DOCUMENT RESUME TM 830 211 ED 228 292 AUTHOR TITLE INSTITUTION SPONS AGENCY PUB DATE NOTE PUB TYPE EDRS PRICE DESCRIPTORS IDENTIFIERS Berne, Robert; Stiefel, Leanna A Methodological Assessment of Education Equality and Wealth' Neutrality Measures. Paper No. 17. A Report to L the School Finance Cooperative. New York Univ., N.Y. Graduate School of Public Administration. Education Commission of the States, Denver, Colo.; Ford Foundation, New York, N.Y.; National Inst. of Education (DREW), Washington, D.C. Jul 78 404p.; Some tables may be marginally4egibledue to small print. Research/Technical (143) Reports MF01/PC17 Plus Postage. Comparative Analysis;'*Educational Equity (Finance); *Educational Finance; Equal Education; Evaluation Methods; *Financial Policy; Measurement ObjectiVes; Policy Formation; *Research Methodology; School Districts; *State Aid Unit of Analysis Problems; *Wealth Neutrality % Measures ABSTRACT The questions of whether a number of equality and wealth neutrality measures agree, within the respective groups, when 'used to assess one state over time or to compare a number of states at one point in time are addressed. The basic analyses in this study show that for four assessments (equality in a state over time, wealth neutrality in a state over time, equality across states, and wealth neutrality across states), there is far from perfect agreement among the various measures and between units of analysis. But these findings result from a focus on a particular 'dependent variable, indepepdent variable, pupil measure, two units of analysis, and a specific set of eqUality and wealth neutrality measures. The level of comparability for the variable limits the conclusions to measurement methodology and not to specific states. However, the selection of a subset of measUres will make comparisons over time and across states more discriminating or less ambiguous. The critical questinn then becomes whether there is sufficient agreement on the value judgments so that specific measures and units of analysis can be selected. (PN) tzV- *********************************************************************** Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be made from the original document. *********************************************************************** U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF EDUCATION F0 c AT IONAL HI ',CP MCI. S INF ORMATION (INTER ERIC i This &Jew/writ has been reproduced as ,eceu,ed from the person or organization I orizinating d. , Minor changes eive been mado,to improve reproductmlqoaldy PAN of view of opiteee5 stated in this docci meet do nOt necessarily represent official NIE pwetion or polio, at Paper Ns. 17 A METHODOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT OF EDUCATION EQUALITY AND WEALTH NEUTRALITY MEASURES By Robert Berne with the assistance of Leanna Stiefel A REPORT TO THE, SCHOOL FINANCE COOPERATIVE July 1978 This research was carried out at the Public Policy Research Institute, Graduate School of Public Administration, New York University. Support was provided by the National Institute of Education, the Education Commission of the States, and the Ford Foundation. The opinions expressed in this report, however, are the authors' and should not be attributed to any of Mr. Chris Hakusa, Mr. Kim Olsen, and Ms. Mnna Biblow provided these groups. excellent computer, research, and secretarial assistance, respectively, and their help is greatly appreciated. CC, "The Mexican Sierra has 17 plus 15 plus 9 spines in the dorsal fin. But if the sierra strikes hard on the line so These can easily be counted. that our hands are burned, if the fish sounds and nearly escapes and finally comes in over%the rail, his colors pulsing ani his tail beating the air, a whole new relational externality has come into being -- an entity which is more than the sum of the fish plus the fisherman. The only way to count the spines of the sierra unaffected by this second-relational reality is to sit in a laboratory, open an evil smelling jar, remove a stiff colorless fish from the formalin solution, count the spines, and write the truth .... There you have recorded a reality which cannot be assailed -- probably the least tmportant reality concernini either the fish or yourself. The man with his pickled fish It is good to know what you are doing. has set down one truth and recorded in his experience many lies. The fish is not that color, that texture, that dead, nor does he smell that way." (John Steinbeck, "The Log from the Sea of Cortez," 1951, pp. 2-3). -r TABLE OF CONTENTS I. III. IV. V. VI. 0 VII. Introduction 1 Data Definitions Pupils A. School Resources B. Wealth C. Units of Analysis D. Measures of Equality and Wealth Neutrality E. F. Years of Analysis District Types G. Conclusions and Caveats H. 8 9 9 13 14 15 25 25 28 Analysis of Equality and Wealth Neutrality Over Time Equality Measures A. Wealth Neutrality Measures B. 31 31 !ntertemporal Comparisons 69 50 Analysis of Equality and Wealth Neutrality Across States Equality Measures A. Wealth Neutrality Measures B. 102 109 138 SensitivitiAnalysis Weighted Pupil Unit of Analyvis A. Alternative Revenue Variables B. New York City - Special Analysis of Big Cities C. Observations oh Multiple District Types D. 163 163 Conclusions Findings of this Methodological Assessment A. Additional Questions Raised by this Methodological B. Assessment Issues Not Directly Addressed-by this C. Methodological Assessment 199 199 , 171 195 198 204 205 ,t ction I. The'goal of edycational equity is a much sought after one; measurement of equity in education poses difficult questions. yet the The purpose of this report is to perform a methodological assessment of certain types of equity measures, equality and wealth neutrality measures, so that the equity measurement procets can be better understood. A relatively large number of iquity measures have been suggested in the literature and utilized by school finance researchers and policy makers. , The analyses to follow compare a number of these measures to determine whether the conceptual differences among the measures can be documented empirically. More specifically, questions such as the following are addressed: When a number of equality measures are used to determine 1. whether a state has become mare ar less equal between two points in time; do the measures agree? When a number of wealth neutrality measures are used to 2. determine whether a state has became more or less wealth neutral between two points in time, do the measures agree? When a number of equality measures are used to rank a set 3. states from more to less equal at one point in time, do the rankings from the different equality measures agree? When a number of wealth neutrality measures are used to rank 4. a set of states from more to less wealth neutral at one point in time, da the raakings from the different wealth neutrality measures agree? , By answering these questions, hopefully this report will encourage methodologically sound equity evaluation. Although this report has been put together by a small group of researchers, the report's conception and the data base utilized throughout represent the ` 2 cooperation of many individuals and groups. In November, 1977 the Ford Foundation and the National Institute of Education jointly sponsored a meeting of researchers and policy Snalysts to discuss and determine the feasibility of measuring and comparing the equity of school finance systems over time and cross-sectionally anong States. At this meeting a number of issues were raised and debated; one task that was decided upon was an empirical analysis of a *range of equity measures and this report represents that analysis. The group that met in Chicago, referred to alternatively as the "School Finance Cooperative" or the "NIE/Ford Conference in Equity Monitoring," recognized that certain choices needed to be made before the analysis could be carried out, so that a manageable project could be defined. With this goal in mind, at the meeting and through subsequent communIcations, decisions were made regarding various procedures and definitions to be utilized in the project. An example of the communications is included in this report in Appendix A. Once the definitional criteria were agreed upon (not always unanimously), attention was turned to the construction of a. data base. Various participants at the November meeting have been actively engaged in research in numerous states and a number of groups agreed to contribute the data utilized in this report. The states and years for which data were assembled along with the contributing group, are displayed in Table I 1; a complete list of participants at the November meeting is listed in Table 1-2. The actual data submitted for the report are detailed' in Appendix B. The remainder of this report is divided into six sections and three appendices. Section II contains the definitions utilized in this report and, for each definition, an assessment of 'the comparability of the data. Discussed are the pupil measures, dependent (revenue) variable, independent (wealth) 111 3 TABLE I-1 29 STATE DATA BASE OF EQUALITY AND WEALTH NEUTRALITY MEASURES ASSEMBLED FOR THIS,REPORT STATE ALABAMA CALIFORNIA COLORADO CONNECTICUT FLORIDA GEORGIA ILLINOIS KAMSAS KENTUCKY LOUISIANA MAINE MARYLAND MASSACHUSETTS MICHIGAN MINNESOTA MISSISSIPPI MISSOURI NEW HAMPSHIRE NEW JERSEY NEW MEXICO NEW YORK NORTH CAROLI1A OREGON SOUTH CAROLINA SOUTM DAKOTA TE:AS VERMONT WASHINGTON WEST VIRGINIA , t , O . YEARS CONTRIBUTOR' (See below for full description) 7243, 75-76 IC 70-71, 71-72, 72-73, 73-74,.74-75 72-73, 74-75 75-76 72-73, 73-74, 74-75, 7546: RAND ECS EFRI-ETS 72-73, 7546 72-73, 72-73, 72-73, 72-73, 72-73, 75-76 74-75 75-16 75-76 75-76 7647 75-76 71-72, 71-72, 71-72, 74-75, 75-76 74-75, 72-73, 7:2.44, 7445 15-76 75-76 75-76 75-76, 76-77, 77-78 7243, 73-74, 74-75, 7546 75-76 72-73, 75-76 75-76 , GARMS-IDRA LC-NCSL ILLINOIS STATE UNIV. NCSL ECS LC NCSL LC-NCSL LC-NCSL RAND ECS LC ECS EPRI-ETS EPRI-ETS GARMS-IDRA EPRI-ETS LC ECS 72-73, 7546 LC 73-74, 74-75, 75-76 74-75, 75-76 75-76 GARMS-IDRA EPRI-ETS 70-71, 7445 ECS 75-76 LC-WCSL COgTRIBUTORS ECS Education.Commission of the States Education Finance Center Denver, Colorado (Mr. Allan Odden, Ms. Lora Rice) EPRI/ETS Education Policy Research Institute Educational Testing Service Princeton, New Jersey (Mr. Jay Moskowitz, Ms. Margaret Goertz) GARMS/IDRA Professor Walter Garms rollege of Education University of Rochester in cooperation with Intercultural Development Research Association San Antoftio,Texas (Mr. Robert Brischetto) . ECS 11 4 ILLINOIS STATE UNIVERSITY Center for the Study'of Educational Finance Department of Educational Administration Illinois State University Normal, Illinois (Mr. G. Alai Hickrod, Mr. Ramesh,Chaudhari) LC Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights Under Washington, D.C. (Mr. Joel Sherman,l!S. Pam Tomlinson) ',.aw , NCSL National Conference of State Legislatures Office of State-Federal Relations Washington, D.C. (W. William Wilken, Mr. Robert Edwards) RAND The Rand Corporation Santa Monica, California (Mr. Stephen Carroll) 411. 111 TABLE I- 2 , PARTICIPANTS IN NIE/FORD CGNFERENCE ON EQUITY MONITORING, CHICAGO, ILLINOIS NOVEMBER 22, 1977 Jack Jennings House Committee on Education and Labor Susan Abramowitz National Institute of Education 'James Kelly The Ford Foundation John Augenblick Education Commission of the States . David Mandel National Institute of Educaticm Charles Benson University of California, Berkeley . Robert Berne Graduate School of Public Administration New York University Jay Moskowitz Educational Testing Service , Robert Brischetto Trinity University Roy Nhert National Center for Educational Statistics Office of Education David Clark Stanfcrd University School of Education Allan Odden Education Finance.Center Education Commission of the States Stephen Carroll The Rand Corporation Lora Rice Education Commission of the States Steve Chadima Congressional Budget Office Joel Sherman Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights Millicent Cox The Rand Corporation Ed Truax University of Rochester College of Education Christopher.Cross House Committee on Education and Labor Denis Doyle National Institute of Education Walt Werfield Center for the Study of Educational Finance Department of Educational Administration Illinois State University Robert Edwards National Conference of State Legislatures Office of State-Federal Relations Lauren Weisberg National Institute of Education Iris Garfield National Center for Educational Statistics Office of Education Bill Wilken National Conference of State Legislatures Office of State-Federal Relations Walter Germs Professor of Education College of Education University of Rochester Dale Hickam The Ford Foundation t.J 415 '.6 % variable, units of analysis, measures of equality and wealth neutrality, procedures for multiple district typei, ard preferred years for the analysis. At the end of Section II there is an evaluation of the types of analysis that should and should not be carried out, giveri the available data for this report. Sections III and IV present the analysis of the equality and wealth neutrality measures when used,in'a state over time. Sectior III.includes the:issessment of the 'behavior of the measures used over time and Section IV istcomprised of tables that document the changes-in equality aneWealth neutrality in 21 states where data ...Are available over time. The equality and wealth ntutrality measures are analyzed teparately in Section I/I. ror the equality and wealth neutrality measures the uwweighted pupil and district units of analysis are assessed separately, then compared. The Conclusions for the use of'the equality measures over time are pregAnted at the end of the first part 41 of Section Illand the conclusions for the wealth neutrality measures ever timQ at.the end of the second part of SeCtion III. Basically, Sections III and ly address questions 1 and 2, listed earliei. The analydis of the equality and wealth heutrality measures when used.for interstate comparisons comprise Section V. The format is the same as Section III. The equclity measures are analyzed first and conclusions for these measures are presented at the end of rart A in Section V; the wealth neutrality measures are, assessed in Part B of Section V and the conclusions for the wealth neutrality measures are at the end of Section V. Thus, questions 3 and 4, from above, are' dealt with in this section. A limited range,of sensitivity analyses are presented in Section VI. The weighted pupil unit of analysis is discussed,and three examples are presented where the weighted pupil unit of analysis is compared to the unweighted.pupil unit of analysis In states over time. TWo alternative revenue variables are examined in the second part of Section VI and again,comparisons are made in several states, over time, Section VI concludes with a discussion of the issuei raised by the existe.ms of large cities and multiple district tipes. The conclusfts from the report are presented in Secti n VII. answers to the four questionslisted above are sumiarized an The certain unan- swered qUestions are outlined. Three appendices are included in a companion volume to this report. Appendix A is a copy of a communication among School Finance Cooperative members outlining the definitions that were to be used in assembling the data base for this report. Appendix B lists the basic data set by state and.year and also includes the pupil, revenue, and wealth definitions utilized in each particular state. Appendix C recasts the data in Appendix B by years for each state and distrtct type so that data for each state can be examined over time. In a report as long as this one, there is a great temptation to look directly at the conclusions concerning the equality and wealth neutralitymeasures. There'is really no problem in doing this but the reader it cautioned against jumpting directly th the data and making concluerh's about individual states without carefully read* Section II, expecia)lj Part A, here, however, that this report is corcerned prtnaril measures, not comparisons among the states. It is worth repeating frith the behavior of the 8 47 II. Data Definitions In this section the data definitions utilized in this report are described. The definitions employed iftre agreed-to it the initial meeting of the School Finance Cooperative in November l977,that cois discussed in the prior section. , As such, the definitions were chosen as the result of a group decision process where multiple objectives came into play including intertemperal and interstate comparability, consistency with existing and available data, and managability in terms of the3number of alternatives considered. .Therefore, an exhaustive set of definition's is not included yet the agreed upon choices allow for an initial empirical investigation of a number of key equity and equality measurenent issues. ,The specific definitions of the variables utilized in this report for Pupils, school resources, wealth, Lmdts of analysis, and equality and wealth neutrality measures are discussmd below. Also, the years of analysis and methodologi s for treating muttiple district type states are reviewed. Time and , space limit: Owls preclude a detailed discourse on the advantages and disadvantages of each possible alternative for every meaure. . ,-, However, certain important 1 . alternatives to.the selected definitions are outlined. In addition, for each .var:able the degree to'which the reported data conform to the.preferred definitions is summarized. 