Quality Counts
Quality Counts 2005: No Small Change
Targeting Money Toward Student Performance
January 6, 2005
- Education State Report CardsThe following are state-by-state narratives highlighting some of the factors that contributed to state performance in the four graded sections of Quality Counts 2005.Education How Education Week Graded the StatesAn overview of methodology and indicators used when compiling data for Quality Counts 2005.Law & Courts A Level Playing FieldNew Jersey's Abbott v. Burke lawsuit set the Garden State on a bold new path for financing schools in its neediest districts. Several years after the key decisions in the landmark case, the results are still being debated.States Financial EvolutionHistorically, states have focused on how to distribute money equitably across districts. Now, states are asking what it would take to raise all students to state standards.
Education Chart: Performance-Pay PioneersStates have started to reward teachers for demonstrating specific knowledge and skills in the classroom or for boosting their students’ test scores. The vast majority of states still pay teachers based on their education level and years of experience.Teaching Profession Salary AdjustmentsSome experts wonder if the traditional teacher-pay system is the right fit for the rising demands of today's schools.School Choice & Charters Financial FreedomFlexibility comes at a price for charter schools, whose operators frequently face protracted battles over funding.
Education Chart: Plaintiff VictoryAs a result of the New Jersey Supreme Court’s 1998 Abbott v. Burke ruling, per-pupil spending in some of the state’s poorest districts, known as the Abbott districts, increased more than 41 percent from 1996 to 2003.Equity & Diversity Targeted SpendingAccording to a survey by the Education Week Research Center, 43 states and the District of Columbia have some kind of mechanism in place to provide extra money for students who are deemed at risk.
Education Chart: State StrategiesTo provide additional funding for students “at risk”—those in poverty or headed for academic failure—most states adjust each district’s aid level through a weight or use categorical programs to grant school districts money that typically must be spent on specific services.Education Adequacy Studies: InterpretationThis table is not a comprehensive list of all adequacy studies conducted across the 50 states. Studies not listed generally only included school-level costs, were not statewide, or included only certain types of districts. Other studies not included were too old, or original reports were not available.Education Equity: InterpretationState-equalization effort: Education Week changed the way we graded the states on equity this year, based on the advice of the Quality Counts 2005 advisory board. We decided to focus our efforts in this section on outcome measures only. Thus, we no longer use the state-equalization effort to measure the equity of school finance systems. The wealth-neutrality score, the McLoone Index, and the coefficient of variation now each count for one-third of the grade.Education Spending: InterpretationSpending index: While no consensus exists about how much money is necessary to provide an "adequate" education, it is clear that districts with certain characteristics tend to require more aid. Specifically, districts enrolling more students with special needs require more money. The National Center for Education Statistics estimates that students in poverty, for example, need 1.2 times as much funding as other students do. The Center for Special Education Finance estimates that students with disabilities need 1.9 times as much money.Education Funding Making Every Dollar CountAs expectations for schools rise and money remains tight, policymakers face growing pressures to strengthen the connection between K-12 spending policies and academic results.
Education Chart: School-Level Data CollectionAmong the states that collect financial data from schools, there is a great deal of variation in how the data are collected, whether schools are audited, and whether the information is reported to the public.Budget & Finance Weighty DecisionsThe idea of building school budgets around individual students is getting more attention.Budget & Finance Elusive AnswersThe rising demands on public schools, a fluctuating economy, and successful lawsuits are forcing states to search for new ways to make their tax systems fairer and more reliable.
Budget & Finance Revenue LimitsTraditionally, the property tax has been the foundation for education aid in communities across the country. It also has led to wide variations in revenue across some districts.States State of the States: Quality Counts 2005States are putting in place policies to help meet the requirements of the federal No Child Left Behind Act and to improve the conditions in their schools.Education The Education Week Research Center Annual State Policy SurveyTo survey the states on their education policies, the Education Week Research Center sent surveys to the chief state school officers in all 50 states and to the superintendent of the District of Columbia public schools. Education Week mailed the survey, which contained five sections—standards and accountability, assessment, efforts to improve teacher quality, school climate, and school finance—on July 28, 2004; electronic copies were sent by e-mail on July 29. In several states, the section on efforts to improve teacher quality also was sent to the state’s teacher-standards board.
