follow-up services for stu-dents.

(B) Programs designed to bring employment coun-selors and university counselor-training personnelinto cooperative arrangements with district per-sonnel in the preparation of occupational special-ists.

Recommendation 31: The Legislature should providefor the expansion of pupil personnel services through-out the state. This expansion should be accomplishedwithin a four-year period and should result in the dou-bling of the present number of pupil personnel workersincluding elementary school counselors, occupationalspecialists, school social workers and schoolpsychologists.

SCHOOL HEALTH SERVICES

No student can learn successfully if handicappedby poor health. However, the delivery of health ser-vices to students in Florida is now clearly unsatisfac-tory. There is a wide variation in the amount of healthfunds spent per child in the counties of Florida, andin many counties screening is inadequate or, in someinstances, non-existent. There is an acute shortageof trained school health personnel and for some stu-dents who live in rural sections of the state, there isa lack of health facilities themselves. Florida cannottolerate a situation in which students are not receivingadequate health care.

1. Responsibility for Health Care Services

At present, there is an unclear division of effortsfor school health between the Department of Educationand the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Ser-vices. We believe that the responsibility for the deliv-ery of health services should be given to the Depart-ment of Health and Rehabilitative Services since thisDepartment has the personnel trained in health care.The responsibility for health education programs,exceptional child education and in-service educationof teaching personnel should remain with the Depart-ment of Education. Therefore, we recommend that:

Recommendation 32: The Legislature should assign theresponsibility for the planning and delivery of healthcare services in the schools to the Department ofHealth and Rehabilitative Services.

2. A State School Health Plan

With the responsibility for the delivery of schoolhealth services being clearly established as a functionof the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Ser-vices, it will be necessary for that Department to for-mulate a comprehensive school health delivery plan.

24

This plan should provide details on the periodic screen-ing of students for sight, hearing and dental problems;periodic physical examinations; the use of para-professional school health aides; transportation of stu-dents to health facilities; and the costs of providingthese services. Therefore, we recommend that:

Recommendation 33: Legislation should be enacted torequire the Department of Health and RehabilitativeServices to design a statewide comprehensive schoolhealth plan in conjunction with the State Board ofEducation and in cooperation with local school boards.

3. The School Health Specialist

In seventeen Florida counties there is a school healthspecialist who, as an official of the local school district,coordinates health education programs, the in-servicetraining of teachers and the school's health referralprogram. The availability of these specialists needsto be extended throughout the state. This can be donein conjunction with the Regional Resource Center con-cept as detailed earlier in this report. Therefore, werecommendltiat:

Recommendation 34: The Legislature should expandthe availability of school health specialists so that thereis at least one such specialist in each large countyor one available to a consortium of counties operatingin con junction with a Regional Resource Center.

4. Health Education

The Legislature in 1970 passed a health educationact which provided essentially a drug educationprogram. Health education is far broader than this.To expand and improve health education in Floridawe support the efforts of the Department of Educationand the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Ser-vices to sponsor legislation for the training of teachersand administrators in health education and for theestablishment of regional health resource centers.Therefore, we recommend that:

Recommendation 35: The Legislature should give seri-ous attention to comprehensive health education legis-lation to establish in-service health education pro-grams and to create regional health resource centers.

EDUCATIONAL PROGRAMSFOR DISRUPTIVE STUDENTS

If we are to have a system of education which meetsthe needs of all students, we must take major stepsto improve the treatment of students who have been

perceived as disruptive influences in the classroom..A recent opinion poll revealed that the problem ofdiscipline in the schools was the one issue identifiedas the most pressing problem which education facestoday. Many factors contribute to what is called disrup-tive behavior or delinquency, both in and out of school:home, society, the student, the nature of the schoolprogram and teachers themselves. Whatever the case,the school must deal with the problem of disciplinerather than avoid it. The widely used practices of sus-pension or expulsion of disruptive students are bothharmful to the student and generally ineffective sincethese methods simply get rid of the problem in theschool. Yet in most districts there have been few otheralternatives developed.

One way to handle students who have repeatedlybeen discipline problems is to provide special programsand services designed to help the student achieveacademically and to gain a personal sense of dignityand responsibility. Programs of this Lype are alreadyavailable in several school districts includingEscambia, Palm Beach, Alachua and Dade Counties.These programs appear to be effective and, in the judg-ment of the Committee, they should serve as modelsfor the development of similar programs throughoutthe state.

These redirection programs may be operated as aspecial program in a large school, or may be placedin a central location for use by an entire school districtor by a consortium of several small school districts.They should stress personal attention through counsel-ing and throitgh a low student-teacher ratio. The pro-gram should emphasize the use of all communityagencies that can provide services to the student andhis family. With redirection programs, group counsel-ing techniques similar to the ones used in "half-wayhouses" of the Department of Health and Rehabilita-tive Services can be used, a proven approach whichhas helped students become better able to deal withthemselves and their futures much more effectively.

Since redirection programs are designed to helitnotpunishstudents, placement in these programs mustbe done as a positive, not a punitive, action. For thisreason, placement in these programs must be done ina professional manner which includes a thoroughreview of the individual's case. Psychologists, youthworkers and school administrators must work togetherto establish the most productive and helpful courseof action, and placement in the redirection- programmust not be seen as permanent, only as temporaryfor the length of time necessary to accomplish the goalsof the program.

25

In establishing these programs, some Departmentof Education Exceptional Child Education monies canbe utilized by distric but the's'e should be close coordi-nation with the Division of Youth Services and withall other community service agencies. The develop-ment of these programs should be directed by regionalgroups of experts including persons such as psycholo-gists, youth service-Norkers and school administrators.The Legislature should also rcluire training programsfor handling problems in this field, including in-serviceteacher training programs.

To establish redirt..on programs in Florida'sschools, we recommend that:

Recommendation 36: The Legislature should fund, thelocal school districts should establish, and the Depart-ment of Education should assist in the creation of sre-cial programs for students whose behavior has beenconsistently disruptive. Provisions should be made forthe training of personnel to work in these programs,and policies should be developed for the placementof students in these programs to insure that studentsreceive the most beneficial treatment possible.

Recommendation 37: As part of the educational infor-mation system records should be kept on the expulsionand suspension of students.

EDUCATIONAL MATERIALSAND EQUIPMENT

The Committee believes that Florida must providemore freedom and flexibility to local school districts.If this is to be achieved, it will be necessary to givethe districts a greater control over the selection of text-books and other educational materials. At present thestate "adopts" up to five textbooks for each course,and generally, teachers must depend upon these"state-adopted" texts for use in their instructionalprograms.The district has the authority to select nomore than ten percent of its materials from other thanthe state-adopted list. While it- :Tay be true that thedistricts have benefited from this present systemthrough savings made hi the price of materials andthrough the adoption of good materials, the systemmust be substantially changed. The district must begiven far more latitude if individualized instruction andprogram flexibility are to emerge. Therefore, werecommend that:

Recommendation 38: The Legislature should substan-tially increase above the present figure the percentageof instructional material funds which local school dis-tricts may use at their discretion to buy materials and

21.

equipment not otherwise included on the state adoptionlist.

Recommendation 39: To achieve a more frequentreview of new and existing educational materials, theLegislature should repeal existing statutes concernedwith textbook selection. The State Board of Educa-tion should then adopt regulations which insureadequate periodic review of materials.

Recommendation 40: To insure a wider variety in theselection of instructional materials, the Legislature

should repeal existing statutes which limit the numberofstate-adopted" textbooks to five. The State Boardof Education then should establish regulations whichare substantially larger than this number.

Recommendation 41: The State Board of Educationshould establish procedures for the centralizedpurchasing of materials and equipment in which dis-tricts may participate on a voluntary basis. I n addition,the State Board of Education should provide technicalassistance to districts for purchasing materials andwriting specifications.

26

SECTION VPROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT

INTRODUCTION

The key to the Florida educational system is its per-sonnel. The higher the quality of its people the higherthe quality of the schools. The more these peopleimprove their teaching, managing and policy-makingskills the more schools will improve.

In our rapidly changing technological society greaterdemands are being placed on teachers, administratorsand elected and appointed boards to continuallyupgrade their effectiveness and the effectiveness ofthe educational system. This section will recommendtraining for board members, administrators andteachers. It will also recommend personnel evaluation,greater attention to the development of special skillsfor those who will work with the disadvantaged andprocedures to encourage institution and school districtpartnerships in both in-service and continuing pre-service teacher education.

BOARD TRAINING

Just as on-going training for both teachers andadministrators is necessary, so too is training forelected and appointed boards. The school system oftoday is a complex operation, with a wide variety ofeducational affairs, including budgeting procedures,legal limits of board power, new development in educa-tional technology, latest legislative actions, humanrelation skills and many more. For these reasons, thetraining of board members must be seen as an integralpart of service on a board. Seed money is now availableto begin a modest pilot program for training districtschool board personnel. However, the Committeebelieves school board training should be a continuingprogram of major proportions. To accomplish trainingprograms for board members, we recommend that:

Recommendation 42: Legislation should be enactedrequiring the State Board of Education to provideschool board members with on-going training pro-grams and fund them accordingly. Operation of thisprogram should be conducted in cooperation with theFlorida State School Board Association.

29

Recommendation 43: Legislation should be enactedrequiring the State Board of Education to initiatesimilar on-going training programs for appointedtrustee boards; Department of Education personnelshould provide the technical assistance necessary todevelop these programs.

MANAGEMENT TRAINING FOREDUCATIONAL ADMINISTRATORS AND

OTHER NON-INSTRUCTIONAL PERSONNEL

The major improvements in the efficiency of school-ing depend upon upgrading the leadership and manage-ment skills of school principals, superintendents andother school officials. The principal, in particular, playsa crucial role of leadership in the school. It has beenfound by the Committee that a school with a talented,competent and well-trained principal can be expectedto provide good educational experiences for students.A principal or superintendent who lacks interpersonalskills can effectively stifle educational improvement,while an administrator who has the confidence of hisstaff and the will to press for educational reform caninspire schools to greatness. Administrators and otherofficials must be familiar with recent innovations andresearch in education and they must understand recentdevelopments in personnel management, including col-lective bargaining. Furthermore, sophisticated tech-niques of self-evaluation, long-range planning andstimulating change must be both understood and prac-ticed by administrators.

Businesses continuously provide in-service trainingto employees, and professional persons such as lawyersand physicians regularly undergo training to insure thatthey are acquainted with the latest techniques in theirfield. So it should be for educational leaders.

We believe most Florida administrators want theopportunity to identify and acquire new skills whichwill help them lead our schools toward these objectiveswith the greatest possible effectiveness. Thus, the pro-fessional community must take the lead in designingand implementing self-improvement programs and thestate must provide the fiscal and technical assistance

to accelerate this process. Toward these ends the Com-mittee recommends that:

Recommendation 44: The Legislature should establisha program for school mangement improvementdesigned to upgrade the management and leader-ship skills of school principals, superintendents,administrators and other non-instructional person-nel. Representatives of the business communityshould be included in the design and implementationof these programs.

TENURE FOR ADMINISTRATORS

The Committee believes that if a superintendent isto be an effective administrator he must have the rightto both hire and remove the principals and supervisorsbelow him. At present, however, Florida Statutesmake this almost impossible. The law states that anadministrator who is presently under continuing con-tract is entitled to continue in that or a similar positionuntil he resigns or "his contractual status is changed."Thus, in effect, a superintendent does not have theflexibility to mold his administrative staff into a moreeffective organization if it is needed.

To provide the superintendent more power to dothiswhile at the same time providing job securityto administrators and supervisorsthe Citizens' Com-mittee believes that administrators and supervisorsshould receive multiple-year contractsbut not tenureas administrators or supervisors. Of course, if anadministrator or supervisor had received tenure as ateacher before becoming an administrator, and thesuperintendent wished to replace him, he would stillbe able to return to a teaching position for which heis qualified. To establish this type of system, we recom-mend that:

Recommendation 45: The Legislature should repealpresent statutes which provide tenure to administratorsand replace these statutes with one which allowsmultiple year contracts to principals and supervisors.This change should in no way prevent an administratortenured as a teacher from returning to a teaching posi-tion for which he is qualified and with a salary commen-surate with that position.

TEACHER EDUCATION

One key to improving our schools is to improve theskills of those who are responsible for carrying outthe schooling process. Programs and instructionaltechniques will be better only as the insights and skillsof those who must implement them are continuouslyupgraded throughout the person's career. At present

30

teacher preparation is usually based on the completingof certain prescribed courses at a college or university.In-service upgrading too often follows the same pat-tern. This system may provide the teacher with usefulinformation about the educational process but doesnot necessarily insure that the teacher has gained theskills and competencies which are needed in the class-room and the schools.

1. Competency-Based Pilot Programs

The Committee believes that, at this time,"competency-based" teacher education programs pro-vide a promising model to improve teaching skills atboth the pre-service and the in-service levels. In acompetency-based system, teachers are expected todemonstrate a mastery of teaching skills as well asa mastery of subject matter. In certain teacher trainingprograms in Florida, competency-based programsalready have been initiated. Top priority should begiven to extending this concept throughout the state.Therefore, we recommend that:

Recommendation 46: The Legislature should fund pilotprojects designed to develop alternative competency-based teacher education programs. The collaborationofschool districts, professional associations, commun-ity colleges, universities and the Department of Educa-tion should be used to establish a unified programfor both beginning and experienced-teachers.

2. Alternatives to PresentCertification Programs

At present pre-service training of future teachersis primarily the responsibility of colleges and univer-sities while in-service training is the responsibility ofthe local school districts. The Committee believesthat teacher education can be facilitated by the collabo-ration of various educational agencies from the be-ginning of the teacher education process. As thestate moves toward performance-based teachercertification, school districts, the Department ofEducation, the universities, and the organized profes-sion will need to be involved in training for both initialcertification and extension of certification. In this waywe will develop a partnerghip between the teachertraining institutions and the local school districts.

The use of greatly expanded cooperation among alllevels of teacher education programs will allow muchmore flexibility in the training of teachers. Forinstance; if a person with a special skill, such as anartist or a business manager, wanted to become cer-tified without having to leave his present position andreside at a university, this could be facilitated and he

could study for his certification while remaining at hispresent job. Similarly, if a school district wanted tooffer in-service programs to upgrade the quality ofteaching at the local level, experts from universitiescould be brought in to help or the school district couldtake advantage of university-based programs more eas-ily than at present.

To promote these improvements in the certificationprocess, the Committee recommends that:

Recommendation 47: The State Board of Educationshould redefine in regulations the roles of the univer-sities, the Department of Education, the school dis-tricts and the profession to increase cooperationamong these agencies so that each has a role in initialand extended certification of teachers. The StateBoard of Education should involve each of the agenciesin redefining these roles and responsibilities andappropriate resources should be allocated to fulfillthese new roles.

3. Training for Workingwith the Disadvantaged

Educating students from disadvantaged homesrequires special training, programs and materials.Teachers, especially if they have never before workedwith disadvantaged students, must be taught how torelate to these students and how to fire their interestin academic work. Materials which are at the levelof the students must be selected and must be writtenso as to stimulate, not alienate, poor students. Evaluat-ing the students' progress must be done so as to takeinto consideration the backgrounds of the children.At present, however, there are practically no in-serviceor pre-service training programs for teachers of thedisadvantaged. Therefore, we recommend that:

Recommendation 48: The State Board of Educationshould encourage educational agencies, in coopera-tion with school districts, to develop training programsdesigned to improve the teachers' skills in workingwith disadvantaged students.

4. Teacher Centers

To further implement a system of collaborationbetween the teacher training institutions and the localschool districts, we believe that there should be a state-wide network of teacher centers designed to supportresearch and development efforts and to facilitatetesting, evaluating and demonstrating new materials,equipment and instructional techniques. Teacher cen-ters should not have a permanent structure, a perma-nent faculty, or a permanent student body. On the

31

contrary, these centers should be located in differentareas at different times; they should provide varyingprograms and should have constantly changingpersonnel. Furthermore, these centers should bedeveloped on a regional basis and should be designedto account for the various socioeconomic and culturaldifferences found in Florida (e.g., rural, urban, sub-urban, etc.).

What the teacher centers must have in common isan atmosphere which allows instructional personnelfrom universities, community colleges, school dis-tricts, the Department of Education, professionalorganizations and other related agencies to worktogether as peers in an effort to improve education.Through this type of cooperation there should be aconscious effort made to remove lines of demarcationand jurisdiction between the pre-service and in-servicetraining of instructional personnel. These centersshould have continuing state support and encourage-ment to facilitate their long-range impact upon person-nel and program ms. To create teacher centers, we recom-mend that:

Recommendation 49: Legislation should be enactedrequiring the State Board of Education to establishguidelines and procedures for implementing theteacher center concept throughout Florida. In doingso the Legislature should review policies and fundingformulas, making those changes which are required,so that a collaborative network of these centers canhe established. Specific plans for teacher center pro-grams should be developed by the Department ofEducation. These plans should reflect the intentionof the Legislature that teacher education is to becomea continuous process which requires an on-going part-nership between the institutions and the educationalagencies involved.

PROFESSIONAL EVALUATION

The Citizens' Committee believes that the vastmajority of Florida's professional educational person-nel have a sincere desire to upgrade their effectivenessthrough periodic evaluations of their performance.Professional evaluation, we believe, should be for alleducational personnel, notjust teachers. Furthermore,it should begin when a person enters the educationalsystem and continue throughout his career. Basically,we believe, professional evaluation should not be seenas something imposed upon the educator, but insteadbe based upon his own self-improvement program.What he assesses his needs to be and how well heprogresses from year to year toward meeting theseneeds should be reported by him as a part of his person-nel file.

1. Establishing Professional Evaluations

Evaluation should be from as many different sourcesas possible. Superintendents, in evaluating themselves,should involve principals, school board members andcommunity groups and should want an outside auditof their performance. Principals should enlist the helpof the superintendent, other principals, teachers, stu-dents and the community at large to participate in theirprofessional evaluation and self-improvement plan.Teachers should receive evaluations from the prin-cipal, the department head and other teachers. Theyshould have others observe their classroom perfor-mance or review videotapes of their work with studentsand should receive evaluations from students and par-ents.

To. achieve a professional evaluation/self-improvement system for Florida's educationalpersonnel, the Committee recommends that:

Recommendation 50: The Legislature should study theprofessional evaluation of educational personnel toinsure that it is being done in a consistent and satisfac-tory manner. Furthermore, existing statutes dealingwith professional evaluation should be repealed andreplaced by regulations of the Stare Board of Educa-tion which require self-improvement programs as anintegral part of professional evaluation and whichrequire that the sources of evaluation include, but notbe limited to: reactions of administrators, professionalpeers, students beginning as early as practicable, andthe practitioner himself. Policies and procedures forprofessional evaluation should be developed by eachdistrict and reported fully in the district's comprehen-sive plan. Evaluation programs should be developedin cooperation with the person to be evaluated.

Recommendation 51: The State Board of Educationshould require that programs of professional improve-ment stern directly from aggregated evaluation datacollected by a school or throughout a district. Theseprofessional improvement programs should be re-ported in summary as part of a school's Annual Reportof School Progress.

DIFFERENTIATED STAFFING

During the past century the role of the typical teacherhas remained basically unchanged: Each teacher isassigned a class of about thirty students and is expectedto disseminate information. This rigid pattern ofinstruction is highly inefficient since professionalteachers spend much of their time on non-professionalduties which could best be left to teacher aides.Furthermore, the present system does not reward the

32

highly talented teacher with a better salary based upondifferent types of teaching responsibilities. At present.the only way that a superior teacher can receive an"upper-income" salary is to become an administrator.This often results in pulling the best teachers out ofthe classroom and away from contact with the students.

In the future this type of staffing pattern will beseen as a relic of the past. What should replace it inthe judgment of the Committee is differentiated staffingpatterns that use each teacher in the most effectiveway possible. A teacher who is acknowledged to beexcellent will be paid as highly as an administratorand will be able to receive instructional assignmentscarrying with them greater professional respon-sibilities. For instance, a teacher might be the leaderof a group of other teachers or might be in chargeof evaluating the effectiveness of a school's grade levelor developing instructional prescriptions for students.Similarly, routine duties such as duplicating papers andcollecting fees, duties which do not require a certifiedteacher, will be given over to teacher aides to allowthe certified teacher to do what he or she does best:teaching and working with students.

The way management utilizes its personnel directlyaffects the achievement of the students and the effi-ciency of a school. Managers in a school district shouldanalyze how they are presently using their personneland should be encouraged to develop innovative staff-ing patterns which would increase the effective utiliza-tion of the budget available to a school.

At present, however, the Carnegie unit, cer-tification, accreditation, the administrative organizationand the state funding formula have all to some extentheld back the utilization of personnel in new and cre-ative ways. Today, the Florida educational funding for-mula has a tendency to prevent local districts fromadopting differentiated staffing patterns. The recom-mendations regarding school finance made in theFinance Section of this report would eliminate schoolfinance formulas as a barrier to the establishment ofdifferentiated staffing concepts. However, there area number of other areas in which the Legislature cantake action to use personnel in more effective ways.

Therefore, the Citizens' Committee recommendsthat:

Recommendation 52: The State Board of Educationshould require each school district to establish proce-dures based on its needs which will differentiate theresponsibilities of instructional personnel. This shouldbe based upon a locally approved differentiated staff-ing plan which includes specific objectives showinghow pupils will benefit. Salary rates should then becommensurate with responsibility.

Recommendation 53: The State Board of Educationshould remove any regulations_concerning the use ofcertified teaching personnel or the state accreditationof schools which might prevent or discourage schoolsfrom adopting differentiated staffing patterns.

Recommendation 54: The State Board of Educationand local school boards should place a high priority

on experimental programs which test new and efficientstaffing patterns in the public schools.

SECTION VIEDUCATIONAL IMPROVEMENT

INTRODUCTION

Educational decisions are all too often based on tradi-tion rather than on research findings. Research mustbe used to identify those programs and innovationswhich are truly vaulableand those which fail to beproductive. Research must also provide new knowl-edge and help us predict more precisely the conse-quences of teaching and learning programs whichwe seek to implement throughout the educationalsystem. Only in this way can we be certain to achieveeducational progress.

To develop a state system of education which basespolicy decision on research, not merely on tradition,is a goal of the Citizens' Committee. To achieve thisgoal, in this section we make a series of recommenda-tions on improving and enlarging the state assessmentprogram, as well as expanding the state research anddevelopment program.

STATE-LEVEL ANDDISTRICT-LEVEL ASSESSMENT

Through the assessment of educational performance,both educators and the public alike can better under-stand the progress of students, schools, school dis-tricts, and even the state itself. Assessment can provideparents with the kind of feedback on the progress oftheir children that they want and deserve to have.Assessment can serve as a basis for decisions concern-ing educational policy. Furthermore, if we are toindividualize instruction, assessment becomes anessential tool to ascertain what a student has masteredto insure his continued progress. Students, parents,educators, policy makers and the public at large musthave a clear understanding of student performanceobtained through the most reliable assessment tech-niques available.

Still, there are certain limitations to assessmentwhich we must recognize. If used improperly, assess-ment can restrict the curriculum and prevent us fromtrying educational innovations. Also, since not allschools or school districts teach the same materialsat the same time and since schools and districts differgreatly in life styles and socioeconomic conditions, the

37

comparison of assessment results between schools anddistricts may be deceiving. In addition, the technicallimitations of testing instruments make it mandatorythat caution is used in the interpretation of assessmentresults.

Nevertheless, the Committee believes we mustexpand our statewide assessment program while recog-nizing its inherent limitations. At present this programconsists of three major components: the Departmentof Education's program of criterion-referenced testing,the Eighth-Grade Test and the Twelfth-Grade Test.These components should be continued, broadenedand centrally coordinated. Recommendations madebelow are designed to accomplish this.

1. Administration of the State Assessment Program

If Florida's state assessment program is to proveeffective, there must be coordinated direction to theprogram. Presently the program's three componentsare managed independently. In the judgmenttof theCommittee, the state program should be viewed in itstotality and should not be allowed to remain an uncoor-dinated system. To accomplish this, the Committeerecommends that:

Recommendation 55: The Legislature should direct theState Board of Education to unite all assessment pro-grams under one office. This should be accomplishedwith existing resources. This office should be responsi-ble for conducting central planning for assessment,overseeing the development and improvement ofassessment tools, recommending state program mod-ifications and achieving coordination between cur-riculum and assessment personnel.

Recommendation 56: This office should be charged withrapidly disseminating assessment results on theaccomplishment of state objectives and providinginterpretations to all interested persons including state.level policy makers, local school district officials, themedia, parents, students and the public at large.

Recommendation 57: The Eighth-Grade and Twelfth -Grade Test programs should be coordinated by thissingle office to facilitate the creation of an effectivecentrally planned, state-level assessment program.

Recommendation 58: The Legislature should requireduring 1975 an external performance audit of Florida'sassessment program. After 1975 a periodicperformance audit should become a regular part ofthe state assessment program.

2. Eighth- and Twelfth-Grade Assessment Programs

In this section recommendations concerning theFlorida Eighth-Grade Test and the Florida Twelfth-Grade Test are made. Before making these recommen-dations, however, it is necessary to define the differ-ence between "norm-referenced" tests and "criterion-referenced" tests. The Committee believes that bothkinds of tests are necessary. Each has its strengthsand each its weaknesses that must be fully realizedif we are to have an assessment program which willbe truly beneficial.

Criterion-referenced testsCriterion-referenced testscan describe student progress toward specific objec-tives which have been defined by the school, the districtor the state. They measure the degree to which a stu-dent has mastered the materials taught in a givenamount of time, and they can effectively show theeducational progress of a student as well a^ identifythose areas the student needs to improve. Criterion-referenced tests, therefore, can do much to facilitateindividualized instruction by helping teachers compilea record of a student's development and identify furthertypes of instruction which must be utilized to help thestudent achieve a specified goal. The state conductscriterion-referenced testing at the elementary level anda portion of the Florida Eighth-Grade Test is criterionbased. We believe this testing should continue.

Norm-based testsNorm-based tests compare studentsin relation to each other and rank them in accordancewith whether they match, exceed or fall below theperformance of other groups of students on the itemsincluded in the test. This type of test is often normedon a national sampling of students and provides, there-fore, an excellent means of comparing a student'sachievement or intelligence with the nation as a whole.Norm-referenced tests provide ranking of individualsfor selection purposes and they can provide us withbroad comparisons on the basis of state norm groupsand nationally derived norm gro'.ps.

A. The Eighth-Grade Test: Regarding the norm-basedand criterion-referenced sections of the Eighth-GradeTest, we recommend that:

Recommendation 59: The results of the Florida Eighth-Grade Test should allow for national and statewidecomparisons. It should broadly sample content areas

38

of reading and mathematics. Results should bereported as separate scores in each of the contentareas. That portion of the instrument which deals withcareer education, occupational exposure and studentattitudes should be vigorously developed.

Recommendation 60: The State Board of Educationshould adopt regulations requiring that all studentsin tic! eighth grade take the Florida Eighth -GradeTest. At present it is technically possible for an eighth-grade student not to take the test.

B. The Twelfth-Grade Test: At present the FloridaTwelfth-Grade Test is used primarily for selecting stu-dents for entrance into public colleges and universitiesof the state. The content of the test is not designedfor administration to all students and, therefore, cannotbe used for valid comparisons between schools andschool districts. If this test is to be continued, theCommittee believes that it cannot be justified on thebasis of college admission alone. It should serve a widervariety of needs. The test should be designed to allowcomparisons among districts as well as comparisonsbetween educational achievement in Florida and therest of the nation. Also it should provide informationfor curriculum revision of the secondary schoolprogram. To achieve this broader utilization the Com-mittee recommends that:

Recommendation 61: The State Board of Educationshould establish that the Florida Twelfth-Grade Testis administered to all twelfth-grade students in thestate. It should be utilized for admission and advancedplacement purposes within the state college and univer-sity system. It should provide data for comparing anindividual's achievement Ill, state and nationalnorms. Furthermore, the Twelfth-Grade Tell Jhouldprovide basic information for the review and revisionof the secondary curriculum and scores from this testshould be reported for individual content areas ratherthan aggregated into a single score. Testing specialistsshould review the exiaing instrument to determinewhether it can be utilized for these broader purposes;if not, it should be reconstructed accordingly.

3. National Assessment Comparisons

The National Assessment Program is a national surveyof knowledge, skills, understanding and attitudes ofyoung Americans conducted under the sponsorship ofthe Education Commission of the States. Throughnational sampling technique3, information on the per-formance of various age groups is being collected ina number of content areas. At present, the state assess-ment program does not include elements of NationalAssessment. Such information, however, would be

useful to obtain since it would allow us to compareschool achievement in Florida and the nation as awhole. It would also allow Florida to take a modeststep toward attitudinal assessment through the use ofcitizenship materials from the National AssessmentProgram. Therefore, we recommend that:

Recommendation 62: The State Board of Educationshould consider including elements of the NationalAssessment Program in Florida's assessment program.

4. State and District Cooperation

Assessment programs of the state and of the localschool districts should be designed to be mutually bene-ficial and should complement one another.

The state assessment program should be designedto determine how well we are meeting our state- level-performance objectives and to provide educators andcitizens with information upon which to make betterdecisions on the establishment of priorities and on theuse of resources. Furthermol.':, the state should pro-vide leadership, technical assistance and inr-mtives tolocal school districts to design complemet"ing assess-ment programs which emphasize local objectives andwhich can be used by instructional personnel to diag-nose learning problems and improve instruction.

Recommendation 63: Local school boards shouldemphasize pre-school readiness testing andintermediate-level assessment programs. These pro-grams should complement the state program and shouldbe designed primarily to help. teachers improve in-struction at the school level.

Recommendation 64: Tly: Legislature should provideresources to the Department of Education to establisha test scoring and analysis service for use by localschool districts in the areas of pre-school readinessand intermediate-level assessment. This should bedone as an incentive for districts to use local fundsfor testing in these areas.

Recommendation 65: Local school districts shouldrequire assessment data to be a part of each school'sAnnual Report of School Progress.

5. Utilization of Assessment Results

Ultimately, the greatest benefit the assessment pro-gram of the state can have will be to serve as a guidefor improving education in those districts where theassessment program has revealed there are glaringweaknesses. We believe that when these problems are

39

identified, the state should take an active role in helpingthese districts meet minimum performance standards.To accomplish this, we recommend that:

Recommendation 66: By 1976 the State Board of Edu-cation should be providing special reports to thoseschool districts that are not showing adequate prog-ress toward meeting state educational objectives.These reports should include:

(A) An analysis of a district's progress toward meet-ing state performance objectives.

(B) Recommendations for district-level in-depthassessment in areas which show deficiencies.

' (C)12ecommendations for the reallocation of bothstate and local resources to assist districts in theremoval of deficiencies.

(D) Recommendations for specialized or interagencytechnical assistance to help districts in accomplish-ing state-level performance objectives.

EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH ANDDEVELOPMENT

Because the Legislature of Florida realized the criti-cal necessity of educational research, the FloridaResearch and Development Program was establishedand has been provided about 1.5 million dollarsannually. Although this amount is augmented byfederal research dollars and funds supplied by localschool boards, Florida's educational research effortsrepresent only a small beginning compared with whatis needed. While modern businesses allocate from threeto five percent of their budgets to research and develop-ment, only about one percent of Florida's educationaldollar is given to research. Therefore, we recommendthat:

Recommendation 67: The Legislature should direct.theexpansion of the State Educational Research andDevelopment Program to meet state and local needsmore adequately.

1. Educational Research Priorities

At present the Research and Development Programchooses projects without research priority guidelinesfrom the State Board of Education or the Legislature.The three main areas which the Research and Develop-ment Program has established for study are (1) assess-ment and management techniques for local use, (2)education personnel competencies, and (3) alternativeeducational practices. These areas are necessary and

should be well funded. However, additional state prior-ity guidelines should be developed for use by agenciesinvolved in state educational research and develop-ment activities. Therefore, we recommend that:

Recommendation 68: The Legislature should instructthe State Board of Education to develop state researchpriorities for education which are to be reflected inthe activities of the state's Research and DevelopmentProgram. The State Board of Education shoulddevelop guidelines which require the careful reviewof potential statewide resources, both within and out-side the state educational system, for accomplishinghigh priority research and development projects.

2. Assessment Research

One major function which Florida's statewideassessment program can serve is that of providing datafor educational research. It is possible to study relation-ships between performance and socioeconomic fac-tors, instructional alternatives and the possible influ-ence of incentives on performance. School perfor-mance expectancy levels can be predicted and aschool's actual performance can be compared with thepredicted level of performance. In this way those

40

instructional systems that are shown to be unusuallyeffective may be identified, and information about themcan be disseminated to others. This kind of researchshould be conducted at both the state and the locallevel and cost-effectiveness- studies should be con-ducted as part of this research. Therefore, we recom-mend that:

Recommendation 69: The Legislature should fund andthe State Board of Education should develop, in coop-eration with local districts, voluntary comprehensiveresearch assessment projects, Immediate considera-tion should be given to the design of projects whichutilize performance data of participating schools. Anexperimental program of incentives for better perfor-mance should be established. This program would lookfor ways to identify and reward schools that haveeducational attainment significantly higher than wouldbe predicted given the parental and school, context.In addition, these schools should be studied to findout to what extent the things they are doing to improveattainment can be applied to other similar schools.At the state level the eighth-grade assessment programshould be available in several forms to allow forresearch projects of this nature.

SECTION VIIPOST-SECONDARY EDUCATION

INTRODUCTION

Currently, the State of Florida operates three sys-tems of institutions for the education of citizens whohave graduated or legally left high school; areavocational-technical centers, community colleges,and universities. These institutions and their counter-parts in the private sector collectively enrolled over241,000 students in 1971-72.

The 1963 Legislature authorized a series of areavocational-technical centers to serve the entire stateand tc. be operated by local school boards. The firstcenter was opened in 1965; currently, there are twenty-one separate centers with 8,236 post-secondary stu-dents enrolled in 1971-72. Thirteen additional unitsoperate as departments of community colleges. Theseinstitutions offer instruction to high school students,high school graduates, and out-of-school ye,:th andadults, and may service one or more counties.

A statewide system of junior college under localcontrol and state coordination, began in 1957. In 1968,the control of these institutions was transferred fromlocal school boards to district boards of trustees foreach college. Under reorganization, the State JuniorCollege Board became advisory and the concept ofa "community co;lege" was strengthened. The stateincreased its funding of the community colleges begin-ning with 1971-72 by eliminating Cie required "localeffort" in calculating state support. Twenty-eight col-leges are now within commuting distance of 99 percentof Florida's population and enrolled 119,896 full-time-equivalent students in 1971-72.

The State University System consists of nine operat-ing institutions with one branch campus. In addition,numerous off-campus centers have been established.This system has experienced continuous expansionover the past decade, and expectations are that enroll-ments will increase from 70,064 full-time-equivalentstudents in 1971-72 to 110,000 in 1980.

Additionally, there are over two dozen private col-leges and universities, sixteen of which have formeda federation called Independent Colleges and Univer-sities of Florida (ICU F). This is largely a coordinativepromotional body with no authority to speak for the

43

associated institutions which enroll approximately43,000 students.

INSTITUTIONAL FLEXIBILITYThe university system in Florida operates on the

principle of comparable funding for comparable pro-grams available to the entire state population. Thisappears to be a suitable approach to meet the needsofaccessibility without unnecessary duplication ofhigh-

st programs. Because they are state agencies usingtax dollars, these institutions must be regulated to somedegree. However, it appears that there may be anexcessive degree of control which restricts theautonomy of local administrators to the point of actu-ally interfering with efficiency. Budgeting, disburse-ments, fees, personnel practices, and a host of othereveryday administrative operations are subject to closeregulation, control, and audit by various parts of thestate government. Some of this control is exercisedby the Board of Regents out of a desire to insure unifor-mity of certain practices, but a great deal is exercisedI- ether state agencies which apply regulations whichlutve routinely developed in state governments to pro-tect thetaxpayers' interests.While the Board of Regentsstaff actually assists universities ;.71 gaining some free-dom from excessive regulation through negotiationwith other agencies and application for exceptions toregulations, some campus administrators see this asmerely compounding the problem. Perhaps the statecould benefit from further experiments such as the oneproposed by the University or West Florida where,in return for some loosening of regulations, the institu-tion will operate on an amount five per cent less thanthat budgeted. Other experiments in this area couldlead to improved innovation, cooperation and morale.Therefore, we recommend that:

Recommendation 70: The Legislature should take everystep to insure the efficient and economical operationof the State Dniversity System through the eliminationof detailed and cumbersome controls on the day-to-dayoperation of state universities. Particukr attentionshould he given to the approach proposed by theUniversity of West Florida for achieving greater opera-tional efficiency.

ACCESS TO POST-SECONDARYEDUCATION

A primary means to provide equal access to post-secondary education opportunities in Florida isthrough financial assistance to students. The 1972Legislature sought to meet this need through a broadinsured loan program for all students and a grant pro-gram for capable students with exceptional financialneed. The 92nd Congress also established a far-reaching package of grants, loans and work-study pro-grams oriented to providing more equality of access.Taken together, the magnitude of these assistanceprograms and other private resources may approach$75 million and 75,000 students.

1. Student Financial Aid -

It appears that the combination of federal, state andprivate sources may satisfy the needs of the state, butthe relative newness of these efforts makes it inappro-,riate to assess their performance. Therefore, no new

or revised aid programs are proposed at this time.However, we recommend that:

Recommendation 71: The Legislature should continueto support the Student Aid Program begun in 1972and should systematically bring about a more adequatefunding of student assistance grants.

11.

44

Recommendation 72: The Legislature should s ewthe Florida Student Loan Program to determi j itspresent provisions are broad enough to meet studentneeds. 1 n addition. this study should determine whetherthe length of repayment time and the limitationsregarding amounts available to each student need tobe liberalized.

Recommendation 73: The State Commission on Post-Secondary Education should prepare a completeanalysis of all student-assistance programs and main-tain this inventory annually. Particular attentionshould be given to the distribution of resources to meetthe demonstrated needs of eligible students.

2. Tuition CostsThe money which students pay for tuition at colleges

and universities represents only a relatively small por-tion of the total cost of higher education. For genera-tions it has been state policy that tuition fees willremain low enough so as not to prevent any qualifiedstudent from obtaining a university education.However, the cost of providing higher educationincreases yearly. Therefore, we recommend that:

Recommendation 74: The Legislature should establishpublic policy regarding the percentage of the cost ofpost-secondary education that should be borne by thestudents through the pa:,,nent of tuition.

SECTION VIIIFINANCE

INTRODUCTION

The overriding philosophy of the Committee regard-ing school finance is for more equity in the distributionof money to all school districts in Florida. At the sametime, there is a need for simplifying Florida's financingprogram for elementary and secondary education. Toaccomplish these objectives we make several recom-mendations including: a balanced package for revisingand simplifying the Minimum Foundation Program(MFP); full state funding of capital outlay, migranteducation and school transportation; school and pro-gram financial accounting systems in districts; andimproved property tax assessment practices, and dis-continuance of the punitive financial application ofratio studies toward school districts. Extensiveresearch supporting these recommendations isincluded in the Technical Report on School Financein Appendix B.

A CONCEPT OF FUNDING

All funds for the operation of schotAs, except thosefor transportation, should be provided through theMinimum Foundation Program (MFP). Occasionally,however, there may arise special circumstances andneeds which necessitate special funding to school dis-tricts for a limited period of timefor example, in theestablishment of a new program or new directions forexisting programs (such as career education). Fundingfor such situations should be done through "special-purpose grants."

To implement this concept of funding, we recom-mend that:

Recommendation 75: To the maximum extent possiblethe Legislature should provide school funding throughthe Minimum Foundation Program (MFP) grants todistricts. But, in those cases where the Legislaturebelieves programs and personnel needs are of suchimportance that they require special-purpose appro-

47

priations, funds should be provided for a limited lengthof time as seed monies to be used during the develop-mental years of a program. Performance audits shouldbe used to assess the effectiveness of programs fundedthis way. Accordingly, if it is desired to continue toprovide additional money for the program, then thesefunds should be made part of the MFP grant to eachdistrict.

MINIMUM FOUNDATION PROGRAM

Florida's elementary and secondary school financestatutes have grown incrementally to meet variouschanges including citizens' desires, tax limitations andthe transformation of the state through rapid growth.The Minimum Foundation Program (MFP) constitutesthe major part of these statutes and also encompassesthe vast majority of funds available to districts fromthe state. When originally conceived in 1947, the MFPwas relatively simple and understandable. However,over the years, piecemeal changes and additions havebeen made. While each change was designed to solvea problem affecting some districts, the overall impactof these changes has never been examined adequately.The whole system of state school finance has becomeso complicated that only a handful of people in thestate currently understand it, and each year its com-plexity increases.

In our analyses of the MFP, we found that:

(1) The MFP and other state programs for financingelementary and secondary education have becomeunnecessarily complicated.

(2) At six mills required local effort the state schoolfinance system conforms better to the "Serrano"criterion (that is, educational resources provided achild should not be a function of the wealth of theschool district where he or she happens to live) thanthat of most states, but may be unfair to some groups

of districts in operating funds, and to most in capitaloutlay funds.

(3) The salary portion of the MFP is needlessly com-plicated and no longer serves a necessary function.In fact, it may be dysfunctional since it has incentivestoward college credit, and thus may distort the state'spriorities for the development of higher education.

(4) The "instruction unit" which is the basis forcalculating the state MFP allocations to districts andthe method of computing it have contributed torigidities in school organization, double attendancecounting, and excessive funding for some programs.

(5) Florida's MFP does not adjust for the specialprogram needs of disadvantaged and migrant farm stu-dents. Federal aid for these groups meets less and lessof the need each year. (See separate recommendationson Compensatory Education and Migrant Education.)

(6) Cost of living varies sufficiently in Florida towarrant special adjustments in the MFP. While thecost of living is not a direct measure of the cost ofeducation, costs of education are affected by differ-ences in the cost of living.

(7) Each year since 1967 earmarked state funds forcontributions to employee retirement matching havebecome a smaller percentage of the total cost, andas a result the local contributions have increased. (Seeseparate recommendation on Employee RetirementMatching.)

(8) The transportation formula is very complex.Moreover, the state share of the costs of transportationhas dropped from 54 percent in 1968 to about 40 percentin 1972. (See separate recommendation on SchoolTransportation.)

In order to simplify the MFP and increase the equityin the distribution of funds, we recommend that:

Recommendation 76: The Legislature should revise theMinimum Foundation Program (MFP) to:

(A) compute entitlement of MFP money on the basisof full -time equivalent (FTE) student enrollment.For each program, the FTE would be the numberof students enrolled in the program times the ratioof the number of hours per week the studentattends that program to the number of hours perweek a full-time student at that grade level nor-mally attends school. Computation of FTE stu-dent enrollment in this way could be made duringone week in the fall and one week in the springthereby simplifying attendance accounting. Theamount of money desired to be spent on eachstudent is determined by a cost factor which

48

recognizes the differences in cost between pro-grams. Fort EXAMPLE, MFP funds for each stu-dent might becalculated on the basis of the follow-ing cost factors:

PROGRAM COST FACTOR

Basic, Grades 1-12 1.0Kindergarten 1.3Physically Handicapped 1.8Compensatory 1.5Vocational 1.6

In the example above, if a decision is made tospend $700 per FTE student in the BasicProgram, then the amount spent for an FTE stu-dent in a Kindergarten Program would be $910($700 times a cost factor of 1.3). Similarly, theamount spent per FTE in a Vocational Programwould be $1120 ($700 times a cost factor of 1.6).

(B) cost-effectiveness studies should be used to deter-mine the most appropriate cost factors.

(C) include an extra cost factor (more funds) for com-pensatory education programs designed to 'neetthe needs of disadvantaged children and to sup-plement federal programs.

(D) eliminate the salary allocation portion of theMFP.

(E) move Florida into full compliance with the"Serrano" criterion by going to eight millsrequired local effort (in 1974-75) Oh the full valueof the previous year's non-exempt tax roll withtwo mills power equalized at the same rate. Insubsequent years required local effort could beadvanced to nine or ten mills.

(F) include an adjustment based on the cost of livingin each district.

(G) include full state funding of contributions toemployee retirement matching.

(H) eliminate all local school taxes over 10 mills forsuch things as capital outlay and a district's shareof employee retirement matching.

A district shall be entitled to the dollar value foreach FTE student, less required local effort plus theamount guaranteed (power equalized) by the state onthe ninth and tenth mills. This is to be the only moneythe district receives from the state for operating per-poses, except for special-purpose grants and transpor-tation. This MFP money may be spent in any legalway the district desires, with the proviso that in order

to earn additional moneyfor special programs, studentsmust actually be enrolled in such a program.

A "no loss guarantee" should be used to insurethat no district receives less state operating money(including special-purpose grants and transportation)under this plan than it currently receives.

CAPITAL OUTLAY

The monies which the state presently appropriatesfor capital outlay are completely inadequate. This,together with the reluctance of most local taxpayersto approve local construction bond issues, has createda severe shortage of school facilities, a crisis whichwill grow even larger in the next few years as localschool districts enlarge the kindergarten program. Theimmensity of this problem is seen by the fact that inthe school year 1971-72 there were approximately175,000 students in 17 school districts (about 13 percentof all students in the state in grades 1-12) attendingschool on double or even triple sessions.

In addition to the inadequate amounts of money thestate appropriates for school construction, there is alsoa problem of inequitable distribution of these funds.That is, there is no relationship between state appro-priations and either the building needs of a district orits wealth. Since the quality of the school in whicha child receives his education should not be dependentupon the wealth of the local district, Florida risks acourt suit under the equal protection provisions of theFourteenth Amendment of the U. S. Constitution. Ifa suit such as this were to be successful, it wouldoverturn our system of financing capital outlay.

To improve the financing of capital outlay in Floridaso that we can overcome the shortage of schoolfacilities and so that the distribution of funds will bemore equitable, we recommend that:

Recommendation 77: The Legislature should providefor a major construction effort designed to meet allschool facilities needs in the state by 1980. This pro-gram should include two integral components:

(A) The state should pay the entire approved costof capital outlay projects for school districts orthe entire cost of rental or leasing of facilities.The provisions for this payment should be as fol-lows:

(1) The state should survey district facilityneeds for space as of some set date, suchas 1977. The survey would take into account

49

projected growth or decline in student enroll-ment and adequacy or obsolescence ofexisting facilities. The Department of Edu-cation recently has completed a survey ofthis kind which could be used to implementthis program.

(2) The state should establish standards forconstruction of various kinds of educationalfacilities and would annually establish acost per square foot for each kind of facilityin a base county. The allowance for all othercounties should be adjusted by a cost-of-construction index.

(3) Districts would apply for state money fora construction project or rental /leaseagreement. If the project helps to meet dis-trict needs as disclosed in the state survey,it would be approved. Priority would begiven to projects for districts where relativeneeds are greatest. The state would pay anamount equal-to the state-established costper square foot (adjusted for cost of con-struction) times the number of square feetof each type of facility to be constructed.The district may hire its own architect andconstruct buildings of its own design(subject only to state fire, health and safetystandards) and could spend more than thestate allowance from its own operatingfunds if it wishes. The state would providestandard plans for different types offacilities which districts could use if theywished. If they did so, the state would payfor the actual cost of construction of thefacilities.

(4) Because the costs of site acquisition anddevelopment are so widely varying evenwithin one district, purchase of school sitesmust have prior state approval. The statewould pay the full cost of purchase andpreparation of a state-approved site.

For districts which currently need class-room space but will not need it in 1977(because of declining enrollments), the stateshould consider providing relocatableclass-rooms . When they are no longer neededat one location, they could be moved toanother district with temporary needs.

(B) The state should assume the responsibility forretiring all existing local bonded indebtedness,including State Board of Education bonds.

(5)

Furthermore, districts may not incur additionalbonded indebtedness, and currently allowed localtaxes over 10 mills for capital outlay and debtservice should be eliminated.

COMPENSATORY EDUCATION

Just as the schools must provide special programsfor students handicapped by physical and mental disor-ders, there also is a need to provide special compensa-tory programs for students from socially and economi-cally disadvantaged families. Generally, students fromthese homes need remedial programs and bilingualeducation. They need social and academic enrichmentprograms and, since the educational level of the parentsis often below that of the average student's parents,they need language and mathematics instruction at adifferent level than that provided for the typical stu-dent. Additionally, the student from a poor family mayneed special remedial and preventive health services,breakfast and lunch programs, and study space. Inshort, disadvantaged children need more dollars spenton them than advantaged students to achieve similarobjectives. For these reasons, we believe that thestate's educational finance formula must make a specialprovision which will adequately fund programs for stu-dents from disadvantaged families. The present MFPdoes not do this.

Identifying the numbers of students from disadvan-taged families is not easily done, but there are severalcriteria that can be used: family income, test scores,or children from families receiving welfare payments.Using the criterion of family income below thefederally established poverty level, there are almost240,000 disadvantaged children aged 6-17 in Florida,excluding migrant farm children. Of these, only about70,000 are aided by federal compensatory programs.These figures support our recommendation that thestate must launch a major program of compensatoryeducation for students from disadvantaged familiesdesigned to complement already-existing federal pro-grams.

To develop a statewide educational program for stu-dents from disadvantaged homes, we recommend that:

Recommendation 78: The Legislature should establish,as part of the MFP, funds for providing compensatoryeducation to students from disadvantaged back-grounds. Within districts compensatory educationfunds should be targeted to the instructional andrelated needs of disadvantaged pupils through special-programs designed by local districts. The total number

50

of disadvantaged students served in a school districtwith these funds should be based on the number ofchildren of school age in the district from familiesbelow the poverty level, less the number being servedby federal money.

MIGRANT EDUCATION

It is estimated that there may be as many as 68,000students in Florida whose parents are migrant farmworkers. These students often are extremely poor andare unable to afford even the basic necessities to remainin school: clothes, books, fees, etc. Furthermore, theitinerant nature of the families makes steady attendancein school difficult and very large percentages of thesestudents leave school at an early age or transfer toother schools or school districts. To alleviate the prob-lems of these students, federal monies have beenavailable. However, federal programs serve only about22,000 of these students. Like the migrant child, adultmigrant farm workers also have special unmet educa-tional needs. It is apparent that for the educationalneeds of migrant farm students and adults to be met,the state must establish a coordinated education pro-gram which serves these people.

Because migrant farm worker families move fromone county to another, the state should take the respon-sibility of providing educational services to migrantstudents and adults. Only a state agency can operatebeyond county lines. Therefore, we recommend that:

Recommendation 79: The Legislature should assign theresponsibility for the delivery of educational servicesto migrant farm children and adults to the Departmentof Education. Migrant education then should be coor-dinated and entirely funded by the state. Actual teach-ing may be done by schools in local districts, by publicor private firms under contract, or by state fundedteachers who travel with the migrant stream. Also,the state should collect more comprehensive data onmigrant farm children.and adults, including the actualnumber of migrant school-age children, ethnic com-position of migrants, dropout incidence and intrastatemovement of migrants.

SCHOOL TRANSPORTATION

Presently the cost of transporting students to andfrom school is borne jointly by the state and by thelocal school districts. The state share of these costsis determined by a very complex formula which is partof the MFP.

There are two major problems with this financingarrangement. One is the complexity of the formula.

Another is the decreasing state share of the total sup-port for school transportation. In 1968 the state sharewas 54 percent of total costs. Since 1968, however.the state percentage has dropped appreciably to about40 percent in 1971-72, and projected transportationcosts indicate a trend toward a constantly increasedlocal share. In short, the increased costs of transporta-tion caused by salaries, operation, maintenance andintegration have been borne primarily by the local tax-payer. Given the 10-mill tax limit there seems to beno rationale for shifting transportation costs to the localrevenue base. Indeed, this may cause slow propertytax growth counties to shift funds with less moneygoing to instructional programs. Consequently, a goodcase can be made for full state assumption of transpor-tation costs. Moreover, this would provide additionallocal budgetary flexibility for local choices in instruc-tional programs rather than being restricted byincreased local costs for ancillary services like trans-portation. In order to resolve these problems it is

recommenddd that:

Recommendation 80: The Legislature should eliminatethe present transportation formula in the MinimumFoundation Program. Instead the state should payforthe entire cost of operating an efficient transportationsystem. The state should use modern computertechniques to determine the most efficient routing ofbuses for each district and the number of buses needed.The cost of operating such a system should be calcu-lated, and this should be the state allowance. Districtsmay use the most efficient routing as developed bythe state but should not be required to do so.

The state also should pay for the entire cost ofneeded school buses, including replacementsfor thosethat are no longer safe or serviceable. The state maytransfer such state-purchased buses from a districtvhere the need for buses has decreased to a district

vhich needs more buses.

EMPLOYEE RETIREMENT MATCHING

In 1967 the Legislature required local districts tomatch employee contributions to retirement systems.And in that year the state provided about 89 percentof the total funds districts needed for retirementmatching. However, in 1972 the state share for thispurpose had fallen to less than 51 percent, and thestate share is projected to decrease to about 38 percentin 1976-77. Thus, local districts have to pay a largershare of these costs each year.

Presently local districts can have a voted tax overthe 10-mill tax limit to raise funds necessary to paytheir local share of retirement matching. This, how-ever, results in two significant problems. If local voters

51

turn down this extra tax. then the 10-mill tax limitwould result in districts allocating more money toretirement at the expense of instructional programs.Secondly, the tax discriminates against low wealthcounties since it allows wealthy counties to raise asum of money for retirement matching at much lowertax rates than those required in poor school districts.For these reasons, we recommend that:

Recommendation 81: The Legislature should providefor the state to assume the full costs of employee retire-ment matching and the present local tax over 10 millsfor this purpose should be eliminated. Full state fund-ing for employee retirement matching should beincluded in the Minimum Foundation Program (Al FP)grant to districts.

FINANCIAL ACCOUNTING SYSTEM

In the vast majority of school districts the financialaccounting of the expenditures of monies on schoolsis done primarily on a district-wide basis. In such asystem the expenditures at individual schools withinthe district are largely unknown. Moreover, expendi-tures on educational programs (such as kindergarten,compensatory, exceptional child, etc.) at each schoolalso are unknown.

In a sample school district in Florida an in-depthanalysis of the financial expenditures per pupil revealeda large variation between schools. More distressingwas the fact that less money per student was beingspent at schools where children performed poorly onstandardized tests.

In order to be able to explain the utilization ofresources (expenditures of money) in terms of theircontributions to desired educational objectives, it isnecessary to have a financial accounting system whichreports the amount of money spent on educationalprograms at each school. Such data would complementOther reporting and assessment techniques. (Forexample, see recommendation on the Annual Reportof School Progress.)

To implement this kind of fiscal accounting, it isrecommended that:

Recommendation 82: The Legislature should providefor the implementation off inancial accounting systemsin all school districts vhich uniformly report data onthe expenditures of money on educational programsat each school. A summary of this financial informationshould be included in the Annual Report of SchoolProgress at each school.

PROPERTY TAX ASSESSMENT lion of ratio studies toward school districts should beremoved.

Any program of educational finance which includeslocal property tax money requires a sound propertytax assessment system. However, recent studies (ratiostudies) in Florida have indicated that there are prob-lems in tax assessment practices. Moreover, thesestudies have been used to adjust for these problemsin assessment practices in a way that has penalizedschool districts which have no control over assessmentpractices. That is, local school districts lose moneyto the extent that these studies indicate that propertywas not assessed properly.

In order to correct these problems, we recommendthat:

Recommendation 83: The Legislature should providefor the improvement of property tax assessment prac-tices so that property is assessed uniformly amongcounties and among' classes of property withincounties. Additionally, the punitive financial applica-

52

A RECOMMENDED STUDY

The present arrangement for financing elementaryand secondary education in all the states, exceptHawaii, is based on a joint state and local financialsupport of schools. While state support comes froma variety of tax sources, the vast majority of localsupport comes from local property taxes. Nationallythe trend in recent years has been toward greater statesupport but local support continues to dominate,accounting for about 52 percent of the cost ofeducation. In Florida, however, the local share is lessthan 40 percent of the cost of education. Consideringthe larger state role in the financing of schools, onemight ask the implications of totally removing localproperty tax for the support of schools. The Committeeraised this question and recommended that:

Recommendation 84: The Legislature should initiatea study on the Implications of totally removing localproperty tax support for schools.

SECTION IXGOVERNANCE

INTRODUCTION

The Citizens' Committee believes that the gover-nance of the state's educational system is the centraland basic element in solving educational problems. Ourstate must have an educatior governance systemwhich actively involves the puolic and which clearlypinpoints responsibility for decisions. Our present sys-tem cannot produce, we believe, the kind of planning,coordination and problem solving which Floridadeserves. To see the major significance of the gover-nance issue, it is necessary only to see the numberof recommendations which we have addressed to thestate policy-making board in this report.

In this section, Governance, Part I, we have pin-pointed what we believe to be the highest prioritychange which should be made in our system. Gover-nance, Part II, reaffirms and presents the Committee's1972 Interim Report as the best long-range solutionto the governance of Florida's schools.

GOVERNANCEPART I

Highest Priority Recommendation

The Ccmmittee believes that a board to coordinateand develop policy for all levels of education is ofsuch overriding importance that it should be broughtabout even if no other changes are made in the gover-nance of education in Florida. Therefore, we recom-mend that:

Recommendation 85: The Legislature should createa lay board to set policy and coordinate the entirestate system of public education in Florida.The powers and responsibilities of this board shouldbe statutory and the present State Board of Educationshould retain its constitutional role.

55

GOVERNANCEPART II

The Committee's Long-Range Governance Plan

In January 1972 the Committee made recommenda-tions which, taken as a whole, represented a com-prehensive system for the governance of public educa-tion at both the state and local levels in Florida. Severalof the district-level recommendations included in thisplan do not have the support of a sizeable numberof the Committee members. The non-partisan schoolboard and a statewide referendum to appoint superin-tendents in each district are examples. Nevertheless,the Committee believes the organizational concept pre-sented below is the best long-range solution to themanagement of our schools.

I. State-Level GovernanceThe State Board Of Education

The Florida system of educational governanceserved the state well in the past when we enjoyed rela-tive social stability and limited educational change.Today, however, our society finds itself in continuoussocial and technological transition requiring policy for-mation and management, systems more responsive tothe needs of our citizens. To achieve this respon-siveness, the Committee believes that educational pol-icy must address itself to the entire range of educationexperiences. Policies and priorities should be as freeas possible of special influences that tend to fragmentor inhibit educational opportunity for all citizens.

The Committee believes that the formulation ofeducational policy must be clearly identified with thosewho are involved in this process and they, in turn,must be accountable to the people for proper implemen-tation: there must be no hidden policy makers.

The formulation of policy should be a primaryitSporlsibility of the State Board. Policy must be estab-lished by citizens who recognize the needs of Florida

today and the aspirations of Florida tomorrowciti-zens fully committed to give the time that this taskrequires.

Finally, the Committee believes that the activeinvolvement of citizens in high-level policy formulationlessens the influence of administrative bureaucracywhich insulates education from the people. Such citizeninvolvement will serve in a positive way to rejuvenatethe public's trust in its educational system and encour-age greater public participation in what must ultimatelybe the public's educational destiny.

For these reasons the Committee makes the follow-ing recommendations:

Recommendation 86: There should be established inFlorida a single lay Board Education, responsibleto the citizens of this state for all levels of education.

Recommendation 87: The Statt Board should be estab-lished by constitutional amendment.

Recommendation 88: The Board should be composedof 15 lay members, appointed by the Governor, andconfirmed by the Senate. The chairman should bedesignated by the Governor and should serve at hispleasure in that capacity.

Recommendation 89: The Board members should servestaggered six year terms.

Recommendation 90: The Board should receive traveland per diem in accordance with state regulations.Members may be statutorily authorized to receive fiscalrenumeraaon for time and responsibilities commen-surate with their positions.

Recommendation 91: The role of the State Board shouldbe policy making, the establishment-of priorities inkeeping with its policies, and budget preparation allas defined by law

Recommendation 92: There should be no statutory -nn-straints placed upon the Board as to how it shouldorganize itself internally for carrying out its respon-sibilities except as otherwise contained in this report.

2. State-Level GovernanceThe Chief State School Officer

To implement the policies of the State Board ofEducation, the Committee believes that there shouldbe a Chief State School Officer who renders adviceto the Board and has the responsibility of carryingout its policies. This person should be an administratorand not a policy maker. The Committee believes thathaving a Chief State School Officer in the ambivalentposition of both making policy and implementing the

56

policy of others results in potential conflict and a diffu-sion of responsibility and accountability.

The Chief State School Officer should be free ofthe non-educational responsibilities vested in theCabinet office of Commissioner of Education. TheChief State School Officer should bring the highestprofessional management skills to bear on the complexEducational problems of Florida.

Since the primary responsibility of the Chief StateSchool Officer is administrative as opposed to policymaking, the Committee believes it is not necessarythat this person be chosen through the elective process.On the contrary, the Committee believes that in orderto obtain the most qualified person, the selection ofthe Chief State School Officer should not depend uponpartisan politics or be limited by state residencyrequirements. In short, the role of the professionalleader of Florida's educational system should be oneof carrying out with the highest professional expertisethe policy established by the people.

It is for these reasons that the Committee makesthe following recommendations:

Recommendation 93: There should be established byconstitutional amendment the position of appointedChief State School Officer.

Recommendation 94: The Chief State School Officershould be appointed by the State Board of Educationwith confirmation by the Senate.

Recommendation 95: The Board should be free toestablish the professional qualifications and manage-ment skills that this person must possess for theefficient implementation of the Board's policies andpriorities.

Recommendation 96: The Chief State School Officershould serve at the pleasure of the Board or, if theBoard chooses to negotiate a contract, it should notexceed a period of two yearsfrom the date of execution.The contract may be renewed by the Board.

Recommendation 97: The responsibilities of the ChiefState School Officer should be specified by the StateBoard to include:

(A) implementing policy decisions rf the Board;(B) recommending budgets, policies and priorities to

the State Board of Education; and(C) administering the Department of Education.

3. The State-Local Partnership

The Committee believes that the most effective man-agement system for the state-local partnership permits

policy decisions at both levels, provided, of course,there exists a clear definition of the roles to be servedat each level. The major responsibility of the StateBoard of Education should be to establish far-reachingstatewide policy. The State Board should not engagein administrative detail and must remain free to concen-trate upon issues involving long-range policy consider-ations.

At the local level the major responsibility of educa-tional governance should be to direct policy develop-ment and policy implementation for the educationalunit servedbe it a local school district or a singleinstitution.

The Committee believes that a system of governanc'cwhich permits policy making at both the state and locallevels will provide flexibility and should simplifyadministrative functions. This principle, when appliedon the state level, means that the State Board of Educa-tion can avoid the inefficiency inherent in a multiplica-tion of bureaucratic levels of control. At the local level,the framework will exist to encourage the developmentof a wider range of educational alternatives.

The evidence that has been considered by the Com-mittee strongly indicates that educational managementcan be enhanced by optimizing the size of school dis-tricts, whether it be through consolidation or decen-tralization. Districts which are too small to provideadequate services to students must be able to drawupon the resources of other districts through coopera-tion or consolidation procedures. Likewise, decentrali-zation techniques applied to large school districts canenhance the efficient management of the schools.

The Committee also believes that educational man-agement at the local level is generally improved bythe appointive process. It is through this procedurethat local school districts can choose the one personthat they believe possesses tie highest level of profes-sional expertise and management skill.

The Committee believes that citizen participationin the governance of education should be encouragedthroughout the system: the local school district, thecommunity college district, and the un'ersity system.Insofar as possible, this participation should beremoved from partisan politics and based upon per-sonal commitments and demonstrated understandingof educational needs.

The Local School District

Citizen participation in the governance of publicschool districts should be broadly representative ofthe people of the community and responsive to theirneeds. This type of participation offers the best means

57

of interpreting and implementing policy formulated atthe state level in keeping with the aspirations andexpectations of the local community. Since the gover-nance of local school districts includes the levying oftaxes, the people affected by these taxes should havea direct voice in the selection of their representatives.

The Community College District

The mission of the public community college isthreefold: (1) to offer university parallel programs tostudents transferring to upper-division universities; (2)to provide occupational education programs for jobtraining; and (3) to provide a variety of community-based educational experiences. Because of each ofthese three functions, the community collegeas itsname impliesmust be closely attuned to the needsof the area it serves. Job training programs demandthat the college be attentive to changing job marketsin the local area. Adult education demands requirethat the community college provide programs tailoredto meet the needs of the adults in the particular com-munity.

The University System

The university has a unique role in the total educa-tional system of the state, a role which must be recog-nized and protected. The mission of the university mustbe to achieve the highest level of scholarship, researchand teaching. It must develop professional expertise,continue the search for knowledge and help solve con-temporary problems of our society. Thus, the missionof the university is not limited to the local communitybut is, by definition, regional, statewide, national andeven international in scope. Consequently, the gover-nance of the state's public universities cannot belimited to the local community.

The Committee believes that policy making for theState University System must be accomplished withinthe scope of the state's total educational program. Ifthe university system is considered alone, fragmentedfrom other levels of education, it becomes subjectedto a competing role with all other segments of the sys-tem and is thereby limited in its ability to accomplishits own priorities. Policy at all levels is interrelated:policy which affects the highest level of graduate train-ing must affect the opportunities available to the kinder-garten child. The reverse, of course, is equally true.If the state is to maximize the development of its humanresources-at-rough its education process, each level ofthe system must complement and support the other.

In this context, the Committee believes that citizenparticipation in the governance of the state's univer-sities is essential since, as in other levels of education,

)

c

such participation can help maintain public confidenceand can insure that our university system will bestmeet the needs of the people. Therefore, the Commit-tee recommends that while the State University Systemshould be governed by the State Board of Education,it should have a designated citizen board with dutiesand responsibilities that reflects a concern for its uniquemission.

To summarize the Committee's position on the state-local partnership, we believe that the division ofresponsibility between the state and local levels foreducational governance should insure the involvementof the neople but should delineate between those whogovern and those who administer educational policy.To establish a system which hopefully realizes thesegoals, the Committee makes the following recommen-dations:

Recommendation 98: District school board electionsshould be on a non-partisan basis.

Recommendation 99: Congruent with the concept thatprofessional management at the state level should beseparated from policy-making authority, districtschool superintendents should be appointed by thedistrict school boards rather then elected.

Recommendation 100: A constitutional amendmentshould be offered to the people to provide for theappointment of all district school superintendents bytheir local school boards.

Recommendatioa 101: Local community collegeboards of trustees should continue to be appointedby the Governor and approved by the Senate. Inaddition to their corporate operating board respon-sibilities, they shall have such policy-making respon-sibilities as established by statute or by the State Boardof Education.

Recommendation 102: A board of trustees comprisedof seven members for the university system shouldbe established by statute. Trustees should be appointed

58

by the Governor and confirmed by the Senate to servestaggered four-year terms. In addition to their cor-porate operating board responsibilities, they shall havesuch policy-making responsibilities as established bystatute or by the State Board of Education.

Recommendation 103: There should be created theoffice of Chancellor of the University System, selectedby the Chief State School Officer with the consentof the State Board of Education. T, he Chancellorshould serve at the pleasure of the Chief State SchoolOfficer, and his duties and functions should be pre-scribed by the State Board of Education.

4. Minority Group Representation

The Committee believes that the wisdom of educa-tional policy development at all levels of the state struc-ture can be enhanced by citizen boards broadly rep-resentative of the cultural diversity of Florida. Theelective process at the public school district level hasnot, at this point, generated this diverse representation.For example, while blacks account for approximately15 percent of Florida's population, there are only fiveof a possible 347 presently serving as school boardmembers throughout the state.

The Committee's staff made an in-depth study toidentify alternatives for increasing :dinority member-ship on local school boards -through the electiveprocess. (See Appendix D.) As a result of the studythe most favored recommendation of the staff wasthat there he election of board members by wards,with no residency requirement. However, this alterna-tive did not receive the support of a majority of theCommittee. Nevertheless, we are concerned with thismatter and recommend that:

Recommendation 104: The Legislature should study thealternatives presented in the Te, finical Report andaffirmative action programs should be initiated at boththe state and local levels to increase minority represen-tation on local school boards.

APPENDIX ASUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS

Section IState Responsibility

A NEW STATEROLE

Recommendation 1: The Legislature should continueto repeal statutes which unduly restrict the local schooldistricts. The Legislature should establish new poi:cythrough the use of educational objectives which specifyonly what is to be accomplished, not the way in whichthe local district is to implement the objective.

Recommendation 2: The State Boaro of Educationshould thoroughly review existing regulations andremove those which are unduly restrictive to localschool districts. Regulations of the board shouldspecify objectives and state policy, not prescribeexactly how state policy is to be implemented.

Recommendation 3: The State Board of Educationshould prepare for presentation to the 1974 Legislaturea complete staffing plan which will allow the Depart-ment of Education to place a greater emphasis on pro-viding leadership in the establishment of educationalgoals and objectives, school assessment and technicalassistance to districts. To accomplish this, plans shouldbe made for the use of short-term.employment as wellas career-long employment.

MANPOWER PLANNING

Recommendation 4: The Legislature should direct thatthe State Ciimprehensive Plan, prepared by the Divisionof State Planning, identify areas where manpowerplanning and development is most needed and recom-mend goals, objectives and policies required to meetthese needs. By statute, the State Manpower Councilshould then be responsible for conducting manpowerplanning required by the state. Specific responsibilityfor C001 'inating and planning programs for the disad-vantaged should be assigned to the State ManpowerCouncil.

Recommendation 5: The State Board of Educationshould coordinate its educational programs with theState Manpower Council and with those of other stateagencies which provide human services, including, butnot limited to, the Department of Health and

61

Rehabilitative Services, the Department of Commun-ity Affairs, and the Department of Commerce.

AN EDUCATIONALINFORMATION SYSTEM

Recommendation 6: By 1974 the State Board of Educa-tion should complete a plan for the establishment ofa comprehensive educational information system toprovide information for all levels of education. Thisplan should identify-what information is needed at thestate level; how the information is to be assembled,stored, summarized and distributed to appropriatedecision makers; and, it should ind:cate how the infor-mation system will be used to meet local needs. Finally,the plan should present procedures for establishing astate technical advisory committee for educationalinformation and suggest incentives to districts develop-ing exemplary information systems.

REGIONAL RESOURCE CENTERS FOREDUCATION

Recommendation 7: The State Board of Educationshould present to the 1974 Legislature a plan for thecreation of multi-county Regional Resource Centers toenable clusters of local school districts to: sharefacilities; cooperate in the development of programs;engage in joint planning efforts; and work together forthe pre-service and in-service training of teachers andadministrators.,The use of existing resources for thesecenters should be encouraged in every way possible.

Recommendation 8: Public and private post-secondaryinstitutions, including vocational centers, communitycolleges, colleges and universities, should be includedin all regional educational planning.

NON-PUBLIC SCHOOL EDUCATION

Recommendation 9: The Legislature should authorizethat school health and assessment programs be madeavailable to students in private schools.

Recommendation 10: The Legislature should requireprivate schools to register with the state for informa-tional purposes. This should be do le by removing pres-ent exemptions and enforcing present statutes.

1

Section IIThe Community and the School

CITIZEN PARTICIPATION IN EDUCATIONALAFFAIRS.

Recommendation 11: The Legislature should mandatelocal school boards to establish School Advisory Coun-cils at each school. They should be broach), representa-tive of the community served by the school, includingparents, teachers, administrators and students, wherepracticable; and they should have the responsibilityto assist in the preparation of the Annual Report ofSchool Progress. Plans for establishing these councilsshould be developed by each local school district.

THE ANNUAL REPORT OF SCHOOL PROGRESS

Recommendation 12: Legislation should be enacted torequire that the State Board of Education, through StateBoard regulations, insures that there will be at eachschool an Annual Report of School Progress and thatthis report is broadly disseminated each year. Thislegislation should insure that the Annual Report is com-patible with both state accreditation and accountability

62

programs. The report should include school populationdata, fiscal data, results of assessment programs,attitudes toward the school as well as plans and pro-grams for school improvement. The principal shouldbe responsible for the preparation of this report withthe assistance of the School Advisory Council.

Recommendation 13: Unusually promising innovationsin citizen involvement, School Advisory Council ser-vices and school-level improvement accomplished asa result of the Annual Report should be reported indetail to the state as part of the district's comprehensiveplan. These innovations should be reviewed for'possi-ble dissemination to other districts.

THE COMMUNITY SCHOOL

Recommendation 14: The Legislature should increasefunding of the Community School Act of 1970 so thatthe benefits of community education can be broadenedconsiderably.

Section IIIThe School Program

BASIC SKILLS

Recommendation 15: The Legislature should requirethe State Board of Education to accelerate its effortsto develop state performance objectives in the areasof reading, writing and computation. Once these basicskill priorities are completed, the Board should estab-lish performance objectives in other important areasof education.

CITIZENSHIP EDUCATION

Recommendation 16: The Legislature should requireschool districts to provide a series of community ser-vice experiences for students prior to their leaving theschool. These experiences should be voluntary or paid-work experiences to bring students into direct contactwith the community. Where appropriate, credit shouldbe given for graduation. Procedures for developing andevaluating these programs should be included in thecomprehensive plan of the school district.

CAREER EDUCATION

Recommendation 17: The Legislature should mandatecareer education as an integral part of the Floridaschool program at all levels and for all studentsand provide developmental funds for a specified periodof time. In doing so, the Legislature should requirethe State Board of Education to develop guidelinesfor:

(A) The revision of curricula throughout all levelsof education to insure its being- more directlyrelated to the world of work, so that it enableseach child to understand the relevance of formaleducation to career choices.

(B) The retraining of teachers throughout all levelsof education for the concept of career educationso that they can provide students with career

63

understandings and career exposures as part oftheir instructional programs.

Recommendation 18: In keepiv with the guidelinesissued by the Commissioner of Education, the StateBoard of Education should require school districts tosubmit, as part of their comprehensive plan, a three-year developmental plan to implement career educationat all levels of the public school program.

Recommendation 19: As part of their career educationprograms, each school district should establish withinits secondary schools job placement services. The de-sign of these services should be developed in cooper-ation with the Florida Employment Service. In additionto job placement, they should provide follow-up andfeedback information to the school districts, so thatthe school's educational program can be improved toincrease the employability of students.

EXCEPTIONAL CHILD EDUCATION

Recommendation 20: The Legislature should fund theestablishment of regional and sub-regional multi-county exceptional child education services for diag-nosis, evaluation and education in areas where thereare only a few children with a particular learning dis-ability.

Recommendation 21: The Legislature should increasefunding for exceptional child education to provide fortraining pre-kindergarten age children.

Recommendation 22: The Legislature should establisha Council for Exceptional Child Education empoweredwith the responsibility of recommending the extendingof accreditation by the State Board of Education toonly those non-public schools which seek accreditation

and whose programs are consistent with best educa-tional policy. Non-public schools that contract withthe state must undergo this accreditation procedureprior to receiving state funds.

Recommendation 23: The Legislature should fund theDepartment of Education's Exceptional Child Educa-tion Section from state resources to provide adequatelyfor the development of exceptional child programsthroughout the state.

EDUCATION FOR GIFTED STUDENTS

Recommendation 24: The Legislature should provideadequate funding to the Department of Education'sExceptional Child Education Section so as to enablethis office to.encourage local districts to establish giftedchild education programs and to provide them technicalassistance in doing so.

EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATION

Recommendation 25: The Legislature should continuefunding for the Office of Early Childhood Developmentin the Office of the Governor. The extension of thisoffice and organization should run through June 30,1974, and should include funds for an in-depth

64

interagency review and evaluation of the plan for earlychildhood and family development to be submitted tothe Legislature June 30, 1973.

NON-TRADITIONAL PROGRAMS

Recommendation 26: The Legislature should authorizethe State Board of Education to waive requirementsthat restrict the development of innovative educationalprograms.

Recommendation 27: The State Board of Educationshould provide local districts with flexibility in theareas of course requirements, time requirements andprogram of study requirements. In turn, local schooldistricts should require school-level pilot programswhich replace course, grade and time requirementswith performance-based competency requirements.

Recommendation 28: The State Board of Educationshould provide guidelines for the development of moreappropriate criteria for the assessment of students intheir transition from one educational level to another.Initially, particular attention should be given to pilotprograms for returning veterans who have obtainedequivalency qualifications from service-related experi-ences.

Section IVSchool Services

PUPIL PERSONNEL SERVICES

Recommendation 29: Local boards of education shouldprovide for the training and employment of aides toassist the school counselor in providing guidance ser-vices.

Recommendation 30: The Legislature should reviewthe Occupational Specialist Program to make certainthat it is being utilized by districts to provide bettercareer counseling and placement services to students.Full funding should be provided for this program withthe proviso that local districts insure job placementand follow-up services be included as individual orcooperatively developed programs in every secondaryschool in Florida. In addition, incentive funds shouldbe provided to encourage the development of:

(A) Programs which are designed for one or moresecondary schools working cooperatively withother agencies such as youth opportunity centersto achieve placement and follow-up services forstudents.

(B) Programs designed to bring employment coun-selors and university counselor-training person-nel into cooperative arrangements with districtpersonnel in the preparation of occupationalspecialists.

Recommendation 31: The Legislature should providefor the expansion of pupil personnel services through-out the state. This expansion should be accomplishedwithin a four-year period and should result in the dou-bling of the present number of pupil personnel workers

65

including elementary school counselors, occupationalspecialists, school social workers and schoolpsychologists.

SCHOOL HEALTH SERVICES

Recommendation 32: The Legislature should assign theresponsibility for the planning and delivery of healthcare services in the schools to the Department ofHealth and Rehabilitative Services.

Recommendation 33: Legislation should be enacted torequire the Department of Health and RehabilitativeServices to design a statewide comprehensive schoolhealth plan in conjunction with the State Board of Edu-cation and in cooperation with local school boards.

Recommendation 34: The Legislature should expandthe availability of school health specialists so that thereis at least one such specialist in each large county orone available to a consortium of counties operatingin conjunction with a Regional Resource Center.

Recommendation 35: The Legislature should give seri-ous attention to comprehensive health education legis-lation to establish in-service health education programsand to create-regional health resource centers.

EDUCATIONAL PROGRAMS FOR DISRUPTIVESTUDENTS

Recommendation 36: The Legislature should fund, thelocal school districts should establish, and the Depart-ment of Education should assist in the creation of spe-cial programs for students whose behavior has beenconsistently disruptive. Provisions should be made for

the training of personnel to work in these programs,and policies should be developed for the placementof students in these programs to insure that studentsreceive the most beneficial treatment possible.

Recommendation 37: As part of the educational infor-mation system records should be kept on the expulsionand suspension of students.

EDUCATIONAL MATERIALS AND EQUIPMENT

Recommendation 38: The Legislature should substan-tially increase above the present figure the percentageof instructional material funds which local school dis-tricts may use at their discretion to buy materials andequipment not otherwise included on the state adoptionlist.

Recommendation 39: To achieve a more frequentreview of new and existing educational materials, the

66

Legislature should repeal existing statutes concernedwith textbook seiection. The State Board of Educationshould then adopt regulations which insure adequateperiodic review of materials.

Recommendation 40: To insure a wider variety in theselection of instructional materials, the Legislatureshould repeal existing statutes which limit the numberof "state-adopted" textbool's to five. The State Boardof Education then should establish regulations whichare substantially larger than this number.

Recommendation 41: The State Board of Educationshould establish procedures for the centralizedpurchasing of materials and equipment in which dis-tricts may participate on a voluntary basis. In addition,the State Board of Education should provide technicalassistance to districts for purchasing materials and writ-ing specifications.

Section VProfessional Development

BOARD TRAINING

Recommendation 42: Legislation should be enactedrequiring the State Board of Education to provideschool board members with on-going training programsand fund them accordingly. Operation of this programshould be conducted in cooperation with the FloridaState School Board Association.

Recommendation 43: Legislation should be enactedrequiring the State Board of Education to initiatesimilar on-going training programs for appointedtrustee boards; Department of Education personnelshould provide the technical assistance necessary todevelop these programs.

MANAGEMENT TRAINING FOR EDUCATIONALADMINISTRATORS AND OTHER NON-

INSTRUCTIONAL PERSONNEL

Recommendation 44: The Legislature should establisha program for school management improvementdesigned to upgrade the management and leadershipskills of school principals, superintendents, adminis-trators and other non-instructional personnel. Rep-resentatives of the business community should beincluded in the design and implementation of theseprograms.

TENURE FOR ADMINISTRATORS

Recommendation 45: The Legislature should repealpresent statutes which provide tenure to administratorsand replace these statutes with one which allowsmultiple-year contracts to principals and supervisors.This change should in no way prevent an administrator

67

tenured as a teacher from returning to a teaching posi-tion for which he is qualified and with a salary commen-surate with that position.

TEACHER EDUCATION

Recommendation 46: The Legislature should fund pilotprojects designed to develop alternative competency-based teacher education programs. The collaborationof school districts, professional associations, commun-ity colleges, universities and the Department of Educa-tion should be used to establish a unified program forboth beginning and experienced teachers.

Recommendation 47: The State Board of Educationshould redefine in regulations the roles of the univer-sities, the Department of Education, the school districtsand the profession to increase cooperation among theseagencies so that each has a role in initial and extendedcertification of teachers. The State Board of Educationshould involve each of the agencies in redefining theseroles and responsibilities and appropriate resourcesshould be allocated to fulfill these new roles.

TRAINING FOR WORKING WITHTHE DISADVANTAGED

Recommendation 48: The State Board of Educationshould encourage educational agencies, in cooperationwith school districts, to develop training programsdesigned to improve the teachers' skills in workingwith disadvantaged students.

TEACHER CENTERS

Recommendation 49: Xegislation should be enactedrequiring the State Board of Education to establish

guidelines and procedures for implementing the teachercenter concept throughout Florida. In doing so, theLegislature should review policies and funding for-mulas, making those changes which are required, sothat a collaborative network of these centers can beestablished. Specific plans for teacher center programsshould be developed by the Department of Education.These plans should reflect the intention of the Legisla-ture that teacher education is to become a continuousprocess which requires an on-going partnershipbetween the institutions and the educational agenciesinvolved.

PROFESSIONAL EVALUATION

Recommendation 50: The Legislature should study theprofessional evaluation of educational personnel toinsure that it is being done in a consistent and satisfac-tory manner. Furthermore, existing statutes dealingwith professional evaluation should be repealed andreplaced by regulations of the State Board of Educationwhich require self=improvement programs as anintegral part of professional evaluation and whichrequire that the sources of evaluation include, but notbe limited to: reactions of administrators, professionalpeers, students beginning as early as practicable, andthe practitioner himself. Policies and procedures forprofessional evaluation should be developed by eachdistrict and reported fully in the district's comprehen-sive plan. Evaluation programs should be developedin cooperation with the person to be evaluated.

68

Recommendation 51: The State Board of Educationshould require that programs of professional improve-ment stem directly from aggregated evaluation datacollected by a school or throughout a district. Theseprofessional improvement programs should bereported in summary as part of a school's Annual Reportof School Progress.

DIFFERENTIATED STAFFING

Recommendation 52: The State Board of Educationshould require each school district to establish proce-dures based on its needs which will differentiate theresponsibilities of instructional personnel. This shouldbe,based upon a locally approved differentiated staffinplan which includes specific objectives showing ho,,,pupils will benefit. Salary rates shouk 'le cornmensurate with responsibility.

Recommendation 53: The State Board of Educationshould remove any regulations concerning the use ofcertified teaching personnel or the state accreditationof schools which might prevent or discourage schoolsfrom adopting differentiated staffing patterns.

Recommendation 54: The State Board of Educationand local school boards should place a high priorityon experimental programs which test new and efficientstaffing patterns in the public schools.

Section VIEducational Improvement

STATE-LEVEL AND DISTRICT-LEVELASSESSMENT

Recommendation 55: The Legislature should direct theState Board of Education to unite all-assessment pro-grams under one office. This should be accomplishedwith existing resources. This office should be responsi-ble for conducting central planning for assessment,overseeing the development and improvement ofassessment tools, recommending state program modifi-cations and achieving coordination between curriculumand assessment personnel.

Recommendation 56: This office should be charged withrapidly disseminating assessment results on the accom-plishment of state objectives and providing interpreta-tions to all interested persons including state-level pol-icy makers, local school district officials, the media,parents, students and the public at large.

Recommendation 57: The Eighth-Grade and Twelfth-Grade Test programs should be coordinated by thissingle office to facilitate the creation of an effectivecentrally planned, state-level assessment program.

Recommendation 58: The Legislature should requireduring 1975 an external performance audit of Florida'sassessment program. After 1975 a periodic perfor-mance audit should become a regular part of the-stateassessment program.

Recommendation 59: The results of the ?loridaEighth-Grade Test should allow for national and state-wide comparisons. It should broadly sample contentareas of reading and mathematics. Results should bereported as separate scores in each of the content

69

areas. That portion of the instrument which deals withcareer education, occupational exposure and studentattitudes should be vigorously developed.

Recommendation 60: The State Board of Educationshould adopt regulations requiring-that-all-students in-the eighth grade take the Florida Eighth-Grade Test.At present it is technically possible for an eighth-gradestudent not to take the test.

Recommendation 61: The State Board of Educationshould establish that the Florida Twelfth-Grade Testis administered to all velfth-grade students in the state.I t'should be utilized admission and advanced place-ment purposes withir. the state college and university

'system. It should provide data for comparing anindividual's achievement with state and nationalnorms. Furthermore, the Twelfth-Grade Test shouldprovide basic information for the review and revisionof the secondary curriculum and scores from this testshould be reported for individual content areas ratherthan aggregated into a single score. Testing specialistsshould review the existing instrument to determinewhether it can be utilized for these broader purposes;if not, it should be reconstructed accordingly.

Recommendation 62: The State Board of Educationshould consider including elements of the NationalAssessment Program in Florida's assessment pro-gram.

Recommendation 63: Local school boards shouldemphasize pre-school readiness testing and inter-mediate-level assessment programs. These pro-grams should complement the state program and shouldbe designed primarily to help teachers improve instruc-tion at the school level.

Recommendation 64: The Legislature should provideresources to the Department of Education to establisha test scoring and analysis service for use by localschool districts in the areas of pre-school readinessand intermediate-level assessment. This should bedone as an incentive for districts to use local fundsfor testing in these areas.

Recommendation 65: Local school districts shouldrequire assessment data to be a part of each school'sAnnual Report .of School Progress.

Recommendation 66: By 1976 the State Board of Educa-tion should be providing special reports to those schooldistricts that arc not showing adequate progress towardmeeting state educational objectives. These reportsshould include:

(A) An analysis of a district's progress toward meet-ing state performance objectives.

(B) Recommendations for district-level in-depthassessment in areas which show deficiencies.

(C) Recommendations for the reallocation of bothstate and local resources to assist districts in theremoval of deficiencies.

(D) Recommendations for specialized or interagency.technical assistance to help districts in accom-plishing state-level performance objectives.

EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT

Recommendation 67: The Legislature should direct theexpansion of the State Educational Research and

70

Development Program to meet state and local needsmore adequately.

Recommendation 68: The Legislature should instructthe State Board of Education to develop state researchpriorities for education which are to be reflected inthe activities of the state's Research and DevelopmentProgram. The State Board of Education should developguidelines which require the careful review of potentialstatewide resources, both within and outside the stateeducational system, for accomplishing high-priorityresearch and development projects.

Recommendation 69: The Legislature should fund andthe State Board of Education should develop, in coop-eration with local districts, voluntary comprehensiveresearch assessment projects. Immediate considera-tion should be given to the design of projects whichutilize performance data of p'rticipating schools.An experimental program of incentives for better per-formance should be established. This program wouldlook for ways to identify and reward schools that haveeducational attainment significantly higher than wouldbe predicted given the parental and school context.In addition, these schools should be studied to findout to what extent the things they are doing to improveattainment can be applied to other similar schools. Atthe state level the eighth-grade assessment programshould be available in several forms to allow forresearch projects of this nature.

Section VIIPost-Secondary Education

INSTITUTIONAL FLEXIBILITY

Recommendation 70: The Legislature should take everystep to insure the efficient and economical operationof the State University System through the eliminationof detailed and cumbersome controls on the day-to-dayoperation of state universities. Particular attentionshould be given to the approach proposed by the Uni-versity of West Florida for achieving greater opera-tional efficiency.

ACCESS TO POST-SECONDARY EDUCATION

Recommendation 71: The Legislature should continueto support the Student Aid Program begun in 1972and should systematically bring about a more adequatefunding of student assistance grants.

Recommendation 72: The Legislature should reviewthe Florida Student Loan Program to determine if its

71

present provisions are broad enough to meet studentneeds. In addition, this study should determinewhether the length of repayment time and the limita-tions regarding amounts available to each student needto be liberalized.

Recommendation 73: The State Commission on Post-Secondary Education should prepare a completeanalysis of all student-assistance programs and main-tain this inventory annually. Particular attention shouldbe given to the distribution of resources to meet thedemonstrated needs of eligible students.

Recommendation 74: The Legislature should establishpublic policy regarding the percentage of the cost ofpost-secondary education that should be borne by thestudents through the payment of tuition.

Section VIIIFinance

A CONCEPT OF FUNDING

Recommendation 75: To the maximum extent possiblethe Legislature should provide school funding throughthe Minimum Foundation Program (MFP) grants todistricts. But, in those cases where the Legislaturebelieves programs and personnel needs are of suchimportance that they require special-purpose appro-priations, funds should be provided for a !Milted lengthof time as seed monies to be used during,the develop-mental years of a program. Performance audits shouldbe used to assess the effectiveness of programs fundedthis way. Accordingly, if it is desired to continue toprovide additional money for the program, then thesefunds should be made part of the MFP grant to eachdistrict.

MINIMUM FOUNDATION PROGRAM

Recommendation 76: The Legislature should revise theMinumum Foundation Program (MFP) to:

(A) Compute entitlement of MFP money on the basisof full-time equivalent (FTE) student enrollment.For each program, the FTE would be the numberof students enrolled in the program times the ratioof the number of hours per week the studentattends that program to the number of hours perweek a full-time student at that grade level nor-mally attends school. Computation of FTE stu-dent enrollment in this way could be made duringone week in the fall'and one week in the springthereby simplifying attendance accounting. Theamount of money desired !.o be spent on eachstudent is determined by a cost factor which rec-ognizes the differences in cost between programs.