2 Finally, this section concludes with an assessment of the types of comparisons that can be made with the data gathered.for this report. lA cOpy of the memo to the Scheol Finance Cooperative members that sets out the agreed upon definitions is reproduced as Appendix A. 2The actual definitioni employed in each state are reported with the actual data by state-year in Appendix B. '1 ') 9 A. Pupils Throughout thfs report reference is made to pupils or variables that are computed on a per pupil basis. The preferred definition of pupil or synoiymously, ,unweighted pupil, is average daily membership. The obvious alternative is an attendance based measure which is always lower than membership. The actual definitions employed in each state are described in Appendix B 3 Of the 29 states included in the report, 20 use a membership or enrollment based figure while 9 use an attendance based figure. However, as the actual definitions indicate, there is some variability in the way in which pupils are counted among states' employing a membership definition. Yet, in all cases, an identical pupil measure is utilized in each state over time. B. School Resources In order to keep the data base and this report to a reasonable size, one school resource measure from among a number of alternatives is utilized. The resource variable used in this report is a revenue based measure that includes all revenues from state and local sources except revenues for capital .., projects and debt service are excluded where possible. Revenues for compensatory education programs, food service, adult education, community service, and transportation are included if feasible. Federal "impact" aid is excluded from local and state revenues unless state revenues are reduced by the amount of the impact aid. The revenue variable is for a school district and always reported on a per pupil (either unweighted or weighted) basis. There are two major classes of resource measures that could have been sployed, given available data. 7 One is !In expenditure based measure that is ually defined in terms of "current operating expenditures",and the other is I 3 See item 1 or la, Pupils (unweighted), on the data tables in Appendix B for the specific definitions used in each state. Ieshould be noted that the terms 'pupil' and 'unweighted pupil' are used interchangeably in this report. This is in contrast to the 'weighted pupil' count which is discussed in more detail below in Part D of this section under Unit of Analysis. , 10 a revenue based measure that includes different sets of local, state and/or fedval revenues. Although many arguments could be presented for and against the various alternatives, it appears that a number of measures are "valid" but they measure different sub sets of resources. A complete enumeration of the characteristics of each aTteriative is not presented here, but one parti - cular issue regarding the selected revenue measure, the inclusion of'all state revenues including "categoricals", is discussed briefly. The basic issue is whether categorical state aid should be included in a revenue measure based on local and state revenues, particularly when the equality of revenues is in question. 4 An argument against their inclusion is that categorical& are often directed at specific needs and, therefore, in many cases ale desired result of ,categorical aid may be to increase the inequality of revenues. On the other side, there are a number of reasons to include categoricals in a meas re of local and state revenues. i, First, certain categoricals are not need related'in such a way that they are intended to increase the inequality of revenues. Categorical aid for municipal overburden and pensions are two examples. In other cases it is difficult to determine the purpose or intent of the categoricals. Second, it is difficult to have confidence that categoricals ere different from other revenues when spending decisions are. made at the:local level. The exclusion of categoricals from a revenue measure imPlies that these revenues are targeted to a specific group of pupils at the local level when this may not be the case. 4A recent Office of Education report (E. O. Tron, Public School Finance Programs, 1975-76. Washington, D.C.: USDE, USGPO, 1976.) indicates that, in 1975-76, the $28.5 billion Of state aid was comprised of approximately 83% general aid and 17% categorical aid. A possible alternative methodology that could take special needs into account is to use a measure of "weighted" pupils instead of an unweighted pupil measure. If categoricals are targeted to certain groups of, pupils and those pupils are weighted more heavily, then it could be argued that the weighted pupil measure should show equality of revenues because the revenue and pupil measures are commensurate. Although the data for most states in this report do not include weighted pupils, the states of Illinois, Florida and New Jersey do have such data. The impact of the use of weighted compared to unweighted pupils is analyzed using the data for these three states in Section VI, Part A. All of the resource measures used in this report are revenue based measures that include local and state revenues. However, the actual revenue definitions do vary and there is no simple way of summarizing these. One of the most difficult problems of consistency among the states is the treatment of revenues for debt service and capital. Conceptually, local and state revenues for debt service and capital should be excluded. Alternatively, all local and state revenue could be included with local and state revenue 0 financed expenditures for debt service and capital subtracted from the local and state revenue total. Local (state) revenues for debt service can be identified when a special levy (categorical grant) for debt service exists, however, for several states the reported data are not sufficiently detailed or documented to exactly determine the manner in which debt service is handled. 5 The situation for capital 'I: somewhat more complex since a large portion of capital is not financed fram local and state revenues but by debt financing 5In 1973-74, expenditures for debt service accounted for 2.8% of state and local revenues on a national basis. See Scott, G.J. anCi P.M. Dunn, Statistics of State School Systems 1973-74. Washington, D:C.: NCES, HEW, USGPOTTg77--- 12 instead. 6 It appears that in no case are the proceeds (receipts) from-66fid- issues included in the measures of local and state revenues. Furthermore, in most cases the local contribution and state aid for capital that accounts for the non-debt financed portion of capital expenditures are excluded from the revenue measure as desired. treatment of capital. But there is not perfect consistency in the It appears as though either debt service and/or capital revenues are included in the revenues for 6 of the 29 states. There are also differences among the states in the way in which items such as social security and pensions are treated. In most states employer social security and pension contributions art paid by the local school district and are, therefore, included in the revenue measures. However, there are some cases where employer social security and/Jr pension contributions are paid directly by the state to the federal government or state pension fund so that these payments do not appear as a revenue of the school district. social security payments or pension If employer contributions in a particular state can be thought of as an equal percentage of local and state revenues, then equality and wealth neutrality measures that are insensitive to equal percentage changes should be preferred for interstate comparisons. However, in some cases, for example when the proportion of salaries that exceeds the social security maximum varies across districts, an equal percentage assumption may only be an approximation. It should be noted that in all cases (with one minor exception, Louisiana) the revenue measures uSed in a particular state are consistent over time. In additiOn, for several states alternative revenUe measures were reported and a limited seniitivity analysis is performed in Section VI, Part B. However, for kapital expenditures in 1973-74 were $4.978 billion or 9.3% of total local and state revenues. However, roughly 73% of these capital expenditures were financed from borrowing receipts that are not included in the local-state revenue total. See Scott and Dunn (1976). 13 most of the-states anaTyzed in Section VI, Part B, total capital expenditures includintancedportion are subtracted from total local and state revenues. Finally, Federal Impact Aid is only explicitly mentioned in one revenue definition (New Mexico) where it is included. It is assumed that in all other states Federal Impact Aid is excluded. C. Wealth The preferred wealth variable utilized inthis report is a measure of equalized full value of property. It is recognized that other wealth conceptions exist such as fiscal capacity, ir:ome, or income adjusted wealth but the more traditional measure is used in this methodoligical analysis for the reasons cited at the betiinning of this section. The wealth variable is computed for a school district and always reported on a per pupil (either unweighted or weighted) bas4s. A Wealth variable of some form is available in all states except Alabama. However, the reported property wealth is not always equalized on a state-wide basis and when it is equalized state-wide it is not always equalized to full market value. In three states (Louisiana, Mississippi, and South Carolina) the property vdlues are not equalized on a state-wide basis. reported.in assessed value. That is, the data are In all other states some form of state-wide equali- zation is in effect although not.always to a full market level. states the ttate-wide equalization percentage is available For a number of and reported in Appendix B while in other states this percentage is not documented. The existence of differential state-wide equalization percentages, both across states_add over time, will certainly influence our selection of a wealth neutrality measure. Ideally, a wealth neutrality measure should not be sensitive to alternative state-wide equalization percentages. Unfortunately, no wealth neutrality 1 14 measure can correct for the intrastate variability caused by a failure to equalize assessments on a state-wide basis. The term unit of analysis is used to descrihe the way in which t level data are combined to yield the equality or wealth neutrality measures. Two primary units of analysis, the.district and unteighted pupil, are utilized in this report. A secondary unit of analysis, the weighted pupil, is examined on a more limited basis in Section VI, Part A. 1. District as th unit of analysis The inputs for the calculations of the equality and wealth neutrality .measures using the district as the unit of analysis are, for each district, revenues per unweighted pupil and Wealth Per unweighted pupil. For this unit of analysis each district is treated identically withln each state. Therefore, the number of units in a state's distribution of revenues per pupil equals the number of.districts in the state. 2. Unueighted Pupil as the unit of analysis The inputs for the calculations of equality and wealth neutrality measures using the unweighted pupil as the unit of analysis are, for each district, revenues per unweighted pup11, wealth per unweighted pupil and the number of unweighted pupils in the district. For this set of calculations each unweighted pupil is treated identically in the measures. The number of units in a state's distribution of revenues per unweighted pupil equals the number of unweighted pupils in the state.7 7 Another way of viewing the unweighted pupil compared to the district as the unit of analysis is the following. When the unweighted pupil unit is employed the district averages for revenues and wealth per pupil are weighted by the number of unweighted pupils when ale equality and wealth neutrality i.sasures are computed. When the district is the unit of analysis the district averages for revenues and wealth per pupil are weighted hy one - as if each district only has one pupil - when the equality and wealth neutrality measures are computed. , SO 1 5 3. Weighted Pupil as the unit of analysis This unit of analysis is the same as the unweighted pupil unit of analysis described above except now the weighted pupil count is used in place of the unweighted pupil count. Weighted pupil counts are util#ed by certain 111---states---to-rettect-the_s_tates recognition that same students may "need" more resources than others. Weighted student measures are only availalite-fOfc--- limited number of states (Florida, Illinois, and New Jersey) and the data are such that measures computed on a weighted pupil basis can only be used for ' comparisons over time for the particular state rather than for interstate comparison. The inputs for the calculations of the equality and wealth neutrality measures using the weighted pupil as the unit of analysis are, for each district, revenues per weighted pupil, wealth per weighted pupil, and the number of weighted pupils in each district. For this unit of analysis the number of units in a state's distribution of revenues per weighted pupil is the number of weighted pupils in the state. Note that weighted pupils are used in the denominator of the district level revenue and wealth variables in addition to the "weighting" of each district by the number of weighted pupils in the compui tation of the equality and wealth neutrality measures. E. Measures of Equality ind Wealth Neutrality. In this part the Teasures of equality and wealth neutrality that are analyzed in this report are described and a summary of certain characteristics of.the measures is presented. An in depth preientation of the properties of each measure is not presented here, but the interested reader is referred elsewhere. 8 8 See Berne, R.M., "Equity and Public Education: Conceptual Issues of Measurement", Public Policy Research Institute, Working Papnr No. 4, Graduate School of Public Administration, New York University, N.Y., N.Y.., October, 1977; and Berne, R.M. and L. Stiefel, "An Evaluation of the Federal Expenditure Disparity Measure," Draft Report to USOE, July, 1978. 16 It must be stressed that the "equity" measures presented here are.far from an exhaustive set of representations of what observers and scholars of school finance have considered as equity. For example, many believe that equity in school finance requires considerable inequality of resources due to the special needs of certain sub-populations such as educationally disadvantaged, economically disadvantaged, minorities, city or rural residents, etc. Equality lakefactors_such_as these +no account are recognized to be valid but are not contidered in this methodological analysis.9 A second example of a type of equity measure'that is not considered in this report is a measure that examines the relationship between school resources and tax rates. Finally, even within the classes of equity measures considered in this report, equality and wealth neutrality, there are measures that are not included. For example, equality measures based on specific utility functions or wealth neutrality measures based on a constant elasticity specification have not been considered. Equity measums incorporated value judgements and it is impossible to take all values into account. This limitation should'be kept in mind when the actual measures are examined in the sections to follow. The equality measures are described first followed by the wealth neutrality measures. Throughout this report both types of measures are used to rank distributions; that is the measures are used ordinally. Th3 distributions may be for one state over time or for a number of states at one point in time. 1. Equality Measures Stated very simply equality measures assess the dispersion (or equality) of distributions. 9 In this case the distributions are of revenues per pupil. For an example of this type of analysis see Brischetto, R. 'The School Finance Reforms of the Seventies: Their Impact on Poor and Minority Students in Six States", Intercultural Development Research Association. San Antonio, Texas, 1978. 