Education Chart: Test MismatchUnder the No Child Left Behind law, all students must reach proficiency on state exams by 2013-14.Education Funding Uncertain CostsThe debate over how much federal aid is enough to pay for the No Child Left Behind Act has raged since well before President Bush signed the legislation in January 2002.Standards & Accountability Financing Better SchoolsQuality Counts 2005: No Small Change, Targeting Money Toward Student Performance, focuses on the burgeoning efforts to link funding to educational outcomes. Nearly $500 billion in combined federal, state, and local money is spent on precollegiate education in the United States each year, with nearly half the total coming from state coffers.Education GeorgiaStandards and Accountability: Georgia receives a high overall grade in this category. The state has clear and specific standards in English, mathematics, and science in all grade spans. It also has clear standards in social studies/history at the high school level. But Georgia relies heavily on multiple-choice questions to measure student performance. The state uses extended-response items solely on its English exams.Education ArkansasStandards and Accountability: The state has clear and specific standards in English, mathematics, and science, although the English and math standards are not clear and specific at the high school level. The standards in social studies/history are not clear and specific at the elementary, middle, or high school level.Education ArizonaStandards and Accountability: Arizona has a fairly strong standards-based system and uses its tests to hold schools accountable for results. Arizona is one of six states that have clear and specific standards in English, mathematics, science, and social studies/history in elementary, middle, and high school.Education OregonStandards and Accountability: The foundation of Oregon’s accountability system is nearly complete. The state has clear and specific standards at the elementary, middle, and high school levels for English, mathematics, and science, and at the middle and high school levels for social studies/history.Education North DakotaStandards and Accountability: North Dakota has clear and specific standards at the elementary, middle, and high school levels in mathematics and science, but not yet in social studies/history. The state has clear and specific standards in English at the elementary and middle school levels.Education South DakotaStandards and Accountability: South Dakota is still missing key pieces of a strong accountability system. The state has clear and specific standards in mathematics and science for the elementary, middle, and high school levels.Education WyomingIn response to the Campbell I and Campbell II court cases in Wyoming, the state legislature commissioned an adequacy study in 1997, which was then revised in 2002. The study used the “professional judgment” model, based on three “prototypical” schools, one for each grade span. The study provided a method for the state to calculate the cost of providing an adequate education in elementary, middle, and high schools. For the 2004-05 school year, the foundation levels for those grade spans are $6,230 for elementary schools, $6,201 for middle schools, and $6,524 for high schools. To calculate each district’s allotment, the foundation level is multiplied by the district’s average daily membership. The state then subtracts the required local share of a 6-mill countywide school property tax and a 25-mill districtwide levy. If local revenues exceed the district’s foundation guarantee, the state recaptures the excess aid and distributes it to other districts. Wyoming’s formula includes adjustments to district entitlements for transportation, special education, cost-of-living, the experience and seniority of teachers, at-risk students, English-language learners, and vocational education students. Wyoming also has 15 categorical programs. The five largest are special education, transportation, major maintenance, education reform, and reading assessment.Education MissouriStandards and Accountability: Missouri has clear and specific standards in science for the elementary, middle, and high school levels. But its English and mathematics standards lack clarity and specificity; its social studies/history standards are clear and specific only for middle schools and high schools.Education DelawareStandards and Accountability: The foundation of any school accountability system rests on solid academic standards, and assessments aligned with those standards. Delaware has clear and specific standards in elementary, middle, and high school for mathematics and science. The state has clear and specific standards in English at the elementary and middle school levels and in social studies/history at the middle and high school levels.Education District of ColumbiaStandards and Accountability: A strong accountability system has three main components: clear and specific standards in the core subjects at the elementary, middle, and high school levels; tests aligned with those standards; and methods of holding schools accountable for results, including help for schools rated as low-performing and rewards for high-performing or improving schools.Education ConnecticutStandards and Accountability: Connecticut has established clear and specific standards in all grade spans in mathematics and science. The state does not have clear and specific standards in English/language arts. The state has clear and specific standards in social studies/history at the middle school