For example, MFP funds for each s:..dent mightbe calculated on the basis of the following costfactors:

PROGRAM COST FACTOR

Basic, Grades 1-12 1.0

Kindergarten 1.3Physically Handicapped 1.8Compensatory 1.5

Vocational 1.6

In the example above, if a decision is made tospend $700 per FTE student in the basic program,then the amount spent for an FTE student in akindergarten program would be $910 ($700 timesa cost factor of 1.3). Similarly, the amount spentper FTE in a vocational program would be $1120($700 times a cost factor of 1.6).

Cost-effectiveness studies should be used todetermine the most tTpropriate cost factors.Include an extracost factor (more funds) for com-pensatory education rograms designed to meetthe needs of disadvantaged children and to sup-plement federal programs.Eliminate the salary allocation portion of theMFP.Move Florida into full compliance with the"Serrano" criterion by going to eight millsrequired local effort (in 1974-75) on the full valueof the previous year's non-exempt tax roll withtwo mills power equalized at: theisame rate. Insubsequent years required local effort could beadvanced to nine or ten mills.Include an adjustment based on the cost of livingin each district.

(G) Include full state funding of contributions toemployee retirement :notching.

(H) Eliminate all local school taxes over 10 mills forsuch things as capital outlay and a district's shareof employee retirement matching.

A district shall be entitled to the dollar value foreach FTE student. less required local effort plus theamount guaranteed (power equalized) by the state onthe ninth and tenth mills. This is to be the only moneythe district receives from the state for operating pur-poses, except for special-purpose grants and transpor-tation. This MFP money may be spent in any legalway the district desires, with the proviso that in orderto earn additional money for special programs, studentsmust actually be enrolled in such a program.

A "no loss guarantee should be used to insure thatno district receives less state operating money (in-cluding special-purpose grams and transportation)under this ylan than it currently receives.

CAPITAL OUTLAY

Recommendation 77: The -Legislature should providefor a major construction effort designed to meet allschool facilities needs in the state by 1980. This pro.gram should include two integral components:

(A)- The state should pay the entire approved costof capital outlay projects for school districts orthe entire cost of rental or leasing of facilities.The provisions for this payment should be asfol-lows:

(I) The state should survey district facilityneeds for space a:; of some set date, suchas 1977. The survey would take into accountprojected growth or decline in studentenrollment and adequacy or obsolescenceof existing facilities. The Department ofEducation recently has completed a surveyof this kind which could be used to imple-ment this program.

(2) The state should establish standards for con-struction of various kinds of educationalfacilities and would annuolly establish acost per square foot for each kind of facilityin a base county. The allowance for all othercounties should be adjusted by a cost-of-construction index.

(3) Districts would apply for state money fora construction project or rental/leaseagreement. If the project helps to meet dis-trict needs as disclosed in the state survey,it would be approved. Priority would begiven to projects for districts where relativeneeds are greatest. The state would pay an

73

amount equal to the state-established costper square foot (adjusted for cost of con-struction) times the number of square feetof each type of facility to be constructed.The district may hire its own architect andconstruct buildings of its own design<subject only to state fire. health and safetystandards) and could spend more than thestate allowance from its own operating fundsif it wishes. The state would provide stan-dard plans foi different types of facilitieswhich districts could use if they wished. Ifthey did so, the state would pay for theactual cost of construction of the facilities.

(4) Because the cost of site acquisition anddevelopMent are so widely varying evenwithin one district, purchase of school sitesmust have prior state approval. The statewould pity the full cost of purchase andpreparation of a state-approved site.

(5) For districts whicit currently need class-room space but will not need it in 1977

(because of declining enrollments), the stateshould consider providing relocatable class-rooms. When they are no longer neededat we location, they could be moved toanother district with temporary needs.

(B) The state should assume the responsibility forretiring all existing local bonded indebtedness,including State Board of Education bonds.Furthermore, districts may not incur additionalbonded indebtedness, and currently allowedtaxes over 10 mills for capital outlay and debtservice should be eliminated.

COMPENSATORY EDUCATION

Recommendation '78: The Legislature should establish,as part of the M FP, funds for providing compensatoryeducation to students from disadvantaged back-grounds. Within districts compensatory educationfends should be targeted to the instructional and relatedneeds of disadvantaged pupils through special pro-grams designed by local districts. The total number ofdisadvantaged students served in a school district withthese funds should be based on the number of childrenof school age in the district from families below thepoverty level, less the number being served by federalmoney.

MIGRANT EDUCATION

Recommendation 79: The Legislature should assign theresponsibility for the delivery of educational servicesto migrant farm children and adults to the Department

of Education. Migrant education then should be coor-dinated and entirely funded by the state. Actual teach-ing may be done by schools in local districts, by publicor private firms under contract, or y state-fundedteachers who travel with the migrant stream. AiS0the state should collect more comprehensive datamigrant farm children and adults, including the actualnumber of migrant school-age children, ethnic compo-sition of migrants, dropout incidence and intrastatemovement of migrants.

SCHOOL TRANSPORTATION

Recommendation 80: The Legislature should eliminatethe present transportation formula in the MinimumFoundation Program. Instead the state should pay forthe entire cost of operating an efficient transportationsystem. The state should use modern computertechniques to determine the most efficient routing ofbuses for each district and the number of buses needed.The cost of operating such a system should be calcu-lated, and this should be the state allowance. Districtsmay use the most efficient routing as developed bythe state but should not be required to do so.

74

The state also should pay for the entire cost of neededschool buses, including replacements for those thatare no longer safe or serviceable. The state maytransfer such state-purchased buses from a districtwhere the need for buses has decreased to a districtwhich needs more buses.

EMPLOYEE RETIREMENT MATCHING

Recommendation 81: The Legislature should providefor the state to assume the full costs of employee retire-ment matching and the present local tax over 10 millsfor this purpose should be eliminated. Full state fundingfor employee retirement matching should be includedin tie Minimum Foundation Program (MFP) grant todistricts.

FINANCIAL ACCOUNTING SYSTEM

Recommendation 82: The Legislature should providefo- the implementation of financial accountingsystemsin all school districts which uniformly report data onthe expenditures of money on educational programsat each school. A summary of this financial informationshould be included in the Annual Report of SchoolProgress at each school.

PROPERTY TAX ASSESSMENT

Recommendation 83: The Legisiure should providefor the improveritent of property tax assessment prac-tices so that property is assessed uniformly amongcounties and among classes of property withincounties. Additionally, the punitive financial applica-tion of ratio studies toward school districts should beremoved.

A RECOMMENDED STUDY

Recommendation 84: The Legislature should initiatea study on the implications of totally removing localproperty tax support for schools.

Section IXGovernancePart I

HIGHEST PRIORITY RECOMMENDATION

The Committee believes that a board to coordinateand develop policy for all levels of education is ofsuch overriding importance that it should be broughtabout even if no other changes are made in the gover-nance of education in Florida. Therefore, we recom-mend that:

Recommendation 85: The Legislature should create alay board to set policy and coordinate the entire sta':,system of public education in Florida. The powers andresponsibilities of this board should be statutory andthe present State Board of Education should retainits constitutional role.

GovernancePart II

THE COMMITTEE'S LONG-RANGEGOVERNANCE PLAN

In January 1972 the Committee made recommenda-tions which, taken as a whole, represented a com-prehensive system for the governance of public educa-tion at both the state and local levels in Florida. Severalof the district-level recommendations included in thisplan do not have the support of a sizeable numberof the Committee members. The non-partisan schoolboard andra statewide referendum to appoint superin-tendents in each district are examples. Nevertheless.the Committee believes the organizational concept pre-sented below is the best long-range solution to themanagement of our schools.

Recommendation 86: There should be established inFlorida a single lay Board of Education, responsibleto the citizens of this state for all levels of education.

Recommendation 87: The State Board should be estab-lished by constitutional amendment.

75

Recommendation 88:The Board should be composedof 15 lay members. appointed by the Governor. andconfirmed by the Senate. The chairman should bedesignated by the Governor and should serve at hispleasure in that capacity.

Recommendation 89: The Board members should servestaggered six-year terms.

Recommendation 90: The Board should receive traveland per diem in accordance with state regulations.Members may be statutorily authorized to receivefiscal renumeration for time and responsibilities com-mensurate. with their positions.

Recommendation 91: The role of the State Board shouldbe policy making, the establishment of priorities inkeeping with its policies, and budget preparationall asdefined by law.

Recommendation 92: There should be no statutory con-straints placed upon the Board as to how it should

organize itself internally for carrying out its respon-sibilities except as otherwise zontained in this report.

Recommendation 93: There should be established byconstitutional amendment the position of appointedChief St =ate School Officer.

Recommendati n 94: The Chief State School Officershould be appointed by the State Board of Educationwith confirmation by the Senate.

Recommendation 95: The L _ l should be free to estab-lish ,the professional qualifications and managementskills that this person must possess for the efficientimplementation of the Boaru's policies and priorities.

Recommendation 96: The Chief State School Officershould serve at the pleasure of the Board or, if theBoard chooses to negotiate a contract, it should notexceed a period of two years from the date of execution.The contract may be renewed by the Board.

Recommendation 97: The responsibilities of the ChiefState School Officer should be specified by the StateBoard to include:

(A) implementing policy decisions of the Board;(B) recommending budgets, policies and priorities to

the State Board of Education: and(C) administering the Department of Education.

Recommendation 98: District school board electionsshould be on a non-partisan basis.

Recommendation 99: Congruent with the concept thatprofessional management at the state level should beseparated from policy-making authority, district school

76

superintendents should be appointed by the districtschool boards rather than elected.

Recommendation 100: A constitutional amendmentshould be offered to the people to provide for theappointment of all district school superintendents bytheir local school boards.

Recommendation 101: Local community college boardsof trustees should continue to be appointed by the Gov-ernor and approved by the Senate. In addition to theircorporate operating board responsibilities, they shallhave such policy-making responsibilities as establishedby statute or by the State Board of Education.

Recommendation 102: A board of trustees comprisedof seven members for the university system shouldbe established by statute. Trustees should be appointedby the Governor and confirmed by the Senate to servestaggered four-year terms. In addition to their cor-porate operating board responsibilities. they shall havesuch policy-making responsibilities as established bystatute or by the State Board of Education.

Recommendation 103: There should be created theOffice of Chancellor of the University System, selectedby the Chief State School Officer with the consent ofthe State Board of Education. The Chancellor shouldserve at the pleasure of the Chief State School Officer,and his duties and functions should be prescribed bythe State Board of Education.

Recommendation 104: The Legislature should study thealternatives presented in the Technical Report andaffirmati' action programs should be initiated at boththe state and local levels to increase minority represen-tation on local school boards.

APPENDIX BFLORIDA SCHOOL FINANCE STUDY

TECHNICAL REPORT

Presented to Florida Citizens' Committee on Education

January, 1973WALTER I. GARMS, University of Rochestzr

MICHAEL W. KIRST, Stanford UniversityWith the assistance ofMARSHALL A. HARRIS

WILLIAM FURRY

ContentsSectionI Summary of Findings and Recommendations 85 Attachment B

Types of Vocational Programs Of-

II The Present Minimum Foundation Program: fered in Florida School Districts 243

Analysis and Revisions 111

Attachment CIII Financing Capital Outlay 127 Variable Cost Funding for Voca-

tional Courses 249IV Financing Compensatory Education 153

V Issues in Urban Education Finance 163Attachment D

VI The School-Centered Organization of

Prediction of Assessed and Equal-ized Valuations: Projecting Property

Instruction 171Tax Yields in 1976 253

VII Financing Education of Migrant Children 193 Attachment EDescription of the Computer Simu-

VIII Financing School Transportation 199 lation of Florida School Finance 261

IX Projected Cost of Statewide Kindergarten 209 Attachment FTeacher Demand and Supply: Im-

X Financing Employee Retirement 213 plications for Higher EducationPolicy 267

XI Property Tax Assessment ia Florida 221

XII Some Revenue Considerations 227Attachment G

The Financing of Post-Secondary

Attachment AEducation 283

A Categorization of F lorida s SchoolDistricts 239

79

Supporting FigUres(Section I Only)

I State and Local Operating Money Per Pupil inADA Compared to Equalized Assessed-Valua--tion Per Pupil in ADA, 1970-71

II Total State Money Per Pupil in ADA Comparedto Equalized Assessed Valuation Per Pupil inADA, 1970-71

III Total Local Money Per Pupil in ADA Comparedto Equalized Assessed Valuation Per Pupil inADA, 1970-71

IV Local, State, and Federal Money Per Pupil inADA Compared to Equalized Assessed Valua-tion Per Pupil in ADA. 1970-71

V Ninth Grade Test Verbal Scores Compared toTotal Current Expenditure Per Pupil in ADA,1970-71

VI Ninth Grade Test Quantitative Scores Comparedto Total Expenditures Per Pupil in ADA, 1970-71

80

Supporting Tables(Section I Only)

-I Recommended State and Local Minus for Operat-ing (Excluding transportation and capitaloutlay): County -by-County

II Recommended State Dollars for Operating (Ex-cluding transportation and capital outlay): County-by-County .

III Local Dollars Raised by 10 Mill Levy: County-by-County

IV Recommended State and Local Dollars for All Pur-poses: County-byCounty

V Full State Assumption of Costs for Transportation:County-by-County

VI Costs for Full State Assumption of InstructionalFacilities Needs: County-by-County

INTRODUCTION' AND-OVERVIEW-OF_SWDY GOALS

This study encompassed seven major tasks that com-prised a subset of the total issues studied by the Citi-zens' Committee. It began in May 1972 and took oneyear. Our mission was not to treat the whole fieldof educational accountability or all issues related tofinancing education. Separate studies of the Citizens'Committee focused on these issues including every-thing from teacher education to statewide assessment.The immense scope of the Citizens' Committee canbest be understood by examining theirwork document.Briefly, our limited charge was to analyze and reporton:

1. The financial impact and consequences of the exist-ing program for financing elementary and secondary

education.

2. Case study of a county with respect to allocation

of funds and educational resources within thecounty school district.

3. Analysis and simulation of alternative plans for dis-tributing school revenues. This task included cur-rent operating expenditures plus transportation,vocational education of migrants, and other special

expenditure categories.

4. Analysis and recommendations on financing capital

outlay.

5. Analysis of educational finance adjustments thatshould be made for urban areas, geographical differ-

ences in cost of living, incidence of low-incomefamilies and so on.

6. Consideration of some selected issues for improvedefficiency in school operations with particularemphasis on efficiency issues related to state schoolaid formulas and school by school performance.

7. An analytical study of the critical --relationshipsbetween financing higher education and other levels

of education.

In these endeavors the study team has conferredclosely and sought comments on our proposals from

a wide sector of Florida citizens and educators. Thestaff and the Director of the National EducationalFinance I .ject at the University. of Florida have been

81

very helpful to us. Dr. Forbis Jordan introduced usto the computerized simulation model developed bythe NEFP. Dr. Gene Barlow spent many hours adapt-ing the model to use in Florida. Through it, we wereable to make district-by-district estimates of the fiscaleffects of our recommendations. Dr. R. L. Johnsserved on our advisory council and Dr. Kern Alexan-der provided technical advice in such areas as schoolconstruction and transportation. In particular, we havesought the informed counsel of the members of theFlorida Citizens' Committee on Education. But theserecommendations and findings represent the conclu-sions and judgments of the study team. They do notnecessarily reflect the final views of the Citizens' Com-mittee, and the Committee did not put us under anyconstraints in researching or presenting the substanceof our efforts.

Our approach in this report is first to present thecriteria that guided our recommendations and muchof our analysis. -We will then briefly place Floridascl.00l finance in the national context. Our concernwill subsequently turn to the strengths and weaknessesof Florida's current Minimum Foundation Program(MFP). Then our findings and recommendations takeup items 2-7 presented above.

Attachment F of this report, Pi-lancing Post-Secondary Education, was prepared by Roger E.Bolton, Associate Professor of Economics at WilliamsCollege. While we have conferred with him and concurfully in his recommendations, this portion should beconsidered as a separate document for which Dr. Bol-ton assumes full professional responsibility.

On the rest of this study, we have been ably assistedby James W. Guthrie, Marshall A. Harris, WilliamS. Furry, and David Flood. Dr. Guthrie wrote thesection dealing with a school-by-school informationsystem. Dr. Harris had prime data collection responsi-bility as On-Site Coordinator. Mr. Furry conductedthe intradistrict study plus analyses of retirement, mi-grants, and teacher mobility. Mr. Flood analyzed futureenrollment and teacher supply trends. We gratefullyacknowledge their contributions but accept full respon-sibility for this report.

WALTER I. ( £MSMICHAEL W. KIRST

SECTION ISUMMARY OF FINDINGSAND RECOMMENDATIONS

REVISING FLORIDA'S SCHOOLFINANCE SYSTEM: CRITERIA

The study team has proceeded with the followingcriteria in mind for revising school finance in Florida.

1. It should be simpleThis should be a guiding prin-ciple, even though we recognize that all kinds ofspecial circumstances will tend to complicate it.But we have reexamined the present mass andmade recommendations to discard that which isunnecessarily complicated. Florida's schoolfinance statutes have grown incrementally to meetchanges in citizens' desires, tax limitations, andthe transformation of the state through rapidg.owth. These incremental changes constitute asort of "underbrush" that has grown up aroundthe once-simple Minimum Foundation Program.The underbrush should be cut back. Forces run-ing counter to simplicity are such things as tradi-tion (many educators and legislators are used tothinking in terms of the present system) and specialeducation cost differentials. A simple formula withfew allocation factors cannot take account of suchthings as vocational education, cost of living, mi-grants, sparsely populated counties, and soon. Ourgoal then becomes to avoid needless complexityand to base the formulas on concepts that canbe understood by the layman. Given the diversityof Florida's counties and its tradition of specialprograms for special needs, there is a danger thatsimple alcl formulas will prove to be an overlysimplistic solution.

2. It should meet the "Serrano" criterionEdu-cational resources provided a child shouldnot be a function of the wealth of the schooldistrict where he or she happens to live. It is thewealth of the entire State of Florida that shouldstand behind each Florida school child. Con-sequently, state aid should equalize educational

85

opportunity and compensate for differences inlocal school district wealth. This is the so-called"Serrano" criterion (stemming from a Californialawsuit) and has been the prime issue in most otherstates. Contrary to general lay opinion, the"Serrano" criterion can be satisfied without pro-hibiting property taxes or local choice regardingschool expenditure levels and tax rates. Forexample, a district power equalizing (DPE)scheme would allow local choice in w.,:ich somedistricts would opt for minimal expenditures withthe state guaranteeing a particular yield for anytax rate the district chooses. However, this issuehas already been decided in Florida through thestate-mandated ten-mill limit ("cap") on localproperty taxes with seven mills of required localeffort. In effect, local choice is already constrainedto h very large degree. Because of this Floridaalready meets the "Serrano" criterion better thanmost states. From this perspective Florida'sMinimum Foundation Program is a Total Founda-tion Program. The seven-mill required local effortoperates in a manner similar to a statewide prop-erty tax.

3. It should allow for special educational programneedsThis is a difficult issue because it is thevarious allowances for special needs that havecomplicated the present program and contributedto interest groups that want to maintain specialtreatment. To say that we should allow three timesas much for a blind student as for a normal student,on the basis that present programs for the blindcost that much, constitutes circular reasoning.Unfortunately, this is the way most states nowallocate funds for blind students. On the otherhand, blind students need not only special mate-rials, but also more individual attention than normalstudents. When we go from the relatively clear-cutcase of the blind student to compensatory educa-tion for children from low-income families, we are

0

in an even more difficult position. Educators arenot even sure what to do to improve their educa-tional attainment, much less how much it shouldcost. Indeed, programs with proven effectivenessfor the disadvantaged' have a range of cost on theorder of three to four times the cost to educatean average child.' Consequently, we must recog-nize that the precise amounts recommended forsome special needs are the "best estimate."

4. It should be output oriented to the maximum extentpossible within the existing state of the art.

State.aid.programs are almost exclusively proc-ess oriented, focusing on the necessary inputsof teachers, materials, facilities and so on.Florida's instruction unit of 27 pupils per teacherplus supporting services is a good example of theprocess concept. As we shall see, the processorientation tends to ossify present practices at thelocal school level. It builds vested interest groups

-and can discourage experimentation.its pure form, an output orientation entails

measuring the degree to which districts (or better,schools) met specifically defined educationalobjectives, allowing for influences beyond the con-trol of the schools, and then providing a financialcarrot for those who do better than expected anda stick for those who do worse. For a varietyof technical reasons (such as inadequate tests ofpupil attainment and measures of social/economicstatus) we are not ready to implement this pureform. We can begin, however, with systematicexperimentation in this area.

In later sections of this report we ha .e recom-mended several approaches for moving Florida'sschool finance system toward an output orien-tation. Moreover, the Citizens' Committee is con-cerned directly with these output issues and n- akesseparate recommendations.

5. It should provide for identifiable cost differentialsother than program cost differentialsThis crite-rion includes differentials having to do with differ-ences in cost of living, cost of construction, wagestructures, and salary differentials necessary toget teachers to teach in especially difficult circum-stances. An investigation of the extent and natureof urban problems (referred to in part as municipaloverburden) is implied as part of this criterion.

The same vexing issue as in the output sectionarises here as wellnamely, the measurement

'American Institute of Research. A Study of Exemplary Pro-gramsfor the Education of Disadvantaged Children, Palo Alto; 1968,OEC-0-8-089013-3515.

86

of the necessary differentials. Although the con-cepts here are not as difficult as in output concerns,we had to mount several studies to meet thiscriterion.

6. It should take into account capital outlayand debt service as well as operating ex-penseIn our view, there is no reason capital out-lay should be considered different from currentoperating expense in terms of the Serranocriterion. The wealth of the state as a whole shouldstand behind each child. Facilities for school chil-dren should not be determined primarily by theproperty tax wealth of a particular locality. Wealso must recognize the difficulty of passing localbond issues in Florida.

FINDINGS

Our findings are summarized below. Detailed discus-sion of them is in the body of the report.

1. Florida's MFP will probably meet a court testbased on the Serrano criterion. The overall rela-tionship between property tax wealth and expendi-tures is close to random, although there are sub-classes, like poor urban districts, that consistentlyspend less money. Tax effort is remarkablyuniform, with over 90 percent of Florida's schoolchildren attending school in districts at or withina fraction of the 10-mill state-mandated propertytax limit ("cap").

2. Compared to the national averages, Florida'sproperty tax rate i. not an inordinate burden.Indeed, Florida's property taxes are considerablybelow the national average effective rate. Giventhis situation. wholesale property tax relief is notessential and would result in windfall gains to manyowners of land and buildings.

3. Florida's urban problems are very different fromthose in the older cities of the North and Midwest.We found no evidence of "municipal over-burden." This suggests a different approach tourban school aid.

4. There will be a distressing trend in future yearsfor the local districts to bear an increasing shareof the cost of construction, transportation, andretirement. Given the 10-mill local property taxlimit, over time, this will result in distorting localpriorities and inadequate amounts of money tofund instructional programs. We can see no justifi-cation for the state to pay most of the cost ofcurrent operations and at the same time force thelocals to bear a greater proportion of Lie costsof construction, transportation, and retirement.

5. Florida has a very large school construction back-log which will grow even larger with the additionof kindergarten. This backlog results frominadequate state allowances to most districts andover allowances to districts with no facilitiesneeds. In addition, the refusal of local taxpayersto pass override property taxes for facilities hasadded to this backlog. Facilities constraints arenow dictating the substance and approach ofinstructional programs.

6. The MFP is needlessly complex and has severalstructural shortcomings. The MFP also containsno incentives for better performance. Theinstruction-unit concept which is the basis for cal-culating the MFP has contributed to rigidities inschool organization, double counting, and exces-sive weighting of special programs.

7. Florida's MFP does not adjust .for the specialprogram needs of the disadvantaged and migrants.Federal aid for these groups meets less and lessof the need each.year.

8. County school organization helps equalize taxbases. But most of the counties are so large anddiverse that countywide information obscuresimportant school-by-school reporting which couldprovide more equity and incentive. If the casewe use is representative of the state, the schools(within a county) that have the lowest achievementalso have the lowest per pupil expenditure.

9. Cost of living and construction vary sufficientlyin Florida to warrant special adjustments in schoolfinance formulas. Although the cost of living isnot a direct measure of cost of education, costsof education are affected by differences in the costof living.

10. The entire system of property tax assessmentrequires a complete overhaul. An improved ratiostudy is only one of the major components.

11. There is a lack of policy coordination betweenthe levels of education. This will result in, forinstance, a surplus of newly trained teachers andoverlap and inefficiencies in vocational-technicaleducation.

12. Florida can afford more effort in funding educa-tion based on the national averages. While Floridaranks 14th in the nation in wealth per child, it.is substantially below the national average inrevenue per pupil, effective property tax rates,and state and local tax collections as a percentof personal income.

87

13. The current and projected state budget surplusand federal revenue sharing might be sufficientto fund our recommendations. Florida's lownational rank in tax effort provides a strong casefor using its surplus and revenue sharing, forincreased public programs including education.rather than for tax reduction.

RECOMMENDATIONS

Our most important recommendations are sum-marized below:

1. The state should assume all costs of school con-struction and existing dLo. service. A major con-struction effort should be undertaken, with thegoal of eliminating all instructional facilitiesshortages by 1980.

2. The Minimum Foundation Program (MFP)should equalize all ten mills of the local propertytax. District tax effort would be uniform at tenmills, with present override taxes eliminated.

3. The state should establish a separate program ofcompensatory education, supplementing thefederal program.

4. Urban areas should receive higher allotments for

5. The MFP should be extensively revised and sim-plified.

cost-of-living differences.

6. The state should assume full costs of transporta-tion and employee retirement.

7. Property tax assessment should be substantiallystrengthened and improved.,

8. The state should take over responsibility for theeducation of children of migrant farm workers.

9. The state should keep its commitment to providekindergarten to all children who desire it.

10. School-by-school accounting should be imple-mented to 'help in discovering intradistrict dis-crepancies.

11. Performance reports should be established foreach school.

12. An experimental program of incentives for betterperformance should be established on a school-by-school basis.

13. There should be better coordination between thelevels of education.

IMPLEMENTATION OF RECOMMENDATIONS

The following gives in substantially more detail theway in which the above recommendations should beimplemented.

1. Entitlement of MFP money shall be on the basisof weighted full-time-equivalent pupils (FTE)rather than instruction units. Full-time equivalentsare calculated by type of program. The computa-tion would be made during one week in the fall andone week in the spring, with weeks being chosenthat best represent the normal enrollment in Flor-ida schools. For each program, the FTE would bethe number of students enrolled in the programtimes the ratio of the number of hours per weekthat the student attends that program to thenumber of hours per week a full-time student atthat grade level normally attends school. The totalFTE of all programs of the district should thenadd up to the total full-time equivalent enrollmentof the district. Calculation in this way simplifiesproblems of attendance accounting and insuresthat a district will not lose money because of abnor-mally low attendance during the calc, :ationperiod. Calculation on this basis also automaticallyeliminates double counting in all programs.

The FTE are then weighted by program, withthe weight for each program being determined bythe amount of money it is desired to spend oneach student. We have suggested some initialweights in the body of th,) report, but there isno adequate research basis at present for these.We recommend cost-effectiveness studies by theDepartment of Education or university professorsto help determine the most appropriate weights.We support the present attempts to develop sixseparate weights for vocational education basedon six cost categories. The weight for a vocationalFTE in a particular cost category would then besimply the FTE cost for that category divided'bythe amount set by the Legislature as the valueof the MFP per weighted FTE.

The only exception to calculating FTE asexplained above is for compensato.y educatit,n.Here th ;tuber of FTE, would be equal to' thenumber %. .hildren of school age in the countyfrom families below the poverty level. These com-pensatory FTE would all be presumed to havecome from the regular 1-12 classes, and regularFTE would be reduced accordingly.

After the FTE for all programs are weighted,they are all summed for the district, and the totalis used to determine the MFP entitlement for thedistrict.

88

2. The district shall be entitled to a set number ofdollars for each weighted FTE, less the amountraised by a ten-mill local property tax based onthe equalized value of the previous year's non-exempt tax roll. This is to be the only money thedistrict receives from the state for operating pur-poses, except for earmarked funds and transporta-tion money. The MFP money may be spent inany legal way the district desires, with the provisiothat in order to earn FTE for a special programthe students must actually be enrolled in such astate-approved program.

Our recommendation eliminates many of thepresent complexities of the MFP, including thestate salary schedule and many special purposeallocations.

3. Earmarked funds are to be strictly limited to newprograms, for the purpose of getting them estab-lished. When they are established (or in not morethan five years), the money for the program shouldbe merged into the general-purpose MFP grant,with the school-by-school accounting we recom-mend helping to insure that money actually getsto the students it is intended for. Earmarked fundsmay be used to support in the district the programfor ,which the funds are earmarke or to contractwith a regional resource center IA. provide theprogram. Funds for the compensatory programshould initially be earmarked.

4. The program of compensatory education werecommend is intended to supplement the federalprogram. We suggest a weight of 1.5 for compen-satory FTE (based on a weight of 1.0 for regularclasses in grades 1-12). The money would initiallybe targeted to individual schools, based on thenumber of pupils in the school from families withincome below the poverty level. The amount ofmoney earmarked for compensatory education adistrict would get would be the product of theweighted compensatory FTE, less the amount offederal mom: -eceived by the district specificallyfor compensa y education. The money could beused for a broad range of things, including healthservices and nutrition.

5. The amount of the MFP grant shall be adjustedby a cost-of-living index. The index for eachcounty is to be determined annually by the Depart-ment of Administration as the result of a cost-of-living study.

6. The state shall pay for the entire cost of operatingan efficient transporation system. The state shalluse modern computer techniques to determine the

11111.11111 11111111=111111=111111111111111111111111111

most efficient routing of buses for each disaltaand the number of buses needed. The cos:, ofoperating such a system in each county shall becalculated, and this shall be the state allowance.Districts may use the most efficient -routing a:;developed by the state but are not required todo so.

The state shall pay for the entire cost of neededschool buses, including replacements for thosethat are no longer safe or serviceable. The statemay transfer such state-IR:I-chased buses from a,district where the need for buses has decrease&to a district which needs more buses.

7. Any district that receives less state operatingmoney (including transportation and categoricalgrants) under this plan than it currently receivesshall receive a "no-loss guarantee." That is, itshall receive the same amount it now receives fromthe state. The amount of the MFP per weightedFTE should be adjusted so that only a few smalldistricts will receive the no-loss guarantee.

8. The state shall pay the entire cost for principaland interest of existing district bonded indebt-edness, including State Board of Educationbonds. Districts may not incur additional bondedindebtedness.

9. The state shall pay the entire approved cost ofcapital outlay projects for school districts. Themoney for this shall be obtained through theissuance of state bonds. The provisions for thispayment are as follows:

a. The state shall survey district needs in auniform manner and determine district needs forspace as of some set date, such as 1978. The surveywill take into account projected growth or declinein student enrollment and adequacy or obsoles-cence of existing facilities.

b. The state will undertake to provide moneyfor construction of needed facilities throughbonded indebtedness as rapidly as plans can bedrawn and construction contracts let. The goalshould be to eliminate all instructional facilitiesshortages by 1980.

c. The state shall establish standards for con-struction of various kinds of educational facilities,and will annually establish a cost per square footfor each kind of facility in a base county. Theallowance for all other counties shall be adjustedby a cost-of-construction index.

d. Districts will apply for state money for a con-struction project. If the project helps to meet dis-

89

trict needs as disclosed in the state survey, it willbe approved. Priority shall be given to Projectsfor districts where relative needs are greatest. Thestate shall pay an amount equal to the state-established cost per square foot (adjusted fur costof construction) times the number of square feetof each type of facility to be Constructed. Thedistrict may hire its own architect and may spendmore than the state allowance from its own °perm-in,g funds if it wishes. The state will prOvide stan-dard plans for different types facilities whichdistricts may use if they wish. If the.y do so, thestate will pay for the actual cost of constructionof the facilities.

e. For districts which currently need classroomspace but will not need it in 1978 (becauie or declin-ing enrollments), the state should consider provid-ing relocatable classrooms. Wheat they are nolonger needed in the district, they could bemoved to another district with temporary needs.

10. The state shall assume responsibility for theeducation of all children of migrant farm workers.The state may perform the educational servicesitself, or may contract with school districts or withany other organization. In some cases it may befeasible to provide teachers who travel with themigrants and possibly also traveling classrooms.

District tax rates shall be limited to ten mills onfull property value for all purposes. Presentlyallowed overrides shall be eliminated.

12. An experimental program of incentives for bettereducational achievement should be established.This experimental program would attempt to pre-dict the average achievement of children in schoolsbased on the socioeconomic background of thechildren. The predicted achievement would thenbe compared with the actual achievement, andwhere actual was significantly better than pre-dicted some kind of reward would be provided.The Department of Education would investigateprograms in such schools to see if what they weredoing well could be adapted to similar schools.

13. Performance reports should be required for eachschool that would provide data on such things asstudent characteristics, school resources, expen-ditures, school program approach, pupil attain-ment, and five-year plans.

14. Better intradistrict program accounting should berequired on a uniform basis, and districts shouldexamine their expenditure patterns to be sure thatschools with the most disadvantaged children arenot being systematically shortchanged.

11.

' 1111111111111=1

15. Property tax assessment should be improvedthrough (1) a reorganization and insulation of stateadministration from political influence, (2) profes-sional assessment personnel at all levels, (3)improved state/local coordination of assessmentstandards and procedures, and (4)a more intensiveand better designed ratio study.

16. There should be better coordinations of policyamong the levels of education to prevent overlapsin vocational education .'nd over-production ofteachers.

17. School districts, with their salary schedules nolonger bound to a state salary schedule, shouldinstitute provisions that encourage teachers .toupgrade their competence through other meansthan college courses.

PHASE-IN OF THE RECOMMENDATIONS:

We suggest the following steps as a reasonable wayto phase in the finance recommendations. Note thatwe suggest district power equalizing as a reasonablestep toward ten mills of required local effort.

1. In 1973-74 collect FTE data on the basis recom-mended. Use these for estimating district needsin 1974-75.

2. In 1974-75 go to eight mills required local effort(RLE) with two mills power equalized at the samerate. The MFP weight could he set at $680 ateight mills RLE, with a guarantee of $85/mill forthe ninth and tenth mills. This would give an MFPof $850 if ten mills were levied. If all districtslevied ten mills, loca, effort would be $551 millionand state cost about $821 million. The additionalstate cost of the total package for current opera-tions would be about $50 million above the prob-able state cost for the present MFP in 1973-74.Cost could be reduced by lowering the $850 FTEbase for the normal program.

3. In subsequent years, if it seemed desirable, thestate could go to nine or ten mills RLE, as analternative. It could leave one or two mills powerequalized for local discretion.

'4. In 1973-74, the state could assume a percentageof local debt service. Local overrides should con-tinue to be allowed for remaining local debt ser-yice. The state should embark immediately on fullstate assumption of capital outlay, issuing as manybonds as can be used immediately.

5. As additional bonds are issued after this, addi-tional local debt service will be picked up with

90

the goal of picking up all local debt service bythe time all bonds necessary to eliminate facilitiesshortages as of 1980 have been issued.

6. The additional cost of capital outlay, debt service,and transportation when the program is fullyimplemented would be about $57 million per year.

SUMMARY OF COSTS OF RECOMMENDATIONS

The following summary of costs is intended onlyto give an idea of the relative magnitudes of the changesrecommended. The costs are based on 1970-71 data,the most recent available when this report was written.The value of the MFP per weighted FTE was set at$700 (before cost-of-living adjustment). Because ofrapidly increasing property values, it will be possibleto set this figure at a substantially higher level in theyear this program is implemented without increasingstate costs.

The costs shown are the amounts by which the costsof our recommendations exceed the actual 1970-71costs.

State Costs

1. (a) Assume costs of school construction (annualcost of bond interest and retirement on bonds suf-ficient to eliminate all instructional facilitiesshortages by 1980).

$21.1 million

(b) Assume existing local debt service based onrefinancing district bonds carrying high interestrates; assumes refinancing of special law [RacingCommission] bonds. This amount would decreaseand finally disappear as existing indebtedness i4retired.

$23.0 million

2. _Make the required local effort ten mills. No cost.The MFP should be adjusted to keep the statecost the same.

3. A program for compensatory educatiOn thatwould supplement the federal program and,together with it, reach all students from familieswith incomes below the poverty level.

$77.0 million

4. Adjustments for cost of living.$63.2 million

5. Revise and simplify the MFP. No cost, exceptfor minor costs of implementation. Would savesome money by eliminating double counting in spe-cial programs. The MFP would be set at $700

per weighted FTE (1970-71), with districts thatwould receive less state operating money than atpresent receiving a "no-loss guarantee" (i.e.,allowed to receive- as much as at present). Costof no-loss guarantee to five districts.

$ 0.4 million

6. (a) Assume full costs of transportation.$12.8 million

(b) Assume full cost of employee retirement.$35.0 millioa

7. Improved property tax assessment.$ 0.5 million

8. A special program of migrant education, to supple-ment the federal program.

$ 4.7 million

9. Provide kindergarten for all who desire it. Capitalcosts included under 1(a). Operating costs only,of about $36 million based on projected enrollmentwhen kindergartens are fully implemented are notshown here as an additional cost of our recommen-dations because the state is already committed to

this.

10. Proper intradistrict allocation of funds.No additional cost

11. School-by-school performance reports. Realloca-tion of existing administrative costs.

12. An experimental p. gram of incentives for betterperformance.

$ 2.0 million

13. Policy ccordination among levels of education.Should ultimately result in some saving to thestate.

Local Costs

14. Limit districts to ten mills in taxes, eliminatingoverrides.

A saving of $44.7 million tolocal property taxpayers.

Total additional state moneyrecommended $239.7

Total local tax saving 44.7Net additional recommended 195.0

millionmillionmillion

The additional money recommended could bereduced if necessary by reducing the value of the MFPper weighted FTE, as follows:

91

Value of MFPper Weighted

FTE

Number ofNet additional districts Cost ofmoney (state with no-loss no-toss guarantee

and local) guarantee (included in Col. 2)

$700 $195.0 million 5 $0.4 million$690 $178.6 million 6 $0.5 million$680 $162.2 million 6 $0.6 million$670 $145.8 million 6 $0.7 r :Ilion$660 $129.4 million 8 $0.9 million

PRIORITIES

Large-scale studies that consider almost every ele-ment of a major state function like elementary/secon-dary education rarely result in the implementation ofeach recommendation. Resources are always scarce,resulting in competition for state money among levelsof education, znd between education and other publicsector activities such as the environment, highways,health, economic development and so on. Given theinevitable constraints on state money and politicalopposition to any policy change, some comma-is apriorities are needed.

The recommendations fall into two categories of highand low (or negligible) cost. In the high-cost groupour first priority is state assumption of capital outlayand debt service with a large-scale construction effortaimed at eliminating all shortages in instructionalfacilities by 1980. This reform will also help districtsget more MFP money for current operations. Forexample, many of these districts could not receiveoperating money for kindergarten if the state did notprovide facilities.

I, is in the area of outlay that Florida risksa court suit under the equal protection language or the14th amendment. The courts havelocused to date oncurrent operating expenditures, but capital outlay will

surely 'snow. It is very unwise to have the state paymost or all the cost of cumin operations withoutassuming the cost of such things as construction. Theexisting MFP allotments for construction are com-pletely inadequate and the backlog of facilities needshas grown to alarming proportions.

The ,quality of the physical setting in which a childreceives his education, like other aspects of education,should not be related to local district wealth. Floridais in the distressing situation of having facilities con-straints dictate the substance' 'Jucational programs.This is especially true in the .pecial" program areasof kindergarten, compensatory education, handicap-ped children and vocational education. For instance,some districts are in the self-perpetuating syndromeof lacking facilities for special programs, thereby

receiving less MFP money for special programs andfacilities, and as a result having less money for teachersalaries, facilities, and overhead support. Given thereluctance._ of most local taxpayers to approve localconstruction bond issues, there is no way under thepresent formula to break this cycle.

Along with increased sr.te aid for construction, werecommend an increased state role in supervision andtechnical assistance for local construction. Priorityncds are such things as uniform state criteria for defin-ing local capacity and needs, state-approved costlaximums, state cost-of-construction indexes, and

incentives for efficient construction.

We have deliberately linked together two of the highcost items because they benefit different types ofschool districts. Compensatory education providesconsiderably -lore money per pupil to rural school dis-tricts (both ma and poor.). Rural districts have a higherpercent of their students from disadvantaged homes.On the other hand, the adjustment for cost of livingusing the market basket approach provides uroancounties with the most money.

In short, the ten-mill required local effort to increaseequalization, the special funding (weighting) for com-pensatory education, and the cost-of-living allowancego together to form a balanced package. One way TOsave money is to eliminate all additional state moneyfrom the cost-of-living adjustment. Based on prelimi-

, nary findings of the Florida cost-of-living study con-ducted by three university professors most countieswould be above 100. The state could restrict the cost-of-living adjustment to shifting ftuYdsrather than addingan increrarmtal-$63.2-million.-This could be done byreducing the MF' about $40 per weighted pupil or$1080 per instruction unit. We would favor eliminatingadditional expenditures for cost of living before elimi-nation of compensatory education. But again, we stressour recommendations are a package that treat all dis-tricts in the most equitable fashion:

The recommendation of a ten-mill required localeffort redistributes money from some rich urbancounties to poorer rural counties. The urban counties,however, are the ones receiving the most benefit fromour cost-of-living and capital outlay recommendations.We considered eliminating the special allowances forsmall schools (which would have hurt the ruralcounties) but rejected this because the cost savingis small.

The table below shows, for a few selected counties,the effect of deleting various provisions from ourrecommendations. Comparing the figures in column3 with those in colunin 2, we see that the effect ofhaving a required local effort of nine mills, with one

92

mill local leeway is to give more money to three richdistricts and less to the rest. This comparison highlightsthe increased equity caused by state equalization ofone local property tax mill.

Comparing column 4 with column 2 shows thateliminating the cost-of-living adjustment hurts theurban counties much more than the rural ones.

Comparing column 5 with column 2 shows that omit-ting compensatory education hurts the rural countiesmuch more than the urban counties.

Comparing column 6 with column 2 shows thateliminating the allowances for small schools has onlyminimal effects except in the poor rural districts. Thecost of this allowance is only $3.5 million.

Finall -nearing column L with column 2 showsthe rm. ,er equity of our recommended programcompai I th the present program.

We would place a somewhat lower priority on stateassumption of transportation and retirement. We cansee no justification, however, for shifting the spiralingburden of these items to a local tax base constrainedby the ten; mill cap. This ca: only result in localsallocating less money for instruction and more for suchancillary items as transport and retirement. Floridahas been moving to a larger state assumption of schoolcosts. These two items should not be exceptions.In both transportation and retirement the intent of statelegislation was to increase the state share, but the for-inui s have not accomplished this goal.

...

We have concluded that urban issues in Florida aresubstantially different from those usually envisionedby national "urban" problems. Much of the nationalanalysis of urban needs focuses on comparisonsbetween cities and their suburbs. But Florida's countyschool districts combine cities, suburbs and even ruralareas. Consequently the tax base and economic growthof the suburbs help support the central r ity. Moreover,two of the state's largest metropolitan areas (Dadeand Duval) provide most costly governmental servicesthrough a metro-government. Specifically, we inves-tigated the "municipal overburden" hypothesis thathigher per capita expenditures on general governmentor non-school functions are associated in urbancounties with lower expenditures for elemen-tary/secondary edu,......on. A major reason we foundno municipal overburden in Florida was because allFlorida urban areas are at or very near the ten-millproperty tax limit.

We did find, however, some specific urban problemsthat require change in state education financing:

BASIC STATE PROGRAM: STATE AND LOCAL MONEY, IN DOLLARS PER PUPIL(Excluding Transportation, Capital Outlay, and Debt Service)

(1970.71)

(I)Present

Program

(2)Our

RecommendedPackage

(3)Cha.,gc to

9 millsR LE

(41Omit Costof Living

Adjustment

(5)Omit

CompensatoryEducation

(6)Omit

Small SchoolAllowance

Rich UrbanBroward 5807 5885 5933 5797 5843 5884Dade 815 907 951 810 851 907Pinellas 745 859 842 810 823 857

Average 7& 884 909 406 839 883

Poor UrbanBrevard 646 826 804 787 791 826Duval 670 851 831 811 782 8:0Hillsborough 703 857 837 824 801 856

Average 673 845 824 807 791 844

Rich Urbanized RuralCollier 850 862 870 821 810 856Manatee 774 865 848 840 810 863Volusia 699 841 872- 808 785 835

AY"Tage 774 856 847 823 802e 851

Poor Urbanized RuralAlachua 687 878 849 836 819 875Okaloosa 583 787 765 787 748 783Suwanee 771 879 837 897 777 873

Average 680 848 817 840 781 844

Rich RuralClubs 947 891 899 891 816 883Ilen Jr), 711 790 782 806 731 777Martin 811 965 928 894 891 965

Average 823 882 870 864 813 875

Poor RuralGadsden 706 840 810 884 722 832

_ _Levy 808 850 804 895 768 806'Wakulla 776 847 836 882 75( 834

Average 763 846 817 887 749 824

4 MFP = 5700 per weighted FTE, required Iota' effort = 10 mills

1. adjustments in school finance formulas for highercost of living and school construction and somecomponents of school transportation.

2. a special state compensatory program that willtarget aid to urban as well as other schools withdisadvantaged children.

3. revision in the current MFP to better assist poorurban school districts.

If it is not possible to allocate the amount of statemoney necessary to fund all of our recommendations,we would strongly prefer a method of reducing thecost that would not upset the balance of our recommen-dations. The best way of doing this is to reduce thevalue of the MFP per weighted FTE. For each $10that the MFP is reduced, the state would save about$16.5 million (based on 1970-71 data). There would

93

be some cost to a "no-loss guarantee" for districtsthat would receive less money under this method thanthey currently receive from the state for operation andtransportation. But the amount would be small. Forexample (as shown at the end of the preceding sectionon the cost of the recommendations) it would be possi-ble to reduce the MFP to $660 with a net saving of$65.5 million. Only eight districts would receive ano-loss guarantee, at a cost of less than $1 million.

It is noteworthy that several of our recommendationsare in the low-cost category. The MFP can be simplifiedat little cost. The focus on the school as the organiza-tional unit entails three interrelated and low-cost pro-grams: performance reports, an experimental incentiveprogram, and intradistrict comparability. This latterconcept implies some redistribution of resources withinschool districts from schools serving middle class and

wealthy children to schools serving poor underachiev-ing children.

The improvement of property tax assessment is quiteinexpensive compared to the grant programs like theMFP. It is a large increment to the state administrativebudget but worth the political resistance such adminis-trative increases often entail. Strengthened coordina-tion among levels of education implies little extra costbut has the potential for large savings.

A CONCLUDING COMMENT ON FSA VS DPE

As we have stressed, the MFP has some flaws, butits distribution criteria are essentially equity oriented.This does not imply, howevar, that more equity couldnot be injected into the existing Florida school financesystem. One obvious strategy is to increase therequired local effort to the ten-mill property tax cap.In effect, this would create full state assumption (FSA)of all school costs using essentially a ten-mill statewideproperty tax (with o local leeway). Another alterna-tive would be to power or percentage equalize thethree -mill difference between the current seven millsrequired effort and the ten-mill cap. Such a schemewould assure equal school revenues for equal localdistrict tax effort. !t also retains the local school districtas the basic decision-making unit for determining taxrates

The primary feature of a district power equalizingscheme (DPE) is that a state guarantees a local districtany current operating expenditure per pupil it selects:rom a tax rate schedule. In Florida, a schedule basedon equalized assessed value might look like this:

School District Tax Rate State Guaranteed Yield

7 mills $5958 mills $6809 mills $765

10 mills $850

DPE caters to the "libertarian" value stream whichpervades the American polity, whereas FSA alignsitself with the widely shared "egalitarian" viewpoint.DPE allows local choide regarding school expenditurelevels and tax rates and no doubt some localities wouldopt for minimal expenditures. This local control stressis seen as an intolerable weakness by egalitarians.Egalitarians point to the injustice of permitting a child'saddress to determine the amount spent on hisschooling. They ask why a cteild or household thatvalues education intensely, as does- a majority of thestate, should be subjected to school conditions estab-' ;hed by his neighbors who want to hold down taxesand place little value upon schooling.

94

In terms of operational issues. DPE adherents arguethat control always follows dollars: that FSA will leadto state dominance of personnel and curriculum. Cer-tainly, big city districts dramatically demonstrate thereis little to be gained from large size.

The FSA egal!tarians assert they are also for localdecision making. They contend that once local citizensare absolved from the need to raise money and thelocal boards from the time it takes to finance the schoolsadequately, they will be able to focus on importanteducational matters like personnel and curriculum.

All of this debate on FSA versus DPE has a treatdeal more relevance in the states other than Florida.Over 90 percent of Florida's school children attendschools in districts at or very near the ten-mill propertytax cap. Consequently. DPE is more a theoretical alter-native than a real possi:ility in Florida. A more realisticalternative in keeping with the trend of past Floridapolicy is to increase the required local effort until it

ches the ten-mill property tax cap. We would haveno objection to increasing this required millagegradually, as long as the remaining leeway is powerequalized at a level that will guarantee that every dis-trict receives the same amount of additional moneyper weighted FTE for each additional mill levied. Wesuggest such a possibility, in our phase-in recommenda-tions.

EFFECT OF OUR RECOMMENDATIONS ONLOCAL CONTROL

Our recommendations carefully safeguard local con-trol. Indeed, in many areas we expand local control.As of now, a local district must obtain Departmentof Education approval for new programs in vocationaland exceptional education. Under our system, oncethe district enrolled the FTE in special programs, thestate would automatically provide the money. Our con-struction and transportation plans are designed toinsure local control by using state standards only toestablish efficient cost-allocation factors. Once the dis-trict received the state money, however, it could dis-regard the state amounts per square foot of construc-tion or the optimum transportation routing plans pre-pared by state researchers.

In short, Florida will have only three mills of localleeway under the existing MFP. State mandates inthe present education code could easily consume thatthree-mill leeway.

Our proposal for school-by-school information isintended for local use. Most of it would not even betransmitted to the state. The requirement that localdistricts actually have special programs (compen-satory, vocational education, etc.) before they can

receive state money is already in the M FP. Our propos-als would merely clarify the present system formonitoring this and eliminate double counting.

ILLUSTRATIVE FIGURES AND TABLES

On the following pages are the key figures and tablesto support and to extend our findings and recommenda-

95

lions. The figures illustrate the high degree of equityin the MFP as of 1970-71. the latest year for availabledata. The equity is even greater now because theequalized local tax has been increased from four millsto six mills. Th.! remaining tables display the county-by-county impact of our recommendations.

*

Figure 1

State and Local Operating Money Per Pupil in ADA

Compared to Equalized Assessed Valuation Per Pupil in ADA, 1970-71

<0 = C

...4 M

...4 2 M u 0 a >

,,, 0 0 o z c

..0

a ,., a o 0 m 0 .

... n o o -1 .

.0 0 0 a a., n .

., m

14711

107?.CC

1 1 1 r

1f24.CC

I I I I

(1640

I 1 1 1

5V.CC

1 1 I 1

P9C.CC

4 I 1 1 I

822.

001 1 1 1

704.00

4 I I I I

17 .CC

l In

I 1

of8.:)

I,

I ! I

t4C.CC

1 1 1 I.

552.00 1061C.00

*

t

4

or

0

0

"525.CJ

3105.:0

3535.CZ

1 1 1 1 I 1 I I 1 I 1 I

aI 1 1

..

I 1 I

01 1 1

nI ! 1

aI 0

0

C.

1

2*

16

I

C.

*

a1

0*

na

o0

a

ra

000

0

0

20

an

C.

Z7).)0.,J

1524J.Jv

4/san.t.%

..11411',.;0

43171..C:

a 0 r

a

A

*

*I

I0

I

$

na_

o0

y

4

4.54W/e.

hlOPIT.V)

!Ora:ZOO

oi080..)0

721;':.1)6

a0355.c0

upt.os.00

-1

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 I

1 1

0I I 1

0I !

II I

II I I I 1 I I I I 1 I 1 1

II

11

I

76,!51.J0

84500.00

92710.0C

1072.00

1024.00

976.00

928.00

880.00

832.00

784.00

736.00

688.00

640.00

592.00

Equalized Assessed Valuation per Pupil in ADA

Figure II

Total S

a Money Per Pupil in ADA

Compared to Equalized 4

4sed Valuation Per Pupil in ADA, 1970-7I

916.00

1471

5.00

22.9

25.0

011

.115

.00

9934

5400

4755

.00

5576

5.00

439r

5400

124

9146

060

3964

0096

6054

00

916.00

1

$56.00

44

856.00

1

796.00

+796.00

1

736.00

a

736.00

676.00

a

676.00

it

616.00

616.00

1

111

1

a

556.0o

1

a

1

556.00

1a

aI

4.46.0o

a a

eI 1

496.00

nal.

n2u

Ia

a aa

aI

a

436.00

aa

436.00

2*

a6

1

376.00

+376.00

el

316.

00316.00

10610400

1.882. J0

27030.00 0%101400 44450.00 51660.00 5c4t70.00 (.0'000.00 76290.00

Sisoc.co 52110.400

Equalized Assessed Valuation Per Pupil in ADA

\0 00

Figure III

Total Local Money Per Pupil in ADA

Compared to Equalized

11715.00

22925.00

31135.00

39345.00

562.010

Assessed Valuation Per Pupil

47555.00

55765.00

63975.00in ADA, 1970-71

72165.00

80395.00

66605.00 *

5,32.00

1

53/.00

+*a

531.00

1

480.00

480.00

1

429.00

4429.00

ft

1

376.00

378.00

c.

00

1

327.00

4327.00

P1

1

1 1

276.0o

4es

276.00

1

2.25.00

sY0

0225.00

*1

03 t

*0

174.00

43

174.00

0

1

123.00

2123.00

00

1

I*

1

I

72.00

+72

.00

10610.00

)6620.00

27030.00

35240.00

44150.00

51660.00

59670.0r

68080.00

76290.00

54500.00

927i0.00

Equalized Assessed Valuation Per Pup

in ADA

Figure IV

Local, State, and Federal Money Per Pupil in ADA

Compared to Equalized Assessed Valuation Per Pupil in ADA, 1970-71

14715.00

22925.00

31135.03

39345.00

47555.00

55765.00

63975.00

72185.00

80395.00

88605.00

1271.00

1 1

1215.00

1159.00

c1103.00

100.00

991.00

tt 0 0

995.00

*t

1

"74

879.00

4

as

It

*482

3.00

4

4*

767.00

4

**

*

tt

711.00

*t

a

ft

4'

4.

1771.00

1 1

1215.00

1 1 1 1

1159.00

1 1 1 1

1103.03

1 1 1 1 *1047.00

1 1 1 1

991.03

1 1 1 1

935.00

1 1 1 1

879.00

1

823.00

1 1 1 1

767.00

1 1

711.00

10610.00

18820.00

27030.00

35240.00

43450.00

51660.00

59870.00

68080.00

76290.00

84500.00

92710.00

Equalized Assessed Valuati-t Per Pupil in ADA

Figure V

Ninth Grade Test Verbal Score

Compared to Total Current Expenditures Per Pupil in ADA, 1970-71

i.7.00

73.00

79.00

85.00

91.00

97.00

103.00

109.00

115.00

121.00

92.00

.I

I«

42.00

1I

II

.I

1I

1I

I1

11

1I

40.00

*I

140.00

II

.

1I

Ir

iI

II

I:

II

I

38.00

.I

1.

38.00

II

II

II

II

II

II

1I

I1

36.00

.I

I*

36.00

II

II

II

II

I!

II

1I

34.00

4I

I+

34.00

II

I1

1I

11

I.

I*

I1

I*

II

I

31.00

*'

11

L.*

32.00

II

1

Ia

tI

I

I*

II

I

II

rI

30.00

.c.

cI

4I

4.

33.00

I7

Y.

Y.

IC.

Ct

II

I!

t:

Y.

I{I

Y,

I/

1 1

2.8.00

+

*

1

26.00

1 1 1

24.0

04

I

A*

I4-

II

aI

*I

28:00

a?

I0

1I

aa

*a.

II

I

*aa

tAl

nI

nI

AI

2I

!

A1

126.00

I*

II

AI

AI

*I

II

I

0:a

IA

1

r

22.0o

4

,24.00

64.00

10.00

6.00

82.00

00.00

94.00

100.00

101).00

112.00

116.00

124.00

Total Current Expenditures Per Pupil in ADA

Figure VI

Ninth Grade Test Quantitative Score

,ompar*,, to Total Expenditures Per Pupil in ADA, 1970771

91.00

4. I I

6T.00

73.00

*

a

79.00

85%0

1 I

91.00

97.00

105.00

109.00

115.00

121.00

+31.,00

1

30.00

4

30.00

II

.1

29.00

29.00

aa

CO

I

24.0

0-

aa

28.00

I Ie

**

I 1*

2

2.7.00

+a

*a

Ia

27.00

Ia

1

I*

Ias

1I

aI

Ia

I

26.00

26.00

II

aI

aa

*1

25.00

25.00

.4

14.00

24.00

I

23.00

23.00

1 1 1

22.00

422.00

21.00

21.00

64.00

70.00

76.00

82.00

43.00

94.00

100.00

106.00

112..00

116.00

124.00

Total Expenditures Per Pupil In ADA

TABLE I

RECOMMENDED STATE AND LOCAL DOLLARS FOR OPERATING:(Excluding transportation and capital outlay)

COUNTY-BY-COUNTY (As of 1970.71)

TotalDollars

Dollars/Weighted FIE

Dollars/ADA

Alachua S 18,010,222 S735 S878Baker 2,000,305 686 817Bay 14,152,154 707 848Bradford 3,010,706 686 863Brevard 47,603,618 735 826Broward 95 ,799,352 777 885Calhoun 1,706,945 679 859Charlotte 3,371,185 735 880Citrus 3,105,618 700 891

Clay 7,085,836 700 792Collier 7,635,611 735 862Columbia 5,171,326 686 815Dade 201,090,372 784 907De Soto 2,235,759 686 817Dixie 1,158,890 665 8C3Duval 95,063,704 735 851Escamb ia 35,838,114 700 820Flagler 876,967 700 848Franklin 1,466,025 665 868Gadsden 7,851,242 665 840Gilchrist 861,727 686 840Glades 770,269 686 853Gulf 2,166,641 686 838Hamilton 1,877,722 686 872Hardee 2,775,021 693 869Hendry 2,296,788 686 790Hernando 3,359,878 700 847Highlands 4,792,762 686 801Hillsborough . . . , 82,711,606 728 857Holmes 2,203,338 672 815Indian River 6,'77,229 735 881Jackson 6,608,353 672 869Jefferson 2,004,044 679 869Lafayette 527,811 672 853Like 12,454,972 714 851Lee 16,209,198 735Leon 16,968,610 735Levy 2,754,449 665Liberty 777,525 665 888Madison 2,890,076 686 836Manatee 13,664,106 721 865Marion 14,238,922 735Martin 5,563,497 756 96:Monroe 8,426,299 756 890Nassau 4,672,226 707 818Okaloosa 19,586,716 700 787Okeechobee 2,406,369 686 :88Orange 70,504,020 763 897Osceola 4,895,329 728 881

Palm Beach 56,326,674 770 896Pasco 9,630,132 721 "831

Pinellas 68,473,033 742 859Polk 42,484,451 700 817Putnam 7,960,784 700 857St. Johns 5,719,948 714 883St. Lucie 9,317,731 742 928Santa Rosa 7,888,488 700 840Sarasota 16,587,886 728 888Seminole 17,316,328 742 838Sumter 2,954,463 707 877Suwannee 3,427,890 686 879Taylor 2,967,741 686 831Union 1,088,340 686 838Volusia 25,414,562 728 841Wakulla 1,426,359 672 847Walton 3,188,559 700 848Washington 2,727,503 679 926

Total $1,154;880,327

102

TABLE II

RECOMMENDED STATE DOLLARS FOR OPERATING:(Excluding transportation and mpitol outlay)

COUNTY-BY-COUNTY (As of 1970.71)

TotalDollars

Dollars/Weighted FTE

Dollars/AD A

Alachua .. $ 14,311,044 $584 $698

Baker 1,734,006 595 708

Bay 10,686,544 534 640

Bradford 2,548,586 581 731

Brevard ... 37,581,273 580 652

Broward 61,336,768 497 566

Calhoun 1,409,441 561 710

Cnarlotte 1,192,797 260 311

Citrus 1,803,036 406 517

Clay 6,099,8C9 603 681

Collier 3,300,208 318 373

Columbia 4.294,697 570 677

Dade 133,579,170 521 602

De Soto 1,670,095 512 610

Dixie 930,033 534 645

Duval 76,508,461 592 685

Escambia 28;4;:a,404 555 650

Flagler 501,816 401 485

Franklin 1,146,223 520 679Gadsden 7,121,053 603 762

Gilchrist 688,514 548 671

Glades 174,740 156 194

Gulf 1,689,553 535 653

Hamilton 1,507,296 551 700

Hardee 1,777,451 444 556Hendry 1,320,121 397 458

Hernando 2,473,636 515 624

Highlands 2,614,325 374 437

Hillsborough "3,680,605 560 660

Holmes , ".-9,590 592 718

Indian River I 4 518 450 539

Jackson .564 566 733

Jefferson . 4 , 193 571 732

Lafayette "a/6,476 479 608

Lake 8,285,357 475 566

Lee 10,618,050 481 547

Leon ..... 12,861',884 557 674

Levy 2,014,746 486 622

Liberty 631,681 540 721

Madison 2,579,224 612 746

Manatee 9,532,603 503 604

Marion 10,238,908 529 626

Martin 3,379,303 459 586

Monroe 5,287,157 474 559

Nassau 3,798,515 575 665

Okaloosa 16,794,909 600 (,75

Okeechobee 1,781,210 508 583

Orange 56,904,918 616 724

Osceola 2,871,815 427 517

Palm Beach 30,969,596 423 493

Pasco 7,388,195 553 638

Pinellas 51,493,613 558 646

Polk 29,654,122 489 570

Putnam 6,587,883 579 709

St. Johns 3,991,242 498 616

St. Lucie 6,399,817 510 638

Santa Rosa 6,012,372 534 640

Sarasota .9,270,481 407 496

Seminole 14,538,607 623 704

Sumter 2,312,971 553 687

Suwannee 2,754,122 551 707

Taylor 2,250,790 520 630

Union 934,978 589 720Volusia 18,292,591 524 605

Wakulla ... 1,267,213 597 752

Walton 2,680,227 588 713

Washington 2,375,918 591 807

Total $832,583,067

103

TABLE III

LOCAL DOLLARS RAISED BY 10 MILL LEVY:COUNTYBY-COUNTY (As of 1970.711

TotalDollars

Dollars/Weighted ll'E

Dollars/ADA

Alachua S 3,868.451 5158 5189Baker 277,508 95 113Bay 3,674,626 184 220Bradford 483483 110 139Brcvard 10,220,091 158 177Broward 44,339,619 360 409Calhoun 301,254 120 152Charlotte 2,363,612 515 617Citrus ... 1,641,177 370 471Clay 1,088,084 107 122Collier 4,913,818 473 555Columbia 91.7,315 122 145Dade 88,105,623 344 397De Soto 636,312 19' 232Dixie 239,883 1 166Duval 19,982497 154 179Escambia 7,909,670 154 181Flagler 395,868 316 383Franklin 328,508 149 195Gadsden 757,767 64 81Gilchrist 174,790 139 170Glades 616,815 549 683Gulf 503,735 159 195Hamilton 371,438 136 172Hardee 1,081,404 270 339Hendry 1,051,213 314 362I lerna ndo 990,074 206 250Highlands 2,387,058 342 399Hillsborough 20,689,714 182 214Holmes 268,195 82 99Indian River 2,936,042 318 382Jackson 1,057,083 107 139Jefferson 220,925 109 139Lafayette 317,321 404 513Lake 4,307,442 247 294Lee 6,634,277 301 342Leon 4,813,785 209 252Levy 759,401 183 234Liberty 156,897 134 179Madison 595,343 141 172Manatee 4,612,689 243 292Marion 4,183,806 216 256Martin 2,437,236 331 423Monroe 3,253,939 292 344Nassau 887,666 134 155Okaloosa 2,865,003 102 115Okeechobee 659,457 188 216Orange 15,004.409 162 ailOsceoi I 2,661,410 396 479Palm Beach 27,915,324 382 444Pasco 2;668,041 200 230Pinellas 18,393,295 199 231Polk 13,894,809 229 267Putnam 1,486,761 131 160St. Johns 1,858,388 232 287St. Lucie 3,178,334 253 317Santa Rosa 1,912,561 170 204Sarasota 7,942,836 349 425Seminole 3,198,074 137 155Sumter 677.560 162 201Suwannee 688,904 138 177Taylor 730,318 169 204Union .. 152,536 96 117Volusia 7,..39,110 217 251Wakulla 210,044 99 125Walton 514,997 113 137Washingtor 365,094 91 124

Total . $372,421,121

104

TABLE IV.

RECOMMENDED STATE AND LOCAL DOLLARS FOR ALLPURPOSES: COUNTY-BY-COUNTY (As of 1970-71)

TotalDollars

Doilais/Weighted FTE

Dollars/A DA

Ala a S 20,828,511 S 850 SI,016Baker. 2,337,527 802 955Bay 15,559,620 777 932Bradford 3,421,817 780 981Brevard 53,009,696 818 920Broward 124,973,804 1,014 1,154Calhoun 1,891,563 752 952Charlotte 4,043,724 882 1,055Citrus 3,883,645 875 1,114Clay 8,017,212 792 896Collier 9,950,842 985 1,124Columbia 5,809,038 771 91,6

Dade 244,488,109 953 1,103Dc Soto 2,746,840 843 1,003Dixie .. 1,422,081 816 986Duval 103,075,073 797 923Eseambia 40,061,547 782 917F la gler 1,013,210 809, 980Franklin 1,783,759 809 1,057Gadsden 8,178,563 693 875Gilchrist 955,650 761 931

Glades 932,931 831 1,033Gulf 2,623,356 '831 1,014Hamilton 2,173,178 794 1,009Hardee 3,283,375 820 1,028Hendry 2,725,221 814 937Hernando 4,347,256 906 1,096Highlands 5,720,216 819 956Hillsborough 90,837,081 800 941Holmes 2,533,681 773 938Indian River 7,850,020 851 1,021Jackson 7,121,796 724 937Jefferson 2,188,462 741 949Lafayette 754,194 9111 1,218Lake 14,636,093 839 1,000Lee 20,334,198 922 1,047Leon 19,983,658 866 1,048Levy 2,970,398 71 -7 917Liberty 961,608 822 1,098Madison 3,403,697 808 984Manatee 15,679,731 827 993Marion 15,386,056 794 940Martin 6,814,511 926 1,182Monroe 9,337,292 838 986Nassau 5,274,274 798 924Okaloosa 23,222,683 1130 933Okeechobee 2,952,728 842 967Orange 77,799,623 842 990Osceola 5,897,693 877 1.061

Palm Beach 66,509,691 909 1,058Pasco 12,228,349 916 1,056Pinellas 76,188,020 826 955Polk 48,267,738 795 928Putnam 8,861,168 779 954St. Johns 6,546,911 817 1,010St. Lucie . 11,594,151 923 1,155Santa'R sa 8,852,709 786 942Sarasota 19,359,840 850 1,036Seminole 20,463,301 877 991

Sumter 3,229,219 773 959Suwannee 3,853,383 771 989Taylor 3,342,551 773 936Union 1,217,572 767 937Volusia 29,193,044 836 966Wakulla 1,675,353 789 994Walton 3,683,475 809 980Washington 2,983,599 743 1,013

Total $1,343,246,918

105

TABLE V

FULL STATE ASSUMPTION OF COSTS FORTRANSPORTATION: COUNTY-BY-COUNTY

(As of 1970.71)

StateTransportation

Dollars

Alachua S 510,627Baker 72,649Bay 275.166Bradford 112,578 .

Brcvard 1,065,188Broward 1,422,461Calhoun 64.743Charlotte 114.247Citrus 13(4161Clay 231,690Collier 228,209Columbia 171.155Dade 1,945.342Dc Soto 49.986Dixie 66,005Duval 1,461,563Es.mmbia 1.059.904Flagler 34,645Franklin 24,241Gadsden 190,489Gilchrist 49,311Glades 45,663Gulf 72,495Hamilton 71,206Hardee 121,389Hendry 41.113Hernando 138,365Highlands 131,958Hillsborough 1,160.774Holmes 127,166Indian River 169,670Jackson 259,101Jefferson 103,985Lafayette 42,458Lake 288,957Lee 425,554Leon 320,239Levy 95,442Liberty 36,797Madison 135,176Manatee 339,251Marion 297,886Martin 174,844Monroe 219,075Nassau 177,740Okaloosa 454,927Okeechobee 78,391Orange 905,008Osceola 93,763Palm Beach 751,573Pasco 215,868Pinellas 1,009,215Polk 678,470Putnam 172,839St. Johns 140,003St. Lucie 337,169Santa Rosa 283,228Sarasota 356,428Seminole 405,229Sumter 82,347Suwannee 155,510Taylor 118.323Union 53,115Volusia 558,571Wakulla 68,266Walton 185,732Washington 127,723

Total S21 ,508,262

106

TABLE VI

PROJECTED COST OF STATE ASSUMPTION 01'CAPITAL OUTLAY AND DEBT SERVICE

CapitalOutlay'

DebtScrvicc2 CO & DS

Alachua S 822,542 S 1,057,659 S 1,880.2WBaker 134.275 115,807 250.082Bay 452.501 198.049 650.550Bradford 58,829 156,680 215,509Brcrard ..... ... 0 2,940,582 2,940,582Broward 7,025,508 8,761,672 16,687,180Calhoun 18,955 51,517 70,472Charlotte 16,188 473.374 489,562Citrus 163,336 126.238 289,574Clay 527,776 231,503 765,279Collicr 1.011,796 445,771 1,457,567Columbia 228,997 88.558 317,555Dade 17,695,386 3,904,361 21.599.747DeSoto 341,496 90,474 431.970Dixie 98,988 72.379 171.367Duval 465,163 2,404,622 2,869,785Escambia 1,396,045 497,217 1,893,262Magic'. 60,197 10.431 70,628Franklin 170,120 131276 301,396Gadsden 0 217,492 217.492Gilchrist 0 26,823 26,823Gladcs 0 83,733 83,733Gulf 0 273.551 273,551Hamilton 29,681 100.054 129,735Hardee 241,390 102,182 343,572Hcndry 50,593 129,431 180,024licinando 503,877 90.048 593,925Highlands 48,376 472,097 520,473Hillsborough .... 2,961,886 2,842,443 5,804,329Holmes 59,918 116,445 176,363Indian Rivcr .... 280,615 247.508 528,123Jackson 144.928 50,027 194,955Jefferson 49,030 13,482 62,512Lafayette 8,170 9,012 17,182Lakc 1,359,422 292,710 1,652,132Lee 1,393,081 585,917 1,978,998Leon 765,233 982,157 1,747,390Levy 0 100,054 100,054Liberty 89,700 28,739 118,439Madison 16,080 18.521 34,601Manatee 791,353 299,948 1,091,301Marion 82,029 284,230 366,259Martin 753,517 173,071 926,588Monroc 149,735 21? 235 362,970Nassau 50,229 13t 9 188,388Okaloosa 2,268,105 788,3 '6 3,056,471Okecchobec .... 339,890 121,342 461,232Orange 1,821,214 2,050,744 3,871,958Osceola 277,422 147,384 424,806Palm Bcach 4,967,745 2,392,133 7,359,878Pasco 1,863,936 225,937 2,089,873Pincllas 2,731,004 1,278,273 4,009,277Polk 3,185,871 603,515 3,789,386Putnam 376,055 69,470 445,525St. Johns 120,678 201,597 322,275

St. Luck 1,403,241 192,756 1,595,997Santa Rosa 195,435 277,079 472,514Sarasota 251,589 1,092,216 1,343,805Seminolc 289,009 677,952 966,961.Sumter 141,923 10,289 152,212

Suwannee 22,833 135,959 158,792Taylor 26,635 118,787 145,422Union 0 71,031 71,031Volusia 1,509,718 645,878 2,155,596Wakulla 48,801 75,927 124,728Walton 94,009 133,618 227,627Washington 0 21,714 21,714

Total 563,352,054 $40,987,207 $104,339,261

,

107

'These amounts arc the annual cost to the state to service bondsthat would bc issued to finance total estimated nccds by 1976-77 of5892,776,541, including construction cost, Icgal and administration,architect!s:fccs, furniturc, site acquisition, and site improvement.Assumes Icycl debt service plan with 25-year bonds at 5 percentinterest. Actual allocations to districts would bc on a projcct basisand would bc much larger than time amounts.

2Thcsc amounts would bc thc annual cost to the state if allexisting bonded indcbtedncss of districts ($577,610,018 in1970-71) were refinanced with 5 percent, 25-year bonds. In actualpractice, existing indcbtedncss carrying lower intcrcst ratcs wouldnot be refinanced. The substantial reduction of $20.8 million frompresent dcbt scrvicc paymcnts comes not so much from thc rcduc-tion in interest rates as from stretching out all payments of principaland intcrcst for 25 ycars, whereas somc local issucs will now bc paidoff in Icss timc than that.

SECTION IITHE PRESENT MINIMUM FOUNDATION PROGRAM:

ANALYSIS AND REVISIONS

THE MFP AND THE SERRANO CRITERION

In analyzing the present system of school financein Florida, the major issue is whether the system meetsthe Serrano or Rodriguez criterion. This criterionrequires that the amount of money spent on a pupilshould not depend upon the wealth of the communityin which he lives. In other states, the method of analysistypically has been to plot expenditures per pupil againstschool district property tax wealth per pupil. Theresulting plot shows dots rather closely clustered alonga line running upward to the right. This pattern demon-strates that, in most cases, districts of low propertytax wealth per pupil spend small amounts per pupil,and vice versa. In a state with a system of schoolfinance that meets the Serrano criterion, the dots wouldnot be clustered along such a line, but would be spreadaround the graph in a random fashion.

We have plotted state and local expenditures perADA against district wealth per ADA expressed asassessed valuation per ADA (Figure 1) and equalizedvaluation per ADA (Figure 2).' The resulting patternof dots is essentially random, and it would be difficultto use these data to support a Serrano-type suit inFlorida. Moreover, we used the most recent data avail-able (for 1970-71), when the unequalized local tax lee-way was six mills. In 1973-74 the unequalized localleeway will be only three mills. Consequently, thesegraphs undoubtedly understate the degree of equaliza-tion in the MFP as it currently exists, and as it willbe in 1973-74.

But it is insufficient simply to look at all of the dis-tricts in this fashion. The apparent random distributionof the dots for all of the 67 districts in the state could

'We have used only state and local expenditures per ADA becausefederal money is intended to be separate and supplementary, andhas never been at issue in the Serrano type suits. All of the dataare for 1970-71; the equalized valuation is based on the AuditorGeneral's ratio of the 1971 roll. The figures and tables are at theend of this section.

111

mask inequities when the districts are separated intosmaller groupings. For this reason, we havecategorized the districts in a six-way classificationbased on wealth, population density, and presence ofa truly urban area. The six categories are Poor Rural,Rich Rural, Poor Urbanized Rural, Rich UrbanizedRural, Poor Urban, and Rich Urban. The basis forthe categorization, and the specific counties in eachcategory, are described in Attachment A. Like all clas-sifications, this one is imperfect, and it is possible toargue about the classification of individual districts.We feel, however, that the classification best suits ourpurposes and have used it frequently throughout thisreport.

The first set of data for which these groups of districtshave been analyzed is a group of socioeconomicindicators. The results are shown in Table I at theend of this section.

The indicators point to the poor rural districts asbeing substantially different. They alone have had prac-tically no population growth in the 1960-70 decade.They have a considerably higher percentage of blacksin the population than the other groups, including therich rural districts. The percentage of crime in thejuvenile population is one-third to one-fourth what itis in other groups (although this could represent differ-ences in reporting of crime statistics). The percentageof children on assistance is substantially greater.

The second set of data deals with school processand output. The results are shown in Table II.*

Pupil-teacher ratios are lower in the rural districtsthan in the urban areas, reflecting the existence of smallschools. But the ratio of teachers to support staff favorsthe more urban districts. The.rich urban districts haveproportionately three times the support staff of thepoor rural districts. This also tends to reflect the

*Tables are at the end of the section.

existence of small sal, ols, where it is often not feasi-ble to ',lave librarians, counselors, etc. A subsequentsection stresses that poor rural districts have bene-fitted more than any other group from the state sup-port of special programs for kindergarten, exceptionalchildren, vocational education, and adult education.

Rural districts pay teachers less than other districts,and rich urban districts pay teachers substantiallymore. Rich urbanized rural and rich urban districtshave a substantially higher percentage of teachers ofRank II and higher. Not surprisingly, poor rural dis-tricts have the highest percentage of teachers resigning,and rich rural districts have the lowest percentage.But this masks the fact that poor rural districts tendto have a high percentage of their teachers near thetop of the state salary schedule (sec the section belowthat discusses the MFP salary allocations). It appearsthat poor rural districts have two groups of teachers:those who have lived there all their lives and havebeen in the school system many years, and those whobegin their teaching careers there but quit in a yearor two to take a teaching job in a more urban area.

Verbal and quantitative scores are about what wouldbe expected given the socioeconomic status of thegroups of districts. As a matter of fact, multivariateanalysis by the Bureau of Research of the Departmentof Education shows that a high percentage of the varia-tion in test scores can be.predicted by knowledge ofthe socioeconomic status of the students, withoutknowing anything about what goes on in the school.This finding supports the findings of many other studiesthroughout the nation, the best known of which is theColeman Report.

Table III shows the third set of data, dealing withdistrict revenues and expenditures. These data containsome interesting findings. An important line to lookat is "State and local current revenue (excluding MFPtransportation)." This line indicates that there maybe some basis for a Serrano-type suit. Not only dothe rural districts have more state and local moneyto spend per ADA than do the urban and urbanizedrural districts, but the rich districts have from $48 to$100 per ADA more to spend than do poor rural dis-tricts; rich urbanized rural districts have $84 more tospend than do poor urbanized rural districts; and richurban districts have $100 more to spend than do poorurban districts. There are only three reasons that thesedifferences might not be invidious. One is that thereare differences in the cost of providing the same qualityof education in the different districts. The second isthat there are real differences in educational needs thatcorrespond to these differences in revenue. The thirdis that some of the needs are being taken care of inother ways. Let us examine each of these separately:

112

I. There are differences in the cost of providing thesame quality of education. It is clear that it costs moreto provide education in small rural schools, and theMFP formula allows for this. But by comparing richrural with poor rural, rich urban with poor urban, etc.,we have, in effect, set this factor aside. It is also clearthat there are large differences in the cost of providingtransportation among districts, but we have eliminatedthis from- our calculations. There is an importantremaining difference, a difference in the cost of livingamong districts. We know that these exist, althoughthe precise figures coming from the Department ofAdministntion study have not yet been released. Itis possible that rich districts consistently have a highercost of living than do poor districts, although it seemsdoubtful that they average out to more than a 10%difference. To the extent that this type of differencein cost of living exists, it is interesting that the presentMFP appears (quite coincidentally) to take this intoaccount.

2. There are real differences in educational need thatcorrespond to the differences in revenue. There maybe differences in educational need among districts (thatis, differences in the need for exceptional child pro-grams, in the need for compensatory education pro-grams, in the need forvocational programs, kindergartenprograms, and adult education programs). But it is dif-ficult to believe that the greater needs would consis-tently be=in the richer districts. Common sense andresearch would indicate that the reverse is more likelyto be the case.

3. Some of the needs are being taken care of in otherways. To a limited extent this is so. Particularly inthe poor urban districts, responsibility for vocationaleducation has been given mainly to the communitycolleges.' Consequently, revenue and expenditure forthe community colleges are not included in the schooldistrict accounts. However, an analysis of MFP alloca-tions (which will be more thoroughly discussed later)demonstrates that difference in number of vocationalinstruction units can explain only a small portion ofthe differences that exist. For example, poor rural dis-tricts get $6 per ADA more than the state averageas a result of differences in vocational units; poor urbandistricts get $4 less. These are the extremes.

The conclusion from this is that there are dis-crepancies between rich and poor districts that maynot be completely explained by differences in needs,and that these are of some consequence. A differenceof $100 per ADA between poor urban and rich urban

'Attachment B describes briefly the organization of vocationaleducation, in addition to comparing vocational service between poorurban and rich urban districts.

districts is equivalent to a difference of about $2000per instruction unit, or about $2400 per classroomteacher.

To this point the discussion has focused on fiscaldiszrepancies between poor and rich districts. Butthere are other ways of looking at the data. It is quiteinteresting that the poor rural districts, which emergefrom the other data as having the lowest ranking onmost measures of so-ioeconomic status and"educational need," spend more per ADA on currentexpenditures than any other group of districts. Weapplaud the fact that rural districts are not the lowestspenders in the state, as they are in most states. Onthe other hand, we are seriously concerned with theplight of the poor urban districts. They spend less perADA than any other group of districts, and it is doubt-ful that their needs are really less. In addition, theyspend far less per pupil for capital outlay and debtservice than do other districts. There are severalreasons for this: gross inadequacy of the MFP capitaloutlay allowance, inability to pass local bond elections,and the fact that Racing Commission money cannothelp much in populous counties although it is of sub-stantial benefit in rural counties.

The same comments apply with only slightly less forceto the poor urbanized rural districts.

THE SALARY PORTION OF THE MFP

According to Dr. R. L. Johns, the salary portionof the MFP was originally intended to encourage dis-tricts to hire better qualified teachers. This type ofincentive is most effective when the state salaryschedule is similar in level of payments to the districtsalary schedules: When the district salary schedule issubstantially higher than the state salai-y schedule, thelocal district must finance most of the burden of hiringteachers with more experience and training. In prac-tice, this has meant that rural districts, with lower sal-ary schedules, have profited most. A higher portionof their total salary costs is covered by the state aid.

In addition, the saiary portion of the MFP benefits"rich" districts (those with high assessed value perstudent) more than "poor" districts. Each districtlevies a local property tax, a portion of which isrequired for participation in the MFP and is fullyequalized by the state. The remainder of its tax is "localleeway," and is unequalized. The local leeway onlya few years ago was seven mills, although it is nowfour mills and will be three mills next year. With thislocal leeway tax a rich district could raise more moneyper pupil than a poor district, and with this additionalmoney it could hire teachers with more training andexperience. In turn, the ability to hire such teachersbrought more money from the state through the MFP

113

salary portion that is designed to provide more stateaid for more experienced and better trained teachers.

In an attempt to see how these two phenomena,one favoring rural districts and the other favoring richdistricts, interacted, we did an analysis, categorizingdistricts into the six classifications previously dis-cussed.' The results were as follows:

MFP SALARY ALLOCATIONS

PerDistrict Classification Per ADA Instruction UnitePoor rural $3.37 $69.42Poor urbanized rural 4.84 99.70Poor urban 1.91 39.35Rich rural 7.08 145.85Rich urbanized rural 0.27 5.56Rich urban 2.32 47.79

It is apparent from this table that there are differ-ences in the amount.of MFP money going to differentgroups of districts as a result of the salary allocations.But these differences are not as large as might beimagined. In addition, those who might be expectedto .enefit most from the combined effect of a programthat favors rural districts and rich districts are the richrural districts. Yet these are exactly the districts thatbenefit least. There are clearly other factors operatingto produce this result. One of them appears to be thefact that rich rural districts have a hard time keepingteachers. Beginning teachers tend to stay in these dis-tricts only until they can find a job in a more urbanizedcounty. Teachers in poor rural counties, however, tendto be local people who have no intention of leavingtheir home community. They automatically rise to thetop of the salary schedule thereby attracting more MFPsalary money.

On balance, we cannot condemn the salary portionof the MFP on the basis of grossly inequitable distribu-tions of money. We must therefore look at the prosand cons of retaining such a method of allocation.According to Dr. R. L. Johns, who devised the MFP,there were two major reasons for the salary allocation:

1. There was a fear at that time (1947) that if thestate did not mandate minimum salaries, some ofthe districts in Florida would hire the cheapestteachers possible, teachers who were untrained anddid not have sufficient educational background ineducation or in substantive areas. The state salaryschedule was put in as a floor to guarantee thatthe districts in Florida did not fall below some kind

'The complete analysis, together with a description of themethodology used, is available from the authors.

2Based on an assumption of 20.6 ADA per Instruction Unit, thestatewide average. (In 1970-71 there were 1,333,414 ADA, K -12,and 64,717 Instructional Units.)

of minimum in hiring teachers in terms of theireducational credentials.

2. In some Florida counties there was a fear that therewould be some discrimination against blackteachers' salaries as compared with white teachers'salaries if there was not a uniform state salaryschedule which discouraged this.

In addition to these two reasons, it is clear that sucha way of allocating state money rewards the takingof additional college credits, which may be related tobetter performance on the job.

Finally, the state salary schedule rewardsexperience, which also may be related to better perfor-mance.

It seems to us that the first two reasons are prettyoutdated.. Discrimination against blacks presumablywould be taken care of by the federal Civil RightsAct. The fear that local educational agencies. wouldhire inexperienced, -low- priced teachers who werebelow some minimum standard may have been true25 years ago, but state certification standards haveobviated this. We feel that these two rationales areno longer important, and Dr. Johns was inclined toagree with us.

The third and fourth reasons in favor of the salaryschedule could as easily be reasons against it. Thereis no substantial research indicating that additional col-lege courses make a person a better teacher. Experi-ence seems to improve teaching performance for a fewyears, after which there is little additional improve-ment. The state salary schedule, then, may be reward-ing things that are unimportant to teaching perfor-mance, and is thus dysfunctional.

Another problem is that the schedule's incentive forfurther college courses encourages teachers to takemore college courses and discourages attempts to useteacher centers or in-service efforts which are notrelated to college credit. In addition, it distorts thestate's priorities for the development of highereducation. The state must provide enormous facilitiesfor teacher education and teacher in-service programsat the higher education level because teachers needthe courses to get higher on the salary schedule. Theteachers need the courses to get more money eventhough the courses may or may not be related to effec-tive performance.

Finally, the state salary schedule as a basis for dis-tributing money makes the MFP enormously com-plicated. Not only is it difficult to understand, but thecomputations necessary to make the allocations arelong and involved. Districts find it much more difficultto estimate the amount of their MFP allocation thanif the salary schedule did not exist.

114

On balance, then, we believe the salary scheduleportion of the MFP no longer serves a useful purposeand should be eliminated.

THE INSTRUCTION UNIT

The instruction unit has been a part of Florida schoolfinance for many years, and we offer criticisms of itwith some trepidation. But there are important defectsin the M FP that are caused or intensified by the instruc-tior unit concept.

The instruction unit tends to freeze the thinking ofpeople about how education should be organized'. Inour intradistrict survey of all 67 districts we found thatstudents are frequently assigned on the basis of 27students to a classroom.' The concept of a teacherand her students in a self-contained classroom as thebasic instruction unit may have had validity some yearsago. Now the use of this unit, however,experimentation with alternative instructional modes,such as team teaching, use of paraprofessionals, andteaching in large or small groups according to the sub-ject.

A second problem is the amount of money for "othercurrent expense" associated with each instruction unit.It may be reasonable to find an average allowancefor other current expense for the instruction unitswhich actually represent teachers in classrooms. Thisallowance for other current expense, however, maybe a gross underallowarice or overallowance for unitsrepresenting librarians, principals, -or other non-teaching personnel.

Third, the method of computing instruction unitsencourages double counting not only in the vocationalprogram, but also in the exceptional child program.The exceptional child program illustrates this issuewell.

Exceptional child programs in which the childrenare full time are given an instruction unit for eachteacher employed, with the provision that the 'teachermust have a number of pupils between the minimumand the maximum allowed in the MFP for that kindof exceptionality. These children are not counted inthe basic ADA of the district.

Programs in which the children are part time involvedouble counting. The children are first counted in basicADA and then exceptional child units are generatedin addition. The net result is some imputed weightingsthat are quite surprising. Take as an example the Educ-able Mentally Retarded program. Statewide in 1971-72there were 1348 teachers teaching 17,041 pupils fulltime. This comes to an average of 12.6 pupils per

'See Section VI, The School-Centered Organization ofInstruction.

teacher. Since the basic program allows 27 pupils perteacher, the imputed weighting of ADA for full-timeEMR classes is 27 ÷ 12.6 = 2.14. This compares veryfavorably with the NEFP finding that EMR exemplaryprograms cost 1.87 times basic elementary programcost.

But in the part-time EMR programs, the weightingis greatly magnified. In 1971-72 there were 349 teachersteaching 7124 EMR pupils in part-time classes. Thisis an average of 20.4 students per teacher. But theaverage part-time EMR pupil is in the EMR class onlytwo hours a day, or 10 hours a week. Thus, the part-time EMR teacher has 20.4 x 10 = 204 pupil contacthours per week. A teacher of normal children wouldhave 27 children for 30 hours per week, or 810 contact

hours. Then the .imputed weighting of the part-timeEMR student is 810 ÷ 204 = 3.97. But, in addition,this student is also counted once in the basic ADA.The result is that his imputed total weighting is really4.97! In other words, it is more than twice as profitablefinancially to have a part-time EMR class as to havea full-time one. But it is extremely doubtful that thepart-time programs are significantly better than the full-time ones. There is actually a teacher hired for eachspecial IU approved, so the MFP salary money isspent for the intended purpose. But the other currentexpense (OCE) money may be siphoned off to theregular school program.