17 The actual definitions of the nine equality measures used in this report are presented first, followed by a summary of certain properties of the measures. The following sYmbols are used in this sub-part: number of districts in a distribution (state).. N number of unweighted pupils in district i. Pi REVi = revenues per unweighted pupil in district I. u = mean per pupil revenues in a distribution (state) calculated on an unweighted pupil basis. REV-1 1.1 Lri = Pi 1=1 The definitions presented below are formulaied assuming the unit of analMs is the unweighted pupil. The definitions when the weighted pupils is the unit of anktysis are similar except the revenue variable is expressed ow.a weighted pupil basis and the weighted pupils are used in place of unweighted pupils in the definitions. The definitions for the district unit of analysis can be derived by using the unweighted pupil formulations but now assuming that there is only one student in each district, that is Pi = 1 'for all i. 10 a. Range (RANGE) The range is defined-as the difference between the highest and lowest values of REVi in the distribution. , b. Restricted Range (RES RANGE) The restricted range is defined as the difference between the value of REVi below which five percent of the pupils fall and the value of REV above which five percent of the pupils fall. c. Federal Range Ration (FED R R) The federal range ratio is defined as the restricted ,nge -41s fall. divided by the value of REVi below which five percent of the 1°The representations in parentheses following the name of the equality measures are used to identify the measure in subsequent tables in this report. 18 d. ReTative Mean Deviation (REL MN DEV) The relative mean deviation can be defined as follows: Pu 1=1 e. Permissible Variance (PERM VAR) The permissible vairance can be defined as follows: where M is defined as the median level of REV, and districts 1 chrough J are below the median value of REV,, (Note ' that REVi is thu pupil based median when the pupil is the dnit of analysis.) The permissible variance is, therefore, a ratio of the acteal total revenues in districts below the median to the total revenues that would be required for all districts if they were spending at the median level. f. Variance (VAR) The variance is defined as follows: Z. Pi (u - RE V )2 i-1 g. Coefficient of Variation (COEF VAR) The coefficient of variation is defined as the square root of the variance devided by the mean 1 9 h. Standard Deviation of Logarithms (STD DEV LGS) The standard deviation of logarithms can be defined as.follows; N 1/2 I: pi (Z logi REV )2 I P log 1.1 i e REV i Where Z = pi 1=1 and the natural logarithm is utilized. 1. Gini Coefficient (GINI) The Gini coefficient can be defined as follows: N 2( Z :E: pi) 2 1 °1 P P !REV - REV 1°1 1=1 Graphically, the Gini coefficient can be expressed as the ratio of the area between the Lorenz curve and the 450 line to the area below the 45° line. -The nine equality measures incorporate different value judgements and a list of these value judgements, posed as questions, appears in Table II-1. The answers to the value judgement questions for the nine equality measures appear in Figure'II-1. Figure II-1 shows that the equality measures incorporate the value judgements differently and it has been demonstrated that potentially 20 TABLE II-1 A LISTING OF VALUE JUDGEMENTS FOR EQUALITY MEASURES 1. _Are all units* (students, districts, etc) taken into account in the equality measure? 2. Does the equality measure always show an improvement when dollars** ire transferred from one unit to another that is lower in the distribution and, and both units are located on the same side of the mean? 3. Does the equality measure always show an improvement when dollars art. transferred from one unit to another that is lower in the distribution and both units are located on the same side of the median?. 4. Does the equality measure always show an improvement when dollars are transferred from one unit above the mean to another that is below,thle mean? 5. Does the equality measure always show an improvement when dollars are transferred from one unit above the median to another that is below the median? 6. Does the equality measure always show an improvement when a constant amount of dollars is added to each unit? 7. Does the equality measure always show increased inequality when the total dollars of each unit are increased by a proportional amount? 8. Does the equality measure record dollar changes at different levels of the distribution in the same my? 9. Is the(mean level used as a basis of comparison? 10. Is the medterr-fieVel used as a basis of comparison? 11. Are all levels compared to one another as the basis of comparison? *The tenm "unit" refers to the unit of observation. In most investigations of educational equality the unit is the school district. Districts,may or may ,not be weighted on t student basis. **It is assumed here that dollars (per pupil) is the argument of the equity function. The same questions could be asked with other arguments.. Source: Berne, 1977. FIGURE II-1 MOWERS TO VALUE JUDGMENT _QUESTIONS FOR NINE Warn mann FINALITY NEASIPAS ALaa Federal kstricted VALUE MOMENTS, 1. Z. Doge All units takes iato aCcount? No kproveret for transfers No Usi of. Logaritleas Coseficient No Yu Yas yes No No Yes Yes .Yet fr. V.5 No No No No No No Yes ,Yes Yes No No No Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes No No No No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Unitive to equal additions? No No Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes !tos Yes No No NO Yes No No MO No No No No Yes No No No Yes No Yes No No No No Yes No No No No. No No No see sift of the median? 4. lowermost for transfers Viet crris mesa? I. lowermost for transfers that cross median? 7. -Asesitive to equal percataw lacrosse? at differeat tvilir recorded ideetically? I. Nom fir comprise§ 111. 414 Ratio Relative . of tenaissible lean Deviatios Variance- Variance Variition No am ems side of the man? Immanent for transfers N. Range Range Standard Coeff iciest Deviation v1/4414", liodiao for comparison? levels for comparison? , *Not always true for very high end of distribution. Source: Berne, 1977. *. Yes No" 22 li the measures can yield contradictory rankings. report will assess the degree to which there After this section, this contedictionslamong the meatUres for adtual school finance data. (1, 2. Wealth Neutrality Measures The wealth neutrality measures examined in,this report are all designed to assess the observed relationship,between revenues per pupil and wealth per A state's distribution of revenues per pupil are considered wealth pupil. neutral when there is no observed relationship between revenues per pupil and The actual definitions of the nine wealth neutrality wealth per pupil. measures used in this report are presented first followed by a summary of certain properties of the measures. In-addition to the slebels used in the last sub-part, the following symbels are used in the wealth neutrality definitions. Wi = equalized assessed property vilue.per unweighted pupil in district 1. ir a mean equalized assessed property value per unweighted pupil calculated on an unweighted pupil basis. E Pi.Wi 1=1, All but one of the wealth neutrality measures are calculated using regression. procedures. The symbols used in the following definitiohs are appropriate for the unweighted pupil unit of analysis. When the unweighted (weighted) pupil is the unit of analysis the number of observation in the regression equals the number of unweighted (weighted) pupils and the independent and dependent varlables and their means are calculated on an 11 See Berne, 1977 and Berne and Stiefel, 1978 for a further elaboration of the value Judgements and examples of the contradictory rankings. ) . 23 unweighted (weighted) pupil basis. When the district is the unit of analysis the number of observations in the regressions is the number of districts and the independent and dependent variables are calculated on An unweighted pupil basis. In this case the variable means (V) are calculated using the distribution of districts. a. Simple correlation (SIM CORR) This measure is defined as the simple correlation calculated when REV4 is the dependent variable and Wi is the independent variable. b. Slope from simple regression (SLOPE W) This measure is defined as the,slope coefficient (unstandardized) in a regression where REVi is the dependent In a regression, variable and Wi is the independent variable. REV = a + b1 W, the slope coefficient equals b.'. . 2 Slope frau regression using W and W (SLOPE W2) This measure is.defined as the slope calculated`from the estipated regression REV = a + bi W + bo W . Themslope is equals 1:1 0-'+ 2b2W. caltulated at the mean value of N and d. Slope from regression using W W2 and W 3 (SLOPE W3) This measure is defined as the slope calculated from the .estimated re9ression REV = a + W + b2W4 + boWi. The slope and equals is calculated at the mean value bf W b + 2b V+ 3b3 (I)'. 1 e. 2 Estimated difference in revenues between two values of wealth (EXP DIF) This measure is defined as the difference between two predicted values of,REV whgre the prediction equation is REV = a + blW + bole + bolt% The values for W. are the mean (I) plus and minut one standard deviation of W. (The standard° .deviation of W is represented as SOW). This measure can be represented as the following: a + b1 (ri + (a + b1 SDW) + b2 (Vi + SOW)2 + b3, (+ SDW)3 - SDW) + b 2 (VI - = 2b1 (SOW) + 4b2 (SDW)r+ b . f. 3 SDW)2 (650W + b3 - SDW)3 V+ 2(SOW 3 ) ). Bivariate Gini coefficient (HICK GINI)12 This measure is not a regression based measure but instead In is analogous to (but not the same as) the Gini coefficient. 12The Bivariate Gini Coefficient described here is based on the work of Professor G. A. Hickrod and others at Illinois State University. The definition 24 order to calculate the bivariate Gini, all districts 4re placed in order of wealth per pupil, from lowest to highest. This ranking can then be used to calculate a percentage distribution of pupils in order of increasing wealth. Simultaneously, the percent of total revenues associated with the distribution of pupils by wealth can be calculated. Finally, for each pupil, the percent of wealth and percent of revenues can be plotted in a Lorenz-like curve and the bivariate Gini is the area between the curve and the 45* line divided by the arta below the 45* line. Hickrod et al. point out that in certain instances there may be problems of interpretation for the bivariate measure since the Lorenz-like curve can cross the 45* line.13 In the preparation of the data for this report, most data provider4were able to identify instances when the Lorenz-like curve crossed the 45° line and the value of the bivariate,iini is not reported in the data set in these ibstances.'' g. Elasticity-besed on slope from simple regression (ELAST M) This elasticity measure is computed by multiplying the slope from the simple regression (SLOPE M) by mean wealth per pupil divided by mean revenues per pupil. (ELAST M (SLOPE M) (RD.) Pp h. Elasticity based on slope from regression using W and M2 (ELAST M2) This elasticity measure is;computed kx multiplying the slope from the regression using M and M4 (SLOPE M2) by mean wealth per pupil divided by mean revenues pwr pupil (ELAST M2 0 (SLOPE wo(g:).) up i. Elasticity based on slope from regression using M, W2, and Mi. (ELAST W3) This elasticity measure is computed by multiplying the slope from the regression using M, Wz, and lifs (SLOPE M3) ky mean wealth per.pupil divided by mean revenues per pupil. (ELAST.W3 (SLOPE M3) (L).) lap reported here draws heavily on G.A. Hickrods T. Wei-Chi Yung, B.C. Hubbard, and R. Chaudhari, *Measurable Objectives for School Finance Reform: A Further Evaluation of-Illinois School Finance Reforms of 1973*, Illinois State University, Himmel, Illinois, April 1975, especially pages 10 to 22. 13Hickrod et al, 1975, pages 10 and 19. 14When the Lorenz-like Curves cross the 45* line the bivariate Gini coefficients are recorded as 0.00000 in Appendices Band C. k 25 The nine wealth neutrality measures incorporate different yalue judgements and a listing.of these value judgements, posed as questions, appear in Table II-2. The answers to the value judgements for eight wealth neutrality measures appeir in Figure 11-2.15 As was the case with the equality measures, it has been shown that the different measures of wealth neutrality can yield contradictory rankings.15 In the mixt several sections the degree to which these measures yield contradictory rankings in one state over time and among states is examined. F. Years of Analysis Since this report utilized data that are currently available, it was not possible As specified in to obtain datil for the same years in all states. Appendix A, the preferrei Ytars for the analysis are 1972-73 and 1975-76. However, the summary of the data outlined in Table I-1 indicates that data from the preferred years were nqt available in all cases. Nevertheless, the available data are satisfactory for the methodological analysis carried out in this report. First, data are available for more than one year for almost all states so that the 6onsistency of the measures over time can be assessed. Second, data are available for over half the states for 1975-76 so that the measures can be evaluated among states at one point in time. G. District Types For most states analyzed in this report, data are available for all districts in a Single data set since the grades covered by all districts, usually K-12, are comparable. However, for three states California, Illinois, 15The bivariate Gini is excluded from this figure due to the ambiguity of interpretation discussed above. 155ee Berne and Stiefel, 1978. 26 TABLE 11-2 A LISTING OF VALUE JUDGEMENTS FOR WEALTH NEUTRALITY MEASURES 1. Are all pupils taken into account in the measure? 2. Does the measure always show an improvement when revenues are transferred (mean preserving) from a district to another with lower per pupil wealth and per pupil revenues? 3. Is the neasure sensitive to equal additions to the dependent (revenue) variable? 4. Is the measure sensitive to equal percentage increases in the dependent (revenue) variable? 5. Is the measure sensitive'to equal additions to the independent (wealth) variable? 6. Is the measure sensitive to equal percentage increases in the independent (wmalth) variable? Source: Berne and Stiefel, 1978. 37 FIGURE- 11-2 ANSWERS TO VALUE OUOGENENT QUESTIONS FOR EIGHT WEALTH NEURALITY MEASURES (adopted from Berne and Stifel, 1978) WEALTH NEUTRALITY MEASURES VALUE JUDGEMENTS 1. All pupils taken into account? SIN CORR YES SLOPE W ALM W3 SLOPE W3 EXP DIE ELASTN YES YES YES YES YES YES YES NOT NECESSARILY NOT NECESSARILY NOT NECESSARILY YES NOT NECESSARILY NECESSARILY YES SLOPE W2 ELAST.112 , 2. 3. 4. 5. Improvement for mean preserving transfers? NOT NECESSARILY NOT Sensitive to equal additions to dependent? NO NO NO NO NO YES YES YES Sensitive to equal percentage increases in dependent? NO YES YES YES YES NO NO NO Sensitive to equal additions to independent? NO NO NO NO YES YES YES YES Sensitive to equal percentage increases in independent? NO YES YES YES YES NO NO NO Source: Berne and Stiefel, 1978. 28 and Missouri, there are gorups of districts that cover different grade levels. The data in these states-are organized by district type and they a -e reported and analyzed as such in this report. 