level only.Education AlabamaStandards and Accountability: Alabama’s mathematics and history standards are clear and specific at the elementary, middle, and high school levels. But its science standards are clear and specific for elementary and middle schools only. English standards are clear and specific solely at the elementary level.Education WashingtonStandards and Accountability: Washington state has set clear and specific standards in all grade spans for science and mathematics.Education West VirginiaStandards and Accountability: West Virginia is one of 12 states that earned A’s for standards and accountability this year. The state has standards-based exams at the elementary, middle, and high school levels in English, mathematics, science, and social studies/history, making West Virginia one of 12 states to have such exams in every core subject and grade span. The tests also use a variety of items to measure student knowledge, including multiple-choice, short-answer, and extended-response questions.Education PennsylvaniaStandards and Accountability: Pennsylvania is one of six states with clear and specific standards at the elementary, middle, and high school levels in English, mathematics, science, and social studies/history.Education TexasStandards and Accountability: Texas has clear and specific standards at the elementary, middle, and high school levels in mathematics. It has clear and specific standards in English at the elementary and high school levels; and in science, for elementary and middle schools. The American Federation of Teachers gives none of the state’s social studies/history standards that rating.Education WyomingStandards and Accountability: Wyoming’s standards are clear and specific for all grade spans solely in mathematics, according to ratings by the American Federation of Teachers. More than anything else, the lack of clear and specific standards in other core subjects reduces the state’s grade in this category.Education Rhode IslandStandards and Accountability: Rhode Island has adopted standards in English, mathematics, and science, but not in social studies/history. Moreover, only its math and science standards are rated clear and specific by the American Federation of Teachers, an evaluation that significantly hurts the state’s grade.Education South CarolinaStandards and Accountability: South Carolina is one of 12 states earning A’s in this category. The state has clear and specific standards in English, mathematics, and science at the elementary, middle, and high school levels, and in social studies/history at the middle and high school levels.Education FloridaStandards and Accountability: Florida is one of 12 states that earned A’s in this category this year. That’s because the state has many of the elements critical to a strong accountability system. Clear and specific standards exist in three out of four core subjects (English, mathematics, and science) in all grade spans. Social studies/history standards, though, are clear and specific at the elementary and high school levels only.Education OhioStandards and Accountability: Ohio is one of 12 states that earned A’s in this category. The state has established clear and specific standards in English, mathematics, and science for elementary, middle, and high schools. Social studies/history standards are clear and specific at the middle and high school levels only.Education ConnecticutThe Education Cost Sharing grant is the foundation formula used in Connecticut to distribute education revenue to districts. In fiscal 2004, the ECS grant, with over $1.5 billion, provided about two-thirds of total state aid for education. The grant is calculated based on a foundation level, each town’s fiscal capacity, and a weighted student enrollment. The foundation level is set annually by the legislature and is $5,891 per weighted student for fiscal 2005. Towns with the lowest property values receive as much as 90 percent of the foundation level from state aid, while the wealthiest districts receive at least 6 percent, which is the minimum aid rate in Connecticut. Enrollment is weighted for low-income students, English-language learners, and those who need remedial education. Districts in Connecticut do not have a minimum required tax levy to receive state aid, but they must meet a minimum-expenditure requirement. If a district does not do so, the state can withhold ECS grant money for twice the amount of the expenditure shortfall. To receive state aid, districts also must keep a 180-day or 900-instructional-hour school year and provide special education programs and transportation for students.Education DelawareDelaware is one of just five states that have never had lawsuits challenging their school finance systems. Delaware is also one of the few states that do not distribute money to schools based on a foundation formula. The state pays for education in three “divisions.” Division I provides funds for teacher salaries and compensation based on the state salary schedule. Division II is a uniform flat grant provided to every district in the state. Division III consists of state equalization aid. For the latter, the state provides money on a matching basis with local taxation to help ensure that unequal property wealth does not lead to inequitable school funding. Division I funding is based on such district characteristics as grade levels served, the number of special and vocational education students, and a “teacher experience index” that is based on a teacher’s years of experience and highest degree attained. Delaware also