Doing the same kind of arithmetic on the otherexceptional child programs we get the following:

FULL-TIME

Teachers PupilsPupils/

TeacherImputedWeight NEFP Weight

EMR 1348 17,041 12.6 2.14 1.87Emotionally Dist. 109 863 8.0 3.38 2.83Learning Disab. 94 1,305 13.8 1.96 2.16Trainable MR 323 3,268 10.1 2.67 2.10Gifted 44 690 15.7 1.72 -Vision 18 138 7.7 3.51 2.97Deaf 102 745 7.3 3.70 - 2.99Phys. Hand. 79 829 14.9 1.81* 3.64Speech......_... ..... _ ....... ....... ......... ............. .... ...... - - - - 1.18Socially Malad. 25 470 18.8 1.43

*Comparatively, low weight is due to prevalence of single floor schools in Florida, and weather which allows considerable out-side activity.

With the exception of the categories of LearningDisabilities and Physically Handicapped, the imputedweightings of full-time exceptional children under theMFP formula are better then the NEFP weightingswhich were derived kir exemplary programs.

The imputed weightings for part-time programs canonly be derived for those where the Department ofEducation can make an accurate estimate of the hoursper week the average child spends in the program,as follows:

PART-TIME

Avg. Hrs./ pupil con- Imputed WeightTeacher Pupils wk. per tact hrs/ Spec.

pupil teacher Prog. + Basic = Total

EMR 349 7,124 10 204 3.97 + 1.00 = 4.97Emot. Dist. 74 2,802 5 189 4.28 + 1.00 = 5.28Learning Disab. 223 5,833 5 131 2.06 + 1.00 = 3.06Speech 439 C,058 2 192 4.22 + 1.00 = 5.22

To add a further note on how to finance a regularprogram with exceptional child money, we have thefollowing: the 1271 IU's for part-time exceptional childprograms also generated 1271 -:- 8 = 159 specialteacher services (STS) units. These special teacherservice units should have been used for the exceptionalchild program, since STS units for these part-time stu-dents were alloted for their regular needs when theywere counted in the basic ADA. But none of these159 SI'S units were used in this way. Instead, 208

115

supervisors and 97 special services personnel are beingpaid for by exceptional child instruction units, not STSunits. They apparently manage to do this by generatingIU's based on the minimum allowable' teacher loadfor a program. They then put more students than thisin a classroom and use the surplus IU's to hire super-visors. The STS units generated by the exceptionalchild IU's are then used to hire special teaching person-nel who service the regular programs.

In vocational education a similar phenomenon ofdouble counting exists. Although full-time vocationalstudents and part-time students who do not attend theregular program are counted only once, students whoattend vocational education part of the day and theregular program part of the day are counted as ADAin both places. Since an ADA pupil accounting doesnot make a distinction between part-time and full-timeattendance, in effect, a part-time student is countedas full-time in both the regular program and the voca-tional program. Consequently, instruction units areawarded on the implicit basis of full-time attendancein both programs.

The present MFP provisions for the vocationaleducation not located in area vocational-technical cen-ters award an instruction unit for each qualified full-time teacher employed to instruct vocational education(providing that a minimum of 1/2 the required ADAin the basic program to earn an instruction unit attendedthe vocational class). In most cases, this amountedto a minimum of 13.5 ADA, or 27 divided by 2. Assum-ing a minimum class size this was an effective weightof 2.0 for vocational education plus a weight of 1.0for the regular program, or an implied weighting-of3.0.

One recognized problem with the funding processdescribed above was that instruction units were gener-ated without regard to the cost of vocational coursesoffered. For example, 13.5 ADA in a general businesscourse, a comparatively low-cost vocational course,earned one instruction unit. This was the same as13.5 ADA in a dental assisting course, a comparativelyhigh-cost course. As a result districts were not encour-aged to offer higher cost vocational courses. TheLegislature has acted to encourage districts to offervocational programs consistent with their needs (asdetermined from labor supply and demand studies andstudent needs) rather than on the basis of least cost.The Legislature required the State Board of Educationto "classify all vocational courses into cost categoriesfor the purpose of determining instruction units." Inother words, the funding system for vocational educa-tion must explicitly consider the variable costs of voca-tional courses.'

In 1972-73 instruction units for area vocational-technical centers (primarily post-secondary and adultstudents) were generated on this basis, and in 1973-74instruction units for all other county-based vocationaleducation (mainly high schools) will be generated onthis basis. Thus, state funding of vocational educa-tion is in the process of moving to a system

'See Attachment C for an explanation of this variable cost fundingprocess.

116

nich explicitly considers lifferences in vocationalcourse operating costs.2 We support this change.

A key aspect of the variable cost funding of voca-tional education is the move to full-time-equivalent(FTE) enrollment accounting whereby an FTE isdefined as 810 student hours of attendance. In otherwords, part-time vocational education students arecounted as a proportion of an FTE and funded accord-ingly.

However, double counting still exists because part-time vocational students also are counted as an ADAin basic programs. Educators justified this doublecounting as part of the MFP philosophy whereby spe-cial programs (such as vocational education) were tobe provided in addition to the basic program. On theother hand, legislators saw the increased offering ofvocational education as a shifting of priorities whichshould be accompanied by a reassignment of resources.Legislative feeling was that students-could only beat one place at a timeeither in the basic programor in the vocational education program. If more studentsattend vocational education, then fewer students mustbe attending the basic program.

With the implementation of the variable cost fundingfor vocational education, the argument for doublecounting as a means of generating additional fundsbecame invalid. Therefore, the Legislature mandatedits viewpoint by requiring in 1973-74 that "theattendance of students may not be counted more thanonce in determining instruction units."3

In sum, the instrui. mit system has been sub-verted in unintended . The original weightingsof pupils in expensive programs have been grossly dis-torted. This distortion has resulted from the additionalweightings from double counting in the part-time pro-grams, and by the diversion of STS units earned inthe exceptional child program to the regular program.The result is expenditures on some special programsthat are far out of line with practices in other states,or with the recommendations of the National Educa-tional Finance Project.

PUPIL ACCOUNTING

All of these problems with the instruction unit leadus to suggest strongly its abandonment or substantialmodification. We favor the system of weighted pupilswhich has been put forth by the NEFP. The use of

2The variable cost funding process considers operating costs only.It does not account for differences in capital outlay for facilities.

3In 1971-72 the Legislature made a first step in this directionby requiring that 1/2 the instruction units generated for useful homeeconomics vocational education be subtracted from the basic ADAinstructional units.

such weightings does not confine educational thinkingto the traditional classroom with 27 students. Andbecause the weights for the special programs areexplicit and are the only ones that are used, it willbe clear how much emphasis is being given to these

.programs.

We recommend that the system of accounting forpupils in all programs be the FTE concept. or eachprogram, the FTE would be the number of studentsenrolled in tht. program times the ratio of the numberof hours per week the student attends that programto the number of hours per week a full-time studentat that grade level normally attends school. This sys-tem of pupil accounting eliminates all double countingin one stroke.

After the FTE's are counted for all programs in thisway, they are then weighted by the appropriate mul-tiplier for each program. If it seems desirable to pre-serve the instruction unit, we would recommend thatthe weighted FTE thus derived be divided by 27 toget the number of instruction units for the district.These instruction units would not be tied to teachers,however. Consequently, there would be no require-ment that a teacher be hired for each instruction unit.There would be- no state salary schedule on whidhteachers would be placed. And there would be noseparately alloted STS or supervisory units.

An example of how these calculations might workout is shown below. Assurge a district with a totalof 10,250 students. Five hundred of them are kinder-garten students attending half-day. Each kindergartenstudent is counted as .5 FTE. Two hundred attendan Educable Mentally Rtarded (EMR) program one-half day and the basic program one-half time.

Instruction Units-FTE (Weighted

Program FTE Weight Weighted FT1' ÷ 27)Kindergarten 250' 1.30 325 12-.;.`4

EMR 1002 2.14 214 7.93Basic 94003 2.00 9400 348.15Total 9750 9,939 368.12'500 students times .5 equals 250 FTE.2200 students times .5 equals 100 FTE.39300 students in basic program, plus 200 EMR students times .5(EMR students are one-half time in basic program) equals 9400FTE.

Computation of FTE student enrollment in this waycould be made during one week in the fall and oneweek in the spring thereby simplifying attendanceaccounting. The total FTE of the various programsoperated by the district must be equal to the total full-time-equivalent enrollment of the district. Not onlywould this relieve schools of the necessity of state-mandated attendance accounting, but it wouldeliminate the problem that would occur if the account-ing were done in a week when attendance was lowbecause of storm, epidemic. or whatever.

We do not have any special wisdom regarding howmuch weight should be given to any particular program.The NEFP weights are based on a very small sampleof "exemplary" programs. The cost data were a by-product of the study of early childhood and elementaryeducation done by William P. McClure for the NEFP.But within the money and time available to us it wouldbe impossible to do a cost study of our own. It isnecessary for us to recommend some weights, though,in order that we may cost out our total recommenda-tions. We have chosen to do so on a common-sensebasis taking into account the present imputed Florida

Program

FloridaFull- Part-Time Time NEFP Calif. R.I. Minn. N. J.

OurRecom-

mendation

Grades 1-6Grades 7-9Grades 10-12KdgnEMRTMRPh. Hand.SpeechDeafVisualEmotionalSp. Lrn. Dist.GiftedVocationalCompensatoryAdult

1.001.001.001.082.142.671.81

3.703.513.381.961.721.611.001.80

-1.3,4.97-5.22

5.283.06

1.80

1.001.201.401.301.872.103.641.18,2.992.972.832.161.141.802.06

1.001.151.201.002.103.103.404.304.404.40

4.30

1.001.301.301.602.103.60

'3.20

1.80

1.00

L50

1.00

1.75

1.001.001.001.302.142.671.814.303.703.513.381.961.721.611.501.20

117

weights, the NEFP recommendations, and the weightsused in soc'e other states for which we were able toget data. The information is shown below.

We are not recommending a higher weighting forgrades 7-9 or 10-12 in the regular program as is donein some states. Florida does not have this kind ofweighting now, and we feel it would be a step backwardto recommend it. There is too little known about thelevel at which we should be spending the most money.In addition, such weightings would make little dif-ference, because of Florida's districts contain alltwelve grades, ana the percentage of the total studentbody at each of the levels is relatively constant acrossdistricts.

The weighting of 1.30 for kindergarten may seemhigh, when it is realized that most kindergarten childrenattend only a half day. But this illustrates the kindof FTE computation we are recommending. A groupof 20 child' 'n attending kindergarten half a day fora full year *, iuld count as 10 FTE. This would beweighted by the factor of 1.3 to give 13 weighted FTE.

Most of the weights for the exceptional child programare based on the present weights for full-time excep-tional child programs in Florida. The exceptionallyheavy weights now used in part-time programs wouldbe reduced to full-time level.

With all of this explanation, it must be said thatthe weights we suggest are somewhat arbitrary. Weconsider the precise weights a non-critical part of ourrecommendations and would be willing to go alongwith any reasonable weights. We recommend that theDepartment of Education and other researchersembark upon a cost-effectiveness analysis to helpdetermine the best weights for future use. (See J. AlanThomas, The Productive School, for suggestions onuse of cost-effectiveness analysis for such purpose.)

We stress that while districts should be free to spendthe MFP money they earn from their weighted FTEpretty much in the ways they determine, a district canonly earn weighted FTE for a special program by hav-ing the students actually enrolled in such a programmeeting state standards.

CAPITAL OUTLAY AND THE MFP

The matter of capital outlay is discussed at somelength in a later section of this report. We wish heremerely to indicate the tie between the inadequate stateallocations for capital outlay and the MFP allocationsfor the operating budget.

Over the yecrs, the state allowance for capital outlayhas been particularly inadequate for some districts.These districts have compensated by "robbing"money from the operating budget, or by passing local

118

bond authorizations. Where-districts have been unwill-iiiirtUrSk for bond authorizations, or where the votershave fdfie-drcipass them, a cumulative deficit of class-roon, pace resulted.

The cumulative deficit has had an undesirable effecton total MFP money. A district that has classroomspace available can institute a kindergarten, excep-tional child, adult, or vocational education program.Because of the fact that required local effort does notincrease at all when these additional special units areacquired, these programs are, in effect, fully fundedby the state. In many cases, the amount of moneythat a district gets for one of these special programsmay be more than it costs to operate the program.The excess can be drained off into the regular program.Thus, a district that can manage somehow to provideclassroom space for a special program can then makeitself eligible for continuing operating expense aid fromthe static. &district that is not able to find such class-room space must forego offering the special programsand the state aid that goes with them.

DIFFERENCES IN STATE ALLOCATIONS FORSPECIAL PROGRAMS

In order to determine the differences among districtsin state allocation for special programs, we undertookan analysis of the MFP salary allocations.2 Theanalysis is by districts grouped into our six-way clas-sification. Conceptually, the amount of MFP salarymoney received per ADA by a district could be higherthan the state average for three reasons:

1. The district could have a higher re quire d local effortbecause of having a- higher assessed valuation perADA.

2. It could hire teachers more highly placed on thestate salary schedule than the average.

3. it could be entitled to more instruction units perADA than the average.

We did an econometric analysis that broke differ-ences in MFP salary money per ADA into the portionsattributable to these three reasons. Within the thirdcategory, we looked separately at differences in alloca-tions attributable to differences in basic units, kinder-garten units, exceptional child units, vocational educa-tion units, adult units, and ratio units. The results areshown in Table IV. There is a striking difference herebetween the poor rural districts and the poor urbandistricts. The poor rural districts receive $5.28 morethan the state average per ADA in MFP salary moneyas a result of having more kindergarten pupils; they

'The detailed analysis, including the methodology used, is avail.able from the authors.

receive $1.35 more because of having more exceptionalchild pupils, $5.99 more as a result of more vocationaleducation pupils, and $1.15 more becatise of havingmore adult education pupils. The total for these four

sons alone is $13.77 per ADA, or about $372.00r classroom. On the other hand, poor urban districts

received $3.82 less than the state average because ofhaving fewer kindergarten pupils, $0.28 less becauseof fewef exceptional child pupils, $4.48 less becauseof fewer vocational education pupils. and $.98 lessbecause of having fewer adult education pupils. Thetotal for these four is $9.56 per ADA, or about $258.00per classroom. The difference between poor rural andpoor urban districts is around $630.00 per classroom.

THE COMPLEXITY OF THE MFP

The MFP, as originally conceived, was relativelysimple and understandable. Over the years, piecemealchanges and additions have been made. Each changewas designed to take care of a problem affecting somedistricts. The overall impact of these changes has neverbeen adequately examined. The whole system of stateschool finance has gotten so complicated that only ahandful of people in the state currently understand it.Each year another fix -up job increases the complexity.This is not unusual; it happens in every state. It istime to make major changes and simplifications n theprogram of Florida school finance by sweeping awaymost of the underbrush that has grown up over theyears. We realize that the underbrush will start to growagain, and in ten or fifteen years it will again be neces-sary to simplify the program.

In 1970-71, districts received state money from avariety of different pockets. The categories shown inthe Commissioner's Report are:

Operating fundsMFP instructional salariesMFP transportationMFP other current expenseMFP education improvement expenseMFP recalculationMFP no loss guaranteeRacing CommissionState free textbooksAd valorem tax equalizationState forest fundsDriver education programState boat license taxState mobile home taxRetirement matchingExceptional child fundsSchool food supplementOther state sources

Debt Service Funds

119

Withheld for SBE bondsCost of issuing SBE bondsRacing CommissionSBE bond reserve fundCapital outlay and debt service distributed to

counties.Capital improvement funds

Capital outlay and debt service distt ibuted to dis-tricts

Driver education programSchool construction fundInterest on undistributed CO & DS fUndsExceptional child facilities fundOther state sources

Each of these categories involves distribution requiringcomplicated calculations and having differentialimpacts on districts. We believe the whole systemshould be greatly simplified, with most of the separateallocations being eliminated. We would see the alloca-tion categories looking something like this:

Operating fundsMFP general operating moneyMFP compensatory education money (initially

earmarked funds, but to be merged into thegeneral operating money after a few years)

MFP transportation moneyDebt service funds

State payment of principal and interest on districtbonds

Capital outlay fundsState allocation for specific capital outlay projects

SUMMARY

Our findings, then, are:1. The present system of state school finance con-

forms better to the Serrano criterion than that ofmost states, but may be unfair to some groupsof districts in operating funds and to most in capitaloutlay funds.

2. The salary portion of the MFP is needlessly com-plicated and no longer serves a necessary function.

3. The instruction unit and the method of computingit have contributed to rigidities in schoolorganization, double counting, and excessiveweighting in exceptional child programs.

4. Insufficient classroom space, partly caused byinadequacy of the capital outlay portion of theMFP, has led to inadequate provision of neededprograms in some districts.

5. The MFP, and the other state programs for fund-ing elementary and secondary education havebecome unnecessarily coinplicateo and should besip lified.

1072.00

*

Figure I

State and Local Operating Money per Pupil in ADA

Compared to Assessed Valuation per Pupil in ADA, 1970-71

11068.00

17210.00

23352.00

29494.00

35636.00

41778.00

17920.00

54062.00

60204.00

66346.00

I1

II

II

II

1024.00

II

I

1072.00

*024

.00

+ 1I

II

976.00

Ii

976.00

II

II

II

I*

I

!I

II

IIA

II

I

928.00

II

928.00

II

II

Ir

I

II

II

II

I*1

980.00

t1

880.00

I*

II

I

II

II

II

rI

I

I*

i1

*I

932000

2I

I832.00

II

II

I*

Ir

*I

II

**

ii

ift

I*

i

799 .00

$*

ia

i

* 4

n*

II

I*

** -

I*

I

736.00

0i

**

I**

4I

i*

4*

I*

I*

a*

*I

I*

688.00

.*

2

I I* *N

A.

1

640.

00

592,00

784.00

736.00

1

688.00

643.00

592.00

7997.00

14136.00

20261.00

26423.00

32565.00 38707.00

44849.00

5099L.00

57133.00

63275.60

69417.00

Assessed Valuation per Pupil in ADA

Fig

ure

II

State and Local Operating Money Per Pupil in ADA

Compared to Equalized Assessed Valuation Per Pupil in ADA, 1970-71

1072.00

1024.00

14115.00

+ 1 1 1 1

22925.00

31135.00

39345.00

47555.00

55765.00

63975.00

72185.00

80395.00

98605.00

1072.00

1024.00

11

1 11

11

976.00

976.00

1 11

= 14

928.00

+928.00

1 1 1 I*1

to

aao.00

+880.00

1 1

as m o

1 1

A

-.

83Z.00

+At

832.00

0 U o ai I

1

1 01 1

*

o784.00

+*

*784.00

oI

24.

7

-1

736.00

736.00

I1

14

1

1 1a

688.00

+AA 4

689.00

4I

I2*

4

1

640.00

+640.00

11

11 1

11

'592.04

+*

592.00

10610.00

18820.00

27030.00

35240.00

43450.00

51660.00

59870.00 68080.00 76290.00

84500.00

92710.00

Equalized Assessed Valuation per Pupil in ADA

TABLE I

SOCIOECONOMIC INDICATORS l'OR CATEGORIES OF DISTRICTS

PoorUrban-

RichUrban-

Poor ized Poor Rich ized RichRural Rural Urban Rural Rural Urban

Percent population change, 1960-1970 I I 6% 30.7% 40.9% 44.2% 43.3% 48.8%Percent urban 14 9% 57.6% 87.1% 16.5% 61.1% 93.6%Percent Negro 24.6% 17.5% 16.1% 17.6% 15.9% 13.4%Percent crime in population 6-18 years old I 0% 2.7% 4M% 2.8% 2.8% 3.2%Percent of children on assistance 1 1 1 % 7.5% 7.6% 8.3% 7.5% 7.2%Percent 14-17 in school 87 2% 90.6% 91.9% 85.9% 86.7% 91.9%Med. years schooling of adults 9 6 11.6 12.1 10.7 11.6 12.2Percent with income below poverty level 26 3% 17.0% 12.6% 19.8% 16.2% 9.8%

TABLE II

INDICATORS OF SCHOOL PROCESS AND OUTPUT

Poor RichUrban- Urban-

Poor ized Poor Rich ized RichRural Rural Urban Rural Rural Urban

Pupil-teacher ratio 21 8 22.8 24.3 21.7 22.3 23.8Avg. salary inst. staff S7789 S7760 $8153 S7827 $8364 $9519Inst. personnel Rank II and higher 23 9% 22.3% 23.0% 23.8% 27.5% 313%Ratio teachers to support staff 1 1 3 5.6 6.7 9.6 4.8 3.8Ninth grade verbal score 26 2 29.2 29.4 27.5 29.4 30.8Ninth grade quant. score 24 8 27.3 27.4 25.6 27.6 28.5Percent teachers resigning 2I 7% 18.8% 17.1% 18.4% 19.2% 14.2%

Source: Raw data from which tables I and II were calculated were furnished by Richard Kurth, Bureau of Research, Department ofEducation.

122

TABLE III

FINANCIAL MEASURES OF SCHOOL INPUTS

RevenuesPoorRural

PoorUrban-

izedRural

PoorUrban

RichRural

RichUrban-

izedRural

RichUrban

FederalESEA I money S 68.57 S 31.59 S 20.89 S 49.53 S 38.16 S 23.59PL 874 money 4.04 24.55 23.76 1.34 3.69 6.46Federal money through state 57.65 26.18 26.41 43.49 34.65 24.89Other federal money 0.47 1.52 0.35 0.02 0.48 19.17

Total federal money 130.74 83.83 71.40 94.37 76.97 74.11

StateMFP salary money 295.75 265.53 256.64 218.15 224.29 229.58MFP transportation money 18.23 11.62 6.76 12.19 8.53 4.28MFP other money 194.05 178.95 172.23 173.40 167.49 165.51Racing Commission money (for current expenses) 65.69 18.75 4.06 51.88 9.40 1.04Other state money 50.57 48.91 47.23 41.73 39.71 39.78

Total state money 624.30 523.77 486.92 497.35 449.42 440.19

LocalLocal taxes 139.39 156.17 183.51 307.95 313.52 328.46Other local money 5.34 9.72 12.07 6.06 8.12 I 1.03

Total Local 144.72 165.89 195.58 314.00 321.64 339.50

State and local current revenue(excluding MIT transportation) 750.79 678.04 675.44 799.16 762.53 775.41

Total state and local currentrevenue 769.02 689.66 682.50 811.35 771.06 779.69

Total current revenues 899.76 773.49 753.90 905.72 848.03 853.80

Current expenditure (excludingtransportation expenditure)

Total Current expenditure 849.62 741.11 740.18 833.30 818.24 840.53

Capital expenditureCapital outlay 108.25 144.95 85.38 176.62 201.57 142.87Debt service 42.71 59.96 40.87 49.75 55.28 51.63

Capital outlay + debt serv. 150.96 204.91 126.24 226.36 256.85 194.49

Bonded indebtedness 417.44 566.94 402.65 479.03 610.60 504.30

Assessed valuation 16,003 17,601 20,034 38,678 38,683 39,524

Equalized assessed valuation 20,485 21,053 21,749 48,249 46,896 45,108

Assessment ratio 73.6% 79.0% 90.5% 79.1% 81.1% 84.2%

Source: Raw data from which this table was calculated are from the Report of the Commissioner of Education, 1970-71.

123

ss

TABLE IV

ANALYSIS OF IMP SALARY ALLOCATIONS

Group

Required Attributable to Differences inDif. from LocalState Avg. Effort Remaining Basic Kgdn. Excep. Voc, Ed. Adult Ratio Schedule Inter-Entitlement Allocation Difference IU - IU IU IU IU IU Placement action

Poor rural 552.89 529.93 522.96 56.64 55.28 51.35 55.99 51.15 -51.01 53.37 50.2Poor urbanized rural 21.98 25.52 -3.54 -0.09 6.26 0.36 -3.39 -1.34 -0.48 -4.84 -0.0Poor urban 8.64 21.17 -12.53 -1.01 -3.82 -0.28 -4.48 -0.98 -0.12 -1.91 0.0Rich rural -9.71 -11.43 1.72 3.13 0.47 -1.61 4.67 1.83 0.51 -7.08 -0.2Rich urbanized rural -7.21 -14.68 7.47 0.08 1.57 1.40 3.91 -0.01 0.81 - 0.27 -0.0Rich urban -12.71 -14.10 1.39 -0.70 -0.38 -0.51 0.29 0.47 -0.08 2.32 -0.0

124

SECTION IIIFINANCING CAPITAL OUTLAY

Financing Capital Outlay and Debt Service

INTRODUCTION

We believe that the quality of the physical settingin which a child receives his education should not bea function of the wealth of the school district wherehe happens to live. Florida has used a joint state-localsystem for financing construction. But the state allot-ments have been insufficient to keep pace with bur-geoning local enrollments and obsolescence of facilities.This is particularly true in fast-growing and poor schooldistricts. The state mandate to initiate kindergartenin fall 1973 will only add substantially to the existingfacilities crisis in many counties.

Florida's voters in many school districts have beenunwilling to approve local bond issues. Indeed 28counties, some poor and some rich, have never passeda single construction bond issue. (See Appendix A).In such a situation, the physical facilities of a child'seducation depend primarily on the composition andvalues of the voting population in his resident countyand the assessed property value. There does not appearto be any trend toward increased local willingness tofund construction. The voters, however, overwhelm-ingly passed in Navember 1972 a state bond issue pro-viding an additional statewide bonding capacity of$197,906,881. This indicates that the voters see schoolconstruction as a state responsibility.

NATURE OF THE PROBLEM

Florida has included capital outlay as part of theMFP but has not increased the money sufficiently tocover a larger percent of the costs. School buildingcosts constitute the second highest expenditurecategory, 12.5%, exceeded only by teachers' salaries.The 1972 Legislature raised the construction allocationfrom $400 to $600 for each instruction unit allocatedin the 1967-68 MFP,, and for "growth units"thoseunits in the current year's MFP which are in excessof 1967-68 unitsthe increase will be to $800. Thevoters in November 1972 placed these allocations in

127

the Constitution so that state bonds can be sold. Arule of thumb is that $1,500 per pupil is needed forcapital outlay compared to about $29 per pupil in theMFP. Current Florida contracts average $1,577 perelementary pupil and $2,249 per secondary pupil (therange is $960 to $1,803 in elemantary and $2,322 to$2,982 in secondary). Contracts for special pro-gramsexceptional children, vocational education,etc.are even higher.

The sources of capital outlay funds 1946-1971 arepresented below in Table I.

TABLE ICAPITAL OUTLAY FUNDS 1946-1971

Sources of Funds Expenditures Percent of Total

State:Capital Outlay and DebtService Funds (MFP) $ 172,470,306 10.3

State Board of EducationBond Funds (SBE Bonds) 265,995,281 15.9

State School ConstructionFunds (no longer exists) 193,624,342 11.6

EIE (no longer exists) 8,324,029 0.5

Other State Funds includingExceptional Education 31,352,421 1.9

SUB TOTAL (State) 671,766,379 40.2

Local:County Current and DistrictFunds (non-MFP) 440,089,662 26.4

District Number One BondFunds (local funds) 452,646,119 27.1

SUB TOTAL (Local) 892,735,781 53.5

Special:Race Track Funds 59,674,805 3.6

Federal: 45,420,629 2.7

TOTAL $1,669,597,594 100.0

The state collects data on needs through periodiccounty surveys, but these surveys accept the local dis-tricts' criteria for need. Conceivably, there could be67 different need criteria for 67 counties. In order toderive some uniform figures we asked the Bureau ofSchool Facilities to prepare tables of existing schoolfacilities and projected capital outlay needs (seeAppendix D at the end of this section). This analysisseparates immediate needs (71-72) from long-termneeds (1967-77). A county like Bay demonstrates thatelementary pupil enrollment will decline so dramati-cally by 1976-77 that it would be unwise to buildfacilities to meet the current deficiency. Counties thatneed more space in 1971 but less space in 1976 areincluded in Appendix D. These figures are subtractedin the totals so the existing need for elementary is$49.71 million while the 1976-77 elementary need is$46.63 million. We believe the 1976-77 figures are themost relevant for planning.'

The next two tables (Tables II, III) show a totalneed in 1976-77 of $892.8 million with the bulk of thebacklog at the secondary and kindergarten levels. Itis in part this state mandate for kindergarten that willrequire a large increase in local construction funds infuture years.

We have heard extensive testimony that facility con-straints are distorting and dictating the substance ofeducational programs. This is especially true in fast-growing and poor counties. For example, in PolkCounty there are long waiting lists for classes for thementally retarded, because the county does not havethe space to start new programs. Hillsborough has theoperating money to start kindergarten but insufficientmoney for facilities.

TABLE 11

K-12 TOTAL ESTIMATED PROJECTEDCAPITAL OUTLAY NEEDS, 1976-77*

TotalCapital Outlay

Need1976-77

Alachua $11,591,629Baker 1,892,265Bay 6,376,849Bradford 829,050Brevard

'The districts that have immediate needs for facilities that willdisappear with an enrollment drop by 1976 should not be ignored.We suggest that the state may provide relocatable facilities, andthen move them to other districts when the need has passed. Thishas already been done extensively within some large, fast-growingdistricts' in other parts of the country, like San Diego. The abilityto move buildings from one district to another as needs changeis an advantage of state takeover of capital outlay and debt service.

128

Broward 111,689,802Calhoun 267,128Charlotte **2.433A68Citrus 1,301,808Clay 7.437,663Collier 14,258,678Columbia 3,227,135Dade 249,371,280DeSoto 4.812,519Dixie 1,394,989Duval **I6.331.388Escambia 19,673,693Hagler 848,316Franklin 2,387,407GadsdenGilchristGladesGulfHamilton 418,277Hardee 3,401,774Hendry 712,984Hernando 7,100,863Highlands 681.736Hillsborough 41,740,218Holmes 844,392Indian River 3,954,556Jackson 1,042,395Jefferson , 690,957Lafayette 115.136Lake 19,157,576Lee 19,631,913Leon 10,784,000LevyLiberty 1,264,095Madison 226,609Manatee 11,152,102Marion 1,155.985Martin 10,618,898Monroe 1,110,135Nassau 707,849Okaloosa 31,963,I55Okeechobee 4,789,875Orange 25,665,366Osceola 3,909,550Palm Beach 70,007,694Pasco 26,267,423Pinellas 38.486,532Polk 44,896,719Putnam 5,299,537St. Johns 1,700,647St. Lucie 19,775,104Santa Rosa 2,754,163Sarasota 3,545,510Seminole 4.072,850Sumter 2,000,040Suwannee **1.661,341Taylor 375,356UnionVolusia 21,275,620Wakulla 687,731Walton 1,324,815Washington

TOTAL $892,776,541

*Includes contract costs, legal and administration fees,architecture, furniture, site improvement, and site acquisition.

**Revised, March 1973.Prepared by Department of Education, Bureau of School

Facilities; December, 1972.

TABLE III

Existing Capital OutlayNeed, 1971-72

(J00)

Projected CapitalOutlay Need, 1976-77

(000)

Kindergarten $ 28,940.1 $153,127.6

Elementary 39,530.5 46,631.9

Middle School 41,426.7 71,564.0

Junior High School 107,013.1 180,486.9

Senior High School 69,060.7 239,393.8

Total ContractCosts 285,971.0 691,203.8

Add. Legal and Ad-ministration, Archi-tecture, Furniture,Site Improvement andSite Acquisition 83,761.2 201,572.7

TOTAL CAPITALOUTLAY $369,732.2 $892,776.5

Garvue reports:'A total of 103 schools in 17 districts operated undersuch schedules (combined, double, or triple sessions)based upon data taken directly from the 1971-72 stateaccreditation reports by the writer of this report.Districts included Brevard, Broward, Collier, Dade,Duval, Escambia, Hernando, Highlands,Hillsborough, Indian River, Monroe, Palm Beach,Pasco, Pinellas, Polk, Putnam, and Volusia. Themembership of the schools operating extra sessionsstatewide included: High school-106,281; middleschool-56,797; and elementary school-12,050; ora grand total of 175,128 students. Dade County'stotal alone was 85,925 while Broward was secondwith 24,408.

ALTERNATIVE REMEDIES

Any state program should adjust its cost estimatesfor three major factors:

1. annual fluctuating costs such as inflation of con-struction components.

2. differential costs associated with the educationalprogram to be housede.g., vocational educationversus kindergarten.

3. intrastate variations depending on land costs, sitedevelopment, etc.

Given these factors there are three basic ways ofdetermining needed project costs.

1. The state can establish an approved project costbased on the number of pupils to be accomodated

'Robert J. Garvue, Financing School Construction in Florida,January, 1973 (unpublished preliminary report of study done forthe NEFP).

129

and program to be housed. Factors relating to theprogram would be based on standardized space andfacility requirements, and those related to dollarcosts would be based on regional constructionindexes including differing costs for land acquisitionand preparation. These standardized amounts(often per square foot) would be modified by thefactors included in our preceding tables on needs.The state then gives the money to local districtswith very few strings.

2. State determines the cost of an "approved localproject." The state approves architects' and work-ing drawings and specifications. The FleischmanCommission in New York recommended that thestate would award contracts and manage construc-tion. The advantage of central administration pre-sumably would be economies afforded by utilizationof modern and complex methods of technology,construction, and management. Bulk purchasing,market aggregation, research, and information shar-ing can probably be best implemented by stateadministration.

3. Construction is included with the foundation pro-gram and combined with foundation units of needsuch as pupils or instruction units. Florida has fol-lowed this route and intensified it through the 1972constitutional amendments creating an additional$197.91 million of local bonding capacity. Theincreased local allotments per instruction unit canbe used as backing for SBE bonds issued on behalfof the district up to 90 percent of the district'sMFP capital entitlement.

Any of these systems must consider existing localdebt service from locally approved bond issues. Werecommend full state assumption of capital outlay. Wecannot in fairness advocate a program that would estab-lish a dual system of building aid: full state assumptionof new buildings but continued local responsibility forbond repayments. Indeed such a scheme wouldpenalize counties that have voted to tax themselvesfor better school fadilities. In effect, taxpayers whowaited would receive more state aid than those whobuilt schools when rapid enrollment growth began. Acomparison of the expenditure pattern of BrowardCounty with a large amount of local bonds ($1,140 per

TRANSFER OF FUNDS FOR OPERATING TOCAPITAL OUTLAY PER ADA

Broward Escambia

1966-67 5.30 14.861967-68 9.88 29.261968-69 25.06 32.001969-70 .36 16.211970-71 .26 18.46

ADA) and Escambia with none shows the differencescaused by local bonding.

This table shows that Escambia must continually divertmoney from instructional purposes to make up forinadequate state aid and the unwillingness of Escambiavoters to approve local construction bonds. In sum,we favor state assumption of existing local debt serviceas well as capital outlay.

PREFERRED PROGRAM

Of the three alternatives for full state assumptionof capital outlay we favor No. 1 given the Floridacontext. Building funds would be raised by the existingState Building Authority, which finances constructionof state buildings including universities. The Authoritywould issue general obligation bonds that carry thelowest possible interest rate and would be the mostattractive to investors. Issuance of debt in this fashionwould have beneficial effects beyond disassociating thequality of local school facilities from local propertytax wealth or the disposition of local voters. Substantialsavings in time and overhead could result from poolingunderwriting and issuance procedures. Local districtsoften lack the size and expertise to obtain informationto maximize results in timing and marketing bonds.Moreover, very small school districts lack access tothe market and have lower credit ratings than the state.Below we have estimated the costs under various inter-est rates and terms for bond financing the entire cap-ital outlay backlog.

ESTIMATES OF ANNUAL BOND COSTS TO FINANCEENTIRE CAPITAL OUTLAY BACKLOG*

(thousands)

Term of Bonds

Interest Rate 20 Years 25 Years 30 Years

6.0% 77,850.1 $ 69,841.9 $ 64,860.25.5 74,743.3 66,601.1 61,467.75.0 71,645.3 63,352.1 58,084.04.5 68,636.7 60,208.9 54,816.5

Source of Amortization Rates: Florida Department of Gen-eral Services, General Counciland Director of Bond Finance* Uses a level debt se-vice plan

No portion of the State Authority's debt would'belinked to any particular school district thereby severingthe current constitutional tie to the MFP. As our needssurvey showed, the current MFP formula by tying con-struction to instruction units does not accuratelymeasure priority need at this time. Some counties willhave excess capacity by 1976-77 but yet would continueto receive construction funds under the MFP. Otherfast-growing districts will not receive nearly enoughunder the MFP formula. State assumption requiresthe state to establish uniform needs standards. Ourtables provide an initial approach to this problein and

130

point out the priorities. State funds can then be concen-trated in hard-pressed school districts rather thenspread all around through the MFP. Without a widelyaccepted need survey, the state will have no basis uponwhich to ration funds or decide which districts areunderstating their estimates of physical capacity.

After gathering uniform data on local needs andcapacity, the state computes a district entitlement tobe financed from state bond proceeds. The districtsare then provided the flexibility to build the space theyneed to the design they like. The state would pay theactual cost for each project or the state allowance forthe number of square feet involved, whichever is less.While the state allowance would be based on 10e%of representative actual costs of buildings that meetstate standards, districts would be free to spend morethan this if they wished.' The state could provide astate file of architectural designs for schools that dis-tricts could use if they wish. Advantages of such astate file would be:

1. lower architectural fees.

2. bidders will become familiar with a design and canshare their bids.

3. problems that show up in the design can be cor-rected for future users.

The state technical assistance should encourage flex-ibility in facilities acquisition. New facilities shouldbe capable of responding to new or changing elementsin the educational process. Schools must be able toaccommodate constant change in the educationalapproaches such as grouping, staff utilization, cur-riculum and teaching hardware.

'One way in which the amount of the state-approved cost fora project could be determined would be to put the project out tobid with two alternatives. One alternative would be designed tostate standards. The other would include such additions of spaceor quality of materials as the district desired. The state would paythe amount of the successful bidder's bid on the first alternative;the district would pay for the additional cost of extra quality orspace.

This has the advantage of adjusting the state payment to actualbidding conditions rather than to a predetermined cost per squarefoot adjusted by a cost-of-construction index. It has the disadvantageof encouraging collusion between district and bidders to make thebid on the first alternative artificially high in order to keep localcost down. We see this as such a danger that we cannot recommendthis alternative.

While we recommend that districts be allowed to build in excessof state standards for quality and space if they wish. we recommendthat the local money for this be required to come from operatingfunds. We do not believe that school districts should be allowedto issue local bonds and levy a tax override for the resulting debtservice, for this would probably result in state standards laggingbehind inflation, covering a smaller percentage of the full cost ofconstruction each year. Consequently, districts would be requiredto issue local bonds to build to an acceptable standard. We wouldsoon find the state in the same situation as now exists.

We do not favor detailed state supervision of eachphase of the construction process similar to alternativenumber 2. Detailed state procedures are likely to stressuniformity when diversity and flexibility are needed.The state should provide regional services to smallschool districts, but 75 percent of Florida's ADA isin 11 large school districts. These districts are largeand diverse enough that they should be able to hirepersonnel with competence equal to state employees.

SITE COSTS

A major factor causing Variations between schooldistricts in total construction costs is site acquisitionand preparation. Florida has everything from veryexpensive inner-city land to swampy areas that needlarge scale drainage. From 1946-1971 site costs haveaccounted for only 7.4 percent of total capital outlayexpenditures, But this overall figure masks enormousdifferences among counties. Even though school sitesare often purchased in rural areas for $1,000 per acre,a recent 25-acre site in Dade County cost $35,000 peracre. Site improvement for this 25-acre site increasedits total cost from $875,000 to $1,000,000 before thevocational school could be built.

Consequently, the State Department of Educationwould approve in detail only this one itemsite costs.A local district would need state approval of the siteto begin any project. The state would consider theproposed site in terms of its place in a comprehensive,long-term school building program, the area requiredfor outdoor education activities, educational adapt-ability, environment and accessibility, soil conditions,racial integration, and initial and ultimate cost. Oncethe state had approved the site cost, then the district

131

could go ahead and use its allotment from the StateAuthority Bonds to build the type of school it prefers.

Our need figures have been adjusted for intercountydifferences in total construction costs. We used Leonas 100 and adjusted construction costs through methodsused by private construction services based on theiractual costs and bidding procedures. The range of thesevariations is illustrated below:

County

Elementary SchoolCosts Per

Square Foot

Secondary SchoolCosts Per

Square Foot

Alachua $18.02Brevard** $21.06Broward** 16.99 16.42Dade** 25.42 32.61Gulf 14.40Highlands 15.69Leon 16.58 16.88Manatee 19.74Marion 16.87Okaloosa 15.49 19.60Palm Beach** 22.99 16.01Pinellas** 20.16Seminole 16.88 18.90

TOTAL COST PERSQUARE FOOT $19.09 $19.12

Elementary school construction costs during 1968-69 averaged$20.37 per square foot in metropolitan counties** and $17.07 persquare foot in all other counties.

Secondary school construction costs during 1968-69 averaged$18.75 per square foot in metropolitan counties** and $17.21 persquare foot in all other counties.

*Information appearing in this table was taken from 0E-4038,Report of Contract Awarded for 1968-69, which is the official formused by the United States Office of Education.

**A metropolitan county is defined as having a population of200,000 or more inhabitants.

As

APPENDIX A

FACT SHEET: BOND ELECTION RESULTS, 1964 TO JUNE 1972

Date County Amount Results

1964 Palm Beach 26,750,000 Approved1965 Brevard 20,000,000 ApprovedOctober 1966 Ahchua 11,800,000 Rejected

October 1966 Polk 16,500,000 Rejected

November 1966 llardee 1,240,000 ApprovedNov. 8, 1966 Collier 3,770,000 Approved

Nov. 8, 1966 Okaloosa 2,930,000 ApprovedNov. 8, 1966 Suwannee 1,980,000 ApprovedNov. 8, 1966 Volusia 8,260,000 Rejected

*December 1966 Charlotte 3,900,000 Rejected

*March 1967 Charlotte 3,900.000 Rejected

Sept. 26, 1967 Sarasota 10,975,000 Rejected

November 1967 Hillsborough 48,000,000 Rejected

Jan. 23, 1968 De Soto 1,500,000 Approved**March 5, 1968 Broward 108,600,000 Approved

May 7, 1968 Seminole 10,300,000 ApprovedMay 28, 1968 Alachua 12,700,000 ApprovedMay 28, 1968 Leon 9,000,000 ApprovedNov. 5, 1968 Gulf 1,100,000 ApprovedNov. 5, 1968 Sarasota 6,995,000 ApprovedOct. 21, 1969 Charlotte 4,225,000 Approved

***July 21, 1969 Hillsborough 16,000,000 ApprovedMarch 4, 1969 Sumter 1,400,000 Rejected, 1,272-242April 8, 1969 Bay 6,500,000 Rejected, 5,216-2,508

May 13, 1969 Putnam 5,350,000 Rejected, 3,024.1,136June 10, 1969 Highlands 4,500,000 Approved, 2,011-1,179Sept. 23, 1969 Pasco 6,900,000 Election Deferred IndefinitelyOct. 21, 1969 Charlotte 4,225,000 Approved, 2,451.940Nov. 4, 1969 Columbia 3,500,000 Rejected, 1,839.867Sept. 8, 1970 Collier 7,985,000 Rejected, 2,779.1,939Sept. 29, 1970 Hillsborough 19,150,000 Approved, 31,221-24,722Nov. 3, 1970 Lake 6,600,000 Rejected, 7,908.2,824

May 18, 1971 Palm Beach 103,000,000 Rejected, 24,062.17,607June 1, 1971 Escambia 13,800,000 Rejected, 13,901.10,505March 1972 Volusia 10,000,000 ApprovedJune 1972 Collier 12,600,000 Approved

Note: Dixie County given authority by 1967 Legislature to issue $1,000,000 in Racing Commission revenue certificates to replace high

school destroyed by fire.

* Two elections on same bond issue; results of first voided by court.

** Largest single school bond issue ever voted upon in Florida.

*** Voided by court, which held all voters; not just freeholders, should have been permitted to vote. ,

132

APPENDIX B

OUTSTANDING INDEBTEDNIESS 6.30-71*

County Amount County Per ADA

Ilroward $123.473,400 Charlotte SI ,825Dade 55,022,000 Gulf 1.504Brevard 41,657,127 Glades 1,318I lillsborough 40.057,000 Broward 1,140Duval 34,687,000 Highlands 1,111Palm Beach 33,711,000 Franklin 1.096Orange 28,900,000 Sarasota 824Pinellas 18,274,250 Collier 771

Sarasota 15,392,000 Union 771

Alachua 14,905,000 Wakulla 760Leon 14,383,500 Leon 754Seminole 12,554,000 Alachua 727Okaloosa 11,310,000 Brevard 723Volusia 9,477,000 Dixic 707Lee 9,337,000 Hamilton 99Polk 9,255,000 Hendry 698Escambia 7,071,632 Baker 690Charlotte 6,996,000 Bradford 668Collier 6.829,276 Seminole 608Ilighlands 6,653,000 Holmes 607Marion 4,655,500 Okeechobee 560Manatee 4,227,000 Palm Beach 536Lake 4,125,000 Citrus 534Santa Rosa 4,074,945 Walton 514Gulf 3,890,887 Suwannee 492Monroe 3,798,000 Taylor 483Indian River 3,488,000 Lee 481

Pasco 3,484,000 Hardee 471

Clay 3,395,098 DeSoto 466Gadsden 3,065,000 Liberty 462St. Luck 3,011,956 Indian River 454St. Johns 2,841,000 Okaloosa 454Bay 2,791,000 Levy 44Martin 2,442,673 St. Johns 438Bradford 2,329,151 Santa Rosa 434Nassau 2,197100 Martin 424Osceola 2,077,)00 Hillsborough 415Hendry 2,029,100 Monroe 401Walton 1,931,740 Nassau 385Suwannee 1,916,000 Clay 379Citrus 1,861,875 Hernando 374Franklin 1,850,000 Osceola 374Taylor 1,724,000 Gilchrist 368Okeechobee 1,710,000 Orange 368Baker 1,689,500 Calhoun 366Holmes 1,641,000 Gadsden 328Hamilton 1,506,266 Volusia 313I lardce 1,503,750 Duval 311

Hernando 1,482,477 Pasco 301

Levy 1,432,050 St. Luck 300Columbia 1,298,000 Marion 284Wakulla 1,280,960 Lake 282

DeSo to 1,275,000 Manatee 268Glades 1,190,000 Dade 248Putnam 1,121,500 Pinellas 229

Dixie 1,020,000 Columbia 205Union 1.001,000 Lafayette 205

rAoun 726,000 Polk 178

Jackson 705,000 Bay 167

Liberty 405,000 Escambia 162

Washington 379,115 Flagler 142

Gilchrist 378,000 Washington 129

Madison 261,000 Putnam 121

Jefferson 240,000 Jefferson 104

Flagler 147,000 Jackson 93

Sumter 145,000 Madison 75

Lafayette 127,000 Sumter 43

TOTAL $589,815,639 S 442

*Source: Commissioner's Annual Report, 1970-71.

APPENDIX C

CHANGES IN AVERAGE COST OF CONSTRUCTION OF SCHOOLS IN FLORIDA

Per Cent IncreaseELEMENTARY SCHOOLS 1966-67 1967-68 1968.69 1969-70 1970.71 1967.68 to 1970.71

Per Pupil S 935.00 S 1,081.00 S 1.300.00 S 1.403.00 S 1,577.00 69Per Teachcr Station 26,720.00 32,059.00 34.78100 36,162.00 42,862.00 60Pcr Square Foot

(a) Total Cost 14.86 16.87 19.06 20,39 22.70 53(b) Contract Cost 12.67 i4.35 16.44 17.59 19.42 53

Per Ccnt of Total Costfor Construction Contract 8f 85% 86% 86% 85%

Total Pupil Capacity 12,492 15,449 22,799 17,706 10,652Total Teacher Stations 437 521 852 683 392Total Squarc Footagc 785,515 990,338 1.554,332 1,211.037 740,009

SECONDARY SCHOOLS

Pcr Pupil S 1,576.00 S 1,335.00 S 1,914.00 S 2 124.00 S 2,539.00 61Pcr Tcachcr Station 42,533.00 38,226.00 51,544.00 62,851.00 69,112.00 63Per Squarc Foot

(a) Total Cost 16.53 15.63 19.11 23.08 24.37 48(b)-:)ntract Cost 13.97 13.69 15.97 19.46 21.09 St

Pcr Ccnt of Total Costfor Construction Cost 84% 86% 84% 84% 86%

Total Pupil Capacity 6,370 14,863 26,144 22,549 24,744Total Teachcr Stations 236 519 971 762 909Total Square Footage 607,098 1,268,907 2,617,800 2,075,023 2,577,829

ALL SCHOOLS

Pcr Pupil S 1,151.00 $ 1,205.00 S 1,628.00 S 1,808.00 S 2,249.00 95Pcr Tcachcr Station 32,263.00 35,137.00 43,710.00 50,236.00 61,203.00 90Pcr Squarc Foot

(a) Totit! Cost 15.59 16.17 19.10 22.09 24.00 54(b) Contract Cost 13.27 13.87 16.15 18.77 20.72 56

Pcr Cent of Total Costfor Construction Cost 85% 86% 85% 85% 86%

Total Pupil Capacity 18,862 30,312 48,943 40,155 35,396Total Tcachcr Stations 637 1,090 1,823 1,445 1,301Total Square Footagc 1,392,613 2,259,245 4,172,132 3,286,060 3,317.828

134

APPENDIX DEXISTING (1971-72) AND PROJECTED (1976-77)

CAPITAL OUTLAY NEEDS

Bureau of School FacilitiesSurvey Section

December, 1972

EXISTING SCHOOL FACILITIES ANDCAPITAL OUTLAY PROJECTIONS

Terms and Explanations

1. ADMTotal days membership divided by totaldays of school

2. County Housing IndexThe capability of acounty to house pupils. Obtained by dividingthe total students to be housed by the recom-mended capacity of all schools.

3. Adjusted Capacity NeededADM multiplied bythe county housing index

4. Existing CapacityObtained from FISH usingSurvey Section standards for square ft.categories of standard classrooms and individualcounty school districts standards for all otherrooms

5. Existing DeficienciesRequired capacity minusexisting capacity

6. Surplus CapacityCapacity not required tohouse present ADM

7. Square Ft. Construction NeedsObtained bymultiplying deficiencies by 80 square ft. perpupil deficiency (this is a simplifyingassumption; needs for some programs may bemore or less than 80 sq. ft. per pupil)

8. Construction Cost IndexObtained from citizenscommittee for education. Index shows various

0:: 137

construction costs using Leon County as a baseof 1.00

9. Existing Capital Outlay N eedObtained by multi-plying square ft. need by cost indei by theestimated 1973-74 square ft. cost of $21.66.Based upon an inflation of 20.9% over the 1971-72 cost of $18.33

Projection 1976-77Obtained from Survey Sec-tion

10. Adjusted Capacity NeededSame as Item #3only for the 1976-77 school year

11. Projected Capacity DeficienciesSame as Item#5 only for the 1976-77 school year

12. Increase Square Ft. Need Same as Item #7 onlyfor the 1976-77 school year

13. Capital Outlay Need 1976-77Obtained by samemethod as above except using the square ft.cost projected to 1974-75 which is inflated to30% above the $18.33 square ft. cost of 1971-72.

Items in parenthesis in Columns 7 and 9 are neededfor the 1972-73 school year but are not projected tobe needed for the 1976-77 school year so they are notincluded in the column totals.

Capital Outlay need for 1976-77 includes existingcosts. If no Capital Outlay 'need is shown for 1976-77and there is an existing need this indicates a decreasingpupil membership and no new construction isindicated.

ALA

CH

UA

RR

AO

FO

RO

W IG

WA

MS

AA

AA

AA

TM

CIT

RU

S

CU

MC

OLL

ICA

0110

C

OC

SO

TO

CO

MIC

CwArau

FLA

GLI

MI IN

4111

0SO

WO

GIL

CH

RIS

T

ALA

CM

IS

AU

LTH

AM

ILT

ON

HA

CIS

C

IMN

OR

T

N IO

NLA

HO

S

NIL

LIM

IGR

OLM

N

INC

HA

N R

ITC

JAC

KS

ON

NH

SA

AA

AA

A IT

T

0LH)0

CA

NS

Cu

"ON

L.,

LIS

CR

TT

MA

CH

SO

N

MA

MO

NM

AR

TIN

W O

MA

CK

OK

ALO

OS

A

KK

KK

KK

OS

SA

OR

AN

GC

WA

SN

ING

TO

N

TO

TA

L

.XINDERGARTEN

A. D. M.

71.42

1,422

164

862

236

2,927

4,935

136

229

278

503

654

323

11,93695

116

2,074

1,588 76

111

253 69

69

169

146

50

176

186

239

479

147

49

71844

1,277

215

64

187

1,029

1,027

277

611

269

1,499

3,160

284

2,117

559

3,867

2,139

551

339

501

1,051

1,121

101

19276

1,736

130

189

210

56,237

Assawsss s som-HAM

COUNTY

ROUSING

INDEX

109

110

106

110

102

100

138

101

101

100

101

100

100

109

110

102

101

102

103

102

101

126

110

114

101

100

100

108

100

117

102

113

121

120

101

101

114

101

116

116

103

105

103

100

105

118

101

100

102

105

100

101

107

105

108

101

102

101

101

100

110

104

110

102

103

100

101

EXISTING ADJUSTED

PUPIL CAPACITY

NEEDED

1,550

180

914

260

2,986

4,935

147

231

280

503

660

323

11,936

103

127

2,115

1,603 78

114

258 70

86

185

166

51 0

176 0 0

217

243

541

177 58

72545

1,455

217 74

216

1,059

1,078

285

611

282

1,768 0

3,160

289

2,222

559

3,901

2,228

578

366 0

511

1,061

1,132 0

199 83

1,770

138

189

212

EXISTING

CLASSROOMS

21 4

15 5

11

54 3

12

11 2

18

11

363 2 5

4520 2 1 7 1 2 1 0 0 2, 0 3

49 5 3 2 2 0 8 0

17 7 2 411

22 5

17 1

46 0

33 6

35 5

37

64 1 3 0 5

15

33 0 7 1 030 0 4 4

EXISTING

CAPACITY

KINDERGARTEN

555

100

375

125

275

1,35075

300

275 50

450

275

9,87550

125

1,125

500

5025

175

25

50

25 0 0

50 0 75

1,225

125

75

50 ,

50 0

200 0

425

175

50

100

275

550

125

425

25

1,150 0

825

150

875

125

925

1,600

25 75 0

125

375

825 0

175

25 0

750 0

100

100

57,797

1105

28,455

FROM ELEMLNTARf

EXISTING

EXISTING

SURPLUS

CAPACITY

CAPACITY

DEFICIENCIES

386

609

498

539

135

2,142

569

4,388

72

63

5

108

345

126

8448

2,86153

267

3,054

1,896

161 15

2,039 88

173

442 68

931

565

36

707

74

45

166

51

92

168

491

127

58

525

1,030

116

77

528

160

186

257

618

2,479

943

757

670

434

2,976

688

261

292

155

136

386

361

325

307

174

100

911

109

137

138

89

112

24,257

17,037

EXISTING

CONSTRUCTION COST

SURPLUS

EXISTING ADJUSTED

INDEX

CAPACITY

SQ. FT. NEEDED 0

K 6 ELEM. 80 SQ. FT. PER CHILD

48,720

.99

.91

.91

.91

.90

1.06

.84

1.03

.93

.94

1.06

.96

1.11

.96

.89

.97

.97

.91

.86

.81

.89

1.00

.86

.89

4,080

.96

1.00

.93

.91

1.01

.89

1.06

.87

.89

.81

.93

1.03

1.00

.87

.83

.86

1.00

.91

1.04

1.14

.93

.90

1.00

.97

.94

1.04

.93

1.01

.97

.91

.97

1.04

.90

1.01

.96

.90

.89

13,920

.87

.89

.97

.91

.90

.84

418

803

134

265

2,064

793

133

1,956

52 13

50

266

143

1,225

886

523

12

144

804 74

17

43,120

10,800

45,520

5,760

400

27,600

6,720

3,840

228,800

4,240

5,920

3,600

13,280

10,000

13,440

39,280

10,160

4,640

42,000

82,400

9,040

6,160

42,240

12,800

14,880

20,560

49,440

53,600

34,720

238,080

55,040

23,360

10,880

30,880

26,000

24,560

8,720

11,040

7,120

8,960

10,775

1,356,320

EXISTING CAPITAL

OUTLAY NEEDS

$21.66

1,044,722

849,917

212,874

887,366

104,791

8,058

561,947

154,288

79,839

5,502,875

88,156

110,275

69,399

256,000

84,842

192,774

308,568

740,209

195,850

81,398

846,040

1,784,784

168,385

133,425

832,567

288,338

367,419

414,161

963,783

1,207,415

699,401

5,208,385

1,156,406

460,439

228,590

601,975

568,791

510,699

262,203

183,208

217,596

138,797

163,013

28,940,068

AL

AC

HU

A

Mr

SMA

MM

O

SMW

AA

M

CA

.NO

UN

CH

AM

OIM

calms

cur

CO

LIM

AC

OL

UM

I11

DA

DA

O. w.°

DU

VA

L

SMA

IIA

n.991...

MIA

NA

LIN

GA

MM

AN

ILC

OM

MA

SKS

ML

AH

AM

MO

N

OM

AN

OH

IMIL

AN

DS

HIL

LSO

MO

UPH

NO

LN

MO

MN

EM

MJA

CK

SON

Im0 ,.

MT

.L M

RL

OO

N

.. t .N N

AD

ON

NN

AA

MM

ON

m rnm

MM

EA

SN

AM

MI

MA

LC

OM

04C

NO

OC

OL

APA

LM

MA

CH

PAC

OM

AIM

UM

PIM

A

PIT

MA

N

Sr. M

AIM

M. L

UC

IA

MM

A N

OM

M SHO

IOL

IIM

AII

MSU

MA

HN

M'A

MO

NU

NIO

N

MIM

I.W

HIM

. ..

P/A

HIN

SH

M

TO

TA

L

A. D. M.

71-72

10,409

1,289

8,411

1,848

29,283

50,606

1,043

1,872

1,591

4,817

4,475

3,348

119,837

1,623

771

58,806

19,558

607

685

5,039

596

502

1,248

1,130

1,852

1,847

2,358

2,596

54,769

1,408

9,329

3,942

804

359

7,307

'I10,033

8,414

1,805

455

1,094

8,202

7,620

3,174

5,539

3,049

13,384

1,981

43,556

2,652

33,51,8

7,308

43,848

28,955

4,619

3,713

5,069

4,812

9,862

1,428

1,811

1,917

1,903

237

16,953

955

1,922

1.432

698.285

COUNTY

HOUSING

INDEX

1.09

1.10

1.06

1.10

1.02

1.00

1.38

1.C1

1.01

1.00

1.01

1.00

1.00

1.09

1.10

1.02

1.01

1.02

1.03

1.02

1.01

1.26

1.10

1.14

1.01

1.00

1.00

1.08

1.00

1.17

1.02

1.13

1.21

1.20

1.01

1.01

1.14

1.01

1.16

1.16

1.03

1.05

1.03

1.00

1.05

1.18

1.01

1.00

1.02

1.05

1.00

1.01

1.07

1.05

1.08

1.01

1.02

1.01

1.01

1.00

1.10

1.04

1.10

1.02

1.03

1.00

1.07

ADJUSTED

CAPACITY

REQUIRED

11,345

1,417

8,915

2,032

29,868

50,606

1,439

1,890

1,606

4,817

4,519

3,348

119,837

1,769

848

59,982

19,753

619

705

5,139

601

632

1,322

1,288

1,870

1,847

2,358

2,803

54,769

1,647

4,415

4,454

972

430

7,380

11,046

9,591

1,823

527

1,274

8,448

8,001

3,269

5,539

3,201

15,793

2,000

43,556

2,705

35,193

7,308

41,256

30,981

4,849

4,010

5,119

4,908

9,960

11,542

1,811

2,167

1,979

260

16,374

983

1,922

1.532

716,169

EXISTING

CAPACITY

ELEM.

11,731

1,915

8,197

1,865

32,010

54,994

1,420

1,953

1,446

4,925

4,645

2,488

117,250

970

1,115

63,036

21,649

780

720

7,178

595

720

1,495

1,165

1,305

1,730

2,800

2,871

51,196

1,316

4,300

3,100

960

405

6,725

11,977

9,101

2,388

563

1,270

9,165

7,909

2,220

5,478

2,478

14,106

875

46,035

3,648

35,950

5,809

39,528

28,075

5,110

4,165

2,655

4,379

10,321

11412

1,423

1,150

1,8C5

360

17,285

1,120

1,913

1.499 742,142

EXISTING

CAPACITY

DEFICIENCIES

(718)

167

(19)

160

860

2,587

799 (6)

123

565

117

3,573

331

(115)

1,14412 25

(655)

(490)

(4)

92

1,049

61

(723)

1,687

1,125

1,499

1,728

2,906

2,464

:529)

(130)

388

(1,017)

(174)

(9)

(33)

23,462

(4,622)

28,084

EXISTING

SURPLUS

CAPACITY

SQUARE FELT

CONSTRUCTION

NEED I

80 SQ. FT.

CONSTRUCTION

COST

INDEX

99

91

91

91 90

1.06

84

1.03

93

94

1.0696

1.11 96

89

97

97

91

86

8189

1.00

8689

96

1.0093

91

1.0189

1.068789

81

93

1.03

1.00

87

8386

1.00

91

1.04

1.14

9390

1.00

97

94

1.04

93

1.0197

91

97

1.0490

1.01 96

90

898789

97

91

9084

EXISTING

CAPITAL-OUTLAY

NEED @ 21.66

(1,132,176)

263,342

(27,655)

257,841

1,430,600

4,975,865

1,412,197

(9,831)

201,545

(939,871)

215,408

6,253,199

510,461

(224,430)

1,832,410

19,662

37,282

(1,121,506)

(849,072)

(6,333)

(145,079)

1,890,420

120,495

(1,237,937)

2,630,910

2,071,215

2,415,653

3,024,213

4,884,460

4,440,408

(876,547)

(1,383,476)

(229,769)

642,910

(1,666,434)

(262,303)

(18,811)

(51,035)

39,530,496

(10,182,265)

49,712,/61

386

498

2.162

(57,440)

13,360

4,388 63

(1,520)

12,800

126

267'

68,800

206,960

67,915

3,054

1,896

16115

2,019 88

173

(510)

10,455

45,200

68

9,945

285,840

26,480

(9,775)

97,240

1,020

2,125

(55,675)

931

565 36

(39,200)

(340)

707

7,360

83,920

4,880

(61,455)

2,479

943

7j7

134,960

95,625

261

155

119,920

138,240

232,480

361

197,120

(44,965)

(11,050)

32,980

100

911

137

(86,445)

(13,920)

23,707

(765)

(2.805)

1,895,625

(365,865)

c,281,490

MIDDLE

A.D.M.

71-72

COUNTY

HOUSING

INDEX

ADJUSTED

CAPACITY

RIQUIRJED

EXISTING

CAPACITY

EXISTING

CAPACITY

DEFICIENCIES

EXISTING

SURPLUS

CAPACITY

SQUARE FEET

CONSTRUCTION

NEEDS e

90 SQ. FT.

CONSTRUCTION

COST

INDEX

EXISTING

CAPITAL-OUTLAY

NEED e

27.29

ALA

CH

UA

1,102

1.09

1,201

1,526

325

0.99

OA

KS

.1.10

0.91

SA

Y1.06

0.91

SA

AO

VO

MP

601

1.10

661

486

115

10,350

0.91

257,031

IIHIS

SA

.01,084

1.02

1,106

1,423

317

0.90

000I

NA

MO

29,443

1.00

29,443

21,762

7,681

691,290

1.06

19,997,222

CA

LHO

UN

1.38

0.84

CH

AO

LOT

YS

1.01

1.03

CY

MR

U&

1,375

1.01

1,389

752

637

57,330

0.93

1,455,018

CLA

Y2,416

1.00

2,416

2,414

2180

0.94

4,617

CO

LLIS

.2,516

1.01

2,541

3,816

1,275

1.06

CO

CU

NO

M1.00

0.96

SA

SS

2,794

1.00

2,794

2,309

485

43,650

1.11

1,322,241

SA

SO

TO

802

1.09

874

635

239

21,510

0.96

563,528

wme

1.10

0.89

1.02

r0.97

VIC

AN

SM

12,620

1.01

12,746

10,595

2,151

193,590

0.97

5,124,579

"LA

MA

S1.

020.91

VIIA

NS

LI.

479

1.03

493

807

314

0.86

567

1.02

578

833

255

0.81

SM

CM

WM

T1.01

0.89

SLA

VE

S1.26

1.00

UL,

'1.10

0.86

ft....oft

1.14

0.89

HA

AS

.954

1.01

964

1,037

73

0.96

MM

.,now.ftwo

1.00

1.00

1.00

0.93

H1S

HLA

M00

1,609

1.08

1,738

1,660

(78)

(7,020)

0.91

(174,334)

...A

MIC

MO

UO

M1.00

1.01

HC

II.H

AS

1.17

0.89

omwwww.

1.02

1.06

JAM

ISO

N1.13

0.87

MY

YS

IMC

HI

831

1.21

1,006

1,084

78

0.89

LAIA

MIT

TC

1.20

0.81

LAK

S2,729

1.01

2.756

1,323

1,433

128,970

0.93

3,273,220

Lee

5,496

1.01

5,551

5,846

295

1.03

LSO

.5,231

1.14

5,963

8,041

2,078

1.00

Law.,

tman,

1.01

1.16

0.87

0.83

MA

MM

ON

1,411

1.16

1,637

1,706

69

0.86

OIA

.AT

CS

2,431

1.03

2,504

2,435

(69)

(6,210)

1.00

(169,471)

WA

YU

CH

.4,629

1.05

4,860

5,199

339

0.91

HARM.

427

1.03

440

815

375

1.04

.00.

00C

1.00

1.14

ft....0

1.05

0.93

OD

U1L

CO

SS

A1.18

0.90

OS

CS

C.O

SA

S1.01

1.00

0411

.01.00

0.97

OS

CS

OC

A1,716

1.02

1,750

1,580

170

15,300

0.94

392,485

PA

LM S

.C.

1.05

1.04

.....

1,255

1.00

1,255

675

580

'52,200

0.93

1,324,820

...M

AA

S1.01

1.01

PO

LS1,363

1.07

1,458

1,624

166

0.97

PU

TN

AM

1,737

1.05

1,824

1,040

784

70,560

0.91

1,752,280

OT

.JO

HM

S1.08

0.97

ST

. LO

CI.

2,965

1.01

2,995

1,452

1,543

138,870

1.04

3,941,353

MO

M R

OS

A1,736

1.02

1,771

1,448

(323)

(29,070)

0.90

(713,988)

SA

HA

SO

VA

363

1.01

367

366

(1)

(90)

1.01

(2,481)

AM

INO

.3,896

1.01

3,935

5,474

'.539

0.96

MMUS

SO4

1.00

504

432

(72)

(6,480)

0.90

(159,155)

SU

WA

.O.M

.895

1.10

985

792

192

17,280

0.89

419,698

OM

LIN

.1.04

0.87

uftmm

696

1.10

766

808

42

0.89

MM

UM

A1,793

1.02

1,829

2,081

252

0.97

WA

SU

LLA

1.03

0.91

1,279

1.00

1,279

567

712

64,080

0.90

1,573,869

WA

I1.1

.070

.455

1.01

460

448

12

1,080

0.84

24,757

16,736

(543)

1,506,240

(48,870)

41,426,718

102,200

104,839

95,291

17,279

7,792

1,555,110

(1,219,429)

TOTAL

42,646,147

JUNIOR

A.D.M.

1971 -72

COUNTY

HOUSING

INDEX

ADJUSTED

CAPACITY

REQUIRED

EXISTING

CAPACITY

EXISTING

CAPACITY

DEFICIENCIES

EXISTING

SURPLUS

CAPACITY

SQUARE FEET

CONSTRUCTION

NEEDS 0

100

CONSTRUCTION

COST

INDEX

EXISTING

CAPITALOUTLAY

NEED Q 27.29

LAG

OW

A2,186

1.09

2,383

2,979

596

0.99

VA

N.

705

1.10

776

442

334

33,400

0.91

829,452

VA

T4,796

1.06

5,084

3,461

1,623

162,300

0.91

4,030,542

sOA

OT

ae1.

100.91

15,388

1.02

15,696

14,437

1.259

(125,900)

0.90

(3.092,230)

IIIM

DM

*02,179

1.00

2.179

3,886

1,707

1.06

1.38

0.84

CMIAMTV

1,398

1.01

1,412

427

985

98,500

1.03

2,768,707

CIT

U1.01

0.93

CIA

.1.00

0.94

.00.m.

1.01

1.06

coke...

1,726

1.00

1,726

1,969

243

0.96

OA

Ve

53,378

1.00

53,378

40,134

13,244

1,324,400

1.11

40,118,592

ea 1

10T

O1.09

0.96

Om

a1.10

0.89

30,179

1.02

30,783

26,407

4,376

1437,600)

0.97

(11,583,841)

ZN

O.

1.01

0.97

LAW

A1.02

0.91

.1.03

0.86

4100

11M

1,014

1.02

1,034

1,685

651

0.81

4MC

Ham

1.01

0.89

OLA

DV

O1.26

1.00

UL

1.10

0.86

..v0.

1.14

0.89

1.01

0.96

mie

wO

T1.00

1.00

810

1.00

810

732

78

7,800

0.93

197,962

NIO

NLA

NO

ID422

1.08

456

296

160

16,000

0.91

397,342

ffMA

Sac

.0y0

.26,877

1.00

26,877

23,886

2,991

299,100

1.01

8,244,063

...04

.80.

1.17

0.89

MO

W. e

ve2,275

1.02

2,321

1,816

50,500

1.06

1,460.834

.11.

110

1.13

0.87

..

1.21

0.89

711.

.

LAT

IMei

re

910

1.21

1.01

919

1,245

326

0.81

0.93

rte....

512

1.01

517

737

220

1.03

a000

1.14

1.00

Lary

1.01

0.87

1.1e

Mll,

1.16

0.83

MD

Me.

1.16

0.86

1.03

1.00

V..

1.05

0.91

YAWN.

1,514

1.03

1,559

1,029

530

53,000

1.04

1,504,225

MM

M1.00

1.14

..AV

1.731

1.05

1,818

1,665

153

(15,300)

0.93

(388,309)

OV

OC

6,889

1.18

8,129

6,804

1,325

132,500

0.90

3,254,333

OT

AC

858

1.01

867

472

395

39,500

1.00

1,077,955

22,096

1.00

22,096

18,644

3,452

345,200

0.97

9,137,893

VC

IEO

CA

1.02

0.94

PA

U. V

ILA

CH

17.199

1.05

18,059

21,812

6,247

624,700

1.04

17,729,986

402,928

1.00

2,928

2,244

684

68,400

0.93

1,735,971

111[

1.1.

22.583

1.01

22.809

20,408

2,401

240,100

1.01

6,617,852

ni

13,128

1.07

14,047

11,381

2,666

266.600

0.97

7,057,249

1.05

0.91

.../.0

.1,786

1.08

1,929

1,365

S64

56,400

0.97

1,492,981

T. L

YC

OU

1.01

1.04

..

1,491

1.02

1,521

615

906

90.600

0.90

2,225,227

O5,246

1.01

5,298

5,351

53

1.01

aVIIM

Olt

1.01

0.96

Yr

Tt

1.00

0.90

1.10

0.89

558

1.04

580

526

54

5,400

0.87

128,208

tiN.

1.10

0.89

6,860

1.02

6,997

7,588

591

0.97

wIA

AA

1.03

0.91

.......

1.00

0.90

W1.

111.01

0.84

4387

3.914,400(578.800)

110,009,374

249.622

254,988

214.443

44,427

,

4,493,200

(15,C64,38L

TOTAL

125.073,754

SENIOR

COUNTY

ADJUSTED

EXISTING

A.D.H.

HOUSING

CAPACITY

EXISTING

CAPACITY

EXISTING

SQUARE FEET

CONSTRUCTION

CAPACITY

DEFICIENCIES

CONSTRUCTION NEED

COST

EXISTING

SURPLUS

ALA

CH

UA

1971-72

6,774

INDEX

1.09

REQUIRED

7,384

5,611

CAPACITY

18)76,938

0.99

NEED @ 27.29

NM

.539

1.10

593

418

1,717735

18,550

0.91

IBA

,3,750

1.06

3,731

244

0.91

Siii

1.10

?:91;:.

13,561

13,832

(1::::::)

0.90

1,087

1.02

1,278

(1,363

82

0.91

.Wp

35,849

1.00

12,469

25

1.06

(3,548,524)

CLWWN

913

1.38

351:::(1

35,874

17

86

0.84

208,971

01.1

1.17

.1,021

1.01

1,031

1,330

9,116

299

1.03

CIT

U1,257

1.01

31

0.93

CU

LT2,619

1.00

1,270

,,?60

0.94

glA

D.

50,992

1.00

50,992

42;,,,254

2,:::

907,784

1.11

27,498,502

cowuts

2,678

1.01

461

48,866

1.06

1,413,566

CO

LLIN

OM

1,405

1.00

1:74g55

0.96

D i

OLT

o733

1.09

799

636

6,564

907,784

0.96

452,655

nn.

699

1.10

769

333

436

46,216

0.89

1,122,498

25,021

1.02

281

0.97

. 1.1

..A13,585

1.01

25,521

25,240

788,474

2;92,74:

264,555

500

1.02

510

11,:(3.:

2,573

992,412

0.97

IFLO

atla

n Lin

747

1.03

561

296

377

39,962

0.91

659,255

1.01

745

304

28,090

0.89

4,290

265

1,725

0.86

ILV

.T2.=

1.02

0.81

SLA

M.

410

1.26

2,565

517

939

422

1.00

OM

,1,271

1.10

753

0.86

NN

WT

oPlo

1,383

1,396

2,151

Mot

o.904

1.01

ITI;

1,:g

34

0.96

1.14

354

0.89

1,419

1.00

321

1.00

94,419

1.00

1,419

397

432160:42

0.93

1,068,028

.14.1.Letp

1,284

1.08

1,284

1.78:1;

705

0.91

HIL

LMO

IVO

UIK

21,189

1,857

1.00

2,006

1.01

Mol

Nal

l1,386

1.17

21,189

2,711

-17:

uma

3.495

1.01

3,733

2,65347715:7

203

12,720

0.93

308,944

2?::::

1,621

352

37,312

0.89

JAC

IMM

I3.600

1.13

14:076!73

2,356

0.87

1,018,244

mirI

m W

m.

1,742

1.02

1.06

/11/

1110

01639

1.21

773

3.6695

120

0.89

UM

. ma

307

1.21

371

388

0.81

tL4

Lli

5,847

1.01

3,530

5,905

6,434

529

1.03

L lo

N5,858

"VT

1,551

1.14

1.01

6,678

4,857

1,821

118

193,026

1.00

0.87

5,267,679

L in.,

433

1.16

1,5X

362

39,372

0.83

869,152

MA

AM

Tla

5,271

1.03

1:13;'

1515

704

717,,gt2

0.86

WA

DM

Oft

995

1.16

1,751,380

mA

nKm

6,033

167

1.00

483,087

N W

!.'5,334

1.05

5,601

ImaM

ILL

1,266

1.03

1.00

!lel

4,023e4

56

432

664

0.91

1.14

1.04

kMIA

1,253

5,936

olta

....

17,010

565

1.01

1.00

17,g710

2,459

6,146

149

0.90

1.00

168,473

ollL

OO

SA

5,082

1.05

1,316

1,739

423

0.93

1.18

5,997

0.11

01.

1,800

1.02

1,836

20,404

:::::

0.94

ALK...

13,318

1.05

12,g;

3,39::

1.04

0.97

.40

2.608

1.00

13,984

2,608

659

69,854

0.93

1,772,873

1.01

19,544

21,:g

3,482

1.01

As

19,350

rout

11,242

10,425

1,604

170,024

0.97

4,500,756

PU

TF

AK

1,960

1.07

1.05

12,029

1,136

0.91

...A

RM

1,286

1.08

2,058

?:14::

97

0.97

..

401.

1.2,902

1.01

2,;8391

3,025

ALM

A2,192

94

1.04

WM

...8,204

1.0I

8,286

566

32,436

0.96

IIIM

OO

TA

1.01

4,356

171

0.90

920,585

14,M

1.02

2,021

:::15:

1,262

1.01

1,410

LA

1,560

1.00

1,560

380

40,280

0.90

989,317

1.10

1,965

1,551

1,180

414

0.89

1,058

1.04

1,100

1,=

486

0.87

ImmA

402

1.10

465

0.89

LI..

VO

7,002

1.02

7,

3,502

310g

0.97

wL

Ton

V..

1,405

1,069

1.00

1.01

1,405

1,193

106

385,840

21,200

0.90

wA

KU

LLA

782

1.03

805

1,t(1)

0.91

10,213,686

354,836

356305

27,257

30,005

29,,A6,678

69,06:7

345,939

1,080

25,894

(1,363)

113

2.778.200 (144,470

0.84

(T2,:0:2:)198

TO

TA

L

TOTALEXISTINGCONTRACT

COSTS

LEGALAADMINISTRATIVE ARCHITECTURE FURNITURE

SITEIMPROVEMENT

SITEACQUISITION

TOTALEXISTINGCAPITALOUTLAYNEED

41.*CmU 6,122,266 22,138 290,379 644,852 23,020 612,227 7,714,882na.. 1,290,121 4,665 61,190 135,887 48,509 129,012 1,669,384oa 5,522,762 19,970 261,945 581,707 207,656 552,276 7,146,3Ib0.0r0.0 733,247 2,651 34,778 77,232 27,570 73,325 948,803

o.." 19,997.222 72,310 948,468 2,106,287 751,896 1,999,722 25,875,905

caLmouly 313,762 1,135 14,882 :3,048 11,797 31,376 406,000

.....o... 2,768,707 10,012 131,320 291,625 104,103 276,871 3,582,638

<aim 1,720,917 6,223 81,623 181,262 64,706 172,091 2,226,822c 566,564 2,048 26,872 59,675 21,302 56,656 733,117

COLleTIT 1,567,854 5,669 74,363 165,140 58,951 156,785 2,028,762

coLumo 1,510,439 5,462 71,640 159,093 56,793 151,044 1,954,471

<mo0 79,418,075 287,176 3,766,799 8,365,026 2,986,120 7,941,808 102,756,004

00 sOTO 2,516,536 9,100 119,359 265,064 94,622 251,654 3,256,335OM* 1,122,498 4,059 53,240 118,232 42,206 112,250 1t452,485

OUTaL 788,474 2,851 37,397 83,049 29,647 78,847 1,020,265

111.CMe 5,389,134 19,487 255,607 567,632 202,631 538,913 6,973,404IL.. 992,412 3,589 47,070 104,530 37,315 99,241 1,284,157444444 TT. 769,530 2,783 36,499 81,054 28,934 76,953 995,753401.0041".440.* mILTON

457,545 1.654 21,701 48,193 17,204 45,755 592.052

179,261 648 8,502 18,881 6,74. 17,926 231,958N.NonT 215,408 779 10,217 77,689 8,099 71,541 278,733NNNNNN °D 1,265,990 4,577 60,045 133,345 47,601 126,599 1,638,157

397,342 1,437 18,846 41,852 14,940 39,734 514,151

14,497,262 52,422 '37,605 1,526,982 545,097 1,449,726 18,759,094N.A.* 1,721,479 6,225 81,650 181.322 64,728 172,148 2,227,552.40,. 0 1,769,402 6,398 83,923 186,369 66,530 176,941 2,289,563A c .... 2,572,619 9,303 122,019 270,971 96,730 257,262 3,328.904

0, 524,456 1,896 24,875 55,240 19,720 52,446 678,633

118,680 429 5,629 12,500 4,462 11,868 153,568"KT 4,119,260 14,895 195,377 433,878 154,884 411,926 5,330,220LT*

"0N 7,052,463 25,502 334,498 742,829 265,173 705,246 9,125,711

"VT869,152 3,143 41,224 91,547 32,680 86,915 1,124,661

M0,0TO 1,919,765 6,942 91,054 202,207 72,183 191,977 2,484,128616,512 2,229 29,241 64,937 23,181 61,651 797,751

M10.1 832,567 3,011 39,489 87,693 31,305 83,257 1,077,322MTITO 3,851,456 13,927 182,675 405,670 144,815 385,146 4,983,o89mos. 487,914 1,764 23,142 51.391 18,346 48,791 631.348

414,161 1,498 19,644 43,623 15,572 41,416 535,9140*LOOS* 6,849,026 24,766 324,849 721,401 257,523 684,903 8,862,468

...c ..... 3,149,170 11,387 149,365 331.699 118,409 314,917 4,074,947

0 8144 9,137,893 33,043 433,410 962,485 343,585 913,789 11,824,205OTCTOL 392,485 1,419 18,616 41,340 14,757 39,249 507,8660a 18,937,401 68,478 898,201 1,994,658 712,046 1,893,740 24,504.524*WO 7,948,718 28,743 377,008 837,231 298,872 794,872 10,285,444

. 14,850,450 53,699 704,357 1,564,183 558,377 1,485,045 19,216,111

.0. 17,598,871 63,638 834.714 1,853,671 661.718 1.759.887 22,772.499

m 1,752,280 6,336 83,111 164,566 65,886 175,228 2,247,407T. 01.01 1,492,981 5,399 70,812 157,254 56,136 149,298 1,931,880*T. LUCK 9,302,346 33,637 441,210 979,807 349,768 930,235 12,037,003

fffff mos. 2,827,202 10.223 134,094 297,786 106,303 282.720 3,658,32844444 OTMINO* 510,699 1,847 24,222 53,791 19,202 51,070 660,831sum.. 1,632,227 5,902 77,417 171,921 61,372 163,223 2,112,062II fffff a* 419,698 1,518 19,906 44,206 15.781 41,970 543.079TaT010 128,208 464 6,081 13,504 4,821 12.821 165,899

Woo*.

OLY1 10,396.894 37,595 493,125 1,095,094 390,923 1,039,689 13,453,320

. 52,647 190 2,497 5,545 1,980 5,265 68,124

WaLTOM 1,573,869 5,691 74,649 165,774 59,177 157,387 2,036,547wasmoNaToft 24,757 90 1,174 2,608 931 2,476 32,036

285,971,036 1,034,072 13,563,605 30,101,038 10,545,335 28,517,118 369,732,192TOTAL

, l aaaaaaaa .. aaaaa

143

61(0JEC7101.5 1976-77

KINIARGOTEN

ADJUSTED CAPACI"RECIPEPFNTSIJ SURPLUS CAPACITY

FROM ELEMENTARYCLASSROOM

PROJECTED

CAPACITY1976-77

DEF. SURPLUS

INCREASE SQ. FT.NEED 1976.77

0 80

CAPITAL-OUTLAYNEED 0 $24.00

1976-77AL ACNuA 1,509 1,644 243 1,401 112,080 2,663,020

186 204 629 4251,109 1,175 858 317 25,360 462,862

OIOPONO 254 279 99 180 14,400 314,4962,984 3,043 8,091 5,048

aeow.ep 10,164 10,164 10,164 813,120 20,685,688124 171 125 45 3,600 72,586

cm...... 244 246 472 227co..,

ct..

327

947030

94757 273

94721,84075,760

487,4691,709,146

coum, 1,111 1,122 1,122 89,760 2,283,494COLUNN. 505 505 505 40,400 930,816O.D. 16.393 16,393 16,393 1,311,440 34,936,762o.sovo 228 248 248 19,840 457,114em. 96 105 310 205

7,936 e.094 5,625 2,469 197,570 4,598,266WANG., 3,211 3,743 4,328 1,085ILA Olio 66 67 316 249

IN

GO.O N132

614135

17677

2,427

58

1,8014,640 95,770

cuts..... 50 tol 240 18965 81 11 70

GULF 192 211 339 128HANNA,. 141 16C 169 12,800 273,408

370 073 373 29,840 687,514209 209 209 16,720 401,280352 352 251 101 8,080 180,346

" 464 501 625 124N Uf 7,514 7.514 7,514 601,120 14,571,149POLN.. 116 138 46 92 7,360 157,210IMO,. 0... 615 627 60 567 45,360 1,153,958..caw" 437 493 493 39,440 823,507

160 193 IS 178 14,240 304,16647 56 56 4,480 87,091

LAN. 1,078 1,088 211 877 70,160 1,565,9712,192 2,713 168 2,045 163,600 4,081,272

.0N 1,448 1,650 325 1,325 106,000 2,544,000Il 208 210 969 75956 64 103 39

N000+, 226 262 214 48 3,840 79,258" 1,315 1,334 3 1,351 108,080 2,593,920NON 1,277 1,340 827 513 41,040 893,314N. 539 555 555 44,400 1,108,224

757 757 345 412 32,960 901,786366 405 73 332 26,560 592,819OOO 1.008 2,133 2,133 170,640 3,685,824

OKL.0 ..... 307 310 310 24,800 595,200. NO. 6,124 6.124 4,749 1,375 110,000 2,560,800oc... 655 668 223 445 35,600 803,136...nod 5,528 5,804 5,804 464,320 11,589,4270.40 , 1,293 1,293 1,293 103,440 2,308,781o 5,935 5,994 5,994 479,520 11,623,565O 4,790 5,125 5,125 410,000 9,544,800

626 657 858 2014,. OONN 455 491 1,189 698GT. Luc 1,171 1,182 1,182 94,560 2,360,218

O0... 568 579 338 741 19,280 416,4481,420 1,434 1,530 96

1. ..mo 1,792 1,809 .1,492 317 25,360 584,294UN.* 268 268 268 21,440 463,104NNNNNN .. 7Q7 326 424 98VATLOR

ii.,, 244295 51

UNION 722,425

792,47$

177

382 2,09198

167,280 3,894,278

W101

204

104

204377

494273290

IN NINOtON 182 183 236 53

104,612 107,082 41,246 77,910 12,207 6,196,130 153,127,557

144

PROJECTED

1976-77SURPLUS

243

62985899

8,09)

SAW

SAASOOSO

SOwO

******

CLAW

COotCOLAINMA

AtoAt SOWS

Ono

CNS.400C141110,

Il140111014

No

1140014 1St*

SO.

lsletIA014

"SW

8401SOIN

colon841114

00E1.000A

CCCCC 00011m.OSCOl1.84 CCCCC

wl

ST. /SHAF. LUC

001101101001.

SYNAst

MOOS

IA

WKS1.11.A

WTON

ElEPENTARY ADJUSTED CAPACITYPROJECTION CAPACITY1976.77 REQUIREMENTS -DEF.

10,540 11,4881,171 1,2886,924 7,3391;606 1,766

23,450 23,91956,422 56,422 1,448

939 1,2951,467 1,4811,376 1,3895,479 5,479 554

5,780 5,838 1,1933,336 3,336 848

119,596 119,596 2,3461,565 1,705 735

732 80553,292 54,35717,150 17,321

455 464

624 6434,658 4,751

352 355563 709

1,051 1,1561,062 1,210 451,860 1,879 5741,832 1,832 102

2,549 2,5492,202 2,24652,146 52,146 950

1,086 1,2704,157 4,2403,214 3,631 531

781 945343 411 6

6,450 6,51411,692 11,8097,699 8,7761,603 1,619

397 460

910 1,0568,896 9,162

6,745 7,082

3,218 3,314 1,094

5,133 5,133

2,291 2,405

14,126 16,668 2,562

1,788 1,805 930

41,286 41,286

3,358 3,425

36,572 38,400 2,4507,532 7,532 1,723

40,211 40,613 1,085

28,371 30,356 2,281

4,340 4,452

2,756 2,9765,381 5,435 2,7403,962 4,0418,704 8,7919,822 9,9201,422 1,442 191,585 1,743

1,620 1,684166 183

16,572 16,903722 743

1,419 1,419

1,181 1,263

677,690 693,671 :*.216TOTAL

145

INCREASESQUARE FEET NEED0 801976.77

CAPITAL-OUTLAY

NEED 0 524.001976-77

115,840 2,946,970125

472

57

44,32095,44067,840187,68058,800

3105,625

4,32831677

2,42724011

339

251

62576,000

46 2,32060

42,480

15

480

211

168

325

969103

2143

827

87,520345

73

204,96074,400

4,743

223

196,000137,840

86,800

182,840858

1,189

219,200338

1,5301,492

424

295

177

382377

494

236

3,60045,9208,160

999,8642,427,9841,563,0244,989,7951,354,752

76,896

1,057,997195,840

1,842,24049,560

886,982

9,336

2,184,499

4,427,136

1,785,000

4,892,1603,076,5892,104,0324,256,515

5,471,323

1,520 32,832

41,246 1,939,560 46,631,926

Cs,

AAAAA

AAAAA OGG

OOr0AAAAA

AAA OP.

COP/O1PAKOf O50GM.

SC01111

flGPOI1

4MCW.OT

Gulf

000OuG..OlMfpOlAftwrleCP..

SO.

LAPuc"ONPVT

010160.

.GM°.

IfONGOS

PLOGG.

Ott OLAVOW. AAAAA

PCOPPLLGoop,

P. OOP.*T.tactAAAAA OG1140P0/01/LOOUPC

U910.

V.1.01.1.veL TOM

lopPoi 0 cm

MIDDLEPROJECTION1976.77

839

581

83633,757

1,2493,599

3,608

3,218903

12,475

251640

1,155

1,059

802

3,6017,066

%074

915

3,011485

2,397

1,769

1,3171,812

3,1581.401

2923,980427821

5231,803

984

393

106,201

ADJUSTEDCAPACITYREQUIREMENTS

915

639

85333,757

1,261

3,599

3,644

3,218984

12,600

259653

1,167

1,144

970

3,6377,137

5,784

1,061

3,162

500

2,445

1,769

1,4091,903

3,190

1,429

295

4,020427903

575

1,839

984

397

108,529

ADJUSTEDCAPACITY19

DEF.