17 Once the inequality and wealth neutrality measures are camputed by district type it is impossible to combine these measures for an entire state in a valid and simple.fashion. Since the researchers who made the data available respected the district type distinctions, a consistent procedure is followed in this report. H. Conclusions and Caveats Given the nature of the data gathered for this report, there are at least four ways in which these data can be analyzed. In each case there are certain caveats that must be reported with the analysis and in the last two cases the caieats may be so compelling that the analysis is invalid. First the data can be utilized to assess the behavior of equality or wealth neutrality measures over ttne in a particular state. Conclusions that would follow from an analysis of this type relate to the measures. That is, the question asked is %tether equality or wealth neutrality measures agree with one another when used in time series analysis. Since the revenue, wealth, and pupil definitions are highly comparable in each state over ttme, the data gathered, fbr this report should yield meaningful conclusions about.the potential for contradictions among the measures when intertemporal analyses are carried out. Second, an analysis of the consistency of equality or wealth neutrality measures for a nimber of states at one point in time could be performed usiwk the data gathered for this report. the consistency among the measures. Again, this type of inalysis focUses on The prtnary concern in comparisons of the measures across states should be that each measure is computed for each 17 An exception is Missouri where data for the unit districts are used in interstate comparisons since 93% of the pupils were in unit districts in 1975-76 29 state on the same distribution of variables. The'differences in comparability of the definitions of revenues, wealth, and pupils should not influence the analysis so long as the basic properties of the distributions are not altered by the differences in comparability outlined in this section. Therefore, when this report are utilized to compare the behavior of the measures the da across states, an tnplicit assumption is that the inconsistencies are caused by the differences in the measures and not by the differences in data comparability. Third, the data gathered for this report could be used to assess whether a particular state has become more equal or wealth neutral over time. A number of critical caveats must accompany any analysis of this type. First, only a sub-set of possible equality or wealth neutrality measures are presented in this report and furthermore'there may not be consistency among the utilized measures or the unweighted pupil and district units of analysis. Second, the data in this report use a specific resource definition, local and state revenues.excluding debt service and capital and this may not be the most preferred resource measure and certainly, is not the only resource measure possible. In addition, in some instances local and state revenues for debt service and capital could not be separated from the revenue data. Third, in most statet unweighted pupils are utilized rather than weighted pupils and there are same who believe that weighed pupil measures should be employed when categorical state aid is included in the resource variable. Thus, this data set has certain drawbacks for making conclusions about the equity in a particular state over time. Fourth, the data could be used to assess the equality or wealth neutrality of,a particular state compared to other states at one point in time. The caveats that must accompany conclusions of this sort are very serious and tend to cast 30 considerable doubt on the meaningfulness of the conclusions for a given state at a particular point in time. Here comparability across states is e critical issue and a determination of the magnitude of the comparability problem must await a sensitivity analysis of a more comparable data set, although certain sensitivity anatyses are undertaken in this report. It is fair to say that the problems of comparability in the revenue, wealth, and pupil variables wvuld preclude most analysts from making conclusions about a particular state at a point in time. In addition to the comparability problems, the issues cited above including the selection of a particular equity measure, the appropriate . unit of analysis, the precise resource variable and the pupil weight all must be taken into account when making interstate comparisons. Based, in part, on this assessment, this report focuses almost entirely on the first two methodological assessments although the conclusions in various states over time are briefly considered. In no instances are the data used to assess the position of one state relative to others at one point in time. 31 III. Analysis of Equality and Wealth Neutrality Measures Over Time The purpose of this section and the next is to assess the performance of the equality and wealth neutrality measures when they are used to determihe whether a single state has become more equal or more wealth neutral over time. The behavior of the measures within states over time are examined to determine whetherthe different equality and different wealth neutrality measures agree with oi contradict one another. Furthermore, where contradictions exist the nature of the contradictions are examined particularly in relation tn the properties of the measures outlined in Section II. First the equality measures are examined, then the wealth neutrality measures. The actual behavior of the measures when used over time in individual states is displayed for each state in Section IV of the report. A. Equality*Measures The behavior of the nine equality measures, when used in a state over First, the agreement among the equality time, is discussed in four parts. measures in individual states over time is assessed when the measures are computed using the unweighted pupil unit of analysis and second, for the district unit of analysis. The degree to which the measures agree between the two units of analysis when used in a state over-time is examined in the third part and the conclusions for the equality measures are presented in the fourth part. The data availability permits equality measures for 21 states. intertemporal comparisons among the In 15 of these cases data are available for two years, however, in one case data are available for three years, in four cases for four years, and in one case.for five years. In addition, in three states the data are organized by multiple district types. .) If, in each state 32 or district type within a state, the most recent year available is ccmpared to every other year available, a sample of 44 intertemporal comparisons is defined and these 44 intertemporal comparisons are utilized throughout this part to assess the agreement among the equality measures. Note'that an intertemporel comparison refers to the use.of a number cf.equality measures to assess' whether a state has become more or less equal between two points in time and the sample just described has 44 intertemporal comparisons, The intertemporal comparisons using the nine equality measures for this 44 observatton sample. are all displayed in Section IV of this report. It should be noi.i4 that since California data are available for five years and are orgaeized in three district types, twelve of the 44 observations in the sample are for Caltfornta. Thts ts taken intofaccoLnt in the presentation and analysis to follow. c_ These 44 observations are not the only possible intertemporal compartv sons that can be made with the available data, lf the tntertemporal =part.- sons are not limited to the most recent year available, then an addittonal 31 comparisons (18 of which are for California) can be generated yieldtng a 75 observation population. These additional tntertemporal ccopartsons are used in the next part in order to test the robustness of the ftndtngs from the 44 observation sample when the unweighted pupil is the untt of analysis. 1. Assessment of Equality Measures in States Over Time Using Unweighted Pupil Unit of Analysis The particular question addressed in this part may be stated as followst When a number of equality measures, computed using the unweighted pupil unit of analysis, are used to determine whether a state has become more or lens equal between two p6ints in time, do the equality measures agree? In other words, if we pick two points in time for a state and compute a number of equality'measures using the unimighted pupil unit of analytis, will the measures all show movement in the same direction? 33 The least restrictive way to assess the extent to which there is agreement or contradiction among the measures is to compute the percentage of the time all nine equality measures in each intertemporal comparison agree for a sample of intertemporal comparisons. As displayed !tt Table III-1, the nine equality measures agree in seven cases in the 44 observation sample, or 16% of the time. The 44 observation sample can be restricted to one observation or intertemporal comparison per state by selecting the observation for the unit (K-12) districts when there are multiple district types, and by selecting the comparison for the longest time period available for the state. In this(21 when there are more than two years state smple (one per state) there is complete agreement'among the nine equality measures in six out of 21.or 14% of the cases. If the intertemporal comparisons are not restricted to use the end year for all available comparisons, there are 75 comparisons in all that /n this population of 75 intertemporal comparisons, there is can be made. ccmplete agreement in 12 out of 75 or 16% of the cases. three samples are displayed in Table III-2. These figures for the Thus all nine equality measures agree in about one in eight cases. In order to.select a smaller number of equality measures, with the potential of increasing the level of agreement, particular value judgments must be relied upon. An examination of Figure II-1 shows that only the range (R), restricted range (RR), and vat,ance (VAR) are sensitive to equal.percentage increases. It is probably safe to assume that most people would prefer a measure that is insensitive to equal percentaoe increases when the equality measures are used over time since this property provides an approximate control for inflation. If the set of eqtiality measures is reduced to six, eliminating the range, restricted range, and variance, the level of agreement increases considerably. S. 41 34 In Table 1II-1 the cases where oely tie range, restricted range or variance contradict the other six measures are identified for the 44,abservation sample. The extent to which the other six equalitymeasures that are insensitive to equal percentage increases (Federal Range Ration (FRR), Relative Mean Deviation (RND), Penmissible Variance (PV), Coefficient of Variation (00V), Standar4 Deviation of Logarithms (LOGS), Gini Coefficient (GINI)) agree is summarized for all three samples in Table 111-2. Now, agreement is close to the SO% level. However, it is %portant to keep fn mind that this required some restrictions in vilue judgments beyond the selection of the nine equality measure, which is itself a value Judgment. If additional value judgments are accepted the number of equality metsures that are utilized for comparisons can be reduced further. For example, the Federal range ratio and the permissible variance could be excluded because they ignore part of the distribution. Furthenmore, the relative mean deviation could be excluded since it ignores transfers on on: (either) side of the mean. Acceptance of these value Judgments reduces the number of equality measures to-three;1 the coefficient of itariation, standard deviation of 'logarithms andGini coeificlent. It should be noted that the standard deviation ofTogarithms does not show an improvement for all transfers in the upper part of the distribution but this abberation occurs only at the very high end of the distribution while it occurs for all transfers that do not cross the mean for the relative mean deviation. With only three equality measures agreement is considerable. As shown in Table 111-2, agreement among the coefficient of variation, standard deviation of logarithms and Gini coefficient ranges from 86% in the 21 observation sample to 93% in the 44 TULE III7 1 35 AGREEMENT AND CONTRADICTIONS AMONG EQUALITY MEASURES IN STATES OVER TIME, UNWEIGHTED PUPIL UNIT OF ANALYSIS ALL AGREE ALL AGREE EXCEPT LOIS, COY, GINI AGREE RUT CONTRADICTION AMONG STATE YEARS AL 72-75 CAL7UN 70774 VAR CAL-UN 71-74 VAR CAL-UN 72-74 CAL-UN 73-74 CAL-HS 70774 R, RR, VAR CAL7HS 71-74 ,R, RA, VAR R. RR. VAR, .."..44lTRADICT/ON AMONG CONCLUSIONS FROM COV. LOGS. GINI N R, RR, VAR PV X VAR .PV CAL-HS 72-74 R. VAR PV CAL-HS 73774 CAL7EL 70774 R. RR, VAR CAL-EL 71774 R, RR, VAA 0 CAL-EL 72774 R. RR, VAR CAL7EL 73774 VAR COL 72774 FLA 72775 PV 73775 R. AR,4VAR FRR 74775 PV GEORGIA ALL LESS EXCEPT PV, LOGS ALL LESS EXCEPT 72-75 FM, ROIL GIN! ILL-UR 72775 ILL7SEC 72775 ILL7EL 72775 KAN /2774 X R, AR, VAR X ) -) 4 ALL LESS EXCEPT PV, LOGS 6 ALL EEL ISM KV 72-75 LOU 72-75 M. ALL ANNIt EXCEPT N. U. VAR COV, LOIS. SIM PARER OUT CcaeggaiSs_Ve PV X 72-75 AN, VAR MICN 71-74 MICH 7243 AN. VAR MICH 7344 R, RR, VAN MINN 71-71 1114 VAR R. RN, VAR PV MISS N. ItI, VAR PU MO-UN 74-71 ma. 74-71 NJ 74-77 1, VAR X R. AR, VAR FKR NJ 73-77 NJ 75-71 MM 72-74 RN 73-75 ir 74-75 72-75 1, AN, VAN R, MR, VAR PV X R, NO, VAN 7275 73-75 NR, VAR PRI 74.71 R, RR, VAR PV, FIN 74-75 70.74 R. RN, VAN IMO CORTRAOICTICS ANON' COV. LOSS. SINT . CONCLUSIONS MON COV. LOOS. SIM 36 37 to Tables 111-3 111-5 R Range Restricted Range Federal Range Ratio RIND Relative Mean Deviation PV Permissible Variance VAR = Variance COV Coefficient of Variation LOGS Standard Deviation of Logarithms GIN: Gini CoefT:dent RR FRR M L ? = More Equal Less Equal Uncertatri Regarding Equality Change Years are represented by first year of acadam c year. 72-75 represent 1972-73 tirTg7S-76. Thus, Entries in Column headed "ALL'AGREE EXCEPT R, RR, VAR" indicate measures that contradict with stx equality measures: FRR, RMD, PV, COV, LOGS, GINI. Entries in column headed "COY, LOG, GINI AGREE BUT CONTRADICTION AMONG" indicate measures that contradict with three equality measures: COV, LOG, GINI. 41 TABLE 111-2 SUMARY OF PAREEMENT MD CONTRADICTIONS AMONG EQUALITY MEASURES USED INTERTEMPORALLY, UNWEIGHTED PUPIL UNIT OF ANALYSIS 64:4011v Complete Agreement Meng Nine . Equality Musures Agreement Except (Agreement RR, VAR COY hang LOGS GINI Contradiction ?song COV 'LOGS GINI 44 Observation Sample 16% 55% 93%. 7% 21 Observation Sample 14% 43% 86% 14% 75 Observation Population 16% 51% 89% 11% 39 1 observation sample. However, this level.of agreement is obtainable only with the acceptance of particular value judgments that some people may find disagreeable. 2. Assessment of Equality Measures In States Over Time Using District Unit of Analysis The specific question addressed in this part may be stated as follows: When a number of equality measures, computed using the district unit of analysis, are used to determine whether a state has become more or less equal between two points in time, do the equality measures agree? In other words, if we select two points in time for a state and compute a number of equality measures using the district unit of analysis, will the lb measures all show movement in the same direction? The strategy utilized in the last part for the unwetghted pupil unit of analysis is used here for the district unit of analysis except that only the 10 44 observation and 21 observation (one per state) samples are discussed. 2 First, when all nine equality measures are used in the intertemporaI comparisons computed on district unit of analySis, Table 111-3 indicates that in 11 of 44 or 25% of the cases the nine equality measures are in complete agreement. The results for the sample of 21, restricted to one observation Per state, are quite similar; in six of the 21 or 29% of the cases the nine equality measures completely agree, These results as well as those for the subsets of equality measures are displayed in Table 111-4, If only the six equality measures that are insensitive to equal percentage increases are used in the intertemporal comparisons then there Is agreement among the six measures in 55% of the observations in the sample of 44 and 1 The inclusion of the WO:lye Mean Deyiation in this last group does not change the levels of agreement appreciably In the 44 observation sample . 2The inclusion of the 75 observation sample would not change the findings in this part in any significant way. . 43 TMLIUIJ e. /MOW MIO CONTRADICTIONS /1011 marry NUMB IN STAT3 OVIN Tad OISTRICT UNIT OF MILYSIS ALL AMU Aa VIAL CO'S. LOU AIR MAU be CIMMIUMM.ASEI CONTNANCTION NOS AILAIL.1211 N. AN. VAN PV. AI. 72-73 CM.-LIN 70-74 N. VAN CAL-UN 7144 Ng VAN CALun 72-74 ra CAL-UN 73-74 CAL-NS 70-74 CAL-IN 71-74 CAL-NO 72-74 CAL-id 7344 CAL-IL 70-74 CONCLIIILMB FINS N N N. N, VAN N. M. VAN A. AN. VAN rs ILL NON CCM COW. N. NI* VAN CAL-11. 71-74 ILL XXX MOW 11, U. VAN CAL-0. 72-74 MNIO °COM ON. I. N. NIN CAL41. 73-74 COL 72-74 RA 72-71 FLA 72-71 FLA 74-7S WNW 72-71 ILL-te 72-71 ILL-sac 7241 W 72-7S IAN 72-74 R. MI. VAN A I. It; rm. me 44 I. A 116IL EARS ..... ALL ALL AGREE EXCEPT GINIA6SINIC , Mi. .111MA_YAL CONTRADICTICW AMMO. CONTRADICTION AMONG COY. LOGS. GIN! ,CONCLUSIONS FROM COY. LOGS. GINI No Alt P a KY RMO PV GINI 72-75 LOU 72-75 MA 72-75 MICH 71-74 RR VAR COV PV L X R, RR, VAR PV a MICH 72-74 RA, VAR Pv MICH 73-74 R. RA, VAR PV MINN 71-75 MISS 71-75 R. RR, VAR' PV MO-UN 74.775 W. RA, VAR RHO MO-EL 74-75 RA, VAR X 74-77 R. RR, VAR 75-77 R, RR, VAR NJ 76-77 al 72-75 MI 73-75 74-75 RPM, PV RR X NC 72-75 SC 72-75 SO 73-75 RR, VAR PV SD 74-75 R, RR, VAR R. RR, VAR X pv TEX 74-75 ALL LESS EXCEPT FRI, Pit, LOGS GASH 70-74 X 45 TABLE III-4 SUMMARY OF AGREEMENT AND CONTRADICTIONS AMONG EQUALITY MEASURES USED INTERTEMPORALLY, DISTRICT UNIT OF ANALYSIS Complete Agreement Among Nine Agreement Except R RR VAR Agreement Among COY LOGS GINI Contradiction Among CCM LOGS GIN! 44 Observation Sample 25% 55% 89% 11% 21 Observation Semple 29% 57% 90% 10% 46 43 agreement in 57% of the cases in the sample of 21. 