provides money to districts through 41 categorical programs. Some of those categorical programs include support for special education, reading initiatives, professional development, gifted-and-talented education, bilingual education, and early-childhood education.Education District of ColumbiaThe District of Columbia allocates money to its schools through the Uniform Per Student Funding Formula, a foundation formula. The same formula finances charter schools. Dollars are allocated for each student, with a per-pupil base cost of $6,904 in fiscal 2005. That figure is then weighted to provide additional support for different grade levels, alternative education, special education, English-language learners, summer school, and adult education. Since the nation’s capital is a single school district, it does not have such state policies as a required local effort. The local government makes appropriations separate from the foundation formula for categorical programs. Those programs support transportation for special education students, tuition payments for private placements for such students, and other state education agency functions that are not financed through the foundation formula. Washington’s mayor and the District of Columbia Council must review the foundation formula every four years, with input from the city’s regular and charter public schools. As part of that review, the local leaders must study the actual costs of providing education in the district.Education ArkansasArkansas’ school finance formula was ruled unconstitutional in 1983 and again in 2001. In the 2001 case, Lake View School District, No. 25 v. Huckabee, the court ordered the state to conduct an adequacy study, which found that the state needed to spend an additional $848 million on education. In response to those cases, Arkansas has carried out significant reforms in its finance formula over the past 20 years. Currently, Arkansas pays for education using a foundation formula, which in the 2004-05 school year guarantees $5,400 per student. State aid is determined by subtracting a local 25-mill property-tax levy from the $5,400 guarantee. Local districts raise revenue through the property tax, as well as other sources, such as severance taxes, local sales and use taxes, and federal forest reserves. At the state level, at least portions of the sales and use taxes, rental-vehicle tax, beer excise tax, and corporate-franchise tax are dedicated to K-12 education. The state gave education a significant boost for fiscal 2005, increasing funding for the foundation formula by more than $289 million and adding almost $209 million to its categorical programs. Arkansas has 12 categorical programs, including money for school construction, professional development, the Better Chance program for prekindergarten pupils deemed at risk, extra aid for isolated districts, and early-childhood special education.Education CaliforniaCalifornia provides money for education through several grants and entitlements. The largest, often referred to as “revenue limit funding,” supplies general-purpose aid to school districts, county offices of education, and charter schools. The formula for that aid is a modified foundation formula, in which the foundation level varies from district to district based on several factors. The per-pupil base-revenue limit was first established in the 1970s and has been adjusted each year for inflation. The revenue-limit entitlement is met with both state aid and state-controlled local property taxes. About 60 districts in California have local property taxes that exceed their revenue-limit entitlements and so do not receive any state aid for general-purpose funding. General-purpose aid is adjusted for unemployment insurance, employer-retirement costs for classified employees, and additional support for small schools. California had about 50 categorical programs totaling $10 billion in fiscal 2004. The five largest provided support for class-size reduction, transportation, special education, preschool and child-development programs, and the state’s Targeted Instructional Improvement program. Last fall, though, the state consolidated more than 20 of the categorical programs into six block grants. As the result of a lawsuit settled last summer, Williams v. State, the state also passed legislation to increase school facilities funding.Education ColoradoEvery district in Colorado is guaranteed a minimum of $5,627 per pupil in state and local revenue for the 2004-05 school year. Per-pupil funding is adjusted to account for variations across districts in cost of living and district size. In addition, districts receive money for each student who is eligible for free lunches. The state provides added money to districts based on how far each district’s percentage of students eligible for free lunches rises above the statewide average. A minimum local effort is not required for districts to receive state aid, but the state assumes that districts will raise a certain amount of revenue through local property taxes, and it adjusts state aid accordingly. The assumed effort is different for each district. Colorado also provides aid to districts through categorical funding. The state has eight categorical programs, the five largest of which support special education students, English-language learners, transportation, vocational education, and gifted-and-talented programs. Colorado’s state finance system is being challenged in court. The plaintiffs in Haley v. Colorado Department of Education, which was filed in the summer of 2002, contend