153

11,995

¶09

1,185

909349

2,005

130

2,314

1,291

865

1,094

863

1,738

111

417

25,928

6.77

SURPLUS

611

570

172

548180

516

114

2.257

645

2,037

315

215

1971

1,454

5

233

242

51

10,255

INCREASESQUARE FEET

NEED 1976.00 90

13,770

1,079,550

45,810106,650

81,81031,410

180,450

11,700

208,260116,190

77,850

98,460

77,670

156,420

9,990

37,530

2,333,520

CAPITAL0 TLAYNEED 01 30.311976.77

379,805

34,684,430

1,291,306

3,038,608

2,752,424

913,956

5,305,356

340,442

5,870,495

3,627,370

2,218,055

2,775,420

2,142,302

4,930,709

269,489

1,023,781

71,563,948

Op00,0e0AAAAA

0GO.A00

COP.PATCOP,.

O.G.

0. so.c.

AAAAA

PlAGUI 0

GAO.. ft

GMCNI Of

Gulf

Oo

ll AAAAA

POI." 1.9P

101,

la.auPONPVT

m040.

oPP T.rp..OallOOP

01P.GC

rear

.00

POL.(

ICONSOf. PAMOf 040 0l.11

WOW

PKum

$14G ON

p

146

JUNIORPROJECTED CAPACITY INCREASE CAPITALOUTLAV

SQUARE FEET NEED1976.77 NEED Q 1.00 030.31

SURPLUS 1976 -77 1976.7700.06CmUk

PROJECTION1976.77

2,238

ADJUSTEDCAPACITYREQUIREMENTS

2,439

DEFICIENCIES

DEF.

658 724 282V 4,412 4,677 1,216

11,993 12,2332,537 2,537

Clow0U

1,029 1,039 612Cole.CS.,C0.0.

1,851 1,8510.0. 56,006 56,006 15,8720. sore0.14

21,127 21,529

1,242 1,267

COSIow...0CMow

1,725 1,725 993466 503 20700.680.006.

owes.w000000 OIV.

tCibOw.

29,061

2,361

29,061

2,408

5,175

592

..... Now

l 1111 1,497 1,512 267Su 600 606.040

N., ON...oft

1,986 2,046 1,017NO.MfthiSSAU 1,490 1,565

8,754 10,330 3,526ONncNOOa 1,000 1,010 538

24,379 24,379 5,735

20,060 21,063 9,251ASCO 4,412 4,412 2,168SO 25,385 25,639 5,231SOS 14,529 15,546 4,165

1,678 1,812 447SW. syCl.

00. 1,216 1,240 625SAASOWA 6,184 6,246 89511.1.4.01,1

1110.1.01

612 636 110.10KON

VOSS.. 7,212 7,3561.10.AVICATOM

11.1.0

257,680 253,397 58,924

540

2,2041,349

118

4,878

418

131

100

232

9,970

147

28,200 777,815121,600 3,353,983

61,200

1,587,200

99,30020,700517,500

59,200

26,700

191,062

53,399,916

2,799,098

570,94915,842,279

1,902,013

752,628

101,700 3,205,822

352,600 9,618,57553,800 1,630,678573,500 16,861,301

sh...... 011.0CV.SoosC ..... W.

CIA.ColliesCOLUNs.

SOSO

SUSS...WO%

.014rNnN

osSSSo

...O.0...0 140

0....925,100 29,161,372 .l. S.Cm216,800 6,111,223 ..co

523,100 16,013,713

416,500 12,245,392 .Oa.

44,700 1,314,213 SW, ..00.svo.uca

62,500 1,704,938 ....

89,500 2,739,872 SOW41180.00.1

11,000 290,067

5,892,400 180,486,909

SURPLUS

INCREASESQUARE FEET

NEED 0 1061976.77

207,87626,622

36,654

CAPITALOUTLAYNEED 0 30.311976.77

6,294,667806,941

1,111,006 ea.

113 ...00m1,335

923,578 27,993,649 ..4,986 151,132 .008

443 e 01111123 e ft ,

868 t.208,090 6,307,229 ,..

64 otwafto

3,187,997 96,628,21032,766 993,159 0. 10635,566 1,078,01015,423 467,471 SUIP

326,556 9,897,922 el23,439 710,45963,082 1,912,037

:ft

1,172245 @..O...326663

803 mammtoft

:7,909 542,844 m105 "'

82,708 2,506,898481 oO o155 m ....

16,509 500,402 mo.,173 11..1114

230 1CSOOs

9,056 274,506102

218,756 6,615,343746,200 7,462,349191,012 5,789,573 111.1

66

34,928 1,058,669 l.3,646 110,522 4.i

651

198,750 6,024,112mNa

56,332 1,707,442 mastoft

24,047 728,869 oftca436

229,914 6,968,693 O MAK1,795 *

13,572 411,374 ft4

545 0271,017 6,457,018

198,835 6,026,714

213 ro t

285,325 8,648,215 064,435 1,953,033

135 00.s83,120 2,519,396 11,. kw

511 ft.

41384,562 2,563,091 ftfto34,630 1,049,641 swot.

441

668

15to,OM

413,953 12,546,925 ./1.19,002 575,969 "

320 W1..228 M.01.61000.

15,836 7,990,353 23.9,393,490

PROJECTEDCAPACITY'SENIOR

PROJECTIONS

1976.77

ADJUSTEDCAPACITY

REQUIREMENTS DEF.OOOOO 6,963 7,590 1,979

631 694 2763,878 4,111 380... 1,059 1,16510,916 11,134

owl.. 44,094 44,094 0,220AL.40Wft 891 1,230 56

678 687

ar, 1,166 1,178eta. 4,292 4,292Oklir 4,055 4,096 1,852ocwofta 1,469 1,469ea. 69,523 69,523 27,09511 606 87Y 958 3220 646 710 377

24.892 25,390 150

14,162 14,324 3,1764 369 376 243ft 960 988 692

3,057 3,118AA 1 496 500SLAB' 487 613y 1,171 1,288ftammtft 990 1,118

1,045 1,055 176. 1,635 1,635

1,726 1,726 839*If 2,065 2,230ft .M.' 23,679 23,679ft 1,235 1,444 175

008008 Mt..te 2,1403,062

2,1833,460

SO. 619 749 96

257 2865,888 5,947 2,214

8,000 8,689 2,255"OM 5,841 6,659 1,802

1,602 1,618kg ttttt 464 538 397

010. 716 490 40.640ftw:: 6,929 7,137 1,875Nam.,

""5,1261,708

5,382

1,759 511mofto*

5,074 5,074 199

1,241 1,3030%00 7,251 8,556 1,410657 664

20,536 20,536 132C014. 2,771 2,626Ce 16,651 17,484 2,531

4,020 4,020 2,071ft.t 22,56 22,813Pol. 12,376 13,200 2,775

3,678 3,862 668.....m. 1,251 1,351t. kW 3,742 3,779 754

0. 1,648 1,681

5,153 5,20500 9,567 9,683 831swot. 1,543 1,543 363WN M 1,385 1,524

683 918wftooft 356 392ey 7,375 7,528 4,026w 779 602 197M0 1,191 1,191W 40114110 995 965

434,351 414,422 72,115

1976.77

1

148

CONTRACTCOSTS

LEGAL&

ADMINISTRATION ARCHITECTURE FURNITURESITEIMPROVEMENT ACQUISITION

TOTALCAPITAL OUTLAYSLEDLED131A-77

...

8, 957,6871,584,7564,927,851

32,3995,732

17,824

424,91675,174233,757

943,513166,922

519,050

337,346

59,681

185,582

894.768

492,765

11,591,291,892.20.56,376,84n

694,301 2,511 32,934 73,130 16,174829,050

ASPOIVSO 86,310,737 312.185 4,094,236 9,0%,109 3,250,462 8,631,073 111,689,802

c. ***** 223,718 809 10,612 23,564 8,425 267,128

CSAAALOTTC 191,062. 691 9,063 20,124 7,19$ 228,135

c... 1,778,775 6,433 84,377 187,158 66,988 177,877 2,301,808

... 5,747,618 20,789 272,644 605,396 216,455 574,761 7,437,663

Co 11,018,707 39,854 522,683 1,160,600 414,964 1,101,870 14,258,673

co...... 2,493,840 9,020 118,297 262.6:6 93,918 249,384 3,227,135Mt 192,707,107 697,021 9.141.254 20,297,839 7,257,349 19,270,710 249,371.280

3,718,981 15,451 176,413 391,720 140,056 371,898 4,812,519OOILM 1,078,010 3,899 51,136 113.546 40,597 107,801 1,394,989

5,065,737 18,322 240,298 533,574 190,775 506,573 6,555,279

15,203,278 54,990 721,162 1,601,361 572,555 1,520,327 19,673,693etACASOI 710,459 2,569 33,701 74,832 26,755 848,316

.. 2,007,807 7,262 95,242 211,482 75,614 2,397,407

OMCHAISS

...

....... 350,304 1,267 16,617 36,897 13,192 418,277

2,628,797 9,508 124,699 276,891 99,000 262,879 3,401,774$97,120 2.159 26,324 62,894 22,487 712,984

5,486,342 21,146 260,250 577,876 206,615 548,634 7,100,663570,949 2,065 27,083 60,138 21,501 681,736

"'"""ue" 32,255,668 116,669 1,530,079 3,3(17,489 1 .214;748 3,225,566 41,740,218NOS 707,172 2,5' 33,545 74,486 26,632 844,392mDiomorla 5,055,971 11,0 144,963 321,885 115,087 305,597 3,954,556

OW 1,710,489 6,10 81,138 180,165 64,417 2, 42,395.. 578,672 2,093 27,449 60,951 21,792 690,957

96,427 348 4,574 10,156 3,631 115,.SA. 14,804,437 55.547 702,263 1,559,351 557,535 1,480,443 19,157,576.1 15,170,991 54,873 719,651 1,597,960 571,339 1,517,099 19,631,913SIPA 8,333,573 30,142 395,311 877,775 313,842 833,357 10,784,000SAPS

. 1,056,669 3,829 50,219 111,509 39,869 1,264,095&OM.. 189,780 686 9,007 19,989 7,147 22( 609. 8,618,032 31,171 408,804 907,737 324,555 861,803 11,152,102.A0.14 893,314 3.231 42,375 94,092 33,642 89,331 1,155,985. 8,205,987 29,681 389,259 864,336 309,037 820.598 10,618,89800010. 1,630,655 5,898 77,351 171,756 61,4:0 163,065 2,110,135...SAW 592,819 2,144 28,120 62,441 22.325 707,849OASOOS 24,700,228 89,340 1,171,680 2,601,675 930,210 2.470,022 31,963,1550...c.... 4,011,478 14,509 190,288 422,528 151,072 4.789,875OAACI 19,833,475 71,737 940,820 2,089,059 746,928 1,983,347 25,665,366OSCICK 3,021,191 10,927 143,313 318,222 113,718 302,119 3,909,550....... 54,099.977 195,679 2,566,286 5,698,350 2,037,405 5,409,997 70,007,694

PASCO 20,298.727 73,420 962,890 2,138,064 764,450 2,029,972 26,267,423P 29,741,310 107,574 1.41O,808 3,132,652 1,120,057 2,97..131 38,486,532P1KA 34,694,922 125,491 1,645,788 3.654,416 1,306,610 3,469,492 44,896,719

4,095,335 14,812 194,266 431,361 154,230 409,513 5,299,5371,314,213 4,753 62,341 138 426 49,493 131,421 1,700,647

0,, .0c. 15,281,646 55,273 724,900 1,609 615 575,506 1,528,164 10,775,104*OSA 2.121,386 7,673 100,630 223,445 79,891 212,138 2,754,163

APIWASSI041

2,739,872

3,147,3859,910

11,384

129,968149,299

288,590

331,514

103,183

118,530

273,987314,738

3,545,5104,072,850

SWOT.

O*1,545,577

269,489290,067

5,590974

1,049

73,31512,78313,759

167,7952ade530,552

58,20610,148

10,923

154,557

29,006

2,000,040321,779375,356

110$4

16,441,201 59,467 779,904 1,731,751 619,175 1,644,120 21,275,620IS11tt 575,969 2,083 27,321 60,668 21,690 687,731

oAoloist.1,023,781 3,703 48,564 107,834 38,555 102,378 1,324,815

691,203,830 2,501,361 32,787,923 72,804,27c 26,030,734 67,448,221 892,776,541

TOTAL

149

SECTION IVFINANCING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION

FINANCING COMPENSATORY EDUCATIONIN FLORIDA

Rationale for a State Program

Any proposal to equalize educational opportunitythrough additional state compensatory funds mustbegin with a rationale. The educational literature isfilled with definitions of equal education opportunityincluding such general phrases as "equal access,""equal concern," and equality of the "meaningfulness,stimulation, and conditions for learning."' These defi-nitions are usually ambiguous and exceedingly difficultto translate into specific state education policies.Moreover, policy prescriptions derived from thesedefinitions tend to define education only as formalschooling, despite impressive research indicating theimportance of non-school experiences in learning.2

Traditionally, Americans have not defined equalityof opportunity to mean equality of outcomes. As his-torian Arthur Mann observed, equality of opportunityimplied ". . . an equal start for all children in therace for life, but their assumption was that some wouldgo farther than others."3 Even though differences inability, luck, effort, or preferences would cause differ-ences in outcomes, a son's achievement would notbe determined by his father's attainment. The earlyproponents of the common school thought it wouldinsure representative individuals born into any socialclass would have the same opportunity to suceed aspersons born into other social classes.

,For a review of this literature see Edmund W. Gordon, TowardDefining Equality of Educational Opportunity, in Frederick Mos-teller and Daniel P Moynihan (eds.) On Equality of EducationalOpportunity (New York: Vintage, 1972), pp. 423-434.

2See for example U.S. Senate Select Committee on Equal Educa-tional Opportunity, Environment, Intelligence, and ScholasticAchievement, 92 Congress, 2nd Session.

3Arthur Mann, "A Historical Over- iew: Education and Compen-satory Action," in Charles 0. Daly (ed.) The Quality of Inequality(Chicago: University of Chicago, 1968), p. 14.

153

As Levin notes, historically equal educationalopportunity was considered to 1._!, the prime force inbringing about equal opportunity. The common schoolreformers had an enormous faith in the efficacy of for-mal schooling. Levin concludes:

It is now clear, in retrospect, that the schools havenot achieved this goal. Occupational success, scholas-tic achievement, educational attainment are still posi-tively correlated with those of parents although thecorrelations might have been even higher in the absenceof universal schooling. The children of the poor willexperience lower incomes, poorer housing, lower occu-pational status, substandard medical care and otherdeficiencies relative to children born into higher socio-economic strata. The failure of the common schoolto achieve the social mobility dream must surely raisequestions about the role of schooling in achievingequality. Is the job too great for the schools to achieve,or is the failure due to a lack of social structure andcommitment that would enable us to truly equalizelife's chances for the children of our society?'

The above dilemma brings us to Levin's concept of"human capital embodiment." For several yearseconomists have demonstrated that the productivityof a population-or nation is related to its human capitalembodiment, which is in turn determined by invest-ments in housing, health, nutrition, education, training,and so on. It appears the dollar return on investmentin human capital often exceeds the return on physicalcapitals

Assuming there is no discrimination in labor mar-kets, the disadvantaged child will have less human capi-tal invested in him than will children from middle andupper class families.

'Henry M. Levin, "Equal Educational Opportunity and the Dis-tribution of Educational Expenditures," to be published in Educationand Urban Society, February 1973.

5See for example Theodore W. Schultz, "The Human CapitalApproach to Education," in R. L. Johns, et al., Economic FactorsAffecting the Financing of Education, Vol. 2, National EducationalEducation Finance Project (Gainesville, Florida: 1970), Chapter 2.

Families from low socio-economic origins have a muchlesser ability to invest in their offspring in a large varietyof areas that affect child development. Even beforebirth the lower social class child is more likely to faceprenatal-malnutrition. It appears that such nutritionaldeficiencies may stunt the development of the brainand learning ability. He is less likely to receiveadequate medical and dental care as well, so he ismore prone to suffer from a large variety of undetected,undiagnosed, and untreated health problems.

The meager income levels associated with lower socio-economic families translate into less adequate housingservices as they affect child development. Substandardhousing exacerbates health problems throughinadequate plumbing, increased probability of fires andother accidents, deficient protection from the elements,and a higher probability of rodents and vermin. Asexpected, substandard housing tends to be concen-trated heavily among the poor and nonwhite.Moreover, children need space and privacy to growand develop skills that require thought and concerntration. The Census Bureau assumes that more thanone person per room represents an overcrowded con-dition, and in 1960 there were about 4 million house-holds living in standard units that were overcrowded.For the population as a whole ". . . three out of tennonwhite households were crowded in 1960, and oneout of ten white households." Research suggests thathousing characteristics bear a direct relationship toboth the health and productivity of their occupants.6

In addition to the above deficiencies, disadvantagedfamilies are less able to provide other material inputswhich increase human capital. Low family incomeinhibits or precludes travel and exposure to a broadand varied environment. More significantly, parentalservices tend to be lower. Disadvantaged children aremore "kely to receive limited parental attentionbee: ;ten one parent is missing or both must work.Florida's migrant children are a classic example of thissituation. Further, the lower educational levels of theparents themselves limit the amount and quality ofknowledge that they can transmit to their children.Consequently, parents with greater educational attain-ment provide their children with substantially higherskill levels than do low-income parents with less educa-tion.'

Guidelines for State Policy

From the concept of human capital we can deducethe following guidelines for state policy.

1. The state needs to move toward providing equalcapital embodiment, if it is to put children born

°Levin, op. cit., pp. 6-7.'Numerous studies have consistently found the association of

parental education and socioeconomic status with children's scholas-tic performance, see Moynihan and Mosteller, op. cit.

154

in different social classes on the same starting linefor life's rewards.

2. Differences in capital embodiment among schoolchildren depend primarily on differences in housing,health services, nutrition, and faniily investmentin educational services and experiences.

3. Research demonstrates that differences in capitalembodiment in money terms are very large. Con-sequently, equalization will probably require largesums of state and federal money.

4. Adding the same amount of state educationalinvestment to each groupadvantaged and disad-vantagedwill merely sustain the absolute differ-ences in human capital. Clearly, equalization ofcapital embodiment will require compensatoryinvestments for the disadvantaged, for the disad-vantaged child also receives less in terms of non-schooling investments even while attendingschools.

5. Instructional services are not a substitute for nutri-tion deficiency or a debilitating body infection. Con-sequently, compensatory education money shouldnot be restricted to the usual program impulses ofpublic educatorsreduced class size, remedialreading, and instructional specialists. Schoolsshould be encouraged to plan comprehensive pro-grams that provide substantial sums for the non-instructional components. Such services wouldinclude remedial and preventive health care, nutri-tion with breakfasts, study space, greater school-parental involvement, etc.

6. Our prime concern is with the equality of distribu-tion of educational opportunity among children inFlorida, not just the redistribution of state dollarsamong school districts. Consequently, the stateneeds to be sure that compensatory money flowsthrough the county-wide district to the individualschools disadvantaged children attend. Thisrequires a school-by-school information andaccounting system plus a school-by-school perfor-mance report. These ideas are discussed at lengthin another section of the report.

7. There is no research base to establish the minimumand maximum dollar amounts for compensatoryeducation. There is undoubtedly a point of dimin-ishing returns where additional compensatoryexpenditures yielded no additional increment tohuman capital. There is probably a thresholdamount of "critical mass" before any impact takesplace. Since these amounts are unknown, we havecosted out several alternatives for the Citizens'Committee. Moreover, the amount of state com-pensatory education money might be decreased if

federal or state welfare or other capital embodimentexpenditures are increased in Florida.

A More Detailed Series of Alternatives

The design of a Florida compensatory programshould be linked with the existing ($26.45 million)federal compensatory program under Title I of ESEA(or any successor to it) and be directed at the universeof disadvantaged children. The federal program is tiedto an economic definition of poverty through Title Iof ESEA. Poverty income cutoffs are adjusted by fam-ily size, sex of the head of the family, number of chil-dren under 18 years old, and farm and nonfarm resi-dence.8 Poverty thresholds for farm families areapproximately 85 percent of the corresponding levelsfor nonfarm families. The aver. ge poverty thresholdfor a nonfarm family of four headed by a male was$3745 in 1969.

Poverty thresholds are computed on a national basisonly. No attempt is made in the federal program toadjust these thresholds for regional, state, or local var-iations in the cost of living. Under Title I, Floridareceives an allocation for each child from a low-incomefamily. Title I originally used the number of childrenfrom families with incomes below $2,000 (this has beenincreased to $3,000).9 For each eligible child, Florida

"United States Census, 1970. Data from Florida State Universitytapes. Fourth Count (population) Tabulation #85. Florida currentlyranks 45th in the nation in per capita welfare expenditure.

9Department of Health, Education, and Welfare; U.S. Office ofEducation, November 4, 1971; "County Aggregate Maximum Basic

receives one-half the national average per pupil expen-diture.

The United States Commissioner of Education andstate and local education agencies-have responsibilitiesfor administering the Title I program. We will merelysummarize these.

The United States Office of Education1. develops and disseminates regulations, guidelines,

and other materials regarding the approval of TitleI projects.

2. reviews and assesses the progress under Title Ithroughout the nation.

State Education Agencies1. approve proposed local projects in accordance with

federal regulations and guidelines.

2. assist local educational agencies in the develop-, ment of projects.

3. submit state evaluative report to USOE.

Local Education Agencies1. identify the educationally deprived children in the

areas where there are high concentrations of low-income families and determine their special educa-tional needs.

2. develop and implement approved projects to fulfillthe intent of Title I.

Grants for Fiscal Year 1972 under P.L. 89-10 Title I; Florida."While allocations are based on $3,000 the federal appropriation isprorated to a lesser amount because federal grants can not coverall eligible children.

TABLE A

WEIGHTED AVERAGE THRESHOLDS AT THE POVERTY LEVEL IN 1969, BY SIZEOF FAMILY AND SEX OF HEAD, BY FARM AND NONFARM RESIDENCE

Size of family Total

Nonfarm Farm

TotalMalehead

Femalehead Total

Malehead

Femalehead

All unrelated individuals $1,834 $1,840 $1,923 $1,792 $1,569 $1,607 $1,512Under 65 years 1,888 1,893 1,974 1,826 1,641 1,678 1,55265 years and over 1,749 1,757 1,773 1,751 1,498 1,508 1,487

All families 3,388 3,410 3,451 3,082 2,954 2,965 2,7572 persons 2,364 2,383 2,394 2,320 2,012 2,017 1,931

Head under 65 years 2,441 2,458 2,473 2,373 2,093 2,100 1,984Head 65 years and over 2,194 2,215 2,217 2,202 1,882 1,883 1,861

3 persons 2,905 2,924 2,937 2,830 2,480 2,485 2,3954 persons 3,721 3,743 3,745 3,725 3,195 3,197 3,1595 persons 4,386 4,415 4,418 4,377 3,769 3,770 3,7616 persons 4,921 4,958 4,962 4,917 4,244 4,245 4,2057 or more persons 6,034 6,101 6,116 5,952 5,182 5,185 5,129

Source: Definition, U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare.

Figures: U.S. Census Bureau.

155

TABLE B

County

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)u students who Number of students

Count of related may be served that may be servedchildren, 6-17 in FY'72 at 'A Funding per in FY'73 when halfyears old in national avg. pupil 6-17 national FY'7I

families below expenditure/ Funding below poverty (S766) per pupilpoverty level, pupil in FY'70 Level level FY'72 expenditure is used (5)/(I)

1969 ($303) FY'72 (3)1(1) in the computation %(2a)

(2)/(1)

AlachuaBakerBayBradfordBrevardBrowardCalhounCharlotteCitrusClayCollierColumbiaDadeDeSotoDixieDuvalEscambiaFlaglerFranklinGadsdenGilchristGladesGulfHamiltonHadeeHendryHernandoHighlandsHillsboroughHolmesIndian RiverJacksonJeffersonLafayetteLakeLeeLeonLevyLibertyMadisonManateeMarionMartinMonroeNassauOkaloosaOkeechobeeOrangeOsceolaPalm BeachPascoPinellasPolk .....PutnamSt. JohnsSt. LucieSanta RosaSarasotaSeminoleSumter

4,781678

4,0351,0456,664

15,749803502960

1,7131,6021,922

42,509546423

27,56011,588

385827

4,949213223665

1,0551,407

642960

1,70120,311

788,1,8023,5401,215

2574,0273,2744,5671,085

3181,6593,3144,7431,3431,9471,3133,538

76114,2401,273

12,8422,372

10,94712,5403,1692,4324,1721,9533,0673,8311,236

1,685281

1,352289

1,1684,950

418156223514347816

12,388

821811087

2,984166261

2,025128123214404368181252404

6,794726406

1,879568111

1,282845

1,467321112823965

1,653231481546816139

3,603334

4,319674

3,9063,313

971771742553811

1,629372

(35%)(42)(34)(28)(18)(31)(52)(31)(23\(30)(22)(42)(29)(40)(44)(28)(26)(43)(32)(41)(60)(55)(32)(38)(26)(28)(26)(24)(33)(92)(23)(53)(47)(43)(32)(26)(32)(30)(35)(50)(29)(35)(17)(25)(42)(23)(19)(25)(26)(34)(28)(36)(26)(31)(32)(18)(28)(26)(43)(30)

510,40485,281

409,60487,681

353,9231,499,853

126126,56147,20067,521

155,681105,121247,362

3,753,47365,92156,641

2,366,421904,008

50,24079,201

613,60538,88037,12064,961

122,561111,36154,88176,321

122,5612,058,578

219,842122,881569,285172,16233,760

388,483256,162444,644

97,28135,520

249,282292,483500,96469,921

145,601165,441247,20242,240

1,091,849101,121

1,308,811204,322

1,183,3701,003,689

294,083233,602224,802167,521245.76249'3 444112,641

107126102

845395

15894709166

12988

1211348678

13096

124,183

16698

11679858072

101279

68161142131

96789790

112150

881065275

12670567779

10286

108809396548680

12991

1,333223

11,069229924

3,916330123176406274646

9,800172148

6,1792,360

131207

1,60210297

170320291143199320

5,375574321

1,486450

88

11:6:681941

25493

651764

1,308183380432645'110

2,851264

3,417533

3,0902,621

768610587437642

1,288294

283326221425412518241734233235222034253248432630212221192673184237342520252329392328142033181420212722282124251422213424

156

TABLE B CONTINUEDSuwannee 1,745 728 (42) 220,642 126 576 33Taylor 1,061 388 (37) 117,601 1 1 1 307 29Union 284 131 (46) 39,680 140 104 37Volusia 6,362 2,050 (32) 621,125 98 1,622 25Vakulla 661 236 (36) 71,361 108 186 28Walton 1,265 718 (57) 217,442 172 568 45Washington 1,477 548 (37) 166,081 112 434 29STATE 282,838 87,277 (31) 26,445,029 93 69,047 24

Columns (2a) and (6) provide a fairly good indicationof the number of students the Florida districts are tryingto serve with Title I funds. Districts which spent belowthe national average per pupil expenditure in theappropriate year (FY '71 for FY '73; FY '70 for FY'72) are permitted to serve more students than thenumber indicated in the table." The number of stu-dents that may be served is supposed to be thetotal for the year in order that the expenditure incre-ment per child will equal one-half the national average.However, many districts move students into and outof the program during the year so that the averageincrement per child will be less than that amount usedto calculate the number of children that may beserved.'

Fewer students are -to be served in FY '73 thanwere served in FY '72 due to the increase in nationalper pupil expenditures. From FY '70 to FY '71 thenational average increased from $606 to $766 (excludingcapital outlay and debt service). There was no corre-sponding increase in total federal Title I funds. We donot anticipate an increase in the level of federal fundingof Title I in the near future. Title I administratorsin Florida report that the trend has been to serve fewerand fewer students in fewer and fewer schools." Thishas concentrated the money in order to provide"critical mass."

These tables indicate the federal program reachesonly 69,047 of the. disadvantaged children in Floridaout of the 282,83813 who need compensatory education.

"Florida State Department of Education, February 22, 1972;memorandum from Jon L. Stapleton, Administrator, Federal-StateRelations, to District Superintendents: "Determining the Number ofStudents that May Be Served in FY 1972 with Title 1, ESEA."

"Florida State Department of Education, December 3, 1971;memorandum from Shelley S. Boone, Director, Division of Elemen-tary and Secondary Education, to District Superintendents: "Noticeof Release of Final Allocation for Title 1 of the Elementary andSecondary Education Act for FY 1972.

"Florida State Department of Education, May 31, 1972; memo-randum from Jon L. Stapleton to District Superintendents:"Determining the Number of Students that may be served in FY1973 with Title 1, ESEA."

'3To the extent that migrant students come from families belowthe federally established poverty level and assuming these studentsare picked up by the U.S. census, this figure includes them. In anothersection on migrant education we propose separate state funding formigrant students. It is important to adjust for this double counting.

157

The uncovered children (213,741) are the unlucky oneswho happen to be in schools or classrooms that a limitedamount of federal funds can not adequately reach.Federal Title I appropriations reflect political bargainsand the constraints on total federal taxation rather thanany deliberate strategy to include so few children.Florida's state program should have as a goal includingchildren not covered by federal programs or childrenwho receive only a few services from the federal aid.Consequently a state program will both supplementand reinforce the federal progFam.

Since federal programs are subject to unpredictablechange, we do not believe that the state program ofcompensatory education should be tied directly to sucha program as ESEA Title I. Rather, the amount ofmoney a county would be entitled to would be theamount that would be calculated for the county if therewere no federal aid, less whatever amount of federalaid is allocated to the county specifically for compen-satory purposes.

Universe of Need and Proper Expenditure

The low income definition of need used by the federalprogram is only one alternative for deriving the numberof children eligible for a state program. Several otherstudies have suggested various achievement or aptitudetests as a better definition of need. For example, theFleischmann Commission in New York advocated atest at the beginning of the first grade to identify thenumber of children with learning problems. If 20 per-cent of the pupils score below a minimum competencylevel, it would be assumed that 20 percent of the totalschool district children needed compensatory pro-grams. Testing at the first grade would eliminate anynegative incentive whereby the district would receivemore state money for lowering rather than raising pupilattainment.

Assuming we could agree on an appropriate validand reliable test, the population covered by a compen-satory program would be those

Below the 25th percentile of national normsBelow the 10th percentile of national normsBelow the 25th percentile of Florida normsBelow the 10th percentile of Florida norms

Obviously, other possibilities are numerous. The keyproblem is that there is no expert or lay consensuson the appropriate test. The Fleischmann Commissionrecommended the development of a new test. Thereare also numerous possible definitions of low incomeor capital embodiment including:

the number of children from welfare familiesthe national definition used above adjusted forfarm and nonfarm ($3,745 in urban area)the number of children from families with less than$3,000a composite index including number of parentalyears of education, broken homes, housing condi-tions, etc.

There is clearly no ideal and universally acceptedmeasure of eligibility or need for compensatory pro-grams. Our summary recommendations use the nationalpoverty data from the preceding tables. If this needindicator was used by Florida, it would entail a specialstate survey to update U.S. census figures.

These need measures are related to the issues of howmuch money is enough" and targeting funds to thedisadvantaged children (particularly) in schools withmixtures of children from advantaged and disadvan-taged backgrounds. We have provided estimates ofneeded expenditures using a variety of concepts.

1. The double weighting for the disadvantaged childrecommended by the National Education FinanceProject through their costing of "explemplary"compensatory programs.

2. The $300 per pupil recommended by PresidentNixon in his 1972 message to Congress.

3. A variety of amounts used by other states in theirstate compensatory programs.

4. One-half the state average per pupil expenditureused as the USOE guideline.

We can provide no research base for choosing amongthese options on the basis of proven effectiveness oroutput. The precise technology isto say the leastunclear on "what works" with the disadvantagedchild. The range of costs in effective programs is quitelarge and the necessary minimum expenditure issue"unre"solved."" We do believe, however, that com-prehensive programs with substantial expenditureshave the best chance of success. Florida's state fundsneed to be combined with federal funds to provide

"See for example American Institute for Research, A Study ofSelected Exemplary Programs for the Education of DisadvantagedChildren (Palo Alto: 1968). For a more recent overall evaluationof Title I see Michael J. Wargo et. al., ESEA I: A Re Analysis andSynthesis of Evaluation Data from Fiscal Year 1965 Through 1970(Palo Alto: American Institute of Research) 1972.

158

intensive programs including health and nutrition aswell as instruction. The National Advisory Councilon the Education of Disadvantaged Children foundafter observing a national sample of Title I projects:

For the most part, however, Title I projects arepiecemeal fragmented efforts at remediation or vaguelydirected "enrichment." It is extremely rare to findstrategically planned, comprehensive programs forchange based on four essential needs: adaptingacademic content to the special problems of disadvan-taged children, improved inservice trainingof teachers,attention to nutrition and other health needs andinvolvement of parents. . . . Also, the Council isanxious that the new focus on the disadvantaged notbe diluted by the use of Title 1 funds, directly orindirectly, as general aid to schools.'s

This comprehensive aspect is of special concernbecause a technical report by the Citizens' Committeestaff indicates school health needs in Florida are par-ticularly acute. This report found Florida's school dis-tricts spent from a high of $4.02 per ADA to a lowof $.05.16 Neither the Florida Department of Healthnor the Department of Education was doing anadequate job. Teachers were responsible for screeningand referral services, but the state statute requiringperiodic health exams was "sadly ignored in manycounties." The health standards recommended in thisreport could be provided through our state compensa-tory education proposal.

Comparability

"Comparability" is a related issue in deciding howmuch to provide in state compensatory money perchild. Comparability means quite simply that per pupilexpenditures and services provided from state and localrevenue must generally be equal among schools withina school district before the application of federal andstate compensatory funds. A comparability require-ment is essential for insuring.that compensatory fundsactually supplement other state and local funds ratherthan supplant them. Since the U.S. Office of Educationis not enforcing the federal comparability standards,the Florida State Department will have to promulgateits own regulations."

Comparability is directly related to the necessity fora school-by-school information, accounting, and per-formance report. The typical U.S. pattern is for state

"National Advisory Council on the Education of DisadvantagedChildren, Summer Education for Children of Poverty (Washington:GPO, 1966), p. 3.

Governor's Citizens' Committee on Education, Recommenda-tions on School Health Education Programs (Tallahassee, 1972).

"For a review of the, sorry state of federal comparability enforce-ment, see the Lawyers Committee for Civi' Rights under Law, Title1 Comparability: A Preliminary Evaluation (Washington, 1972).

and local resources to flow within districts in largeramounts to children of higher socioeconomic status.Our study of two Florida counties was congruent withthis national pattern and also indicated schools withthe lowest test scores received the least money. Ithas in most part resulted from the distribution ofteachers among schools where the higher paid, moreexperienced teachers are tightly tied to the status ofthe students. We need to guard against non-comparability and insure that compensatory funds forthe disadvantaged are not siphoned off into generalaid. Florida's current MFP is designed only to providegeneral support.

The best method to accomplish this is to allocatestate compensatory money to county central officeswith specific amounts earmarked for each school.Florida has the electronic data processing capabilityto calculate allotments on the basis of each school.The state will need to initiate a biannual census to

keep current figures for each school within a countyindicating disadvantage e.g., low income, low paren-tal education, poor housing, and so on. State compen-satory education aid needs to be reinforced by a school-by-Sthool report. As we indicated elsewhere in thestudy, such a report would provide much more thana school-by-school fiscal accounting and auditing basis.Although we will know how much money is spent ineach school, we will also know the characteristics ofthe students in each school and could trace state aidto disadvantaged students. Some slippage of perhapsten percent could be permitted because of administra-tive overhead differences. The amount spent in eachschool will not be precise but close to it. AggregateInformation for Florida's large, school districts likeDade or Hillsborough hides large deviations amongschools in meaningless district-wide ,averages. Thisfiscal system for compensatory education should bean integral part of the School Performance Report pre-sented in a separate section.

159

SECTION VISSUES IN URBAN EDUCATION FINANCE

The National Urban Scene

The fiscal crisis in education has hit U.S. urban areashardest. First, because of problems common to highlyurbanized areasa declining fiscal situation combinedwith eply rising demands and costs for educationand other public services (welfare, police,health) large cities find it more difficult than mostother areas to support educational services from theirown tax resources. Second, education in central citiesimposes higher costs than are found in less denselypopulated places. This is caused by such factors as:inherently higher urban land and wage costs, the highnumber of disadvantagd and handicapped children, andaggressive teacher unions. Third, cities frequentlyfunction under a legal framework that is far morerestrictive and state aid laws which are less generousthan is true of suburban and rural school districts.'

There is a demographic and economic sorting outprocess between the central cities finances and theirsuburban rings. In comparison with the suburb's,central cities have populations which are proportion-ately more impoverished and more heavily composedof ethnic and racial minorities. Yet central city expendi-tures are frequently.lees or only marginally higher thansurrounding suburbs. Because of generally higher priceand salary levels in large cities, even equal amountsof per pupil expenditures provide less education incities than suburbs.

The bulk of retail sales activities is now in the sub-urbs. Central city property tax bases are not growingas fast as suburbs. As a result of both the relativedecline in their fiscal situation and of greater demandsfor public services in heavily urbanized areas, tax effort(as a proportion of per capita income and expendituresfor public services) was considerably higher in most

'For documentation of the assertions in this section see Joel S.Berke and Michael W. Kirst, Federal Aid to Education: WhoGoverns, Who Benefits (Lexington: D.C. Health, 1972).

163

core cities than in suburban areas of the nation's largestSMSA's. Yet most state education regulations andstate education aid systems leave cities at a disadvan-tage relative to suburban and rural areas.

The most important factor working against urbanareas in state education aid formulas is the relianceon real property value to measure the capacity of schooldistricts to support education. The higher the propertyvalue per pupil, the lower the state aid payment underequalizing aid formulas. Since urban areas tend to havegreater concentrations of commercial and industrialproperty plus lower proportions of pupils, they qualifyfor less state aid than do non-urban school districts.2Were almost any other recognized measure of fiscalcapacity used (median family income, percent ofpoverty families, property value per capita rather thanper pupil), cities would not look so rich and wouldqualify for more state aid. Their fiscal position wouldimprove even more if state aid formulas were adjustedfor factors discussed above, i.e., higher urban costlevels, higher demands for non-educational public ser-vices, and more costly pupil populations.

Urban School Finance in Florida:Contrast with the Nation

Although the above conditions are the general trendin urban finance, there are numerous exceptions. Somedistricts in the suburban ring are heavily urban in com-position and suffer from the central city problems.Some cities, particularly newer cities in Florida andthe West, tend to be less densely populated and lessafflicted with the urban fiscal phenomenon than arethe older cities of the Midwest and Northeast. Buturban school finance in Florida is somewhat uniqueand stands as a stark contrast to sorne of the overallnational trends.

2Cities have higher proportions of elderly and single people whichcauses them to have fewer pupils per square mile than suburbs.

Much of the comparative analysis of urban trendsfocuses on comparisons of cities with their suburbs.But Florida's county units combine cities, suburbs,and in some cases, rural areas in the same school dis-trict. Consequently, the tax base and economic growthof the suburbs accrues to the central city as well asthe suburb. In addition, two of the state's largest met-ropolitan areas (Dade and Duval) provide most gov-ernmental services other than education on a countybasis. Moreover, Florida's urban counties areextremely diverse and by Northern standards relativelyless dense. The variations in wealth among Duval,Orange, Palm Beach, Polk and Volusia are presentedbelow:

Variations in Wealth, 1970-71Assessed

Valuation/ADA Income Per Capita DensityDuva $18,158 $2,861 5.17Orange 19,734 3,038 5.77Palm Bc..ch 45,776 3,893 4.52Polk 27,486 2,568 6.13Volusia 26,502 2,809 5.25

Certainly, these selected counties are not equally hard-pressed on the social-economic characteristics nor-mally attached to "urbanism."

In order to formulate state education policy forFlorida's urban areas, it would be most useful to dis-cuss each major component of the "urban problem"in the Florida context.

1. Urban areas have higher demands for public ser-vices of all types (police, transport, etc.) and thisrestricts their capacity (compared to non-urban areas)to spend for education. The hypothesis is that higherper capita expenditures on general governmental ornon-school functions are associated with lower expen-ditures for elementary/secondary education.

A hypothetical example of this phenomenon is a bigcity that allocates only 35 percent of its budget to educa-tion while suburbs spend rl percent. As noted pre-viously, this prol-12m is greatly mitigated by the Floridacounty unit for education administration that com-bines cities, suburbs, and even rural areas. Two of themost dense countiesDade and Duvaluse metrogovernment for most public services.

But the critical factor that deflates this issue isFlorida's ten-mill property tax limit (cap) for education.In effect, all counties tax at the ten-mill limit for educa-tion and cannot exceed this no matter what their otherdemands for public services are. Moreover, the ten-millcap is low enough that 10 county is tempted to taxless than this because of inordinate demands for police,welfare, etc. Twenty counties in Florida are signifi-cantly below ten mills but they contain only 9.8 percent

of the total pupil population. While differentialdemands for total public services may be an issue forstate revenue sharing, it is not a priority problem foreducation finance. The existing 20-mill cap on localtaxes for public services (ten mills city, ten millscounty) other than education obviously lessens theoverall issue even more in the long run.

If urban counties are experiencing greater problemsfunding their total public service needs, education isnot a major or even minor factor. State policy shouldbe devised in terms of general revenue sharing or otherdevices to deal with the general public fiscal problemand differences in total service burdens. Any limitationon urban county support for education stems frominadequate state funding and state property tax limitson the ability of rich urban counties to raise more localrevenue. It is not caused by the necessity to fund aninordinate amount of competing public services likepolice or transport. Of course, wealthy urban countiesraise more per mill (up to ten mills) than poor ones.But the solution is a better state aid equalization, notan allowance for municipal overburden.

2. It costs urban areas more to deliver the samekind of educational services because of:

a. higher cost of livirigthe "market basket" ofthe typical family contains higher prices thanin non-urban areas.

b. higher cost of vandalism, construction, etc.

c. higher overall wage structure that amplifiescost-of-living differentials.

The State of Florida has already recognized the pos-sible importance of (a) by funding a cost-of-living study.This study was done by three economists at Floridauniversities under a contract from the Florida Depart-ment of Adminstration. The methodology of the studyfollowed accepted and widely tested Bureau of LaborStatistics procedures. Included in the study were suchmajor components of living costs as housing, transpor-tation, clothing, food, and services. Note this studyhas nothing to do with measuring education cost dif-

ferentials. The study team identified ten counties asthe most useful for actual pricing. All other countieswill be grouped around these ten counties and by usingdemographic and economic data regressions were runto derive vr:ues for the other counties. The resultsfor the ten counties are presented below in terms ofa relative index for each county.3

164-

'Since cost-of-living data was available for only 10 counties atour report deadlir,,, we have estimated cost of living for the other57 counties based on the 10 counties available.

County

AlachuaBrevardDadeDuvalEscambiaGadsdenLeonOrangePalm BeachPolk

Relative Index

105105

112

105

10095

105

109110100

We recommend the inclusion of cost-of-living vari-ables in Florida's school finance formulas.

Urban areas also experience higher costs for thesame level of education services as non-urban areasbecause of higher costs for 1F..nt;, transportation, van-dalism, etc. Typically, salaries are 85 percent of localschool budgets so these items are relatively small. Butthe backlog of construction in Florida could increasethis item dramatically as a percent of total school bud-gets. Consequently, in our recommendations for agreatly expanded state role in school construction wehave included adjustments for variations in cost of con-struction. This is not strictly an urban problem becausesome rural areas have unusually high costs for sitedevelopment because of the swampy nature of the land.A possible county-by-county index for school con-struction is included below.

County

AlachuaBrevardDadeDuvalEscambiaGadsdenLeonOrangePalm BeachPolk

Cost of Construction Index(Selected Counties)

Percentage Relative to LEON COUNTY

99%90%

111%97%97%81%

100%97%

104%97%

Source: Hunnicutt & Associates, Real Estate Appraisers, St.Petersburg, Florida, 1972

Obviously, transportation costs vary greatly depend-ing on density of pupil population, road surface,salaries of drivers, etc. Florida's transport formula hasrecognized thec factors, particularly the higher costsof these cities and sparsely populated rural areas. Thetransportation section of this report includes severalalternatives, all of which adjust for the urban areasand deal with the inequities in the existing transporta-tion formula.

We have not made any systematic study of the vari-able costs of maintenance and vandalism that accountfor only about 3.1 percent of school costs in Florida.

They do not require specific adjustments in stateaid formulas provided we value the need for keeping

165

the eventual formula as simple as possible. An adjust-ment for each minor factor can only lead to a cumber-some and complex state aid system.

Our study indicates that the higher overall wagestructure in some Florida urban areas amplifies andexacerbates the higher cost of living in cities. Evenafter adjusting for the higher cost of a typical family"market basket", there is a residual that is causedby the overall wage structure. For example, a stateagency hiring nurses in Dade County could add 5 per-cent or more for a higher cost of living in Dade com-pared to Leon County, but still not be able to attractany nurses. Wage rates generally in Dade are muchhigher for all professionals like nurses, and this is notreflected in cost of living. The following table demon-strates this concept:

Note the gap in a variety of occupational salariesbetween Miami and Tampa is too large and too consis-tent to be random. An unweighted average of the differ-ences is 19.9 percent, whereas the cost-of-living differ-ence in the study cited previously between Dade(Miami) and Hillsborough (Tampa) is only 8 percent.

Acknowledging this issue, however, and adjustingeducation finance formulas to compensate for it aretwo different things. First, we must confront the prob.-lem of how to measure the gap. The Bureau of LaborStatistics wage structure studies cover only three met-ropolitan areas within Florida and they do not coincidewith county school district boundaries in these areas.We have no measure of the other seven urban areasor 64 county school districts! We cannot use currentteacher salaries in each county a.; a proxy becausethese salaries may reflect differences in teacher bargain-ing power or local priorities between salaries and otherschool expenditure items such as supplies.

Even if we could find way to measure thewage structure ;->), it is unclear how this gap couldbe translated into an education funding formula. Wehave not developed any wage structure index that iscomparable to a cost-of-living index. Finally, it isdebatable whether state education policy is obligatedto compensate for differences in local overall wagestructure differentials between accountants, teachers,and garbage men. In sum, for the above reasons werecommend no education policy change on this wagestructure issue. Like the municipal overburden prob-lem it can best be dealt with through general staterevenue sharing. Revenue sharing can integrate anyfiscal solution with the total array of governmentalservices. These issues should not be handled piecemealthrough _adjustments in special-purpose state aid foreducation, highway, health, etc.

3. Urban areas have greater numbers of high-costchildren---e.g., disadvantaged, handicapped, etc.

COMPARATIVE WAGE STRUCTURES IN FLORIDA URBAN AREAS

Jacksonville

Hrs.MedianEarnings

Weekly Hours & EarningsMiami Tampa

Hrs.MedianEarnings Hrs.

MedianEarnings

OFFICE OCCUPATIONSMcn

Clerks, Accounting, Class A 39.5 148.00 37.5 154.50` 40.0 138.00*Messengers (Office Boys) 38.5 82.00 38.0 88.50** 38.5 82.50

WomenClerks, Accounting, Class A 38.5 120.00 39.0 127.50 39.5 114.00Keypunch Operators, Class A 38.5 110.50 39.0 114.50 39.5 100.00*Secretaries 39.0 119.00 38.5 131.50 40.0 119.00*Stenographers, General 39.0 106.50 39.0 108.00** 40.0 100.00

PROFESSIONAL AND TECHNICALMcn

Computer Operators, Class A 38.0 161.50 38.5 172.50 40.0 141.00*Computer Programmers, Class B 39.5 167.00 38.0 211.50 40.0 121.50*Draftsmen, Class A 39.0 192.50 39.5 225.00 40.0 168.00*

OFFICE, PROFESSIONAL, AND TECHNICALOCCUPATIONS-MEN & WOMEN COMBINEDOffice

Clerks, Accounting, Class A 39.0 129.501 38.5 140.00** 39.5 124.00*Clerks, Accounting, Class B 39.0 96.50 39.0 I 15.00 39.5 95.00*

Professional & TechnicalComputer Operators, Class A 38.0 164.00 38.5 168.00 40.0 143.00*Computer Operators, Class B 38.5 132.50 38.5 137.00* 40.0 120.00*Computer Programmers, Class B 39.5 169.50* 38.0 203.50 39.5 178.00Computer Systems Analyst.

Business, Class B 37.5 228.50* 37.5 240.50** 40.0 239.50Draftsmen, Class A 39.0 192.50 39.5 213.50* 40.0 168.50*

= lowest** = highest

I Average weekly earnings - not medianSource: BLS Bulletins, 1725.39, 1725.28, and 1725-31.

Table B in Section IV presents the number of disad-vantaged children (from families with incomes belowthe national defined poverty level). Note the urbancounties (Dade, Hillsborough, Duval) have highernumbers but rural counties like Calhoun, Franklin andGadsden haw; the highest percent of disadvantagedof their total school population.

While Florida's MFP has recognized many specialneed categories (including exceptional children) thereis no compensatory program for disadvantagedchildren. The federal government under Title I

ESEA and migrant programs recognizes this need. Werecommend a state-financed compensatory educationprogram that will primarily assist poor urban and ruralareas. This state program should complement thefederal compensatory programs. The details of thisprogram are outlined in Section IV (Financing Com-pensatory Education in Florida). Below are the recom-mended distributions to urban counties.

166

State Aid for Compensatory Education

Poor Urban Counties StaffBrevard SlDuval 8Escambia 3.).)Hillsboroubn 5.720.4,Rich Urban CountiesBrowardDade 4.532.039

Orange 12.527.547

Palm Beach 4.361.987

Pinellas 3.609.7753.009.231

Such a state compensatory program should be linkedto a new school-by-school accounting system andschool performance report. This will help assure thatthe money reaches the disadvantaged child and comple-ments federal aid. As the compensatory sectionindicates, we do not have all the answers in this field,but a critical mass of resources is needed in most casesto improve educational attainment.

4. Basic state aid systems have favored non-urbanareas. As Section II on the operation of the MFPdemonstrates, poor urban areas receive the leastamounts per pupil in several vital categoriesteachersalaries and instruction units for special programs.Both rich non-urban and rich urban districts qualifyfor more state aid. The poor urban districts have beenrestricted in the amount of state and local money avail-able to their but have been forced to adopt high salaryschedules. They have met this squeeze by employingteacr rs with less training and experience and by hav-ing tewer special programs (kindergarten, exceptionalchild, vocational education, adult education). This setof conditions has qualified them for relatively lessmoney from the MFP even though they need moreaid the most. Moreover, poor urban districts get lessfederal ESEA I money per ADA than any other groupof districts.

We recommend in Section II specific changes inthe MFP to meet the special needs of poor urban areas.

5. The revenue sources of urban areas are erodingwhile their per capita governmental costs are increasingfaster than surrounding areas.

As we saw in the introductory section, these trendsexist for several older cities in the Northeast andMidwest. As Attachment D (Prediction of Assessedand Equalized Valuations: Projecting Property TaxYields in 1976) indicates, however, none of Florida'surban counties face an eroding base in terms ofassessed value per pupil. Indeed, they are growingquite well relative to other counties and are projectedto continue to grow in assessed value (see AttachmentD).

167

`2nder Florida's 10-mill cap an area without a grow-ing property tax base cannot raise its millage to com-pensate for increased education costs or servicedemands. Slov -growth counties mus; -eiy on state aidto meet the bulk of their increased education costs.We favor increased reliance on state revenue sourcesthat avoid the inequities of differences in local propertytax base. Serrano type suits stem in part from the con-tinued increase of local add-ores to the base of stateaid.

The best way to deal with this issue of erosion oflocal revenue is through a sound overall state equaliza-tion program which does not have to be oriented par-ticularly to urban areas. We believe our recommenda-tions on revising tie MFP provide such a sound base.

Summary

We hixv reviewed the urban problem as it is usuallypresented in a national context. We have thenexamined specific national issues in the context ofFlorida. There are many exceptions in F!orida to thisnational urban problem. Fundamental differencescaused by limits on local property taxes and the met-ropolitan organization of school districts distinguishFlorida from the national scene. But significant urbanproblems remain in Florida. Consequently, we recom-mend:

I. adjustments in school finance formulas for highercost of living, school constrnetion, and some com-ponents of school transportation in urban areas.

2. a special compensatory education program withurban areas as a prime target.

3. revisions in the MFP to alter its present discrimina-tion against poor urban school districts.

SECTION VITHE SCHOOL-CENTERED ORGANIZATION

OF INSTRUCTION

SCHOOL-CENTERED ORGANIZATIONOF INSTRUCTION

Our report, thus far, has dealt primarily with thefinancial relationship between the state government ofFlorida and school districts. In this chapter, we willexamine the organization and financing of instructionwithin districts.

Our focus on the school unit represents a departurefrom the traditional plirview of school finance studies.Heretofore, the unit of analysis has been districtswithin state systems; now we are concerned withschools within district and state systems. Why we haveextended the scope of school finance research willbecome clear in our discussion below of the rationalefor school-centered organization of instruction.

We will also consider in the following pages the ele-ments of a school-centered finance and managementsystem. This discussion will include 1) a report onthe financial intradistrict study conducted in Florida,2) an outline of alternative approaches to the intradis-trict allocations of funds, 3) reflections on the manage-ment of instructional organization, and 4) suggestionsfor incentives to improve the efficiency and responsive-ness of public education.

I

RATIONALE FOR SCHOOL-CENTEREDORGANIZATION OF INSTRUCTION

School-centered organization of instruction is a con-cept which embraces the following principles:

1. Funds are allocated to schools based on needs ofchildren in schools.

2. The specific educational objectives of a school areset by people associated with the school.

3. How funds for instruction are to be spent is decidedin the school.

4. Organization of instruction is determined at theschool level.

171

5. Parents participate in school decision making.Currently in all states the school district' is the focalpoint in the financing, management, and linkage to thecommunity of instruction. District-centered adminis-tration can be seen, first, in state aid formulas whichdistribute instructional funds to districts on the basisof overall district characteristics (such as the totalnumber of low-income pupils); second, in the unifor-mity of instructional methods, content, and classroomorganization among schools in a district; and third,in the single school board which sets district-wide goalsand policies.

The preeminent position of the district office in defin-ing the parameters of instruction is closely related tothe prevailing concept in the United States of equaleducational opportunity. This traditional and still domi-nant view, holds that educational opportunity consistsessentially of exposure to a curriculum and that respon-sibility for benefiting from the educational programproperly rests upon the student and/or his parents. Inthese terms, equal educational opportunity is reachedwhen each student in a category (handicapped, disad-vantaged, regular, and so forth) has access to the cur-riculum which is being offered to other students inthat category. The most commonly used measure ofthis kind of equality has been dollars of expenditureper pupil.

It is widely believed that the school district office,as it is now constituted, contributes and is, in fact,essential to the provision of equal educational oppor-tunity (defined in terms of program offerings) for allchildren. In this view, the district office is a super-ordinant administratie unit which distributes educa-tional resources equally among schools and which pre-scribes uniform curricula for the "different kinds" ofstudents attending the various schools. (That the goal

'We are referring, in this discussion, to school districts whichhave more than one school.

of equal expenditure per pupil in districts has not, inreality, been achieved is discussed elsewhere in thisreport). The linkage between the traditional role ofthe district office in administering instruction and this"input" concept of educational opportunity is mostclearly illustrated in the rules formulated at the districtlevel which govern the allocation of instructional per-sonnel to schools. For example, it is common practicein Florida for a district to allot one gertified classroomteacher to an elementary school for every 27 students.In this way equal treatment, in terms of resources,is "assured" all students in the district.

The "input" concept of equal educational'opportunity, heretofore attracting emotional supportonly at the community (or district) level, will mostlikely be extended in the future to encompass theeducational systems of states. The Serrano and Rod-riguez rulings in California and Texas outlaw differen-tial expenditures per pupil caused by variations in theproperty wealth of school districts; and the many pro-posals in circulation for full state assumption of educa-tional funding are based on the premise that every child(in a category) in a state should be treated equallyin the amount of resources applied to hi3 education.

We have described at length the traditional conceptof equal educational opportunity because it is the valuewhich underpins the existing pattern of school finance,organization, and conduct in the United States. A vari-ety of patterns of financing and managing instructionare compatible with the input view of educationalopportunity; however, this approach to equality doesnot compel, and is, even, in large part, antithetic tothe school-centered organization of the education sys-tem which we are advocating here.

In contrast to the view that equal educational oppor-tunity consists of exposure to a curriculum is the notionthat educational opportunity has meaning only withreference to the achievement levels that students areable to attain. The goal of equal opportunity, in thesecond formulation, is reached when achievementlevels are equalized among variously defined groupsof students.2 This perspective emphasizes the out-comes of formal education, with primary focus onreading and mathematical skills only because these aremore easily measured than other desirable results (e.g.problem solving skills, social awareness, positive self-concept, 1-appiness).

Educational policy makers who are concerned withthe results of instruction are required to deal with anumber of questions which can be avoided or ignoredby those who view equality of opportunity in terms

2See Frederick Mostellerand Daniel P. Moynihan. eds. On Equal-ity of Educational Opportunky, Vintage Books. Edition. 1972. par-ticularly pages 6-7.

172

of instructional inputs. In brief, those who hold theformer value are forced to recognize and deal withthe complexity of education, while those who seeeducational opportunity as universal availability of acurriculum need not be concerned with the processof education.

It is clear the Florida Citizens' Committee on Educa-tion is concerned with what happens to children inschool. It is equally clear the Citizens' Committee hasrecognized and attempted to come to grips with theslippery substance of education. We believe the verycomplexity of education, its intractability toresearchers, administrators, and legislators, requiresand will eventually compel the adoption of the schoolcenter for the financing, management, and linkage tothe community of instruction. We believe the complex-ity of education is best handled where and wheninstruction occurs.

Those who are concerned with the outcomes forstudents of instruction will immediately recognize the,wo main sources of complexity in education;heterogeneity and indeterminancy. Heterogeneityrefers to the widely divergent views held by thoseassociated with public education regarding the appro-priate goals, programs, and resources for instruction.Also, in connection with the first term, we will stressthe tremendous variation in innate ability studentsbring to the classroom. Indeterminaney, on the otherhand, refers to our lack of knowledge concerning thenature of learninghow and under what conditionsit occurs.

The Complexities of Education

In many districts in Florida there is considerablevariation among schools in their ethnic and social classcomposition. There are white, black, working class.white collar, professional class, rural farm, rural non-farm, and urban schools. The students in these schoolshave a variety of educational needs and their parentshave various notions of what a school should providetheir children. While nearly everyone agrees thatreading, writing and arithmetic are skills which shouldbe taught in school, parents differ in how they feelabout the study of music, science, art, foreign lan-guages, crafts, social issues, national and ethnic cul-tures, agriculture, biology, ecology, urban environ-ment, drugs, human reproduction, and so forth. Inaddition to the diversity in what is viewed as desirablesubject matter, there is considerable debate over howschools should be structured and operate. Some peoplehold that discipline should be strict; others favor amore lenient kind of control. Should students begrouped by ability, by age, or mixed? Should students"learn by doing," by memorization, by programmed

EXHIBIT I

Name Program Namc Description

Sylvia Cassell El.

K-6

TraditionalDaily LivingCultural Arts

Basic skills development, emphasizing reading, writing and arithmetic.Basic skills taught by doing.Emphasizes study of different cultures.(Overall Kindergarten to place in other programs.)

Mildred Goss

K-7

McCollam

K-6

Mcycr

K-6

Miller

K-6

Pala

6-8

Open ActivityCenteredDevelopmentalReadingSeventh Grade

Basic skills taught by doing.

Based on readingall other subjects relate to reading.

New 7th gradebased on community involvement.

TraditionalIndividualizedLearningEnrichment

Continuous ProgressNon-graded

Basic skills development, emphasizing reading, writing, and arithmetic.Learning is tailored to each student. Maximum parent involvement.

A program for gifted children, grouped by ability, not age. Open tochildren who are creative and curious.Emphasizes basic skills; students not grouped by grades; each learnsat his own pace.

Basic SkillsSullivan Individu-alized Lang -Ar(sFine Arts Crea-tive ExpressionSchool 2000

Basic skills development, emphasizing reading, writing, and arithmetic.Learning tailored to each student. BRL methods used.

Concentrates on learning through the fine arts.

Prepares students for the future.

Multi-culturalAcademic SkillDevelopmentIndividualizedLearning

Emphasizes study of different cultures. Spanish offered.Bask skills development, emphasizing reading, writing and arithmetic.

Learning tailored to each student.

Three "R"s PlusCreative ArtsFine ArtsMath-ScienceGirls' PhysicalEducation

Basic skills development, emphasizing reading. writing and arithmetic.Concentrates on learning through the creative arts.Concentrates on learning through the fine arts.Concentrates on learning based on a mathematics-science core.Two periods a day of Physical Education for girls who want specialsports emphasis.

texts, by lectures? Parents, teachers and educationadministrators are very far from unanimous agreementin their answers to these questions and others of equalimport.

Further, there is significant variation among schoolsin the overall level of cognitive development the chil-dren bring to the classroom. We found in studies oftwo counties in Florida that the percentage of studentsin elementary schools who did relatively poorly (de-fined in terms of national norms) on achievement testsranged from 22 percent to 78 percent. That is, in someschools only one student in four or five needs specialinstruction in reading and arithmetic; while in others,nearly four out of five require extra help in basic skills.Clearly, this diversity in skill levels brought to theclassroom requires diversity in the priorities, pro-grams, and instructional methods of schools. Learningtheorists agree that instructional design should beginwith an analysis of the intellectual background whichthe individual child or class brings to, the instruction

173

situation.3 Unfortunately, the way school systems arenow designed, classes and schools are treated as ifthere were no differences in the students' level of basicskill development.

We believe school-centered organization of instruc-tion is capable of responding to the diversity describedabove. Decisions made at the school level concerningthe specific objectives, content, and methods ofinstruction, with the involvement of parents, teachers,and school administrators, will reflect the goals andneeds of the clientele of the school. An example ofthe diversity which school-centered organization ofinstruction generates is provided by the Alum RockUnion School District (California) parent-choiceexperiment. Exhibit I shows the program offerings

3See, for example, Robert M. Gagne, The Conditions of Learning,New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc., 1965; Jerome Bruner,Toward A Theory of Instruction, Cambridge, Mass: HarvardUniversity Press, 1966. 0

designed by teachers and school administrators whenthe parents can choose the elementary school theirchildren will attend. We believe the responsivenessof schools to the diverse needs of the children in Floridawould be greatly improved by school-level decisionmaking.

The second major source of complexity in education,which must be faced if one is concerned about theoutcomes of instruction, is the indeterminancy of thelearning process. We know if we treat glycerin in acertain way with a prescribed mixture of nitric andsulfuric acids and throW the resulting mixture on theground, an explosion will occurwith certainty.However, we do not know, with the same certainty,what will happen when we place a person, called ateacher, in a room with 30 kids and 30 math books.Some students will learn how to do all the problems;others, some of the problems; while still others willbe completely stymied.

A Rand Corporation task force recently concluded,after a comprehensive review of educational research,

"Research has not identified a variant of the existingsystem that is consistently and unambiguously relatedto students' educational outcomes."4

The report emphasizes, however, that these conclu-sions do not mean nothing "works". Rather, research,thus far, has found nothing that "consistently andunambiguously" makes a difference in student out-comes. In short, we know little about the interactionbetween different kinds of subject matters, instruc-tional materials, teachers, and students.

We believe the best strategy, under these circum-stances, is to create a decision-making structure forinstruction which fosters awareness and diversity. Theinstructional decision makers should have specificknowledge concerning the organization of classroomactivities, the kinds and quantities of materials beingused, the numbers and qualities of personnel, thecharacteristics of the students, and the outcomes oflearning activities. Because this type of informationis available only at the school level, we feel that itis the apropriate place for instructional decisionmaking. In addition, instructional decision makingshould promote diversity. By experimenting, in manyschools, with many different approaches to the teach-ing of basic skills, we will improve our chances offinding those techniques which are consistently andunambiguously related to academic achievement.School-level decision making will provide an opportun-

4 The Rand Corporation, How Effective is Schooling, A CriticalReview and Synthesis of Research Findings, Submitted to the Presi-dent's Commission of School Finance, Dec. 1971.

174

ity for innovators to implement their ideas and for amulti-faceted investigation of the learning process tooccur.

Our discussion thus far has focused on the thesisthat school-centered organization of instruction isnecessary because of the complexity of education. Andwe have argued that this complexity must be acceptedand challenged if equal educational opportunity isviewed in terms of the outcomes of instruction.

Alternative Rationales for School-CenteredOrganization of Instruction

We turn now to consider the necessity for school-level management in light of the failure of schools toimprove the life chances of many youngsters, the publicdemands for greater efficiency in education, and thefrustration felt by many people associated with publiceducation.

In large part, school-centered organization ofinstruction is designed to improve the educationalopportunities of those students who are learning littlein school and whose lifetime chances for monetaryand non-financial rewards are not now being helpedby formal education. This, of course, is not a challengefor public education since it was clearly recognizedby Congress in 1965 when it passed Title I of theElementary and Secondary Education Act. This legis-lation directed school districts to implement compen-satory education programs for children from low-income families. Unfortunately, Title I has not trans-formed the academic achievement of poor children.In fact, the upshot of the Title I experience is that re-distribution of money alone does not lead to a redistri-bution of educational outcomes.

Two problems with Title I stand oui: First, muchof the money has been unimaginatively and wastefullyspent; and second, much of the money has never beenapplied to the education of poor children.

Simply giving extra money to a school district doesnot mean the academic attainments of poor childrenwill be automatically raised. A United States Officeof Education study reported:

"National level data indicated that (a) most states andmany LEA's have failed to implement their programsin full compliance with existing regulations, guidelines.and program criteria; (b) funds and services have beenunder allocated for academic programs, over allocatedfor supportive (non-academic) services . .; (c) thereis little evidence at the national level that the programhas had any positive impact on eligible and participatingchildren."

The investigators did find, however, that,"Data from state and local levels do, however, provideevidence that sonic Title I projects have had a signifi-cant positive impact on participating children".5(emphasis added)

A large part of the Title I money has been spent onstrategies to reduce class size, provide remedialspecialists, and more instructional materials. Theseconventional approaches to compensatory educationhave not worked in the past and there is no reasonto expect they will suddenly begin working now.

Further analysis of the several billions of dollarsspent on Title I and other federal programs has revealedthat often money which is designated for children fromlow-income backgrounds "is used for generalized ser-vices in the school district rather than for low incomestudents alone."6 Unfortunately, -the present schoolaccounting systems prevent any systematic recordingof these types of misappropriations. However, the find-ings from auditing of monies allocated under Title Ishowed clearly the violations in the use of this money.The response to this audit was the establishment ofTitle I comparability guidelines whereby the moneymust be used for the lower income children. A recentinvestigation by the Lawyers Committee for CivilRights Under Law has shown, however, that most largeschool districts have failed to comply with the compara-bility standards. In Florida, it was found that in Dade,Escambia, Hillsborough, Orange, and Palm BeachCounties between 6 percent and 69 percent of theschools in each district failed to comply on one ormore of the comparability criteria.'

5 United States Office of Education, ESEA Title 1: A Reanalysisand Synthesis of Evaluation Data from Fiscal Year 1965 through1970, prepared by the American Institute for Research, March, 1972,p. 9.

6Henry Levin and Robert Singleton, Equalizing EducationalOpportunity and the Legislative Response to Serrano, unpublishedmanuscript, Stanford, California, May, 1972, p. I.

'The Lawyer's Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, Title 1Comparability: A Prelindrary Evaluation, September, 1972, p. 18.

175

The "more money alone" strategy. exemplified byTitle I, has not nationally produced academic gainsof significant magnitude. We believe this indicates theredistribution of dollars in itself is not sufficient toredistribute educational opportunity. Complementarystrategies must be adopted which channel these extrafunds directly to the schools and children requiringcompensatory education. School personnel must beprovided incentives to forsake the traditional, reflexresponses in designing compensatory programs:experimentation, innovation, and performance shouldbe rewarded. And parents should have an opportunityto see that compensatory funds are in fact used toattain the goals for which the money was allocated.The school-centered organization of instruction isdesigned to achieve these goals.

Another basic rationale for reorganization of instruc-tional delivery systems concerns efficiency in govern-ment spending. The public is demanding that govern-ment bureaucracies be held accountable for the resultsof programs. Legislatures have responded to thedemand, in the field of education, by enacting lawsrequiring school systems to implement evaluationprocedures and performance accountability. Educationhas been a major target of those seeking greater effi-ciency in government because its costs have beenrising in recent years at about twice the rate of infla-tion.8 These increases are especially burdensome ata time when there is a great deal of pressure on alltax sources; the public wants its investments to havea substantial payoff and, lacking this, that resourcesbe diverted to other purposes.

School-centered organization of instruction willimprove the efficiency and effectiveness of educationby making it more responsive to the needs of the clien-tele of individual schools and by involving those withdirect control with students in the decision makingprocess. Schools are inefficient, in part, because theeducation they provide is not necessarily relevant tothe needs of the students in the school. By involvingparents, teachers, and principals in instructional deci-sion making greater congruence will be achievedbetween the objectives of instruction and the capacitiesand life style of the children in the school. Second,given our meager understanding of the technology oflearning, we feel the most efficient strategy involves"coordination by mutual adjustment." That is, theoutcome of instruction should be monitored on a day-to-day and week-to-week basis and adjustment madeas quickly as possible in response to this feedbackfiom students and parents. In short, by bringing cur-riculum and process decision making into the school,

"Levin, op cit., p. 4.

with formal decision-making structures (such as parentand teacher councils), schools will be best suited todeal with the indeterminancy of instruction.

We should add another basic reason for reorganiza-tion of instruction: the frustrations which are apparentin the present system. Strangely enough, all of theparticipants seem to be unhappy, a dilemna which hasled to demands for accountability from all quarters.Henry Levin has described the situation clearly:

"School boards find their power too limited to make.much of a difference in the quality of education.Teachers are frustrated that decisions affecting the cir-cumstances of their classrooms seem to be made atlevels far removed from the classrooms and seem torepresent processes that are not necessarily desirablegiven the nature of their students and the large varietyof abilities and situations reflected in the educationalsetting. The superintendent finds that the State Educa-tion Code, the Department of Education, the perpetualfight for revenues, negotiated settlements with adminis-trators; with teachers and with other labor groups, aswell as demands of students and their parents, all oper-ate to prevent him from exerting educational leadershipin his district; but rather his time is spent in just tryingto balance off the many claims on the system. TheState Legislature has serious reservations about whathappens to dollars when they go into the schoolsand the continual demand for more financialinput. . . . Finally, parents and students often seemto be the most frustrated with the schools, unable toobtain responsiveness to their claims for greaterrelevancy, more options and more effectiveness ineducation. It would seem that the frustrations of allthe participants alone have created a kind of pathologi-cal situation in which there are very few groups thatseem satisfied with the present system."9

Reorganization of instruction would attempt to findways of improving the functioning of the system forall these groups.

Finally, this is a time of change in school finance,we feel it should also be a time of change in instructionalorganization. The financial reforms recommended inthis report are intended to move the fiscal systemtoward greater equity and rationality; the structuralreforms suggested here are intended to move the educa-tional system toward greater efficiency, diversity, andresponsiveness. In brief, complementary roles forstate, regional, district, and school administrative unitsshould be established. We have discussed at lengthwhy the school should be responsible for instructionaldecision making. DiFtricts are best suited to deal withsuch matters as maintenance and operation of plant,construction, transDortation, food service, purchasing,attendance areas, student transfer policies, the provi-

91bid, pp. 5-6.

176

sion of technical assistance and so forth. Details ofthe relationship between district and school officeswould have to be worked out in practice because wehave had little experience with school-centered organi-zation of instruction on a large scale.

II

INTRADISTRICT RESOURCE ALLOCATION

In Section I, we outlined the principles embracedby the concept, "school-centered organization ofinstruction," and presented our reasons for advocatingthe reorganization of schooling. In this section we willfocus on how instructional resources (mainly per-sonnel) are currently allocated to schools within thedistricts of Florida. In Section III we will discuss,in detail, the elements of school-level instructionalmanagement.

Instructional Personnel Allocation Formulas

Allocation of instructional personnel to schools inFlorida's districts is achieved through formulas whichare similar to the formulas used in the state MFP.A school earns "instruction units" based on pupilsin average daily attendance (ADA). For each instruc-tion unit, the.school receives, from the central adminis-tration, one classroom teacher.

There is, of course, considerable variation betweendistricts in the details of their staffing formulas. Largedistricts (more than 25 elementary schools) have exten-sive and complex rules which are usually stated inwriting. Very small districts, on the other hand, havemuch more flexibility in their allocation proceduresand often the rules cannot be found in written form.

At the elementary level, the most frequently usedinstruction unit is 27 students in average dailyattendance. This is the same figure employed in thestate MFP. Also, as in the MFP, in many districts,a smaller number of students is the base for units forkindergarten, first, and second grades (frequently, 25pupils per unit). At the secondary level, there is agreat deal of variation but again, most often, oneteacher is provided a school for every 27 sudents inADA.

In some districts, special subject teachers (music,art, and physical education), assistant principals, cur-riculum coordinators, librarians, and guidance coun-selors are earned by schools on the basis of one forevery eight basic instruction units. This allocationprocedure is identical to that employed by the statein allocating special teacher service (STS) units in itsMFP. In other districts, these positions are given toschools based on the size of the school. For example,if an elementary school has more than 500 students,

it may earn one physical education teacher and half-time music and art teachers; while, if the school hasonly 200 students, it may receive only a half-time physi-cal edtication teacher and no music or art instructors.Generally, under both types of allocation proceduresdescribed here for special personnel, students in smallschools are disadvantaged in that they often do nothave available to them in their school the full spectrumof special service personnel.

Wealthy districts, however, can provide each schoolwith full- or part-time music, art, and physical educa-tion teachers, librarians, or guidance counselors. Thisis advantageous for small schools in that there are fewerpupils per special service person.

Teacher aides are usually allocated to schools ona flat rate basis; say, one for every 300 pupils. Againthis system works to the disadvantage of small schools.

In the majority of districts principals cannot "trade-off classroom teachers for paraprofessional or otherspecial service personnel. In some districts, principalshave this leeway, but their plan and rationale mustbe put in writing and approved by the district superin-tendent. In a few districts, however, trading classroomteacher units (that is, classroom teachers) for other,kinds of instructional personnel is standard procedure.The trade-rates are setsuch as one classroom teachermay be given up for three teacher aides, two teacherassistants, or 1.5 classroom technicians. In someinstances, principals from two schools can each pro-vide part of an instructional unit to obtain a sharedguidance counselor or school psychologist.

Our analysis of the staffing formulas used in morethan 30 school districts yields two interesting conclu-sions. First, there is unmistakeable similarity betweenthe MFP formulas and district allocation procedures.It appears that in many districts the instructional sys-tems are organized to conform with the state financeformula. In our opinion the state instruction unit sys-tem produces, or at least reinforces, in Florida's educa-tional administrators the view that instruction consistsof one room, one teacher and 27 students. Wefeel this is an archaic concept of schooling andthat it ignores differences in students, teachers, subjectmatters, and instructional methods.

Further, the allocation formulas reveal how littlechoice there is at the school level in the organizationof instruction. In most districts principals are tied toworking with a set number of classroom teacherstheyare not permitted to experiment with special instruc-tors, assistants, aides, or technicians. The principal,in this sutuation, is not an educational leader, butmerely a monitor of classroom teachers. In our view,the principal should be permitted to innovate andorganize the instructional program of his school to fit

177

the educational needs of the children attending theschool.

FINDINGS OF THE INTRADISTRICT FINANCESTUDY

An analysis of expenditures in elementary schoolswas conducted during 1971-1972 in elementary schoolsin one Florida county.

The County

County A was selected for this research becauseof its diversity in income levels, occupations, race,and population density. It has 35 elementary schools(not including special education schools) and abovestate average assessed propert, value per pupil.

Pt; Assignnu t

The assignment of personnel to schools was achievedthrough a process of cross-checking four personnellists: two maintained by the personnel department, apayroll file, and the the county educational directory.Four schools were visited to verify the accuracy ofthe final personnel assignments. No differences werediscovered between the school data and the list com-piled in the central office.

Expenditures

Salary expenditures wereallocated between schoolsbased on the number of days per week a person workedin a school. Some arbitrary allocations of salaries tospecial education classes (in regular schools) have beenmade, however these have little impact on the overallresults. In general, the expenditures included in thegraphs are self-explanatory. We have attempted toinclude all expenditures for the 1-6 regular programs.Federal funds are excluded.

Pupils

Expenditures are expressed in terms of pupils inaverage daily membership (1-6). Just as expendituresfor salaries of exceptional child teachers are excludedfrom the analysis, so is the ADM of those classesexcluded from ADM of the regular program.

Analysis

Four graphs are presented here. On the vertical axisis total expenditure per pupil in average daily member-ship (1-6) for the following categories:

1. Classroom teachers2. Teacher aides3. Teacher assistants4. Special subjects teachers5. Librarians6. Guidance counselors7. Classroom technicians

8. Principals9. Assistant Principals

10. Secretaries11. Clerks12. School lunch hostesses13. Textbooks14. Audiovisual consumable supplies15. Periodicals and newspapers16. Library books17. Other library expense18. Teaching supplies19. Other expense for instruction20. Original or additional equipment21. Audiovisual materials22. Expenditures from internal accounts

On the horizontal axis we show the percentage of thefirst, second, and third-grade students in a school scor-ing below the 24th national percentile score in arithme-tic and vocabulary combined. Thus, the higher the per-centage (the further to the right on the graph), themore students there are in the school doing poorlyon these tests.

Findings

We found tremendous variation in expenditure perpupil between schools. The range for all 35 elementaryschools was from $365 to $555 per pupil in ADM (1-6).Figure I displays these expenditures against the per-centage of students in the school performing poorlyon the tests. A clear-cut relationship is not shown here.

However, if we group schools according to size,a startling relationship is uncovered. Figures II,and IV show that, in general, more money is si .ntin the schools attended by the best students than isspent in schools attended by students scoring poorlyon the rests.

We must control for school size to reveal this rela-tionship because there is a strong correlation betweenschool size and expenditures per pupil. This is truebecause fixed costs (principal, librarian, secretary, andothers) add large amounts of expenditure per pupil inthe smaller schools. Also, this district gives schoolsof a certain size additional personnel (for example,an assistant principal in schools over 600 ADA) makingcomparison between a school of 600 and one of 580less informative than a comparison between twoschools of 600.

Figure I I is for 14 schools with ADM between 150and 450. Figure III is for seven schools with ADMbetween 450 and 600. And Figure IV is for ten schoolswith ADM above 600. We have not shown the fourschools with ADM less than 150 because of the smallnumber of cases (their per pupil expenditure isextremely high).

178

The overriding factor in expenditures per pupil isthe age and experience of the teachers since salarylevels are tied to these two personnel characteristics.The exceptions to the trend in the-graphs have eithervery young or very old staffs. However, the generalride =is that the dollar-value of resources going intoa school incrcases-as the performance of the studentsin that school .on standardized tests improves.

The addition of Title I money and free and needylunch funds improves the position:of the poorly-per-forming schoolsbut not by very much.

III

ELEMENTS OF SCHOOL-CENTEREDORGANIZATION OF INSTRUCTION

Alternative Approaches to IntradistrictAllocation of Funds

As we have described above, present mechanismsoperating within Florida's school districts to distributefunds result in a number of inequities and inefficiencies.Consequently, we wish to propose two alternativeintradistrict distribution systems and to suggest aprocedure whereby a transition can be made betweenpresent schemes and either of the alternatives wesuggest.

Direct State AidOne means of assuring that thefunds intended for certain kinds of students and schoolprograms reach their target is for the state to allocateresources directly to individual schools. Under sucha system, for budgeting purposes, schools would actvery much like school districts. On one or more occa-sicqs throughout the year, school officials would calcu-late the number of pupils enrolled in a school'sprogram, note the characteristics of those pupils (andany other factors to be taken into account by the dis-tribution formula), and forward Such information tothe state. Subsequently, the state would deposit theappropriate amount of money in an account for eachschool.

Schools would then submit records to the stateregarding expenditures in the same way that districtsnow do, the difference being that it would be substan-tially simpler under such direct funding procedures toassure that no "leakage" took place.

This system has some merit, but it also invites atleast two kinds of criticisms. First, in that it depriveslocal school district officials of a measure of theirauthority, it is likely to prove politically unpopular.Some individuals deeply hold the belief that "decisionsfollow the dollar." From this premise they infer thatlocal boards of education would be relieved of a sub-stantial amount of their decision-making authority ifthe state funded schools directly.

555.

00

536.00

517.00

o 0

498.00

0Q 0 0 ...,

479.00

0.

04 0

040 0

460.

000

:I

0 in

0 C C

0 44

X 0

W 0

441.00

0 0In.0

422.00

403.

00

384.00

365.00

1 1 « I I 10 1

29.00

O

Figure I

Expenditures per Pupil in ADM (1-6) Compared to Percent of Students in the School

Scoring Below the National 24th Percentile Score - All Schools (35)

35.00

11.00

47.00

53.00

0.00

65.00

71.00

77.00

83.00

1

00

0I

0r

OI 1

t06

I

0O'

I I0

o0

Q0

I

00

00

0O

10

00

0

o0.

-

O

1 I I I I

565.

00

536.00

617.03

498.00

479.10

460.00

461.00

472.01

403.

0')

384.30

365.00

.'

26.00

32.00

3800

44.00

50.00

56.00

62.00

68.00

74.00

80.00

86.00

Percentage of First, Second, and Third Grade Students Scoring

Below National 24th Percentile. Score in Vocabulary and Arithmetic Combined

Figure II

Expenditures per Pupil in ADM (1-6) Compared to Percent of Students in the School

Scoring Below the National 24th Percentile Score - Schools with ADM between 150 and 450

(14)

29.00

35.00

41.00

47.00

53.00

59.0

065

.00

7t.00

71.00

93.00

530.

001

t 1

0514.00

1 1

O498.00

I..-

.to

II

sO V

17

1,..

....g

II

44I

IA

lea.

00+

I0

.4p2.00

A .

1

...,

1, -

0+

I 6.

) M;

If

+I

140

.;

,..,

....

CI.

C.,V 7

466.

00I

466.

00i

7,.

is.

.1

C.,

01.I

I7.

...W

r

c.

1t

0I

I

-0 As

......

. w<

.....

c c

c.,

450.00

. Itt

00

! !

I

4s0.3n

mI

I1

w w

x w

iI

t

,_,,,,,,

th

iliOD

1434.nn

ot

:o 75

11

toi -

0-1

10

11

1

419.00

+ 0

I

1

I

c)

.418.10

-r

II

0I

II

i

r

i.

I

0Z.00

.I

I402.00

fI

II

iI

I1

II

Is

11.

36:..00

71

tI

II

I

11

370.

004-

0I

530.33

514.0,0

408.31

26.00

32.0

039.00

401.00

50.00

.06.00

62.00

68.00

74.00

80.00

86.00

Percentage of First, Second, and Third Grade Students Scoring

Below National 24th Percentile Score in Vocabulary and Arithmetic Combined

386.03

370.01

Figure III

Expenditures per Pupil in ADM /1-6) Compared to Percent of Students

in the School

Scoring Below the National 24th Percentile Score - Schools with ADM

between 450 and 600 (7)

53.0o

3T.00

41.440

45.00

49.00

65.0o

ffloan

6114:0

65.00

69.0o

445.00

445.00

: 1 1:

1r

437.00

()

1.

437.00

;.

1

r

1r

W,,,

,1r

I

429.00

.I

i429.00

II

,-

I1

rr

.-

5i

vD m

....

71.

Ii

I

-..4 ...

421.00

;4Z

.0o

:1

rI

I

oI

I

.I

II

Ir

!

C .4

I1

I...

I

.4 ..

.4I

0I

I

44 1

4a.

V41

3 .0ze

I1

4I3.

00a

m1

0I

;1

a. o

i.-o

tt

1I

cam

.

i 0.1

11

1

.68

th44

71

I1

04)

]48

500

;i

405.00

... -.

0 .

II

1

1...,

....

r1

1

a.

c1

1

a 6

aC

J1

11

X

,,,41

GI

397.

001

391.

000

VI

Ir

op

w

=w.

!

cn

3,9.00

3e9.00

321.

00

etSo

o

165.00

31.00

3s.0

039

.00

43.60

41.00

51.00

55.0o

59.00

63.0

0Ataii)

7t.00

Percentage of First, Second, and Third Grade Students Scoring

Below National 24th Percentile Score in Vocabulary and Arithmetic Combined

0

r

1

sst.o

0 co

910.

0(1

00

Figure IV

Expenditures per Pupil in ADM (1-6) Compared to Percent of Students in the School

EV

Das 44 0 c

C0

0..

0. 0

C C

X-

W 0 0

501.00

491.00

561.00

471.00

461.00

451.00

441.00

101.00

421.00

01.00

«

33.00

()

Sooting Below the National 24th Percentile Score

37.00

41.00

95.00

'$9.00

0 r:

C)

r

0

- Schools with ADM above 600 (10)

53.00

57.00

61.00

65.00

1 1 r 1 I . i g

()! ; .

C)

()

I IE)

1 1 1 1 I

69.00

r r r r 1

...1 1 . 1 1 I 1 1 1 I 1 1

501f

/n

491.30

4211.00

471.00

46t.c

o

451.00

441.00

431.00

47t.1

1

411.

40'0

1 1

401.00

31.00

35.00

39.00

43.00

47.00

51.00

55.00

59.00

63.00

67.00

11.00

Percentage of First, Second, and Third Grade Students Scoring

Below National 24th Percentile Score in Vocabulary and Arithmetic

Combined

A second, and perhaps more persuasive, argumentagainst direct funding is that it may trigger disec-onomies. Whenever public funds are involved, auditingand accounting must be carefully performed. Directstate funding of schools is like'v mean more account-ing and clerical help al each st ...col or at least for groupsof schools, than is presently the case. More simplyput, direct school funding by the star.;, will requiremore personnel than does the present two-step system.

School-by-School Accounting and AuditingThereexists an alternative to direct state funding of schoolswhich retains most of the advantages and eliminatesmost of the disadvantages. It is possible to keep incomeand expenditure accounts on a school-by-school basis.Such a proce 'tire would specify the amount of moneythat, according to the state finance distribution for-mula, should b! spent in a particular school. Thisamount would be derived based on a school enrollment,student traits, etc. Subsequently, accounts would bekept school-by-school of salaries, equipment, supplies,expenses, maintenance, etc. At the end of the year,a calculation should be made of the degree to whichexpenditures matched planned income. Some"slippage" probably should be permitted because con-ditions change in the course of a year. Also there isdistrict-wide overhead and matters such as interschooltransfers to be considered. Nevertheless, after havinghad a few years experience with such a school-by-school accounting procedure, the appropriate levelof "slippage" would be determined. If it were decidedthat a five percent tolerance between anticipated andactual expenditures were permissible, then a schooland school district would be approved if its accountswere within those limits. If either district reports orperiodic state audits revealed discrepancy in excessof that permissible, corrective action should be takenby the state. These procedures would protect thestate's interests in having its resources used asintended. Simultaneously, it would preserve a substan-tial measure of a local board of education's autonomy.

Transition PhaseMoving to school funding, byeither process described above, will necessarily requireseveral years of adjustment. At the moment, expendi-tures per pupil differ substantially school by school.The new expenditure patterns must be accomplishedsomewhat gradually or serious damage can be visitedupon the instructional program. For example, schoolsin Washington, D.C. have been under a strict courtorder to equalize expenditures. Because the school dis-trict was slow in meeting the court's initial mandate,the court eventually had to order an almost immediate;change. One consequence has been the transferringof teachers solelyforpurposes of achieving equal expen-ditures school by school. For example, a French

183

teachc would be removed from one school in the mid-dle of tii? year and placed in another, even thoughthe receiving school had no French program. Thepupils in the First school had their language instructionstifled, and the abilities of the teacher went wastedin the second school.

By contrast, the Los Angeles Unified School Districtis moving to a school-by-school accounting system andattempting to match expenditures with intendedresource patterns in a more gradual fashion. The firststep is to calculate intended expenditures on a school-by-school basis. This target expenditure level is thenheld as a goal. A. particu.ar school's degree of dis-crepancy, either above or below target expendituresis noted. Subsequently upon attrition or transfer ofa teacher, steps are taken to employ either an experi,enced or relatively new person, depending on the direc-tion of discrepancy. This continues until such timeas actual expenditures match the target.

A number of school districts are moving to provideindividual school sites with budget ,discretion by per-mitting trades between budget categories. Forexample, again in 'Los Angeles, if a principal is duean additional teacher, by virtue of either his enrollmentor the traits of the pupils in hif school, he is providedwith the option of a new teacher or the equivalentdollar value in teacher aides, consultants, or in-servicetraining t: -e. Similar, a principal and his staff maydetermine the fashion in which they wish to allocatetheir school's butget for equipment and supplies. Suchdiscretion is not presently provided between budgetcategories in Los Angeles, nor is a school providedwith discretion regarding items such as maintenanceand repair. However, the discretion which is permittedreinforces an idea we wish to return to later, namelythe importance of permitting a balanced degree ofdecision-making autonomy at the site of the localschool.

The Role of the Principal

The added school site autonomy ' have arguedfor to this pcint will not succeed in tie absence ofa strengthened managerial role by the school principal.It is very difficult, probably impossible, to identifyan outstanding school which has a weak principal.From both observation and systematic research, theprincipal appears to be crucial a achieving and main-taining instructional excellence in a school.