0 coefficient of yariation Finally, when only the standard deviation of logarithms, and Gini coefficieat are examined there is agreement among the three in 89% and 90% of the cases in the 44 and 21 observation samples, respectively. Although the results for the complete agreement among the nine equality measures and agreement among the six equality measures show somewhat more agreement for the district compared to the unweighted Pupil unit of analysis, the overall pattern of the results is quite 'similar. That is4 certain value 'judgments must.be used, to reduce the number Of equality measures from the original nine before it can'be said that there is considerable agreement among the measures. If the equity evaluation is content to use the coefficient of variation, standard deviation of logarithms, and Gini coefficient, then in roughtly 90% of the cases, using the district (or pupil) 'unit of analysis, the state appears to be moving toward or away from equality and in only 10% of the cases would the determination be uncertain.3 But the use of onty three measures may not be in line with most people's value Judgments: 3. Assessment of Equality Measures In States Over Time: of District and Unweighted Pupil Units of Analysis Comparison The specific question.addressed in this part may be specified as follows: When nine equality measures are used to determine whether a state has become more or less equal between two points in time, do the findings from the equality measures computed using a district unit of analysis agree with the findings from the same equality measures using the unweighted pupil unit of analysis? The focus in this assessment is not whether there is agreement among the measures for one unit of analysis but whether the individual equality measures 3The relative mean deviation can be added to the three measures discussed here and the percentage in agreement would not drop below 80% in the 44 or 21 case samples using the districts as the unit of analysis. 0 44 are consistent across units of analysis. In other words, if foe a state between two points in time using the unweighted pupil unit of analysis the coefficient of variation indicates more equality and the Gini coefficient less equality the assessment in this part determines whether the same more-less pattern prevails when the district unit of analysis is utilized. The assessment of the behavior of the equality measures computed using , both units of analysis is displayed in Table 111-5. 'This tatile indicates that in eleven of the 44 Cases the conclusions from each of the nine equality measures agree across units of analysis. This does not necessarily mean that all eighteen measures for each intertemporal comparison are the same. It does indfcate that, when compared pairwise across units of analysis, there is agreeient in 25% of the cases for all nine equality measures. The agreement for the-21 case sample is 24%. The extent of the contradictions among the pairwise domparisons across Units of analysis is also displayed in Table 111-5. A summary of the contra- di:tions for the 44 and 21 observation magas appears in Tables 111-6 and 411 111-7. Table 111-6 indicates that in the 44 observation saple there are a total of 65 contradictions out of 396 possibilities (44 x 9) or contradictions in 16% of the cases. In the 21'observation samplithere are a total of 40 contradictions out of 189 (21 x 9) or in 21 % of the cases. Table 111-6 also shows that for the 44 observation sample, in over 60% of the cases (28/44) there are one or no contradictions between the measures computed Using two units of analysis when nine eqUality measures are computed for each case. However, in a anitll percentage of the cases there are multiple contradictions when the measures are computed using both units of analYsis. Table.III-7 displays the frequency of the contradictions for each particular measure. The range is not listed on the table since it is the same els 1111111111 IMINIUMMIMMITIMMIMINI I III I I 11111,1111,11 I II I , a 1 a 46 TABLE 111-6 FREQUENCY OF CONTRADICTIONS ACROSS UNITS OF ANALYSIS: EQUALITY MEASURES ' 44 Observation Sample kl Observation Sample ALL NINE AGREE ACROSS UNITS OF ANALYSIS 11 5. ONE CONTRADICTION OUT OF NINE 17 5 TWO CONTRADICTIONS OUT OF NINE 7 5 THREE CONTRADICTIONS OUT OF NINE 5 2 FOUR CONTRADICTIONS OUT OF NINE 2 2 0 FIVE CONTRADICTIONS OUT OF NINE 1 SIX CONTRADICTIONS OUT OF NINE 1 1 44 21 1 4Ib 50 47 TABLE 111-7 FREQUENCY OF CONTRADICTIONS FOR EACH EQUALITY MEASURE ACROSS UNITS OF ANALYSIS 44 Observation Sample RESTRICTED RANGE 21 Observation Sample 9 3 FEDERAL RANGE RATIO 14 9 RELATIVE MEAli DEVIATION 10 8 PERMISSIBLE VARIANCE 11 5 VARIANCE 4 1 COEFFICIENT OF VARIATION 7 4 STANDARD DEVIATION OF LOGARITHMS 4 4 GINI COEFFICIENT 6 6 65 40 TOTAL CONTRADICTIONS 51 48 regardless of unit of analysis. It is apparent from Table III-7 that the smallest subset.of measures discussed in the last two parts, the coefficient of. variation, standard 'deviation of logarithms and the Sint Coefficient, exhibit fewer contradictions than most cf the other equality measures.4 Thus, it appears that there are.some differences acrost units of analytis'when equelity.measures are used intertemporally. Roughly 20% of'- the time one of the'nine.equaliti measures is likely to yield.different results if the.unit of analysis ts the unweighted pupil compared to the district. Thus, momconsiitency and less ambiguity.in conclusions will result if only one unit of analysis is preferred and utilized in intertem poral comparisons. 4. Conclusions: Equality Measures in States Over Time It is clear from this analysis that there is not perfect acreement among the nine equality measures and between the units of analysis when the measures are used to assess the movement of a state toward or away fruit equality between two points in time. are accepted,thus However, if certaiovalue judgments reducing the number of equality measuris utilized, it is possible to reach a point where three or four equality measures used simultaneously will yield considerable agreement. If no value judgments are imposed to reduce'the number of equality measures and both units of analysis are used, it could be required that all nine equality measures computed on both units of analysis (i.e. eighteen equality measures) agree before a state is assessed as more' or less equal between two points in time. If ttese crtterti areimposed on the 44 observation sample, only five cases (Illinois-Unit, 1972-76; Illinois-Elementary, 1972-1975; Missouri -Elemen. tary, 1974-1975; New Mexico, 1974-75; and South Caroline, 1972-75) would be 4It could also be noted that in eight of the ten cases where one or more of these three measures are contradictory across units of analysis, the three units themselves contradict one intither within the unweighted pupil or district unit of analysis. 52 0 49 This is an example of widespiead contradic- unambiguously more or less equal. tions. If certain value judgments are imposed, the criteria will turn out to yield substantially more agreement. For example, if three equality measures are utilized, coefficient of variationotandard deviation of logarithms, and Gini coefficient and it ts required that all three measures agree with one another for both units of analysis then 34 of the 44 cases can be assessed as more or less equal over time. In the 21 observation Sample agreement is 'obtained in 14 of the 21 cases. Obviously increased agreement is achieved if only one unit of analysis is employed or the number of equality measures is reduced even further. Thus, the final assessment of the extent of agreement depends on the acceptance of certain value judgments. 53 B. Wealth Neutrality Measures The behavior of the nine,weelth neutrality measures, when used ,to assess wealth neutrality in a state over time, is discussed in this part similarly .to the previous consideration of the equality measures. First, the agreement among the wealth neutrality measures in individual states over thee is assessed when the measUres.are computed using the unweighted pupil unit of analYsis and'second, for the district unit of analysis. The degree to Which the mesmites agree between the two units of analysis when used in a state over time is examined in the third part and the conclusions for the wealth neutrality measures are presented in the fourth part. The sift basic samples that were examined for the equality Measures are utilized for the wealth neutrality measures. ,liowt'W,, dita are available , for 20 states instead of 21 so that the 44 observation sample,- 21 observation sample and the 75 observetion sample become the 43, 20, and 74 observation samples respectivety. Recall that the 74 observation "sample" includes all possible intertemporal comparisonsOhe 43 obseration sample only uses the latest year available for comparisona with all other years; and the 20 obiervation sample includes one observation'per state.5 There are two characteristics of the data employed to compute the wealth neutrality measures that should be pointed out beofre the analyses are presented. First, the wealth measures are equalized state-wide %wanton of the twenty states analyzed. Where the wealth measures are equalized . state-wide, there are different equalizetion levels used, smme of which are below full market level. As a result, there is variation in the state-wide equalization level among states and occasionally within a state over ttme. 5When more than one intertemporal comparison are available for a state, the 20 observation includes the intertemporal comparison for the lengest.time period available and the unit (K-12) districts. 54 51 Second, in a number of cases the Hickrod Gini was not computed because the Lorenz-like curve crossed the 450 line. In addition, the slope and elasticity from the W, W2, W3 regression and the expenditure difference measure were not computed in all cases. However, due to the organization of the analyses to follow and the levels of agreement and contradictions among the data, these missing data do not influence the analyses or conclusions for the wealth neutrality measures. 1. 6 Assessment of Wealth Neutrality Measures in States Over Time Using Unweighted Pupil Unit of Analysis The particular question addressed in this part may be stated as follows: When a number of wealth neutrality measures, computed using the unweighted pupil unit of analysis, are used to determine whether a state has become more or less wealth neutral between two points in time, do the wealth neutrality measures agree? In other words, if we select two points in time for a state and compute a 111 number of wealth neutrality measures using the unweighted pupil unit of analysis, will the measures all show movement in the same direction? First the percentage of the time that all wealth neutrality measures agree for a set of intertemporal comparisons can be calculated as the least restrictive assessment,in terms of the value judgments tnposed, of the agree, ment and contradictions among the meausres. As displayed in Table 111-8, the calculated wealth neutrality measures all agree in 13 of the 43 cases or 30% of the time. Table 111-9 shows that in the 20 observation sample all the wealth neutrality measures agree in four of the 20 cases or 20% of the time and in the 74 observation population 23 of the 74 cases agree or there is complete agreement 31% of the time. This is somewhat more complett: agreement than was found 6The assuMption used throughout this section is that the missing data would agree. These missing data do not influence, the conclusions since there are-already contradictions among nine of the 15 cases with missing data (see Table 111-8). Furthermore, the elasticity measures are missing in only two cases. !AMA ils-s AGREEMENT AMO CONTRADICTIONS AMONG WEALTH NEUTRALITY MEASURES IN STATES OYER TIME. 52 UNWONTED PUPIL UNIT OF ANALYSIS ALL ELASTICITY ALL AGREE INWJELAIE ILER NEASUKES AGREE MUT atrEtagualim CONTRADICTION AMONG ELASTICITY MEASURES CONCLUSIONS FROM ELASTICITY MEASURES DIF CAL-UN 70-74 CAL-ON 71474 X CAL-UN 72-74 X CAL-UN 73-74 DIF CAL-NS 70-74 DIF 110 DIF CAL-Ns 71-74 CAL-NS 72-74 X CAL-NS 73-74 X CAL-EL 10-74 DIF CAL-EL 71-74 CIF CAL-EL 72-74 DI, CAL-EL 73-74 OIF COL 72-74 411 ALL LESS EXCEPT 7 CON, MIN, ELM FLA. 72-75 FLA. 73.75 I. ALL MORE EXCEPT COR, SW. ELY 74-75 WNW X I. 72-75 ALL uss nem sue. ex ILL -Ule 72-75 ILL-SEC 72-75 X ILL-EL 72-75 X KAN 72-74 X KY 72-75 X ALL LESS iiaerr CON. ELM al N 56 I. ALL 116EL La% LOU'. 72-75 +4 MA SMUL ALL ELASTICITY MEASURES AGREE NUT gONTRADICTION AMONG ALL AGREE EXCEPT DIF I CONTRADICTION AMONG gLASTICITY MEASURES ALL MORE EXCEPT SLW, SLW2, SLW3, ELM3 CONCLUSIONS FROM ELASTICITY MEASURES 7 72-75 alF14 itil SLW ELW DIF ELW2 M MICH 71-74 DIF MI 72-74 DIF MICH 73-74 DIF MINN' 71-75 ALL LESS EXCEPT CON, SLW, ELM 7 MI SSI4 71-75 ALL LESS EXCEPT SLW2, ELW2 7 NO-UN 74-75 NO-EL 74-75 NJ 74-77 NJ 75777 NJ 76-77 ALL MORE EXCEPT DIF, SLW, ELW 72-75 ALL MORE EXCEPT DIP, SLW3, ELIO NN 73-75 ALL LESS EXCEPT SLW, ELW NM 74-75 + NM N DIF ALL LESS EXCEPT SLW, ELW X DIF CON + X ++ NC 72-75 see 72-75 \ x \ SLW, SLW2, SLW3 DIF 73-75 SD 74-75 TEX 74-75 X DIF COM, SLW, SLW2 SLW3, HKGN WASH 70-74 cbm 53 Key to Tables III-8, III-10, III-12 COR SLW SLW2 SLW3 DIF HKGN ELV ELW2 ELW3 M L ? S = simple correlation between REV and W slope from'REV = a + b1W = slope from REV a + b1W + b2W: slope from REV = a + blW + b9W` + b3W4 = predicted difference in REVrWISDW, REV Hickrod Gini Elasticity from SLW = elasticity from SLW2 elasticity from SLW3 f(W, W2, W3) More Wealth Neutral Less Wealth Neutral Uncertain Regarding Wealth Neutrality Change Years are represented by first year of academic year. 72-75 represents 1972-73 i3-77/5 -76. Thus, Entries in column headed "ALL AGREE EXCEPT DIF" indicate instances where DIF contradict with other wealth neutrality measures. Entries in column headed "ALL ELASTICITY MEASURES AGREE BUT CONTRADICTIONS AMONG" indicate measures that contradict with three wealth neutrality measures: ELW, ELW2, ELW3. *EXP DIF not computed. +HKGN not computed. "5LW3 and ELW3 not computed. 58 55 TABLE III-9 SUMMARY OF AGREEMENT AND CONTRADICTIONS. AMONG WEALTH NEUTRALITY MEASURES USED INTERTEMPORALLY, UNWEIGHTED PUPIL UNIT OF ANALYSIS Complete Agreement Among All Wealth Neutrality Measures Complete Agreement Except DIF Agreement Among ELW, \ELM2, Contradiction Among ELW, ELW2, ELW3 ELW3. 30% 60% 72% 28% 20 Observation Sample 20% 40% 60% 40% 75 Observation Population 31% 54% 69% 31% 43 Observation Sample * 40 coy,. une otopC correA cc,A 6c. fkA:9 14)1t-e" (ope /oLt) viyr Lurk/ 41c4 59 .etivi ryiu4tAokal 56 -for thCequality measures, but still considerably far from, total agreement. As was the case for the equality meatures, the value.judgments outlined in Section II can be Used to form a 'smaller set of weeith neutrality measures. It could be argued that a wealth neutrality measure should not be Sensitive to equal percentage.changes in the wealth variable due to both inflation effects in wealth and varying State-wide equalization levels over time, within a state. One measure that is sensitive to equal percentage changes is the variable based on the predicted vilue of the.regression of REV on W, W2 and W3, EXP DIF. Although EXP-DIF is only one of the four wealth neutrality measures that is sensitive to equal percentage changes, it is worthwhile to examilie the behavior Of rill the other wealth neutrality meausres,,' except EXP DIF, for two: reasons. First, in the sample of 20 observations, one for each state, EXP DiF is not computed in four of 20 cases and since EXP DIF cannot contradict the other wealth neutrality measures in these cases, the meaining of "toval agreement" differs acOoss the states. this.difference. Eliminating EXP DIF partly controls for Second, empiricalty it turns out that, of.the meausres that are sensitive to equal percentage increases, EXP DIF contradicts more with the other wealth neutrality measures. Table 111-8 shows, for the 43 observation sample, the cases where all wealth neutrality measures agree except EXP DIF, and the extent of the agreement is summarized for all three sathples in Table 111.9, By excluding EXP DIF frowthe group of wealth neutrality measures,. agreement now ranges from 40% to 60%, depending upon the particular sample examined. amount of agreement is obtainable' if only one measure Thus, a fair 1z:excluded frcei the set of wealth neutrality maasures. In addition to the EXP DIF metsures the three slopehmeasure, SLW, SLW2, and. 60 57 and SLW3 are sensitive to equal percentagkincreases in the wealth variable and if a measure that is not sensitive to these the slope measures can be excluded. cha)es is preferable, then It could also be argued that the wealth neutrality measures should be sensitive to equal additions in the revenue variable. The simple correlation is not sensitive to equal additions to REV while the elasticity measures are and thus the simple correlation could be ignored if this value judgment isaccepted. Finally, since the Hickrod Gini is not computable in all cases, an argument can be presented for its exclusion. If all of these arguments (value judgments) are accepted, then the assessment of whether a particular state has become more or less wealth neutral would be made with the three elasticity measures. But it is imperative to note that the use of the elasticity measures alone is based on a series of value judgments that formulated the initial set of nine wealth neutrality measures and eliminated six of the nine for a number of reasons. 