that the state’s special education funding violates the state constitution.Education AlabamaIn 1993, the Alabama Supreme Court ruled in Alabama Coalition for Equity v. Hunt that the state’s school finance system was unconstitutional. In 1995, the state implemented a new foundation formula that incorporated some of the concerns raised in the court case. Under the new program, funds are allocated based on teacher and instructional-support units. The state calculates the number of teacher units required for each school by taking the school’s average daily membership and dividing it by student-to-teacher ratios for different grade levels established by the legislature. Instructional-support units consist of positions for principals, assistant principals, counselors, librarians, and secretaries. The state calculates the money associated with each teacher and instructional-support unit for every school based on four factors: the costs of teacher salaries, employee benefits, classroom support, and other current expenses. Alabama’s formula also incorporates adjustments for vocational and special education programs. The state bases the adjustments on a percentage of the total average daily membership in each district, not the number of students participating in the programs. To receive state aid, each district must levy a 10-mill property tax or its equivalent through a 1-cent sales tax. Alabama also provides money for schools through eight categorical programs, including transportation, preschool education, programs for at-risk students, and school construction.Education AlaskaAlaska uses a foundation formula to pay for education. The formula calculates each district’s “basic need entitlement” by multiplying the base student allocation of $4,576 in 2004-05 by an adjusted average daily membership. Alaska’s formula adjusts student enrollment for school size, district variations in cost of living, student needs (special education, bilingual education, gifted education, and vocational education students), high-cost special education students, grade level, and the number of correspondence students who participate in distance education. The state requires local districts to levy a tax of 4 mills on personal property to receive state aid. Local revenues come mainly from the personal-property tax and local sales taxes. At the state level, a portion of the cigarette tax is dedicated to education. In 1999, Alaska’s system for financing school construction was ruled unconstitutional in Kasayulie v. State. The judge ruled that the system in place for financing school facilities was racially biased—that the state had a “dual” system. Now Alaska faces a new lawsuit, Moore v. State, filed last summer, that challenges the state’s entire school finance system. The lawsuit also claims that the state has not provided the resources to meet the requirements of the federal No Child Left Behind Act.Education ArizonaThe Rodel Charitable Foundation of Arizona has commissioned a study to determine what it would cost to provide the state’s students with an adequate education. Seven school districts have claimed that the state’s existing finance system is inadequate in Crane Elementary School District v. State. Arizona’s system allocates money to schools through a foundation formula. The formula is based on a foundation level ($2,893 for fiscal 2005) that is set by the legislature each year. Arizona calculates each district’s share of state aid by multiplying the foundation level by student enrollment and subtracting a local levy. The state does not require a minimum local effort for districts to receive state funding, but assumes districts will raise a qualifying tax rate of $1.8931 per $100,000 worth of property value. The state adjusts state aid accordingly. If a district is able to raise more than its share of state aid through its qualifying levy, the district receives no money from the foundation formula. State aid also is adjusted according to school size, grade level, the number of special education students, English-language learners, transportation needs, and teacher experience.Education GeorgiaGeorgia pays for education through its Quality Basic Education program, a foundation formula. The formula is structured around a base per-pupil amount ($2,362 in fiscal 2005) that is multiplied by a weighted student enrollment. Several weights are incorporated into the formula for student and district characteristics, including adjustments for grade level, vocational education, special education, gifted students, remedial education, alternative education, and English-language learners. Georgia requires districts to raise a 5-mill property tax to participate in the QBE program. If a district does not do so, the yield it should have raised is deducted from its state aid allotment the next year. Georgia caps the amount of property-tax revenue local districts can collect above that 5-mill requirement at 20 mills total, but local voters can override the limit if they choose to raise more money for education. No taxes at the state level are dedicated to K-12 schooling. In 1981, Georgia successfully convinced the state supreme court that its school finance system was constitutional. But now the state faces a lawsuit brought by the Consortium for Adequate School Funding in Georgia.Education IdahoIdaho’s school finance formula assumes each district will contribute three-tenths of a percent of local property value to the total foundation program. The state does not require districts to raise that amount to receive state aid, but