A difficulty in the present scheme of things is thatprincipals seldom have the authority necessary, or atleast seldom use the authority they have, to make theirschools into outstanding centers of learning. It is notunusual that all the budget decisions are made at thecentral office. Similarly, the principal is important with

regard to recruiting, employment, and placement ofpersonnel. Under such conditions of centralized deci-sion making, the principalship tends to attract "weak"individuals. Frequently, the job simply does not havesufficient appeal to motivate strong-minded, risk-taking individuals to seek it. Given the fact that princi-pals have little authority, even when a strong individualdoes assume the office, he too frequently is not trainedin a fashion that enables him to take advantage of mana-gerial discretion.

Ocr cc:icern is with "accountability" in its variousforms and we do not believe that it can come aboutin the absence of a strong principalship. Our view isthat principals should be expected to operate goodschools, they should be provided with the budget dis-cretion we have described above and permitted to maketheir own ch_l:ces in personnel. They should have coun-sel from parents, in a manner we will shortly describe.Following that, however, they should be held responsi-ble for running a good school. If the performanceindicators we will suggest reveal that students and-theschool are performing inadequately, then the principalshould be released and a replacement found. Con-versely, ifperformance is adequate, then a means shouldbe found to reward him. An increase in salary is notinappropriate in this regard.

Parent Advisory Councils

In order to ensure further that individual schoolsare better able to meet the expectations of the clientsthey serve most directly, students and parents, wepropose the formation of a Parent Advisory Councilfor each schooi. The precise perogatives for such abody might vary somewhat district by district.Nevertheless, we believe their general features shouldbe as follows:

Parent Advisory' Councils (PAC), as the labelimplies, should consist only of individuals whose chil-dren attend the school in question. The appropriatepoint of representation for citizen residents who donot have children in school is with the local districtboard of education. The reason for such a decisionis simply that the PAC's role is to fit schools to thepeople most directly involved with them.

The duties of advisory councils should be clearlyspecified. .-heir primary purpose should be to partici-pate in the selection of a school principal. It appearsthat the most appropriate manner in which such partici-pation can take place is for the central district adminis-tration or board of education to provide the PAC fora particular school with a panel ofcandidates, and seektheir recommendations. The PAC should be free tointerview candidates and rank order their choices. The

184

final selection, for legal and other reasons, probablyshould reside with district authorities.

In addition to assisting in principal selection, thePAC for each school should provide criteria forselection of teachers. Presumably, such guidelineswould be in excess of or would supplement state cre-dentialing criteria. PAC's should not, however, be per-mitted to employ t' :hers themselves. As we havesaid above, this perogative should be reserved to theprincipal. It is not fair to hold the principal responsiblefor the operation of the school if he is not given discre-tion in the hiring of his personnel.

In our view, there should be a portion of the instruc-tional program of every Florida school which is sub-stantially 'he same. It is through such standardizedcontent that the state's concerns for minimum compe-tence in basic skills, political cohesion, and a sharedculture are met. However, beyond state minimums,there should be substantial opportunity for local dis-tricts and local schools to shape what is taught to theirparticular interests and needs. This is particularlydesirable in a state as diverse as Florida. In cooperationwith principals and school staffs, this "shaping" isanother important function for Parent Advisory Coun-cils.

A fourth important task for PAC's is participationin compiling the "Report of Annual Performance" foreach school. This report is the basis of a school-by-school information system which we describe indetail below. Suffice it to say at this point, that a par-ticular segment of the report should be the exclusiveresponsibility of the PAC.

Rules regarding PAC membership may vary fromdistrict to district. However, in general we suggestthe following. First, the size of a Parent AdvisoryCouncil should vary in proportion to a school's enroll-ment. A sliding scale such as the one below mightbe appropriate:

School size PAC Membersunder 300 3301-600 5601-900 7901 1- 9

In order to provide professional expertise for thePAC, ensure that the district's point of view is rep-resented, and minimize the possibility of dominationby an extremely parochial point of view, the schoolprincipal and the district superintendent should alsobe voting members.

There are advantages and disadvantages to havingmembers of the PAC be either elected or appointed.However, after having weighed the arguments in behalf

of each method, we favor election. Admittedly thisis more complicated, more expensive, and in the eventof great parent interest, may even involve run-offprocedures. However, we see no other way of avoidingthe possibility that the PAC may turn out to be unrep-resentative of its constituency.

Statewide Achievement Testing

Any strategy for strengthening local control andincreasing accountability is incomplete unless it con-tair neans by which the state can ensure that itsinterests are also being maintained. Thus, we proposethat Florida install a system of statewide achievementtesting which is substantially larger than what presentlyexists.

Such a testing system would serve the following func-tions. It would enable state level officials to assessthe performance of Florida's pupils relative to otherstates, regions, and the entire nation. It would permitstate officials to assess the degree to which statespecified learning objectives were being met byschools. It would identify schools, or districts, in whichthe level of achievement had sunk intolerably low andin which the state needed to take remedial action. Itwould permit local school officials to compare theirperformance to that of surrounding districts andschools.

Also, it would enable the state to identify schoolsand districts whose performance was far in advanceof that expected. Sucdistricts could then be analyzedthoroughly so as better to understand what makes for-success. Findings could then, presumably, be spreadto other schools and other school districts. Statewidetest scores can be incorporated into the annual perfor-mance report we describe in the following section andbe used as a basic information component for parentsto guide the behaviorand choices of PAC's and parentsgenerally. Lastly, should sufficiently good tests everbe developed, the state might begin to use the resultsfrom them to focus its resources.

In order to ensure that time remains for districtsand local schools to offer i..ctruction which is uniquelytailored to the requests of their clients, the contentof state tests must be restricted to those subject matterareas of highest priority. This clearly means readingand mathematics. Also, these subjects might periodi-call; be supplemented by tests in other areas suchas science, government, writing, etc. The seven subjectmatter areas used in the National Assessment of Edu-cation Project (NAEP) might possibly serve as a guidehere.

Opponents of statewide testing frequently assert thatit will distort the curriculum and prove to be only a

185

superficial measure because teachers will teach to thetests. We contend that it will not distort the curriculumif the subject matter areas tested are restricted onlyto those few of most importance at the state level.The problem of teachers teaching so directly to thetests as to neglect other components of the subjectmatter at hand can be alleviated by administering thetest on a sampling basis. Under such a procedure asufficient number of students would be tested togeneralize about all children at that grade at that school.However, to accomplish this goal it is not necessaryto test all the pupils. The state education departmentshould contract for the construction and administrationof the test with an outside agency. The contractorwould select the sample and individual teachers wouldnever know in advance which of their pupils were goingto be selected for testing by the state in any particularyear.

One of the specialized uses for statewide test scoresis the assessment of the degree to which individualschools are successful. Educators traditionally haveresisted the use of raw test scores in. this 4,s,hion _

because a student's achievement is subject to influence Nby more than schools alone. Parents, peers, and a hostof other external factors impinge upon pupil perfor-mance. Moreover, schools have but a few hours con-

tact with a child each day. Extra-school factors haveaccess to a pupil for a much longer period of time.Consequently, a child's score must be interpreted inrelation to these elf. ironmental conditions.

A means exists whereby some out-of-school influ-ences can be weighed in any interpretation of testscores. The method involves utilizing so ial andeconomic information about children's parents andpeers and arriving at a mathematical prediction of whattheir test scores are likely to be. Then, it is but asimple calculation to compare the predicted score withthe actual score on a test. If children score above theprediction, the school could be said to be having suc-cess; conversely, scores below prediction mightindicate failure.

This method does-not work well in predicting thescores of individual children, because there is too muchvariation in innate ability among them. But somebeginning research studies have shown that it is possi-ble to predict about two-thirds of the variation in aver-age test scores for a grade level of a particular school,without knowing anything about what goes on in theschool. The predictions are based on knowledge

oSee, for example, Walter I garms and Robert J. Goettel,"Measuring Educational Needs." in Joel S. Berke, Alan K.Campbell, and Robert J. Goettel, Financing Equal EducationalOpportunity: Alternatives for State Finance (9erkeley:McCutchan, 1972).

about students' parents and neighborhoods. Predictionat the level of the school is particularly helpful be-cause the school is the coherent unit around whichinstruction is organized. Such predictive efforts tie inclosely with our desires for school-by-school reporting.

Dade County is now engaged in such predictive useof test scores. However, the procedure is still con-troversial. One of the major problems is accumulatingaccurate information regarding a child's social andeconomic circumstances. Without such data, predic-tions are worthless. Similarly, some opponents of thesystem worry that a predictive score for a pupil orgroups of pupils will create a self-fulfilling prophecy.Teachers and administrators seeing the low or highlevel of prediction may thereafter act in a fashion whichmakes it come true. In so doing, the school loses itspower to intervene and break the connection betweenpoverty, race, low socioeconomic status, and educa-tional achievement.

On balance, we favor such a predictive use of testscores. However, we openly acknowledge that themethodology is presently new. Consequently, we pro-pose that it be tried only on an experimental basis. Suchexperiments should be tried under rigorously con-trolled circumstances with a set of selected schooldistricts.

Additional funds and personnel shou,i be madeavailable by the state to collect accurate social informa-tion regarding-students. Statistical techniques wouldbe used to predict expected test scores for a gradelevel in a school from this social information. The pre-dicted scores would then be compared with the actualscores. Where actual scores were significantly betterthan predicted scores, it would indicate that the schoolwas doing an excellent job of teaching. Rewards(perhaps simply recognition for a job well done) wouldprovide incentives for such excellent performance.Efforts should be taken to sensitize teachers to thepossibility of self-fulfilling behavear. After that, theresults of such predictive experiments could be usedto guide state action. If it proves valid, it will be apowerful tool in the accountability arsenal. Such anexperimental program could start at the $1 or $2 millionlevel.

Annual Performance Reports

Any system which' Jpes to promote school account-ability must consist of at least two component "`must provide information on how the system is piently performing and it must make the information.available to those in a position to implement alterna-tives. In the absence of information, decision makerscannot rationally alter present directions. Similarly,however, all the information in the world will not

186

change a situation unless it is in the hands of thosecapable of making influential decisions. Thus, in thissection, we wish to specify the nature of the informa-tion which should be made available regarding educa-tion in Florida, describe the format in which it shouldbe packaged, and suggest the consumers for whomsuch data should be designed.

We propose that the individual school be the basisfor the information system. This is consistent with ourother recommendations aimed at achieving greater dis-cretion and focus at the local school site. Each year,a school principal, his staff, and the Parent AdvisoryCouncil should be responsible for compiling an An-nual Performance Report. The report should consist ofthe following components:

School CharacteristicsIn this section each school would provide a descrip-

tion of its physical facilities. Items would include:location, age, size of building and site; number andkind of specialized rooms; state of repair; amount spenton maintenance last year and in the last five years;and number of library volumes.

Staff CharacteristicsThis section would include information such as:

number of professionals and other staff members, ratioof the foregoing to students, levels of education andcredentials of professionals, turnover rate, absen:teeism, number of days substitute teachers were used,special qualifications of teachers, number of teachersinstructing outside of their subject matter speciali-zation, and ethnic and age makeup of teachers.

Fiscal AccountingThis section should display: the anticipated expendi-

ture level for the school, the actual expenditure level,the amount of the discrepancy between what shouldhave been spent (based on the characteristics of pupilsetc.) and the actual amount, and the amount spentfor each component of the instructional program. Thisis the section of the report which should be used todiscourage leakage of resources away from studentsfor whom they were intended. It also could serve toguarantee "comparability" for federal Title I ESEApurposes.

Pupil PerformanceIn many ways, this section is the heart of the report

and should be given the greatest emphasis. It wouldcontain performance indicators such as the results ofthe statewide testing program not only for the currentyear but also over the last five years. Any developingtrend could be identified. Also, this section shouldinclude data on student absenteeism, vandalism, drop-outs, library circulation, mobility, and rate of juvenile

deliquency. Efforts should be made to include"downstream" measures on studentshow are theyperforming at the next level of schooling, on their jobs,in the military, and in college. Such information, whencollected over time, would help citizens and the statedetermine which schools were particularly effective.

Subjective ViewsThe majority of the data described above for the

Annual Performance Report has been relatively objec-tive and capable of being presented in numerical terms.However, we recognize that not everything is quan-tifiable. Consequently, we propose that the report alsocontain a subjective section for the views of variousconstituents. For example, the staff should generatea two-part section. The first should describe what theyconsider to be the school's outstanding strengths. Thisis where they can boast about what they do that worksand makes them and their school unique.

Coriespondingly, the staff should also generate asection which describes the school's major weak-nesses. This section should proceed further to outlinea plan to overcome these weaknesses. The plan mightvery well call for additional resources, or it mightnecessitate more than one or two years to complete.Whatever, it should be drawn up in such a fashionas to permit an outsider to assess whether or not prog-ress was being made toward overcoming the weakness.

In addition to staff, the Parent Advisory Council,and, where appropriate (probably at the eighth gradeand beyond), students should also have a section ofthe Annual Performance Report in which they describe

. the strengths and weaknesses of the school. It is ina section such as this that race relations, student-staffrelations, and community relations could be assessed.

As we stressed earlier, information is only one com-ponent of at, accountability system. A second compo-nent consists of what is done with the information.We propose that the Annual Performance Report bedistributed in the following manner. Parents of everychild in a school should be provided with a copy. Asummary version of each school's report should bepublished in the kcal newspaper. A copy should beposted in several prominent places in the school itself.In the instance of high schools, copies should be madeavailable to college, the military, and :1 employersof the school's graduates. Copies shou1.1 be on fileat the district's central office of the school district andat the State Department of Education. Moreover, thedata from each school's Annual Performance Reportshould serve as the framework for the local district'sinformation compiling efforts. If properly designed, thePerformance Report should conta:n all the basic infor-

187

mation necessary for the state's annual statisticaleffort.

Parent Choice ClustersThroughout most of Florida, public schools enjoy

a monopoly. The school to which a child is assignedhas no real competition. Thus, with its clienteleassured, it need not be very sensitive to the demandsmade upon it. Clearly this is not the case with everyschool, or perhaps even the majority. Print. pals andwell-meaning teachers frequently attempt to li ten andmeet the requests of parents. and students.Nevertheless, in those circumstances wherein schoolstaffs choose not to respond, there is little that a clientor a group of clients can do. Many of the reformswe have already described al, !irected at alleviatingthis condition. For example, the Parent AdvisoryCouncils and school-by-school information systemsshould operate effectively to bring schools into thespotlight of public scrutiny. However, on an experi-mental scale, we wish to suggest a reform strategywhich might provide public schools with a substantiallygreater incentive to perform and to meet client expecta-tions. We label this reform, "Parent Choice Clusters."The idea behind it is to interrupt the monopoly of thepublic school and to inject some competition into itsoperation.

To permit parents to select any school they desireand have the state pay the bill has many more draw-backs than advantages. It runs afoul of the U.S. Con-stitution's First Amendment and risk s the potentialthat the state's interest will not be served. The ideais improved, however, if client choice is restricted sim-ply to any school in the public sector, but this toois somewhat unrealistic because transportation prob-lems severely restrict actual choices. Consequently,we propose, where population density will support theidea, that the schools be grouped into clusters of threeor four. Then, with the state providing transportation,parents'could choose which of the schools in a clustermost met their tastes.

Schools in a cluster would be encouraged to developa different style, tone, or mode of instruction. It ispopular today to refer to schools as possessing differentthemes. One school might deliberately characterizeitself as "traditional" with self-contained classroomsand an emphasis upon the three R's. Another mightchoose to be an "Informal School" patterned in theBritish Infant School tradition with open classrooms,nongradedness, etc. A third school in a cluster mightchoose to concentrate upon the performing arts. Afourth school might emphasize science and mathema-tics.

Each school would be responsible for teaching thestate-mandated minimum curriculum, and the statewidetesting program and Annual Performance Report wouldact as a check on its effectiveness. Beyond that, how-ever, the school's objectives would be fashioned bythe local board of education, the Parent AdvisoryCouncil and the school's staff. The unique nature ofthe school could be made explicit to parents consider-ing which school to choose by using the subjectiveportions of the Annual Performance Report.

A strong objection to such parent choice plans comesfrom those who are concerned about racial or socialsegregation. "Isn't there already sufficient segregationin 20th-century America? Do we have to encourageit even further?" This is a danger of such a plan, butmany of the risks can be minimized in the mechanicsof the choice plan itself. For example, racial, socialclass, or religious segregation can be guarded againstby using a lottery admission system. In advance ofparents' submitting their choices, a school couldannounce the number of student places it had vacant.If applications exceeded vacancies by one, then a ran-dom lottery admission system could be invoked. Undersuch arrangements, any child, regardless of his race,religion, etc., would have an equal chance of beingadmitted.

We acknowledge that such arrangements may appearradical and that they are not realistic in sparselypopulated areas. Consequently, we recommend simplythat the concept be tested in a heavily populated areaunder stringently controlled experimental conditions.If it should be an idea of value, it can prove itselfin this fashion and not risk disruption for an entireschool system or state. We firmly believe the prospec-tive advantages of such a parent choice plan warrantits experimental introduction.

IV

SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS

In this chapter we have concerned ourselves withmeans whereby local control of schools can bestrengthened and added accountability can beachieved. Our purpose in this section is to review ourrecommendations and to categorize them in terms ofwhether or not they can be implemented now or arein need of further development before being installed.

Immediate Implementation

The mechanism we suggest for guaranteeing thatfunds be spent on the pupils for which they are intendedcan be begun immediately. The U.S. Office of Educa-tion and a number of state education departments havedeveloped accounting manuals which depend upon the

188

individual school as the accounting unit. A phase-inperiod should be anticipated, but the technology pres-ently exists to keep accounts on an individual schoolbasis.

The idea of permitting principals to have greater dis-cretion also is amenable to immediate implementation.Here again, a transitional period will be necessary.Careful assessment must be made by central officeadministrators and boards of education as to whichprincipals are capable of exercising greater decision-making discretion. Those that are not should be trans-ferred to some other activity. Careful steps should betaken to ensure that their replacements are properlytrained to operate a school in the fashion we havebeen describing.

A second major action necessary to implement the"principal power" recommendation is that theadministrator-training institutions in Florida recon-stitute their programs so as to prepare administratorsto undertake the new roles we advocate.

Elements of the statewide testing program arealready in place and the State Department of Educationhas plans for expanding present practices. However,care should be taken that the enlarged statewide testingprogram permits test scores to be published districtby district and school by school. Such comparisonsare crucial for accountability purposes. Moreover,appropriate state officials should contemplate adoptingthe National Assessment of Education Project test for-mat so as to gain the advantages ofregional and nationalcomparisons.

The school-by-school Annual Performance Report,like the other reforms we have summarized above,is also capable of immediate installation. All thetechnology necessary for it to be successful is available.After a year of concerted action by state and localofficials, every school in Florida could issue an AnnualPerformance Report beginning in the spring of 1974.As statewide testing decisions were made, the resultsof new tests could be incorporated into such perform-ance reports in future years.

Experimental Activities .

The following three areas need further develop-ment prior to being installed throughout the state.

Parent Advisory Councils are already in operation'in some Florida schools and are used widely in districtssuch as Los Angeles. Nevertheless, there are manyways in which they could proceed and more experiencewould be beneficial prior to mandating their existencethroughout the state. Deliberate experimental ventures

with PAC's should be tried in a small number ofFlorida's school districts. The results of these venturesshould then serve to guide the actions of the remainderof the state.

We have already described the use of statewide testscores as a predictive instrument for accountabilitypurposes. Here we wish to re-emphasize the prelimi-nary nature of this technique and to repeat our proposalthat experiments be undertaken to assess its utilityfor statewide installation.

189

Similarly with Parent Choice Clusters, we are awareof the political liabilities which attach themselves tosuch plans. Consequently, where population densityjustifies the effort and it is consistent with communityvalues, we advocate a controlled experiment. In thisfashion we may gain a better idea of the degree towhich the market place concept can act as an incentiveto schools.

SECTION VIIFINANCING EDUCATION OF

MIGRANT CHILDREN

EDUCATION OF THE CHILDREN OFMIGRATORY FARM WORKERS IN FLORIDA

Sources of Disadvantage

The plight of the children of migratory farm workersis similar to that of children from stationary low-incomefamilies: all these children grow up in impoverishedenvironments that severely limjt capital embodiment.Nevertheless, we believe the obstacles blocking theson or daughter of a migrant farm worker from arewarding and productive life are both greater thanand qualitatively different from those confronting thenon-itinerant urban and rural poor. The difference isin the multiplicity of barriers which keeps the migrantchild down on the farm and on the road.

The economic condition of migrant families is welldocumented.' These are the poorest of the poor. For1969, the average annual income of male wqrkers inFlorida has been estimated at $2,800.2 Annual ,unem-ployment was found to range from one to four months.3

The consequences of these economic facts of lifefor the development of migratory children are clear.Young children must fend for themselves while everyable-bodied member of the family is in the fields. (Itis not uncommon to find four- and five-year-old migrantchildren left home alone during the day.) Older childrenmust drop out of school to supplement the familyincome. (Nationally, only 14 percent of the migrantchildren who, enter first grade go beyond the ninth yearof schooling.)4 Children of all. ages live in homes

'The major work on migrant children in Florida was done in 1968-1969: a. John Kleinart. Migrant Children in Florida, Vol. I andII, prepared for the Migratory Child Division of the Florida StateDepartment of Education, 1969.

2/bid., p. 209.3/bid., pp. 188-191.*Estimate of the United States Office of Education, provided by

Dale Hilburn, Director of the Florida Migratory Child Divisionof the State Department of Education.

.;, 193

characterized by overcrowding and lack of privacy.It was found that in Hamilton, Hillsborough, Sarasotaand Dade counties, migrdnt families of four to fivemembers live in houses averaging from 1.0 to 1.94rooms including kitchens and bathrooms." 'Needlessto say, the concept of "study space" is foreign topeople living in these wretched conditions.

In addition to the education disadvantages inherentin impoverishment, migrant families and children arefurther disadvantaged by being victims of class prej-udice. We know that migratory farm work is amongthe lowest status occupations in the United States.6And while the only direct evidence at this time is thetestimony of educators who work in the field of migranteducation, it is widely believed migrant children aretreated as inferiors and outcasts by middle-class class-mates and insensitive teachers: That this negativeattitude exists is indirectly substantiated by theresponses of migrant p: rents to,questions concerningthe problems faced by their children in school. Thelargest number of parents stated "obtaining adequateclothing" was the biggest school problem of migratorypupils.' This suggests, given the mild climate inFlorida, these parents feel their children are identifiedas migrants and are treated differently because theirclothing is different from that of the non-itinerantpupils. And though more -needs to be known aboutthe impact of teacher attitudes on pupils' learning, weare of the opinion that negative attitudes on the partof school personnel inhibit academic achievement.8

A third source of disadvantage for the migrant childis his mobility. He moves from school to school and

'Kleinart, p. 245.*Robert W. Hodge, Paul M. Seigel, and Pe r H. Rossi, "Oc-

cupational Prestige in the United States, 1925-19W,"AmericanJour-nal of Sociology, 70 (November, 1964), 286-302.

'Kleinart, p. 423.Henry S. Dyer, Some Thoughts About Future Studies," in

Frederick Mosteller and Daniel P. Moynihan, eds., On Equalityof Educational Opportunity, pp. 400-401.

teacher to teacher during the year thereby limiting theopportunity for stable relationships between teacherand child and carefully sequenced'programs of instruc-tion. In the 1969 study, it was found that the longestaverage period of time spent in one school by migratorychildren was 7.6 months; the average time for theshortest stay was approximately 2 months. Mostmigrant children completely miss the first two months ofschool in Florida, September and October.9

Another impediment to the academic success of thechildren of migratory farm workers is the language bar-rier. Economic opportunities for blacks in Florida haveimproved in recent years, and they are dropping outof the migrant stream; their replacements are Spanish-speaking people from Texas and the Southwest. Whilethere is no concrete data on the proportion of workerswho are Spanish speaking. the director of the migranteducation program in Po!k county reported inNovember, 1972, that there has been a "very signifi-cant increase in our Spanish-speaking population."The children of these workers receive little of valuefrom educational programs designed for Englishspeakers. The inability to promote academic achieve-ment of schools which fail to recognize the languagedifference in Spanish-speaking children is welldocumented in California and Texas. The problem isequally salient for Spanish-speaking rni;;rants inFlorida.

Finally, the physical health of migrant children ismarginal, at best. They suffer from inadequate nutritionand rarely see a doctor except in emergencies. (Often,the ear infections which afflict young children are nottreated.) They are exposed to the dangers of chemicalpoisoning in the fields and exhibit inordinately highrates of eye damage caused by rubbing in the fielddust. Prenatal care is practically nonexistent themigrant community. The children's medical problemsare exacerbated by le ignorance and superstition ofthe parents. The 1969 study document., the farmworker's lack of information concerning the availabilityof free medical services, while migrants hold that illnessis an act of God about which nothing can be done."

We have briefly reviewed the pre-conditions toeducation for the migrant child: poverty, dis-crimination, mobility, language differences, and healthproblems. We turn to examine the migrant educationprogram in Florida today.

The Migrant Education Program in Florida

The compensatory education program in Florida forthe children of migratory farm workers is funded by

9Kleinart, p. 516.

"Ibid., pp. 235-244.

194

the federal government. However, during fiscal year1973, the migrant program willreceive from the statethe funds for 70 kindergarten.instruction units unusedby the counties. This extra state money (approximately$900,000) will be spent primarily in the languagedevelopment program to serve five-year olds (thesechildren were not included in the migrant educationprogram in fiscal 1972). Florida received $8,948,559from Washington for fiscal year 1972; the migrant sec-tion has applied for an equal amount for fiscal 1973.

There are three major components of migrant educa-tion in Florida: 1) Early Childhood Learning, for three-and four-year olds; 2) Language Development, forelementary and middle-school-age children; and 3)Learn and Earn, for teenage migrant students. In addi-tion there is the Migrant E lucation and Health Project(MEHP) which, in 1971-72, involved 18 communityhealth workers in 25 counties; the social educator com-ponent, using 34 community workers; the MobileOpportunity Laboratories in three counties; the Mi-grant Record Transfer System with 24 terminals; atutorial program in one county; and a five-countysummer preschool program.

In 1971-72 the Early Childhood Learning (ECL)program served 4,100 three- and four-year olds in 21counties. Classes ran from 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. andwere held in 206 classrooms with 20 children in each.Two hundred five teachers and 410 teacher assistantswere employed irtCL.

The language development program (LD) was oper-ated during 1971 -72 in 22 counties and involved 450teacher assistants and 16,069 migrant students in 175schools. Right-to Read instructional material was thebasis for the language development program.

The Learn and Earn (LE) program was operatedin 16 counties in 1971-72. Fifty-seven teachers and anequivalent number of teacher assistants provided train-ing to 1,710 students in auto tune-up, supermarketcashiering, hospital patient care, hotel housekeeping,agribusiness, office work, and small engine technology.Ninety percent of the students received paid on-the-jobtraining. LE utilized 56 classroom units (trailers andone portable) serving 15 students at one time for half-day periods.

Identification of Migrant Children

A major difficulty in the provision of educationalservices to migratory children is identification of thestudents in the schools. It is simply not known howmany migrant children there are in Florida in variouslocations throughout the school year. For example,of 140 migrant children identified as such in New York

schools, only 33 had been previously identified byschools in Florida though all the children had beenin Florida during the harvest season. A number offactors contribute to the identification problem:

1. Animosity towards migrants on the part of schoolpersonnel reduces identifications.

2. Teachers often will fail to identify migrant childrenif only a few are in the class.

3. In counties where there are not personnel specifi-cally responsible for identifying migrant children,they are often not identified.

4. Identifying migrants by asking these students toraise their hand in class results in errors (in onecase, only one of three brothers in a school wasidentified in this way).

5. Name changes and children in one family with dif-ferent surnames causes problems.

A migrant child may be identified in one school, missedat his next school, and reidentified in a third. The resultis intermittent exposure to the compensatory cur-riculum.

The identification of migrant children has improvedwith the advent of the computerized Migrant RecordTransfer System (MRTS). New enrollees in a schoolcan be checked against the list of previously identifiedmigrant children and be reidentified. However, thosechildren who have never had their records placed onthe computer system will still be missed. In Florida,approximately 34,000 children have been identifiedand put on the MRTS.

Expenditures Per Pupil

Because of a shortage of operating funds and, par-ticularly, facilities not all identified migrant childrenreceive the compensatory services. The lack offacilities is especially acute in the Learn and Earnprogram.

(1)

Program

Table I

(2)

Total Number ofChildren in theProgram 1971/72

Early Childhood Learning 4100Language Development 16,069Eam and Learn 1710

Total

(3)

Total Numberof IdentifiedMigratory Children 71/72

460822,800 (Elementary age)

6705 (Secondary age)34,113

Projects are implemented iii schools with the largestconcentrations of migratory children.

We have attempted a rough estimation of the amountof money spent per pupil in the three components of

the migrant program. By aggregating expenditures inthe county and multi-county projects, we can accountfor roughly 56 percent of the total state budget by pro-gram (column (2) below). Column (3) below shows theiotal state expenditure with the unassignable balancedivided pro rata among programs. (The balanceincluded state administration, supervision, attendanceand MRTS services, health services, and mobilelaboratories.)

195

irogram

Table II

AssignableExpenditure perPupil in Program(column (2) above)

Pro RatedTotal Expenditureper Pupil inProgram (1971/72)

1971/72 ( (2) + $196)EC L (4100 students) $581 $777LE (1710) 339 535LD (16,069) 59 225

Weighted Average (21,879) 409

The allocation procedure employed here is purely arbi-trary and most likely understates the actual dollar valueof the resources utilized in the Learn and Earn andLanguage Development programs. Also the figures donot include amortization of LE facilities or LD Right-to-Read materials.

These figures do show, however, the emphasis onearly childhood learning and teenage job training inthe Florida migrant program. In these areas, programstudents receive instruction in facilities and with cur-ricula designed specifically for migrant children; onthe other hand, language development is conductedin the regular classroom and in conjunction with theregular program.

Thus far we have examined expenditures in termsof the number of students involved with the migrantprogram. However, as shown in Table I, only about22,000 (64 percent) of 34,000 identified children arein the program. Clearly, expenditure per identified mi-grant child is going to be considerably less than theamount per child already in migrant classes. Averageexpenditure per pupil declines from $409 to $262 whenall identified migrant children are taken into account.

Finally, out of the total population of migrant chil-dren who are in Florida during the school year, only34,000 have been identified. The actual number isunknown, Estimates on the part of experts in the mi-grant child section of the Department of Educationrange as high as 68,000 for the total school age figfitchild population.

Policy Implications

We recommend that prime responsibility for bothfinancing and delivering educational and related social

services to migrant children should rest with the state.The state can coordinate federal resources with countyprograms plus use additional state money to fill in thegaps. We should not expect counties to assume thisoverall responsibility because migrants may stay onlybriefly. To date the state has relied solely on federalmoney to supply special services for migrants. Therewas no state leadership until federal money arrived.

There are three major gaps in existing migrant pro-grams:

1) There is a gap between the 34,113 identified mi-grants and the possible 68,000 children Floridaexperts estimate exist. If the 68,000 is thz targetgroup, state expenditures will have to increasedramatically.

2) Although there are 34,113 identified children, only21,879 are now being served in special programs.

3) The initial section on sources of disadvantagedemonstrates that migrant children have even great-er handicaps than non-migrant children from disad-vantaged backgrounds. Consequently, there is sub-stantial justificeon for giving migrant children ahigher weighting than disadvantaged children. Yetexisting migrant programs spend only slightly morethan the one-half state average allocated under TitleI of the Elementary and Secondary Education Actof 1965 for stationary disadvantaged.

The additional costs of a migrant program varyaccording to which of these gaps is considered as thebasis for a program. Again, we stress the need formigrant programs to consider all aspects of capitalembodiment and not confine expenditures to formalinstruction. The content of migrant programs will haveto be different from programs for other disadvantagedchildren.

196

If the state chooses to cover 68,000 children, thenthe cost at one-half the incremental state averageexpenditure would be $17.66 million.* If the programis directed at gap number 2, additional state expendi-tures must be $4.7 million assuming a weight of 1.5or an added one-half the state average. If we weightmigrant children at 2.0 rather than 1.5 the cost of cover-ing 34,113 would be $9.37 million.

The state should be able to operate a migrant educa-tion program through the most effective deliverysystem. In most cases, this will be school districts\but contracts with other public or private firms shouldbe allowed. For example, the state may want to con-tract with a non-profit agency that travels with themigrant stream. The state may also want to contractwith food service organizations that can best reachthe homes of migrant children.

Whatever delivery system is used, the state needsto collect better data on all aspects of migrant children.As of now, the state relies on fragmentary and non-standard reports from the counties. If migrant educa-tion is to be primarily a state responsibility, the statemust design and finance a data collection system.Florida should annually collect data on such thingsas:

the actual number of migrant school-age childrenthe ethnic composition of the migrant population

the dropout incidencethe intrastate movement of migrant childrenpolicy implications from the interstate com-puterized migrant education system

*In these calculations we have deducted the federal contributionfor special migrant programs to derive a net state expenditure.

SECTION VIIIFINANCING SCHOOL TRANSPORTATION

FINANCING SCHOOL TRANSPORTATIONIN FLORIDA

The Flcrida school transportation program was lastrevised in 1968. The state percent of total support hadfallen to 43 percent in 1967-68 but jumped back upto 54 percent after the revised formula went into effect.Since 1968, however, the state percentage has droppedappreciably to 41.5 percent (about $8.795 million outof a total of $20.483 million). In short, the increasedcosts of transportation caused by salaries, operation,maintenance, and integration have been borne primar-ily by the local taxpayer. Given the ten-mill cap thereseems to be no rationale for shifting transport coststo the local revenue base. Indeed this may lead inslow property tax growth counties to changes inresource allocation with less money going to instruc-tional programs. Consequently, a good case can bemade for full state assumption (FSA) of transport costs.After an analysis of the Florida formula, this paperwill consider some alternatives. Our projections offuture cost increases (see appendix) highlight the trendtoward a constantly increased local share.

The Current Florida Program

In a typical state, transport costs vary between dis-tricts by 3 to 1. Consequently, the Florida MFP hasadjusted its formula for a variety of factors. The for-mula divides transported ADA by Adjusted Bus Milesfor a "density index." The Payment schedule for denseareas provides less money per pupil but more moneyper mile. This is based on the theory that more pupilsare picked up at each stop (saving money comparedto rural areas). But operating costs are higher on heav-ily used urban roads (costs more money per mile).In a sparse area the formula provides more per child(because fewer pupils are picked up at each stop) butless per mile (because it costs less to go a given distanceif the vehicle must stop only a few times). Some Floridastate administrators are satisfied with the formula

199

adjustments but claim the payment rates are not highenough to keep the state share from eroding. Theyadvocate merely increasing the state payment scheduleto cover full costs. For a very sparse district the statepays $10.00 per child and $.24 a mile. A new rateschedule would be devised to pay all local costs.

Efficiency and Complexity: A Trade-Off

As Tables 1 and 2 demonstrate, transport costs inFlorida are constantly going up in every compo-nentnumber of buses, bus miles, bus trips and shortand long trips. This constant cost increase raises theissue of efficiency which' is underlined by full stateassumption where all costs can be passed along to thestate. One theory is that local effort or cost sharingencourages efficiency because part of costs will comefrom local taxpayers. However, a state formula thatpays all necessary costs can be an efficiency stimulusalso, provided the formula is based on good estimatesof what the cost of transportation should be in a districtwith a given set of conditions. Under this formula,a district receives only the computed necessary costs.If it administers its transportation program extrava-gantly (fads and frills) or inefficiently, it must pay forthose costs from local funds. On the other hand, ifa is very efficient it can use excess state funds forother purposes. State safety standards will need to bedevised to ensure low costs are not caused by over-crowding, etc.

There are several full state assumption plans thatsatisfy the above criteria. Like the Florida one, how-ever, they tend to be complex including slut thingsas density, road conditions, wage levels, and specialcosts for vocational and handicappzd education. If weare to predict accurately "necessary costs" for eachcounty the complexity is inherent. Computing neces-sary costs based on past experience may provide aless complex formula but much of this "experience"may reflect traditional inefficient operations. Another

ma/

alternative would be for the state merely to pay alltransport costs based on local receipts, but then thereis no stimulus for local efficiency.

Specific Alternatives

Given the sophisticated and equalized systemFlorida now uses, at least three general alternativesare worth mentioning:

1. payment of all "necessary costs" as describedabove. Obviously, the basis for deriving necessarycosts is crucial.

2. state payment of entire approved costsstateapproved bus routes, salaries, and other costs. Thisentails very detailed control from Tallahassee.

3. state payment of a fixed percentage (e.g., 75 per-cent) as part of an integrated equalized foundationprogram.

We believe the second alternative involves too muchstate control and bureaucratic approval in a state aslarge and diverse as Florida. The third alternativebecomes less attractive in Florida where local districtscan not raise their local taxes (ten-mill cap) to payfor their increased transport costs. Given the signifi-cant long-run increase in transportation costs, it leadsto diversion of local money from instruction to trans-port. State assumption of transportation is congruentwith our view that the MFP is essentially a total founda-tion program. To the maximum extent possible localleeway should be left for local choices in instructionalprograms rather than restricted for ancillary serviceslike transportation. We present below other ,;-AtL- clans

that provide full state assumption.

Delaware

Delaware provides for FSA of transport. They paydifferent rates depending on whether a school districtcontracts (including leases) or provides bus servicedirectly. Many scholars have advocated relievingschool systems of direct transport so it can concentrateon instructional problems. Delaware buys the busesfor the districts and depreciates them over ten years.Delaware provides standard payments (adjusted byregion) for these categories if a district operates trans-portation directly (rather than contracts):

Fixed Chargesstorage, inspection, etc.

Operation Allowanceadjusted by bus capacity andtotal mileage.

Administrative Allowancea per diem rate for eachbus taking into consideration its size.

200

Layover Timerate of $1.6c an hour where it ischeaper to pay driver than to pay mileage for returntrip (restricted to vocational education).

Midday Tripsfor double sessions, kindergarten,extended school daysrate depel.ds on capacity ofbus, rate per mile, 10 percent allowance for adminis-tration.

Attendant Wages and Sick Leave.

Maryland

Maryland pays 98 percent of total transport costs.Roughly, their formula allots supervisors and clerksdepending on ADA transported and establishesminimum insurance coverage. It then includes 1) abasic amount per vehicle depending on capacity andage of vehicle, 2) hourly rates for drivers andaides$3.55 per hour + 11 percent, 3) adjustments forunpaved roads, 4) adjustments for density andminimum miles below which state won't pay, 5) vehicleoperating costs (adjusted annual mileage times anoperating factor).

Preferred Alternative for Florida

The computer technology to provide optimal least-cost bus routes is well developed and has been usedin numerous states and localities. These computerprograms involve network analysisusing either truedistances or coordinatesand scheduling analysis.They can be written to incorporate all the constraintsnormally associated with the busing of childrenmax-imum time on the bus, maximum speeds, safe busstops, and so forth.

The main objective of computerized routing andscheduling is to produce a plan that uses thefewest possible vehicles. The basis for 'his i4 thatgenerally th3 fixed costs associated with running a vehi-cle fleet (licenses, salaries; facilities, rent. insurance,and so forth), which are independent of mileagetraveled, grossly exceed the operating costs (fuel,lubricants, tires, maintenance and' depreciation). Inpractice the ratio between fixed and operating costsof a vehicle fleet is often as high as 3 to 1.

The.output of the computer scheduling analysis isa map of bus routes, total mileage, and the requirednumber of buses and drivers. Most likely, there willbe several alterimive `ravel patterns which approx-imate the optirrat" solution in a district.

State aid to districts for transportation will have twocomponents: capital outlay and operating. The operat-ing aid will be based on th° number of buses and milesrequired in the computer-Cetermined optimal solution.

Components of what we will call "operating aid" TABLE I

include:

1. driver szlaries (including ready substitutes, basedon number of buses)

2. maintenance (salaries and parts based on numberof buses and miles)

3. supervision (based on number of drivers andmaintenance personnel)

4. fuel, lubricants, tires, etc. (based on buses andmiles)

5. insurance (based on buses)

6. rent (facilities "rental" cost based on number ofbuses)

In calculating the state Lid for a district, the transpor-tation bureau should first apply standardized co.the various categories of operating expendinnadjustments shoiild be made for the following i s:

1. cost-of-living differences in the counties

2. miles driven on open highway and in city traffic(these will affect costs of maintenance, fuel, lubri-cants, etc.)

3. miles driven on unpaved roads.

In addition, adjustments will have to be made for theage of buses currently in use by tile districts. Districts-with an older fleet of vehicles will h ive greater mainte-nance costs. The average age of the newest buses (upto the number required in the optimal solution) in adistrict should be utilized as the weighting factor.

TABLE I

CAPITAL OUTLAY COSTS PRORATED OVEREIGHT AND TEN YEARS, RESPECTIVELY

County 8 !cars 10 Years

1 65,938 67,6082 11,285 11,5583 16,237 23,3134 5,982 8,4335 96,796 108,6566 112,069 89.6557 6,924 7,9478 20,663 23,1689 17,200 18,233

10 15,788 20.78711 21,823 32,46912 17,487 21,216131414

161,1957,202

243,30)7,090

15 11,572 10,55316 0 017 85,323 89,86418 4,296 4,08619 3,540 4,517

201

County 8 Years 10 Years

20 34,328 35,20921 7,656 9,6032223

7,9908,143

7,1009,670

24 15,562 12,4492526

12,3298,041

13,7588,212

27 12,027 25,87528 8,297 11,70529 75,537 87,54230 6,688 10,33031 23,881 28,76332 22,685 25,98533 13,849 18,76334 11,471 11,38935 31,732 34,78236 30,821 47,81537 41,809 51,90238 8,869 9,02639 5,210 4,8540 19,473 20,46541 48,583 63,51142 46,348 51,45143 19,384 22,7064445

32,78112,60 b

33,65720,039

46 61,807 62,76147 10,758 13,23548 87,103 95,88249 16,994 18,64150 97,154 101,76351 36,213 44,31052 68,392 99,19253 97,137 110,3985455

18,85722,540

19, 86224,397

56 18,275 28,26957 28,942 29,02958 42,254 47,33359 34,447 43,89760 15,596 21,11061 16,383 19,85862 11,104 12,11663 7,956 8,26464 70,326 68,11365 6,059 7,43366 17,542 18,22767 14,426 14,448

Total 2,047,685 2,377,524

The last consideration leads into the capital outlaycomponent of state transportation aid. Under full stateassumption, the state would purchase for the districtsthe number of buses required by the optimal routingsolution. Buses in the counties would be replaced whenthey failed to meet safety standards. Professor Bang-hart and his associates at Florida State University have-....yzed these capital outlay costs.' At the state aver-age of miles driven annually (13,300) per bus, eight -

ten-year averages would be 107,000 and 133,000

'Frank Banghart, et al., Reformulation of the Minimum Founda-tion Program for Allocation of School Bus Transportation Fundsin Florida, (Tallahassee, Florida State University, 1972).

miles per bus. They then computed the capital outlaycosts to the state prorated over eight and ten years.These are presented in Table I.

We feel this plan for state transportation aid providesequitable funding to the counties while preserving thestimulus to efficiency. The amount of money givena county would be sufficient to implement the optimalsolution determined by the computer analysis. The dis-tricts, however, would be free to spend the moneyon any transportation plans they chose; though we

_would expect many of them to use the opt: I routesused for the state allocation. If districts choose to usedifferent bus routes and more expensive equipment,they could employ local funds for this.

The capital outlay provision in this plan wasstimulated by the current situation in Florida districtswhere more than 100 buses are over 15 years old and234 are 1960 models. These aged buses worry safetyexperts in the transportation section of the FloridaDepartment of Education.

We do not know the operating costs or capital coststo implement this proposed solution, because the opti-mal routes have never been calculated. Using the 1970-71 bus routes, the total transport costs were $21.33million of which the state paid $11.16 million. It wouldhave cost the state $10.17 million to assume all operat-ing costs in that year. However, we expect that usingstandardized costs and optimal transportation net-works, the total state contribution under full assump-

202

tion would have been less in 1970-71 than the actualexpenditure of $21.3 million.

Other Alternatives

Banghart's study recommends a multiple regressionsystem for estimating future necessary transportationoperation costs based on prior years experience. Hisformulas are complex, and there are some refinementsneeded. We quarrel with the regression approach, how-ever, because it is basc..I on the premise that- thecounties are already operating their transportation sys-tems efficiently and optimally. It assumes, first, thatgiven the current number of buses and tL:eir routes,the counties are staffing their transportation depart-ments and maintaining their buses at least cost. Andit assumes, second, that the numbers of buses andtheir routes in the counties represent an optimal trans-portation network.

We believe that school transportation, which is anauxiliary service similar to delivery operation: in ..lanyorganizations, should be treated as a business problemsubject to criteria of efficiency. By using standardizedcosts in its state aid formula and by applying thesecosts to optimal routing patterns, the state will be pro-viding the districts with a stimulus to efficient transpor-tation operations. The state should assume leadershipin this area by adopting the technical solution (com-puterization) employed for problems of this type inprivate industry.

AP

PE

ND

IX A

PR

OJE

CT

ION

S F

OR

PU

PIL

TR

AN

SP

OR

TA

TIO

N IN

FLO

RID

A*

Est

imat

es b

ased

on

Pro

ject

ed T

rans

port

atio

nw

ith P

rese

nt T

rans

port

atio

nF

orm

ula

in M

ind

71.7

272

.73

1973

.74

1974

.75

1975

.76

1976

.77

1977

.78

1978

.79

Tra

nspo

rtab

le M

embe

rshi

p*K

-12

two

mile

s or

mor

e56

6,36

364

1,12

268

0,00

071

0,00

074

5,00

078

0,00

081

5.00

085

5,00

0N c) t..

.)

70.7

1 =

461

,536

Tra

nspo

rted

A.D

.A. K

-12

two

mile

s or

mor

e49

8,45

953

8,33

662

5,00

065

3,20

068

5,40

071

7,60

074

9,80

078

6,00

0S

tate

Cos

t Per

Pup

ilS

19.

005

19.2

55

19.4

05

19.5

0S

19.

75S

20.

00S

tate

Cos

t Per

Bus

Mile

5.1

7S

.17

5.1

75

.175

5 '

.18

S.1

8B

us in

Ser

vice

(Inc

ludi

ng S

parc

Bus

es)

5,86

06,

200

6,60

06,

800

0,90

07,

000

Bus

es in

Dai

ly S

ervi

ce(N

umbe

r of

Sch

ool B

us D

river

s)5,

460

5,80

06,

200

6,40

06,

500

6,60

0

*Eve

ryon

e liv

ing

2 or

mor

e m

iles

from

sch

ool.

**P

repa

red

by D

epar

tmen

t of E

duca

tion,

Tra

nspo

rtat

ion

Sec

tion.

AP

PE

ND

IX B

TR

EN

DS

TO

WA

RD

INC

RE

AS

ED

ST

AT

E T

RA

NS

PO

RT

AT

ION

196

5.66

Tin

touG

II 1

970.

71

ST

AT

E19

65.6

6In

c.19

66.6

7In

c.19

67.6

8' I

nc.

1968

.69

Inc.

1969

.70

Inc.

1970

.71

Inc.

No.

Bus

es in

Dai

ly S

ervi

ce3,

301

.43,

357

1.7

3,40

61.

53,

560

4.5

3,80

06.

74,

083

7.4

No.

A.M

. Bus

Mile

s10

3,59

05.

210

4,63

21.

010

5,16

6.5

108,

619

3.3

123,

096

13.3

138,

009

12.1

No.

A.M

. Bus

Trip

sN

AN

A5,

850

NA

6,69

414

.47,

002

4.6

7,93

013

.39,

004

13.5

Bus

ed M

embe

rshi

p: O

ver

two

mile

s37

9,94

8.2

392,

137

3,2

402,

755

2.7

422,

783

5.0

454,

194

7.4

500,

360

10.2

Und

er tw

o m

iles

37,0

62.7

45,3

2822

.343

,232

4.6

40,7

92.5

.645

,838

12.4

54.8

9619

.8

APP

EN

D1:

. C

TR

EN

DS

TO

WA

RD

IN

CR

EA

SED

DIS

TR

ICT

TR

AN

SPO

RT

AT

ION

196

9.70

TII

RO

UG

II19

71.7

2

DIS

TR

ICT

No.

Bus

es

in D

aily

Ser

vice

No.

A.M

.

Bus

Mile

s

No.

A.M

.

Bus

Tri

ps

Bus

Mem

bers

hip

Mile

sT

wo

Mile

s or

Mor

eU

nder

Iw

o

BR

OW

AR

D19

69.7

013

26,

385

438

27,1

3235

0

% I

nc.

.29

.431

.523

.416

.62.

3

1970

.71

139

7,35

551

929

,364

899

% I

nc.

..

5.3

15.2

18,5

8.2

156.

9

1971

-72

167

9,41

675

238

,356

3,68

6

% I

nc.

..

..

2^ '

28.0

44,9

30.6

310.

0

Dft

DE

1969

-70

187

7,61

046

827

,703

676

% I

nc.

..

..

3.9

13.4

10.6

3.5

6,66

0.0

1970

-71

212

9,54

963

834

,500

119

% I

nc.

..

.13

.425

.536

.324

.5.8

2.4

1971

-72

219

9,83

863

935

,819

614

% I

nc.

..

.3.

33.

0.2..

3.8

416.

0

DU

VA

L19

69.7

019

85,

539

540

30,8

813.

030

% I

nc.

.2.

11.

7-.

61.

8-1

0.8

1970

-71

249

7,04

169

335

,120

3.63

0

25.8

27.1

28.3

13.7

19.8

1971

.72

361

8,27

984

138

,942

/64

% I

nc.

-.45

.017

.621

.410

.958

.8

VO

LU

SIA

1969

.70

672,

492

203

12,7

0514

2

% I

nc.

..

.15

.518

.947

.118

.911

.8

1970

-71

813,

257

241

14,5

5246

0

% I

nc.

..

.20

.930

.718

.714

.522

3.9

1971

-72

823,

608

258

15.0

7272

2

% I

nc.

..

.I

1.2

10.8

7.1

3.6

57.1

'

AP

PE

ND

IX D

GR

O \V

TII

AN

D IN

CR

EA

SE

IN C

OS

T 0

1: O

PE

RA

TIO

N F

OR

SC

1100

1. T

RA

NS

PO

RT

AT

ION

IN F

LOR

IDA

1960

.61

1969

.70

Sch

ool

Yea

r

K-J

r. C

ol.

No.

Pup

ilsT

rans

port

edA

.D.A

.

N'Im

est

Dai

lyS

ervi

ce

Cos

tof

Ope

ratio

n

Sta

te's

Con

tri-

butio

n to

Cos

t of

Ope

ratio

nP

erC

ent

Cou

nty'

s C

oita

l-bu

t ion

toC

ost o

fO

pera

tion

Per

Cen

t

Cos

t Per

pupa

*.in

A.1

..

(Ann

ual)

960.

6129

2.04

12,

885

S 8

,029

,966

54,5

31,7

5156

.44

$3,4

98,2

1535

.56

31.9

996

1-62

310,

335

2,97

08,

506,

253

4,58

5,05

153

,90

3,92

1,20

246

.10

31.7

496

2-63

319,

645

3,09

59,

101,

88:

4,78

9,61

752

.62

4.31

2,26

547

.38

33.0

296

3.64

335,

768

3,19

49,

893,

403

5,06

5,50

151

.20

4,82

7,90

248

.80

33.7

496

4.65

343,

371

3,28

710

,480

,611

5,23

4,38

049

.94

5,24

6,23

150

.06

34.8

996

5-66

350,

559

3,30

111

,037

,146

5,30

3,55

048

.05

5,73

3.59

651

.95

36.1

596

6.67

363,

721

3,35

712

,1'1

,423

5,36

4,82

944

.07

6,80

8,59

455

.93

38.0

496

7.68

370,

645

3,40

613

,032

,71'

15,

639,

708

43.2

77,

392,

993

56.7

340

.19

968.

6938

8,77

53,

560

14,7

79,2

87,

954,

240

53.8

26,

825,

158

46.1

843

.74

969.

7041

9,33

73.

800

17,0

31 ,

318,

268,

281

48.5

583

63,1

5051

.45

40.7

8nc

reas

es43

.6%

31.7

%11

2.14

82.5

%15

0.5%

*Doe

s no

t inc

lude

insu

ranc

e, r

epla

cem

ent o

f equ

ipm

ent o

r ne

w b

uses

.

**In

clud

es c

ount

y fin

ance

d ex

tra-

curr

icul

ar tr

ips

and

is b

ased

upo

n th

e co

st o

f ope

ratio

n, in

sura

nce,

and

dep

reci

atio

n of

sch

ool b

uses

plu

s co

st o

f sho

p eq

uipm

ent.

SECTION IXPROJECTED COSTS OF STATEWIDE

KINDERGARTEN

PROJECTED COST OFSTATEWIDE KINDERGARTEN

The Florida Legislature mandated in 1968 that kinder-garten classes "shall be implemented on a statewidebasis in annual increments so that all such children(kindergarten) shall be served by 1973." While movingtoward full implementation, Table 1 shows that overallkindergarten ADA has increased six-fold in five years.State support in terms of instruction units has increasedalmost twelve-fold, primarily because several largecounties, notably, Dade, Duval and Pinellas, did notreceive MFP support in 1966-67 for kindergarten. Since1968-69, however, both ADA and instruction unitshave almost doubled.

TABLE I

STATEWIDE KINDERGARTEN ADA AND INSTRUCTION UNITS

Kiadergarten InstructionYear ADA % Increase Units % increase

1966-67 8,357 1351967-68 8,417 .7 1351968-69 24,603 192.3 739 447.41969-70 37,020 50.5 1,133 53.31970-71 43,407 17.3 1,345 18.71971-72 50,837 17.1 1,598 18.8

Until July 1, 1971, school districts were requiredto provide additional local effort in the amount of fivepercent of required local effort for grades 1-12 or $3000per kindergarten instruction unit, whichever was less.in order to receive MFP support for kindergartens.This matching requirement probably discouraged somedistricts from implementing kindergarten rapidly.

Table 2 compares county kindergarten programsoffered in 1970-71. It shows kindergarten ADA as apercent of grade 1-6 ADA according to our usual six-way classifications of counties. Poor rural and poorurbanized rural counties had the highest proportionof kindergarten service while poor urban counties hadthe lowest.

Statewide kindergarten ADA is projected to increase,from 43,407 in 1970-71 to about 96,700 in 1976-1977.Using the existing Florida pupil/teacher ratios, Table3 shows that about $36.1 million additional state moneyfor operating purposes will be required annually tofund these projected ADA. As our capital outlay sec-

TABLE 2

KINDERGARTEN ADA AS A PERCENT OF GRADES 1-6

ADA 1970-71

Kindergarten Grades 1-6 K. as % of 1-6

Poor Rural 3,643 40.781 8.93Poor Urbanized Rural 5,392 58,b38 9.16Poor Urban 5,042 164,188 3.07Rich Rural 1,966 31,728 6.19Rich Urbanized Rural 8,643 120,004 7.20Rich Urban 18,721 283;470 6.60

209

tion demonstrates, there is a need for new kindergartenfacilities in the range of $150 million.

Assumptions:

I. The ratio of ADA to i ). will be the same in 1976-77 as it was in 1970-71

2. ADM is projected to be 104,000. Assuming ADAis 93 percent of ADM yields 96, 720

3.

4.

5.

TABLE 3

Instruction Unit ValueOCE money will increase to $7,670/1.U. in 1973-74and increase four percent per year from 1973-74to 1976-77.The average value for salaries/1.U. will increasefour percent per year.Assumptions (3) and (4) yield an instruction unitvalue in 1976-77 of $7,136 for salaries and $8,296for OCE, or a total unit value of $15.432.

OPERATING FUNDS GENERATED FOR KINDERGARTEN FROM MFP

Instruction Units Value of Units Dollars S PerADA (Includes STS & Supr.) ADA/I.U.1 Excluding CO & DS Generated ADA

1970-71 43,407 1,5291976-77 96,720 3,406

Required state money over 1971-1972

28.4 S10,782 S16,485,678 S380'28.4 15,432 52,56l;393 543

36,075,714

'The ADA/I.U. is relatively high compared to the basic program because districts have the option of offering halfday or full-day sessions.The presen: funding formula allows one instruction unit for each 25 pupils in fullday attendance and one instruction unit for a minimum of 40pupils in half-day attendance.

210

SECTION XFINANCING EMPLOYEE RETIREMENT

FINANCING RETIREMENT

Public School Employees Retirement System

Since December 1, 1970, all new employees of thepublic school systems in Florida have been requiredto participate in the consolidated Florida RetirementSystem (FRS). Before that date, instructional person-

......,_neLparticipated in the Teacher Retirement System(TRS) and non-instructional personnel in the State andCounty Employee Retirement System (SCOERS).(However, non-instructional personnel in the StateDepartment of Education and the Florida EducationAssociation could join either TRS or SCOERS andsome instructional personnel joined SCOERS).

There have been two periods since December 1,1970, when employees could choose to transfer fromTRS or SCOERS to FRS. Roughly 45 percent of thosein TRS and 95 percent of those in SCOERS have trans-ferred to FRS.

This year under TRS, employees contribute 6.25percent of their gross salary; under SCOERS and FR S,they contribute 4 percent of their gross salary plus5.2 percent of the first $9,000. The employee contribu-tion is matched by the employer.

Figure 1 shows the contributions required ofemployees under the two formulas. Salaries less than$20,800 require a lamer annual employee contribution

*de.r FRS than under TRS. The employe; matchingrequirement is correspondingly greater in the con-solidated system than in the TRS.

The historical growth in total employee contributions(and employer Matching' can be traced to five sources:

1. Increase in the number of employees. There hasbeen an 18.6 percent increase in the number of full-time instructional personnel since FY 1968. Therehas probably been a proportionate increase in thenumber of non-instructional personnel.

213

2. Increase in the salary level. The average annualsalary of instructional personnel increased 22 per-cent between FY 1968 and FY 1971.

3. Changcovers from TRS to FRS. A large percen-tage of the roughly.,35,000 transfers made the changeduring FY 1971. The greater cost of FRS increasedthe matching requirement.

4. Increases in the required social security contribu-tion for personnel in SCOERS. From 4.8 percentto 5.2 percent of up to $7,800.

5. A "forgiveness" policy in FY'68 which permitteddistricts to match only up to total revenues receivedfor that purpose.

School District Retirement Matching

School districts have been required to matchemployee contributions since 1968. Districts havereceived state aid for retirement matching of $500 perinstructional unit. Table 1 shows that the differencebetween state contributions and local diFtrict- expendi-tures for retirement matching has !rown each year.In 1%8 the state contributed about n percent of dis-trict retirement matching expenditures, while in 1972the state portion had decreased to less than 50 percent.

Total expenditures fromt.'erating funds for re-

FV tirement matching

Table 1

State contribution % of retirementi. $500/1U (includes paid by State

recalculation)

72 $67.246.837 $33.380.000* 49.6%

71 ,3,084,074 32.951.975 56.7%

70 49.337,889 32,078,805 65.0%

69 40.008.800 29,988,776 75.0%

31.066,962' 27,592,270 88.9%

* Estima"

Table 2 shows district expenditures for retirementmatching and state.contributions in terms of per pupilin enrollment.

-

Figure I

$2000-

19-

181716-

1500

14

1312I I-

100098-76

50043

1

5K I OK 15K 20K 25K 30K

FRS: C = .045 + .0525* 9000

TRS: C = .06255

Salary

Employee Contributions Under Teacher RetirementSystem (TRS) and Florida Retirement System (FRS)

214

Table 2

FY

District ContributionPer Pupil in Enrollment

(K-12)

State ContributionPer Pupil in Enroll.ment (K-12)

72 S2I.13 $20.8271 15.93 20.8970 11.12 20.6869 6.74 20.1868 2.44 19.33

Since 1968 district contributions per pupil haveincreased almost 900 percent, whereas state contribu-tions have increased less than 8 percent. This minimalincrease during the past five years in the state contribu-tion has left the burden of matching the growth inemployee contributions to the retirement fund NI thelocal school districts.

Future Costs of Retirement Matching

Projection of the costs of retirement mvtching fo':Florida school districts is complicated by lack of dataconcerning:

1. the average contribution rate [at this time it is notknown what percentages of instructional personnelare in the Teacher Retirement System (the TRSrate is 6.25 percent) and the Florida RetirementSystem (the FRS rate is 4 percent plus 5.2 percentof the first $9,000)]

2. the average salary level of non-instructional per-sonnel (expenditure data for operations, main-tenance, transportation, and food service includeall outlays, not only salaries)

Despite this gap in the data, a fairly good projectionof the costs of retirement matching can be made. First,

Let R = the average contribution rate for allschool district employees in Florida,

Sa = the average salary of all employees,.I p = the number of instructional personnel,

and I* = the number of non-instructional per-sonnel.

Then, Expenditure = R(Sa X Ip) + R(Sa X Np) =R3 S Up Np)

We are distinguishing instructional and non-instructional personnel because they have changed innumbers at different rates during the past five years.We offer three projections of total retirement matchingexpenditures for the coming five years: high, low, andour best judgement. These are straight-line projectionsinvolving estimates of the average annual change dur-ing the five-year period.'

'The complete mathematical derivations of these projections areavailable from the authors.

215

Year

ExpenditureExpenditure bitse.

High

per pupil1971/1972: 41.95

Best Estimate Low72/73 $46.46 45.74 44.5673/74 51.46 49.88 47.3474/75 57.00 54.39 50.2975/76 63.13 59.31 53.4276/77 69.92 64.67 56.75

Our enrollment projections are those provided by theresearch section of the State Department of Educationfor Florida.

YearProjectedEnrollment (K.12)

72/73 1,620,56273/74 1,629.69674ns 1.629,06875/76 1.633,75476/77 1,641.572

Total Expenditure for Retirement Matching

Year High Best Estimate Low72/73 $ 75.291,310 74,124,505 72.212,24273/74 83,864.156 81,289.236 77.149,80874/75 92,856,876 88,605,008 81.925,82975/76 103,138,890 96,897,949 87,275,13876/77 114.778,714' 106,160.460 93,159.211

2 presents the high, low, and best estimatesin gra, .1;. form (the relationships would be more easilygrasp: if semi-logorithmic graph paper were used).

Conclusions and Recommendations

Florida school district expenditures for retire-nentmatching will continue to climb in the next five years.They will rise from the current level of $67 millionto $100 million by 1975 or 1976. Using the State Depart-ment of Education Bureau of Finance's projectionsof instruction units, and applying the current state con-tribution rate of $500 per instruction unit, in 1976-1977the state will contribute $37,904,000 and districts willcontribute $68,256,000 for retirement matching (ourbest estimate).

We believe the state government of Florida shouldassume full responsibility for matching the retirementcontributions of employees in school districts. It isclear this was "e original intent of the Florida Legisla-ture when it mandated retirement matching in fiscalyear 1968 and provided districts nearly th- full amountof the expenditure that year. The Legislature's recentaction in consolidating all retirement systems into oneFlorida Retirement System with mandatory member-ship for all :employees of school districts reinforcesthis proposition that fundingand operation of the retire-ment system is a state responsibility.

Further, the property tax override now permittedschool districts to fund the deficit in retirement costs

TOTAL EXPENDITURES BY SCHOOL. DISTRICTSFOR RETIREMENT MATCHING

(000)

120,000 -

110,000 -

100,000 -

90,000

80,000 -

70,000

60,000 -

50,000

40,000

30,000 i I I I

/ HIGH

//

/ / BEST/ // // /

/ // // // /

// // /LAW/ / // / /// / // / /

I1 // // / /// r/I/ /// /// /////// //'

/7//1/

I

67/68 68/69 69/70 70/71 71/72 72/73 73/74 74/75 75/76 76M

FIGURE 2

clearly discriminates against low-wealth communitiesby allowing wealthy districts to raise a sum of revenuefor retirement matching at much lower tax rates thanthose required in poor districts. We believe thisinequity should be corrected through full state assump-tion of retirement matching. If local voters turn downproperty tax overrides, the ten-mill local property taxcap would result in local districts' allocating moremoney to retirement at the expense of instructional

217

programs. All but 9.8 percent of Florida's school chil-dren attend school in districts that are at or very nearthe ten-mill limit. The retirement trends we projectwill either result in increased local property taxes orforced reallocations of funds from instruction to retire-ment. The one solution is state assumption which isalso conrruent with our recommendations in transpor-tation and construction.

411..-..a

SECTION XIPROPERTY TAX ASSESSMENT IN FLORIDA

PROPERTY TAX ASSESSMENT IN FLORIDA

In recent years Florida has been confronted witLan increasing controversy over property taxassessment. An-assessment ratio program was begunin 1970 for two major reasons. Under the MinimumFoundation Program formula the state pays so muchper instruction unit, but local property tax revenueof seven mills is deducted from the state payment.Consequently, it is to a school district's advantage tokeep assessing low and thereby compel the state topay a greater share of the cost of local school operation.Moreover, the degree of underassessment variedwidely among the county assessment districts withinthe state. The state M FP equalization program couldnot operate precisely because actual property tax yieldsdid not reflect true county tax capacity. Finally, theten-mill cap on property taxes for schools meanscounties are unable to increase their tax yield froman under assessed base by increasing the tax rates.This situation has caused school finance experts toremark that the state aid programs are constructed ona base of "funny money."

The precise nature and procedures of the Floridaratio study have been the focus'of property tax reformin Florida. While the current ratio study is an issuefor the courts to decide, we would like to concentrateon the total reform of the overall property tax assess-ment system in Florida. A sound ratio study is onlyone ,element in strengthening state property taxadministration. The current ratio study indicates, how-ever, some substantial problems exist in the entire areaof property tax assessment in Florida.

Florida has a tradition of joint state-local propertytax administration and will probably continue underthis pattern for the foreseeable future. While otherstates (Maryland) have moved toward complete cen-tralization of property tax administration, Florida hasnot indicated any real interest in this pattern. Con-

221

sequently, we will confine our comments to remoldingthe two-level system.

A general objective is efficient impartial administraL__tion of a Lx that is unusually difficult to administer.Two general criteria are widely acclaimed.' First,assessed values of property should approximate fullmarket values; that is, the assessed value should beapproximately what a willing buyer would pay to awilling seller, both dealing at arm's length with nostrings attached. Second, where property is notassessed at its full market value, atleast all propertiesin a given class should be assessed at the same ratioof assessed to full value. Unfortunately, the currentFlorida ratio study tells us nothing about this lattercriteria, nor does the state even gather the basic infor-mation on assessment among and within many classes(industrial, etc.). To achieve the above goals any stateneeds:

1. A single state agency professionally organized andequipped for the job, with adequate powers of super-vision and regulation clearly defined by law. Thisstate agency should be insulated from political influ-ence of other state officials.

Completely professionalized assessment personnelat the state and local level with compensation andopportunity for advancement adequate to attractand hold well-qualified people.

3. A workable, efficient apportionment of assessmentresponsibilities between the state and local levels,with careful coordination of assessment standardsand procedures.

2.

Professionalization of Personnel

Several study groups including the Advisory Com-mission on Intergovernmental Relations (ACIR) have

'H. Thomas James, "Qualitative Indices of Property TaxAdministration" in Compact, February, 1968, p. 12.

strongly urged the end of elected local assessors thatare used in Florida. As AC1R observed:

Local governments are accustomed to employingtrained accountants, engineers, health officers, socialworkers, and school teachers but they seem willingto elect as assessor any resident citizen who is oldenough to vote and does not have a criminal record,and then pay him less than the janitor.=

ACIR recommends the following'seven stens towardprofessionalization of assessorsnone of these areimplemented in Florida. The study team strongly urgestheir adoption in Florida.

I. All taxable property in the state should beappraised for taxation only by appraisers certifiedas to qualifications on the basis of examination bya public agency authorized to perform this function.

2. All assessors should be appointed to office, butwith eligibility for appointment based on state cer-tification as to qualifications.

3. There should be no requirement of prior residencein the assessment district for appointment to theoffice of assessor.

4. Assessors should be appointed by the chief execu-tives or executive boards of local governmentswhen assessment districts are coextensive withsuch governments, and by the legally constitutedgoverning agencies of multi-county districts.

5. The state agency authorized to supervise propertytax administration should be empowered to estab-lish the professional qualifications of assessors andappraisers and certify candidates as to their fitnessfor employment on the basis of examination givenby it or of examinations satisfactory to it given bya state or local personnel agency.

6. The state supervisory agency should beempowered to prescribe and enforce minimum pro-fessional staffing requirements in all local assess-ment districts, and also to contract with local dis-tricts for the provision of part-time technical per-sonnel.

7. To avoid obstruction to the local recruitment andretention of competent professional personnel, thestate legislatures should not set, or place limits on,salaries paid certified local assessors andappraisers.

Effective State Supervision and Coordination

The key to uniformity of assessment on a statewidebasic is a capable central supervisory agency with

2 Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations, TheRole of the States in Strengthening the Property Tax, Volume I(GPO. Washington, D.C. 1963).

222

appropriate powers and facilities and an insulation frompolitical or other considerations that impede aggressiveimplementation. Florida needs to do more then attemptto patch up mistakes in the original job of local assessingthrough such devices as ratio studies. The top priorityneeds to be reasonable uniformity ofassessment amongcounties and within counties in the pr'mary stage. Thestate supervisory agency must have the authority toissue orders and obtain compliance. While Florida stategovernment does have considerable statutory supervi-sory and standard-setting authority, the implementationof this authority has been spotty and in some waysnon-existent. It is possible that county assessors caninfluence the Legislature or Cabinet to cut back thesupervisory zeal of the Department of Revenue.

Arizona established an independent Department ofProperty Valuation with a Director who has the follow-ing powers that either do not exist in Florida (2,3,4)or are only sporadically implemented at best:

I. Adoption of standard appraisal methods andtechniques for use by the Department and countyassessors in determining the valuation of property.

2. Require the use by county assessors of such dataprocessing system as the State Director may pre-scribe.

3. State Director may request the Attorney Generalto initiate a mandamus action against any assessorwho fails to follow any regulation, rule, order, ordirection of the Director.

4. The State Director may contest any individual orclass of proposed valuations before the State Boardof Property Tax Appeals.

Each Arizona Assessor's Office is provided with acomplete set of manuals and an Assessor's Handbookso that he may conform with the statewide uniformityrequirements. The State Department of PropertyValuation has also provided a uniform parcel number-ing and parcel mapping system along with uniform taxarea code maps and uniform procedures for handlingexemptions under Arizona statutes. Compared to thenationally recognized standards set by Arizona,Florida provides very little money for local mapping.Moreover, Florida is not exercising nearly enoughoversight to discover whether the county assessorsactually use the state manuals in making their deci-sions.

Arizona statutes provide that no assessor may estab-lish or change any valuation without approval by theDepartment of Property Valuation. Florida state offi-cials can only Refuse to certify the whole county roll.

This is such a blunt tool that it has not been used.If the Arizona Department does not disapprove arequested local assessment within 20 days of receipt,approval is assumed, and the county assessor placesthe new value on the tax roll. Consequently, the statereviews loCal assessment concurrently with the workof local assessors. Florida's ratio studies are alwaysa year behind, and the the county assessors can argue(at times with justification) that they have changedtheir practices.

The Arizona system is preferable because it providesa direct adjustment for underassessment or nonuni-form assessment rather than an indirect deduction ofstate aid for education. In Florida, many countieswould rather lose state education aid than adjust assess-ments. The Arizona system enables the state to in-crease assessments in subclasses of property directly.Florida does not even have information within coun-ties on many classes of property, including industrial;commercial, and residential.

Electronic data processing equipment is used exten-sively wherever possible in Arizona with the statehandling data processing for 11 of the 14 counties. Lessthan half of Florida's counties have sophisticatedautomated equipment. In Arizona current sales pricesare stored in the computer and any deviations below80 percent or above 96 percent are noted by the com-puter. The County Assessor is provided with a printoutso that he can review and update appraisals to bringhis tax roll into conformity with the standard. Floridais not even close to having this capacity.

The provision of adequate assessing tools needs tobe reinforced by instruction and assistance in their use.Florida's state government should have a major rolein pre-entry and in-service training of assessors. Thestate agency needs an adequate number of staff techni-cians and appraisal specialists who can supervise localmapping and 'reappraisal of difficult properties. Theexisting quality and number of staff in the FloridaDepartment of Revenue should be reviewed carefullyto see if upgrading and increase in staff is needed.Florida does not provide county assessors with eitherfinancial assistance to purchase equipment, etc. orrequire adequate in-service training. In-service trainingis voluntary for Florida's county assessors. As ACIRnotes:

There is no satisfactory substitute for the continuousservice training provided by competent, well-equippedstate supervisory agencies through provision of tools,personal instruction in their use, collaboration in solv-ing difficult assessment problems, guidance in measur-ing and analyzing assessment performance and other-wise broadening the local assessor's range of profes-sional knowledge.

223

Desirably, the educational equipment for an appraisershould include, in addition to the broad backgroundof a college education, a year's internship withspecialized instruction, supervised field assignments,and periodic examinations, which should carry mainte-nance pay and good assurance of a position upon suc-cessful completion of training.'

EQUALIZATION

Equalization of assessment is a result of the continu-ous process discussed above of state supervision andcooperation with local assessors. The State of Floridaneeds to issue formal orders for adjustments toeliminate inequities within and among classes of prop-erty and among the various areas of a county (intra-county equalization). We have recommended in otherparts of this report that the state pay a larger shareof total school costs. This increased state assumptionof school costs must be linked to an increased staterole in property tax assessment and regulation.Withholding of state school aid for low or inequitableassessment does not "make the punishment fit thecrime." Some possible direct remedies are:

1. State can order or institute reassessment of prop-erty within counties.

2. State can raise tax rate above the ten-mill cap ifcounties continually underassess.

3. State can take over county assessment- for aspecified period of time. State takeover could betriggered by a) failure to maintain adequate tax mapsand record system, b) failure to meet personnelrequirements, and c) assessments disclosing anindex of inequality clearly in excess of a specifiedlevel of tolerance.

A school equalization program can be implementedproperly only if the figures on county assessed valua-tion are valid and reliable.

This latter point brings us to the much debatedFlorida issue of ratio studies. The study team haslimited experience in the details of ratio studies. ACI R,however, has examined the proper standards for ratiostudies and has suggested the characteristics of "a com-promise between the ideal program and a cheapprogram." Their recommended standards may be sum-marized as follows:

1. The program should be designed under the direc-tion of a professionally competent statistician.

2. The assessments on each local roll should be clas-sified into at least 10 or 12 categories, by use typesand to some extent by assessed value. A separate

'ACI R, op. cit., pp. 20-21.

market value estimate should be derived for eachclass of property by expanding the sample for theclass.

3. Real property sales occurring for a period of timeafter assessed values have been fixed should befully recorded in small jurisdictions and sampledin large jurisdictions. If the time interval betweenthe fixing of assessed values by the assessor andthe need for assessment-level findings is short, themarket value for the preceding year can be foundand carefully trended.

4. Parties to sales considered for use in the surveyshould be sent questionaires concerning terms ofsales, reliability of sales prices as evidence of mar-ket value, and exact nature of transferred proper-ties; to be followed up by a second- questionnaireor telephone or personal interview. (It is moreimportant to do a good research job on a smallnumber of sales than a superficial job on a largenumber.)

5. In assessed-value categoriesithat contribute materi-ally to the total assessed value, but are representedby few or no acceptable sales, appraisals shouldbe used either in lieu of, or to supplement, sales.The appraisal subjects should be randomlyselected, and include personal property as well asreal property.

6. The market values, whether derived from salesprices or from appraised values, should be matchedwith assessed values fixed prior to the sales datesand prior to the random selection of properties forappraisal. A ratio of assessed value to market valueshould be computed for each matched pair, andeither the median ratio of the median market valueor the median assessed value should be ascertainedfor each of the classes into which assessments havebeen grouped. From these medians an estimate ofthe total market values for all groups may then becompared with the total assessed value to derivea measure of the2urisdiction's assessment level.States that are making regular use of scientificassessment ratio studies recognize them as an indis-pensable factfinding tool without which reliableequalization of assessments and effective supervi-sion of assessing would not be feasible. For this

224

reason the integrity of these studies must be safe-guarded. This is a tool only for those agencies thatare prepared to use it skillfully and judiciously.'

It is obvious that Florida's ratio study does not includemany of these recommended components. In our viewthe amount of state money allocated for ratio studiesmust be increased substantially.

Exemptions

A recent study of exemptions indicated that up toone-third of the taxable property in the United Statesescapes taxation. Many exemptions have become per-manent fixture.. that escape regular scrutiny by stateand local governments. Given the large amount ofexempt property in Florida, an extensive study andreconsideration of exemption policies would be useful.Whenevef property is exempted from tax rolls thepotential for raising revenue is reduced and other prop-erties must assume the burden.

Concluding Comments

The recent ratio study alerts us to the fact that thereare probably substantial problems in Florida.Increased state school aid and equalization require asound state-local property tax assessment system.There are some important gaps in the state's authorityto supervise local assessment. But the existing author-ity could also be used more aggressively andimplemented more completely. In our view, broadscale reform needs to be considered starting with areconsideration of the administrative and political rela-tionship of a state assessment agency to the FloridaCabinet and Legislature. The standards recommendedby the Advisory Commission on IntergovernmentalRelations form an excellent basis for strengtheningFlorida's property tax administration. The state sys-tems in Arizona and Oregon could serve as very usefulmodels for Florida to emulate. Florida has limited localdiscretion in property tax rates through the ten-millcap. It is inconsistent to permit wide ranges in effectiveor actual property tax rates among counties becauseof differences in county assessment practices, com-petence, and standards.

4ACIR, op. cit., p. 50.

SECTION XIISOME REVENUE CONSIDERATIONS

SOME REVENUE CONSIDERATIONSIntroduction

Our analysis of revenue for schools in Floridaindicates that, as in the expenditure analysis, someof the key problems causing inequities in other statesare not present. For instance, the problem of widedisparities in local property taxes found in other statesis not present in Florida. In many other states thesame house will be taxed three times higher in someschool districts than in others. According to the 1973-74annual district budgets, all but 23 counties are at theten-mill property tax cap and two of these, Palm Beachand Volusia, are at 9.75 and 9.9 respectively. ExcludingPalm Beach and Volusia the number of pupils in aver-age daily attendance in 1970-71 in the remaining 21counties levying below ten mills was 125,905, or only9.8 percent of the total state ADA in grades 1-12 of1,290,007.' Consequently, there is no need to exploreschemes of leveling school districts up or down to somestate median tax as is the case in most other states.2The issue of equalization of tax burden among countiesfocuses in Florida on property tax assessment dis-cussed in a prier section. As the following table indi-cates, Florida's ten-mill cap results in a relatively lowlocal share of total education costs and a 39th rank-ing in local public school revenue as a percent ofstate and local school revenue.

This lack of reliance on the local tax base resultsin considerably less inequality in educational expendi-tures than is found in most states. It is the variationsin tax base between school districts with high assessedproperty values and low assessed property values that

'These counties a. d their respective operating millage levies are:Baker, 9.3; Bay, 8.1; Calhoun, 8.0; Flagler, 8.5; Franklin, 7.15;

Gilchrist, 8.0; Glades, 8.02; Hardee, 9.6; Highlands, 9.1; Holmes,9.0;Jackson, 7.0; Jefferson, 9.0; Layfayette, 7.0; Liberty, 6.0; Mad-

ison, 8.0; Monroe, 8.4; Osceola, 8.83; Polk, 8.471; St. Johns, 9.12;

Taylor, 9.0; and Union, 8.5.

2See Volume I of the report of Fleischmann Commission inNew York.

227

causes the tremendous expenditure differences in otherstates. We have made several recommendations, how-ever, to increase substantially the state's contributionto public education in such areas as construction, trans-portation, compensatory education, etc. Along withthese proposals for new state money, however, mustcome some analysis of how to provide the necessaryfinances. Our proposals for increased state assumptionof total school expenditures will move Florida evencloser to placing the wealth of the state behind eachchild and mitigating the importance of each county'sproperty tax wealth.

The Florida Surplus

Florida is in the enviable position of having a sub-stantial state surplus that is projected to continue.Moreover, the advent of federal revenue sharing willadd over $50 million for each of the next five years.Since education expenditures (at all levels) dominatethe current general revenue budget, it is likely thateducation can expect a large share of this surplus.

As these charts indicate, education absorbs 68.33percent of the total state general revenue; the nextlargest expenditure is health with only 8 percent. Thekfigures are less noteworthy, however, when onerealizes general revenue provides less than 50 percentof total state expenditures. Trust funds in Florida areparticularly large, and these are primarily devoted toprograms other than education.

Florida does not have detailed projections of futurerevenues and expenditures assuming there are no newlarge programs started. For instance, the federal gov-ernment's tax system will probably not generate suf-ficient revenues at full employment to keep pace withbuilt-in and uncontrollable cost increases of existingprograms, much less fund large new initiatives.3 The

3See Charles Schultze et. al., Setting Priorities for the 1973 Budget(Washington: Brookings, 1972).

TABLE I

LOCAL PUBLIC-SCHOOL REVENUE AS PERCENT OFSTATE AND LOCAL SCHOOL REVENUE, 1970-71

UNITED STATES 55.9%

I. New Hampshire 90.02. South Dakota 83.03. Nebraska 8 L I4. Oregon 79.25. Massachusetts. 76.96. Montana 73.97. Connecticut 73.18. New Jersey 72.89. South Dakota 71.9

10. Iowa 69.911. Ohio 69.812. Wisconsin 69.813. Colorado 67.314. Kansas 66.8IS. Wyoming 66.716. Indiana 66.217. Maine 65.318. Vermont 65.219. Missouri 64.820. Califonlia 62.921. Maryland 62.622. Rhode Island 61.223. Virginia 60.624. Nevada 60.525. Illinois 59.626. Idaho 58.427. Minnesota 54.528. Michigan 52.829. Oklahoma 51.830. Arizona 51.731. Pennsylvania 50.832. New York 49.933. Tennessee 46.234. Arkansas 45.435. Texas 45.336. West Virginia 44.437. Utah 42.138. Washington 40.039. Florida 38.340. Kentucky 36.541. Georgia 35.542. Mississippi 32.543. Louisiana 32.444. South Carolina 29.145. Alabama 25.446. New Mexico 24.047. Delaware 23.448. North Carolina 22.149. Alaska 15.650. Hawaii 3.2

Source: National Education Association, Research Division.Estimates of School Statistics, 1970-71. Research Report 1970-R15.Washington, D.C.: The Association, 1970, p. 35.

Florida projections we have seen, however, indicateit may be possible to fund our recommendations withthe projected surplus in current and future years'. Theprojection of pupil enrollrunt is for immediatedecreases in elementary school pupils which will makeitself felt in the higher grades after the middle of thedecade. The projection for 1980 is for grades 1-12 toremain almost level with some decrease in the elemen-tary grades.

228

rAlticat ionI

6S.33, ,

health 8.0 I ' (

1%%'elfa re 7.73';

Genl.Govt.

5.161:

NII1l11111

Resources.7,3,,;

Coned.111,0.

Pi oteetion:Persons.Property

2:+2.,,

Other 2.06',,

1971.72 EXPENDIT U RES FROM THEGENERAL REVENUE FUND

Education S 915315.258.43Hospitals. Health and Sanitation 1(17.358.299.6(1Public Welfat e 103.523.743.06Genet al Government 69.160.957.32Natural Resources 44.569.819.52Correctional 'Institutions 42.376.220.11Pt otection to Poisons Ptoperty 29.671.786.33Retire' ..ents and Pensions 1342.396.86Other 26.168.634.37

TOTAL .... S1.339.487.115.60

The Official Revenue Estimating Conference forFlorida meets on January 15, 1973, which is too latefor the purpose of our interim report. We did ask theFlorida Bureau of the Budget to project revenue andexpenditures based upon current law and their projec-tion of future economic conditions. The Table II pro-jection below, which does not include the K-12Program, provided for the continuation of current pro-grams and activities taking into account known commit-ments, inflation, work load, and salary requirements.Note these projections are only for the GeneralRevenue Fund and omit over half the revenue sources.They do not include trust funds which include educa-tion retirement matching of about $34 million in 1970-71or capital outlay from license tag sales of about $26.5million in 1970-71. As we have stressed trust fundsare very large and are also currently running substantialsurpluses. All of these revenue sources combined yielda surplus for 1972-73 in the $275-300 million range withthe trust funds accounting for a significant share ofthe surplus.

TABLE II

. GENERAL REVENUE FUND(Millions of Dollars)

Est.

Projection

1972.73 1973.74 1974.75 1975-76 1976.77 1977-78 1978.79

Funds Available:Balance Forward 157.9Revenue Receipts (See Attached) 1725.0 1841.0 2002.4 2173.3 2356.7 2558 9 2774.0

Federal Revenue Shaetng 63.1 54.5 56.5 58.0 44.1 CO `,?)

Reversion of Old Appropriations .8 1.0 1.1 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4

Total Available 1946.8 1896.5 2060.0 2232.4 2402.0 2560.2 2775.4

Appropriations and Expenditures:State Operations 698.7 780.6 831.7 910.5 969.5 1045S 1145.0

Aid to Counties (Less K12 Program) 144.7 207.3 227.9 249.2 272.2 296.5 320.2

Fixed Capital Outlay 86.6 75.8 82.2 91.8 100.8 110,4_ 121.0

Sub-Total 930.0 1063.7 1141.8 1251.5 1342.5 1452.8 1586.2

Other Requirements 100.0 25.2 24.7 24.0 23.3 22.6 21.9

K-I 2 Program . 740.9 (a) ? (a) ? (a) ? (a) ? (a) ? (a) 1 (a)

Total 1770.9 1088.9 1166.5 1275.5 1365.8 1475.4 1608.1

Balance 175.9 807.6 893.5 956.9 1036.2 1084.8 1167.3

Note (a): Does not include local Ad aloretn Property Tax which is currently estimated to be 5460.000,000.

Prepared by the Bureau of ItudgdeDepartment of Administration 12/8/72.

These rough figures for the general revenue fundindicate, when combined with the trust funds, a possi-bility that our recommendations could be funded with-out new or increased state taxes. We have no wayto estimate trust funds. Two other unknown figuresalso should be considered. First the required local con-tribution for public education could increase substan-tially as Florida approaches 100 percent of just valueand the building boom continues in part of the state.Second, sales tax revenue in Florida has risen in recentyears at a faster pace then projected. Appendix Dincludes our prediction of assessed and equalized val-uations for each county. It shows an increase inequalized assessed value from $52.22 billion in 1972to $63.78 billion in 1976. Some of this can be usedfor schools and redistributed from rich to poorcounties. At this point we have no way of preciselyestimating how much.

Given the large number of unknown and unknowablecomponents of the overall revenue and expenditurepicture for Florida, we see no necessity to recommendnew taxes to fund our recommendations. Obviously,the substantial state surplus is the key factor in this

229

decision. The table below presents all the revenuesources and expenditures of Florida.

Florida's Governmental Financein a National Context

A comparison of Florida's financial wealth and effortwith the nation demonstrates there is considerablelatitude and unutilized capacity for increasing educa-tional expenditures without placing inordinate burdenson Florida's taxpayers. In general, Florida is a stateof contrasts with wealth per child substantially abovethe national average but many disadvantaged childrenfrom low-income families. It is especially noteworthythat Florida ranks 14th in the nation in personal incomeper child of school age (and first in the Southeast).

This wealth per child results from Florida's havingthe lowest ratio of school-age children to adults of anystate. (See Table 2 which follows.) According to the1970 census, 14.5 percent of Florida's population(985,000 residents) is 65 years of age or older. Thisis the largest percentage of this age group in any state,almost half again as large as the national averagr of9.9 percent.