41 Table 111-8 shows for the 43 observation sample the extent of the agreement for the three elasticity measures. Table 111-9 indicates that the three elasticity measures agree in 72%, 60% and 69% ofthe cases for the 43, 20 and 41 74 observatton samples respectively. Thus, even when yaiue judgments are imposed to a point where only three ela: ty measures computed using the unweighted pupil unit of analysis are used to assess whether a state has 41 become more or less wealth neutral over time, an unambiguous judgment can be made in only two out of three cases. This is somewhat less than.when three equality measures computed using the unweighted pupil unit of analysis were 41 used to assess a state's movement toward or away from equality. 2. Assessment of Wealth Neutrality Measures In States Over Time Using District Unit of Analysis The particular question addressed in this part may be stated as follows: 61 When a number of wealth neutrality measures, computed using the district unit of analysis, are used to determine whether a state has become more or less wealth neutral between two points in time, do the measures agree? In other words, if wcselect two.points in time for a state and compute a a number of wealth neutralitymeasures using the district unit of analysis, will the measures show movement in the same direction? The 43 and 20 observation samples are examined in this part using the strategy employed for the wealth neutrality measures for the,unweighted pupil unit of analysii. Table ur-lo displays an analysis of the intertemporal comparisons for the 43 (and 20) observation sample(s) and indicates that in 14 of theA3 cases and 5 of the 20 cases there is complete agreement among all the wealth neutrality measures. Table III-11 shows that the agreement is 33% and 25% in the two samples, and these figures are quite similar to those,obtained for the wealth neutrality measures using the unweighted pupil unit of analysis. When the wealth neutrality measure EXP DIF is not included, there is agreement among the remaining wealth neOtrality measures in 58% and 40% of the cases for the 43 and 20 observation samples, respectively. When only the three elasticity measures using the district unit of analysis are utilized to assess a state's movement toward or awey from wealth neutrality, there is agreement among the three measures in 70% of the casea in the 43 observation sample and in 60% of the'cases in the 20 observation sample. 7 The results , describing the extent of agreement for the subsets of wealth neutrality measures using the district as the unit of analysis.are also very stm!lar to the unweighted pupil results for the wealth-neutrality measures. As was the case for the equality measures, reasonabl agreement among the wealth neutrality measures using either unit of analysis, can be obtained 62 TABLE III - 10 59 AGREEMENT ANO CONTRADICTIONS AMONG WEALTH NEUTRALITY MEASURES IN STATES MUM. DISTRICT uNrr OF ANALYSIS ALL ffin ALL AGREE 1XCEPT DIF ALL ELASTICITY MEASURES AGREE BUT CONTRADICTION AMONG CONTRADICTION AMONG ELASTICITY MEASURES CONCLUSIONS FROM ELASTICITY MEASURES EDELL Ywis ch.-um 70.74 CAL-UN 71-74 CAL-LW 72-74 X CAL-UN 73-74 X CAL7NS 70-74 CAL-HS 71-74 X pi CAL-HS 72-74 X M CAL-NS 73-74 DIF CAL-EL 70-74 DIF CAL-EL 7144 CAL-EL 72-74 CAL-EL 73-74 COL 72-74 DIE SLW, SLW2, SLW3 72-75 DIF HKGN DIF / DIF M M DIF SLW2 ID M DIF ALL MORE EXCEPT SLW2, ELW2 ALL MORE EXCEPT 73-75 FLA ? CON, SLW, HUN ELW FLA 74-75 GEORGIA " 72-75 . L SLW2 ALL LESS EXCEPT SLW2, ELW2 ILL-UN 72-75 X ILL-SEC 72-75 X ILL-EL 72-75 ALL MORE MDT SLW, ELW 's KY 72-74 X 6 ,3 72-75 ALL LESS EXCEPT COR, 51113, .1 ELW3 ' 60 ALL ELASTICITY ALL ME0 72-75 LOU'. ALL MEE LIMA? NEAR= MEE NUT 201MALEUCLIM ENtlig%sull LAFTICITY MEASURES I. X * MA4. SLY ELM DIF ELN2 MICH 7T.74 DIF MICH 72-74 DIF MICS 73-74 ALL NOME EXCEPT 0IF, ELMS NUN' 71-75 ALL MORE EXCEPT SLMS, DIF, ELMS MISS'. 71-75 ELME ELN3 * SLM ELM ALL MORE EXCEPT DIF, ELME, ELW 74-75 . ALL LISS iidyr COP, SLX, SUL EDS 74.75 DIF 74-77 NJ CONCLUSIONS FROM OIF 75.17 COL SLR 74-77 NJ X 72-7S DIF 73-75 NN 74-75 NC" 72-75 CON 72-75 . SO 73-75 X 74-74 X N ALL NONE ENCEPT 7471 SW. ELM . ALL LESS EXCEPT COM, ELM 70-74 64 61 TABLE III-11 SUMMARY OF AGREEMENT AND CONTRADICTIONS AMONG WEALTH NEUTRALITY MEASURES USED INTERTEMPORALLY, DISTRICT ,UNIT OF ANALYSIS Complete Agreement Among All Wealth Neutralit.7 Measures 0 Complete Agreement Except DIF Agreement Among ELW, ELW2, ELW3 Contradiction Among ELW, ELW2, ELW3 . 43 Observation Sample 33% 58% 70% 30% 20 Observation Sample 25% 40% 60% 40% 62 only by using value judgments to select a small number of wealth neutrality measures. When only the elasticity measures are utilized, agreement among the three measures using either unit of analyrWoccurs in about two out of three cases. However, this is less agreement than the 90% level that was obtained for the equality measures; the coefficient of variation, standard deviation of logarithms and Gini coefficient; 3. Assessment of Wealth Neutrality Measures in States Oier Time: Comparison of District and Unweihted Pupil Units of Analysis The particular question addressed in this part may be expressed as follows: When a number of wealth neutrality measures are used to determine whether a state has become more or less wealth neutral over time* do the findings from the wealth neutrality measures computed using a district unit of analysis agree with the findings from the same wealth neutrality measures using the unweighted pupil unit of analysis? In this part the concern is not whether there is agreement among the measures for one unit of analysis but whether the individual wealth neutrality measures are consistent across units of analysis. 'In other words, if for a state between two points in ttme using the unweighted pupil unit of analysis the simple correlation indicates more weelth neutrality and the itiasticity computed from REV f(W) less wealth neutrality, the assessment in this part determines whether the identical more-less pattern prevails when the district unit of analysis is employed. The pairwise comparisons for the wealth neutrality measures,across units of analysis are displayed in Table III-12. In 17 of the 43 or 40% of the cases the conclusions from each of the wealth neutrality measures agree across units of analysis. Recall that this does not necessarily mean that all (eighteen or fewer) wealth neutral.ity measures for each intertemporal comparison are the same. It does indicate that, when compared pairwise across units of analysts, there is agrerent in 40% of the cases in the 43 observation saamle for all the us 1 1 o"loommoololin 64 computed wealth neutrality measures.and the agreement flyers for all competed wealth neutrality measures is six out of 20 or 30% for the one per state sample. Further analyses of the pairwise comparisons acrosi units of analysis appear in Tablet 111-13 and 111;14., Table III -13 implies,that there are 70 contradictions inthe 43 observation sample out-of 364 possibilities or contradictions in 19% of the cases.7 . In the 20 observation sample there are contradictions in 45 cises'out of 161 possibilities or 28% of the eases.8 Table 111-13 also shows that in 63 . (27/43) and 45% (9/20) of the intertemporal comparisons there ii oneor no contradictions among the wealth neutrality musures, for the 43 and 20 observation samples, respectively. Thus, the incidence of multiple contradictions is .similar for tht wealth neutrality measures-and the equality measures examined earlier. Table 111-14 summarizes the frequency of contradictions foreach particular wealth neutrality measures. Note that the elasticity measures are semewhat more contradictory across units of analysis compared to the other six measures. Thus it appears that the unit, of analysis makes a difference and more so for the elasticity meatetes. Contradictions range between 19S(43 observation samele) and 28% (20 observation simple) of the measures for all the wealth neutrality measures although the contradictions among the elasticity measures, across units of analysis, range between 24% (43 observation sample) to 40% (20 observation sample) of the measures. As was the case for the equality measures, more consistency and less ambiguity will result if only one unit of analysis is selected and utilized in intertemporal comparisons. 7 The total possibilities in the 43 observation sample are 43 x 9 less the 32 measures that are not computed, ((43 x 9) - 23) (387 - 23) 364. 8The total possibilities in the 20 observation sample are 20 x 9 less the 19 measures that art not.computed. ((20 x 9) - 19) (180 - 19) 161. 68 65 TABLE 111-13 FREQUENCY OF COMADICTIONS ACROSS UNITS OF ANALYSIS: WE-7.1.TH NEUTRALITY MEASURES 43 Observation Sample '0 20 Observation_Samplet ALL COMPUTED WEALTH NEUTRALITY MEASURES AGREE ACROSS UNITS OF ANALYSIS 17 6 ONE CONTRADICTION 10 3 TWO CONTRADICTIONS 6 4 THREE CONTRADICTIONS 3 2 FOUR CONTRADICTIONS 2 2 FIVE CONTRADICTIONS 1 1 SIX CONTRADICTIONS, 3 1 SEVEN CONTRADICTIONS - - EIGHT CONTRADICTIONS 1 43 . 1 20 66 TABLE UI-14 FREQUENCY OF CONTRADICTIONS FOR EACH WEALTH NEUTRALITY MEASURE ACROSS1 UNITS OF ANALYSIS 43 Observation Sample 20 Observation Sample SIM CORR 8 5 SLOPE W 5 2 SLOPE W2 9 SLOPE W3 7 5 EXP DIF 7 3 HICK GIN\ 4 3 ELAST W 7 6 ELAST W2 11 8 ELAST W3 12 9 70 45 70 0 67 4. Conclusions: Wealth Neutrality Measures In States Over Time These analyses show that there are far more than trivial contradictions among the nine wealth neutrality measures and between units of analysis when these measures are utilized to determine whether a state has become more or less wealth neutral over time. However, if the number of wealth neutralitY measures is reduced by accepting certain value Judgments and only one unit of analysis is used, then it is possible to obtain a fair amount of agreement among these wealth neutrality measures. If both units of analysis are used simultaneously and no value judgments are imposed to reduce the number of wealth neutrality measures, it would be required that all computed wealth neutrality measures on both units of analysis agree before a state Is assessed as more or less wealth neutral between two points in time. If these criteria are imposed in the 43 observation sample, only eight of the 43 intertemporal comparisons would be judged as unambiguously more or less wealth neutral. Widespread contradictions would also be the case in the one per state sample; only two out of the twenty cases would be assessed as more or less wealth neutral with these criteria. Somewhat more agreement can be obtained if certain value judgments are accepted. If, for example, the three elasticity measures are utilized and a case is not judged to be more or less wealth neutral unle.s all three elasticity measures computed on bath the unweighted pupil and district units of analysis agree, then' 21 of the 43 and 5 of the 20 intertemporal comparisons can be judged unambiguously. Agreement would be increased if the number of measures is reduced even further or if only one unit of analysis is u4:,ilized. Thus, widespread agreement for the wealth neutrality measures can be achieved only if a very substantial array of value judgments are accepted. It appears to be somewhat more difficult 71 68 to obtain substantial agreement among te wealth neutrality meausres compared to the equality measures.when the measures are used over time. 72 69 IV. Intertemporal Comparisons Section IV contains the tables that comprise the data for the intertemporal comparisons analyzed in Section III. Tables are presented for the 44 observation sample of equality intertemporal comparisons and 43 observation sample of wealth neutrality intertemporal comparisons. Since the "one observation per state samples" are subsets of these larger samples,.they are also displayed. Each table displays the behavior of the equality and wealth neutrality measures over time for a particular state and several combinations of units of analysis, years, and district types. year of the academic year. 1975, 6 The years indicated are the first That is, if the heading reads "change from 1972 to this indicates that the equality and wealth neutrality measures are examined from 1972-73 to 1975-76. A "MORE Equal" next to a particular equality measure under the heading "change from 1972 to 1975" means that the particular equality measure asses' s the state-unit of analysis-district type represented in that column on the Table as more equal in 1975-76 compared to 1972-73. All Zile Tables displayed in Section IV are computed from the data inluded in Appendix C. '73 70 TABLE IV-1 ALABAMA STATE - DIsTircr, UNIT OF ANALYSIS - UNWEIGHTED PUPIL ALL DISTRICT TYPE - Change from 1972 to 1975 Measure of Equality and Wealth Neutrality A. DISTRICT UNWEIGHTED PUPIL EQUAL:TY 1. Range LESS Equal LESS Equal 2. Restricted Range LESS LESS 3. Federal Range Ratio LESS MORE 4. Relative Mean Deviation r. MORE 5. Permissible Variance LESS LESS 6. Variance LESS LESS 7. Coefficient of Variation MORE', MORE 8. Standard Deviation of Logarithms MORE MORE " Gini Coefficient MORE MORE " 9. B. WEALTH NEUTRALITY 1. Simple Correlation 2. Slope - W 3. Slope - W, W2 4. Slope - W, W2, W3 5. Expenditure Difference 6. Hickrod Gini 7. Elasticity - W s. Elasticity -W, W2 9. Elasticity - W, W , W3 2 0 Pt 71 TABLE IV-2 CALIFORNIA STATE - UNIT OF ANAPSIS - -DISTRICT DISTRICT TYPE - UNIFIED Changes from Measure of Equality and Wealth Neutrality A. 1970-1974 1971-1974 1972-1974 1973-1974 MORE Equal MORE Equal MORE Equal EOUALITY 1. Range MORE Equal 2. Restricted Range LESS 3. Federal Range Ratio MORE 4. Relative Mean Deviation MORE 5. Permissible Variance MORE MORE " MORE 6. Variance LESS_ LESS H MORE 7. Coefficient of Variation MORE MORE- " MOkE 11 MORE H MORE " MORE " 11 MORE MORE ." MORE " MORE-Wilh Neut MORE Wlth Neut MORE MORE MORE MORE MORE 8. 9. B. Standard Deviation of Logarithms ttRE Gini Coefficient MORE 11 LESS 11 MORE 11 11 LESS 11 MORE 11 MORE 11 MORE MORE MORE II II MORE II II II 11 MORE 11 MORE 11 SI MORE WEALTH NEUTRALITY 1. Simple Correlation MORE wlth Netit 2. Slope - W MORE 3. Slope - W, W 4. Slope - W, W2, W3 MORE MORE MORE 5. Expenditure Difference LESS MORE MORE 6. Hickrod Gini MORE MORE MORE 7. Elasticity - W MORE MORE MORE 8. Elasticity -it, W2 MORE MORE 9. Elasticity - W, 2 W2, W3 MORE 11 II II 11 MORE 11 11 MORE p II MORE 11 11 II 11 MORE-W1th Neut MORE MORE MORE MORE 11 11 0 MORE II 11 11 II 11 MORE MORE MORE' 11 72 TABLE IV-3 STATE - CALIFORNIA UNIT OF ANALYSIS - UNWEIGHTED PUPIL DISTRICT TYPE - UNIFIED Changes from Measure of Equality and Wealth Neutrality A. 1970-1974 1971-1974 1972-1974 1973-1974 - EQUALITY 1. Range MORE Equal MORE Equal MORE Equal MORE Equal 2. Restricted Range MORE MORE MORE " MORE 3. Federal Range Ratio MORE MORE MORE " MORE 4. Relative Mean Deviation MORE MORE MORE " MORE 5: Permissible Variance MORE MORE MORE LESS 6. Variance LESS LESS MORE MORE 7. Coefficient of Variation MORE MORE MORE MORE 8. Standard Deviation of Logarithms MORE " MORE MORE MORE Gini Coefficient MORE " MORE MORE MORE Wlth Neut MORE Wlth Neut MORE Wlth Neut MORE MORE 9. B. it * MORE " WEALTH NEUTRALITY 1. Simple Correlation MOREW1thNeut 2. Slope - W MORE 3. Slope - W 4. W2 N N MORE N .* MORE MORE MORE MORE Slope - W, W2, W3 MORE MORE MORE MORE 5. Expenditure Difference LUS MORE MORE LESS 6. Hickrod Gini MORE MORE MORE MORE 7. Elasticity - W MORE MORE MORE M3RE 8. Elasticity -W, W2 MORE MORE MORE MORE 9. Elasticity - W, W2, W3 MORE MORE MORE MORE " '- UN " 73 TABLE IV-4 STATE - CALIFORNIA UNIT OF ANALYSIS - DISTRICT. DISTRICT TYPE - HIGH SCHOOL Changes from Measure of Equality and Wealth Neutral ity A. 1970-1974 1971-1974 1972-1974 1973-1974 LESS Equal IESS Equal EQUALITY 1. Range LESS Equal LESS Equal 2. Restricted Range LESS " LESS " LESS 3. Federal Range Ratio MORE 11 MORE " LESS MORE 4. Relative Mean Deviation MORE 11 MORE " MORE MORE 5. Permissible Variance LESS MORE " MORE LESS 6. Variance LESS LESS " LESS 7. Coefficient of Variation MORE MORE " MORE 8. Standard Deviation of Logari thm MORE MORE " MORE MORE MORE " MORE MORE Wlth Neut MORE Wlth Neut MOREW1th Neut 9. B. Gini Coefficient 11 MORE n II II MORE " MORE " " MORE " ''" MORE " 11 II WEALTH NEUTRALITY 1. Simple Correlation MORE Wlth Neut 2. Slope - W MORE " MORE MORE MORE 3. Slope - W, MORE " MORE MORE MORE 4. Slope - W, W2, MORE " MORE MORE MORE 5. Expend i ture Di fference LESS " MORE .MORE LESS 6. Hickrod Gini MORE " MORE MORE MORE 7. Elasticity - W MORE " 11 MORE MORE MORE 8. Elasticity -W, W2 MORE " 11 MORE MORE MORE 9. Elasticity - W, W MORE " MORE MORE MORE W2 W3 Is 7 II 11 If It II 74 TABLE IV-5 STATE - CALIFORNIA UNIT OF ANALYSIS - UNWEIGHTED PUPIL DISTRICT TYPE - HIGH SCHOOL Changes from Measure of Equality and Wealth Neutrality A. 1970-1974 197171974 1972-1974 1973-1974 EQUALITY 1. Range LESS Equal LESS Equal LESS Equal LESS Equal 2. Restricted Range LESS LESS MORE MORE 3. Federal Range Ratio MORE MORE MORE MORE 4. Relative Mean Deviation MORE MORE MORE MORE 5. Permissible Variance LESS LESS LESS NORE 6. Variance LESS LESS, LESS MORE 7. Coefficient of Variation 'MORE MORE MORE MORE 8. Standard Deviation of Logarithms MORE -" MORE " MORE " MORE " Gini Coefficient MORE " MORE " MORE " MORE. " 9. B. , " WEALTH NEUTRALITY 1. Simple Correlation MORE W1th Neut MORE Wlth Neut MORE With Neut 2. Slope - W MORE MORE MORE 3. Slope - W, W2 MORE MORE MORE 4. Slope - W, W2, W3 MORE MORE M3RE S. Expenditure Difference LESS LESS MORE MORE MORE MORE 'MORE MORE N Elasticity - W MORE MORE MORE N N MORE N 8.' Elasticity -W, W2 MORE MORE MORE N to MORE MORE MORE MORE N MORE ,6., Hickrod Gini 7. 