assumes they will do so and adjusts state aid accordingly. The state adjusts the amount it provides to districts for different grade levels, alternative education students, gifted-and-talented students, special education students, and the education and experience of teachers. Idaho also provides an unusual incentive to reduce the number of uncertified teachers: After a district’s total state aid allocation is calculated, the state subtracts the contract salary for every teacher working in the district without certification. Idaho has 19 categorical programs that provided about $966 million for specific purposes in fiscal 2004. Those programs include support for transportation, literacy initiatives, teacher benefits, substance-abuse-prevention programs, bilingual students, gifted-and-talented students, school facilities, and technology. The finance system was challenged in 1993 in Idaho Schools for Equal Educational Opportunity v. Evans. But the plaintiffs’ claim was dismissed except for the portion regarding state financing for school facilities. Idaho still faces a court decision to determine whether changes that the legislature passed to help low-wealth districts repay interest on their school construction loans meet constitutional requirements.Education IllinoisPlaintiffs in Illinois have waged two unsuccessful court cases against the state, one in 1996 based on equity, and another in 1999 based on adequacy. The Illinois legislature, however, responded to the cases by creating an Education Funding Advisory Board to review the school finance system and by conducting an adequacy study. The state also has increased education funding by $775 million over the past two years. Illinois pays for education through a foundation formula with a base amount of $4,964 in fiscal 2005, except for districts that can raise 175 percent or more of that amount. Those districts only receive $218 per student. A minimum tax rate is assumed for each district type, but levying the tax is not required for districts to receive state aid. Instead, the state assumes local districts will raise the revenue and adjusts state aid accordingly. The state foundation formula does not include weights or adjustments for student or district characteristics, but the state provides targeted funds through 42 categorical programs. In fiscal 2004, the money appropriated for those programs totaled $1.96 billion. The five largest provide support for transportation, several special education services, and high-cost special education students. Illinois began dedicating lottery revenue to K-12 education in 1985. About $550 million went to schools from the lottery in fiscal 2005.Education IndianaA lawsuit challenging Indiana’s school finance system was filed in 1987, but the plaintiffs withdrew the case when the state revised the funding formula. No other lawsuit challenging the finance system has been filed. The state allocates education dollars through a foundation formula. The Indiana legislature establishes the foundation level that drives the formula each biennium. It is set at $4,368 for the 2005 calendar year. The total foundation cost for each school corporation is shared between the state and the local district, with the state assuming that each district will levy a certain amount of revenue through local property taxes. The amount of the property-tax levy varies by district, and the foundation level is adjusted for several district characteristics. Indiana has a “complexity index,” which for every district takes into account the percentages of 25-year-olds with less than a 12th grade education, students eligible for free lunches, students classified as English-language learners, families with a single parent, and families with incomes below the poverty level. The state also adjusts funding based on the number of students in special and vocational education. In addition, Indiana provides state aid through 14 categorical programs, totaling $135 million for fiscal 2004.Education IowaFor a long time, Iowa was one of the few states where lawsuits challenging the school finance systems had never been filed. But in 2002, a group of 160 school districts filed Coalition for a Common Cents Solution v. State claiming that Iowa’s school finance system violates the state constitution on both adequacy and equity grounds. In 2004, the lawsuit was withdrawn without ever proceeding to court. Iowa pays for education through a foundation formula based on the number of students in each district multiplied by a district cost per pupil. The amount of state aid each district receives is based on the difference between the foundation amount per pupil ($4,148 in fiscal 2005) and the foundation property tax. The latter is a local tax of $5.40 per $1,000 of taxable valuation that is required of all districts. Even if a district with high property values is able to raise the foundation-base amount through local revenue, the district still receives $300 per pupil. Iowa uses a weighted student enrollment to provide additional funds for certain students and incentives to districts. Weights are included for special education students, English-language learners, at-risk students (those eligible for free or reduced-price meals), districts that share teachers or students, reorganized districts, and regional academies.Education UtahUtah is one of five states that have never had lawsuits filed against their school finance systems. The state pays for education through its Minimum School Program, a foundation formula that is based on legislatively determined “weighted