AN OVERVIEW OF FIARIDA'S CURRENT TAXES

Summary of Receipts, Disbursements, and Balances for the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 1972

RECEIPTSFROM STATE TAXATION:

Sales and Use Tax $ 875,767,558.57Casoline Tax 287,981.552.93Beverage Tax and Licenses 150.273,918.09Motor Vehicle and Mobile Home Licenses 133.632.098.07Racing Fees, Licenses, and Taxes 61,610.335.35Cigarette Tax 146,287.591.71Unemployment Compensation Tax 49,613,103.03

'Intangible Tax 99.813,957.34General Inspection Fees, Lie( c, and Taxes 8,832.183.68Citrus Inspection Fees 6.383.226.09Insurance Premium Tax 39,864.426.07Documentary Stamp Tax 58,595,157.12Department of Citrus Fees and Taxes 18,113,090.96Estate Taxes 31,341.393.45Utilities Tax 23,967,801.05Hunting and Fishing Licenses 4,535.276.13Drivers Licenses d Fees 14,651,912.78Motor Vehicle Inspection Fees 1,967,740.30Auto Title and Lien Fees 6,669,847.76Occupational Licenses 3,982,653.22Workmen's Compens, 211 Tax 3,805,721.85Auto Road Tax (Coma- Carriers) 1,363,935.50Motor Vehicle Special Fuel Tax 18,908,198.99Department of State Fees and Taxes 5,233,366.05Capital Stock Tax 3,043,052.93Corporation Privilege Tax 10,426,837.68Corporation Income Tax 27,873,659.44TreasurerOther Fees, Licenses, and Taxes 2,168,115.68Other Fees, Licenses, and Taxes 56,002,745.96

TOTAL TAXES $2,152,710,457.78

'(Two years collections due to statutory change)

AIDS AND DONATIONS:Counties and Cities $ 15,890,029.37U. S. Government 626,904,223.57Other 12.566,123.19

TOTAL AIDS AND DONATIONS $ 655,360,376.13

MISCELLANEOUS REVENUE $ 148,354,463.67

EARNINGS ON INVESTMENTSAND DEPOSITS $ 77,310,535.01

TOTAL DIRECT REVENUE $3,033,735,832.59

COLLECTIONS FOR RETIREMENTBENEFITS S 381,242,112.58

NONRECURRING RECEIPTS:Land Sales or Leases $ 3,319,405.31Sale of Investments 417,241,324.00Sale of Revenue Certificates:County Schools 7,155,000.00Other 112,482,672.77

U. C. Payments from FederalTrust Fund 47,865,000.00Collections for Internal Revenue 77,093,896,52Service Charges to General Revenue 12,347,548,32Other NonRecurring Receipts 83,058,246.17

TOTAL NONRECURRINGRECEIPTS . $ 760,563,093.09

TOTAL DIRECT AND OTHER REVENUE . . .$4,175,541,038.26

INTERFUND TRANSFERS AND REFUNDS $ 870,093,182.44

TOTAL RECEIPTS $5,045,634,220.70BALANCE JULY C, 1971 $ 184,070,698.38

TOTAL RECEIPTS AND BALANCE $5,229,704,91:).08

DISBURSEMENTSOPERATING EXPENSES:General Government S 108,828,710,65Protection to Persons and 1-roperty 52,160,774.79Hospitals, Health and Sanitation 136,181.351.65Development and Conservation ofNatural Resources

HighwaysPublic Welfare:Aid to Old Age. Blind, DependentChildren, Disabled, aid Hospitalization

Unemployment Compensation BenefitsOther Aids and AdministrationEducation:State UniversitiesOther Education

Parks, Monuments, and MemorialsCorrectional InstitutionsRetirements, Pensions, and Relief Acts

TOTAL OPERATING EXPENSES

99.884,549.55367.823,388.91

245.095.879.4054.520,759.17

106,646,558.25

321,480,815.8283,327,992.67

6,965,118.7058,370,523.0466,502,249.54

...$1.707,788,672.14

AID TO CITIES:Cigarette Taxes S 81,611,475.44Firemen's Relief and Pension Fund 2,470,471.99Auto Road Tax (Common Carrier) 34,850.00Municipal Police Officers Pension Fund 3,896,975.658th Cent Motor Fuel Tax 12,791,621.74Beverage Licenses 2,704,260.78Other 168,556 78

TOTAL All) TO CITIES $ 103,678,212.38

230

AID TO COUNTIES:Oil and Gas Production Tax S 201,179.34Insurance Agents County License Tax 314.215,20Mosquito Control Appropriation 2,475,000.00State Racing Funds 29,915,500.00Beverage Licenses 2,382,736.80Cigarette Taxes 4,965,581.28

'Minimum Foundation Program:Schools (Includes Community Colleges) ... 745,491,989.36($15,656,466.30 Debt Service not included)

State Board of Administration:2 Cents Gas Tax 73,702,626.222 Cents Motor Fuel Tax 4,777,784.43Auto Road Tax (Common Carrier) 1,250,991.72

7th Cant Gas Tax:80% to D.O.T. for Counties($7 ,026,977 .98 Transfer)Dire..1 to Counties 29,373,061.11

7th Cent Motor Fuel Tax:80% to D.O.T. for Counties($420,065.06 Transfer)Direct to Counties 1,941,256.16

8th Cent Motor Fuel Tax:Direct to Counties 7,241,761,21

Other County Aids 43,637,880.65Federal Sources:Aids, Grants, and Donations 94.449,861.70TOTAL AID TO COUNTIES $1,042,121,425.18

INVESTMENTS

COUNTY AND OTHER DEBT SERVICE

DISTRIBUTIONS TO U. S. TREASURER . .

INTERFUND TRANSFERS AND REFUNDS

TOTAL DISBURSEMENTS

BALANCE JUNE 30,1972

TOTAL DISBURSEMENTS AND BALANCE .

$ 757,816,124.06

$ 38,790,415.42

. $ 281,230,808.38

.$ 880,793,856.77

$4,812,219,514.33

$ 417,485,404.75

$5,229,704,919.08

TABLE I.

PERSONAL INCOME PER CHILD OF SCHOOL AGE, 1970

Soutb.,- ^rn StatcsRam., State Income

NationalRank

Florida $15,567 14

2 Virginia 13,736 283 Georgia 12,111 354 North Carolina 11,877 37

Tennessee 11,798 386 West Virginia 11.558 397 Kentucky 11,553 408 Louisiana 10,325 459 Arkansas 10.240 46

10 Alabama 10,220 4711 Solidi Carolina 9,99512 Mississippi 8,354 50

United States 15,063

A national comparison of Florida's income per childwith school expenditures per pupil and tax effort yieldsthe following relationships as of 1970:

U.S. Compared toFlorida Average U.S., Florida Is:

Income per Child $15,567 $15,063 +504

Per Pupil Revenuefor Schools 962 1,094 -132

Average Effective Tax Rateon Residential Property 1.4: 1.98 -.57

State and Local Tax Collectionsas Percent of Personal Income 9.4 10.9 -1.5

These figures show that Florida has considerably lowerproperty taxes and total state-local tax rates than thenation. Moreover, Florida's wealth per child is muchhigher than the nation, but its public elementary andsecondary school expenditures lag considerably behindthe nation. If Florida spent the national average. forschools for each pupil it would spend $182.54 rni.lionmore. Compared to the Southeast as well as to thenation Florida is a low tax, low effort state as measuredby personal income.

TABLE 2ESTIMATED SCHOOL-AGE POPULATION AS

PERCENT OF TOTAL RESIDENT r( 7PULATION, 1970

UNITED STATES 26.5 25. Virgini.: 27.026. Iowa 26.8

I. Ncw Mexico 32.1 Tennessee 26.82. Mississippi 31.6 28. Indiana 26.73. Alaska 31.2 `West Virginia 26.74. Utah 30.5 30. Nebraska 26.55. Louisiana 30.2 31. Wisconsin 26.5

South Carolina 30.2 32. Colorado 26.47. Hawaii 29.5 33. Vermont 26.38. Idaho 29.1 34. Maine 26.29. North Dakota 2t 35. Illinois 26.1

10. South Dakota 28.8 Maryland 26.1

II. Alabama 28.5 Nevada 26.1

Texas 28.5 Washington 26.113. Georgia 28.2 39. Missouri 25.814. Arizona 28.0 40. Oklahoma 25.715. Arkansas 27.8 41. New Hampshire 25.6

Michigan 27.8 42. California 25.5Montana 27.8 43. Connecticut 25.3

18. North Carolina 27.7 Oregon 25.3Wyoming 17.7 45. New Jersey 25.1

20. Delaware 27.6 46 Pennsylvania 24.9

Kansas 27.6 47. New York 24.5

22. Minnesota 27.5 48. Massachusetts 24.2

23. Ohio 27.2 49. Rhode Island 24.1

24. Kentucky 27.1 50. Florida 24.0

Source: National Education Association, Research Division. Estimates of Scho ' Statistics, 1970-71. Research Report 1970-1115.Washington, D.C.: The Association, 1970. p. 27.

231

This relatively low effort, low tax pattern in educa-tion is reflective of Florida's total governmental spend-ing. For instance, Florida ranks 45th in per capitaexpenditures for public welfare, 41st in per capital totalexpenditures for all state and local government and$118.74 per person less than the national average ofper capital expenditures for state/local government ser-vices. Educationdcminates the Florida spending priori-ties. It absorbs 68.3 percent of total state expenditures.The next closest item is health which takes only 8 per-cent of the total state revenue.

The need for above-national-average expendituresby Florida is indicated by the large number of disadvan-taged children. Nearly 60 percent of Florida's laborforce is employed in the four lowest paying industriesin the U.S. (agriculture, retail trade, service, and gov-ernment).( The tables below display the largenumber of low income households in Florida. TheFlorida Department of Commerce concluded al-most one out of three fathilies in "wealthy" Dade,Broward, and Palm Beach are living below povertylevel incomes.5 The outlook in the poor counties iseven worse, as the Department of Commerce stressed:

Not only does Florida have a large number of countieswith low per capita income, but some counties areactually losing income, something which doesn't hap-pen in a healthy economy. Eighteen Florida countiesactually lost per capita income between 1968 and1969 . . . Not only do most Florida counties havelow per capita incomes, but the problem is compoundedby the fact that most Floridians are not increasing theirincome at a rate equal to the rest of the nation and,therefore, are falling further behind in their relativeincome positions.6

Florida's pattern of education expenditures does notreflect this need to have high educational services givenits large number of disadvantaged children. Floridaranks 32nd in the nation in pupils per teacher and signifi-cantly below the national average.

Florida also lags badly in percent increase in instruc-tional staff salaries.

This trend indicates a lower priority for teacher sal-ary increases by Florida state officials than is foundin the rest of the Southeast. As other parts of the Citi-zens' Committee work demonstrate, we have no validdata comparing Florida with national school outputs(such as achievement in basic skills). We have pre-sented comparative data on inputs of teachers,

'See Florida Department of Commerce. Florida in the Sev-enties (Tallahassee, 1971).

sFlorida Department of Commerce. op. cit., p. 20.6/bid., p. 17.

232

revenues, and overall expenditure effort, but not whatFlorida children learn. While the unadjusted statisticsindicate Florida school attainment lags behind thenation, this is to be expected given the inordinatelylarge numbers of disadvantaged children documentedabove.

In short, we have no way to control for the interstatedifferences in the social-economic background ofFlorida's children compared to national averages orother states. Other recommendations of the Citizens'Committee would establish procedures to change thissituation, such as giving the National Assessment teststo a sample of Florida children. Our analysis abovefocuses on the equity issue of resource efforts inFlorida compared to what might be expected givenits relative (national) economic wealth and educationalneeds.' The table below includes what other statesspend (as of 1970-171) with wealth per child and percapita close to Florida.

In sum, Florida's overall picture of taxation and pub-lic services supports devoting its current and projectedrevenue surplus for increased public programs includ-ing education.

Property Tax in Florida

In a recent national opinion survey the AdvisoryCommission on - Intergovernmental Relations foundthe property tax is by far the most unpopular of allmajor revenue producers. When asked, "Which taxdo you think is the fairest?", the national responseplaced the property tax at the bottom of the list.8

Percent of TotalU.S. Public

1. Federal income tax 362. State sales tax 333. State income 11

4. Local property tax 75. Don't know 13

When asked, "Which do you think is the worst tax;that is, the least fair?", the property tax topped thelist.

1. Local property tax 452. Federal income tax 193. State income 134. State sales 13

5. Don't know 10

'For an analysis of Florida's estimated revenue capacity seeAdvisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations, Measuringthe Fiscal Capacity and Effort of State and Local Areas (Wash-ington, 1971). This study shows Florida has considerable unutilizedcapacity compared to other states.

8ACIR, Property Tax Relief and Reform, preliminary draft,Sept. 14, 1972.

TABLE 3.

TOTAL CURRENT EXPENDITURES FOR PUBLIC ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY SCHOOLS IN 1970-71AS PERCENT OF PERSONAL INCOME IN 1970

Southeastern StatesRank State Percent

NationalRank

1 Louisiana 5.5% 72 Mississippi 5.3 133 South Carolina 5.0 204 Virginia 4.7 254 West Virginia 4.7 256 Arkansas 4.5 316 Georgia 4.5 313 Florida 4.4 348 North Carolina 4.4 348 Tennessee 4.4 34

11 Kentucky 4.2 4112 Alabama 4.0 46

United States 4.6

TABL 4.

PER-CAPITA TOTAL GENERAL EXPENDITURES OF STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS, 1969-70

Southeastern StatesRank States Revenue

NationalRank

1 Louisiana $564.87 332 West Virginia 558.16 343 Georgia 547.00 374 Kentucky 534.10 405 Florida 527.57 416 Mississippi 523.59 427 Virginia 521.83 438 Alabama 504.76 459 Tennessee 497.28 47

10 Arkansas 473.12 4811 North Carolina 464.35 4912 South Carolina 456.80 50

United States 646.31

TABLE 5.

PERCENT OF HOUSEHOLDS WITH CASH INCOMES UNDER $3,000 IN 1970

Southeastern StatesRank State Percent

NationalRank

1 Virginia 19.5% 1 332 Florida 21.5 373 Georgia 21.7 394 North Carolina 21.8 405 Louisiana 23.6 426 South Carolina 24.8 437 Tennessee 25.2 448 Kentucky 25.6 459 West Virginia 25.8 46

10 Alabama 27.2 4811 Arkansas 29.9 4912 Mississippi 31.8 50

United States 16.9

233

TABLE 6.

PERCENT OF HOUSEHOLDS WITH CASH INCOMES UNDER 85,000 IN 1970

Southeastern StatesRank State Percent

NationalRank

1 Virginia 33.2% 342 Georgia 36.6 382 North Carolina 36.6 384 Florida 37.3 415 Louisiana 38.5 426 West Virginia 40.3 437 South Carolina 40.4 448 Kentucky 40.5 459 Tennessee 41.4 47

10 Alabama 43.5 4812 Mississippi 49.7 50

United States 28.4

TABLE 7.

PUPILS PER TEACHER IN PUBLIC ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY SCHOOLS, FALL 1970

Southeastern StatesRank State Pupils

NationalRank

1 Arkansas 21.9 202 South Carolina 22.3 273 Virginia 22.5 284 Florida 22.9 325 Louisiana 23.1 336 Mississippi 23.7 387 Kentucky 23.8 398 North Carolina 24.1 418 West Virginia 24.1 41

10 Alabama 24.4 4411 Georgia 25.0 4712 Tennessee 25.4 48

United States 22.3

TABLE 8.

PERCENT INCREASE IN INSTRUCTIONAL STAFF SALARIES, 1961-62 TO 1971-72

Southeastern StatesRank State Percent

NationalRank

1

2South CarolinaArkansas

97.9%95.8

3 Virginia 94.9 94 Tennessee 94.5 105 Alabama 93.7 116 West Virginia 88.0 147 Mississippi 84.7 178 Georgia 83.0 189 Kentucky 76.6 28

10 Louisiana 72.5 3511 Florida 68.9 4112 North Carolina 60.8 45

United States 78.0

234

SIMILAR WEALTH PER CHILD

Per ChildIncome (Y)

ExpendituresPer Pupil

Florida S15,567 S776Hawaii 15,588 951Alaska 15,217 1,429Oregon 14,956 935Michigan 14,823 937Ohio 14,783 778

Opposition to the property tax was uniform amongrespondents of various social-economic backgrounds.

This overwhelming public disapproval comes at atime when there is a growing difference of opinionamong the specialists in the field of taxation as towhether the property tax is primarily paid by rentersand other users of housing or by investors throughlower interest and profits (thereby making it pro-gressive). Some experts even claim the property taxis preferable to increasing reliance on consumption andsales taxation.9 Under either set of assumptions, how-ever, the burden seems to fall disproportionately uponlower income persons. Florida has mitigated this prob-lem by the homestead exemption of $5,000 for allhomeowners and a $10,000 exemption for school taxpurposes for homeowners over 65.

Two comments are in order about the homesteadexemption. First, it does not help low-income renterswho are among Florida's most impoverished people.Several states provide renter tax relief through rebateson their state income tax, but Florida has no stateincome tax. Florida needs to consider renter relief inany new major tax reform. Second, the double home-stead exemption for those over 65 ignores the fact thatthere are many wealthy retired people in Florida.Indeed, wealthy elderly people move to Florida in orderto avoid the much higher estate and inheritance taxin almost all other states. A better alternative wouldbe a "circuit breaker" used by 14 states. Under a"circuit breaker" property tax relief is provided bythe state when the tax exceeds a given percentage ofhousehold income (often 10 percent). The elderly andthe poor are protected against excessive burdens, butno relief is provided to high-income persons.

°See for example Charles Schultze et al.Sening National Prioritiesfor the 1973 Budget (Brookings: Washington, 1972), pp. 423-449.

235

SIMILAR WEALTH PER CAPITA

Per ExpendituresCapita (Y) Per Pupil

Florida (S3.642) S776Arizona (S3.59 I) 808Virginia (S3,607) 800Iowa (S3,688) 944Wisconsin (S3.693) 977

On balance, we believe an increase in the propertytax is not a desirable revenue alternative for Florida.Increased reliance on an unequalized local propertytax can only lead to the vast inequalities of educationalexpenditures that Florida has been fortunate enoughto avoid. The MFP plan with the ten-mill requiredlocal effort we recommend operates in manner similarto a statewide property tax. Our recommendationswould roll back property taxes for special educationpurposes such as construction and retirement.

On the other hand, we do not recommend a substan-tial reduction in the existing Florida property tax. Asharp reduction in a tax on industrial or commercialproperty generates an immediate, one-time capital gainto the owner because the property will bring a higherannual net income. Consequently, large scale prop-erty tax reduction would provide a windfall to ownersof land and buildings. It would result in a larger streamof income from the property, thus enabling the ownerto command a higher price for the property in the mar-ket place. As the ACIR concluded:

The so-called land speculator is twice blessed by prop-erty tax reduction. First, his vacant land, like all prop-erty, has more value in the market place, and secondhis cash costs for holding land off the market are sharplyreduced. In theory the homeowner also receives a capi-tal gain from property tax reduction. It, however, isat best a mixed blessing because the capital gain canonly be realized if the owner sells his home.'°

Reform proposals such as assessment reform, tax clas-sification, and site-value taxation do not hold forthmuch promise of property tax relief. The reforms wehave recommended in the assessment section willresult in shifts in property tax burdens rather than ingeneral property tax relief.

'°ACIR, op. cit., pp. 1-9.

ATTACHMENT AA CATEGORIZATION OF

FLORIDA'S SCHOOL DISTRICTS

Attachment A

THE SIX-WAY CATEGORIZATION OFSCHOOL DISTRICTS

For purposes of this study, the 67 school districtsin Florida were classified into six categories based onwealth and degree of urbanization. The categorizationwas done as follows:

I. All districts are divided into "rich" and "poor"districts on the basis of equalized assessed valuationper ADA. Obviously, many definitions of wealth couldhave been used; this one seems most appropriatebecause it is a measure of wealth per student (ratherthan per capita) and because the Legislature intendsit to be used as the measure of wealth in the MFP.The measure of equalized valuation used is the "fullvalue" of real property on the 1971 roll, as determinedby the Auditor General's ratio study of 1972, plus theassessed valuation of personal property, 1971, fromthe assessor's rolls. While the ratio study is in litigation,it is still the best measure currently available of trueproperty valuations in the various counties. Themeasure of ADA used is total ADA, K-12, for 1970-71,from the State Commissioner's Annual Report. Thedividing line between "rich" and "poor" counties isset at $31,000 per ADA; 33 counties have a lowerfull value per ADA than this, and 34 have a greatervalue.

2. All districts are divided into rural and non-ruralon the basis of degree of urbanization, as defined inthe 1970 U.S. Census. The dividing line is 43 percenturbanization, the median of the county values.

3. The non-rural districts are further dividedinto "urban" and "urbanized rural" based on a ratherarbitrary decision as to whether or not they containa major city.

The six-way classification then classifies districts aspoor rural, poor urbanized rural, poor urban, rich rural,

239

rich urbanized rural, and rich urban. The counties inthese categories are as follows:

Poor Rural: Baker, Bradford, Calhoun, Dixie, Gads-den, Gilchrist, Hamilton, Holmes, Jackson, Jefferson,Levy, Liberty, Madison, Nassau, Putnam, SantaRosa, Sumter, Union, Wakulla, Walton, Washington.

Poor Urbanized Rural: Alachua, Bay, Clay,Columbia, Gulf, Okaloosa, Seminole, Suwannee.

Poor Urban: Brevard, Duval, Escambia, Hills-borough.

Rich Rural: Citrus, Flagler, Glades, Hardee, Hendry,Hernando, Lafayette, Marion, Martin, Okeechobee,Pasco, St. Johns.

Rich Urbanized Rural: Charlotte, Collier, DeSoto,Franklin, Highlands, Indian River, Lake, Lee, Leon,Manatee, Monroe, Osceola, Polk, St. Lucie, Sarasota,Taylor, Volusia.

Rich Urban: Broward, Dade, Orange, Palm Beach,Pinellas.

Since this classification has been used throughoutour report, it seemed important to have some idea asto whether the classification was a stable one. Thatis, time goes on, would the classification of districtsbe likely to change? We have no way of accuratelyassessing changes in the degree of urbanization of thecounties in the future. But we were able to makeestimates of equalized assessed valuation in 1976, andobtain estimates of the number of students in eachdistrict in 1976.' From these data we made calculationsof which districts would be "rich" and which "poor"in 1976 (based on whether they were above or below

'The estimates of equalized assessed valuation are our own, andcomplete information on them is in Attachment D. The estimatesof 1976 average daily membership were furnished by the FloridaDepartment of Education.

the median equalized value per ADM). Only sevenof the 67 districts changed: Bay, Gulf, and Madisonchanged from "poor" to "rich". De Soto, Hernando,

240

Okeechobee, and Pasco changed from being "rich"to "poor." We conclude that the categorization is areasonably stable one for our purposes.

ATTACHMENT BTYPES OF VOCATIONAL PROGRAMS OFFERED

IN FLORIDASCHOOL DISTRICTS

,..

Types of Vocational Programs OfferedIn Florida School Districts

Vocational education programs are offered in a vari-ety of educational settings in Florida. School districtsoperate comprehensive and specialized high schools,junior high schools, adult facilities and area vocational-technical centers, and all of the 27 community collegesoperating in 1970-71 offered some form of vocationaleducation. Figure 1 shows the geographical locationsof the area vocational-technical centers and communitycolleges. Note that the locations of these schools arestrategically placed throughout Florida and frequentlyserve students from two or more school districts(counties).1

As a comparison of the amount of vocational serviceoffered, Table 1 relates FTE vocational student enroll-

'Since the vocational enrollment in both of these kinds of institu-tions is predominately post-secondary and adult students, there havebeen questions raised about the necessity for two separate adminis-trative organizationsnamely, local school boards and communitycollege boards of trustees.

\243

ment in selected counties to population age 14-64.*On the average, the total amount of vocational serviceprovided is very similar between poor urban (FTE stu-dent enrollment is 2.10 percent of population age 14-64)and rich urban (2.05 percent) counties. However, whenonly district vocational education is compared, theratio of FTE vocational student enrollment to popula-tion age 16-64 in rich urban counties is 1.59 or about41 per cent greater than the poor urban countiesratio of 1.13. Apparently, responsibility for voca-tional education in poor urban counties has beengiven largely to community colleges.

An extension of Table 1 into instruction units appearsin Table 2. Showing the relationship between voca-tional units and basic ADA units, Table 2 reveals thatpoor urban districts received about 41 percent less vo-cational instruction units in relation to their basicADA instruction units than did rich urban districts.

*Only counties which do not have overlapping service wereselected. It happens that these counties conveniently fit the categori-zations of poor urban and rich urban which are used in other partsof this report.

TABLE 1

VOCATIONAL SERVICE AS A PERCENT OF POPULATION

DistrictVocat'l

FTE

CommunityCollege

Vocat'l FIE

TotalVocat'I

FTE

PopulationAge

14-64

% DistrictFTE to

Population

%TotalFTE to

Population

Poor Urban Counties

Brevard 2,216.4 1,681.8 3,898.2 147,558 1.50 2.64Duval 4,209.7 2,368.8 6,578.5 345,899 1.22 1.90Escambia 1,595.9 907.3 2,503.2 134,432 1.18 1.86Hillsborough 5,646.4 595.5 6,241.6 311,432 1.81 2.00

Average 1.13% -..10%

Rich Urban CountiesBroward 5,039.7 1,5933 6.633.0 374,810 1.35 1.77Dade 9,170.5 4,748.0 13,918.5 811,822 1.13 1.72Orange 4,655.1 235.8 4,890.9 219,742 2.12 2.23Palm Beach 2,795.2 1.014.0 3,809.2 208.558 1.34 1.83Pinellas 5,853.5 1,717.6 7,571.1 278,445 2.00 2.72

Average 1.59%-2.05%

.

TABLE 2

VOCATIONAL INSTRUCTION UNITS AS A PERCENT OF BASIC ADA UNITS

BasicADA Units

VocationalUnits

% of VocationalUnits to Basic Units

Poor Urban

Brevard 2,084.10 125.00 6.00%Duval 4,138.00 230.40 5.57Escambia 2,098.74 106.20 5.06Hillsborough 3,488.64 333.80 9.57

Average 6.55%

Rich Urban

Broward 3,812.32 340.40 8.93%Dade 7,970.32 602.00 7.55Orange 2,720.75 270.20 9.93Palm Beach 2,235.58 166.10 7.43Pinellas . 2,716.49 335.80 12.36

Average 9.24%

244

Figure I

GEOGRAPHIC LOCATIONS OF F'..ORIDA AREAVOCATIONAL-TECHNICAL

CENTERS AND COMMUNITY COLLEGES

* Area Vocational-Technical Center(Operated by School District)

Community Colleges

245

SsuPdta'

ATTACHMENT CVARIABLE COST FUNDING

FOR VOCATIONAL COURSES

In 1970 the State Board of Education commissionedan analysis of operating costs' of all vocational coursesat 20 post-secondary and adult vocational schools (areavocational technical centers). This study was done,under contract, by Associated Consultants inEducation, Inc. It reflects the following costs whichwere prorated to each vocational course in terms offull-time equivalent student cost:2 1) direct currentoperating costs of courses, including salaries forteachers, salaries for non-certified personnel, travelexpenses, instructional materials and supplies, anddepreciation of equipment; 2) school center operatingcosts; 3) current plant operating costs; and 4) district-wide service costs. The result of this cost study wasan array of weighted average costs per full-time-equiv-alent student in each vocational course. Based uponthe array cost categories were devised as illustratedbelow:

Within each of the four cost categories a weightedaverage course cost per FTE was derived by summingthe total cost of courses in that category and dividingby the number of FTE in that category. Column 4in Table 1 shows that for cost category 1 the weightedcourse cost per FTE was $1,954 in 1970-71.

Allowing for a five percent annual cost-of-livingincrease, the weighted course cost per FTE in 1972-73was $2.155 (see column 5, Table 1).

If it was not necessary to convert the weightedcourse cost per FTE into instruction units (a viableoption), then funding could be effected by merely multi-plying the weighted course cost per FTE by the sumof the FTE students in the courses in that particularcost category. For example, if there are 50 coursesin Category 1 with a combined FTE student enrollment

'While costs it:r equipment were included. capital outlay forfacilities was not included.

2A full-time equivalent (FTE) student is defined as 810 hoursof attendance.

249

of 600, then the state funds appropriated in 1972-73would be $1,293,000 (600 FTE x $2,155). However,under the present system which uses the instructionunits as the basis for distribution of funds, it is neces-sary to convert the weighted course cost per FTE foreach cost category into instruction units. The followingprocedure is used:

Instruction Unit Value for 1971-72'Weighted Courses Cost Per FTE in Category

(Column 5 in Table 1, page 250)

= Number of FTE to Earn Unit

(Column 6 in Table I, page 250)

Thus, for every 8 FTE students in vocational courseswhich fall into Cost Category I, one instruction unit

ealne6, and, similarly, for every 16 FTE studentsh vocational courses which fall into Cost CategoryIV, one-instructional unit is earned.

In addition to the four Cost Categories describedabove, two additional Cost Categories were developed.One is for cooperative education courses that provideon-the-job training for students for a period of timemore than one-half of the regular school day. The sec-ond was for cooperative education courses for lessthan one-half of the regular school day. Labeled CostCategories V and VI, respectively, the number of FTEto earn an instruction unit is arbitrarily placed at 25for Category V, and 50 FTE for Category VI.

Although the cost study did not isolate costs forhandicapped and disadvantaged persons, state regula-tions stipulate courses for handicapped persons to beclassified in Cost Category 1, and courses for disadvan-taged persons to be classified in Cost Category II.

'The instruction unit value includes the value for support servicesof special teacher services (STS). supervisory and occupationalspecialists.

Weighted AverageCourse Cost Per PM Cost Categori-:

Data Processing 53,498Nursing 1,566 Category I

1560 1st QuartileAviation Mechanics V 1557Cosmetology V 1.323 Category II

1319 2nd QuartileSecretary V 1.316Typing II 1,001 Category III

1000 3rd QuartileTyping I 998Ambulance Attendant 51" Category IV

TABLE I

(I) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)Weighted Course Cost Number im: to

Total Student Total C:urse Per 1:TE Earn UnitCategories VTE Cost 1970.71 1972.73 1972.73

VI 1.957 53,824,969 51,954 52,155 8

II .. 3,795 5.163,287 1,361 1.500 I 1_

III 5.553 5,585.980 1,006 1.109 14IV 1,740 1,512325 869 958 16

250

ATTACHMENT DPREDICTION OF ASSESSED' AND

EQUALIZED VALUATIONS: PROJECTINGPROPERTY TAX YIELDS IN 1976

Prediction of Assessed and Equalized Valuations:Projecting Property Tax Yields in 1976

In order to predict the state and local costs for anyprogram of educational finance that uses the local prop-erty tax, it is necessary to predict the size of the taxbase. This is unusually difficult in the case of Floridabecause of the uncertain situation regarding assessmentlevels and state equalization. However, we have ven-tured out on a limb and made such a prediction foreach district for the years 1972 through 1976. Sincea prediction is only as good as the assumptions underly-ing it, they are presented here in some detail.

The basic procedure is to use actual assessed valua-tions for the preceding six years (1966 through 1971)as a basis for predicting. Rather than using only theend points, all six values were used by computing theslope of a line of regression. This slope was then usedto project assessed valuations in a straight line, usingthe 1971 AV as a starting point. (It could logicallybe argued that assessments tend to increaselogarithmically, rather than linearly. The linearassumption is easier for most people to understand,and is probably as accurate, considering the qualityof the underlying data.)

Before the slope of the regression line could be com-puted, though, it was necessary to make some changesin the basic data. Inspection reveals that assessors,in responding to various pressures, have sometimesarbitrarily increased assessed valuations in a singleyear. For example, the total assessed valuation ofHillsborough County in 1966 was $650 million; in 1967it was $1,646 million, more than double what it wasin 1966. In Bay County, the 1966 assessed valuationwas $65 million; in 1967 it was $335 million, a morethan five-fold increase. It is clearly impossible for theactual value of property in a county to increase tothis extent in a single year, so the major portion ofthe change must represent a change in the net assess-

253

ment ratio. It was necessary to devise a way of adjust-ing for. these changes.

The assumption was made (quite arbitrarily) that ifthe assessed valuation of a county increased more than25 percent in a year, that a change in assessment ratiohad taken place. The assessments for all years priorto the year in which the ratio change occurred wereadjusted upward proportionately according to the fol-lowing scheme:

1. Let the year in which the major increase occurredbe called X. Then take the ratio of AV x., to AV x .

2. Divide AV. by this ratio to get a new value for

3. Compute the ratio of the old value of AV x_, tothe new value of AV._, .

4. Divide the old values for AV in earlier years bythis ratio to get new values.

In other words, the percentage rate of increase inthe year immediately following the ratio change isassumed to have applied in the previous year, givinga figure for the previous year that is adjusted upward.And the figures for all former years are then adjustedupward by the same proportion.

Of course, this doesn't work when the year of thechange is 1971, for there is no succeeding year's data.In this case, the ratio calculated in 1 above is the ratioof AV1970 to AV1969.

This predictive procedure contains the implicitassumption that no further adjustments in assessmentratios will take place. The only reasonable alternativeto this assumption that is useful for predictive purposesis an assumption that all assessments will be equalizedto 100 percent of full value. And the only basis wecurrently have for making this adjustment is the 1972ratio study. Consequently, prediction of equalized val-uations were made for the years 1972 through 1976

41.

by dividing the predicted assessed valuation for eachof those years by the current assessment ratio.

The detailed results are attached as Tables I, II,and III. Table I gives the actual assessed valuations

254

for the years 1966 through 1971. Table II gives theadjusted assessed valuations for these years, and thepredicted assessed valuations based on these. TableIII gives the predicted equalized valuations.

TABLE 1

ACTUAL ASSESSED VALuATI(145 (THOUSANDS rf 64LLARS1

DISTRICT 1946 1967 196R 1964 1970 1971

ALACHUA 312987. 335071. 151215. 36)918. 386845. 412832.RAKER 2200D. ? ?004. 26244. 24610. 27751. 35935.

BAY 65264. 335423. 117234. 346561. 107463. 406554.

PRACFORC 41262. 42720. 44(1E1. 46212. 48368. 52338.

8REVARD 766714. m71951. m6184/. 1302235. 1C22069. 1049455.

BROWARD 2852732. 3A56047). 1702)'85. 1446258. 4433962. 51)1517.

CALHOUN 25611. 27823. 79034. ?9750. 10125. 32198.

CHARLOTTE 172457. 143560. 7)(421. 717839. 236361. 262116.

CITRUS 94330. 117691. 122219- 13)258. 104118. 181864.

CLAY 81284. 87923. 9?-64. 94603. 1;8008. 11103.CULLILR 209906. 712257. 2511.51. 433540. 491182. 56/195.

COLUMBIA 73740. 7847,1. 82700. 81663. 91131. 955)5.

DADE 53639:49. 5^69702. 61.5863A. 6 751120. 8E16562. 9857248.

OE SOTO 52326. b4401. 4821. 56566. 63631. 1)561.

DIXIE 19895. 20C 6n. 20564. 22886. 2368. 28987.

DUVAL 178466 ?. 1763862. 1795)72. 1855524. 1941.1213. 218462/.

FSCAmtilA 683651. 108477. 112..414. 142171. 790967. 904400.

FLAGLE8 3873 ?. 37231. 16521. 31515. 31561. 48176.

FRANKLIN 28540. 29685. 1c451. 31980. i2e51. 52635.

GADSDEN 68121. 71009. 716:4. 13019. 1',717. 10)26.

GILCHRIST 16025. 16656. 11( :83, 11321. 1747). 14522.

GLADES 55294. 54946. 57453. 5)553. 61681. 6459/.

GULF 38047. 111856. 42114. 47709. 513/5. 51450.

HANILTON 29172. 36819. 36047. 37043. 31144. 38(163.

HARDEE 84472. 97044. 9171%. 99751. 1,18140. 106903.

HENDRY 61517. 84877. mmC...,6. 96667. 1'5121. 111921.

HERNANDO 67334. 61544. 859;3. 88624. 99007. 109642.

KIGHLANDS 197613. 203888. 7093'5. 211843. 2181L6. 215)%9.

HILLSVOROUGH 656544. 1646311. 168t.:204. 1)03100. 2C689 71. 2248660.

HOLKES 11136. 75904. 26231. 76275. 246211. 29959.

1ND1ATR1V'.:R 263852. 741844. 251141. 263071. 2)3604. 317)83.

JACKSOI 480';4. 104277. 1C 105:. 103779. 1(.5701. 11,161.

JEFFERSON 31754. 31447. 1141... 31785. 32092. 33424.

LAFAYETTE 13822. 14581. 14464. 14134. 31732. 24123.

LAKE 387054. 340519. 390731. 416962. 4.3r744. 457851.

LEE 216670. 53)435. 57A626. ')5)115. (6342e. /45/57.

LEON 349253. 164458. 37155. 410673. 4613/9. 55/101.

LEVY 66446. 40891. 7754. (3970. (5940. 8(006.

LIBERTY 12543. 13279. 13411. 14584. 15690. 165/3.

MAI,ISON 26094. 27321. 11436. 31085. 59534. 66146.

MANATEE 286501. 118427. 113461. 413150. 461269. '501104.MARICN 88491. 171544. 169717. 400001. 418381. 465704.MARTIN 184524. 196296. 2(1,121. ?18419. 241124. 281970.m(!NROE 291636. 794121. 113671. 315414. 375194. 414194.NASSAU 76783. 76475. 7125). 81371. e0/67. 121221.CKALOCSA 233614. 718780. 74:.117. 214161. 286500. 298229.CKEECHOBEE 54968. 58613. 57476. 62516. 65946. 14152.CRANGLi 117052 ?. 1718539. 12759/6. 135)910. 15C...441. 1986900.OSCEOLA 154066. 154785. 197813. 702351. 266141. 241581.PALE BEACH 243)060. 2466111. 7512n1. 7515108. 2/91532. 3479271.PASCO 1798/9. 186517. 112/21. 224194. 266804. 331463.PI8LLL4S 1405671. 1491277. 1516981. 1697942. 1139330. 2035661.POLK 1201199. 1714977. 12/0 417. 1201033. 13894r.1. 1475842.PUTNAM 132333. 132555. 131151. 131290. 148614. 16910.sr JOHNS 166758. 16P833. 17:844. 112071. 105839. 201141.ST LUCIE 259434. 70134. 279511. 291791. 317831. 349377.SANTA ROSA 1(.0454. 166007. 1727)1. 181612. 111256. 206201.SARASUTA 583846. 617687. 4.41941. 741741. 794264. 877929.SEmINOLE 22836o. 718513. 7578r3. 277773.. 319607. 430144.SUMTER 51023. 54308. 605/11. 64149. 67756. 73945.

SUhANNEE :9776. 62954. 64434. 67377. .8891. 77041.TAYLOR 67198. 69209. 49754. 71695. 73032. 83556.UNION 144/3. 15334. 15334. 15336. 15254. 17673.VOLUSIA 6597Le. 666257. te/491. 712197. 758911. 881355.wAKULLA 14391. 15C46. 15011. 15915. 21u04. 23502.WALTUN 3020.3. 31764. 39563. 5)833. 51510. 53981.MASHINAJTON 30142. 12432. 31)75. 35158. 36539. 38781.

STATE TOTAL 25629760. 2095671A. 10197319. 12271400. 37241680. 42234010.

255

pRecicrIoNs OP ASSESSO: 41LOATIn:5 (Ha

t.

,D: ru: DOLLARS)

DISTRICT

1966

1067

ALACMA

31297.

115C71.

351215.

PAK(.<

27137.

27342.

A26/1.

111Y

33362J.

335421.

137236.

ERADTURC

41262.

4?72'.

441:787.

8)1.11(1)10

766714.

921951.

8(1);/.

8110wARG

01900 5/.

341740n.

358100).

CA,HOuN

25611.

27822.

74036.

CHARLOTTE

172452.

18156.).

2':421.

CITRUS

107253.

133817.

111963.

CLAY

812A4.

9/923.

92:64.

COLL1t11

316290.

149959.

1'-25j7.

COLUP81A

73748.

78474.

02701.

DADE

625615 T.

080165.

751.7511.

DE SO10

52326.

5444g.

54121.

DIXIE

19895.

20360.

2i565.

CUVAL

1784662.

175386?.

1795072.

ts.)

ESCAmOIA

6836`..1.

708477.

71231,4.

tm

FAGLEit

38232.

3/231.

1632).

ciN

FRANKLIN

44515.

46301.

4749.

GAuSDtN

6812/.

71001.

716:9.

GILCHRIST

16025.

16856.

17:18.

GLADES

55294.

4995.

57458.

GULF

311047.

38856.

42174.

FAMILTON

36141.

36819.

86697.

PARDEE

89672.

17004.

1127).

HENCRY

81577.

84872.

Apoc.

HERNANDO

67134.

69861'.

95q21.

HIGHLANDS

197613.

2038P°.

2':13.5.

HILLSOOROUDP

1613140.

1646310.

1 102.:4.

HOLMtS

25584.

25909.

26239.

INDIAN RIVER

263852.

248844.

251147.

JACPSIN

106962.

14277.

1'1651.

JEFFERSON

31754.

31442.

3167:1.

LAFAYETTE

34936.

36875.

17571.

LAKE

387034.

188519.

199731.

LEE

4017:07.

5*143c.

5?!:626.

Lem

349253.

16645P.

1797s6.

LEVY

66446.

68891.

72551.

L18ERTY

12543.

13279.

13473.

TA

BL

E I

I

1969

197.:

1971

197?

1973

1974

1975

1976

"'69018.

31010.

346561.

46212.

13)2235.

3;153760.

29750.

217839.

148104.

43603.

4.1140.

87663.

7875023.

56566.

22886.

15155524.

742171.

37515.

4)881.

73019.

17321.

54563.

47709.

37043.

99757.

96667.

88624.

21/843.

1903100.

26275.

263'371.

103779.

11785.

38252.

416912.

559115.

410673.

73970.

14584.

10.68.15 .

144/3.

36/463.

4836d

1(.22)i:9.

441196?

1:125.

;36361.

1k4118.

14'880.

491362.

91731.

et10562.

63631.

23988.

199,1210.

79.0967.

31587.

51234.

757/7.

17479.

61681.

37144.

D140.

115121.

99w.)7.

236736.

2(689/1.

76820.

293634.

115738.

3232.

31132.

431744.

663428.

46.13/9.

/5940.

15690.

412832.

432068.

451303.

470539.

489775.

509313.

35935.

31181.

39639.

41492.

43344.

45196.

40:564.

4131?9.

425704.

438279.

450854.

463429.

52338.

544h5.

56592.

58T19.

'

63846.

629/4.

1049435.

1111066.

1172578.

1234149. '1295721.

1357293.

5101517.

546946.

5837475.

6205454. '6573434.

6941413.

32198.

33157.

34516.

35674.

'

36833.

31992.

262116.

219971.

297807.

315642.

-333478.

351313.

181664.

195381.

208898.

222415.

235932.

24945J.

11,-.13.

12534).

132577.

139813.

14/050.

154787.

507395.

016647.

666300.

715752.

T65204.

814657.

95515.

99994.

104393.

108791.

113190.

1175d9.

98)1248. 10530310. 11203370. 11876430. 12549500. 13222560.

1'561.

/4CO3.

7T445.

80887.

84329.

87771.

'1%1987.

30689.

32391.

34092.

36794.

37496.

211.'4627.

2263583.

2342540.

2471496.

2500453.

2579410.

9)44)0.

/43866.

983333.

1022799.

1062265.

1101731.

48176.

53056.

51735.

53415.

55094.

567/4.

52635.

542n6.

55938.

57589.

59240.

60892.

78926.

80918.

82909.

84901.

86893.

88884.

11522.

20382.

23641.

21201.

21761.

22323.

64597.

66559.

68521.

70483.

72444.

74406.

51450.

54513.

57570.

60630.

63690.

66750.

14863.

39175.

39488.

39800.

43112.

43424.

106903.

110390.

113877.

117364.

120852.

124319.

111921.

120525.

12/128.

133.732.

140336.

146939.

1j9042.

1175/5.

126108.

134641.

143174.

1517./7.

255029.

266461.

277890.

289321.

300751.

312182.

2248663.

2162141.

2515423.

2648805.

2782187.

2915569.

21959.

30663.

31367.

32071.

32775.

33480.

317983.

329893.

341803.

353714.

365624.

377534.

110163.

110eC.4.

111445.

112087.

112728.

113369.

.11424.

33772.

34019.

34117.

34614.

34912.

2/.123.

24o71.

23319.

21368.

19716.

18064.

452851.

466394.

479936.

493479.

507021.

520564.

745757.

798646.

851535.

904474.

957313.

1010202.

557301.

597756.

638212.

678667.

719123.

759578.

81036.

8173L.

86455.

89180.

91904.

94629.

16573.

173b7.

18201.

19015.

19829.

20644.

TA

BL

E I

I(c

ontin

ued)

t-)

...4

LA

PREDICTIONS

DISTRICT

MADISCN

MANATEE

MAkICN

MARTIN

mCNRCE

NASSAU

CKALOCSI.

PKEECHCBEE

ORANGE

OSCEOLA

PALK Bt-ACH

PASCO

PINELLAS

POLK

PUTNAM

ST JOHNS

ST LUCIE

SANTA ROSA

SARASOTA

SENINOLE

SUMTER

SUWANNEE

TAYLOR

UNION

VOLUSIA

WAKULLA

WALTON

WASHINGTON

STATE TOTAL

OF ASSESSED

1966

44H44.

21165i./.

371353.

186571.

359856.

103207.

:33614.

5496P.

14049C).

22346f,

24300^,.

179871.

1405671.

1201149.

132333.

176756.

259436.

160454.

543846.

271739.

51023.

597/6.

67198.

14871,

65/70P.

164/4.

163E4.

3014%.

293522>:.

VALUATION

167

46965.

116427.

170544.

116296.

365399.

107793.

238789.

58613.

1450529.

7267 .75.

2466113.

186597.

1411277.

1?14977.

137555.

168811.

272136.

166007.

617687.

7151!12;;:

62954,

69209.

15314.

666257. = 3243e.

1:99075'.

1TC0USANDS

146d

54'375.

13346T.

1A97S7.

21,175.

374/14.

l'3.94'.

24C7/1.

5/426.

1531461.

2319'5.

2/2231.

192775.

1574P1.

1240417.

111157.

170i'46.

279511.

177/9P.

(43441.

37'47'.

17:4:5.3t4.

1-9754.

15314,

f-,s7441.

177_8.

5r175.

119%5.

3231'56`.

OF DOLLARS/

169

1971

53421.

59534.

415150.

461269.

49001.

416301.

214419.

243724.

31/345.

4:1511.

111438.

111315.

2/4161.

716503.

(.2516.

'

65946.

1632210.

1100.483.

21/726.

266141.

75357:8.

271532..

724194.

2664C-4.

16)/942.

16'1333.

1261633.

131'9431.

13/290.

146676.

1/2871.

1-5839.

211791.

317813.

16/612.

111256.

731741.

794264.

310538.

31'557.

64149.

6/377.

67156.

66891.

71695.

73032.

15336.

15254.

712197.

750411.

13772.

53833.

25-Lij,..

35158.

36569.

34314700. 37734670.

1971

66346.

507834,

46374.

24310.

41614.

1:1421:

2)1229.

1936960.

2)d5d1.

347271.

331963.

2035061.

1475642.

169410.

201141.

3493/7.

206201.

1/7929.

431144.

0145.

72041.

6z556.

1/6/3.

8.1355.

235.'2.

53981.

162/1.

42234010.

1972

7u478.

545652:

431+:62.

102459.,

477699.

125599.

312647.

°21=77.

3126..1.

3656.'13.

361464.

2156267.

153125:.

1161(A.

20756a.

36643.

115124.

937586.

471.

,,4.

76531.

/4186.

662/6.

91=

=.

34626.

440955'1.

1973

74610.

590531.

'500020.

'120948.

439734.

129977.

127064.

61161.

2211104.

32.7102.

3832755.

390965.

2281463.

1586659.

163646.

213946.

3d3609.

224446.

991244.

503964.

81:'717:

%M.

961979.

26=

41376.

4/185120.

1974

1915

1976

78741.

82873.

67005.

635349.

680198.

725046.

518179.

536337.

554495.

339431.

35/925.

376414.

450708.

462213.

473718.

134355.

138733.

143111.

341482.

355899.

370i

17.

84696.

88210.

91715.

2335166.

2451228.

2567290.

341362.

355622.

369862.

4009498.

4186240.

43629d2.

420465.

449966.

4/9467.

2404664.

2527865.

2551066.

1642063.

1697477.

1752846.

190514.

1973d2.

204250.

22042i.

226850.

233211.

430725.

417841.

414957.

213569.

24262.

251815.

1056900.

1116558.

1176215.

536875.

569785.

602695.

87634.

92140.

9667(.

79076.

81421.

83767.

91716.

94436.

97156.

18853.

1002291.

92261:33.

1011.

146-59.

1082914.

.1;2903.

2:8:4:.

29713.

=.

49660780.

52136370.

546118/0.

TABLE III

PREDICTIONS GF FQUALIZLD VALUATION: (THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS)

DISTRICT 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976

ALACHuA 540005. 564129. 5i46.174. h12218. 636263.BAKER 40199. 47170. 4414?. 46111. 48001.HAY 439499. 452876. 4A6774. 471632. 4410,9.PR4OFORO 592:1. 61513. 63,21. 66137. 8450.HRLVARD 1277010. 1347/90. 1418562. 14159334. 156(166.BRCItiARD 64347C0. 6867617. 73"C51i. 7733451. 8166368.CALHGuN 43891. 45415. 4494;.. 48465. 49459.CHARLC:TTE 374343. 402442. 426544. 45)646. 474747.ciraus 199368. 213161. 226754. 24074/. 254540.CLAY 15865d. 167819. 1769/9. 186140. 195300.COLLIER 78081c/. 843417. 906(.15. 960613. 1 31211.CDLuNHIA 142846. 149132. 15541(. 161700. I/7984.CAGE 11202450. 11918480. 126345:8. 13150530. 14(66550.DE SOTO 121316. 126959. 1326)1. 138244. 14380.C IXIE 36514. 3856'). 40586. 42612. 44638.OuVAL 2515012. 2602822. 2690551. 2118281. 211.6011.ESCAmHIA 1025942. I^68839. 1111738. 1154635. 11) /533.FLADLER i9h90. 61589. 635,19. 655d8. 67588.'FRANKLIN 54835. 56503. 581/1. 59839. 61507.GACSCEN 117272. 120158. 123045: 125931. ram-GILCHRIST 31378. 32252. 3312t. 34001. 34676.GLADES 97861. 100766. 1'3651. 106536. 1,9421.GULF 81358. 85925. 9043. 95060. 9962/.HAPILTON 62193. 62679. 611 /4. 636/0. (,4166.HARDEE: 131417. 135568. 39719. 143871. 146022.HENDRY 167395. 176567. 185714. 194911. 2 )4062.HERNANDO 136715. 146637. 15656' 164482. 176404.HIGHLANDS 306275. 119414. 332552. 345691. 358830.,HILLSHOROUt;H 2561334. 2734755. 284141 77. 241598. 3135u2J.HOLMES 40884. 41823. 42762. 43701. 44639.INDIAN RIVER 383597. 397446. 41125. 425144. 438993.JACKSON .151787. 152665. 1`).3543. 154422. 155300.JEFFERSON 60217. 60748. 6128% 61811. 62343.LAFAYETTE 31630. 29512. 71344. 2')211. 21159.LAU 52c993. 545382. 5; 7 N. 576160. 591550.LEE 1094035. 1166486. 123,1936. 1311387. 1363838.LECN 687076. 733577. 7I+NI7 ,126578. 0)079.LEvy 105986. 109437. 117005. 116334. 119783.LIfERTY 231b3. 24260. 75354. 26439. 27525.NAOIS0N 7911.4. 83831. F:1474. 1116. )7759.PANAT6E 70864'J. 766894. HP;129. 863374. 941619.mARIUN 54141m. 561821. 582221. 602625. 62302f..MARTIN 400093. 507441. ,0a7tvt. 564135. vi/483.NONkOE 48,056C. 493487: hk64I4. 51)340. 53226/.NASSAU 2025/9. 20964. 2167:1. 223/62. 23CH24.CKALCOSA 347385. 163404. 371414. 395443. 411461.OKEECHOBEE 117677. 123002. 17431/. 133652. 1389/1.ORANGE 2696207. 2845005. 29938-2. 3142600. 3291317.OSCEOLA 34C045. 355545. 371A45. 386546. 4,2146.PALM BEACH 3769085. 3951293. 41335.j2. 4115711. 449/919.PASCO 425251. 459958. 494665. 529372. 564C/9.PINELLAS 322121,6. 3405164. 3589C5). 3/72932. 3956H14.POLK 1780523. 1844957. 1909381. 1973810. 18239.PUTNAM 235/C4. 244861. 754019. 263176. 272333.ST JOhNS 27311. 281573. 79C.:30. 298407. 306944.ST LUCIE 463915. 485581. 597247. 524913. 55079.SANTA ROSA 244686. 75h053. 265421. 275786. 286153.SARASOTA 1202033. 1278517. 1365.).:). 143I4d4. 15.:7968.SEMIN9LE 517642. 553807. 5899/2. 626137. 662302.SONTER 96952. 102553. 1C8153. 113/53. 119354.SUI:ANNEE 121944. 125789. 129631. 133478. 1)7322.TAYLOR 130721. 134841. 138964. 143085. 147206.UNION 22869. 23366. 23tu 24362. 24859.VOLUSIA 1196969. 1249323. 1191676. 1354029. 140,3e1.WAKULLA 57545. 60433. 63322. 66211. (.9100.WALTON 104001. 109855. 115/C). 121563. 127417.WASHINGTON 54559. 56679. 58799. 6)919. 63038.

STATE TOTAL 52224140. 55112480. 580(11184).'60889290. 637776v).

258

ATTACHMENT EDESCRIPTION OF THE COMPUTER

SIMULATION OF FLORIDASCHOOL FINANCE

Description of the Computer Simulationof Florida School Finance

In order to be able to assess the effects of our recom-mendations, as well as of other possible revisions inFlorida school finance, we adapted a computerizedsimulation to Florida. The simulation was originallydeveloped by the National, EducationalFinanceProject (NEFP) as a prototype that could potentiallybe applied to any state. Because it was a prototype,it could not be immediately applied to Florida or toany other state but had to be modified to take accountof the peculiarities of the individual state. The revisionswere carried out by Walter I. Garms and by Dr. GeneA. Barlow of the Collier County Schools.

The simulation is designed to allow a large numberof decisions to be made regarding such things as theway of determining the number to be served in eachdistrict, the weights to give to different programs, thetype of state program to be used, the level of appropria-tions, the form of aid for transportation, capital outlay,etc., the amount of local taxes, and many others. Thesedecisions are applied to a data base of 1970-71 datafor the 67 Florida school districts. The result of thesimulation is a printout of the number of dollars thatwould have been received by each district in 1970-71,in each of a number of categories, if the school financeprogram had been structured as indicated by the deci-sions made in the simulation. Other comparative datacan also be printed. Table I gives the items includedin the data bank; Table II gives the decisions thatmay be made, Table III gives the categories of datathat are calculated by-the simulation.

This simulation if of great potential value to legis-lators, the Department of Education and othersinterested in assessing the effects of possible changesin Florida school finance in the future. The Citizens'Committee has asked Dr. Barlow to fully documentthe simulation so that it may be used by those

f.,?1 261

interested. Some more technical comments follow forthose who may have such an interest.

The simulation consists of four parts:

I. The processor and the compiler. This part of theprogram is written in PL/I and is on a reel of computertape currently stored at the Computer Center of theUniversity of Florida at Gainesville. The processorcontrols the reading of input and formatting of output.It also serves as a compiler for the simulation program,which is written in a language developed for this simula-tion called NEFTRAN.

2. The basic data bank. This resides on cards (forconvenience in making changes and additions). Eachdata category (e.g., vocational education instructionunits) is represented by a set of cards giving the codenumber of the data category, the title of the category,and the 67 data items, one for each district. The basicdata bank consists of about 1000 cards. The data onthe cards are for 1970-71, the most recent availableat the time the simulation was adapted to Florida. Itwould be very desirable in any ft '-e use of the simula-tion to revise this data bank to .elude data for themost recent year available.

3.. The simulation program. This program controlsthe computations of the simulation, and consists ofabout 300 statements. A statement is typically of theform

C598 = D103 * B685

This statement directs the computation of the valueof the computed data item C598 as the product of thevalue of decision D103 and basic data item B685. Thisoperation is performed 67 times, once for each district.The result for each district, as well as the total forall districts, is stored and is available for printing. This

program is on cards and is easily changed oraugmented.

4. The decision cards. These cards are keypunchedanew each time the simulation is run and control notonly the computations but also which of-the lists ofbasic or calculated data are to be printed. Default op-tions make it necessary to punch a card for every pos-sible decision. The results are printed in columnseach with a heading, 67 values, and a total. Thereare approximately 300 such lists of basic or calculateddata which may be printed, and they may be printedup to six columns per page in any order desired.

We ran the simulation on the.University of Floridacomputer, using a remote terminal in the Board of Re-gents office in Tallahassee. The cost for each run wasabout $25. Samples of the output are available at theoffice of the Citizens' Committee, A few of them areincluded in this report at the end of the first section.

TABLE IBasic Data Bank

Included here are approximately 140 basic dataarrays. Each arrayconsists of a code number, a title for the array, and a data itemfor each of the 67 school districts. Data currently on cards are1970.71 data, obtained either from the Commissioner's Report orfrom the Department of Education.

NumberDemographic and Social

Population per square mileNon-white populationPopulation aged 5-17Total populationGrowth rate of ADA, 1960-70Growth rate of population, 196070

Programs and Enrollments (For each of the following programs.complete data are provided on instruction units and FTE. Dataare also provided for some of the programs on ADM and ADA)

KindergartenRegular classes, grades 1-6Regular classes, grades 7.9Regular classes, grades 1012Educable mentally retarded, 1-12Trainable mentally retarded, 1-12Emotionally handicapped, 1-12Physically handicapped,1-12Speech handicapped, 1-12Visually handicapped, 1-12Deaf.1-12Special learning disorders, 1-12Gifted, 1-12Vocational, 1-12AdultRatio (instruction units Only)

The following numbers are given based on number of low achievingstudents, and number from low-income families:

Compensatory education, kindergartenCompensatory education, grades 1-6Compensatory education, grades 7-9Compensatory education, grades 10.12

Special Services and FacilitiesTransportation

Total adjusted one-way milesTransported ADADensity indexState reimbursementTotal transportation expense

Capital outlay and debt service

262

Average capital outlay (five-year average)Actual capital outlay, 1970-71State capital outlay allowanceActual debt service, 1970.71Construction needs by 1976-77School Food ServiceAverage lunch participationSalesTotai expendituresAverage number of free lunchesFederal lunch contributionOther lunch income

Modifying FactorsEducation training and experience: number of instructional per-

sonnel at each rank (I, II, III, IV) for each experience level(AC, CC, CC-7, CC- 10, CC-15)

Sparsity: Number of ADA, grades 1-12 in schools of sizes 1-59.60-89, 90-119, 120.199, and 200-299

Educational achievementPercent below 27th percentile on achievement testsPercent above 75th percentile on achievement tests

Cost of living index

Cost of construction index

Receipt and ExpendituresReceipts

FederalImpact aidTitle I, ESEASchool lunchState discretionaryOther federal

StateMFP salariesMFP transportationMFP capital outlay allowanceMFP otherRetirement matchingAll other state money

LocalOperating taxesOther local operating revenueCapital outlay and debt service taxesOther local capital outlay and debt service revenue

ExpendituresTotal instructional expenseTotal current npense

Wealth MeasuresNon-exempt assessed valuation, 1969Non-exempt assessed valuation, 1970Per capita incomePercent of population with incomes below poverty levelMedian family income

Miscellane ,usNumber of classroom teachers

TABLE IIDecisions

These are the decisions that may be made. Each decision hasa logical default option, so that it is unnecessary to make all decisionseach time. For example, the default for weighting of students inall programs is 1.00; the default for "Do you wish to include kinder-garten?" is "No."

Section 1; Progiam UnitDo you wish to include kindergarten?Do you wish to include adults?Which unit do you wish to use? (instruction units, ADM, ADA,FTE)Do you wish to include compensatory pupils:

Defined as low achievement pupils?

Table II (Continued)

Defined as number of students from families below poverty level?Defined as number of students from families below poverty level

not now served by federal program?What weight do you wish to give to each unit? (In this sectiona weight can be assigned to every program category listed in thebask data bank.)

Section II: Special Services and FacilitiesTransportation

I. State allotment of a flat grant per transported pupil.2. Local ownership and operation with state payment at present

rate.3. State allotment of a fixed percentage of actual costs (choose

%).4. Equalized grant for actual costs with required local effort

(choose required millage).5. Full state assumption of the cost of operation.

Capital outlay and debt service.I. State allotment of a flat grant per unit.2. State allotment of a fixed percentage of capital outlay, based

on a five-year running average (choose %).3. Equalized grant with local required effort (choose both

amounts of grant and required millage).4. Equalized grant for debt service with required local effort

(choose required millage).5. Equalized grant for average capital outlay with required local

effort (choose required millage).6. Equalized grant for actual capital outlay with required local

effort (choose required millage).7. State allotant of a fixed percent of actual capital outlay

(choose %)8. State allotment of a fix, percent of actual debt service

(choose %)9. Utilization of a cost-of-construction index in connec-

tion with options I, 2. 3, 7. and 8.Food Service

I. State allotment of a flat grant per participating pupil (chooseamount).

2. Full state assumption of actual expenditures.3. State allotment of a fixed percent of actual expenditures

(choose %).4. Equalized grant for approved cost of both food and labor with

required ;oval effort (choose required millage).5. Flat grant per compensatory pupil (choose amount).

Section III: Modifying FactorsAdministrative, supervisory and auxiliary service

Additional units based on a percent of total program units (choose%)

SparsityAdditional units based on weighting pupils in small schools (chooseweights)

Educational training and experienceA "Yes" on this decision computes a factor based on actual place-ment of instructional personnel on the state salary schedule. Thefactor is used to adjust the state operating allotments.

Cost of livingAdjusts state operating allotments by a cost-of-living index.

Section IV: Distribution DecisionsDetermination of cost of program

I. The cost of the basic state program should be determinedby applying a dollar amount to the total program units.

2. The cost should be a fixed number of dollars.3. The cost should be a percentage of the state general fund.

Basic distribution method (applies to basic state program)1. Full state support.2. Flat grant per unit from state.3. State support of a fixed percentage of the basic state program,

with remainder supplied by variable local effort (choosepercent).

4. Foundationtype program (such as the MFP).

263

5. Percentage equalizing (choose percent of program cost borneby the district of average fiscal ability).

Incentive distribution method1. Flat grant per unit for each mid of local leeway tax levied.2. Incentive grant by matching local leeway taxes in same ratio

as provided in basic state program.3. Power-equalized grant (specify guaranteed number of dollars

per unit for each mill of local leeway tax).

Section V: Revenue DecisionsState tax sources

The state general fund is to be composed of money raised byrates to be chosen on the bases of property, personal income,corporate income, sales. and other.

Local tax sourcesI. Required local millage2. Local leeway millage

TABLE IIICalculated Data

The arrays listed here are calculated by the simulation programon the basis of the decisions that were made. As with the basicdata bank, each array consists of a code number, a title, and adata item for each of the 67 school districts.General Information

Total pupilsTotal teachersTotal professional staffPupil/teacher ratioPupil/professional staff ratio

Program Units (The "units" calculated and stored here will beinstruction units if that option was chosen, weighted FTE if thatoption was chosen, etc.)

KindergartenRegular classes, grades 1-12Exceptional childVocationalCompensatoryAdultMiscellaneousTotal program units

Special Services and Facilities (both state allotment and required localeffort are calculated)

TransportationCapital outlay and debt serviceSchool food service

Modifying Factors and UnitsProgram adjustments

Administrative and supervisory serviceSparsityEducational training and experienceCost of living

Special allotmentsSpecial programsInnovationAchievement

Revenue and Expenditure (in dollars, dollars per pupil, and dollarsper unit)Receipts

Federal dollarsTitle IImpact AidState discretionarySchool lunchOther federalTotal federal

State dollarsBasic state programSpecial services and facilitiesSpecial allotmentsLocal incentive allotmentsTotal state dollars

Local dollarsRequired local effort, basic state programRequired local effort, special services and facilitiesLocal leeway dollars from required millage resulting from

increased valueLocal leeway dollars from optional millageTotal local dollars

Total dollarsState and local dollars, basic state programState and local dollars, total programFederal, state and local dollars, total program

Tax Yield by SourceState (yield in dollars)

Sales and gross receiptsCorporate income taxAll other taxes

Local property taxYield in dollarsYield in dollars per pupilYield in dollars per unitMillage rate

264

Comparisons (all of the following are in dollars, dollars per pupil,or dollars per unit)

Present amounts (that is. actual 1970-71 data)State operating money, excluding transportationState transportation moneyTotal state operating money, including transportationLocal operating taxesTotal local operating moneyTotal state and local operating moneyState capital outlay and debt service moneyLocal capital outlay and debt service moneyTotal state and local money, both operating and capital

Changes (that is, difference between amounts calculated by thesimulation and actual amounts in 1970-71)Change in state operating money. excluding transportationChange in state transportation moneyChange in total state operating moneyChange in local operating taxesChange in state and local operating money (including transpor-tation)Change in state capital outlay and debt service moneyChange in local capital outlay and debt service moneyChange in total state and local money

ATTACHMENT FTEACHER SUPPLY AND DEMAND:

IMPLICATIONS FOR HIGHEREDUCATION POLICY

Teacher Supply and Demand:Implications for Higher Education Policy

The demand for teachers has two principal compo-nents: the number of children of school _ and thepupil/teacher ratio for which the people ..se stateate willing to pay. This report will examine the firstcomponent. The second depends entirely on politicalchoice constrained only by the supply of teachers.

I. ENROLLMENTS

Let us begin by looking at the United States as awhole. Chart A clearly shows that the crest of the"baby boom" will pass out of the nation's elementaryschools in the early 1970's. It can be seen from Figure1 that much of the continued rise in enrollment in gradesK-8 is due to the expansion of kindergarten programs.Nationally, first-grade enrollments peaked ir- , ,68 andare now moving downward. If the United States Cen-sus Bureau Series D projections continue to approx-imate the actual population growth rate, the numberof twelve-year olds will rise from 4.1 million in 1990to 4.7 million in 2000 and to nearly 5 million by 2010.However, if the lower Series E projections prove tobe accurate, the annual population of twelve-year oldswill rise to 3.9 million in 1990 and then stabilize atslightly above 4.0 million thereafter. It should be noted

4.0

3.5

3.0

2.5

2.0

CHART A

Annual Population of 12-year-olds in the U.S.

1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990

Note: Data beyond 1982 are U.S. Census Series D projections

Source: Adapted from Chart of U.S. Census Figures in WallaceR. Brode, Science 173 (16 July 1971) pp. 206-213.

that 1971 births in the U.S.A. were closer to the SeriesE projection than to Series D.

In this context we should be aware that the birthrate in a number of European countries has nlreadydropped below the level required for replacerrent ofexisting population, that is, the zero population growth

FIGURE I

U.S.A. PUBLIC ELEMENTARY SCHOOL ENROLLMENTS 1950-1970 BY GRADE(in thousands)

Grade 1950 1960 1965 1967 1968 1969 1970

K-8 19,387 27.602 30,625 31,766 32,255 32,871 33,249

K 1,034 1,923 2,25') 2,411 2,517 2,577 2,653

1-8 18,353 25,697 28,40. 29,355 29,738 30,294 30.596

1 3,170 3,733 4,014 4,092 4,111 4,082 4,026

2 2,645 3,436 3,800 3,828 3,843 3,918 3,876

3 2,396 3,302 3,662 3,743 3,781 3,844 3,883

Source: Statistical Abstract of the United States, 1971. Table 172.

267

rate.' Denmark, Portugal, Sweden and West Germanyhave already dropped below the replacement level andItaly, Holland, the Soviet Union, Switzerland and theUnited Kingdom are approaching a zero populationgrowth rate. The U.S. Census Bureau's Series E pro-jection provides for zero population growth rate afterthe year 2030 in the U.S.A. Thus, if the U.S.A.'spopulation growth rate falls close to the Series E projec-tions the national total of elementary school childrenwill climb back to a level slightly the presentlevel over the next 20 years and then ..abilize.

As the distinguished economist, Kenneth E. Bould-ing, puts it, "One thing that is certain is that thepressure on the American educational system, whichhas been intense in the last ten years, will continueto diminish as we move into the future. The 4.3 millionbabies of 1957 who are now teenagers will be re-

'Population et Societe.; No. 39. September 1971. pp. 2-3.

placed by only 3.4 million babies in 1969 as teen-agers by 1982."2

Turning now to the situation ill Florida, accordingto the 1970 U.S. Census the 1,219,790 Floridians aged10-19 were being succeeded by 605,714 children aged5-9, and 501,179 whose ages were under 5. (See Figure2 for details.) The population pyramids shown in ChartsB and C enable us to clearly visualize the existingsituation of fewer children at the lower ages succeedingan abnormally large number between the ages of 10and 19.

Figures prepared by the Florida Department ofEducation, Division of Elementary and SecondarySchools' Br-eau of Research indicate that first-gradeenrollments .1 recent years (1965-66 to 1970-71) have

2Kenneth E. Boulding in R. L. Johns, et al, eds., Economic Fac-tors Affecting the Financing of Education. Gainesville, Florida:National Educational Finance Project, Volume 2, 1970, p. 19.

FIGURE 2

AGE PYRAMID - FLORIDA, 1970

Age Male Female Total % Male % Female

% ofFloridaTotal

Under 5 255,850 245,329 501,179 7.8 7.0 7.385-9 308,295 297,419 605,714 9.4 8.5 8.92

10-19 619,230 600,560 1,219,790 18.9 17.1 17.9620-29 440,103 459,510 899,613 13.5 13.1 13.2530-39 344,770 393,309 738,079 10.5 10.5 10.8740-49 373,957 411,983 785,895 11.4 11.7 11.5750-59 329,582 385,302 714,884 10.1 10.9 10.5260-69 316,644 399,824 716,468 9.7 11.4 10.5570 + 287,140 344,683 631,823 8.8 9.8 9.30Total 3,275,571 3,513,872 6,789,443 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

Source: U.S. Census, General Population Characteristics, PC (1)-B I 1 Florida, Washington, D.C.: USGPO, 1972.Table 21.

FIGURE 3

AGE PYRAMID - 970

Age Male Female Total - % Male % Female% of

USA Total

Under 5 8,745,499 8,408,838 17,154,337 8.8 8.1 8.445-9 10,168,496 9,787,751 19,956,247 10.3 9.4 9.82

10-19 20,224,584 19,635,232 39,859,816 20.4 18.8 19.6120-29 14,538,836 15,309,178 29,848,014 14.7 14.7 14.6830-39 11,008,213 119.529,074 22,537,287 11.2 11.1 11.094049 11,670,147 12,426,746 24,096,893 11.8 11.9 11.8550-59 10,113,737 10,963,309 21,077,046 10.2 10.5 10.3760-69 7,149,056 8,459,353 15,608,409 7.3 8.1 7.6870+ 5,293,624 7,780,253 13,073,877 5.3 7.5 6.43Total 98,912,192 104,299,734 203,211,926 100.0 % 100.0% 100.00 %

Source: U.S. Census, General Population Characteristics, PC(1) -B1 United States Summary, Washington, D.C.: USGPO, 1972. Table 53.

268

CHART B

AGE PYRAMIDS(% of each sex at each age level)

FLORIDA

1

Male Female

70 Or

60 69

50 59

40 49

30 39

20 29

10 19

17.5 9 14.5

0..0 0 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 0 / 4 4 8 10 1I2 114 16 118 20%I I I

18.5

CHART C

U.S.A. TOTAL

Male Female

70 Or

60 69

50 59

40 49

30 39

20 29

10 19

0 9 18.5

. 10 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 :4 i 0 3 4 4 10 12 14 16 18 20%

269

FIG

UR

E 4

FLO

RID

A D

EPA

RT

ME

NT

OF

ED

UC

AT

ION

EN

RO

LL

ME

NT

PR

OJE

CT

ION

S

Act

ual

Gra

des

1-6

Gra

des

7-9.

Gra

des

10-1

2T

otal

1-12

1967

-68

789,

720

357,

663

269,

255

1,41

6,63

868

-69

800,

293

371,

871

282,

627

1,45

4,79

169

-70

815,

759

389,

632

298,

158

1,50

3,54

970

-71

812,

372

398,

201

311,

191

1,52

1,76

4

Proj

ectio

ns19

71-7

280

5,61

340

5,16

232

6,99

31,

537,

768

72-7

379

2,75

741

0,58

734

0,21

51,

543,

559

73-7

477

3,22

242

0,01

634

6,54

51,

539,

783

74-7

575

6,98

042

4,60

735

2,60

71,

534,

194

75-7

674

8,02

542

6,52

735

7,63

61,

532,

188

76-7

775

0,18

542

2,88

236

5,75

61,

538,

823

Sour

ce: F

lori

da D

epar

tmen

t of

Edu

catio

n, D

ivis

ion

of E

lem

enta

ry a

nd S

econ

dary

Edu

catio

n, B

urea

u of

Res

earc

h

FIG

UR

E 5

FLO

RID

A E

NR

OL

LM

EN

T B

Y G

RA

DE

IN

PU

BL

IC S

CH

OO

LS

Gra

de60

-61

61-6

262

-63

63-6

465

-66

66-6

767

-68

68-6

969

-70

70-7

1

112

2,63

612

6,08

613

1,83

913

5,31

413

5,29

913

8,56

014

0,85

714

2,83

514

0,95

014

1,93

513

9,15

02

'11

2,61

911

6,38

311

8,84

012

4,09

312

7,93

313

0,80

113

3,72

313

6,08

813

6,43

913

4,68

93

107,

227

111,

910

115,

777

119,

121

127,

821

128,

696

132,

330

134,

298

138,

945

136,

383

410

2,69

910

7,51

611

1,49

311

5,31

711

7,63

412

3,05

512

7,42

112

8,29

513

1,39

413

4,74

613

6,35

45

96,2

5010

2,79

810

7,48

011

0,61

011

4,44

811

7,37

412

3,17

712

8,51

512

8,54

413

3,23

913

3.62

16

93,9

4496

,370

102,

193

106,

625

114,

478

117,

863

124,

022

129,

019

130,

455

132,

175

1-6

635,

375

661,

083

687,

622

711,

080

728,

346

749,

221

768,

815

789,

720

800,

293

815,

759

812,

372

7-9

270,

960

287,

287

293,

621

301,

392

312,

375

326,

982

341,

968

351,

663

371,

871

389,

632

398,

201

10-1

216

9,40

718

3,13

220

7,73

222

9,49

423

9,95

424

5,05

925

5,59

926

9,25

528

2,62

729

8,15

831

1,19

1T

OT

AL

1-1

21,

075,

742

1,13

1,50

21,

188,

975

1,24

1,96

61,

280,

625

1,32

1,26

21,

366,

382

1,41

6.63

81,

454,

791

1,50

3,54

91,

521,

764

Uni

vers

ityD

emon

stra

tion

Scho

ols

Tot

al K

-12

2,42

62,

438

2,42

5K

5,13

25,

435

5,71

15,

770

6,64

09,

290

10,3

8710

,534

31,6

4147

,790

55,6

49

Sour

ce: A

nnua

l Rep

orts

of

the

Com

mis

sion

er o

f E

duca

tion.

been running consistently between 22-23 percent aboveFlorida live births six years earlier. As far as the nearterm is concerned, the impact of net migration patternson elementary school enrollments appears to be stable.

Net migration does not act in a uniform manner.Net migration is the net change in population adjustedfor births and deaths. The 1970 U.S. Census3 foundFlorida's net migration rate to be 26.8 percent; how-ever, this rate was composed of an increase of 33 per-cent for whites and a decrease of 1.5 percent forNegroes and other races. The net migration rate wasalmost the same between the 12 counties which com-prise Florida's Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas(SMSA's) and the non-SMSA counties. However,within the SMSA counties (Broward, Dade, Orangeand Seminole, Hillsborough and Pinellas, Palm Beach,Alachua, Leon, Escambia and Santa Rosa, Duval) thenet migration rate was overwhelmingly into the suburbsaround the central city district in each SMSA. Thenet migration rate into central cities was 12.5 percentcompared to 40.1 percent into areas outside the centralcities.

The lower rate of increase of first-grade enrollmentsover births (22 percent) in comparison to the migratio&rate (26.8 percent) is accounted for by outmigrationof some Florida couples with infants and pre-schoolage children and the influx of childless persons andmature persons whose children are residents else-where.

Florida's elementary school enrollments in grades1-6 peaked in 1%9-70 and have been moving downwardsince then. The Department of Education's Bureauof Research projects a steady decline through 1975-76,in all an enrollment drop of about 9 percent in 1975-76from the level in 1969-70. It is likely that elementaryschool enrollments will remain below their peakthroughout the remainder of the decade. Public schoolfirst-grade enrollments reached their peak in Floridain 1967-68, this group will be high school seniors in1978-79. Taking the state public schools as a whole,enrollments in grades 1-12 will reach their crest in 1972-73 and then begin to move downward. Figure 4 presentsthese projections.

A more detailed picture of public school enrollmentsbroken down by grade is found in Figure 5. It is impor-tant to emphasize that enrollments in the lower gradesare already actually down. As of 1970-71 first-gradeenrollments had declined from the year before threeyears in a row. The degree to which enrollments will

3U.S. Census, General Demographic Trends for MetropolitanAreas, 1960-1970, PHC(2)-11, Florida.

271

pick up again at the end of the decade depends mainlyon the birthrate in Florida and should be consideredin the light of the discussion of national birth trendspresented earlier in this report.

The only part of the public school system in Floridawhich is expanding is the kindergarten. If the nationalpattern of enrollments prevails in Florida a large pro-portion of Florida's parents will not enroll their childrenin kindergarten. Therefore, we may expect kindergar-ten enrollments to remain substantially less than first-grade enrollments. Figure 5 shows the rapid, althoughnow slackening, growth in kindergarten enrollment.Estimations of the future size of early childhood educa-tion including kindergarten are subject to a good dealof uncertainty at the moment since rapid expansionin this area is a possibility should massive federal fund-ing be injected into this area of education in the future.

Conclusion:Assuming that there is no drastic change in net migra-

tion rates, the picture for school enrollments in Floridais already one of decreasing enrollments in elementaryschool which will make itself felt in the higher gradesafter the middle of the decade. A continuation of pres-ent lower birthrates may be felt in gradually decreasingentries into the elementary grades at the end of the

FIGURE 6

PROJECTIONS OF CHILDREN AGE 6 USA TOTALS(as of October 1, all figures in thousands)

U.S. Census U.S. CensusOctober 1 Series C Series I)1959 3,789

60 3,88761 3,97262 4,02063 4,10764 4,12565 4,13866 4,17467 4,25668 4,17169 4,102

Projections70 4,01171 3,82472 3,63473 3,52874 3,462 3,49175 3,544 3,45076 3,664 3,50477 3,790 3,58878 3,914 3,67179 4,040 3,75280 4,170 3,836

Source: U.S. Office of Education, Projections of EducationalStatistics to 1979.80, 1970 Edition, Washington, D.C.: USGPO,1971. Appendix B, Table B-1.

Note: Series C is an Average of Series B and D. Series D assumes asubstantial drop from levels of fertility in the mid-1950's.

decade. Nationally it is projected that the number ofchildren reaching the usual age for entry to first gradewill not surpass the 1967 peak until 1981 or later. (SeeFigure 6 for details.) It appears likely that the annualnumber of children born in the U.S.A. will remainbelow the peak birth year of 1957 until near the endof the century. The birth rate in Florida will probablycorrespond to the national pattern. Thus it seems likelythat the total enrollments in Florida grades 1-12 willremain almost level throughout the 1970's with somedecrease being felt in the elementary grades.

II. DISTRICT ANALYSIS OFENROLLMENTS IN FIRST GRADE

Substantially less than half of the county school dis-tricts in the state encompass over 85 percent of thestate's first-grade pupils.

In 1970-71 four counties had first-grade enrollmentsover 10,000. These 54,457 pupils were 39.1 percentof the state's first-grade enrollment. Twenty-twocounties had first-grade enrollments between 1,000 and9,999. These counties enrolled 67,605 first graders or48.6 percent of the state's total. Forty-one countieshad first-grade enrollments under 1,000, including threecounties with less than 100 pupils. They enrolled 17,088pupils or 12.3 percent of the state's first-grade total.

When we examine the changes in first-grade enroll-ment between the state's peak year in 1967-68 and1970-71, we find that 40 counties were down in enroll-ment in 1970-71 over 1%7-68 and an additional sevencounties were down in 1970-71 over the preceding yearbut still above their 1967-68 level. Only nine of the

FIGURE 7

FIRST GRADE ENROLLMENT

Districts with losses of 200 or more, 1967-68 to 1970-71

Duval -1,425Brevard -1,084Dade -998Okaloosa -462Alachua -321Polk -300St. Lucie -273Escambia -251Volusia -200

Districts with gain of 200 or more, 1967-68 to 1970-71

Broward 904Lee 516Pasco 358Pinellas 349Seminole 280Osceola 241

272

27 counties which were above their 1967-68 enrollmentlevel were counties with first-grade enrollments of 1000or greater. Figure 7 highlights the districts showingthe greatest gains and losses in first-grade enrollment.Figure 8 presents a county-by-county analysis of first-grade enrollment trends. A plus ( +) indicates anenrollment above that in the county's first grade in1967-68, a minus ( ) indicates an enrollment levelbelow that of 1967-68.

A similar analysis could be presented for each gradelevel. However, first-grade enrollments are a bell-wether for the enrollments in each district in the suc-ceeding years as the cohort of first graders movesupward through the school system.

III. SUPPLY OF TEACHERS

A. Education Degrees Awarded: The National Picture:

The best measure of the supply of new teachers isthe number of education degrees awarded by colleges.While non-education majors enter teaching, as do per-sons already in the work force in other occupations,there are no reliable statistics on the importance ofthese sources. Also, in elementary school teaching,new teachers are much more likely to be recruitedfrom among education majors than, say, high schoolchemistry teachers.

Let us begin by looking at the changing positionof education graduates in American higher education.Only data for the most recent five years which areavailable from USOE are referred to since the trendsover a longer period are consistent with these.

Although the number of education degrees at thebachelors, masters and doctors level has risen steadily,bachelors degrees in education are gradually forminga smaller percentage each year of all bachelors degreesawarded. On the masters and doctors degree leveleducation degrees are growing as a percentage of allthese degrees. (See Figure 9 for details.)

In the most recent five-year period for which statis-tics are available, 1965-66 to 1969-70, the total numberof bachelors degrees awarded grew 52.3 percent whilethose in education lagged behind growing only 40.6percent. The picture is different for masters and doc-tors degrees. Nationally, masters degrees in educationrose 58.2 percent while all masters degrees awardedrose 48.7 percent. The difference is sharpest at thedoctors degree level; the production of all doctorsdegrees grew 63.8 percent while the number of doctorsdegrees in the field of education leaped upward by92.4 percent in only five years. (See Figure 11.)

FIGURE 8

FIRST GRADE ENROLLMENTS

BaseYear

District enrollmentAbove 67.68 (+)Below 67.68 (-)

% change67.68

to

gain orloss inpupils67-68

toCounty 67-68 68.69 69.70 70.71 71.72 70-71 70.71

Alachua 2,352 -13.6 -321Baker 270 -16.3 -44

Bay 1,832 + .4.7 -87

Bradford 429 -16.3 -70Brevard 6,671 -16.2 -1,084Broward 10,117 + + +* 8,9 904Calhoun 184 + + + 10.3 19

Charlotte 267 + + + 31.5 84Citrus 328 + 10.4 34

Clay 934 + + + 17.9 167

Collier 982 + + + 13.3 131

Columbia 791 -7.7 -61

Dade 22,305 + 4,5 -998De Soto 365 -5.2 -19Dixie 166 -9.0 -15Duval 12.854 -11.1 -1,425Escambia 5.169 4.9 -251

Flagler 132 -8.3 -11

Franklin 209 + +* 4.8 10

Gadsden 1,169 -16.0 -187

Gilchrist 94 + + 19.1 18

Glades 109 + 0.9 1

Gulf 341 -14.1 -48Hamilton 251 -13.5 -34

Hardee 557 -9.1 -51

Hendry 413 + -9.0 -37

Hernando 392 + + 19.1 75

Highlands 731 + + +* 2.3 17

Hillsborough 10,659 + +* 0.4 41

Holmes 230 + + + 17.8 41

Indian River 920 .6.7 -62Jackson 924 -18.7 -173

Jefferson 27.1 + -21.0 -57

Lafayette 65 + + 4.6 -3

Lake 1.703 -10.2 174Lee 2,072 + + + 24.9 516Leon 1,984 -11.8 -234Levy 326 + + -1,1.0 -36

Liberty 102 -24,5' -25

Madison 424 -16.0 -68Manatee 1,684 -4.9 -83

Marion 1,622 + + + 8.9 144

Martin 672 + + 3.3 22

Monroe 1,307 + -10.7 -140Nassau 576 -9.0 -52

Okaloosa 3.016 + -15.3 -462Okeechobee 381 + + 10.2 39

Orange 8,369 -1.0 -85

Osceola 533 + + + 45.2 241

Palm Beach 6.717 + +* 0.4 27

Pasco 1,125 + + + 31.8 358Pinellas 7,094 + + + 4.9 349

Polk 6,356 4.7 -300Putnam 1,055 -13.1 -138St. Johns 782 -6.4 -50

St. Lucie 1,355 + -20.1 -273Santa Rosa 1,004 4.8 -48

Sarasota 1,599 + + + 9.6 154

Seminole 2,090 + + 13.4 280Sumter 387 + + +* 8.0 31

Suwanee 465 -0.9 -4

Taylor 434 -9.2 -40

Union 124 + + +* 8.9 IIVolusia 3,140 -6.4 -200

Wakulla 158 + + + 27.8 44

Walton 416 4.6 -19

Washington 280 + + + 9.3 26

*Indicates 70-71 lower than 69.70 but still above 67.68 base.273

The increase in education degrees awarded stemslargely from the activities of publicly controlled col-leges and universities, not from private institutions.The following table demonstrates that the percentagerate of increase in degrees awarded by publicly con-trolled institutions is more than double the percentagerate of increase in privately controlled institutions.

Publicly controlled institutions now award three-quarters of all degrees in education in the U.S.A. This

FIGURE 9

EDUCATION DEGREES AS A % OF TOTAL DEGREESAWARDED AT EACH LEVEL-USA

Bachelors Masters Doctors

1969-70 20.85% 38.13% 19.73%68-69 20.88% 36.74% 18.44%67-68 21.33% 35.94% 17.66%66.67 21.49% 35.38% 17.11%65-66 22.59% 35.86% 16.79%

e.g. Of all the bachelors degrees awarded in 1969-70, 20.85%were in education.

FIGURE 10

EDUCATION DEGREES AS A %OF ALL DEGREES CONFERREDBY PUBLICLY CONTROLLED INSTITUTIONS-USA

Bachelors Masters Doctors

1969-70 24.21% 43.90% 23.13%68.69 24.61% 41.82% 21.62%67-68 25.37% 41.21% 21.04%66-67 25.58% 40.56% 20.01%65-66 27.23% 41.52% 19.59%

holds true at each degree level: bachelors, masters anddoctors, as can be seen from Figure 12.

Within publicly controlled institutions over 40 per-cent of all masters degrees awarded are in educationand nearly a quarter of all doctors degrees are in thefield of education. (See Figure 10 for details.)

B. Florida Degrees Awarded

The total number of degrees awarded at each level(bachelors, masters, doctors) by colleges and univer-sities in Florida has nearly doubled between 1965-66and 1969-70. Looking at an only slightly longer span,1963-64 to 1969-70, the total number of masters degreesand doctors degrees awarded nearly tripled.

In the field of education the pattern of growth isthe same as the pattern for the state as a whole.Bachelors degrees in education in 1969-70 made upslightly less than a quarter of all bachelors degreesawarded (22 percent) while seven years earlier theyrepresented slightly over a quarter (26 percent) of allbachelors degrees awarded in the state. (See Figure13 for details.)

In Parts I and II of this study we noted the beginningof a dedline in enrollment in the elementary gradesin Florida. The preparation of elementary schoolteachers represents well over half of all the activityin collegiate departments of education in the state.Bachelors degrees in elementary education have rep-resented between 56 percent and 62 percent of allbachelors degrees awarded in education in Floridaevery year from 1963-64 to 1969-70. (See Figure 14for details.)

FIGURE 11

INCREASE IN NUMBER OF DEGREES AWARDED IN THE USA1965-66 THROUGH 1969-70

USAAll Fields

USAEducation

Ed. Ed.Public. Inst. Private Inst.

Bachelors 52.27% 40.56% 48.66% 19.76%Masters 48.74% 58.17% 69.71% 32.05%Doctors 63.78% 92.43% 110.23% 52.94%

FIGURE 12

%OF ALL DEUCATION DEGREES AWARDED BY PUBLICLYCONTROLLED INSTITUTIONS -USA TOTALS

%Increase in Number of EducationDegrees Awarded 1965-66 to 1969-70

Bachelors Masters Doctors

Public PrivateDegree Level Institutions Institutions 1969-70 76.14% 74A2% 75.30%

68-69 74.85% 73.52% 73.68%Bachelors 48.7% 19.8% 67-68 73.54% 72.91% 73.01%Masters 69.7% 32.1% 66-67 72.63% 70.73% 70.53%

Doctors 110.2% 52.9% 65-66 71.99% 69.36% 68.92%

274

In elementary education the state university systemplays the largest role in the production of bachelorsdegrees. The fourth column in Figure 14 shows thatthe state universities have accounted for an increasingshare of all bachelors degrees in elementary educationand in 1969-70 produced slightly under 70 percent ofall such degrees awarded in Florida. This is a majorincrease from their share of 55 percent in 1963-64.

Even more striking is the finding that just as elemen-tary school enrollments reached their peak and beganto decline, the new state universities (FAU, FTU,UWF) made a major investment in the production ofelementary school teachers. An inspection of columns3 and 4 in Figure 13 shows that these three campusesproduced no graduates in elementary education in 1964-65, but only five years later in 1969-70 their 627bachelors degrees in elementary education made up36.7 percent of all bachelors degrees in elementaryeducation awarded by campuses of the State UniversitySystem.

C. Entry and Withdrawal from Teaching in Florida

The National Education Association has for manyyears annually gathered information about job place-ment of education graduates. Over the 15-year span

1954-1969 the percent of persons prepared in elemen-tary education who enter classroom teachingimmediately following graduation has fluctuatedbetween 75 percent and 83 percent. In the most recentyear for which figures are available, 1969, the NEAestimates that 74.5 percent of graduates in elementaryeducation entered classrooms while 62.9 percent ofeducation graduates in secondary education fieldsimmediately entered teaching.4

The few existing studies' of teacher turnover rateshave found annual turnover rates ranging from 8.1 per-cent to 11.2 percent; and when former teachers reenter-ing teaching were taken into account the net turnoverrates ranged from 4.0 percent to 6.4 percent.

In the 1970-71 school year Florida had 62,708 regularclassroom teachers. 1,526 were kindergarten teachers,30,877 were in grades 1-6 and the remainder were ingrades 7-12. Thus 32,403 teachers were teaching onthe elementary level in grades K-6. This is slightlyover half of all the classroom teachers in the Floridapublic schools.

'National Education Association. Teacher Supply and Demandin Public Schools, 1970, Table 8.

sop.cit., Table I1.