9. Elasticity - W, W2 N II MORE With Neut MORE " MORE. " MORE " N 75 TABLE IV-6 STATE - CALIFORNIA UNIT OF ANALYSIS - DISTRICT DISTRICT TYPE - ELEMENTARY Changes from Measure of Equality. and Wealth Neutrality A. 1970-1974 1971-1974 1972-1974 1973-1974 MORE Equal- EQUALITY 1. Range LESS Equal LE$S Equal Lgss Equal 2. Restricted Range LESS LESS " LESS 3. Federal Range Ratio': MORE MORE " MORE Relative Mean Deviation MORE 11 4. MORE 5. Pernissible Variants MORE MORE " MORE MORE 6. Variance LESS LES5 " LESS MORE LESS LESS " LESS II MORE 7.. Coefficient of Variation 8. 9. B. 11 11 MORE Standard Deviation of Logarithms MORE " MORE Gini Coefficient MBE " MORE ee MORE II II II 11 MORE MORE MORE MORE II 'MORE II MORE " WEALTH NEUTRALITY OREWlth Neut 1. Simple Correlation MORE With Neet MORE With Nest MORE With Neut 2. Slope - 0 MORE MORE MORE MORE 3. Slope - W, W2 MORE LESS MORE LESS 4. Slope - W, W2, W3 MORE MORE MORE MORE 5. Expenditure Difference LESS LESS LESS MORE 6. Hickrod Gini MORE MORE MORE MORE 7. Elasticity - W MORE MORE MORE MORE 8. Elasticity -W, W2 MORE MORE MORE LESS 9. Elasticity - W, MORE MORE MORE W2 MORE "'' II 111 9 oe II oe 76 TABLE STATE - IV-7 CALIFORNIA UNIT OF ANALYSIS DISTRICT TYPE - UNWEIGHTED PUPIL ELEMENTARY Changes from Measure of Equality and Wealth Neutrality A. 1970-1974 1971-1974 1972-1974 1973-1974 EQUALITY- 1. Rarge LESS Equal LESS Equal LESS Equal MORE Equal 2. Restricted Range LFSS LESS LESS M3RE 3. Federal Range Ratio MORE MORE MORE MORE 4. Relative Mean Deviation MORE MORE MOM MORE 5. Permissible Variance MORE MORE MORE MORE 6. Variance LESS LESS LESS LESS 7. Coefficient of Variation MORE MORE MORE MORE 8. Standard Deviation of Logarithms .MORE " MORE MORE " MORE " Gini Coefficient MORE " MORE MORE " MORE " MORE Wlth Neut MORE rnth Neut MORE MORE . B. "- WEALTH NEUTRALITY 1. Simple Correlation MORE Wlth Neut MORE W1 th Neut 2. Slope - W MORE MORE N 3. Slope - W, W2 MORE MORE 0 4. Slope - W, W2, W3 MORE MORE N 5. Expenditure Difference LESS LESS N 6. Hickrod Gini MORE MORE 7. Elasticity - W MORE 8. Elasticity -W, W2 9. Elasticity - W, W2, N MORE MORE N MORE MORE LESS LESS MORE MORE MORE MORE MORE. MORE MORE MORE MORE MORE MORE MORE MORE N 0 77 TABLE IV-8 STATE - COLORADO UNIT OF ANALYSIS DISTRICT TYPE - DISTRICT, UNWEIGHTED PUPIL ALL Chan e from 1972 to 1974 Measure of Equality and Wealth Neutrality A. 1. 2. DISTRIC UNWEIGHTED PUPIL EQUALITY Range 'Restricted Range LESS Equal LESS Equal LESS LESS 11 3. Federal Range Ratio MORE 4. Relative Mean Deviation MORE LESS 5. Permissible Variance MORE MORE 6. Variance LESS LESS 7. Coefficient of Variation MORE LESS 8. Standard Deviation of Logarithms MORE Gini Coefficient MORE 9. . II II LESS II MORE " LESS " WEALTH NEUTRALITY\ 1. Simple Correlation MORE Wlth Neut MORE Wlth Neut 2. Slope - W LESS LESS 3. Slope - W, W LESS LESS 4. Slope - W, W2, W3 LESS LESS 5. Expenditure Difference LESS LESS 6. Hickrod Gini MORE MORE 7. Elasticity - W MORE MORE 8. Elasticity -W, W2 MORE LESS 9. Elasticity - W, MORE LESS z W2, 43 " 78 IV-9 TABLE STATE - 'FLORIDA UNIT OF ANALYSIS - DISTRICT. DISTRICT TYPE - ALL Measure of Equality and Wealth Neutrality A. .Changes from: 1972 to 1975 1973 to 1975 "1974 to 1975- EQUALITY 1. Range LESS Equal LESS Equal LESS Equal 2. Restricted Range LESS MORE MORE 3. Federal Range Ratio MORE MORE MORE 4. Relative Mean Deviation MORE MORE LESS 5: Permissible Variance MORE MORE MORE 6. Variance LESS MORE LESS 7. Coefficient of Variation MORE MORE LESS MORE MORE MORE MORE MORE With Neut LESS 8. b*Standard Deviation of Logarithms 9. B. Gini Coefficient M " LESS " LESS " WEALTH NEUTRALITY 1. Simple Correlation 2. Slope - W MORE N N Wlth Neut LESS M MORE N N MORE N N MORE N N N 3. Slope - W, W2 MORE 4. Slope - W, W2, W3 MtoRE 5. Expenditure Difference LESS * 6. Hickrod Gini LESS " " LESS N $ 7.. Elasticity - W MORE N " LESS M N 8. Elasticity -W, W2 MORE N " MORE N N 9. Elasticity - W, W2, W3 MORE " " MORE N p " m LESS With ,Neut LESS " 1! " MORE LESS . LESS N " LESS N " LESS N " 0 LESS LESS 40 " 79 IV-10 TABLE FLORIDA STATE - UNWEIGHTED PUPIL UNIT OF ANALYSIS DISTIIICT TYPE - ALL Changes from: Measure of Equality and Wealth Neutrality A. II 1972 to 1975 1973 to 1975 1974 to 1975 LESS Equal LESS Equal / EQUALITY 1. Range LESS Equal 2. Restricted 'tinge LESS " LESS " LESS " 3. Federal Range Ratio LESS " LESS " LESS' " 4. Relat4e Mean Deviation LESS " MORE " LESS " 5. Permissible Variance MORE " MORE " MORE " 6. Variance LESS " LESS " LESS " 7. Coefficient of Variation LESS " MORE " LESS " 8. Standard Deviation, of Logarithms LESS " MORE " LESS " 9. Gini Coefficient LESS " MORE " LESS " , II B. WEALTH NEUTRALITY 1 p 0 1. Simple Correlation 2. Slope 3. Slope - W, 4. Slope - W, W2, 5. Expenditure Difference 6. Hickrod Gini 7. Ei/isticity - W - LESS With Neut MORE W W2 W3 LESS With flout H LESS MORE " 4 MORE MORE " " MORE " " LESS H LESS " " " " LESS " " " " LESS " " LESS " 11 LESS " 0 11 " \ MORE - - LESS " LESS With Neut " " LESS le 1 i 8. Elasticity -W, W2 LESS " " MORE " " LESS " V. Elasticity - W, LESS " 11 MORE " " LESS " W2, W3 . S3 80 TABLE IV-11 STATF - GEORGIA UNIT pF Amur - DISTRICT, UNWEIGHTED PUPIL DISTRICT TYPE - ALL CHANGE FROM 1972 Measure of Equality and Wealth Neutrality A. \ DISTRICT to 1975 UNWEIGHTED PUPIL EQUALITY 1. Range 2. Restricted RInge 3. LESS Equal LESS Equal .LESS LESS Federal Range *Ratio LESS MORE 4. Relative Mean Deviation LESS MORE 5. Permissible Variance LESS LESS 6. Variance LESS LESS 7. Colq?icient of Variation LESS LESS * 8. Standard Deviation of Logarithms LESS LESS " Gini Coefficient LESS MORE " LESS Wlth Neut LESS Wlth Neut LESS " MORE " 9. B. WEALTH NEUTRALITY 1. Simple Correlation 2. Slope W LESS " 3. Slope W, W2 MORE " 4. Slope - W, W2, W3 5. Expenditure Difference LESS " 6. Hickrod Gini 7. Elasticity - W LESS 8. Elasticity -W, W2 MORE 9. Elasticity - W, W2, W3 is N LESS LESS " MGRE " V 81 TABLE STATE - IV-12 ILLINOIS UNIT OF ANALYSIS - DISTRICT, UNWEIGHTED PUPIL, WEIGHTED PUPIL UNIT, K-12 DISTRICT TYPE - Change from 1972 to 1975 411 Measure of Equality and Wealth Neutrality A. 40' DISTRICT UNWEIGHTED PUPIL WEIGHTED PUPIL EQUALITY LESS Equal LESS Equal LESS LESS 1. Range LESS Equal 2. Restricted Range LESS Federal Range Ratio LESS p 3. LESS LESS Relative Mean Deviation LESS p 4. LESS LESS 5. Permissible Variance LESS LESS MORE 6. Variance LESS LESS LESS 7. Coefficient of Variation LESS LESS LESS 8. Standard Deviation of Logarithms LESS LESS LESS Gini Coefficient LESS LESS LESS 9. B. 11 11 11 " 11 WEALTH NEUTRALITY 1. Simple Correlation MORE With Neut MORE With Neut MORE With. Neut 2. Slope - W MORE LESS MORE 3. Slope - W, W MORE LESS MORE 4. Slope - W, W2, W3 MORE LESS MORE 5. Expenditure Difference MORE LESS MORE 6. Hickrod Gini MORE 7. Elasticity - W MORE 8. Elasticity -W, W2 9. Elasticity - W, 2 W2 S. 4 0 MORE " MORE MORE LESS " MORE MORE LESS " MORE IS II so IS 55 55 82 IV.03 TABLE ILLINOIS STATE - UNIT OF ANALYSIS - DISTRICT UNWEIGHTED PUPIL, WEIGHTED PUPIL DISTRICT TYPE - SECONDARY Change from 1972 to 1975 Measure of Equality and Wealth Neutrality A. WEIGHTED PUPIL UNWEIGHTED PUPIL DISTRICT EQUALITY . . 1. Range LESS Equal LESS Equal LESS Equal 2. Restricted Range LESS LESS is LESS 3. Federal Range Ritio MORE " LESS 4. Relative Mean Deviation MORE " MORE s MORE " 5. Permissible Variance MORE " MORE " MORE, " 6. Variance LESS " LESS " LESS " 7. Coefficient of Variatiom MORE MORE " MORE " 8. Standard Deviation of Logarithms MORE " 'MORE " MORE Gini Coefficient MORE " MORE " MORE 9. B. . '." MORE " 0 " WEALTH NEUTRALITY 1. Simple ,Correlation. MORE,W1th Neut MORE Wlth Neat MORE With Neut 2. Slope - W MORE " " MORE " MORE " 3. Slope.- W, W MORE " " MORE 0 MORE * 2 4. Slope - W, W2, W3 MORE 5. Expenditurellifference MORE 6. Hickrod Gini MORE 7. Elasticity - W MORE IL Elasticity, -W, W2 MORE 9. Elasticity - W, MORE W2, W3 ' " . " . 'moki N " MORE " " MORE " M MORE N " MORE M MORE " " MOM " " MORE " " MORE " " " " MORE " " MORE " " " ' ' MORE N " _ II . 8 83 TABLE IV-14 ILLINOIS. STATE - UNIT OF ANALYSIS - DISTRICT, UNWEIGHTED PUPIL, WEIGHTED PUPIL ELEMENTARY DISTRICT TYPE - Change from 1972 to 1975 41 Measure of Equality and Wealth Neutrality A. 41. DISTRICT UNWEIGHTED PUPIL WEIGHTED PUPIL EQUALITY 1. Range LESS Equal LESS Equal LESS Equal 2. Restricted Range- LESS 11 LESS " LESS " 3. Federal Range Ratio LESS " LESS " LESS " 4. Relative Mean Deviation LESS 11 LESS " LESS 5. Permissible Variance LESS " LESS " LESS " 6. Variance LESS " LESS LESS " LESS H , 11. . . 7. Coefficient of Variation LESS " LESS " 8. Standard Deviation of Logarithms LESS 11 LESS " LESS " LESS LESS 11 Gini Coefficient LESS " 9. 0 - 40 B. WEALTH NEUTRALITY 1. Simple Correlation MORE Wlth Neut MORE With Neut MORE With Neut 2. Slope - W LESS MORE " " MORE 3. Slope - W, W MORE " " MORE 4. MORE " " MORE MORE "" " MORE " " " " H 11 moRE 11 Slope - W, W2, W3 MORE " 5. Expenditure Difference MORE 11 6: H'ickrod Gini MORE " " MORE " " MORE " " 7. Elasticity - W LESS H a MORE 11 " MORE " 11 Elasticity -W, W2 MORE II 8. MORE " MORE 11 9. Elasticity - W, W " MORE 11 MORE 11 2 MORE , 11 11 " S7 " \ " H 84 IV-15 TASLE STATE - KANSAS UNIT OF ANALYSIS DISTRICT TYPE - DISTRICT, UNWEIGHTED NOIL ALL Change from 1972 to 1975 Measure of Equality and Wealth-Neutrality A. DISTRICT- , 11NWEIGHTED PUPIL EQUALITY 1. Range LESS Eijual LESS Equal 2. Restricted !tinge LESS LESS 3. Federal Range' Ratio LESS LESS 4. Relative Mean Deviation LESS 5. Permissible Variance LESS MORE 6. Variance LESS' LESS 7. Coefficient of Variation LESS LESS 8. Standard Deviation of Logarithms LESS MORE " Gini Coefficient LESS LESS " 9. B. 11 LESS WEALTH NEUTRALITY 1. Simple Correlation LESS Wlth Neut LESS Wlth Neut 2. Slope - W LESS LESS " 3. Slope - W, W2 LESS " LESS " 4. Slope - W, W2, W3 5. Expenditure Difference LESS " LESS N 6. Hickrod Gini 7. Elasticity - W LESS " LESS " 8. Elasticity -W, W2 LESS " LESS 3 9. Elasticity - W, W . SI 85 TABLE IV-16 STATE - KENTUCKY DISTRICT, UNWEIGHTED PUPIL UNIT OF ANALYSIS DISTRICT TYPE - ALL Change from 1972 to 1975 Measure of Equality and Wealth Neutrality DISTRICT UNWEIGHTED PUPIL EQUALITY A. 1. Range LESS Equal LESS Equal 2. Restricted kinge LESS LESS 3. Federal Range Ratio MORE LESS 4. Relative Mean Deviation MORE LESS 5. Permissible Variance MORE MORE 6. Variance LESS LESS 7. Coefficient of Variation LESS LESS 8. Standard Deviation of Logarithms NO CHANGE LESS Gini.Coefficient MORE Equal "0 LESS II AO 9. II WEALTH NEUTRALITY ARE Wlth Meut LESS Wlth Neut 1. Simple Correlation 2. Slope,- W LESS LESS 3. Slope - W, W LESS LESS 4. Slope - W, W2, W3 MORE LESS 5. Expenditure Difference LESS LESS 6. Hickrod Gini MORE LESS 7. Elasticity - W LESS LESS 8. Elasticity -W, W2 LESS LESS 9. Elasticity - W, W MORE LESS W 3 TABLE IV-17 LOUISIANA STATE - UNIT OF ANALYSIS DISTRICT TYPE - DISTRICT, UNWEIGHTED PUPIL ALL .aajtgefrom 1972 to 1975 Measure of Equality and Wealth Neutrality A. DISTRICT UNWEIGHTED PUPIL EQUALITY 1. Range LESS Equal LESS Equal 2. Restricted Ringe LESS LESS 3. Federal Range Ratio LESS LESS 4. Relative Mean Deviation LESS LESS Permissible Variance MORE IS 6. LESS 6. Variance LESS " LESS 7. Coefficient of Variation LESS LESS 8. Standard Deviation of Logarithms LESS LESS Gini Coefficient LESS LES: 9. B. WEALTH NEUTRALITY 1. Simple Correlation LESS Wlth Neut MORE Wlth Neut 2. Slope - W LESS LESS 3. Slope - W, W2 LESS LESS 4. Slope - W, W2, W3 LESS LESS 6. Expendituise Difference 6. Hickrod Gini 7. Elasticity - W 8. Elasticity 9. Elasticity - W, W2, W3 N IND - W2 LESS MORE LESS MORE LESS LESS « N N U 87 IV-18 TABLE STATE - MAINE DISTRICT, UNWEIGHTED PUPIL UNIT OF ANALYSIS DISTRICT TYPE - ALL, Change from 1972 to 1975 4/ 'Measure of Equality and Wealth Neutrality UNWEIGHTED PUPIL EQUALITY A. OP DISTRICT 1. Range MORE Equal 2. Restricted Range MORE 3. Federal Range Ratio MORE 4. Relative Mean Deviation MORE 5. Permissible Variance MORE 6. Variance MORE 7. Coefficient of Variation 8. Standard Deviation of Logarithms 9. B. ' II LESS II MORE II MORE II MORE II LESS MORE MORE MORE MORE moRE Gini Coefficient MORE Equal II MORE n WEALTH NEUTRAL:TY 1. Simple Cc-relation NOM Wlth Neut MORE Wlth,Neut 2. Slope - W MORE " MORE " 3. Slope - W, WZ LESS' " LESS " 4. Slope - W, W2, W3 5. Expenditure Difference LESS " LESS " 6. Hickrod Gini 7. Elasticity - W MORE " 8. Elasticity LESS " 9. Elasticity - W, W2 W2, W3 NM 11 11 11 MORE LESS II TABLE IV-19 STATE - MICHIGAN UNIT OF ANALYSIS - DISTRICT DISTRICT TYPE - ALL Changes from Measure of Equality and Wealth Neutrality A. 1971 to 1974 1972 to 1974 1973 to 1974, LESS Equal MORE. Equal LESS Equal *LESS LESS LESS EQUALITY 1. Range 2. Restricted Range 3. Federal Range Ratio MORE MORE MORE 4. Relative Mean Deviation MORE MORE MORE 5. Permissible Variance LESS LESS LESS 6. Vari4nce LESS LESS LESS 7. Coefficient of Variation MORE MORE MORE 8. Standard Deviation of Logarithms MORE MORE MORE Gini Coefficient MORE MORE MORE MORE WV! Neut MORE With Neut MORE WithNeut MORE MORE MORE 9. B. WEALTH NEUTRALITY 1 1., Simple Correlation n. 2. Slope - W MORE 3. Slope - W, W2 MORE MORE 4 SloPe - W, W2, W3 MORE MORE Ii MORE 5. Expenditure Difference' LESS LESS LESS 6. Hickrod Gini MORE MORE MORE 7. Elasticity - W MORE MORE MORE 8. Elasticity -W, W2, MORE MORE MORE 9, Elasticity - W, .W2, gORE MORE. LESS . 0 89, TABLE IV-20 STATE - MICHIGAN. UNIT OF ANALYSIS - UNWEIGHTED PUPIL D:STRICT TYPE - ALL Changes from 6' Measure of Equality and Wealth Neutrality 1971 to 1974 1973 to 1974 EQUALITY A. LESS Equal 1. Range LEsS Equal MORE Equal Restricted Range LESS LESS1 m 2. LESS " MORE MORE m MORE 11 II MORE m MORE 11 II MORE m MORE m Is LESS m LESS II II MORE .3. ,Federal Range Ratio 4. Relative Mean Deviation MORE' 5. Permissible Variance LESS 6. Variance LESS 7. Coefficient of Variation MORE 8. !Standard Deviation oflogarithms 9. Gini Cbefficient MORE 11 11 MORE MORE MORE MORE MORE MORE MORE Wlth Neut MORE Wlth WEALTH NEUTRALITY B. f 6 '3 0 1972 to 1974 Simple Correlation MORE Wlti; Slope - W MORE 'Slope - Ws W2 Neut 1 MORE m m MORE MORE m ,H II MORE Netut 11 MORE. m " MORE m 0 MORE Ii Slope - W W2, W3 MORE m 4. LESS m LESS m m Expenditure Difference LESS m 5. MORE m MORE m m Hickrod Gini MORE m 6. MORE H Elasticity MORE H 7. MORE m Elasticity -W, W2 -MORE m 8. MORE 11 11 3. Elasticity - W, W W2 MORE II N MORE 93 MORE 11 11 m 11 90 IV-21 TABLE STATE m MINNESOTA DISTRICT, UNWEIGHTED PUPIL UNIT OF ANALYSIS DISTRICT TYPE ALL Change from 1971 to 1975 Measure of Equality and Wealth Neutrality A. DISTRICT UNWEIGHTED PUPIL EQUALITY .MORE Equal 1. Range MORE Equal 2. Restricted Range LESS LESS 3. Federal Range Ratio MORE MORE 4. Relati4e Mean Deviation WRE MORE 5. PermissibliViiiince. -140RE MORE 6. Variance LESS LESS 7. Coefficient of Variation MORE 8. Standard Deviation of Logarithms MORE MORE Gini Coefficient MORE MORE 9. B. " MORE WEALTH NEUTRALITY 1. Simple Correlation MORE Wlth Neut MORE W1 th Mut 2. Slope m W MORE MORE 3. Slopi - W, W2 MORE LESS 4. Slope m W, W2, W3 LESS LESS 5. Expenditure Difference LESS LESS 6. Hickrod Gini 7. Elasticity - W .14RE " MORE 8. Elasticity -W, W2 MORE " LESS 9. Elasticity - W, W LESS " LESS. IS " - 91 IV-22 TABLE MISSISSIPPI STATE - UNIT OF AMJSIS DISTRICT TYPE - DISTRICT, UNWPGATED PUPIL, ALL Change from 1971 to 1975 41 Measure of Equality and Wealth Neutrality UNWEIGHTED PUPIL EQUALITY A. IF DISTRUT 1. Range LESS Equal LESS,Equal 2. Restricted RInge LESS LESS 3. Federal RAnge Ratio MORE LESS 4. Relative Me 5. Permissible'Ya II , MORE II LESS MORE II Variance LESS LESS Coefficient of Variation MORE MORE P. Standard gpviation of Logarithms MORE 9. Gini Coefficient MORE 6. 17. Deviation \ Ance MORE 11 ) II 400 Is MORE MORE WEALTH NEUTRALITY 3. 4. LESS Wlth Neut Simple Correlation LESS Wlth Neut Slope - W LESS " LESS Slope - W, W2 MORE " MORE, Slope - W, W2, W3 LESS tESS 11 Expenditure Difference 111' ,od Gini h. 9. -) Elasticity - W LESS H II MORE H H Elasticity.-W, W2 MORE H Elasticity - W, W2 LESS MORE LESS " Is 92 TABLE STATE - IV-23 MISSOURI DISTRICT, UNWEIGHTED PUPIL UNIT OF ANALYSIS DISTRICT TYPE - UNIFIED, ELEMENTARY C ange from 1974 to 1975 UNIFIED Measure of EqUality and Wealth NeUtrality DISTRICT ELEMENTARY UNWEIGHTED PUPIL DISTRICT UNWEIGHTED PUP I EQUALITY A. 1. Range LESS Equal LESS Equal Less' Equal LESS. Equal 2. Restricted Ring* LESS MORE LESS LESS 3. Federal Range Ratio MORE MORE LES S LESS 4. Relativu Mean Deviation LESS MORE LESS LESS 5. Permissible Variance MORE MORE LESS LESS 6. Variance LESS LESS LESS 7. Coefficient of Variation MORE MORE LESS Standard Deviation of Logarithms MORE Gini Coefficient . 