pupil units,” or WPUs. Each unit receives $2,182 for the 2004-05 school year, which is provided through both state and local funds. Local districts must collect property taxes at a rate set by the legislature each year. For fiscal 2005, that “basic tax rate” is $.0018 for every dollar in assessed property value. If a district is able to raise more than its foundation entitlement through its local share, the state recaptures the excess aid for redistribution in the following year. Because of a dramatic drop in the basic tax rate, however, that process has not occurred since 1995. The amount of money each district receives is weighted for such factors as: teacher education and experience, administrative costs, necessarily existent small schools, special education, career and technology education, and grade level. Utah also has categorical programs that distribute state grants for transportation, special education, reading initiatives, class-size reduction, professional development, compensatory education, gifted-and-talented education, teacher retirement and benefits, technology, and capital outlays and debt service. The state has a total of 27 categorical programs, through which it provided almost $940 million to districts in fiscal 2004.Education VermontVermont is putting in place a new school finance system in the 2004-05 school year that provides full state funding. The system is based on two tiers. The first is categorical aid, which reimburses districts for the actual costs of transportation and special education and provides support for small schools. On average, the state reimburses districts for 60 percent of their special education spending and 48 percent of their transportation expenditures. The second tier provides money to cover about 80 percent of each district’s budget, supplying all revenue outside of categorical aid, federal funds, private grants, and tuition revenue. Each district sets its own level of education spending. No local effort is required: The education property tax in Vermont is a statewide tax. In addition to the education property tax, the state earmarks portions of other taxes for education: one-third of the revenue from purchase and use taxes, and one-third of the money from sales and use taxes. Vermont receives some $17 million each year for education from the state lottery.Education WisconsinWisconsin’s governor recently formed a task force on educational excellence and charged it with reviewing the state’s school finance system in four areas: student and school achievement, personnel issues, special education, and early-childhood education. The task force made 40 recommendations, including the need for an adequacy study to determine what constitutes a “sound, basic education” and what it would cost to provide one to all students. The task force specifically recommended that the adequacy study address the additional costs incurred from educating large numbers of students with disabilities, English-language learners, and students in poverty. Wisconsin is one of the few states without foundation formulas; the state uses a guaranteed-tax-base formula to allocate aid to districts. State aid is distributed in inverse proportion to district fiscal capacity. It is up to each district to choose its desired level of taxation, and then the state provides aid to equalize the tax yield, thereby reducing inequities in local property wealth. Any district with more than $1.93 million in per-pupil property value is not eligible for operating-formula aid. Wisconsin also includes an element of “recapture” in one part of its three-tiered formula. If a district has “negative aid” in Wisconsin’s third tier of funding, it must share some of its local revenue with districts whose per-pupil property values are lower than the state average.Education VirginiaVirginia’s school finance formula is based on the state’s Standards of Quality program. The foundation formula provides about 90 percent of state aid to districts. Additional money is provided through various incentive and categorical programs. Each district’s foundation allotment is based on the costs of the instructional positions, support positions, and nonpersonnel support needed to meet the SOQ requirements. Specific instructional-staffing standards are defined through state statutes and vary from district to district based on differences in enrollment, such as the number of vocational students. The state requires a minimum local effort, and each district’s local government is required to raise revenues to meet that amount. Each district is required to levy a different amount based on its “composite index of local ability-to-pay.” The index takes into account local property values, income, and retail sales as measures of local wealth. The index can be no higher than 0.80, indicating that even the wealthiest districts will receive at least a 20 percent state share toward meeting the required cost of the SOQ. During the 2004 legislative session, the legislature voted to increase the state sales tax dedicated to public education, from 1 cent to 1.25 cents per dollar. All state lottery proceeds also are dedicated to K-12 public education.
In March 2024, Education Week announced the end of the Quality Counts report after 25 years of serving as a comprehensive K-12 education scorecard. In response to new challenges and a shifting landscape, we are refocusing our efforts on research and analysis to better serve the K-12 community. For more information, please go here for the full context or learn more about the EdWeek Research Center.