FIGURE 13

BACHELORS DEGREES IN EDUCATION AWARDED IN FLORIDA

Total Bachelorsin Education

Total Bachelorsin Elementary

Education

Bachelors inElementary Ed

awarded byState Universities

New State CampusesBachelors Degrees in

Elementary Ed.*

1969.70 4412 2507 1709 62768.69 3605 2135 1486 377

66.67 2811 1720 1128 238

64.65 2353 1452 818 0

63.64 2155 1267 693 0

*Florida Atlantic U., Florida Tech. U., U. of West Florida.

FIGURE 14

ELEMENTARY EDUCATION BACHELORS DEGREES

As a % of all bachelors degrees in Education

Total Bachelorsin Elementary Ed.

Bachelors inElementary Ed.

awarded byState Universities

New State CampusesBachelors in

Elementary Ed.

State Univ. Bachelorsin Elementary Ed.

as a % of total

bachelors inElementary Ed.

1969-70 56.82% 38.74% 14.21% 68.17%68.69 59.22% 40.22% 10.46% 69.60%66.67 61.19% 40.13% 8.47% 65.58%64.65 61.70% 34.76% 0% 56.34%63.64 58.79% 32.16% 0% 54.70%

275

FIGURE 15

BACHELORS DEGREES IN ELEMENTARY EDUCATION: INSTITUTIONAL DATA FOR I:LORIDA

1963-64 1964.65 1966.67 1968.69 1969.70

M F M F M F M r M 1:

Barry College 21 28 37 39 31

Bethune-Cookman 7 46 12 61 6 42 6 35 7 52Florida Memorial 13 47 20 53 6 46 9 55Florida Southern 5 58 3 52 3 49 I 55 41Jacksonville U. 4 51 2 55 5 41 7 83 9 86Rollins:Main Campus 1 21 0 18 I 38 2 34 4 36

Patrick 3 19Saint Leo College 2 6 4 25 3 28Stetson 3 43 I 31 4 45 3 70 7 45U. of Miami I I 157 21 188 9 169 13 221 17 232U. of Tampa 4 34 5 37 3 33 6 40 17 77Fla. Southeastern Bible Col 0 5 I 19Edward Waters 6 24 6 41 5 12

State Univ. SystemFAMU 1 9 1 1 5 1 6 1 1 1 15 104 17 77 21 62FAU 44 194 14 212 44 275I:SU 12 214 23 251 10 331 11 313 11 360FTU 5 90OF 3 182 5 245 3 254 5 369 8 335US 8 182 16 151 16 157 18 299 31 254UW 11 140 12 201

State U. System Total 42 693 60 758 88 1,040 76 1,410 132 1,577Florida Total 96 1,171 130 1,322 132 1,588 118 2,017 209 2,298

1,267 1,452 1,720 2,135 2,507

Using 8 percent as the high estimate for annualteacher turnover and 5 percent as the low estimate,we would expect total turnover for Florida to fallbetween 3100 and 5000 teachers annually based on the1970-71 teaching work force. For teachers in grades1-6 we would expect the annual turnover to lie between1500 and 2500 teachers. It is probable that the lowerestimate is the better one since the reentry of experi-enced instructors into teaching probably increases inperiods of economic recession and price inflation. Inmost recent years the annual number of retiringteachers in Florida has run around or slightly above1000; this sets the absolute lower limit for the annualrate of turnover.

Another factor which affects the prospects of teachereducation graduates of Florida colleges is the migrationinto the state of persons who are qualified to seekand hold teaching positions. While some Florida educa-tion graduates move out of the state, it is probablethat there is a net gain in persons qualified to teachover the number of Florida education graduates eachyear due to in-migration. This is in the realm of specula-tion however.

To sum up the situation in Florida: if the teacherturnover rate is at or above 5 percent, if there is anet in-migration of qualified teachers, if birthrateremains low and the elementary-school-age population

276

continues to decline, and if Florida's colleges continueto produce education graduates at or above the 1969-70 level; then there will be an oversupply of elementaryschool teachers throughout the 1970's and an over-supply in most secondary school subjects toward theend of the 1970's.

D. National Demand for Teachers

The projections made by the United StatesOffice of Education anticipate that the number ofclassroom teachers employed in the nation's publicschools will remain almost constant throughout the1970's. USOE figures show an actual growth of606,000 teaching positions between 1960 and 1969but a projected increase of only 39,000 teachingpositions for the entire nation between 1970 and1979. (See Figure 16 for details.)

National Education Association data (found inFigure 17) show a dramatic decline in the numberof states reporting a shortage of applicants forteaching positions from 20 states in 1966 to nostates in 1970 and 1971.

Both the NEA and the USOE project a substan-tial excess of education graduates over new posi-tions available. The USOE figures assume exten-sive :,,adjustments in student career plans and col-lege curriculum.

FIGURE 16

CLASSROOM TEACHERS IN REGULAR ELEMENTARYAND SECONDARY DAY SCHOOLS

(Public Schools Only)

FIGURE 18

PROJECTION OF TEACIIER SUPPLYAS PERCENT OF DEMAND USA

NEA USOFTotal K-I 2

(in thousands) Elementary* Secondary*1970 154.6% 141.5%

71 182.8 161.072 101.0 167.873 211.5 168.774 233.3 174.775 245.7 180.676 251.1 179.277 258.6 180.378 262.6 177.379 273.8 175.1

(a) (b)

1959..60..61 ..62..63..64 ..65..66..6768..69..

1,3551,4081,4611,5081,5781,6481,7101,7891,8551,9362,014

Projected Totalswith without

ESEA ESEA (Actual)*

858

9651,0061,0401,0761,107

(Actual)*

550

746783815860907

(Actual)*

Source: (a) Greybcal, William S. "Teacher Surplus and TeacherShortage" Phi Delta Kappa, October 1971, pp. 82.85; (b) USOE,National Center for Educational Statistics, Bulletin, No. 6, January1971.

1970..71 ..72..73 ..74 ..75 ..76 ..77 ..78 ..79 ..

2,0502,0652,0732,0802,0802,0792,0802,0822,0862,089

1,8701,8851,8931,9001,9001,8991,9001,9021,9061,909

2,061 1,132 929

Source; USOE, Projections of Educational Statistics to 1979.80,1970 Edition, Table 26.

Note: Two projections arc given, the first assumes that fundingfor the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 iscontinued at present levels, the other does not.

*Source: Statistical Abstract of the U.S., 1971, Table 173.

This report relied heavily on USOE and NEAstatistics. The Office of Institutional Studies atTeachers College, Columbia University, as partof its own ongoing research queried many profes-sional organizations in education in the spring of1972 concerning the supply and demand forteachers. Among the organizations that indicateda lack of quantitative data beyond what is containedin USOE or NEA publications were those listedbelow. This list is not comprehensive but is indica-tive of the state of knowledge about teacheremployment.

American Federation of Teachers (AFL-CIO) Department of Research

FIGURE 17

GENERAL CONDITION OF TEACHER SUPPLY AND DEMAND AS REPORTED BYSTATE DEPARTMENTS OF EDUCATION PERSONNEL 1966.1971

General Condition of Teacher Supply . Demand

Number of States Reporting as of Fall

1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971

Substantial shortage of applicants 20 19 5 2 0 0

Some shortage of applicants 11 14 17 12 2 0

Shortage of applicants in some subject areasand excess in others 8 11 19 32 35 24

Sufficient applicants to fill positions 0 I I i 7 0

Some excess of applicants 0 0 0 2 1 11

Substantial excess of applicants 0 0 0 0 4 13

Valid a, -praisal not possible by State 11 5 8 i I 2

Source: NEA Research Division "Preliminary Report: Teacher Supply and Demand Fall 1971", Table 1.

277

FIGURE 19

DEMAND FOR ADDITIONAL STAFF WILL EXIST IN 1972-73

Florida

USANumber of States* I

reporting any demandin the area

Instruction Early Childhood, pre-school,Kindergarten Men only 28

Elementary:1-3 Men only 134.6 Men only 13Health or PE 3Reading 19

Secondary:Art 4Foreign Languages 4Health or PE 7Home EconomicsIndustrial Arts Yes 28Language ArtsMathematics Yes 21Music 10Reading Yes 18Science 16Social Studies 0Vocational-Technical Yes 31

SpecialInstruction Bilingual Ed. 1:t

Environmental Ed Yes 11Ethnic Studies 6Special Ed Yes 20

InstructionalSupport Librarians 17

Library Aides 2Teacher Aides 2Technicians (e.g. media specialists) 9

Pupil PersonnelServices Counselors:

elementary Yes 18secondary Yes 12

Psychologists Yes 13Psychiatrists Yes 6Social Workers 8Nurses 4

Administrative Superintendents 3Principals 6Assistant Principals 3

Source: National Center for Information on Careers in Education, Education Personnel Information Communique No. 3, 1972.

*49 states and D.C. No response from Kansas Puerto Rico.

National Association of Elementary SchoolPrincipalsAmerican Association for Higher EducationCouncil for Exceptional ChildrenNational Science Teachers AssociationSpeech Communication AssociationMusic Educators ConferenceDepartment of School Nurses (N EA)National Council for the Social StudiesNational Council of Teachers of MathematicsAssociation of Teacher Educators

278

Association for Supervision and CurriculumDevelopmentNational Association of Secondary SchoolPrincipals

Finally, Figure 19 represents the most recent infor-mation available on demand for teachers among thestates and highlights the response from Florida'sDepartment of Education. It should be noted that thecount of states includes all states reporting any demandeven though it may be for ( mly a few teachers in, say,rural areas.

Bibliography

Brode, Wallace R. "Manpower in Science and Engineering,Based on a Saturation Model, " Science, 173 (16 July1971), pp. 206-213.

Boulding, Kenneth E. "Factors Affecting the FutureDemand for Education" in Roc L. Johns, et al, eds.,Economic Factors Affecting the Financing of Education.Gainesville, Fla.: National Educational Finance Project,Volume 2, 1970, pp. 1-27.

DeWitt, Lawrence B. and A. Dale Tussing. The Supplyand Demand for Graduates of Higher Education: 1970to 1980. Syracuse, N.Y.: Educational Policy ResearchCenter, Syracuse University Research Corporation,1971.

Graybeal, William S. "Teacher Surplus and TeacherShortage," Phi Delta Kaman, October 1971, pp. 82-85.

Institut national d'etudes demographique.(Paris), Populationet Societes, No. 39, September 1971.

Moses, Lincoln E. "The Response of Graduate Enrollmentto Placement Opportunities," Science, 177 (11 August1972), pp. 494-497.

National Center for Information on Careers in Education,"Education Staffing Patterns Update," Education Per-sonnel Information Communique, No. 3, Washington,D.C., NCICE, 1972.

National Education Association. "Preliminary Report:Teacher Supply and Demand in Public Elementary andSecondary Schools, Fall 1971."

National Education Association. Teacher Supply andDemand in Public Schools, 1970. Washington, D.C.:National Education Association, 1970.

V

279

National Education Association, Task Force on Under-Utilization of Professional Personnel.A Critical NationalProblem: Under-Utilization of Teachers and OtherCollege-Trained Personnel. Washington, D.C.: NationalEducation Association, 1972.

Parmes, H.S., "Manpower Analysis in EducationalPlanning," in M. Bland, ed., Economics of Education,Volume 1. Baltimore: Penguin Books, 1968, pp. 263-73.

Taeber, Conrad, "Population Trends of the 1960's,"Science, 176 (19 May 1912), pp. 773-777.

"Teacher Training Curbed as Job Market Tightens," N.Y.Times. February 7, 1972.

Terman, Frederick E., "Supply of Scientific and EngineeringManpower: Surplus or Shortage?" Science. 173 (30July1971), pp. 399-405.

U.S. Office of Education, "Teacher Supply and Demand:Public and Nonpublic Elementary and Secondary DaySchools," National Center for Educational Statistics,Bulletin, Nu. 6, January 11, 1971.

U.S. Office of Education. The Education Professions 1969-70. Washington, D.C.: USG PO, 1970.

U.S. Office of Education. Projections of Educational Statis-tics to 197940, 1970 Edition. Washington, D.C.:USGPO, 1971.

Vaughn, Ted R. and Gideon Sjoberg, "The Politics ofProjection: A Critique of Cartter's Analysis," Science,177 (14 July 1972), pp. 142-147.

Wolfe, Dad and Charles V. Kidd, "The Future Marketfor PhD's," Science, 173 (27 August 1971), pp. 784-793.

ATTACHMENT GTHE FINANCING OF

POST-SECONDARY EDUCATION

THE FINANCING OF POST-SECONDARYEDUCATION

Roger E. Bolton*

CONTENTS

Summary of Main Recommendations

1. General OverviewCommunity College FundingIncentives in the New FormulaThe State University-SystemRole of the FormulaeAdministrative ProblemsReduced Demand for Teachers

II. Future Cooperation Between SectorsIII. Shortcomings in the State's Financing SystemIV. Equity in Financing

Family Incomes of StudentsNational Comparisons on RepresentativenessInferences for Florida

'Associate Professor of Economics, Williams College, Williams-town, Massachusetts. In the preparation of this report I have had

the help of many people in Florida, too numerous to mention all

by name, who consulted with me. I visited 18 colleges and univer-

sities in Florida: seven state universities (all the universities except

Florida Atlantic and University of North Florida); six communitycolleges (Santa Fe, Brevard, Valencia, Hillsborough, Miami-Dade,

and Pensacola); and five private colleges (Stetson, Rollins, Univer-

sity of Tampa, University of Miami, and Barry). I talked to a diverse

group of persons at each one, inclt!ing presidents, vice-presidents,

facuity members, and students. I also had the benefit of discussion

with Chancellor Robert Mautz and others on the staff of the Board

of Regents, and with Lee Henderson, Director of the Division ofCommunity Colleges. All in all, I talked to nearly 100 persons in

higher education in the state. I want to express my great thanks

for the kindness of all of them and the assistance they gave me.

I have also had the benefit of considerable disvission with members

of the Citizens' Committee and its staff. But this report expresses

only my own views, and I alone am responsible for the contents.

283

Equity Within the Student BodyEffects on State Revenue and Expenditure

V. Response to Comments and ObjectionsSocial Benefits of Higher EducationStudent Living CostsRole of LoansIndependence of Students

SUMMARY OF MAINRECOMMENDATIONS

1. Tuition at state universities and community col-leges should be raised substantially, perhaps dou-bled (in today's dollars) over the next five years.A much increased program of direct grants to stu-dents should be used to offset the impact of thetuition increase on lower-income and lower-middle-income students. The combination of highertuition and grants would improve equity in the sys-tem and would also permit private colleges to com-pete more effectively for students, which they needto be able to do to thrive; and which they are hardpressed to do now because the state's subsidiesare almost completely concentrated on studentswho choose to attend publicly operated institutions.The state's operation of colleges and universities,while justifiable, need not require that all of its sup-port for higher education be limited to such institu-tions.

2. The state should seriously consider loosening someof the detailed, cumbersome itro/s on the day-to-day operations of state universities. This wouldlikely improve innovation, experiments in coopgra-tioii with community cdeges and private collegesand universities, and the morale of I,-,Aiversity ad-ministrators. If a sweeping change in bureaucraticrequirements is not feasible, then experimentalchanges, such as proposed for a trial period by theUniversity of West Florida, should be tried to seeif money can be saved and productivity improved

by giving universities somewhat more autonomyin day-to-day operations.

3. All parts of the higher education system in Floridashould consider more actively than in the past thebenefits of cooperation between state universities,private colleges, and community colleges. A niim-ber of specific things are recommended, includinggiving discretionary funds to state universities toallow them to finance trial projects, and changingthe tuition fee charge to a flat charge per stu-dent credit hour, rather than maintaining a dis-tinction between part-time and full-time students.

4. The excellent opportunities offered for futurecooperation by the regional groupings of differentkinds of institutions should be exploited. The shar-ing of facilities, students, anu 'acuity should beencouraged in these situations where physicalproximity is a favorable factor. The State Univer-sity System must consider the desirability of coor-dinating the wo'k of a state university with thatof other institutions in its region, even if that meansthe state university is not fully coordinated withall other state universities. Both kinds of coordi-nation are desirable, and a trade-off between the

-two inust be kept in mind.

5. The State Department of Eduption should makea major study analyzing the effectiveness of thepublic systems of higher education (community col-leges and state universities) in attracting poorer stu-dents. It should collect better information than nowexists on the socioeconomic status of students inpublic institutions, with a 'few to reexamining theappropriateness of charging all students the samelow tuition (low relative to the cost of educationto the state), regardless of a student's need.The Department of Education should also makea periodic study of college-age youth in the state,to determine how college attendance varies withsocioeconomic status, with a view to evaluatingthe effectiveness of various policies to encourageyoung people to invest in education after highschool (low tuition versus loans versus grants,etc.).

I. GENERAL OVERVIEW

Florida has built a large and high-quality public sec-tor of higher education, in which accessibility, bothgeographical and financial, has been a prime goal. Thispublic sector is composed of the community collegesystem and the State University System. The privatesector also seems fairly healthy on the whole, and itmanges to enroll a wide variety of students of differentincome levels. However, it is heavily threatened bycontinued competition from the low-tuition public sec-

284

for and survives partly by relying heavily on out-of-state students. The entire collection of educationalresources offers the citizens of the state a great diver-sity of options in programs, location, selectivity ofstu-dents, and costs.

The state has contributed very liberally to thedevelopment of the public sector, permitting tuitioncharges to remain far below the cost of education. Aspecial feature has been the establishment of publictwo-year community colleges in 28 different loca-tions scattered all over the state, which were veryimportant in the achievement of accessibility. Thereare now nine state universities, one in or near all thestate's major population centers. Six of these wereestablished in the 1960'F and '70's. Four of the sixare limited to the upper division (junior and senioryears) and graduate levels, and a decided effort hasbeen made to channel the bulk of the freshman andsophomore year (the lower division) work into com-munity colleges rather than universities. This has pro-vided well-qualified students for community colleges,and they are felt by many (including some adminis-trators and faculty I talked to in the State UniversitySystem) to provide education which, for a wide rangeof students, is as good or better than the lower divisionof state universities. The community colleges are com-mitted, nevertheless, to meeting the needs of manydifferent kinds of young people, and many adults aswell. In my travels around the state, I was greatlyimpressed with the dedication to this particular missionin the community colleges and with the high moraleand sense of real excitement I found among facultymembers and administrators.

I think a notable feature of the two-year collegesis that they combine occupational training withacademic instruction. This offers a good chance forstudents and faculty with very different interests torub elbows with each other, and for students to exploredifferent types of education before choosing what isbest suited for them. In that way community collegescan contribute greatly to one of the most importantsocial functions of higher educationthat of providingan opportunity for students to sort out their talentsand interests before they go too far down any onespecialized road. This benefit would be lost if occupa-tional education were taken out of the community col-leges and concentrated in schools specializing in occu-pational education alone.

State tax money to support the current operationsof public higher education is now on the order of $270million per year, of which about two-thirds is for theState University System (including agricultural educa-tion and research et the University of Florida and the

medical schools) and one-third for the community col-lege system. In addition, large amountsperhaps $45million in any one yea have been spent on capitaloutlay financed by selling bonds, which must eventu-ally be paid off by collections of taxes. There areroughly 185,000 students (full-time equivalent) in thetwo systems, about 100,000 of them in community col-leges. The private colleges in the state enroll on theorder. of 40,000 students, of which about 60 percentare from out of the state; in contrast, only about sixpercent of community college students and about 10percent of public university students are from out ofthe state.

The State Department of Education estimates theannual operating cost per full-time equivalent studentin the public sector as follows, for 1971-72:

State Universiti'sLower Division (freshman, sophomore years)Upper Division (junior, senior years)Beginning Graduate (generally master's degree)Advanced Graduate (generally doctorate)

Community Colleges

$17532144276762901152

Of this cost, only a rather small part is defrayed bystudent tuition. Tuition is $570 per year (three calendarquarters) for resident undergraduates, and $720 for resi--fent graduate students. Tuition in the community col-leges varies from one college to another, but is gener-ally between $200-300 per year. Tuition has covered20-25 percent of the operating costs of community col-leges in recent years.

It may be noted that in Florida the legal fiction isoften maintained that tuition is charged only to out-of-state students, while the fees charged to residentstudents are called registration fees. Most citizens andpolicy makers, however, call all required student feestuition, and I follow the same practice in this report.

Community College Funding

Community colleges are local agencies, in the fash-ion of school districts, subdivisions of the state butnot state government agencies. They are administer(by local boards of trustees, with some state coordina-tion and advice. Tuition is determined by the localboards with the approval of the Department ofEducation, and varies from one college to another.Almost all costs not defrayed by tuition are subsidizedby the state government; local school districts no longerhave any obligation to support the colleges, and theboards of trustees are independent of the county schoolboards.

Through the current budget year (1972-73) state sub-sidies have been allocated under a junior collegeMinimum Foundation Program, similar to the program

285

for state aid to elementary and secondary education(this dates from the past, when the colleges were oper-ated by school districts). The Minimum FoundationProgram gives a certain number of dollars per "in-struction unit"; one unit is earned per a certain numberof full-time equivalent students (FTE) in occupationaland compensatory education, or per a certain (higher)FTE in other programs. Some allowance is made forthe rank and experience of teachers in determiningthe dollars per unit, but no allowance for different classsizes and other factors which cause the costs of someprograms to be higher than others, and which causethe total operating costs of a college to depend onthe particular "mix" of programs it offers.

Starting in 1973-74, however, state contributions tooperating costs of a community college will be deter-mined by a new formula, which makes the amountdepend both on enrollment and on the averagestatewide costs of the various academic and occupa-tional programs offered there.' A college with moreof "ifs enrollment in high-cost programs will get moremoney than another one which has the same totalenrollment but fewer students in high-cost programs.The calculations and allocations will be madeseparately for colleges with less than 1300 FTE andcolleges with more than 1300 FTE, to allow foreconomies of scale. The general features of thisenrollment-cost formula have been written into statelaw by the Legislature.

The procedure will be to calculate statewide averagecosts in some recent base year for which full data areavailable, and then increase them by some percentage(the same for all colleges) to allow for increases insalaries and other costs since the base year.

Although the enrollment-cost formula will determinethe total amount to each college, that total will be givenas a block grant, and it will be left to the discretionof the college exactly how to spend itthe collegeis not bound to spend exactly the system-wide averageon each and every program,but can spend less on someprograms in order to spend more on others (more onthis later).

Even after the change in the formula for subsidizingoperating costs, capital funding will continue on thesame basis as now. Certain amounts pee FTE aregranted for capital outlay and debt service, out ofautomobile license tag fees. In addition, communitycolleges are allocated some of the money raised by

'The following discussion of the details of the new funding formulais based on the Department of Education's report, The New FundingProcess for Florida's Community C....eges (annotated version pre-pared by Citizens' Committee staff, 1972).

issuing state higher education bonds, which are repaidout of a tax on gross utility receipts.

From calculations of statewide cost per FTE forthe sample year 1970-71, we can pick out some exam-ples of programs which cost more than the average:architecture and engineering, agriculture, healthcareers, occupational. On the other hand, examplesof programs costing less than the average are law,library science, psychology, social sciences. The aver-age cost per FTE for all programs was $1,080 in1970-71. The occupational categories to be used in thecalculations all had costs either essentially equal to theaverage or somewhat above it in 1970-71.

Incentives in the New Z'ormula-- '

In the new formula, a college's enrollment in anyparticular program will generate for the college anamount of state aid equal to the enrollment times theaverage cost of that program in the whole system. Ifits own program has much higher costs than theaverage, the college will be able to cover the costsonly by cutting back on some other programsspend-ing less per student than the state average in thoseother programs. This will be permitted under thesystem, but there is a limit to how many such programs,with costs above the state average, local administratorscan support in that way. Each program dean or chair-man will know just how much of the state subsidyhis own program was responsible for generating, andmay have a persuasive argument against cutting backon it to cover higher costs in other programs. Thismeans that institutions will-have some incentive toavoid programs which have very high overhead costand enrollments which are small relative to the stateaverage. This should contribute to general efficiency.

However, there is no great incentive, in the formulaitself, to control the level of costs for programs whichalready have enough enrollment to spread overheadand whose average costs are near the state average.Nor are there incentives to prevent all the communitycolleges together from putting in high-cost, low enroll-ment programs. Once high costs are incurred in thesystem in any one year, they become base-year costsfor determining the request for state aid in a succeedingyear, and thus may become embedded in the systemfor many years to come. Once tolerated, .hey tendautomatically to perpetuate themselves, unless vigi-lance is exercised and the formula altered to weedthem out. This is recognized by some people in thecommunity college system, but it is not clear howmachof a problem it will be. One must hope there will beadequate attention to the need for incentives forefficiency, and that there will be scrutiny of system-wide costs by decision makers of all kinds, including

286

legislators. This is not to impugn the motives of com-munity college administrators. In my travels about thestate, I was greatly impressed with their conscientious-ness and dedication to keeping costs low. And datapresented above show their costsare low. But no publicshould have to rely solely on the good motives ofadministrators to achieve efficiency; it needs to haveother devices at its disposal. Thus, it is important tokeep in mind that the new formula per se is not muchof such a device.

On the other hand, the same sort of problem existsunder the Minimum Foundation Program now. Stu-dents contribute only a small part of the costs, andlocal taxpayers contribute even less. These two groups,Which might otherwise be relied on to curb inefficiency,have little reason to do so when almost all of the costsare paid for out of taxes levied on the state as a whole.At least the new formula will allow the display of muchmore information about the operations of collegeswhich will help legislators and other decision makersanalyze much more easily the various forces in deter-mining c .ts in the system.

Two other noteworthy features follow. After anamount is calculated for each college based on itsenrollment and statewide average costs, two amountsare subtracted to reflect the fact that colleges neednot cover all their operating costs by state funds, butcan use tuition fees and federal funds as well. Theaverage percentage which student fees were in the baseyear for all community colleges in the state is to be cal-culated, and that percentage subtracted from the esti-mate of costs before determining the amount of stateaid. In 1970-71 this percentage will be 21.1 per cent. Thesame is to be done for money from federal sources,except that an average over a four-year period is tobe used. For the four years ending in 1970-71, thispercentage will be 5.049 percent. All this means thata college which levies tuition fees greater than the stateaverage, or which succeeds in attracting federal fundsto a greater than average degree, will not have its stategrant cut back to reflect that action (except to theextentits actions affect the statewide average! This will benegligible except perhaps for Miami-Dade CommunityCollege.). Rather, the above-average tuitionand federalsupport will be available to support higher quality, orat any rate, higher costs in all its programs takentogether. These features mean the college can supportadditional costs if it can sell the federal governmentor students on the idea they are worth paying.

The State University System

All nine state universities offer specialized junior-and senior-year and lower-level graduate work

(generally master's degree programs). Five of themalso offer lower-division courses, and two of themtheUniversity of Florida and Florida State Univer-sityoffer advanced graduate work (generally doctoralprograms). What is called a "university system" inFlorida might be called a system of two universitiesand seven state colleges in some other states, becauseonly two institutions offer advanced graduate work.However, similar nomenclature is found elsewhere,and is unimportant in any event. All universities func-tion under the supervision ot one Board of Regents,which sets common policies on many things, in consul-tation with the presidents and other officials of thenine institutions. The Board has set aconscious policyof limiting the creation of expensive, new programs,and there is currently a moratorium on new doctoralprograms. It also is in the process of reviewing thecurrent output of existing graduate programs, with aview to possible elimination or consolidation of oneswith very low output. This sort of review, of course,has been going on in other states as well.'

State subsidies are now appropriated to the Boardof Regents for all nine universities combined, and theBoard determines how much each university gets ofthis total. The allocation is largely determined by theenrollment in each university and the costs of its pro-grams, in the same spirit as the new funding formulafor community colleges, but it is not written into statelaw as it is for community colleges. In the State Univer-sity System, the allocation of money for instructionand research is according to a principle of "comparabledollars for comparable programs" (with some modifi-cations, to be mentioned later, which are importantto some universities but relatively minor compared tothe whole system). However, as in the community col-lege funding, the formulae are used only to generatethe total amount to be given each university. Theuniversity is free to allocate funds to differentdeparnents and programs as it wishes, and is notbound to give a department exactly the number of dol-lars which the department's enrollment generated bythe formula. However, in making appropriations, theLegislature does specify limits on the amounts to bespent for each of several object categories: salaries,other personal services (graduate assistants, consul-tants, faculty sabbaticals, etc.), expense, and operat-ing capital outlay (books and other small items ofequipment). Universities can transfer funds from oneof these categories to another only to a limited degree.

The alloCation principle calls for different expendi-ture per student in the four levels of education: lower

'"Limit on Ph. D.'s Sought by States; Costs a Factor," Chronicleof Higher Education, February 12, 1973, p. 1.

287

division, upper division, beginning graduate, andadvanced graduate, going from loivest expenditure tohighest. Thus, the University of Florida and FloridaState University receive more per student than theother universities mainly by virtue of their manyadvanced graduate students. The principle also recog-nizes that within each level of education, there aresome differences in costs between academic depart-ments. Therefore, two universities may not get thesame number of dollars per student even if the samelevels of education are represented in both (that is,for example, two upper division universities, both ofwhich have junior and senior undergraduates andbeginning graduate students, may not receive exactlythe same number of instructional dollars per student).

In the allocation of academic positions, the majormodifications to the principle of comparable dollarsfor comparable programs include extra allocations,above the usual formula, to Florida Agricultural andMechanical University, for compensatory programs tobring disadvantaged freshmen and sophomores up toa certain level before they proceed into the upperdivision: allocations to the University of Florida andFlorida State University to match federal grants forcertain programs; allocations to the two newest univer-sities to help develop new programs; and somesmoothing out over time of the effects of any sharpchanges in enrollments at each institution. There arealso many smaller modifications. All these are pre-cisely specified in staff reports available to legislativecommittees, the universities, and others. The excep-tions covered only about four percent of all theacademic positions in the whole system for 1972-73.

Some general examples of application of the alloca-tion formulae may be useful.' "Productivity factors"are calculated for the entire university system (notehere again a feature which will also be used in thenew community college system), as the ratio of studentcredit hours to faculty members. These are doneseparately for different disciplines and different levels.The factors are applied to projected student enrollmentin each level and discipline in a university to get theallocated number of teaching faculty positions. Atsome later time, when actual enrollments are known,an adjustment is made for the difference from the pro-jections.

The number of research positions are allocated onthe basis of one per 12 teaching positions, one perfour teaching positions, and one per two teaching posi-tions, at the undergraduate levels, beginning graduate,

'The following discussion is based on Board of Regents, Explana-tion of Allocation of 1972-73 Educational and General Appro-priation,and accompanying tables, mimeo.

and advanced graduate levels, respectively. Theamount allocated for salaries is determined by applyingsystem-wide average salaries. These are calculatedseparately for discipline category and activity (e.g.,lower-level teaching, upper-level teaching, research,etc.). Each university is allocated a total for academicsalaries by multiplying its allocation of FTE facultyin each discipline and activity by the system-wideaverages; differences in average salaries from one uni-versity to another are due only to differences in mixof programs and activities.

A number of nonacademic positions are allocatedon the basis of academic positions, which means thatindirectly they are based on student enrollment too.For example, nonacademic positions in academic pro-grams (technicians, etc.) were allocated for 1972-73 onthe basis of one position per 3.24 academic positionsat all universities except the University of Florida andFlorida State University, for which one per 3.10 wasused to allow for the relatively heavy requirementsin science programs there.

The distribution of general administration positionsexpenses is based on the number of academic positions,but recognizes economies of scale: that is, the numberof dollars per academic position declines as the numberof academic positions rise. (For 1972-73, the formulagave each university a flat amount of $847,068 plus$2,052 per academic position.) Academic administra-tion positions (deans and department chairmen) wereallocated on the basis of one per 13 academic positions.General expenses for instruction and research, otherthan salaries, are also allocated as so much peracademic position.

Formulae for current library operations are verycomplicated. Some money is allocated in equalamounts to each university, without regard to size orprograms; some is allocated in a complicated way bystudent enrollment, number of faculty, number of mas-ter's programs, and number of doctoral programs; andsome is allocated° according to how "deficient" a uni-versity's present collection is, as measured by a mod-ified version of a standard developed in the state ofWashington. This last method does have a shortcom-ing, as was pointed out by officials of one universityI visited. A university in the past may have spent moreon its library collection than the formula amount(which, remember, it is free to do, because of the blockgrant system), to build up its quality, or it may havereceived gifts for that purpose. But if the quality isthus improved, it will not be as "deficient" as someother universities, and will actually get less in the futurethan the others!

Role of the Formulae

The Board of Regents'has emphasized allocationsby systematic formulae based on enrollments and costsfor some time, and the system is widely known in highereducation circles outside of Florida for suchtechniques. A common interpretation in the state isthat this is the only feasible manner of dealing withthe 'particular political situation in Florida. The StateUniversity System is made up of institutions whichare quite different in certain ways. Two of them werestrong public universities before 1960, emphasizingundergraduate and graduate work and research(Florida and Florida State). Another was a muchunderfunded university primarily for black students(Florida A and M). All three of those are in smallcities, in the northern part of the state, away fromthe largest and more rapidly growing metropolitanareas of the south. The two strong universities, how-ever, had politically influential alumni, which gener-ated political support despite their not being in popu-lous areas. In time, political pressures built to upgradeFlorida A and M as well. In the 1960's and early 1970'ssix new universities were added, four of them in largecities nearer the bulk of the state's population. Becauseof their politically more favorable location, there was

considerable-political pressure for the establishmentof the new universities, and there is continued politicalpressure to fund them adequately, just as there is politi-cal pressure to continue to fund the older universitieswell. In addition, the nine universities differ in otherways: two offer doctorates; A and M has been assigneda duty of compensatory education; four of them haveno freshmen or sophomores; two of them have every-thing but advanced graduate programs. In this kindof situation, it has perhaps proved essential to havea fairly precise way of parceling out the money, sothat the decisions can at least be explained to all thepeople who are likely to find reason to criticize theresults.

288

It is important to remember the difficult positionof the Chancellor and the staff of the Board of Regentsin a situation like this. They have no sharply definedpolitical constituency, with votes at the ballot box;they have no group of loyal alumni solidly behind them;they have no football team.

In the newer, less prestigious universities and inFlorida A and M, a frequent view seems to be thatsome sort of formula is absolutely essential, to putit roughly, "to see that we get our share in competitidnwith the University of Florida and Florida State."However, there is considerable dissatisfaction with theparticular formulae used. This is inevitable when bud-get scarcity prevents anyone from getting all the money

he wants or feels he "needs" to produce goodeducation, and it cannot be taken necessarily as evi-dence that the formulae are not valid ones. I heardthe view expressed that the allocation must make eachuniversity "equally unhappy." (Someone in commun-ity college circles used the same phrase in describinghow the limited funds for new construction wereallocated to all the community colleges with pressingneeds.) This principle makes good sense if it can beassumed that the unhappiness of each university isan accurate reflection of the educational merit of theactivities which are cut out because there is not enoughmoney to go around. That is probably not a completelyaccurate assumption, but the "unequal unhappiness"criterion may be about as good as any other one, giventhat no one knows very well how to quantify the realoutput of educational expenditures anyway.

There is a lot of unhappiness about the emphasisin the formulae on enrollment, implying that univer-sities get their money only by successfully competingfor students. I happen to believe the emphasis onenrollment is a good one, at least in determining thetotal amount given to each university. It imposes adiscipline on universities, forcing them to heed the'needs and preferences of that part of the populationwhich has more stake than any other in what goeson in the university system (although, of course, theydo not have the only stake, by any means). A universityis still free to allocate funds internally in ways notstrictly dependent on enrollment, which gives it suf-ficient freedom to practice its own educationalphilosophy once it has held out enough promise toattract students in the first place.

Smaller universities argue that the formulae do notgive them enough extra positions per student to offsettheir higher average costs as a small institution. Upperdivision universities, limited to upper division andbeginning graduate students, argue that it is notadequate for them to receive the same number of dol-lars per student as other, more diversified universitiesreceive for the same upper division and beginninggraduate students. Their argument is that the diversityof the others gives an internal flexibility in using facultyand other resources which they do not have. Therefore,they argue they should receive more dollars per studentthan others. This argument seems* to me to be quitelogical, and I feel it is worth much more attention thanit seems to have been given. However, when I outlinedthe same argument to a very knowledgeable personin higher education in the state, he suggested that itwas hard enough maintaining a policy of giving as manydollars per student to the upper division universitiesas to some others!

289

Whatever may be said about the formula allocation,one thing is clear; the principle of comparable fundingdoes demonstrate a serious commitment to makeresources of quality generally available to populationspread all over the state. Combined with the limitationon graduate programs, it is in basic outline a suitableapproach to meet the needs of accessibility while avoid-ing the unnecessary duplication of high-cost programs.Some duplication is necessary to meet the goal of geo-graphical accessibility, of course. However, the long-established position of Florida and Florida State doesgive them a prestige which attracts a disproportionateshare of high-income students, who can more easilyafford the higher costs of living away from home. Thisproblem is treated in a later section of the report, onequity. It may be seen as a problem, but the solutionto it is certainly not to alter..the funding system tooffset it by giving less to those two universities; thesolution is rather to introduce more financial aid forpoor students, so that poorer students have the samerange of choice as richer ones haveso they can paythe higher costs if they are suited to Florida and/orFlorida State and if they find either of the two suitedto their own interests.

The experience in formula allocation, and in makingthe kinds of exceptions to it which can rationally bemade and defended, will stand the Board of Regentsand its staff in good stead in the coming years. It willbe needed to cope with problems raised by the slowergrowth in enrollment which is already apparent, andby any rapid shifts in the position of various univer-sities. For example, it should prove very helpful inforcing the adjustments which seem certain to berequired in the near future as a result of the decreasingneed for graduates in the field of, education. This isdiscussed at more length below.

The best way to use enrollment-cost formulae is toestablish a first approximation of the most productiveallocation among competing universities. Because itrewards universities which attract students, the firstapproximation is a pretty goof one as a start. It wouldbe even better if those stuG, its who are able to paymore of the costs of education without strain, werein fact required to do so. Then success in attractingstudents would be a more severe test, especiallybecause competition from private colleges would bemore effective, and success in the test would be evenmore convincing than it is now. But in any event, theformulae can produce only the first approximation.Exceptions will always be calicd for, and the Boardof Regents will always have to make educational policydecisions which imply what exceptions are needed.In the long run. the Board should not shrink from thisduty. At the moment, given the political situation

described above, there may be justification for stickingas closely to the enrollment-cost formulae as is donenow. But in the future, as the system is more "shakendown," as it were, and the relative positions of univer-sities more clearly established, more departures maybe possible. Some departutes may be ones which assignspecialized- missions to certain universities and givethe extra resources, if needed, to accomplish them.Merely as two examplesthey are only exam-plesFlorida A and M, and perhaps the Universityof North Florida, might be given extra resources toupgrade education of disadvantaged students. A andM already receives extra funds for this, of course,but the question is whether enough is being done andwhether other universities should be brought into themission. It may be beneficial, for example, to bringa university into the mission which is not so stronglyfelt to be the "black" school in the system. I merelygive this as an example of a possible exception to theformulae, which must be decided for or against afterexplicit discussion (I don't pretend to decide for oragainst). Another possible example may be to give oneof the universities extra resources in order to permitit to function like a small liberal arts college even asits total size grows (perhaps using the "cluster" idea,which has been already tried at University of WestFlorida and elsewhere in the nation). This would rep-resent a conscious sacrifice of some of the economiesof scale, to achieve an objective other than the minimi-zation of cost.

Yet another kind of exception is where economiesof scale are given more weight than nowwhere expen-sive graduate programs are eliminated or consolidated.Given the lack of jobs for some advanced graduatesit may be necessary to say that a certain program cannotbe offered at both the University of Florida andFlorida State, if the enrollments are small at bothplaces. Perhaps the two should be combined into one,or even both of them eliminated and a replacementestablished at still another university. The Board hasalready announced a review of low enrollment graduateprograms, so apparently it is ready to face this question.

The formula system has the same advantages thenew community college formula will havethe effec-tive display of information and the systematic consider-ation of factors which cause variation in the costsof various educational programs. Legislators and otherdecision makers can continue to use this informationto make intelligent decisions without having to bebound by precise mathematical rules which leave nogrounds for exceptions. But, as with the communitycollege system, the formula itself does r.ot guaranteeefficiency; in using system-wide averages for thepivotal starting point, which is the credit hours per

290

teaching position in the previous year, there is a dangerof freezing high costs in the system once they are toler-ated, unless the information generated is analyzed care-fully each time around.

Administrative Problems

State universities are treated like state agencies, notlike community colleges which are more like local gov-ernments. Their budgeting, disbursements, personnelpractices, and a host of other everyday administrativeoperations are subject to close regulation, control, andaudit by various parts of the state government. Someof this control is exercised by the Board of Regentsout of a desire to insure uniformity of certain practices,but a great deal is exercised by other state agencieswhich apply the maze of bureaucratic regulations whichhave routinely developed in state governments ostensi-bly to protect the taxpayers' interests.

State universities should be regulated to somedegree, because they use tax dollars, but one stronglysuspects that there is now excessive control over them.The autonomy of local administrators is restricted tothe point of actually interfering with efficiency. Prob-lems seem to be especially severe in personnel clas-sification, choice of vendors for supplies and services,and transfers out of one state budget category toanother. One hypothetical example given me was thechoice between one skilled employee to do a job, at,say, a salary of $10,000, and two unskilled or incompe-tent persons, at, say a salary of $7,000 each. But, ifusing the one employee requires a reclassification ofposition or increase in salary, getting approval for thatmay be so difficult and take so long that supervisorsgive up in disgust, and pay $14,000 for two unskilledpersons instead of $10,000 fora skilled one. In anothercase, I heard of a university being offered servicesa professional person wished to donate, and which itjudged valuable and wanted to accept, but could notdo so because of state regulations on choice of vendors.

To many it is a joke ("Someone must have stolenthis state blind once, or it wouldn't be so nervous aboutevery penny"), but I saw many cases of extreme frus-tration, lack' of morale, and draining of energy intoattempts to cope with the systemor to beat it. Peoplein private colleges and in community colleges pointedout how fortunate they were to have more control overtheir own operations then their counterparts in stateuniversities, Most people seem to feel that other stateagencies, rather than the Board of Regents staff, arethe chief problem for them. Some Board of Regentsstaff point out that the staff actually assists universitiesin gaining some freedom from excessive regulation bynegotiation with other agencies and application for

exceptions to be made to regulations, but sometimesthis is seen by campus administrators as compoundingthe problem"There are too many people interpretingwhat a university wants to do." I recommend therebe some loosening of controls with an aim to increaseefficiency and to give university administrations morescope to exercise their own responsibility. I especiallyfavor this because it should encourage more innovationand experimentation in cooperation by state univer-sities with community colleges and private colleges.There are now a number of fine examples of suchcooperation; but many administrators report they aregreatly inhibited-by-regulations on use of state prop-erty, transfers of funds from one budget category toanother, setting of fees for students in special circum-stances, etc. In many cases it can be shown that thereare actually no legal barriers to certain novel andinnovative actionsthat administrators actually cando some of the things they now think they cannot.But people have had such bad experience with redtape that they become "afraid to ask" whether certainthings can be done or not.

It should not be inferred from these comments thatevery vice-president, dean, department head, orfaculty member in the state universities is full of innova-tive ideas, but is bound hand and foot unable to move.As said earlier, there have been some notable examplesof cooperation, especially between universities andcommunity -colleges, which provide better programsat less total cost. But on the other side, some mayuse the well-known problem of red tape as an excusenot to try anything new at all. If that is the case, thered tape is doubly unfortunate.

One recommendation often made for more rationalbudgeting is that some amount of the funds budgetedfor a particular fiscal year, but not spent in that year,be permitted to be carried over for use in the followingyear. It should not be insisted that funds budgetedfor a year all be spent in that year, down to the lastdollar, or not spent at all.

It may be noted that changes to increase the effectiveresponsibility of university administrations do notnecessarily rest only on the grounds that academicinstitutions are inherently different from other stateagencies. To some extent, there may be grounds fortreating them as different. But, careful analysis mayshow that changes needed to improve their efficiencyshould be applied to other state agencies too, and,canimprove efficiency there also.

I recommend that this whole question be given seri-ous consideration by the state government. I do notthink the many complaints I received can be attributedmerely to random occurrences, or to academic snob-

291

bishness. It would be worthwhile to try out somethinglike the experiment proposed by the University of WestFlorida (introduced into the Legislature last year butnot voted upon), under which it would be freed frommany of the detailed state government regulations, andin return guarantee to turn back to the state treasurysome sizeable fraction (rising to five percent after afew years of the experiment) of its total allocation fromstate appropriations. This would certainly be a suitabletest of the oft-heard claim that the present regulationsactually cost the state a lot of money.

Reduced Demand for Teachers

In Attachment F various factors in the supply anddemand for teachers in Florida are analyze, Projec-tions of trends in elementary -Ind 5.-condar schoolenrollments, and in the outpu. ! Jucation d, reesof higher education, point to an ,..:rsupply of teachersin the coming decade, especially at the elementarylevel. It is likely that the trends will be altered, ofcourse, as young people realize that jobs in teachingare scarce, and switch their interests and training intosomething elseor perhaps skip college altogether.

The latest information on output of educationdegrees in the State University System is degreesawarded during 1970-71. There were 5,843 degrees ofall kinds in education. Of them, 3,884 were bachelor'sdegrees, or about 28 percent of all bachelor's degreesawarded by the state universities; 1,884 were in generalelementary education, the kind which is most likely tobe in oversupply, and they were just about half ofall bachelor's degrees in education and about one inseven of all bachelor's degrees in the system. Therewere 1,725 master's degrees in education, which was46 percent of all master's degrees. That very high per-centage is explained by the fact that education andbusiness are far and away the two most important mas-ter's programs at the state universities other thanFlorida and Florida State (but about one-third of allmaster's degrees at those two universities were ineducation too). Finally, there were 234 doctorates ineducation, a fourth of all doctorates of any kind.'

The 1970-71 output represented a healthy increaseover 1969-70 in all three degrees, including bachelor'sin elementary education. Bachelor's degrees in educa-tion increased 24 percent over the previous year;bachelor's in elementary education were up 11 percent.Master's were up 16 percent and doctorates up 44 per-cent. The total number of all three combined was up22 percent.

'This paragraph and the next two are based on data in the 1972Fact Book of the State University System, Board of Regents, Tal-lahassee, 1972.

Thus, the number increased very rapidly even asa possible oversupply was becoming quite apparent.And all of these figures, of course, are for the outputonly of the State University System. The supply inthe market will also include many graduates of thestate's private colleges, as discussed in AttachmentF. In addition, there are two new state universitieswhich opened in the fall of 1972 which have madesubstantial investments in training of teachers. Theallocation formulae of the Board of Regents for 1972-73were based on a projected FTE enrollment of about950 undergraduates in education at the two newschools, Florida International and University of NorthFlorida. For the whole nine-university system, the pro-jected FTE enrollment was about 11,000 under-graduates in education (about one in six of all under-graduates), about 2,350 masters and doctoral students(about 22 percent of all graduate students). Thesefigures are for students taking courses on main cam-puses only; another 1600 FTE were projected for off-campus students).1 Naturally, not all these studentswill finish their course and look for jobs as teachers.However, these figures indicate the vast amount ofresources devoted to education students in the StateUniversity System. It is true that the productivity fac-tors for education faculty are somewhat higher (thatis, the teacher-student ratios are lower) than for theaverage course in the upper division and at the master'slevel; they are about 10 percent higher in the upperdivision, where two-thirds of all the FTE in educationare, and about 20 percent higher for master's. Theproductivity factor is very nearly the average for doc-toral courses, which means that doctoral work ineducation costs a great deal, just as all doctoral workdoes.2

The natural forces of the market will help eliminateany oversupply of teachers in time. The interest inteaching careers has declined sharply in the nation'scollege students. Each fall the American Council onEducation takes a survey of college freshmen, on theirattitudes and career 'plans. The 1972 survey resultsshow that 7.3 percent of freshmen across the countryplanned to major in education, compared to 11.6 per-cent just two years before, and 10.6 percent in 1966.In 1966, 21.7 percent said elementary or secondaryteaching was their probable career; in 1968 this hadrisen to 23.5 percent, but in 1970 it was down to 21.3percent and last fall it had dropped to 11.7 percent.3

'Tables accompanying Board of Rejents, Explanation of Alloca-tion of 1972-73 Educational and General Appropriation, mimeo.

21bid.

3As reported in "Freshmen Show Conservative Shift." Chron-icle of Higher Education, February 12, 1973, p. I.

292

However, the market may be slow in forcing theadjustment in capacity in higher education: even withenrollment-based allocations used in Florida, the inter-nal allocations of faculty within a university may notreflect the declire in enrollment except after somedelay.

I found people in higher education in Florida gener-ally aware of the need to hasten adjustments incapacity. People in colleges and departments of educa-tion are aware of three main features of the adjustmentswhich should be made:

1. A general contraction of enrollments in educationin the State University System as a whole. Re-cently, the Board of Regents has urged universitiesto impose higher standards for graduate students,for example.

2. A need to reallocate manpower within educationcolleges and departments to emphasize specializedteacher training, such as kindergarten teaching andteaching of handicapped and culturally disadvan-taged children. These specialties will likely be oneswhere current output is still too low, not too high.But it is also recognized that change comes slow-lyhabits of mind in the faculty and administrationare slow to change, and it may take a long timeto weed out inappropriate faculty and make thecritical new appointments to reflect the newemphases.

3. The possibility of large changes in the relative posi-t. Ins of the various state universities. Since educa-t. n is such a large factor in total enrollment andthe allocation of funds, the competition for studentsin a declining market may be very severe. The pres-sures for making "temporary exceptions" to theusual allocation formulae will be strong, and thetrick will be to make some exceptions to ease theadjustment problems without making so many thatincentives to hasten the adjustment are blunted.

It should be apparent that in the current situation,active cooperation between the public sectors and theprivate colleges is necessary.

There may be an unrealistic set of expectations heldin any one university as regards the oversupply ofeducation graduates. Some of the older establishedschools, including some private colleges with prestigein educating teachers, may be quite confident of holdingtheir own in a declining market. On the other hand,the newer state universities may be quite confidentof holding their own because they are in very largemetropolitan areas; they may rely on keeping up theirenrollments by, winning over students who previouslywent far away for teacher training. Unfortunately, it

will be very unlikely that all colleges and universitieshold their own!

Fortunately, the Board of Regents has shown ascepticism of institutions' own enrollment trends, andthus may be able to guard against the shock of havingto adjust to the sudden dangers of competitive over-optimism on their part.' The Board may also haveto prOd particular universities to make internal realloca-tions of faculty manpower faster than they otherwisewould, although I do not say this with any particularcase in mind. One crucial thing to remember is thedangers of overreacting. Not all teacher training willbecome obsolete overnight. Some specialty skills arestill much in demand, and the output of them actuallyneeds to be increased in the years ahead. It is importantto reorient teacher training, to meet new needs, of thekind stressed in the recommendations on elementaryand secondary education in other parts of this report.

II. FUTURE COOPERATIONBETWEEN SECTORS

One crucial reason for giving more autonomy andresponsibilility to university administrators will be toencourage them to cooperate with other institutions.Experiments in this direction are absolutely vital ifa new spirit of cooperation is to be developed betweenthe three groups of institutions in Floridathe privatecolleges, public community colleges, and the state uni-versities. It is important that cooperation developthrough individual initiative at the local level, as wellas being urged on institutions by central planners instate organizations. That cooperation will be valuablein improving efficient use and coordination of all theresources of higher education in the state, includingthe private resources. All this should be a high-prioritygoal for the state, and it is consistent with a narrowingof the tuition gap between the public and private sec-tors, which is recommended below.

The regional groupings of diverse institutions in thestate offer an excellent chance for cooperation andspecialization in the future. In a number of laige citiesa state university, one or more private colleges, andone or more community colleges all exist reasonablyclose to each other. This is true of Miumi, Tampa,JacksonVille, and Orlando. Because there are commun-iq colleges near everything, there is one near everystate university and near every private college. Theproximity of Florida State University and Florida Aand M, and of Florida Atlantic and Florida Interna-tional offer added possibilities, some of which are

'David C. McOuat, Enrollment Projections for the State Univer-

sity System of Florida, 1972-80, Board of Regents Report 72-20,Tallahassee, 1972, mimeo.

293

already being exploited by the universities involved.The groupings offer good chances for cooperation in

the design of new programs and realignment of oldones; the sharing of physical facilities, students,faculty, and in-service facilities (such as hospitals forparamedial programs) should save costs for all con-cerned. It should be made easy for students to transferfrom one type of institution to another, or even toattend two institutions simultaneously, if it helps stu-dents to finance their education or to obtain the optimaleducational pattern.

Close attention should be given to these regionalgroupings. For example, it may be more desirable tocoordinate a state university's calendar with the calen-dars of other institutions near it than to coordinateit with the calendar of all other state universities acrossthe state. Where an active spirit of experimentationis evident, presidents of state universities ought to begiven sizeable discretionary funds to finance ad hocarrangements. -.-

The lack of public transportation in Florida, espe-cially given the location of some universities and com-munity colleges, seems a serious burden on the poorerstudents. A public institution may require funds inorder to support such cooperation even when it cannotclaim credit for all or even part of the enrollment in-volved; this sort of exception to the usual formula isneeded if the result is a saving in other activities notdirectly connected with the one in question.

One ge, clhzni_ in tuition policy would also helpout here. Presently, it is financially burdensome fora student who is essentially full-time at one institutionto rake occasional courses, one at a time, at a neighbor-ing institution. A student who takes most of his coursesat a state university, for example, must pay the regularfull-time tuition fee in all quarters, even if he occasion-ally takes a few hours less than the standard full-timeload in ord,?r to take a single course at a communitycollege or private college down the street. Yet takingthe occasional course elsewhere may be quite valuableto him and contribute greatly to his education; thiswould be true especially if his university is an upper-division one and he wishes to take some lower-divisioncourses he had missed before transferring. Taking suchlower-division courses may help to fill in gaps in hisliberal education, which he comes to understand onlyafter leaving the lower division.

The present disincentive to do this could beeliminated if tuition were charged as a flat amount perstudent credit hour, with no distinction between part-time students and full-time students. A student wouldpay only for the credit hours he takes, rather thanhaving to pay the full-time tuition fee as long as he

takes more than eight hours, for example, if that isthe dividing line between full and part-time in hisinstitution. This would make it easier to substitutecourses at other institutions nearby for ones at his maininstitution. It would also make it easier for him towork part-time in order to earn his expenses. Needlessto say, it would help if private institutions adopteda tuition charge on the same principle.

The state already has some of the basic forms oforganization which will be needed to foster cooperationin the future. The chief example is the staff of theState University System, which is large, very compe-tent and experienced in central coordination and plan-ning. The staff should be a valuable asset in initiatingfuture efforts on behalf of all of higher education. Thestaff has quite naturally been occupied with the tradi-tional needs of the past: coping with large enrollmentincreases and new campuses; establishing uniformityin various procedures in all universities; applicationof new systematic budgeting techniques; distributingfunds equitably to new universities in a state wheretwo older institutions have long been dominant andwhich still command great loyalty and public support;the need to cope with bureaucracies in other stateagencies which impinge on the universities. In thefuture, perhaps the direction of work can be changedsomewhat, toward encouraging cooperation betweensectors, although there are a number of accomplish-ments which are very important: the articulation agree-ment with community colleges is the major example,and is widely claimed to be the great accomplishmentof cooperation. But more needs to be done. Forexample, a recent report on the operation of the manyinterinstitutional committees in the State UniversitySystem reveals very-few examples of committees whowork to seek cooperation with institutions other thanstate universities.' But, however the needs of themoment are interpreted and however the success ofthe organization judged, it is a fact that the existenceand experience of the organization will be tremen-dously useful assets for the state to have in the future.It should be retained as a strong staff, with high morale.

It must be stressed that the private sector has agreat responsibility for encouraging cooperation aswell. The rublic sector sometimes appears disin-terested, which is one reason why there is less coopera-tion now than there might be. If a number of thingshappen in the public sector to facilitate cooperation,such as the ones I have discussed above and the nar-rowing of the tuition gap discussed below, there will

'Board of Regents, Report on the State Univcsity Interinstitu-tional Committee System, October 1972, mimeo, Board of RegentsPublication 72-25.

294

still have to be active interest on the part of the privatecolleges in order for effective cooperation to succeed.

Private colleges need to develop more effectivemeans of cooperating with each other. So far, coopera-tion seems to have been limited to one or two pairsof institutions, and to cooperation in public relationsand legislative lobbying. In addition, private collegesshould begin to think about the long-run implicationsof future cooperation between public and private sec-tors and increased state government coordination ofall the resources of higher education in the state.Increased state financial assistance to private colleges,or to students attending them, may lead to increaseddemands for such coordination. Private colleges needto analyze how much "coordination" they can tolerate.That does not mean that they should necessarily decideimmediately that they can tolerate none at all. Justhow much independence private colleges must haveto preserve their uniqueness is still a largely unexploredquestion, in Florida as elsewhere.

Private colleges in Florida must especially considercarefully their position in a state where communitycolleges and upper-division universities are so impor-tant. It would be useful for the liberal arts collegesto explore some educational "packages" which so farthey have paid little attention to. One is a two-yearpackage, explicitly designed for freshmen andsophmores who plan to transfer from the private collegeafter two years into a large state university where agreater variety of specialized programs are availablefor the junior and senior years. ,Such a package maybe quite attractive to young peopl.., who cannot affordor do not want to pay the costs of four years at aprivate college, but who would like the smallness ofa liberal arts college during the two years immediatelyafter high school, when their adjustment problems aresubstantial. Private colleges should be able to createattractive packages, working with the universities thetransfers are most likely to go to, without reducingthemselves to glorified community colleges. The sec-ond is the more usual junior- and senior-year packagedesigned for community college transfers. The com-munity college-private college combination has alreadyproved attractive to some students. There does seemalready to be increasing interest in community collegetransfers on the part of private colleges in Florida.

III. SHORTCOMINGS INTHE STATE'S FINANCING SYSII.M

There are two major shortcomings in Florida's pres-ent system of financing higher education. First, atpresent the state's expenditure is excessively concen-trated on students who attend two particular subsets

of the state's colleges and universitiesthe public com-munity colleges and the state universities. These areinstitutions the state has created and nourished, andover which it has some degree of operating control(much more in the case of the universities than thecommunity colleges). As discussed below in moredetail, there were strong reasons for the establishmentand rapid expansion of these two classes of publicinstitutions, and there are strong reasons for preservingthem. There are many students whose interests andabilities are suited to the particular locations, academicand occupational programs, and student bodies theinstitutions offer. But at this point in time, it is desirableto make some of the state's subsidies available to allstudents in the state, including those who choose theaccredited private colleges and universities.

The heavy state suosidies, tied to attendance at pub-lic institutions (except for the very small new FloridaAssistance Grants program, which granted ?bout $1200to each of about 3,000 students during the 1972-73 col-lege year; half of the students attend private colleges),have presented unfair competition to the privateschools and put them in a potentially precariousposition. The demise of private colleges would repre-sent a serious loss of educational resources to the state,and would ultimately deprive taxpayers of some low-cost options for providing higher education to thestate's youth, and also would unduly deprive manycitizens of educational options they value highly. Thesituation can be alleviated by narrowing the cost differ-ential between public and private institutions in theamounts students must pay. This can be done withoutgoing so far as to put the public and private systemson a completely equal footing in their access to statefunds. The state systems can continue to be heavilyfavored. But, at the moment, the imbalance is too great.The state should concentrate on offering financialassistance to students, and then let students and institu-tions match themselves in a process of competition.Some narrowing of the tuition differential between pub-lic and private sectors would improve the process ofcompetition, enlarging the effective choice of studentssignific- tly. It would also permit utilization of someexcess capacity in the private sector, rather thanexpanding capital facilities and other overheadexpenses in the public sector.'

The second major shortcoming is that the state'ssubsidies are offered indiscriminately to all students

'A joint legislative committee in California has recently recom-mended major changes for higher education including awarding allcollege students vouchers to pay for their education at public orprivate colleges. This would assist private institutions and at thesame time give students greater freedom of choice. The Chronieleof Higher Education, February 20, 1973, p. 5.

in the public sector, no matter how high their familyincome, and without even a rough judgment whetherall the subsidy given to them is necessary to inducetheir investment in higher education. It would be betterto give aid selectively to poor and lower-middle-incomestudents, who, evidence suggests, are in general theones for whom the aid really makes a difference inwhether 'or not they invest their time, energy, andmoney in higher education.

It is apparent that a change which attacks both short-comings at the same.time is to raise tuition substantial-lybut still keep it well below the cost of educationinpublic community colleges and universities, and tooffer grants directly to students in amounts inverselyrelated to family income. Students should be permittedto use the grants to pay tuition and other expensesat any accredited institution in the state (public orprivate, two year or four year) although the exactamount may depend somewhat on the costs at theinstitution the student wishes to attend, as well as onhis income. Students with family incomes above somehigh level (perhaps $15,000 per year) would receiveno grants, although ample loan funds should be madeavailable to help them or their families finance thehigher costs which would result if tuition is raised.High-income families traditionally have access to loansfrom financial institutions, because they have creditstanding or have assets to secure loans (houses onwhich mortgages can be taken out or refinanced; se-curities to serve as collateral). However, if the state'sbanks and other lenders are reluctant to lend foreducation, the state should expand its loan programto compensate for this.

295

.Low-income students (family incomes below $5,000or $6,000) would receive large grants, as well as havingaccess to loans. For Icw-income students, the grantsshould be large enough to more than offset the increasein tuition. For lower-middle-income students (incomesbetween $5-6,000 and about $9,000) the grants shouldroughly offset the tuition increase, leaving thesefamilies with no net increase in costs. For upper-middle-income families ($9,000 - $15,000), the grantsshould be less than the tuition increase, leaving themwith some net increase in cost. High-income families($15,000 and up) would get no grants, and thus havean increase in net cost equal to the whole tuitionincrease.

Note that this is not a recommendation to reducethe state's subsidy to higher education. It does notgo as far as some who argue for a general deceasein state subsidy and a substitution of student loansfor most students. Regardless of the merits of sucha more radical policy, what is called for in Florida,

given the state's traditions, seems to be somethingdecided!), less radical. The recommendation, there-fore, is for a redistribution of the subsidy. It is quitepossible to arrange the grant terms so that the totalstate subsidy of higher education is unchanged.

This last point should also make it clear that theplan is not a revenue-raising device. Again, the designof the grantstheir amounts and -the way they varywith incomewill determine whether the aggregategrant payments will be more or less than the addi-tional amount collected in higher tuition. The wholescheme can be designed to make the net effect on thestate budget zero. The objective of the plan is to spendthe state's money more effectively; the state willreceive more education per dollar by targeting the aidon those groups for whom it really matters.

Upper-income students now in the public sectorwould have to pay a considerably larger share of thecosts of education, but still well below 100 per cent.Even a doubling of tuition would still leave nearly halfthe student costs of education in institutions to bedefrayed by the state. The net increase in costs wouldbe less for middle-income students, but there wouldbe an increase.

Thus, some students now in the public sector wouldhave to pay a larger share of the costs of educationregardless of whether they go to public or private col-leges, but the public and private tuitions they facewould more accurately reflect the true differences incost of producing education. Lower-income studentswould pay, the same amounts as now or less, but theirrange of choice would be significantly broadenedbecause they could use their student grant at eithera public or private college Some of them, who nowchoose public institutions because they are the onlyones where they can get the benefits of the state sub-sidy, will switch over to private ones under the newsystem, even though they must pay some share of thehigher private tuition out of their own pockets. Suchclear expression of preference would indicate a definiteimprovement in their welfare. That the private institu-tions are producing a product in demand is shown bytheir ability to enroll students even under the presentsituation, in the face of a large tuition gap. It is alsosignificant that of the first year's group of FloridaAssistance Grant recipients, about half chose to usetheir grants at private institutions in Florida, althoughprivate colleges' share of total undergraduate enroll-ment is considerably less than half.

For both upper- and lower-income students, the costto the state will frequently be lower than under thepresent funding system. One reason is that the realcosts of adding students to a private college may be

296

less than adding them to a public one, L.. cause thereis some excess capacity in the former. (Naturally, ex-cess capacity per se will not automatically be utilized,but it may be utilized if it is capacity to produce thekind of education valued by students exercising freechoice.) Another is that students and families will bewilling to pay more out of their own pockets in orderto have access to more options. Finally, the privatecolleges, if they are permitted to remain healthy, willoften have loyal alumni support to a greater degreethan public ones (due to a greater tradition of alumnisupport in the private sector and to the fact that manyalumni of community colleges and state universitiesare still too young to be able to give as generously).For the last two reasons, the state need not commititself to pay all the difference between the cost of educa-tion and the tuition in the public sector in order toadd a studetit to a private college; it obviously mustcommit itself to that difference in order to add a studentto a public college.

It is important to note that the recommended policyhelps to remedy both shortcomings which were men-tioned. If either the goal of broadening the scope ofresources eligible for subsidy or the goal of improvingequity is considered alone, there are more choices opento the state. For example, to assist private institutions,an alternative to the one recommended is to givegeneral grants directly to them for operating expensesor for capital facilities. An alternative to relating thenet cost to students more closely to income.is to avoidstudent grants, but let tuition vary with familyincomethat is, have public institutions explicitly seta discriminating tuition charge. However, in each casethe alternative policy suitable for one objective is notas good in meeting the other objective.

General support grants to private institutions wouldnot automatically target aid on lower-income studentswho need it most, which should be a feature of anynew state plan to assist higher education, private orpublic. General support mightbe used by private col-leges to benefit all students, no matter their income,by using it to keep tuition lower and not expandingtheir own student aid; therefore, general support isopen to the same objection as the present policy ofuniformly low tuition for all students in public collegesand universities. The only escape would be to makethe institutional grants conditional on their being usedto assist low-income students. This would merelyachieve the same result as a system of student grants,but at the cost of more administrative detail, continualstate auditing of priv-Ae institutions, and likely disputesin interpreting rest...ts.

The other alternative to the recommended policy,varying tuition explicitly, would not open up the range

of choice for lower income students to include privateinstitutions and would represent a continuation of thepresent concentration of aid in public institutions.Thus, in both cases the polic, of higher tuition Cumgrants to needy students is superior because it helpsachieve two important goals simultaricousl

In summary, the present public sector is clearly jus-tified, but it should not be permitted to supplant totallythe private sector. The existing,capacity of the privatesectorthe physical plant, personnel, and alumni andphilanthropic loyaltyshould be exploited by stateto the extent that students' own expressed preferencesshow that the private sector is producing a neededproduct. The present funding system has drawn intothe public sector large numlvrs of students who wouldundoubtedly prefer the private sector if tuitions werenot so widely divergent; the funding system has createda demand for public higher education at the expenseof private, and it has done this at the expenSe of theFlorida taxpayer. In other words, not all the stateexpenditures are to meet the pressures of growingenrollment; some of the enrollment growth has beencreated by the funding, and unnecessarily so, in thesense that the students would have willingly paid some-what higher prices in the private sector.

The recommendation here is clearly not one toreverse all that has been done over the past 15-20 years.No one would argue that the private sector as it existed15-20 years ago would have been able to expand, orwould have wanted to do so, rapidly enough to meetthe total college enrollment growth in the state whichthe Florida taxpayer has been willing to finance. Thecommunity college system is a magnificent achieve-ment that could not conceivably been created by expan-sion of the private sector. But the argument is thatthe basic outline of the public sector is now completeand that wide accessibility of education isassurednow the utilization of capacity and furtherexpansions in capacity should be guided more by theexpressed demands of students than by a single-mindedcommitment to increase enrollment in public institu-tions. If subsidies are granted directly to students, andthey are permitted to use the subsidies to pay costsat any accredited institution, all colleges and univer-sities can compete on more equal terms. The resultwill certainly be continued health of both public andprivate institutions, and some in each group will beable to expand. The number of options open to thetypical student will be greatly increased, with a gainin his welfare.

IV. EQUITY IN FINANCING

Taxpayers in Florida pay millions of dollars everyyear to subsidize higher education for citizens, the

297

overwhelming proportion of whom are young people.Although some of the t:rxpayers are also the students,or their parents, who benefit by the subsidized highereducation, the tax payments and benefits clearly donot "cancel out" for everyone. At this point in time,most of the people now paying taxes are nut, and neverwill be, students or parents of students in the Floridapublic systems. This is because most of them are toopoor. or too old, or their children too old, or theyhave no children, or they have received or will receivetheir education outside the public systems inFloridaeither in a private college in the state or inany college in another state. The direc' benefitS ofhigher edocation are concentratc4 on those youngpeople who happen to be in the relevant age groupsand who choose to use the public systems in Florida.Mass higher education began only in the late 1950'sin Florida. It will take several more decades of publichigher education before it can possibly loom importantanywhere in the lifetime of the majority of the state'-citizens, and even then it is only a possibility, not acertainty.

There is thus an enormous redistribution of moneythrough the operation of the state universities and com-munity colleges. Everyone knows the traditional justifi-cations for this, of course. Higher education benefitsall of society to some degree, and some state subsidyis necessary to induce fai..:1ies to invest in the educationwhich is desirable for society as a whole. Easy accessto higher education is desirable to insure equality ofopportunity. and some state subsidy is necessary foreasy access. These arguments should be the basisthefirst principlesfor determining how much subsidy isactually needed, and who needs to have it in order toinduce investment in education and to broaden access.But they do not call for offering extraordinary subsidiesindiscriminately tt. all comers, without regard to needand how effectiv they are in inducing investment ineducation. In Florida, as in many other 'states, thetraditional arguments have been forgotten, and it canno longer be fairly said that they justify the particularpatterns of financing now used. Instead, the presentpatterns are more explainable by the political need tocontinue subsidies which large parts of the populationhave come to value and will strive to protectthroughthe representative political process. This occursdespite Ghe fact that the subsides are less crucial ininducing investment in education than they once were.

Subsidies benefit both students and their families.In a certain sense, the subsidy is shared between stu-dents and the rest of their families, with the preciseresult varying from family to family. Consider the pub-lic policy choice between a subsidy of some size and

one considerably larger (or, to be more specific, thechoice between one tuition charge and a much lowerone). Some high-income families would see that theircollege-age children get about the same quality ofeducation in either case; if so, the student's ownbenefits are nearly the same and are little affected bythe size of the subsidy. Neither does society as a wholereceive much more social benefits of educated peoplein return for its larger expenditure. The larger subsidysimply frees some of the par,nts' income to be other-wise spent. In other families, of course, the parentscan afford, or choose to afford, more higher educationthan they could if the subsidy were lower. In thosecases, the effect ofthe subsidy is to increase the educa-tion of the student and the social benefits of education.The parents may or may not increase their own con-tribution, at the expense of other things they buy. Atan extreme, some parents may not feel able to con-tribute anything at all, no matter how lure the statesubsidy, so the entire effect of the subsidy is to increasethe education the student receives, and the socialbenefit.

Family Incomes of Students

It is recommended above that tuition be raised sub-stantially in the two public systems of higher education,with the impact of lower (family incomes below $5,000or $6,000) and lower-middle-income (incomes between$5,000 or $6,000 and about $9,000) groups largely offsetby a system of student aid, including outright grantsto needy students, which they are permitted to receivewhether they attend a public or private institution. Atthe same time, the state should continue its effortsto make loan funds available to all families to easethe financing of whatever costs of higher educationit is decided students and families should bear. Thiswas justified on the ground of improving equity of thefinancing arrangements and on the ground of restoringsome healthy competition between the public and theprivate sectors.

this section, I wish to examine at length someavailable .data on the family incomes of students instate universities and community colleges, to shedmore light on the likely effects of the proposed policy.Two questions should be the basis for this inquiry:

. I) How representative 'of lower income groups is thestudent body in the two systems now? It is well knownthat in the nation as a whole students in public collegesand universities, for all the relatively low tuition suchinstitution: charge, are not fully representative of thelower income groups, but have more upper-middle andhigher income students than the population as a whole.What can be said of Florida in this respect? Is it moreadequately representative of lower income groups? Or

298

is there still some distance to go in this respect, sothat there is a real need to alter financing arrangementsto induce more attendance?

2) How many high-income students are in the sys-temones from families with incomes so high theycan easily shoulder a substantially higher tuition (espe-cially given the access of such families to loans fromfinancial institutions) and will do .o, rather than sac-rificing the quality of education they provide for theirchildren?

It must be admitted at the outset th...t no very satisfac-tory answers to these questions can be presented, giventhe limited data at hand. However, there is some infor-mation available which is useful in approaching thequestions, and some suggestions can be made to pro-voke more discussion. Even if the answers remainr.urky, I hope the very raising of the questions willbe useful.

On whether lower income groups are represented,we have first the fact that higher education is veryaccessible to the state's populaifon, in the sense ofgeographical convenience and admission standards.The nine state universities and 28 community collegesare scattered all over the state; the community collegesby design are located so that almost all of the state'spopulation lives within easy commuting distance ofthem. T.e state universities are also geographicallydispersed and there is now one within each major met-ropolitan area, with the recent opening of ones inJacksonville and Miami. The effect on accessibilityof the two new universities must be kept in mind, forthey may not yet have had much chance to show theirpotential.

There is one caveat in the favorable judgment ofdispersion. The two state universities which are stillwidely regarded as the "best" are in relatively smallcities, not near the major population areas. These arethe University of Florida (Gainesville) and FloridaState University (Tallahassee). The perception of themas "best" .s not universally shared, of course, andit is clear that for certain kinds of students other stateuniversities, or community college-university combi-nations, are definitely superior, even ignoring ques-tions of proximity. But there is still a very wide feelingthat they are better, and it is instructive to note, aswe show later, that they attract many more than theirshare of the highest income students, the ones withthe widest range of choice on which institution toattend. For present purposes, it is important that theyare perceived as they are, regardless of how correctthe perceptions are. Their superiority, to the extentit is real and not merely imagined, is certainly not dueto any avowed policy of reinforcing them at the expense

of the newer and less prestigious universities. Rather,the avowed policy is not to reinforce their advantagesbut to give "comparable dollars for comparableprograms." Their advantages are rather ones oftradition, which helps attract a high-quality studentbody, and ones of having the widest range of programsof any public institution in the state. They are the onlypublic. universities (and two of only three universitiesof any kind) which offer a wide array of programsat all the four levels of education-lower division,upper division, b^ginning graduate, and advancedgraduate.

This situation could change in the future, becauseof the potential growth of other state universities. Butfor now, the fact that the two premier universities arelocated somewhat "out of the way" means that whatis perceived to be the highest quality education is morecostly for the people in the state who are not verywell off, because the extra costs of living away fromhome are relatively more burdensome to them. In turn,the state's system of financing, with, a uniform lowtuition and very little direct student aid, is not gearedto offsetting those higher costs in any significant way.This inherently limits the range of choice for the lowerincome population. It is practically an inevitable resultof rapid expansion of a state system from an original

nucleus, if subsidies are largely limited to offering thesame low tuition to all students.

Geographical accessibility is a factor, but it maynot be sufficient to attract low-income students. Tosay more, we need more precise information onincomes. For some years, the Board of Regents ofthe State University System has collected various datafrom students entering their community college or stateuniversity for the first time (which means most of therespondents are freshmen or junior transfer students).The Board also surveyed students in a sample of privatecolleges in Florida. Among other questions, studentswere asked to estimate their family's annual income.The resulting data for the fall of 1971 are presentedin Table 1, and the reader is referred to the explanationsgiven there.

These data, it must be stressed, may be highly imper-fect. They are based on students' own estimates oftheir family income, which may not be accurate. Insome other circumstances, where researchers hadavailable both students' estimates and parents' ownreports of their income, the two have been found todiffer widely.' In addition, the division of income by

'Radner, R., and Miller, L. S., "Demand and Supply in U.S.Higher Education," American Economic Review, May 1970, p. 331.

TABLE 1

INCOMES OF COLLEGE STUDENTS IN FLORIDA, 1971

AU StateUniversities(as of fall

1971)

All PublicCommunity

Colleges

J.C.'s andUniversitiesCombined

FourPrivate

Colleges(9,995; (18,837; (28,832; (1,755;

Income Class 8,443) 14,267) 22,710) 1,240)

Below $3,000 5.5% 5.6% 5.6% 3.3%$3,000 to $5,999 11.9 13.3 12.8 6.3$6,000 to $7,499 10.3 11.6 11.1 6.0$7,500 to $8,999 11.3 11.7 11.5 9.0$9,000 to $11,999 22.7 23.5 23.2 16.0$12,000 to $19,999 23.9 24.2 24:1 27.3Above $20,000 14.4 10.2 11.8 32.2

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Note: detail may not add exactly to total due to rounding.The Board of Regents survey includes all state universities and public community colleges, but not all students in every institution

are surveyed; only s^mples are surveyed in some of them. In the fall of 1971 four private institutions were included: Florida Southern(Lakeland), Jacksonville University, St. Leo College (St. Leo), and Stetson University (DeLand).

Students were asked the question: "What is the best estimate of your family income?" and were asked to choose one of the sevenincome classes shown below, or to choose the answer "Cannot estimate." The answers are reported below. The numbers in parenthesesat the top of each column are; first, the total number of students surveyed, and second, the number who actually chose one of the incomeclasses, rather than "cannot estimate" or leaving the question blank. Percentages are based on the second number, so that students whodid not estimate income are assumed to be distributed over income classes the same way as students who did estimate income. Thisis a necessary assumption to use the data, tit of course may not be true.

The original data for community colleges and universities separately were published by the Board of Regents (Characteristics of CollegeStudents, Fall 1971, dated May 1972).

299

brackets in the questionnaire is not very fine and isnot the same as is used in other research, such asthe U.S. Census Bureau's survery of incomes inFlorida every ten years. It is recommended that policymakers in Florida pay more attention to gathering accu-rate data in these respects in order to facilitate analysisof the characteristics of students. Income data on stu-dents should be collected in a more detailed fashion,with checks on their accuracy by collecting incomedata from other sources as well as from students. Thereare, of course, some problems in collecting accuratedata. The state has no income tax, and even if it did,it might not be desirable to allow educational plannersaccess to income tax records merely to analyze thefamily income of students. Perhaps a careful voluntaryinterview of a sample of parents would be possible.In any event, some allocation of time and money toa well-designed, periodic survey of some sort wouldbe very worthwhile.

In the first part of Table I there are summary statis-tics on the income distributionof students in the stateuniversities and the community colleges, and a sampleof private institutions. A number of observations canbe made immediately.

First, the distributions in the state universities andthe community colleges are broadly similar. Commu-nity colleges have slightly higher representation oflower income and lower middle=income groups, andsomewhat lower representation of the highest incomegroups, but the differences between the two systemsare rather minor, and certainly less than many peoplemight think.

It is clear from Table I that many community collegestudents are from high-income families. These studentsgenerally have significant discretion in where to goto college. Some of them could have chosen one ofthe state universities which offer the lower division;

although there are lower division enrollment limits,they are not actually effective constraints on enroll-ment at all universities. Other alternatives are privatecolleges and public four-year institutions in otherstates. The fact that so many chose a community col-lege in Florida is some evidence of the quality of thecommunity college education, and its suitability formany different kinds of young people, as perceivedin Florida. As I noted earlier, in my conversationswith educators around the state I was told of manycases, some in the family of the very person talkingto me, where a community college was chosen by astudent and his family whose financial situation per-mitted them to choose from many options.

Second, the income distribution at the four privatecolleges covered in Table I is drastically different fromcommunity colleges and state universities, being muchmore weighted toward higher-incomes. This is not atall surprising, in view of the private institutions havingto charge much higher tuition, so that they must pricethemselves out of the lower income student market.In fact, when one compares the relatively high privateCollege tuition with the availability of low-price publiceducation, one may be surprised that the four in thesample managed" to attract as many poor students asthey did! The success ofprivate colleges is undoubtedlyexplained by the use of their own student-aid funds,by some special qualities (such as small size) whichpersuade some low income students to pay much moreout of their own pockets than if they went to a publiccollege, and by their heavy reliance on out-of-statestudents, for whom the gap in tuition between publicinstitutions and private institutions is less than for resi-dents, although it is still very large.

Some other useful information on the two publicsystems as a whole is shown in Tables 2, 3, and 4.In Table 2, there are separate distributions for whites

TABLE 2

FAMILY INCOME OF PUBLIC COLLEGE STUDENTS IN FLORIDA, 1971, BY RACE

State Universities All Public Community Colleges

White .Black White BlackIncome Class (6,736; 5,708) (920; 740) (13,419; 10,473) (1,409; 1,140)

Below $3,000 3.3% 25.8% 2.8% 30.3%$3,000 to $5,999 9.4 34.7 10.7 36.1$6,000 to S7,499 9.6 15.9 11.4 12.6$7,500 to $8,999 11.8 8.0 12.1 8.2S9,000 to $11,999 24.0 8.8 25.2 8.3$12,000 to $19,999 26.5 ; 3 26.7 3.4Above $20,000 15.3 ..5 11.2 1.1

Total 100.0 I: CO 100.0 100.0

Source: Same as Table I. See notes to Table I.

300

TABLE 3

FAMILY INCOMES OF PUBLIC COLLEGE STUDENTS IN FLORIDA, 1971, BY SEX

Income Class

Below 53,00053,000 to 55,99956,000 to 57,49957,500 to $8,99959,000 to 511,999$12,000 to 519,999Above 520,000

Total

State Universities Community Colleges

Men(5,551; 4,923)

Women(4,386; 3,483)

Men(10,042; 8,269)

Women(7,887; 5,822)

5.3% 5.9% 4.2% 7.5%12.7 10.8 12.3 14.7

10.8 9.6 11.2 12.2

11.0 11.7 12.4 10.6

22.9 22.2 24.1 22.823.4 24.6 25.0 22.8

13.9 15.2 10.7 9.4

100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Source: Same as Table I. See notes to Table I.

TABLE 4

INCOMES OF STUDENTS IN STATE UNIVERSITIES,FLORIDA, FALL 1971, FRESHMEN COMPARED TO

COMMUNITY COLLEGE TRANSFER STUDENTS

Freshmen C.C. TransfersIncome Class (5,225; 4,287) (3,061; 2,720)

Below 53.000 4.8% 5.8%$3,000 to 55,999 8.9 15.656,000 to 57,499 7.7 13.3$7,500 to 58,999 10.0 14.059,000 to 511,999 22.9 24.0512,000 to 519,999.... 26.5 19.9Above 520,000 19.2 7.4

Total 100.0 100.0

Source: Same as Table I. See notes to Table I.

and blacks (these data exclude a very few nonwhiteswho are not black, a category called "other" on thequestionnaire). The significant differences between thetwo races, both in the state universities and the com-munity colleges, are apparent. It is clear that the recom-mended policy, of rasing tuition and offsetting it withgrants for poorer students would have the by-productof shifting real income from whites in general to blacksin general, although of course its primary purpose isto shift real income from upper income families ingeneral to lower income families in general. The racialshift would presumably not be without some politicalsignificance.

In Table 3, data for men and women are shownseparately. In universities, the distributions for t%- twosexes are not significantly different. In the communitycolleges, however, poorer women are more heavilyrepresented within the total of women students thanpoorer men are more heavily represented within thetotal of men students. The reason for this is not clear,and the question bears further research, taking intoaccount the various relevant options open to lower

income families who have both son:. _nd daughtersof college age.

In Table 4, we have very interesting data on stateuniversity students, comparing those who entereddirectly from high school with those who went to com-munity college first. As one might expect, higher-income families are much more represented in the firstgroup, and low income families more in the second(this is actually not true for the very lowest incomeclass, but it is very true for the next two classes goingup the income scale). These data suggest that Florida'semphasis on the community, college cum state univer-sity education, with two years in each, does help agreat deal to make the state university system morerepresentative of lower income groups than if commu-nity colleges were not so accessible.

Finally, we have in Table 5 data on individual univer-sities and community colleges. These data are not pub-lished, but were made available to me by the Boardof Regents staff. All seven universities as of 1971 areshown, plus some community colleges which I selectedto show the wide variety which exists. The data foruniversities show that the two leading ones, Floridaand Florida State, have relatively many more richerstudents, and considerably fewer poorer ones, thanother universities in the state system.

This raises in more acute forrd lthe same questionwhich can be raised about the whole system. It wouldseem the high-income families represented here couldprovide more of the cost of education out of their ownresources, especially given the fact that such familiesfind it easier than poorer ones to raise loans from banksand other financial institutions. It seems likely thatat these two universities, even more than at the others,many parents would accept the higher tuition withoutsending their children elsewhere. Even if they did sendthem elsewhere, they are unlikely to eliminate collegeattendance altogether: we would expect them to

301

TABLE 5

INCOMES AT SELECTED PUBLIC INSTITUTIONS

State UniversitiesFSU

Income U. Florida (495;Class (2878; 2375) 364)

Below $3,000 2.0% 1.4$3,00045,999 7.5 6.9S6,000-$7,499 7.3 7.1$7,50048,999 8.7 4.9$9,000411,999 21.2 23.6$12,000-$19,999 29.6 33.5Above $20,000 23.7 22.5

100.0 100.0

Community Colleges (selected)Central

Income Broward FloridaClass (1807; 1367) (402; 294)

Below $3,000 3.6% 9.2$3,00045,999 10.8 18.7$6,00047,499 10.4 13.6S7,500-$8,999 12.2 13.9$9,000411,999 23.3 20.4S12,000-$19,999 25.2 18.7Above $20,000 14.c 5.4

100.0 100.0Miami-Dade Pensacola

Fla.A & M U. South Florida Florida U. West(798; Florida Atlantic Tech. U. Florida627) (2044;1918) (1721;1464) (1355;1106) (709;594)

27.0 3.935.9 6.314.0 11.88.1 16.38.3 28.65.3 18.01.4 15.1

100.0 100.0

5.717.612.212.422.42L68.3

4.010.110.110.324.330310A

7.214.611.311.621.526.37.4

100.0 100.0 100.0

Chipola(487; 374)

Fla. JC(Jax)

(1156; 921)

Hills-borough

(592; 496)

IndianRiver

(548; 428)

(770;591) (1285;1049)

Below $3,000 5.8$3,00045,999 11.3 13.3$6,00047,499 12.2 13.2$7,50048,999 9.5 10.6$9,000411,999 21.5 25.9$12,000419,999 25.0 26.1Above $20,000 14.7 7.3

100.0 100.0

134 3.8 5.8 11.024.6 11.5 16.3 18.012.0 11.3 11.7 13.311.2 12.2 13.1 10.019.8 27.0 23.6 19.215.2 26.6 21.2 21.53.7 7.6 8.3 7.0

100.0

Santa Fe(712; 587)

100.0 100.0 100.0S t.

Petersburg Tallahassee(869; 725) (665;534)

6.114.510.78.9

19.123.317.4

100.0

4.8 4.710.5 11.29.9 11.4

10.1 11.026.8 2L926.9 26.811.0 12.9

100.0 100.0

Sotirce: Unpublished data furnished by Board of Regents staff. See notes to Table 1.

finance as much investment in education as before,so the state would not lose any of the social benefitsof educated people. The only possible problem is ifeducation outside :he public sector in Florida somehowmakes educated people less beneficial to society asa whole than education in the public sector in Florida.I doubt if anyone makes this argument seriously, giventhe quality of education which higher income familiesare likely to demand to satisfy their own objectives.

The data in Table 5 show clearly one effect of therecommended policy. If the enrollment patterns didnot change as a result of the policy, there would bea redistribution of real income within the group of stu-dents at each state university, and also some redistribu-tion away from students at the two leading universitiesand toward students at the other universities. Thatis the inevitable result of the general shift from high-

302

income families to low-income families, because theUniversity of Florida and Florida State have more ofthe high-income families represented.

However, the policy would probably shift patternsof enrollment somewhat. Some higher income studentswould shift out of the two leading universities and intoother kinds of higher education, because a tuitionincrease would make their families think twice beforepaying the additional higher cost of students livingaway from home. Some other students would find theadvantages (in terms of their own objectives) of aprivate college sufficient to offset the gap in tuition,once the gap in tuition is smaller. And the availabilityof more financial aid for poorer students would permitthem a wider range of choice, and more would undoubt-edly want to attend Florida or Florida State. Thus,the nature of the student bodies at those two univer-

sities would shift somewhat, with more representationof the lower end of the scale and less of the upperend. However, because of the added living costs formost of the state's population, the total costs wouldstill be higher there than elsewhere. In addition, thetraditions would continue to attract the kinds of stu-dents who go there now. Thus, their student bodieswould continue to be more representative of the upperend of the income scale than at other universities inthe state system. The proposed policy is not so radicalas to eliminate overnight such persistent features ofthe situation.

National Comparisons on Representativeness

The examination of data on the incomes of publiccollege students in Florida, while useful in itself, doesnot directly answer the question of how representativethe student body is, because it does not compare thestudents with the whole population. It is not possibleto answer the question very precisely due to lack ofdata. We can shed some light on the problem, however,by looking at the more copious data for the UnitedStates as a whole, and then compare some limited datafor Florida to that. in the nation as a whole, we knowpoorer people are greatly underrepresented in publiccolleges and universities, despite the low tuition suchinstitutions generally charge. There is a strong positiveassociation between a young person's family incomeand the likelihood he will attend a public institution.This is shown in Table 6, which presents U.S. Bureauof the Census estimates of attendance based on a Lrgescientific sample (about 50,000 households) in thenation of persons aged 18-24 in October 1971 (notethat the income brackets are not the same as for theFlorida data).

This may surprise some people. Column 2 in thetable shows that the probability of attending a publiccollege is very nearly twice as high for the higherincome classes than it is for the lowest or the "lowermiddle" classes. How does this square with the notionthat "poorand middle class kids go to public colleges,and rich kids go to private ones?" We have seen fromFlorida data that "rich kids" go to public colleges too.More fundamentally, the probability of attending a pub-

college is the product-of two other probabilities:fib the probability of attending any college atall; second, if any college is attended, the probabilityof attending a public one.' Thus, each entry for anincome class in Column 2 of Table 6 could he expressedin the following way:

'This point is stressed by Robert Hartman. "Equity Implicationsof State Tuition Policy and Student Loans," Journal of PoliticalEconomy, May/June 1972, Part II, pp. S 145-6.

303

(2)Number attendingpublic collegesAll High Schoolgraduates, nowaged 18-24

(4)

Number attendingany collegeAll High Schoolgraduates, nowaged 18-24

(2 4)

Number attendingx public colleges

Number attendingany college

The lefthand fraction is shown in Column 2; the firstfraction on the righthand side of the equation is shownin Column 4 of the table. The second fraction on theright is the ratio of Column 2 to Column 4, whichis not separately calculated. If we do calculate itseparately, and reproduce Columns 2 and 4, we havethe following result for the equation for each incomeclass:

(2) (4)Public Total

Attendance = Attendance X

(2 ÷ 4)Public

Share ofIncome Class Rate Rate Total

Less than $3,000 19.7% 24.8% 79.4%$3,000 to S4,999 20.6 25.5 80.8$5,000 to $7,499 19.0 22.3 85.2$7,500 to $9,999 21.3 26.2 81.3$19,000 to $14,999 . 27.4 34.6 79.2$15,000 and over 39.7 55.3 71.8

Total 25.8 33.1 77.9

In this tabulation, the last column shows a com-plicated pattern. Public institutions reach their max-imum share of the market with lower middle-incomestudents, while private ones do a bit better, relatively,with both lower income students and the very highest!The differences, in any event, are not all that great.But the picture in the next to last column (same ubColumn 4 in Table 6) is quite different; there is a sharprise for the two upper income classes, more thanenough to override the mild changes in the oppositedirection in the last column. Thus, the net effect isthe strong increase in public college attendance as afraction of all high school graduates, shown in Col-umn 2.

Note that Table 6 and the last tabulation refer onlyto men and women aged 18-24 who have graduatedfrom high school, so they have already successfully

Current Enroll-ment, PublicInstitutions

Total Currentand Past

Enrollment(2) (6)

Less than $3,000 11.8% 24.5%$3,000 to $4,999 13.6 28.0$5,000 to $7,499 14.5 29.7$7,500 to $9,999 18.0 39.5$10,000 to $14,999 24.9 49.5$15,000 and over 1.0 70.0

Total 21.1% 41.8%

passed one barrier to college attendance. The data looksomewhat different if we measure enrollments as apercentage of the total population aged 18-24, whetherthey have graduated from high school or not (but notincluding those few still attending high school); thenall the percentages in Columns 2 and 6 of Table 6would be considerably lower, but their rise from lowerto higher incomes is even steeper (same source asTable 6):

This alternative measure of enrollment is useful if wewish to judge the effectiveness of the whole educationsystem, including high school and college, in permit-ting young people to achieve the college stages of theireducation. This emphasizes the interrelationshipsbetween the high school level and college level. Therise in enrollment rates shown in the columns of Table6 show the lack of full representation in higher educa-tion of the pool of young people who have graduatedfrom college. The rise in enrollment rates with incomeshown in the tabulation above show the even sharperresult of the combined effects of high school and Col-lege.

Inferences for FloridaIt is not possible to analyze the percentage rate of

attendance for each income class in the state of Florida,because the data on family income of all college-agemen and women, including those who don't go to col-lege, don't exist. A recommendation to remedy thislack of data is made later.

In the absence of such information, one might betempted to make a substitute comparison, which, how-ever, would be very misleading. It is useful to explainthis in order to avoid any such misleading comparisonbeing accepted uncritically. One might be tempted to

compare the distribution of students' income, as shownin Table 1, with the income distribution for all familiesin the state, which is available for the year 1969 fromthe decennial U.S. census. For example, the 1970 cen-sus found that in 1969 12.8 percent of all families inFlorida had incomes less than $3,000, another 21.0percent between $3,000 and $6,000; these might becompared to the much smaller figures of 5.5 percentand 11.9 percent, respectively, in the state universitystudent body, and with the very similar figures forcommunity college students. And the same census datashow that only 28.0 percent of all families had incomesover $12,000, while 38.3 percent of the state universitystudents, and 34.4 percent of the community collegestudents estimated their family incomes as that high.(Census income data for 1969 reported in U.S. Bureauof the Census, U.S. Census of Population, 1970,Report PC(1)-C11. "General and Social Characteris-tics, Florida," USGPO, 1972.) But this kind of com-parison would be very misleading for our purposes,for the income distribution of all families is consider-ably lower than the distribution of families likely tohave college age children. Families most likely to havesuch children are headed by persons roughly betweenthe late 30's and the early 50's in age, and who arein the high earning years of their lifetime. They nor-mally have higher incomes than persons who are eitheryounger or older. Thus, the income distribution forall families is more weighted toward the lower incomeclasses, and less toward the upper income classes, thanthe distribution which is more relevant for our purpose.

We may note that a comparison of the sort just made,although misleading for the purpose of judging the rep-resentativeness of the student body, may have somevalue for other purposes. It does show the distribution

TABLE 6

PER CENT OF HIGH SCHOOL GRADUATES, 18-24 YEARS OLD, CURRENTLY OR PREVIOUSLY ENROLLED IN COLLEGE,UNITED STATES, FALL 1971, INCOME CLASS

Per Cent Currently Enrolled

Public Private% Not Currently

Enrolled, ButTotal % Currently

or OnceIncome Class Institutions institutions Total Once Attended' Enrolled(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) = (4) + (5)

Less than $3,000 19.7% 5.1% 24.8% 16.3% 41.2%$3,000-$4,999 20.6 4.9 25.5 16.9 42.4$5,000-$7,499 19.0 3.3 22.3 16.8 39.0$7,500-$9,999 21.3 4.8 26.2 20.7 46.9$10,000- $14,999 27.4 7.2 34.6 18.6 53.2$15,000 and over 39.7 15.6 55.3 17.7 73.0

Total 25.8 7.3 33.1 18.2 51.3

Note 1: Many of these had already completed 41yearsofallege or more.

Source: Calculated from data in U.S. Bureau of the Census, Current Population Reports, Series P-20, No. 241, "Social and EconomicCharacteristics of Students: October 1971," USGPO, Washington, October 1972.

304

TABLE 7

DISTRIBUTION OF FAMILY INCOMES OF UNDERGRADUATES IN PUBLICCOLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES, UNITED STATES AND FLORIDA, FALL 1971

Income-Income Class

United States Florida

All

2-yearColleges

Only

4-yearColleges

Only

1st and 2ndYears of4-yearColleges All

State UniversitiesCom-

munity C.C.Colleges Freshmen Transfers

Below $3,000

$3,000-$4,999

$5,000-$7,499

$7,500-$9,999

$10,000-$14,999

$15,000 andover

Totals

4.6%

9.0

13.8

15.7

27.3

29.6

3A%

7.7

15.9

17.1

30.6

25.2

5.1%

9.4

12.7

14.9

26.1

31.8

3.7%

8.1

12.7

15.8

27.0

32.8

5.6%

23.9

5.6% 4.8%

24.9 16.6

Not Available;see Tables 1 and 4

5.8%

28.9

100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Sources; For United States, calculated from data in U.S. Bureau of the Census,Current Population Reports, S ries P-20, No. 236, "Undergrad-uate Enrollment in Two-Year and Four-Year Colleges: October 1971, " USGPO, Washington, June 1972. For Florida, Tables 1 and 4.

for families receiving the benefits of public highereducation, compared to the distribution for the wholepopulation which pays the taxes to subsidize theeducation. But even this would not be accurate, forone cannot assume that the state taxes each familypays is proportional to family income. It would takean extensive analysis of the state's tax structure, whichis beyond the scope of this report, to estimate the dis-tribution of tax burdens and then to compare the dis-tribution of benefits and burdens of the state sub-sidies. That would be a difficult exercise, especiallysince a large part of the state's sales and excise taxes,while of the type often assumed to be regressive intheir impact, are shifted to tourists who are not resi-dents of the state. Another difficulty is the uncertaintyas to who really bears the burden of the new statecorporate income tax-that is, whether it is shiftedforward to buyers of corporations' products and ser-vices in the form of higher prices or whether it actsto reduce profits and thus the incomes of stockholders(who are not all residents of the state either).'

'Douglas Windham did attempt to estimate the distribution ofboth the benefits of higher education subsidies and the burdens oftaxes in Florida; see his Education, Equality and Income Redis-tribution, Health Lexington Looks, 1970. His estimates show adefinite redistributive effect away from the lower income classes,toward the higher income ones, as a net result of the public highereducation systems in Florida and the taxes levied to support them.However, his methods can be severely criticized. That does notmean his conclusions are wrong, however.

305

The comparison of students' income with allfamilies' income is not what we need for our purpose.What is needed is family income of college-age people,or, lacking that, income of families headed by personsroughly between the late 30's and the early 50's inage. Unfortunately, the income distributions for suchgroups in Florida are not available. The 1970 censusdid collect data on the incomes of families headed bypersons aged 35-44 and persons aged 45-64. Unfor-tunately, even this information has not been publishedby the Census Bureau for Florida at the time this iswritten, although it should be available in the verynear future. It would help answer the question,although it is not perfect for that purpose.

It is thus impossible to reach any firm conclusionabout how representative the student body is, or toanalyze any departures from representativeness interms of the goals of social policy. However, we cancompare the income distribution for Florida's publiccollege students with that of public college studentsin the nation, which has been estimated from the sameCensus Bureau survey on which the earlier data onattendance rate were based. The distribution for thenation as a whole is shown in Table 7; note it cow rsonly undergraduates, like the Florida data. The Floridadata and the national data were not collected usingexactly the income bracket breakdowns, so only a fewcomparisons are possible; the ones which are possibleare detailed in Table 7 (right hand columns). Florida's

community colleges have a considerably larger shareof their students in the very lowest income class thando all public community colleges in the country. Forthe state universities, the share in the lowest incomeclass is slightly above the national share, but not byenough to be Conclusive.

For the next two income classes, which include bothsome "low income" and some "lower middleincomes," the community colleges have a slightlyhigher share than the country as a whole. The stateuniversities are almost oxactly the same as the nation.In the case of the universities, it is clear that the com-munity college transfers are what produce this result.The proportion of students from these income classesin the lower division (freshmen and sophomores)appears to be considerably less than for the nation(assuming the incomes of freshmen and sophomoresin Florida are, on the average, the same as foi freshmenalone). Community college transfers, on the otherhand, have relatively many more students from theseincome classes than four-year public college studentsin general in the nation.

Thus, the whole combined public sector in Floridamay achieve the degree of representation of poorerpeople it has by virtue of the community collegesattracting a reasonable share, by national standards,and then many of those students' transferring to a publicuniversity. This community college-state universitypackage, which of course is at the heart of planningfor higher education in Florida, thus offsets the lackof representativeness of the poorer population in thestudent body which enters the universities directlyfrom high school.

However, all the above judges Florida by nationalstandards. The national achievement, however, is notat all impressive, as we saw above. There is also theother nagging doubt of Florida's achievement raisedby a realization that incomes in gP feral are lower inFlorida than in the nation as a whole. Thus, we would

expect Florida to have higher percentages of its publiccollege students from the lower income classes evenif it were no more representative of the Florida popula-tion than the national student body is of the nationalpopulation.

One bit of direct evidence on Florida, but on theMiami area only, is provided by Ford and Tuckman.'They analyzed a representative sample of 1,809 highschool seniors in Dade County in May 1970. Theseniors were asked (among other questions) to estimatetheir parental income and also to state their plans forfurther education after high school. The results areshown in Table 8. It is clear there was a sharp differencebetween the plans of the lowest income groups andthe highest income groups. For one thing, what littleattrition was expected before high school graduationis concentrated in the lowest income groups. Further,the percentage of the lower two income groups nottending to go on to either junior college or four-yearcollege is many times larger than for the upper incomegroups. The percentage, in fact, rises fairly steadilyas one goes down the income scale from highest tolowest.

This correlation of income and college attendanceplans was striking, given that the students in the samplelived in the area of Miami-Dade Junior College, thelargest junior college in Florida and one of the bestknown in the country. The presence of Miami-Dadewas not sufficient to overcome the tendency for lowerincome groups not to attend college at all. But thesurvey was taken before the opening of the new upper-division ui iersity, Florida International. Previousexperience in Florida has found that the proportionof high school graduates attending a community collegewill rise when a new state university is opened in the

'Tuckman, Howard, and Ford, W. Scott, The Demand forHigherEducation: A Florida Case Study, D. C. Heath and Company (Lex-ington Books), Lexington, Massachusetts, 1972.

TABLE 8

FAMILY INCOME AND PLANS AFTER HIGH SCHOOLDADE COUNTY HIGH SCHOOL SENIORS, MAY 1970

Dropout

GraduatefromHigh

Schooland Stop

Business orVocational

School

JuniorCollegeOnly

Jr. CollegeTransfer to

2-YearSenior

University

Jr. CollegeTransfer to

4-YcarCollege

Enter4-YearCollege Other Total

Less than $3,000 2.7 13.3 20.0 10.7 13.3 20.0 14.7 5.3 100.083,000-5,000 0.6 17.8 12.3 19.0 10.4 17.8 14.7 7.4 100.0$5,000-10,000 0.0 7.4 14.6 17.4 11.8 22.4 18.3 8.1 100.0$10,000-15,000 0.4 7.3 13.0 173 12.1 22.7 19.7 7.4 100.0$15,000-20,000 0.3 5.6 9.8 16.0 9.8 19.9 26.5 12.2 100.0$20,000 + 0.3 2.1 3.5 9.7 8.0 20.5 46.2 9.7 100.0

Source: Tuckman, Howard, and Ford, W. Scott, The Demand for Higher Education: A Florida Case Study, p. 54.

306

area, for then students enter the community collegewith a view to exploiting the opportunity to finish theireducation while continuing to commute.2

Thus, we are left without the kind of data we needto reach very firm judgments. What we have stronglysuggests that the systems of public higher educationin Florida have reached the lower income groups aboutas wellperhaps a trifle better than-7-systems of publichigher education elsewhere. In some respects, that isa considerable achievement. In other respects, it isnot as much as might have been expected, given thetraditional arguments for low tuition, and it indicatesa considerable way left to go. The opening of FloridaInternational University and University of NorthFlorida may have represented a significant step in thatdirection, but the final reckoning is yet to be made,and cannot be made until much additional researchis done.

It would be very useful to have a thorough studyof college-age youth in Florida, on a scientific samplebasis, analyzing rates of college attendance by familyincome and other important variables, such as wherethey went to college (if at all), the importance of finan-cial barriers to college attendance, etc. The studyshould be repeated every few years, so that policymakers can discern trends. A large scale, carefullydesigned study would cost considerable money, butthe information to be obtained seems to be worth it,in judging the equity of the present systems and inplanning changes to improve equity. The sample shouldinclude both high school graduates and high schooldropouts, so that the effects of college accessibilityalone and the combined effects of high school and col-lege can be separated.

Equity Within the Student Body

Even if we were to judge the systems as adequatein reaching the lower income population, a questionof equity would remain. Is it fair to give the upperincome students in the systems the same subsidies asto lower income students in the same systems?

I think the answei should be "no." If that answeris accepted, it supports the higher tuition cum grantspolicy even if we ignore the doubts that the presentpolicy is adequately reaching the lower incomepopulation. Those doubts would naturally reinforcethe conclusion.

The low-income students who are in community col-leges and state universities are there to a large extent

2 McOuat, bavid C., Enrollment Projections for the State Univer-sity System of Florida, 1972-1980, Board of Regents, Tallahassee,Report 72-20, mimeo.

307

because of extensivefederal programs of student aid,and also partly because of loans and scholarshipsfinanced by philanthropic individualS and organiza-tions. Without the federal scholarships and subsidizedloans, low tuition in itself would not be sufficient toattract some of the poorest, butintellectually able, stu-dents. These are students for whom other obligations-besides tuition, such as the need to pay their minimumexpenses or help support their family, cannot befinanced if the student leaves the labor force to goto college. These students need the direct grants andsubsidized loans which the federal government pro-vides, but which so far have been relatively minor instate government aid to education. The state is nowgearing up a large loan program which should havea substantial impact, but it is the federal governmentwhich will guarantee the loans and subsidize them forlow- and middle-income students. There are also anumber of fee waivers in community colleges and stateuniversities, which are equivalent to grants, althoughthey are necessarily limited in their effect to eliminatingtuition and cannot contribute to living costs. Tuitionwaivers are not much talked about in the state, butfrom my conversations, I surmise that they are rela-tively unimportant in the whole picture, except perhapsfor some community colleges and except for the largenumber of waivers for out-of-state students in the StateUniversity System. A total of 7,404 out-of-state tuitionwaivers were allocated to the nine universities for 1972-73, representing a monetary value of about $2.5 milliondollars.'

The State Department of Administration surveyedthe state universities on the financial aid received bytheir students during the 1971-72 academic year andpreliminary results made available to me show thatabout 28.5 million in loans, grants and scholarships,and work-study wages were received by students,about $24.5 million by undergraduates. Of this amount,about $1.8 million was in the form of various stategovernment loans and scholarships. About $4.0 millionwas given in the form of institutional work-study pro-grams. The rest of the aid came from federally insuredloans and National Defense Student Loans, federaleducational opportunity grants, federal work-studywages, and some private loans and grants. The surveydid not find out the family incomes of all the aidrecipients, except that it did find that the vast majorityof minority students receiving aid were quite poor.

Even with the extensive federal programs, there areundoubtedly some poor students who are not able to

'Tables 67 and 79 accompanying "Explanation of Allocation of1972-73 Educational and General Appropriation," Board of Regents,1972, mimeo.

attempt the quality of education they merit, or anyhigher education. One reason is that federal programshave not been funded adequately enough to take careof all the need. An additional factor is the emphasison loans in federal aid. In many families, a lack ofexperience with college is the natural result of manygenerations of poverty and attendance at high schoolswhich offer poor preparation and little motivation. Stu-dents from such families are afraid to try college, espe-cially when to do so they must commit themselves topay back loans over a relatively short period oftime and to work while attending classes, as theymay have to do to get federal support. A young personmay have little confidence in himself to take on suchobligations in order to try something completely new.

The state government is in the position of rely-ing almost completely on the federal governmentand private philanthropy for support of the verypoorest students who are in the state's colleges anduniversities. The fact that those sources of aid are alsoavailable to students in private colleges means thatthe private colleges also succeed in getting somenumber of poor students, in spite of their very hightuition.

As one thoughtful person in the state's educationalcircles said to me (approximately), "Low tuition wouldbe a lot more defensible if we were getting to the reallyneedy student."

Some may find inadequate reason to condemn thesystem for the shortcomings at the bottom end of thescale. They might find the community college systemgives adequate attention to the problem' and mayaccept it as the primary responsibility of the federalgovernment to redistribute income, not the state gov-ernment. They may have little faith in the ability of gov-ernment aid to create interest on the part of studentsnot now involved, although this would require them todispute much of the point of the federal governme, it'sefforts in the field.

The case is probably stronger for raising the pricewhich upper middle and upper income students mustpay. Tuition in any event should continue to be raisedfrequently to allow for inflation and fc- any faster rise

the prices of educational inputs than in prices inoral (the opposite adjustment should be made in

case the prices of educational inputs ever rise moreslowly, of course). But even if we abstract frominflation, and consider only the proper level of tuitionin "today's prices" then, the tuition should rise forthe reasons of equity given above. I would suggest,

'But if so, one may be bothered by the fact that the dollar amountof subsidies per stndent axe lower in the community college systemthan in the state university system.

308

as a not very drastic revision of the present system,a doubling of tuition over the next four or five years.

I would apply the rise in tuition to both communitycolleges and to state universities, and to both under-graduates and graduate students. In other words, sub-sidies to both community college students and stateuniversity students would change in the same propor-tion (for students with the same income), thus preserv-ing a balance between them and avoiding incentivesfor wholesale transfers of enrollment from communitycolleges to state universities or vice versa. It is truethere are more lower income students in the commu-nity colleges, but they would be protected by the avail-ability of grants, so that is not an argument againstincreases in tuition which have the affect of raisingcosts for upper income students.

Given that graduate students are fairly committedto a particular line of study, are well motivated, andexpect substantial increases in future earning powerin return for their present investment, it is notunreasonable to raise graduate tuition. The provisionsfor graduate student grants should be less liberal, how-ever, than for undergraduates. Many graduate studentsare independent of their parents and have startedfamilies of their own. Their present family income maybe very low if they rely 4_a their own part-time workor the work of their spouse nut that should not makethem as readily eligible for outright grants as under-graduates with similar incomes. While grants may re-flect the higher tuition for graduate work, the futureearning prospects should make graduate students haveto resort to loans to a greater extent than under-graduates.

For both the better equity of the system and to permitlow-income students to have state aid in gaining betteraccess to private colleges, the increase in tuition shouldbe offset for lower income families by direct grantsto students, leaving the full effect of the higher tuitionto be felt only by upper middle and upper incomefamilies. The grants should be available in largeamo. -ts or the very poorest students, and then fallsteak y to zero, as an example, for a student froma family with over $15,000 adjusted gross income andtwo children. The grants may depend to some extenton the number of children in the family.

I am reluctant to go so far in this report as to specifya precise schedule by which grants are related toincome, cost of institution attended, and number ofchildren in the family. This should be done after amore careful study of the income structure in Floridaand the various costs (including students' living costs)of attending college. However, we may refer to a studyby Robert Hartman, who estimated expected family

contributions to college costs, based on the 1971 man-ual for financial aid officers of the College EntranceExamination Board (Princeton, New Jersey).' Theexpected family contributions were zero for familieswith (before-tax) incomes below $5,000, and then rising,to about $1200 per year for family incomes of about$12,000. This would mean that families with incomesof about $12,000 could be expected to pay about whatthe Florida state university underraduate tuitionwould be if it were doubled ($570 doubled to $1140per year). never, it might be desirable to give somegrant even to a family this well-off, to cover livingcosts. Another possible scale (in today's dollars) mightbe to give a grant of $1,000 to state university studentsfrom families with incomes less than $3,000; $800to students from incomes between $3,000 and $6,000;$600 to students from incomes between $6,000 and$9,000; $400 for between $9,000 and $12,000; 200 forbetween $12,000 and $15,000, and no grant at all forfamilies with incomes above $15,000. Note that the$600 to a family with income between $u,000 and $9,000-would mean that a tuition increase of $570 (which woulddouble the present level) would be just about offset,leaving the net cost to such families unchanged overthe present.

The above grant amounts would be somewhat lessfor community college students, because even afterdoubling, community college tuition would be far be-low state university tuition. The grants amounts mightbe raised for students choosing higher cost privatecolleges, although not by enough to offset completelythe higher private tuition.

This schedule is nothing more than an example ofthe general principle of grants related inversely to fam-ily income, and is not put forth as a recommendation.2

For the lowest income students, the total amountof aid from all government sources should be quite

' Robert W. Hartman, "Higher Education Subsidies: An Analy-sis of Selected Programs in Current Legislation," in U.S. Congress,The Economics of Federal Subsidy Programs, Part 4, Higher E. luca-tion and Manpower Subsidies, October 1972.

2 The U.S. Office of Education recently submitted its proposedschedules for calculating federal basic opportunity grants, whichwere authorized in the Higher Education Amendments of 1972. Thegrant will be up to $1,400, or one-half the annual cost of college,whichever is lower. The expected family contribution, which willbe subtracted from the maximum in determining the grant, is deter-mined fora student considered dependent on his parents (the scheduleforan independent student is described in a later footnote) as follows.The family's "discretionary income" is calculated, as its adjustedgross income plus welfare benefits plus Social Security paymentsand child-support payments, plus some other min items, minusincome tax paid the previous year, minus an estimate of "basicsubsistence expenses" (figured according to a Social SecurityAdministration schedule for low-income families) minus unusualexpenses due to catastrophe'or medical bills minus certain necessary

309

generous, even exceeding the new tuition and mak-ing a contribution to living costs. However, what theState of Florida should add for this purpose mustdepend on the funding ur federal aid to such needystudents. The state should attempt to make sure itsexpenditures have a genuinely stimulating effect onenrollment, rather than merely replacing aid which stu-dents could otherwise get from federal programs. Itis impossible to be more specific on this until one knowshow various federal grants, loans, and work-study pay-ments will be shaped and how well they will be funded;the state should be flexible because the federal pro-grams are likely to be changed frequently, and theirfunding will undoubtedly vary with pressures on thefederal budget.

A gradual doubling of tuition over several years isnot really an astronomical departure from the presentsystem, compared to what some other observers haverecommended for state support of higher educationin general in the country.3 Even for rich families, adoubling of their share of educational costs would stillleave a very large sharealmost halfborne out ofthe state purse. The suggestion is actually a rathermild one, designed to bring about a fundamental changein approach without moving too rapidly from a systemdeeply entrenched in tradition.

Effects on State Revenue and Expenditure

The effect on the state's budget picture is hard topredict. Tuition income would be doubled for a verylarge proportion of the students, but direct grants would

job expenses. Then the required family contribution is 20 percenton the first $5,000 of discretionary income plus 30 percent of theexcess over $5,000. Families must further contribute 5 .scent ofassets over$7,500, and students are expected to contribute dI educa-tional Social Security benefits paid them and one-half of their vet-erans benefits. They also must pay 33 percent of their own assets.

"Guidelines for New Students Grants Submitted to Congress:Plan Faces Some Opposition, but Adoption is Likely," Chronicleof Higher Education, February 12, 1973, p. 2.

See Burton Weisbrod and W. Lee Hansen, Benefits, Costs.and Finances of Higher Education (Chicago: Markham, 1970). and"Students and Parents: A New Approach to Higher EducationFinance," in M.D. Orwig, ed., Financing Higher Education: Alter-natives for the Federal Government, Iowa City: American CollegeTesting Program, 1971).

A recent report on public higher education in California by theAcademy for Educational Development found that California couldmake education accessible to 25,000 more low-income students bymoving toward a policy of charging tuition equal to the full costof education. The report did not specifically advocate such a stepbut said that a fullcost policy would increase state revenue by over$1 billion a year but that nearly $800 million of that amount wouldthen be needed for grants and loans to students. The report alsosaid "the most damaging thing that can occur is a gradual drifttoward ful. cost pricing without a comprehensive plan and goal."Chronicle of Higher Education, February 20, 1973, p. 5.

have to be paid out as well. It would all depend onhow liberal the grants were. Some calculations couldbe made using the income distribution of students, ifhypothetical grant schedules were assumed and if someadditional assumptions were made about what kindof students entered education for the first time.Estimates of the induced enrollment would be littlemore than guesses unless there is much more analysisof high school graduates who now do not go on tocollege. I hatA not attempted any estimates.

It may be noted that one response to the highertuition will be for some higher income students to leavethe community college and state university systems.The net budgetary impact of this is favorable, of course.If higher-income students exit, the state will save thevast sums in the subsidy which is the differencebetween present tuition and operating cost per student.If lower income students exit, the savings will be less,because some grants will be paid to help them attendprivate colleges but there will be some savings as longas the average grant is normally less than the presentsubsidy in state institutions.

It does seem quite possible, and even likely, thatthe net effect on state expenditures on educationwould be negativethat is, the increased tuitionwould exceed the increased grants. It is possible, ofcourse, to design the program so it comes out even.'If money were left over after paying the grants eachyear, it could be used to meet other pressing stateneeds, or to.lo wer state taxes, or some of each. Theincrease in tuition is not designed as a revenue raisingdevice per se, but rather a way of improving equityin the system and improving the balance between theprivate znd public sectors of higher education. If otherstate revenues are adequate to support the state's needswithout resort to the tuition revenue, the extra tuitionmoney would be available to prevent a sacrifice ofdesirable public programs. Although all these pos-sibilities remain open, it may be noted that the Citizens'Committee report will likely recommend more costlyprograms in elementary and secondary education. Ifexisting taxes and federal revenue sharing receipts arenot adequate to fund those programs, it would beappealing to consider the extra tuition moneyall thisassumes there is some extraas a source of fundsto improve elementary and secondary education. Oneof the most fruitful results of a modest reallocationnow would be the creation of more able and motivatedlow-income students in higher education in the future.

V. RESPONSE TO COMMENTSAND OBJECTIONS

When the possibility of increasing tuition in publiccolleges and universities is raised, normally a number

310

of more or less standard comments and objections aremade. Some of these are dealt with in this section.

Social Benefits of Higher Education

The share of the costs of higher education whichstudents and their families should bear, as opposed,to government, is a subject of great controversy. Thecorrect share cannot be determined on any scientificgrounds. Higher education brings substantial benefitsboth to the student and to society at large; it is botha private good and a public good. But neither the privatebenefit nor the public can be precisely measured, evenin retrospect, let alone be accurately predicted inadvance. It is even hard to define some of the benefits,especially the ones to society, in order to know howto evaluate them even if data were adequate. The prob-lem is that other personal attributes combine witheducation to produce some of the results usuallyassociated with education, and to some extent can pro-duce the results even without the education. Peoplewith education make more money and, in the opinionof many, benefit the general public more than peoplewithout education. But it is not possible to say justhow much of what those people do is attributable totheir education and how much to other factorstheirfamily background, their initiative, their native ability,their luck, etc.

The theory of widespread subsidization of educationis that the individual will consider only his personalrewards (monetary and nonmonetary) in making deci-sions to invest time, energy, and money in education,and will not consider the results which are good forsociety at large and are benefits to others and not tohimself. While the personal rewards will be sufficientto induce substantial investment, governments have feltthat an additional inducement, in the form of subsidies,is needed to bring forth still more education, whichhopefully will bring benefits to society of more valuethan the cost in subsidy. The additional education tobe. included is in two forms: some persons who other-wise- wouldn't go to college at all will go if the costis low; others, who would make some investment evenwithout subsidy, will invest in more education or inhigher quality education.

The theory leaves open the exact cost-shb ring 'Ar-rangements which are called for. As we have seen, theyare difficult to determine. But even if the prob:ansof separating public and private benefia were solved,it still might not be an acceptable propt:/silion to dividethe costs in the same proportions. For should notgovernment do only what is necessary to induce peopleto invest in their education? If motivated people investin quality higher education on their own, without exten-sive subsidy, should not the state gladly accept this,

and not feel compelled to "reward" them by defrayinga great deal of the costs? The point of support to highereducation is not to reward citizens merely for doinggood things themselves which also happen to be goodfor society, but to target financial inducement on thecitizen who would otherwise not have the financialmeans, or the motivation, to make the investment.

Thus, if the state wishes to make its educationalexpenditures productive, it should not offer massiveassistance indiscriminately to all students, even thosefrom fortunate families with relatively high incomes.Higher income families do not find the burden offinancing education intolerable, especially if oppor-tunities for borrowing are available; and they wouldmake substantial investments in education even if theyhad to pay a large share of the costs themselves. Ifa state does subsidize higher education indis-criminately, as Florida does, by paying enough of theoperating and capital costs of public colleges and uni-versities to keep the tuition charges low for all students,then much of its expenditures really cannot be saidto have the effect of inducing investment which would

-not-otherwise be made. Rather, much of the expendi-ture is merely a reward to higher income families fortheir own natural motivation. In a time of pressingpublic needs in many areas, one may assume thereare other higher priority avenues for expenditures.

On the other hand, the state should offer to defraya large part of the costs for lower income students,as a n ,essary strategy to induce investment whichreturns benefits to society, and which would not other-wise be made. This kind of selective subsidy, or carefultargeting of aid to those who need it and whose behaviorwill actually be changed by it, also meets the criterionof equitythat in fairness state support shoula be usedto help lower income people increase their own earningpower, as well as produce social benefits.

Student Living Costs

It is well known that the financial costs of educationfor students and their families are net limited to tuition.Students cannot work while they are in school, cer-tainly not full time, and even part-time work may behard to find in some localities and difficult to fit intoacademic schedules in any event. Students must thusgive up some of the income they could earn whileworking, and this is real cost to them. Their familiesmay finance a minimum level of living costs for stu-dents, thereby permitting students to shift some of thecosts. But the costs will still be there, for someone.This cost, in fact, far exceeds tuition and if weighedin at full monetary value would approach or exceedeven the total costs incurred by colleges and univer-sities.

311

However, foregone earnings should probably /lei beweighted at their full monetary value for all students.For many students, going to college is the natural thingto do at their age, and the loss of work earnings doesnot matter muchthey are sacrificed with great will-ingness. The motivation of students is strong enoughto induce them to attend lege without having tobe paid the normal working wage per hour! The onlyreal problem is to finance the minimum in livingexpenses which must continue to be paid if the studentexists at all, whether or not he goes to college. Theseroom and board costs may be defrayed by part-timework, such as in the summer, leaving relatively littleof them for someone else to pay. To the extent thatsomeone else, such as parents, do pay, they are realcosts to those other people. But they probably loomlarge only for those families with generally low income;for them, the state should certainly make a contributionas part of its aid to education. For families in morefortunate circumstanct.s, living costs will be a burdenonly if students do not work at all; and in that casethe payment of the costs merely reflects the way inwhich the family chooses to spend its income, andso is not ground for special consideration. Therefore,living costs do not change the basic argument that tui-tion should be raised for those families who can affordto pay more than they now do. Living costs do notaffect the increase in educational expenses due to a;increase in tuition, for they remain unchanged and theincrease in tuition is the whole increase in the total.

Role of Loans

IvI-,ny students or their parents must borrow moneyto fil ,ilve education. Even families of high incomemay resort to loans if tuition is raised substan-tially. But this is quite appropriate for high-incomefamilies, for it puts higher education in the same cate-gory as other major family investments, such as housingand consumer durables. There is nothing inherentlyobjectionable, nothing degrading, about borrowing.and certainly not for a worthy family investment likechildrens' education. However, :t is not appropriate,nor will it be a successful strategy to broaden represen-tation of low-income students, to expect the poorerstudents to rely completely on loans. This is the reasonfor recommending some grants in-previous sectionsof this report.

It is true that financial lenders have- often been reluc-tant to loan lney for education, ,'Or :umber ofreasons: the no physical asset which-can be mort-gaged; the loans are for relatively sn.all amounts, sothe administrative costs are high relative co the prin-cipal; the mobility of borrowers after completing educa-tion makes it difficult to keep track of them and mayincrease the probability of default. To make up for

the lack of private loans, Florida and other states haveset up governmen' 'lnding agencies to make studentloans. The federal government has been guaranteeingsuch loans and also subsidizing the lenders of loansto students with family incomes of less than about$15,000. The new Florida student loan plan qualifiesfor the federal guarantee and subsidy. This makes itpossible for the families hardest hit by tuition increasesto borrow at reasonable rates of interest if they choose.

Some attention has been paid to the problems ofcollecting the repayments on student loans, becauseof some unfortunate experience of colleges in collectingNational Defense Student Loans. This would be a seri-ous problem for the state lending agency only if theloans were not guaranteed by the federal government.Even if they are not guaranteed, state loans wouldbe desirable. The adminis;:-,A1ve costs and defaultlosses the state incurs would be a small price to prto assist higher education, compared to the enormamounts of money the state now pays to keep tuft'low. Too often, in analyzing loan programs the defaultlosses and collection costs are implicitly compared tosimilar costs for conventional consumer installment ormortgage loans. The snore important comparison isbetween the costs of i.uch a program to assist highereducation and the costs of alternative programs toaccomplish the same objective, such as institutionalgrants to keep tuition low.

Independence. of Students

One final point which is important raises one of themore serious objectiorig to making the cost of edur-ationto the student somewhat dependent on his family'sincome. The problem is with the definition of thefamily. A large proportion of today's students, andpernaps even more in the future, are no longer veryclose, in a social sense, to their parents. They areindependent individuals, or have wives and childrenof their own. Within this group, some are still finan-ciey dependent on their parents, but others are not.In some cases, the situation could go either way: astudent may have considerable choice whether he issupported by his own part-time earnings or those ofhis wife, or whether he continues to be supportedby his pal ents. This flexibility means that artificialsituations of independence might be convincinglygenerated by students solely in order to qualify as aseparate family unit, with very low income to receive

312

the student grant offered to low-income students. Astudent might do this on his own initiative, if he foundit financially attractive to split off from his parents,or he might do it with the connivance of his parents.

While this is perhaps a problem, it is not unsolvable.It obviously requires some detailed regulations on whatconstitutes a truly independent family and just howfamily income is to be measured; "families" se' icingto justify eligibility for grants will have to fill out formsand stand some financial investigation, whereas underthe present system they need to tolerate none of thatin order to qualify for low tuition. Persons seekingadditional financial aid, however, already have to gothrough such red tape: there are already problems withdefinitions, as, well as some practical experience indrawing them.' It will definitely be bothersome andwill cost something in administrative arrangements.But the costs seem worth paying in order to gain amore equitable system of finance. Again, we must notfocus only on a few defects, but whether various costsare worth paying to improve the overall situation.

It is unlikely that many people would consciouslycheat. The real effect which one may worry about it,that students and parents ca the margin of "splittingup" are given an extra inducement to do so by agraduated student grant plan. Even that is not regardedas an unfortunate effect by all. It depends on one'spoint of view. The nation's youth must remain depen-dent on someone during their college years, if theyare to gain an education; the essential question iswhether they should be dependent on their familiesor on their state's taxpayers. Neither state of depen-dence is unambiguously good or unambiguously bad.

' In an earlier footnote, the U.S. Office of Education's proposedfamily contribution schedule under the new basic opportunity grantprogram was described. The contribution schedule is calculatedseparately for "dependent" and "independent" students. A studentis independent if: no one, except his spouse, claimed him as anincome tax exemption in either the year in which aid is receivedor one year prior; and he received no more than $600 from hisparents in that period; and he (id not live in their home. The indepen-dent student' expected contribution, which is subtracted from the$1406 maximum to determine the basic opportunity grant he receives,is to be 75 percent of income for a single student with no dependents,50 percent for a married student with no dependents, and 40 percentfora married student with spouse and other dependents. "Guidelinesfor New Student Grants Submitted to Congress; Plan Faces SomeOpposition, but Adoption is Likely," Chronicle of Higher Edu-cation, February 12, 1973, p. 2.

APPENDIX CANALYSIS OF THE GOVERNOR'SCITIZENS' COMMITTEE SURVEY

TECHNICAL REPORT

1

byJerry Olson

January 1973

Table of Contents

PagePopulations Surveyed 317

General Conclusions 317

Recommendations 318

Analysis of Section I 318

Analysis of Section II 319

Analysis-of Section III 319

Analysis of Section IV 3I9Analysis of Section V 320

Analysis of Section VI 320

Analysis of Section VII 322

Questionnaire 325

315

POPULATIONS SURVEYED

To insure that the Citizens' Committee reflects thetrue feelings of the people of Florida. a comprehensivesurvey was sent to 1714 educators and school boardmembers throughout the state. Teachers, principalsand supervisors were randomly selected, whereasevery superintendent and school board memberreceived the questionnaire. Table I indicates thenumber of questionnaires sent k. each group and thepercent of return. Principals had the highest rate ofreturn with 78 percent white school board membersonly returned 34 percent of the questionnaires.

TABLE IThe Number and Pereen of

Questionnaires Mailed and Returned

Number Number PercentGroups Mailed Returned ReturnedTeachers 7,3 317 45Principals 400 313 78Supervisors 200 103 52

Superintendents 67 47 69School BoardMembers 347 119 34

Total 1714 839 52

GENERAL CONCLUSIONS

The overall results emphasize some primary areasof concern. These are lower pupil-teacher ratio, morelocal control, and management training.

Lowe~ Pupil-Tear ''er RatioLower pupil-teacher ratio was a major concern

expressed by each group at different points throughoutthe questionnaire. For example, teachers and princi-pals felt so strongly about a lower pupil-teacher ratiothat it ended up being the most frequently indicatedfirst, second, third and fourth choice by both groupsin Section IV, which attempts to identify incentivesthat will motivate teachers to make changes in the

; ; 317'

school program. Likewise, principals feel that a lowerpupil-teacher ratio would help motivate them to makechanges in the school program. Again, in Section VIthe respondents were asked to suggest the most impor-tant single improvement that could be made in the K -12program. Here again, the main recommendation at theschool level was lowering the pupil-teacher ratio andit was also a common means recommended for imple-menting other suggestions. Finally, on the question,"Do you think a reduction ir. class size is importantto improving the quality of education?" over 90 per-cent of the teachers and principals and over 75 percentof the superintendents and school board membersbelieved this world improve the quality of educationin Florida.

Local Control

More local control was another common recommen-dation indicated throughout the questionnaire. Forexample. in Section V on "motivating principals," thegroup of responding principals selected budget flexibil-ity as being the greatest motivating factor for initiatingchange in the school prograr All groups agreed thata principal who had control over his budget could moreeffectively improve the school program. In additionto this, all of the groups felt that principals shouldhave the right to determine their own staffing patternsand that each school should have the right to set theirown curriculum priorities. All groups supportedanother statement that schools would improve morequickly if the local districts were allowed to make theirown decisions. The final question that indicated sup-port for local control was: "What single improvementde you think is most needed in the K -12 program?"One of the frequent responses to this question wasgive the local districts more control and flexibility inexpending their funds.

Management Training

The need for management training is i ^tified intwo general ways. One, a principal's desire .or training

in the area of implementing change, and two, a princi-pal's need for management skills that will assist himto more effectively utilize the additional authority andcontrol recommended by the five groups. The needfor management training in implementing change isexemplified in the following areas of the questionnaire.As indicated in Section II principals and supervisorsare generally the initiators of change. Therefore, it isimportant for them to possess the leadership and man-agement skills necessary for initiating new programs.Staff utilization is another area in which principals willneed different management skills to effectively imple-ment these new staffing patterns. Therefore, principalswill need updated management skills to effectively dealwith this increased authority and new managementroles.

Other Conclusions

The above mentioned conclusions are the main areas,that should be investigated. However, each of therecommendations on the following pages is basedupon supporting evidence from the results of the ques-tionnaire.

RECOMMENDATIONS1. Reduce the pupil-teacher ratio, beginning at the

primary level2. Enlarge the vocational programs in the public

schools.

3. Increase the number of vocationai counselors atthe elementary level.

4. Provide special classes and/or programs for stu-dents who are chronic disciplinary problems.

5. Have local districts develop a salary systemthrough which superior teachers can receivesalaries equivalent to administrators.

6. Provide incentives to the district for initiating dif-ferentiated staffing so that the professional staffwill be used more effectively.

7. Give the principal the right to determine hisschool's staffing pattern and the right to hire hisown staff.

8. Give the principal control and flexibility inexpending his school's budget.

9. Provide principals and supervisors with in-servicetraining in management and leadership skills ininitiating new programs and in developing moreefective means of staff utilization, etc.

10. Eliminate all course requirements in the schoolsand replace them with stated minimum com-petencies.

11. Eliminate state textbook adoption but have thestate department provide reviews of textbooks

318

and instructional materials so that local districtcan select the material most appropriate for th.

12. Encourage schools to set up their own parent-student-faculty curriculum advisory councils tohelp set curriculum priorities for their school.

13. Provide more mission-c ented research into read-ing problems to help iuzntify alternative meansfor correcting reading deficiencies.

14. Create alternative teacher education programs todevelop teachers with competencies in alternativeteaching methods.

15. Give the county greater budget flexibility in utiliz-ing its funds.

16. Have the Department of Education provide morespecialized consultants through the regionalcenters.

17. 'Provide on-going training for school board mem-bers to increase their effectiveness in developingand setting policies.

ANALYSIS OF SECTION I

This section attempted to find out how peoplethought their school system compared to others in thestate on some specific factors. The following is SectionI of the questionnaire:

I. Nov do you think your county school system compares to othercounty school systems in the state on the following factors?Please rate each factor.

Above BelowFactors Average Average Average

1. Ability to obtain funds foreducational experimental pro-grams

2. Pupi,-teacher ratio

3. Salary schedule

4. Teachers rciuired to spentoo much tiros on non-teacningduties

S. Cooperation of the custodialstaff

6. The amount of influence theteacher has in curriculumdecisions

7. The public's financial sur-port of the county schoolsystem

S. Other

Overall, superintendents tended to be the most posi-tive about their schools in comparison to others, withteachers being the most negative. School board mem-bers were the least negative, but they were not verypositive either: they were rather undecided in generalas to how their schools compared with other schoolsystems in the state on these factors. It is interestingto note that as you go down the 15ne of authority, thepersonnel become more negative about the system.

The professional staff as a whole rated the coopera-tion of their custodial staff above average more than

any other factor when comparing their schools to thoseof other systems.

Supervisors and superintendents rated the amountof influence teachers have in curriculum decisionsabove average more than any other factor, while princi-pals gave it the second highest rating. This is interestingin that approximately one out of every three superinten-dents, supervisors and principals think that teachershave a large voice in curriculum decisions, whereasthe teachers themselves did not have the same degreeof confidence about their influence on such decisions.

All five groups seemed rather undecided when itcame to rating the amount of time spcat by teacherson non-teaching duties in their system as comparedto other systems.

On item seven the respondents were asked to com-pare how well they felt the public financially supportedthe county school system as compared to how wellthe public in other counties supported their school sys-tems. Four of the fiire groupsteachers, .principals;supervisors and school board membersrated theirsystems below average on this item more than on anyof the other items.

ANALYSIS OF SECTION II

This section attempted to find out who is usuallyresponsible for making changes in the curriculum. Sec-tion II was stated as follows:

II. In most instances who is usually responsible for initiatingchanges in the curriculum for your county school system? .Please rank by number.

Personnel Initiate Changes.

1. Teachers 1st Choice

2. Principals 2nd Choice

3. Assistant Principals 3rd Choice

4. Supervisors

S. Assistant Superintendents

6. Superintendent

7. Parents

8. Students

Principals, eervisors and teachers were rated asbeing the people who most commonly initiate changesin the curriculum for a school system. Although theprincipal was included in the first three choices morethan the other two, according to teachers, supervisorsand school board members it is usually the supervisorwho initiates changes. On the other hand, principalsAnd superintendents tended to rate them as a thirdchoice. While superintendents tended to give creditto the teachers, principals tended to give themselvescredit for initiating curriculum changes.

ANALYSIS OF SECTION III

This question attempted to identify which generalareas .fight be changed to increase student learning.The question was listed as follows:

III. When you think about your county school system. in which ofthe following area: would changes increase student learningthe most? Please rank your first three choices by number.

Areas Changes

1. Scheduling subjects byvarious time patterns

1st Choice

2nd Chc ice

2. Staff utilization3rd Choice

3. Teachir ethods

4. Alternative studentgrouping

S. Subjeetor program offerings

6. School plant facilities(equipment and instructional materials)

7. Grading and reporting to parents

8. Other (please describe)

The three areas that most corn aonly received high,ratings from .all groups were teaching methods, staffutilization and program offerings. From these threeareas, teaching methods was always the first choiceof each group. Whereas principals, supervisors andsuperintendents regarded staff utilization as the secondmost effective way of increasing student learning,school board members and teachers still listed teachingmethods more frequently than staff utilization.

ANALYSIS OF SECTION IV

Section IV of the questionnaire attempted to identifythe most important incentives for motivating teachersas perceived by the teachers themselves, by principals,supervisors, superintende-ts and school boardmembers. The basic question is whether these differentgroups agree or disagree un what incentives motivateteachers. If more effective factors can be identified,then more appropriate means can be used for motivat-ing teachers to make changes. Section IV appearedas follows in the questionnaire:

IV. "h of the following factors might serve as the most

im, ant incentives for motivating TEACHERS into making changesin ,4e school program. Please indicate your first five choices

319

by number.

EVERYONE IS TO ANSWER THIS QUESTION.

Possible incentives for change For MOtivatinq TEACHERS

1. Extra pay for trying new programs 1st Choice

2. Better facilities and equipment 2nd Choice

3. Additional planning time 3rd Choice

4. More aides for teachers 4th Choice

S. More professional support fromspecialists in reading, speechtherapy, etc.

5th Choice

6. A greater interest on the partof parents in bringing aboutchange

17. Greater job security

8. Lower pupil-teacher ratio

9. More instructional materials

10. Enthusiastic positive student response to a new program

11. The possibility of higher pupil achievement

12. Superiors who expect changes to be made in the schoolprogram

13. Colleagues who expect changes to be made in the schoolprogram

14. Increased training in methods for implementing change

15. Increased voice in curriculum decisions

16. An administrative organization that encourages change

17. Beti assroom visitation practices by principals

18. Better human relations skills

1°. Other (please describe)

If you want to motivate teachers to make changes,principals and teachers themselves have little doubtas to what should be done. The first four choices ofboth teachers and principals were lower pupil-teacherratio. It is very interesting to note that the superinten-dents did not list it frequently enough to be includedin their first five choices. For the school board mem-bers it was the second most frequently indicatedchoice.

Whereas teachers and principals were concernedabout lower pupil-teacher ratio, supervisors, superin-tendents and school board members tended to be moreconcerned with having an admir'strative organizationthat encourages change and provides training forteachers to implement change. In addition to this,school board members and superintendents weredefinitely more concerned about the interest of theparents in bringing about change.

The school b. ' members' most frequently listedfirst choice was i pay for trying new programs,but it was not one of lye most commonly mentioneditems by any of the ch.- . groups.

ANALYSIS OF SECTION V

This section attempted to identify the most importantfactors for motivating principals into making changesin the school program. Section V was listed in thequestionnaire as follows:

V. Which of t-heleollowing factors might serve as the moat importantincentives for motivating PRINCIPALS into sal changes in theschool program. Please indicate your first five choices bynumber.

EVERYONE IS TO ANSWER THIS QUESTION

Possible incentives for change For motivating PRINCIPALS

1. Extra pay for new programs 1st Choice

2. Setter facilities and equipment 2nd Choice

3. More clerical assistance forprincipals

3rd Choice

4th Choice4. A greater interest on the part

of parents in bringing aboutchange

5th Choice

5. Greater job security

320

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

11.

Lower pupil-teacher ratio

More instructional materials

Enthusiastic positive student response to a new program

The possibility of higher pupil achievement

Superiors who expect changes to be made in the schoolprogram

Colleagues who expect changes to be made in the schoolprogram

Increased training in methods for implementing change

Increased voice in curriculum decisions

An administrative organization that encourages change

Better hiring procedures

Principals given greater budget flexibility

Better human relations skills

Other (please describe)

The most common area of agreement between princi-pals and the other groups was that increased trainingin methods for implementing change would be ofassistance to principals. It is interesting to note thatthree of the groups frequently listed the interest ofparents in bringing about change as an importantmotivating factor upon principals. However, principalsthemselves did not include this as on' of the five mostimportant items, even though it was e ost frequentlymentioned item by both school board members andsuperintendents.

-Another area of agreement between principzls andthe other-groupswas that an administrative organiza-tion that encourages change would be a motivatingfactor upon principals to make changes. Teachers andprincipals frequently listed facilities and equipment asbeing an important motivating factor whereas the otherthree groups did not include this item. An item com-monly listed by principals as an incentive was a lowerpupil-teacher ratio in a school, but this was rarely men-tioned by the other four groups.

Therefore, it appears that the school board and thesuperintendent should look carefully at what a principalconsiders a motivating factor. To many principals thetop motivator was item sixteen, budget flexibility.

ANALYSIS OF SECTION VIIn this section each person was asked to check the

degree to which he agreed or disagreed with a numberof statements.

1. If one wants to change the school program, groupincentives to department or teaching teams wouldbe more effective than incentives to individuals.

All five groups tended to agree with this statement.Approximately 60 percent agreed with the statementand only 20 percent disagreed.

2. Teachers do not eeed more incentives to changebut they need the obstacles to their efforts tochange removed.

Few people were undecided about this statement.Three out of four teachers agreed with the statementand only 10 percent disagreed. Among the othergroups, however, there was greater disagreement.About one-fourth of the principals disagreed and 60percent agreed with the statement. Supervisors ex-pressed the strongest disagreement with the statement(40 percent). About one-half of the superintendentsand s :hool board members agreed but another one-third disagreed with the statement.

3. Non-financial incentives are more important thanfinancial incentives for teachers making changesin the curriculum.

There was general agreement (50-65 percent) amongthe five groups on this statement with only one outof four disagreeing.

4. When a principal has control over his school'sbudget, the school program can be improved moreeffectively.

Nine out of' every ten principals agreed with thisstatement and over half of the teachers, supervisors,superintendents and school board members alsoagreed. The strongest resistance was from the approx-imately 28 percent of the school board members andsupervisors who expressed disagreement.

5. School boards should give awards and recognitionto teachers and administrators for initiatingchanges in an attempt to improve the schoolsystem.

Over 65 percent of each group agreed with this ,,tate-ment and less than 21 percent disagreed.

6. A principal should have the right to determinehis own staffing pattern.

This statement received extremely strong supportfrom principals (87 percent). The group giving the sec-ond strongest support to the statement was the schoolboard members (84 percent). Less than 14 percent ofany group disagreed with the statement.

7. Each schoci should set its own curriculumpriorities according to student needs.

This is another statement with which 85-93 percentof all the groups agreed Less than 10 percent of anygroup disagreed.

8. School systems need to use better evaluation ofresults to accurately meastn the effect of changeupon school programs.

This is another item on which all groups expressed87-97 percent agreement.

9. To improve schools we need a procedure for set-ting priorities in budgeting.

321

Again, on this statement there was no disagreement.From 80-90 percent of all the groups agreed thatpriorities do need to be set.

10. Schools would impr-ve more quickly if the statewould allow local districts to make their own deci-sions.

On this statement there was less confidence. Theschool board members felt quite strongly that theyshould have the right to make decisions. Approx-imately $3 percent of this group agreed with the state-ment. The teachers on the other hand wer :nore hesi-tant and'only 51 percent of them agreed %knit the state-ment. In general the professionals were less sure aboutthis statement-with from 20-30 percent undecided asto whether oz not schools would improve more quicklyif the local districts could make their own decisions.

11. If a school board would concern itself with policiesaimed at improving the school program and stayaway from administration, schools would improvemore quickly.

There was only slight disagreement among groupson this statement. Approximately three-fourths of allindividuals agreed with the concept. The strongest dis-agreement was expressed by approximately 26 percentof the school board members.

12. Our school attempts to identify its most seriouseducational problems.

All five groups agreed with this statement with arange of agreement from 67-94 percent. The largestdegree of reservation came from teachers (21 percent)and school board members (16 percent).

13. Our school system, after identifying its most seri-ous problems, immediately assigns personnel toidentify possible solutions to the problems.

This is the first statement in Section VI thatprompted more disagreement than agreement fromleachers. Only 40 percent agreed and 41 percent dis-agreed with the assertion that the school system assignssomeone immediately to problems to find solutions.Superintendents felt very strongly (75 percent) thatthey assigned someone immediately to solve problems,and the majority of the principals, supervisors andschool board members felt that people wereimmediately assigned to problems.

14. Every school board member should attend con-tinuous training sessions designed to improve hisskills in setting policieo that will improve- theschool system.

Over 80 percent of the educators and over 71 percentof the school board members themselves agreed that

they should have continuous training. Less than 12percent of the educators and less than 18 percent ofthe school board members disagreed.

15. Principals hired from outside the county are betterable to make changes in a schoo'

All groups disagreed with this sti, ment, with theprincipals disagreeing most strongly (64 percent), andthe sup ntendents disagreeing the least (43 percent).

16. There are not enough vocational programs nowbeing offered to equip the student whu is notinterested in or qualified for higher education.

Again, all groups agr ed with this statement in thatapproximately 66 percent or more indicated agreement.The largest amount of disagreement came fromsuperintendents (27 percent) and school board mem-bers (21 percent).

17. The county school system should have more con-trol over the use of state-allocated funds.

From 65-84 percent of all groups agreed with thisstatement and 10 percent or less in any one group dis-agreed.

18. Kindergarten should be mandatory but entrybefore age six should be based on a social maturitytest.

Approximately 50-60 percent of the principals,teachers, and school board members agreed with thisconcept while only 43 percent of the supervisorsagreed. The greatest amount of disagreement camefrom the supervisors and superintendents.

19. Special schools should be established for studentswho are chronic disciplinary problems i' regularclassrooms.

Sixty to seventy percent of the teachers, principals,superintendents and school board members agreedwith this, but slightly less than 45 percent of the super-visors agreed. The largest amount of disagreement also

.came from the supervisors, with approximately one-third of them disagreeing with this suggestion.

20. Little help is provided by administrators whenimplementing a new program or activity.

Teachers were the only group in which more of themagreed than disagreed with this statement. The majorityof the respondents in each of the other four groupsdisagreed with it. The superintendents disagreed moststrongly (71 percent).

21. Teacher evaluation ratings stress outdated teach-ing methods.

About half of the teachers, principals and super-visors agreed with this statement, but only about 40

322

percent of the superintendents and school board mem-bers agreed. The strongest disagreement came from44 percent of the superintendents.

22. There is not enough supervisory help in implemen-ting changes.

Between 55-65 percent of the teachers. principalsand supervisors agreed with this statement, whereasonly 48 percent of the superintendents and only 30percent of the school board members agreed. Fifty-seven percent of the school board members disagreedwith the statement.

23. School board policies make it difficult to imple-ment new programs or activities.

Between 53 and 66 percent of the principals, super-visors and superintendents disagreed with this state-ment, while 82 percent of the school board membersdisagreed. Only 30 percent of the teachers disagreedwith the statement and the highest agreement wasexpressed by 47 percent of the teachers.

24. The parents should be more involved in decidingwhat their children are taught.

Over half of all the groups agreed with this statementand approximately 20 percent of all the groups_dis-agreed.

25. Teachers should have more freedom to controltheir own classroom learning environment.

Over half of each group agreed with this statementand 83 percent of the teachers agreed. The strongestdisagreement came from 32 percent of the superinten-der's. Only 19 percent of the school board membersdisagreed with the statement.

26. In our school system too many pdople must beconsulted before a decision can be reached.

Approximately one-half of the principals and super-visors agreed with this. The highest agreement, how-ever, came from 69 percent of the teachers. Strongestdisagreement was expressed by superintendents (66percent).

ANALYSIS OF SECTION VII

In Section VII the respondents were given theopportunity to express their opinion on several educa-tional issues and areas that they thought could improveeducation in Florida public schools.

1. What single improvement do you think is mostneeded in the K through 12 program at the schoollevel, the county level and the state level?

At the school level the three most common responseswere to lower the pupil-teacher ratio, increase the read-ing program and individualize instruction. Four of the

five groups mentioned a lower pupil-teacher ratio morefrequently than any other item.

At the county level the three most commonly men-tioned ways of improving the program were to providemore moncy, improve communications and lower thepupil-teacher ratio. Other suggestions made a numberof times by teachers were to provide more vocationalcourses, have fewer administrators and more teachers,and involve the teachers more in curriculum planning.Principals made additional suggestions such as to hiremore qualified supervisors and provide greater cur-riculum coordination. Supervisors frequently com-mented that good teacher support and in-service train-ing needed to be provided. Superintendents seemedto have no common suggestions. School board mem-bers on the other hand desired more budget flexibility.

At the state level the strongest suggestion made byall five groups was for the state to provide more moneyfor salaries, aides, buildings, ctc. School board mem-b. -s and principals also wanted more flexibility withtheir funds, and the principals wanted the paperworkreduced. A frequent suggestion from both teachers andprincipals was that communications needed to beimproved.

2. What steps would you recommend to bring aboutthese improvements at the local, county and statelevels?

The answers given to this question all centeredaround the following basic ideas. The most frequentlysuggested means for effecting these improvements atthe school level were: provide the money, provide in-service training, hire more teachers and reduce classsizes. These same suggestions applied to implementingthe recommendations at the county level. At the statelevel the basic means for implementing the suggestedimprovements in the K-12 program is for the state to:provide more funds, equalize the funding betweencounties through tax reform, educate the Legislatureand provide the needed technical assistance to the dis-tricts.

3. In your opinion, what innovations in teaching withwhich you are familiar have proved most effective?

The three most frequently mentioned innovationsby all groups were team teaching, individualizedinstruction and the use of audiovisual materials. Otherinnovations mentioned a number of times were differ-ent types of reading programs, various types of flexiblegrouping, open education, the use of aides, and dif-ferentiated staffing.

4. How would you reward superior teachers?

This question received many unique suggestions.However, when one categorizes them, the three most

323

numerous suggestiol were to increase their pay, pro-vide additional fringe benefits and give special recog-nition. Money was the most frequently suggested item.Recognition was the second most frequently suggested.Recognition included such things as publicity, awards,letters placed in their personnel files, titles and publiciz-ing of their teaching methods. The fringe benefits theysuggested be given to superior teachers included suchthings as grants, paying college tuition, sabbaticalleaves, paid travel, paid vacations, etc. Other sugges-tions included giving the teacher a greater voice inwhat class he would be assigned to and where he wouldbe assigned, as well as giving him more responsibilityand leadership opportunities. Some felt that superiorteachers could act as a strong motivating force on otherstaff members and should be put into this role by givingthem time to work with other faculty members. Othersuggestions included additional aides, more materials,fewer extra duties, more planning,time to develop newinnovativc-progmms.

5. If you had control of the total school budget (stateand local) in what area of instruction would youallocate more money than is now spent?

The most frequently mentioned areas they wouldhave allocated a larger share of the budget to were:audiovisual and classroom materials, reading, lowering

pupil-teacher ratio and vocational education.School board members were more concerned aboutreading and vocational education, whereas teacherswere more concerned about classroom materials anda lower pupil-teacher ratio. Other areas frequentlymentioned were salaries, aides, buildings, specialeducation, etc.

6. At what level should vocational counseling begin?

Fifty to sixty-five percent of the teachers, principals,supervisors and superintendents felt it should beginat the elementary level. However, only 32 percent ofthe school board members felt this way. The majorityof the remaining respondents of each group indicatedthat counseling should begin at the junior high level.

7. Do you think P reduction in class size is importantto improving the quality of education?

All groups strongly supported the belief that a reduc-tion in class size would improve the quality ofeducation.Over-90-4-iercent of the teachers and princi-pals believe that it would help and three-fourths ofthe superintendents, supervisors and school boardmembers also believed a reduction in class size wouldimprove the quality of education in Florida publicschools. More of the respondents felt it was importantto reduce class size in the primary grades than at anyother grade level.

8. Is reading deficiency a problem in your county?Ninety percent of each group felt that reading defi-

ciency was a problem in their county system. From72 to 89 percent of the five groups indicated that theyhad started a reading program to correct the readingdeficiency. The means most frequently used to correctthe reading deficiency was through added readingspecialists. Other systems set up reading programs,established reading labs, individualized programs andprovided in-service training to help teachers correctreading deficiencies in students. Many systemsindicated they used a variety of programs but the Sulli-van series was mentioned frequently.

When asked to rate how well their program wasdoing, all five groups gave approximately the samerating. About one-third felt their system was doinga good job. About one-fourth felt.it was doing an aver-age job. And about one-fifth did not know how theprogram was working.

9. Do you have any objection to giving standardizedachievement tests, uniform throughout the state,to measure the yearly progress of students?

?bout 60 percent of the educators had no objectiona about 84 percent of the school board members

had no objection, but one-third of the teachers andsuperVisors did object to giving statewide standardizedtests. The following are comments as to why teachersobjected to statewide achievement tests. Manyteachers and supervisors felt that too many variableswere involved to obtain valid results. For example,schools use different texts, students come from differ-ent, backgrounds with varying abilities. Many timesstudents do not take the tests seriously, and in generalthey become rather bored with taking tests. Someteachers feel that tests are limited in what theymeasure, and that a teacher's judgment is more effec-tive in assessing student progress. It may also causeteachers to teach toward the test and limit their flexibil-ity in working with students.

324

On the other hand there were comments that stronglyfavored statewide tests. They felt they needed this asa means to compare and evaluate how they were doingin relationsh;p to state objectives. However, they.emphasized that it was very important that the testserve as a diagnostic tool used to identify. deficienciesin addition to providingcomparison data on the overallprogress of a student or a school. The tests are validaccording to the varying conditions but caution mustbe used in interpreting the results. The majority ofthose having no objection to the testing suggested itbe initiated in the primary grades.

10. What is your opinion of the effectiveness of theState Department of Education in helping dis-tricts improve the quality of instruction?

About one-half of each group rated the Departmentof Education's effectiveness as average. The superin-tendents tended to rate the DOE high, whereas theschool board members tended to rate the departmentlow.

11. In what way could the State Department of Edu-cation more effectively help districts improve thequality of instruction?

The most common suggestion was for the depart-ment to provide technical assistance through consul-tants, work-shops, etc. Others suggested:that theycome to the districts, and that they listen, observeand meet the teachers. Several people suggested thatthe Department of Education: provide guidelines-butnot - rictions, become involved in the evaluation

provide money to the districts, allow themto spend it in a flexible manner, and try to avoid duplica-tion'of paper work. Many other ideas v..ere suggestedbut t' were the most frequently mentioned.

The statistical analysis of this survey can be -.btainedthrough the Florida State Library, Supreme CourtBuilding, Tallahassee, Florida 32304.

GOVERNOR'S CITIZENS' COMMITTEE QUFSTIONNAIRE

Please record all responses by circling the number preceding anappropriate answer. All your responses will become part of apool and individuals will not be identified.

4. Teachers required to spendtoo much time on non-teachingduties

S. Cooperation of the custodialstaff

County 6. The amount of influence theteacher has in curriculum

1. Sex: decisions

1. Male 2. Female 7. The public's financial sup-port of the county school

2. Race: system

1. Black 3. Other

2. White

3. In which age group do you fall:

1. 18-29 years 4. 50-59 years

2. 30-39 years 5. 60 or older

3. 40-49 years

4. Indicate the highest level of education attained by circlingthe appropriate number:

1. High'school diploma orless

2. some formal educationbeyond high school

3. Completed a vocationalprogram or an Associatedegree 7. Doctorate

Are you a:

1. Teacher 4. Superintendent

2. Principal 5. School Board Member

3. Supervisor

S.

4. Bachelor's Degree

5. Master's Degree or fiveyears of college credit

6. Specialist/Advanced Masters/six years of college credit

6. Approximately how long have you held this position: years

7. Total years of experience in educet.zmr years

THE NEXT FOUR QUESTIONS ARE.FOR.TEACHE. .V PRINCIPALS ONLY.

8. Other .

II. In most instances who is usually responsible for initiatingchanges in the curriculum for your county school system?Please rank.by number.

Personnel Initiate Changes

1. Teachers 1st Choice

2. Principals 2nd Choice

3. Assistant Principals 3rd Choice

4. Supervisors

5. Assistant Superintendents

6. Superintendent

7. Parents

B. Students

III. When you think about your county school system, in which ofthe following areas would changes increase student learningthe most? Please rank your first three choices by number.

Areas

1. Scheduling subjects byvarious time patterns

21 Staff utilization

3. Teaching methods

4. Alternative student

8. Please indicate the level(s) of eu, , you are serving: grouping

1. Lower elementary (5-3) 4. JuLtur high school/ 5. Subject or program offeringsMiddle school

2. Upper elementary 6. School plant facilities

5. High school (equipment and instructional materials)

3. All elementary levels6. Other 7. Grading and reporting to parents

3. -What is the approximate enrollment of your school:

1. 300 students or less 4. 1001 - 2000

2. %01.- 600 5. 2001 - 3000

3. 601 - 1000 6. 3001 or more students

10. PO. your school please give the approximate percentage ofstudents that are:

Black

White

Cuban Iminigrants %

Migrants

11. For your school please give the approximate percentage ofteachers that are:

Black

White

EVERYONE IS TO ANSWER THE REMAINING QUESTIONS.

I. How do you think your county school system compares to othercounty school systems in the state on the following factors?Please rate each factor.

Above Below

Factors Average Averse Avers 1

1. Ability to obtain funds /oreducational experimental pro-grams

2. Pupil-teacher ratio

3. Salary schedule

8. Other (please describe)

Changes

)et Choice

2nd Choice

3rd Choice

IV. Which of the following factors might serve as the most importantincentives for motivating TPACEERLinto making changes in theschool program. Please indicate your first five choices bynumber.

EVERYONE-IS TO ANSWER THIS QUESTION.

Passible incentives for change For motivating TEACHERS

1. Extra pay for trying new programs lst Choice

2. Better facilities and equipment 2nd Choice

3. Additional planning time 3rd Choice

4. More aides for teachers 4th Choice

5. More professional support from 5th Choicespecialists ih reading, speechtherapy, etc.

6. A greater interest on the partof parents in bringing aboutchange

7. Greater job security

8. Lower pupil-teacher ratio

9. More instructional materials

10. Enthusiastic positive student response to a new program

11. The possibility of higher pupil achievement

12. Superiors who expect changes to be made in the school-

325

13. Colleagues who expect changes to be made in the schoolprogram

14. Increased training in methods for implementing change

15. Increased voice in curriculum decisions

16. An administrative organization that encourages change

17. Better classroom visitation practices by principals

18. Better human relations skills

19. Other (please describe)

V Which of the following factors might serve as the most importantincentives for motivating PRINCIPALS into making changes in theschool program. Please indicate your first five choicei bynumber.

EVERYONE IS TO ANSWER THIS OU2STION

Possible incentives for change

1. Extra pay for new programs

2. Setter facilities and equipment

3. More clerical assistance forprincipals

4. A greater interest on the partof parents in bringing aboutchange

5. Greater job security

6. Lower pupil-btacher ratio

7. More instructional materials

For motivating PRINCIPALS

1st Choice

2nd Choice

3rd Choice

4th Choice

5th Choice

8. Enthusiastic positive student response to a new program

9. The possibility of higher pupil achievement

10. Superiors who expect changes to be made in the schoolprogram

Colleagues who expect changes to be made In the schoolprogram

12. Increased training in methods tor implementing change

13. Increased voice in curriculum decisions

14. An administrative organization that encourages change

15. Better hiring procedures

16. Principals given greater budget flexibility

17. Better human relations skills

18. Other (please describe)

11.

VI. Please check the degree to which you agree or disagree with eachof the following statements.

StronglyStrongly Unde- Dis- Dis-

Agree Agree cided tame tame

If one wants to changethe school program, groupincentives to departmentsor teaching teams wouldbe more effective thanincentives to indivi:uals.

2. Teachers do not need moreincentives to change butthey need the obstacles totheir efforts to changeremoved.

3. Non - financial incentivesare more important thanfinancial incentives forteachers making changesin the curriculum.

4. When a principal hascontrol over his school'sbudget, the school pro-gram can be improved moreeffectively.

5. School boards should giveawards and recognition toteachers and administratorsfor initiating changes inan attempt to improve theschool system.

6. A principal should have theright to determine his owrstaffing patterns.

326

Strongly

7. Each school should set itsown curriculum pr- .stiesaccording to the studentneeds.

Unde- Dis-An= JA.1111 cided ,12112.

8. School systems need to usebetter evaluation of resultsto accurately measure theeffects of change on schoolprograms.

9. To change and improve schoo'.1we need a procedure for set-ting priorities in bud-geting.

10. Schools would improve morequickly if the state wouldallow the local districtsto make their own decisions.

11. If a school board wouldconcern itself with policiesaimed at improving theschool program and stayaway from administration,schools would improve morequickly.

12. Our school attempts to iden-tify its most serious educa-tional problems. --

'

13. Our school system, afteridentifying its most seri-ous problems, immediatelyassigns personnel toidentify possible solutions '

to the problems.

14. Every school board membershould attend continuoustraining sessions designedto improve his skills inseta holicies that willimprove :.'..acho 1 system.

15. Principal, 1r1 from out-side the mr ere betterable to m41 hanger in aschool.

16. There Are not enough voca-tional programs now beingoffered to equip the studentwho is not interested in orqualified for higher educa-tion.

17. The county school systemshout.: have more controlover t..e use of stateallocated funds.

18. Kindergarten should bemandatory but entry heforeage six should be basedrona social maturity test. --

19. Special schools should beestablished for studentswho are chronic disciplinaryproblems in regular class-rooms.

20. Little help is provided byadminis.rators when imple-mer 'no a new program oracf .vity.

21. Teacher evaluation ratingsstress outdated teachingmethods.

22. There is not enough super-visory help when imple-menting changes.

23. School board policies makeit difficult to_implementnew programs or activities.

24. The parents should be moreinvolvi'd in deciding whattheir children are taught.

25. TeaChers should have morefreedom to control theiron classroom learningenvironment.

26. In our school system toomany people must be consultedbefore a decision can bereached.

27. Other

StronglyDis-

VII. Please answer each of the following questions.

1. What single improvement do you think is most needed inthe K through 12 program?

the

School level

County level

State level

2. What steps would you recommend to bring about these im-

e. Is reading deficiency a p,,,blem in:

A. Your school Yes No

D- Your county system Yes No---TA' you answered yes to "A" or "0" then have special programsbeen started to correct the reading deficiencies?

Yes . . . What system was used?

No . . . Why not?

If a special reading program was started to corectprovements? deficiencies, what were the reslts?

At the:

School level

County level

State level

1. In your opinion, what innovations in teaching with whichyou are familiar have proved most effective?

A.

B.

C.

Other

4. Hcra would you reward superior teachers?

5. If you had contiol of the total school budget (state andlocal) in what area of instruction would you allocate moremoney than is now spent?

6. At what level should vocational counseling begin:

Elementary _Junior Nigh _Senior Nigh

7. Do you think a reduction in class size is important toimproving the quality of education?

Yes No

If yes, for what grades is it most important:

327

Good Fair Poor Don't know

9. Do you have any objection to giving standardized achieve-ment tests, uniform throughout the state, to measure theyearly progress of students?

No. I have no objection. . . At what grade levelshould such tests begin?

Yes. I do object.

Comments:

10. what is your opinion of the effectiveness of the StateDepartment of Education in helping districts improve thequality of instruction:

Good Fair Poor

11. In what way could the State Department of Education moreeffectively help districts improve the quality of instruction?

Thank you for completing the questionnaire. Yoursuggestions will be most valuable in helping theGovernor's Citizens' Committee on Education formu-late its recommendations for improving educationin Florida. If you would like to make any addi-tional comments please feel free to do so.

APPENDIX D: LIST OF ADDITIONALTECHNICAL REPORTS

APPENDIX D: LIST OF ADDITIONALTECHNICAL REPORTS

The follcwing technical reports were received bythe staff and, in many instances, formed the basis ofrecommendations made by the Committee. Each ofthese reports'is available at the Florida State Library,the Supreme Court Building, Tallahassee, Florida,32304.

Abstracts of the Educational Systems of: Alaska,California, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa,Massachusetts, Michigan, Missouri, NewJersey, NewYork, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oregon,Tennessee, Texas, Virginia and Wisconsin

Community Education and Community Schools: AReport to the Citizens' Committee on Education

The Consolidation of Florida School Districts

The Development of a System of Post-Secondary Edu-cation in Florida

The Florida Schoc' Finance Model: A Computer

...wit.-

12' 331

Simulation Adapted from the National EducationalFinance ProjectA Performance-Based Educational System and theGoal-Setting ProcessProposed Dissertation: Analysis of the Governor'sCitizens' Committee on Education Survey

Recommendations on School Health and Health Edu-cation ProgramsRegional Service Centers for Education

A Report of the Governor's Ad Hoc Task Force onEducational Problems of Florida's Disadvantaged

Staff Report of Task Force on Teacher Personnel andTraining

A Study of Minority Representation on Elected SchoolBoards in Florida

Working Paper for Educational Reorganization

APPENDIX E. RESOURCE PERSONNEL

APPENDIX E: RESOURCE PERSONNEL

It is impossible to single out everyone who providedvaluable assistance to the Committee. However, theCommittee wishes to extend its sincere thanks to thefollowing persons.

NATIONAL ADVISORY COUNCIL,FINANCE STUDY

Dr. Carl Blackwell, ChiefBureau of BudgetersDepartment of Administration

Dr. James GuthrieProfessor of EducationUniversity of California at Berkeley

Dr. R. L. Johns, DirectorNational Educational Finance Project

"Utiiiiersity of FloridaGainesville, Florida

Herman 0. MyersAssociate Commissioner for Budget

Planning and DevelopmentDepartment of Education

Dr. Wendell Pierce, Executive DirectorEducation Commission of the StatesDenver, Colorado

Dr. J. Alan ThomasProfessor of EducationUniversity of Chicago

MAJOR PRESENTATIONS TO COMMITTEE

Dr. James Allen, DeceasedFormer United StatesCommissioner.of Education

Dr. Kern AlexanderNational EducationalFinance Project, Gainesville

335

Dr. W. Earl ArmstrongChairman, Task Force onTeacher Education

Thomas BakerAdministrator, Financial AffairsDivision of Community CollegesDepartment of Education

Dr. Charles BensonProfessor of EducationUniversity of California at Berkeley

Bobby BrewerClassroom Teachers AssociationHillsborough County

Mrs. Donald CastorDirector, League ofWomen Voters of Florida

Honorable Floyd T. ChristianState Commissioner of Education

Honorable Doyle ConnerState Commissioner of Agriculture

Dr. Robert CroninSupervisor, ExtendedSchool Year ProjectDuval County SchoolBoard

Broward DavisPresident, Florida Association ofSchool Boards

Honorable Fred 0. Dickinson, Jr.State Comptroller

Dr. Bill DrummondWash;!;c,ton State-Department of Education

Dr. Henry S. Dyer,Former Vice PresidentEducational TestingService

Stephen A. FreedmanBureau of ResearchDepartment ofEducation

John GriderSupervisor, IndividuallyPaced Instruction,Duval County SchoolBoard

Dr. Cecil HardestySuperintendent, DuvalCounty School Board

Miss Jeanette HazouriCoordinator, Project ImpactDuval CountySchool Board

Dr. Gene JenkinsDirector, Special ProjectsDuval County School Board

Dr. Donald JohnsonAssociate Superintendentfor Curriculum, DuvalCounty School Board

Dr. Forbis JordanNational EducationalFinance Project, Gainesville

D. Burke Kibler, IIIFormer Chairman, FloridaBoard of Regents

Dr. Leon LessingerDean, College of EducationUniversity of South Carolina

Dr. Hugh McKeanChancellor, Rollins College

336

Honorable Truett OttChairman, SenateVocational-TechnicalEducation Committee

Mrs. Rayma PageSchool Board Memberof Lee County

Dr. Larry Pau lkSupervisor,..Program DevelopmentDuval County School Board

Dr. Charles ReedCoordinat,... Researchand Development in TeacherEdtication, Department ofEducation

Cliff ShislerSupervisor, Title IResearch and EvaluationDuval County School Board

Dr. Landis Stet lerAdministrator, Educationfor Exceptional ChildrenDepartment of Education

Honorable Richard StoneSecretary of State

Thomas C. ToddFormer Superintendent ofSchools, Bay County

Dr. James WattenbargerFlorida Association ofCommunity Colleges

Dr. E. L. WhighamSuperintendent of SchoolsDade County

C. Al WhiteSupervisor, Project -Administration for SpecialProjects, Duval CountySchool Board

Tom WilliamsSupervisor, Research andEvaluation, Duval CountySchool Board

Mrs. Mary ZellnerPrincipal, S. Bryan JenningsElementary School, Orange Park

RESOURCE PEOPLE

Dr. Milton Akers, DirectorEarly Childhood Development ProjectOffice of the Governor

Dr. Herbert C. Alexander, DirectorCommunity College AffairsFlorida A&M University

John AlexanderAssociate PlannerDepartment of Administration

Dr. Claud AndersonEducational Aide to Governor Askew

Dr. Philip AshlerExecutive Vice ChancellorBoard of Regents

Samuel Ashdown, Deputy SecretaryDepartment of Commerce

James A. BargeVocational Education for DisadvantagedDepartment of Education

Dr. Jacob Beard, Associate ProfessorEducational ResearchFlorida State University

Dr. James Beck, ChairmanCounselor EducationFlorida A & M University

Dr. Louis Bender, ProfessorCollege of EducationFlorida State University

Mrs. Eloise BerryReading, Adult Basic 'EducationDepartment of Education

Dr. Marian Black, ProfessorCollege of EducationFlorida State University

Shelley BooneDeputy CommissionerDepartment of Education

Mrs. Annabel Brantley, ConsultantPupil PersonnelDepartment of Education

337

Robert Browning, ChiefBureau of Comprehensive Rehabilitation

PlanningDivision of Planning and EvaluationDepartment of Education

Miss Martha Brownlee, ConsultantAcademic AffairsDivision of Community CollegesDepartment of Education

Ivie Burch, DirectorResearch and TestingGulf Coast Community College

Henry Cain, Special ConsultantFinance Study

Jim Chamber, Counseling, FinancialAid, Recruiting DisadvantagedNorth Campus of Miami-Dade

Dr. Cnarles E. Chick, Bureau ChiefBureau of School FacilitiesDepartment of Education

Mrs. Judy Childers, Planning AssistantBureau of PlanningDepartment of Administration

Lynn B. Clarke, DirectorPublic RelationsUniversity of Miami

Dr. Charles ClaxtonFormer Research AssociateCitizens' Committee on Education

Lee ClemonsStudentFlorida State University

Dr. Benton Clifton, AdministratorHealth EducationDepartment of Education

Art Collier, ConsultantMigrant EducationDepartment of Education

William G. ColmanInternational Government RelationsPotomac, Maryland

Dr. Arthur W. CombsProfessor of PsychologyUniversity of Florida

Doug CrawfordFlorida Association,qf DiStrict

School SuperintendentsDepartment of Education

George Creech, Jr.Computer Systems Analyst IIDepartment of Education

Joe CresseDeputy Director of BudgetDepartment of Administration

Mrs. Windy Cullar, ConsultantEducation for Exceptional ChildrenDepartment of Education

Tom Culton, Assistant CommissionerCompensatory EducationDepartment of Education

Ernie CutilloDean of StudentsGodby High School

Dr. Fred Daniel, DirectorEducational Research and

Development ProgramDepartment of Education

J. J. Daniel, ChairmanBoard of Regents

Woodrow DardenDivision of Elementary and

Secondary EducationDepartment of Education

Dr. Donald Darling, AdministratorPupil Personnel SectionElementary & Secondary Education

James A. Davis, ConsultantWork Experience ProgramsDepartment of Education

Ahmed Dia, Research AssociateDepartment of Administration

338

Dr. Kenneth M. Eaddy, ChiefBureau of Vocational Research

and EvaluationDepartment of Education

William A. Eaton, Fiscal AnalystSenate Ways and Means Committee

Terry EdwardsFormf . Associate Planner for EducationDepartment of Administration

Dr. Paul R. Elliott, DirectorPrograms in Medical SciencesFlorida A&M University

Dr. Fenwick EnglishAssistant SuperintendentSarasota County School District

Mrs. Nancy EriksonDivision of Planning and EvaluationDepartment of Health and

Rehabilitative Services

Ed Feaver, DirectorCooperating Area ManpowerPlanning SystemsDepartment of Commerce

James Fling, AdministratorAdult and Veterans EducationDepartment of Education

Miss Linda FrazierResearch AssociateDepartment of Administration

Dr. Herman FrickProfessorEducation AdministrationFlorida State University

Howard Friedman, AdministratorPublic Information ServicesDepartment of Education

Dr. Marshall L. Frinks, Jr.Associate, Planning and CoordinationDepartment of Education

Dr. Robert Froemke, Chief LegislativeAnalystMinority OfficeHouse of Representatives

Dr. Thomas W. Fryer, Jr.Vice President, Downtown

Campus AdministrationMiami-Dade Junior College

John Gaines, SuperintendentPutnam County School Board

Dr. Jack Gant, DirectorTeacher Education SystemsBoard of Regents

Mrs. Elizabeth GarrawayCollege of EducationFlorida State University

Dr. Emily GatesDivision of HealthDepartment of Health and

Rehabilitative Services

Dr. Robert GatesVice President for Supporting ServicesEdinboro State CollegeEdinboro, Pennsylvania

Dr. Gilbert GentryBureau ChiefSchool Finance and Business

ManagementDepartment of Education

Dr. Juanita Gibson, former Staff DirectorSenate Higher Education Committee

Gene J. GiulianiComputer SystemsAnalyst SupervisorDepartment of Education

W. Cecil GoldenAssociate Commissioner for

Planning and CoordinationDepartment of Education

Jimmy Greek, DirectorCurriculum ServicesDuval County School Board

Martin T. Green, former Staff DirectorSenate Public Schools Committee

339

Mrs. Jewel Haddock, PresidentFlorida Congress of Parents and

Teachers

Mrs. Lucy Hadi, Planner & EvaluatorBureau of Comprehensive

Rehabilitation PlanningDivision of Planning and EvaluationDepartment of Health and

Rehabilitative Services

H. M. Harmes, DirectorSchool Service CenterFlorida Atlantic University

Dr. Joan Haworth, Assistant ProfessorDepartment of Economics andConsultant, Computer CenterFlorida State University

Dr. Lee G. Henderson, DirectorDivision of Community CollegesDepartment of Education

Damon Holmes, Deputy SecretaryDepartment of Health andRehabilitative Services

Thomas HorkanExecutive DirectorFlorida Catholic Confererice

Dr. Gary HoumesDivision of Planning'Department of Administration

Dr. James Impara, AdministratorEducational AccountabilityDepartment of Education

Buddy Irby, former PresidentFlorida Junior CollegeStudent Government Association

Floyd Jaggears, Assistant AdministratorAdult and Veterans EducationDepartment of Education

Lincoln JarrettDivision of PlanningDepartment of Administration

Mrs. Margaret Johansen, former PresidentFlorida Congress of Parents and Teachers

Dr. George JohnsonEducation Commission of the StatesDenver, Colorado

Mrs. Jean JohnsonSenate Education_Committee

0. J. Keller, DirectorDivision of Youth ServicesDepartment of Health and

Rehabilitative Services

Dr. James KellyProgram SpecialistThe Ford FoundationNew York, New York

Mrs. Marie A. Kohler, AdministratorInstitutional ResearchDepartment of Administration

Richard Krueger, Planner & EvaluatorBureau of Comprehensive Rehabilitation

PlanningDivision of Planning & EvaluationDepartment of Health and

Rehabilitative Services

Dr. Richard W. KurthResearch AssociateDepartment of Education

C. M. Lawrence, AdministratorPrograms and SupervisionDivision of Vocational; Technical

and Adult EducationDepartment of Education

John D. LeppertStaff DirectorSenate Education Committee

Dr. Judy Lombana, ConsultantPupil PersonnelDepartment of Education

Dr. James Longstreth, SuperintendentAlachua County School Board

Dr. J :In W. LoveSpecialist in School SurveyDepartment of Education

David LycanFiscal AnalystHouse Appropriations Committee

Hugh MacMillanLegislative Aide to the Governor

Dr. Donald Magruder, Executive DirectorFlorida School Board Association

Dr. Larry MargolisExecutive DirectorCitizens' Conference onState LegislaturesKansas City, Missouri

Chancellor Robert B. MautzState University System

John B. McClellanData Center DirectorDepartment of Education

340

Dr. Keuben R. McDaniel, Jr.Assistant Professor, Col'Age of EducationFlorida State Universit}

Howard McMillanAssociate Superintendent for AdministrationDade County School BoardMiami, Florida

Joseph D. Mills, DirectorDivision of Vocational, Technical

and Adult EducationDepartment of Education

Charles E. Miner, General CounselState Board of Education

Dr. Paul Mohr, DeanCollege of EducationFlorida A&M University

Dr. Samuel MoorerFormer Coordinator, Teacher EducationFlorida Board of Regents

Mrs. Josephine Newton, ConsultantPupil PersonnelDepartment of Education

Dr. Roger NicholsAdministrative Assistant, Office of the SpeakerFlorida House of Representatives

Dr. Michael'O'FarrellAssistant Director, Supportive

Services DivisionFlorida Education Association

Mrs. Mary OliveArt Consultant

Mrs. Edna Owens, PrincipalAstoria Park Elementary SchoolTallahassee, Florida

Dr. Paul Parker, DirectorUniversity-Wide ProgramsChancellor's OfficeFlorida Board of Regents

H.C. RandOccupational CounselingDepartment of Education

Dr. R.V. Rasmussen, ProfessorCollege of EducationFlorida State University

Dr. Ervin Rouson, CounselorSt. Petersburg Junior College

David St. John, DirectorDivision of Planning and EvaluationDepartment of Health and Rehabilitative Services

Mrs. Molly SampleFlorida Education Association

Robert Sanchez, Research AssociateCitizens' Committee on Education

John Seay, former Deputy CommissionerFlorida Department of Education

Dr. Robert ShannonStaff DirectorHouse Education Committee

Ms. Martha SiegelDivision of HealthDepartment of Health and

Rehabilitative Services

David Sigerson, PresidentFlorida Junior College Student

Government Association

Ram Singh, Research AssistantCollege of EducationFlorida State University

Dr. Gerald SroufeExecutive DirectorNational Committee for Support

of the Public Schools

Dr. Harold M. Stahmer, Associate DeanCollege of Arts and SciencesUniversity of Florida

Jon L. Stapleton, AdministratorFederal-State RelationsDepartment of Education

Dr. James R. SwansonAssistant Chief, ResearchBureau of Research and EvaluationDepartment of Education

George SweatFormer Governmental Relations ConsultantFlorida Education Association

341

T. W. SwiftVocational Education for the HandicappedDepartment of Education

.lames Tait, Executive DirectorCommission on Local Government

Mrs. Louise M. TaylorBrevard County School Board Member

Ray Tipton, Executive SecretaryFlorida Association of District

School Superintendents

Dr. I. Mitchell Wade, Bureau ChiefBureau of ResearchDepartment of Education

Millard -Wallace, StudentFlorida State University

William Wharton, AdministratorStudent Financial Aid SectionDepartment of Education

Anthony WilliamsAssistant DirectorCooperating Area ManpoOer

Planning Systems

Dr. Fred WilliamsSenior Planner, EducationDepartment of Administration

Dr. Joshua WilliamsCollege of EducationFlorida A&M Univ-csity

342

Dr. Charles WillisInstitute for Development of

Educational Activities. Inc.Dayton, Ohio

Douglas ZellnerDivision of Planning and EvaluationDepartment of Health and

Rehabilitative Services

The generous zontributions from the followingbusinesses and ind'istries assisted greatly in the firstyear of operation of the Committee:

Barnett Banks of Florida, Inc.Florida Power CorporationSaint Petersburg TimesSaint Regis Paper CompanySouthern Bell TelephoneTropicana Products, Inc.Union Trust National Bank of St. Petersburg