9. N " LESS LESS MORE " LESS " LESS 'MORE MORE " LESS " LESS WEALTH NEUTRALITY 1. Simple Correlation MORE With Neut MORE With Neu MORE With Neut LESS Wit Netr 2. Slope - W MORE MORE MORE " MORE MORE " LESS 3. Siope - W, W2 4. Slope 5. MORE 14, 142, w3 II MORE " MORE MORE LESS " LESS Expenditure Difference LESS LESS LESSz " LESS 6. Hickrod Gini MORE MORE LESS " LESS 7. Elasticity . W MORE, MORE MORE " MORE 8. Elasticity -W, W2 LESS MORE LESS " S. Elasticity - W, LESS MORE LESS ", W2, W3 " N . LESS LESS 93 TABLE IV-24 STATE - NEW JERSEY UNI,T OF ANALYSIS - DISTRICT DISTRICT TYPE - ALL Changes 'from Measure of Equality and Wealth Neutrality A. 4974 to 1977 1975 to 1977 1976 to 1977 LESS Equal LESS Equal EQUALITY 1. Range LESS Equal 2. Restricted RInge LESS " LESS " CESS " 3. Federal Range Ratio MORE " MORE " LESS " 4. Relative Mean Deviation MORE " MORE " MORE " 5. Permissible Variance MORE " MORE " MOrd " 6. Variance LESS " LESS " LESS " 7. Coefficient of Variation MORE " MORE " LESS " 8. Standard Deviation of Logarithms MORE " MORE " LESS " Gini Coefficient MORE " MORE " LESS " 9. sr B. WEALTH NEUTRALITY LESS With Neut LESS With Neut 1. Simple Correlation MORE With Neut 2. Slope - W MORE " " LESS " " LESS 3. Slope - W, MORE " " MORE " " LESS 4. Slope - W, W2, MORE " " MORE " " 5. Expftditure Difference LESS " " LESS " 6. Hickrod Gini MORE " " MORE 7. Elasticity - W MORE " " 8. Elasticity -W, W2 MORE " MORE " W2 " " LESS " " " LESS " " " " LESS MORE " " LESS " " " MORE " " LESS " MORE " " LESS " " % III W3 , 9. Elasticity - W, W2, W3 .97 , TABLE IV-25 STATE - NEW JERSEY UNIT OF ANALYSIS - UNWEIGHTED PUPIL DISTRICT TYPE - ALL Changes from Measure of Equality and Wealth Neutrality 1974 to 1977 1975 to 1977 '1976 to 1977 , A. EQUALITY * 1. Range LESS Equal LESS Equal 2. Restricted Range LESS LESS " LESS 3. Federal Range Ratio LESS " MORE " MORE 4. Relative Mean Deviation MORE " MORE " LESS 5. Permissible Variance MORE " MORE 6. Variance LESS N LESS 7. Coefficient of Variation MORE " Standard Deviation of Logarithms MORE MORE 8. LESS Equal LESS " " " LESS MORE LESS " MORE. LESS " MORE , , 9. B. Gini Coefficient " LESS " WEALTH NEUTRALITY 1. Simple Correlation LESS Wlth Neut 2. Slope - W LESS " " MORE " N. LESS " 3. Slope - W, W2 LESS " " MORE " " MORE " 4. Slope - W, W2, W3 LESS " " MORE 5: Expenditure Difference LESS '1 6. Hickrod Gini 7. Elasticity - W LESS " 8. Elasticity -W, W2 LESS 9. Elasticity - W, W2 LESS MORE With " Is " " " " LESS MORE " " MORE " MORE N " " MORE " N II MORE " . Ne-ut MORE LESS - w3 LESS With Ne Ut " .LESS " " MORE " " MORE " . N . . 0 c.3() 95 TABLE STATE - UNIT OF ANALYSIS DISTRICT TYPE - NEW MEXICO DISTRICT ALL Changes from: Measure of Equality and Wealth Neutral i ty A. IV-26 1972 to 1975 EQUALITY MORE Equal MORE Equal LESS MORE 1 MORE 11- 1. Range LESS Equal 9. Restricted Ringe LESS Federal Range Ratio LESS 4. Relative Mean Deviation LESS 5. Permissible Variance MORE 'MORE 6. Variance LESS MORE 7. Coefficient of Variation LESS MORE of Logarithm LESS MORE G1n4, Coefficient LESS MORE .3. 11 MORE 11 0 B. 1 MORE MORE 8.1 Standard Jeviation 9. 1974 to 1975 1973 to 1975 11 MORE 11 'MORE 11 .MORE 11 II MORE SI II MORE II WEALTH NEUTRALITY 1. Simple Correlation MORE Wlth Neut MORE Wlth Neut MORE Wlth Neut 2. Slope = W MORE MORE MORE 3. Slope - W, MORE MORE MORE 4. Slope - W, W2, W3 MORE MORE MORE 5. Expenditure Difference LESS LESS MORE 6. Hickrod Gini 7. Elasticity - W MORE MORE MORE 8. Elasticity -W, W2 MORE MORE MORE 9. Elasticity 7 W, moRE MORE \MORE W2 0.1 W2, W3 96 TABLE IV-27 STATE - NEW MEXICO UNIT OF ANALYSIS - UNWEIGHTED PUPIL ALL DISTRICT TYPE - Changes from: Measure of Equality and Wealth Neutrality 14'72 to 1975 1973 to 1975 1974 to 1975 , A. 1. DIMITY Range LESS Equal MORE Equal MORE Equal LESS MORE N MORE " MORE " MORE .' MORE " MORE ' MORE " t 2. ,;testricted Range " , 3. Federal Range Ratio MORE 4. Relative Mean Deviation MORE N 5. Permissible Variance LESS " LESS 6. Variance LESS " MORE " MORE " 7. Coefficient of Variation MORE " MORE " MORE 6 , 8. 9. B. Standard Deviation of Logarithm MORE " .MORE " MORE " Gini Coefficient MORE " MORE " MORE " WEALTH NEUTRALITY , 1. Simple Cbirelation MORE W1 th Neut LESS W1 th Neut MORE Wlth Neut , 2. Slope - W MORE " 3. Slope - W, W2 MORE " 4. Slope - W, WZ, W3* LESS " 5. Expenditure Difference* LESS " 6. Hickrod Gini 7. Elasticity - W MORE " 8. Elasticity -W, WZ MORE " 9. Elasticity - W, W23 W3 * - LESS, MORE " MORE N N MORE " " LESS N " LES'S " " MORE " " " LESS " " MORE n n , . N MORE " " LESS " # LESS " " N " * Negative wealth neutrality measures evaluated as positive values; i.e., more negative is not more wealth neutral. , _ MORE " MORE. " ." MORE " " 97 TABLE kV48 NORTH CAROLINA STATE - UNIT OF ANALYSIS DISTRICT TYPE - DISTRICT, UNWEIGHTED PUPIL ALL Change from 1972 to 1975 Measure of Equality and Wealth Neutrality A. .DI ST RTCT UNWEIGHTED PUPIL EQUALITY. 1. Range LESS Equal LESS Equal 2. Restricted Range LESS LESS 3. Federal Range Ratio MORE 4. Relative Mean Deviation MORE 5. Permissible Variance MORE 6. Variance LESS LESS 7. Coefficient of Variation MORE MORE 8. Standard Deviation of Logarithms MORE Gini Coefficient MORE MORE B. 11 MORE MORE 1.1 11 MORE II 1. MORE II WEALTH NEUTRALITY 1. Simple CorrelAtion MORE W1th Neut MORE Wlth Neut 2. Slope - W MORE MORE 3. Slope MORE MORE 4. Slope - W, W2, W3 MORE MORE 5. Expenditure Difference 6. Hickrod Gini 7. Elasticity - W 8. Elasticity -W, 9. Elasticity - W II - w2 MORE MORE MORE MORE MORE MORE II 11 II 11 98 TABLE IV-29 STATE - SOUTH CAROLINA DISTRICT, UNWEIGHTED PUPIL UNIT OF ANALYSIS DISTRICT TYPE - ALL Change from 1972 to 1975 Measure of Equalityf and Wealth Neutrality A. DISTRICT UNWEIGHTED PUPIL LESS Equal- EQUALITY 1. Range LESS Equal 2. RestricteCRange LESS 'LESS 3. Federal Range Ratio LESS LESS 4. Relative Mean Deviation LESS LESS 5. Permissible Variance LESS LESS 6. Variance LESS LESS 7. Coefficient of Variation LESS LESS 8. Standard Deviation of Logarithms LESS " LESS Gini Coefficient LESS " LESS 9. B. WEALTH NEUTRALITY 1. Simple Correlation MORE 141th Neut MORE Wlth Neut 2. Slope - W LESS LESS 3. Slope - W, W2 LESS LESS 4. Sicpt - W, W2, W3 LESS 5. Expenditure Difference 6, Hickrod Gini 7. Elasticity - W 8. Elasticity 9. Elasticity - W, Is LESS - LESS W2 LESS 11 MORE 55 LESS MORE MORE 1 tY,2 99 IV-30 TABLE STATE - SOUTH DAKOTA UNIT OF ANALYSIS DT5TRICT TYPE - DISTRItT, UNWEIGdTED PUPIL ALL Change from 1973 to 1975 Measure of Equality and Wealth Neutrality A. DISTRICT UNWEIGHTED PUPIL Change from 1974 to 1975 DISTRICT UNWEIGHTED PUPIL EQUALITY 1: Range MORE Equal MORE Equal LESS Equal' LESS Equal 2. Restricted Range LESS LESS LESS LESS 3. Federal Range Ratio MORE LESS MORE LESS 4. Relative Mean Deviation MORE MORE MORE MORE 6. Permissible Variance LESS' MORE LESS LESS 6. Variance LESS LESS LESS 7. Coefficient of Variation MORE MORE MORE' 8. Standard Deviation of Logarithms MORE MORE Gini Coefficient MORE MORE " 11 11 LESS H u, MORE MORE " MORE MORE " 11 MORE 11 11 WEALTH NEUTRALITY 1. Simple Correlation MORE WlthNeut MORE W1 th Neut MOREW1th Neut MOREWlth Neut 2: Slope - W MORE MORE MORE MORE 3. Slope - W, W MORE MORE 4. Slope - W, W2, W3 MORE MORE MORE 5. Expenditure Difference MORE MORE MORE 6. Hickrod Gini MORE 7. Elasticity - W MORE 8. Elasticity -W, W2 MORE 9e Elasticity -W, MORE 2 11 MORE W2, H MORE LESS H N 11 11 MORE 11 11 MORE 11 MORE 11 MORE MORE 11 MORE 11 11 11 11 1 :3 ,11 11 MORE MORE MORE 11 11 11 Hil MORE MORE MORE u MORE H 100 IV-31 TABLE STATE TEXAS - DISTRICT, UNWEIGHTED PUPIL. UNIT OF ANALYSIS - ALL DISTRICT TYPE.- Chinge from 1974 to 1975 Measure of Equality. and Wealth Neutrality A. .DISTRICT UNWEIGHTED PUPIL EQUALITY 1. Range LESS Equal LESS Equal 2. Restricted Range LESS- LESS 3. Federal Range Ratio MORE MORkk " 7 4. Relative Mean Deviation LESS MORE 5. Permissible Variance MORE MORE 6. Valiance LESS 7. Coefficient of Vailatioist LESS MORE 8. Standard `aviation of Logarithms MORE MORE 9. Gini Coefficient LESS MORE B. . LESS WEALTH NEUTRALITY 1. Simple Correlation MORE Wlth Neut LESS Wlth Neut 2. Slope - W LESS LESS 3. Slope - W, W MORE LESS 4. Slope - W, W2, W3 MORE LESS 5. Expe2Jiture Difference MORE LESS 6. Hickred Gini MORE LOS 7. Elasticity - W LESS MORE 8. Elasticity -W, W2 MORE MORE 9. Elasticity - W, W MORE MORE 2 N X 1 01 IV-32 TABLE STAfE - WASHINGTON DISTRICT, UNWEIGHTED PUPIL UNIT OF ANALYSIS DISTRICT TYPE - ALL Change from 1970 ti 1974 O Measure of Equality DISTRLCT And Wealth Neutrality A. . UNWEIGHTED PUPIL. EQUALITY LESS Equal 1. Range LESS Equal 2. Restricted Pange LESS 3. Federal Rangelatio LESS 4. Relative Mean Deviation LESS 5. Permissible Variance LESS 6. Variance LESS LESS Coefficient of Variation LESS LESS 7. 8. Standard Deviation of Logarithms LESS LESS 9. Gini Coefficient LESS Is LESS Is LESS Is MORE II 11 LESS LESS , B. . WEALTH NEUTRALITY 1. Simple Correlation MORE With Neut MOREW1th Neut 2. Slope - W LESS LESS 3. Slope - W, W2 LESS LESS 4. Slope - W, W2, W3 LESS LESS 5. Expenditure Difference LESS LESS 6. Hickrod Gini LESS LESS 7. Elasticity - W MORE LESS 8. Elasticity -W, W2 LESS 9. Elasticity - W, W2, W3 LESS t " 11 11 11 11 ss N 11 11 LESS LESS 102 IIP V. . Analysis of Equality and Wealth Neutrality Measures Across States In this section the performance of the equality and wealth neutrality measures is analyzed when the measures are used to rank a number of states at one point im time. Interstate comparisons of equality and wealth neutrality are worthY of examination for several reasons. . Firsi, when a state's movement taaard or away from equality or wealth meutrality is assessed r"Artime, the move- ment takes on added meaning when viewed in conjunction with estate's position relative to the other. states. A movement away from equality in a state that is relatively equal may not be as troublesome as the same movement , in a state that is relatively unequal when* ranked against other states. Second, the measurement of equality and wealth neutrality acc-z states is currently being carried out by the'Federal government in its legislationi for tnpact aiV Since the Federal government is using certain specific .measures for interstate comparisons, it is important to understand the per.formance of the measures utilized by the Federal government, as wit as those alternatives not included in Federal regulations, if Federal policies ire to be evaiUated. Third, regardless of whether they should or not, a large number of participants in the school finance "community" use interstate.comparisons in the legislative, executive, and judicial.spheres. Since it is fairly .certain that a multitude of interstate comparisons will be-Orried out in the future, it is critical that the methodology aid pOtential problems involved in these comparisons are Well understood and widely disseminated. 103 This-section is divided into two major parts; the first part examines the e4uality measures and the second the wealth neutrality measures. similar methodology is utilized in loath parts. However, a First,4 number of equality '(wealth neutrality) measures are used to rank from eighteen to twenty.:two P states 1 at one point in time and the resulting rankings are compared pair2 wise for all the.equality lwealth neutrality ) measure's. That is, nine different equality measures are used to,rank twenty-two states from most to % least equal and those rankings are coMpared for all pairs of measures. Three different statistics are used to assess the extent of agreement, between the pairs of equality measures when they are used to rink states bt one point in time. common example. These measures are explained, then illustrated with a First, Spearman rank correl4tinns (as) are computed between ,1 all pairs of rankings yiplded by two equality measures. 3 The formula fur the Spearman rank correlation is the following: N , di 6 Ps 1 2) - N4 N Where di is the difference betWeen the ranks assigned to each state by the two measures and N is the different number state in the sample.4 The Spearman rank correlation ranges frOm 1 (identical ,likin71' to -1 (opposite rankings). .14 1The number of states used in the interstate comparisons depends ori data availability. As explained below, twenty-two states are examine.; with equality measures and eighteen with wealth neutrality measures. . 2 El The discussion in the remainder of this introduction is valid for the analysis of both equality and wealth neutrality measures to follow. However, for brevity, only equality measures are mentioned. 3 Thirty-six unique pairs of rankings are obtained when each of nine measures is paired with every other measure. 4The Spearman rank correlations were computed by SPSS Version 7. 104, The second statistic computed to assess the agreement among the rankings yielded by the equality measures taken two at a time is the percentage of all pairs of states that are ranked in the,same order by both equality measures. This statistic is called the Agreacent -Conflict (AC) measure in the rllowing manner. pairs of states. For aoy set of N states, there are N (N When an equality meaSure there will be. M 1) unique is used to rank these N states, pers of states with one state ranked higher than the other, ignoring. ties. the N (N and ia calculated The Agreement-Conflict measure is the percentage of pairs of states.thet.are ranked in the same order by the two 1) equality measures. This meisure ranges from 1 (all pairs ranked in the same order) to 0 (all of the Pairs ranked in the opposite order). Usually the measure ranges betwcen zero and one and thus indicates the percentage of pairs of states that are ranked in the same Order. The third and final.statistic usedfto assess the agreement anong the rankings yielded by two equality measures is the concordance measu1e.5 Usually .the'cOncordance measure is utilized when the extent of ths agreement among2more than two rankings is to be assessed. However, the concordance measure can be computed for two rankings and it ii computed for the pairs of rankings so that , the behavior of the concordance statistic will be more familitr when it is used to assess the agreement among three and four equality measures. The concordance measure (W) may be commited as follows: . w . M 12 (T.;., M Ri3 m2 (N3 (N1))2 N) where M is the number of equality measirrts (twe in this case), N is the number 5See Kendell, M.G.,. Rank Correlation Methods, 4n Edition. London: griffin (1970), Chapter 6. I am Indebted to Richard Schramm for calling this statistic to my attention. Psal 105 pf states being ranted, and Rij is the rank assigned by the jth measure to the ith state. The concordance measure can be viewed as the actual sum of squared deviationsfrom the situation where all statas receive the same total or average rank from all measures divided by the maximum sum of squared deviation if all states were ranked in the same order by all measures. seen from the formula for W by noting that (N + 1) is the average sum of 1/2M ranks assigned to N states by M measures and This can be TIM` (te - N) is the maximum sum of squares if all states are ranked in the identical order measure, without.ties. by each The concordance measure ranges from 1 (perfect agree- ment among all measures) to 0 (no agreement among the measures). The mechanics of the three measures can be illustrated with an example. Table V-1A shows the values of two equality measures (X and Y) computed for four states (A, B, C, and 0), and the resulting ranks labelled Rank (X) and Rank (Y). Table V-1B. The calculation of the Spearman rank correlation is shown in The sum of the difference between the ranks, squared, is 6 and the resulting Spearman rank correlation is .40. Table V-1C illustrates the computation of the Agreement-Conflict measure. In the example there are six pairs of states, four of which are ranked in the same order by both measures. Therefore, the Agreement-Conflict measure is four divided by six or .67. Finally, the calculation of the concordance measure appears in Table V-1D. Since there are two measures and four states the average sum of ranks for each state is 11(2) (4 + 1) or 5. The sum of squared deviations from 5 is divided by the maximum sum of square deviations yielding a concordance measure of .70. It should be noted that the rank correlation ranges from -1 to 1 while the Agreement-Conflict and concordance Measures range from 0 to 1. 41 The concordance measure for two rankings is very similar to the Spearman rank correlation but 4 199 106 TABLE V-1 A. BASIC DATA USED TO COMPUTE EXTENT OF AGREEMENT AMONG RANKS EQUALITY MEASURE STATE X A .1100 .1200 .1300 .1400 RANK (X) (1 = MOST EQUAL) EQUALITY MEASURE 1 .0110 .0120 .0125 .0115 2 3 4 RANK (Y) (1 = MOST EQUAL) 1 3 4 2 B. CALCULATION OF SPEARMAN RANK CORRELATION 2 d STATE RANK (X) A RANK (Y) 1 1 2 3 3 4 2 6(Zd12) 0 0 1 4 1 N3 - N 36 = 40 = 1 - 4 4 2 6(1 + 1 + 4) = 1 - Ps . i 3-4 so C. CALCULATION OF AGREEMENT - CONFLICT MEASURE PAIRS OF STATES MEASURE X MEASURE Y A.B A MORE EQUAL THAN B A MORE EQUAL THAN B AGREE A,C A MORE EQUAL THAN C A MORE EQUAL THAN C AGREE A.D A MORE EQUAL THAN D A MORE EQUAL THAN D AGREE 8,C B MORE EQUAL THAN C B MORE EQUAL THAN C AGREE B,D B MORE EQUAL THAN D BlESS EQUAL THAN D CONFLICT C.D C MORE EQUAL THAN D C LESS EQUAL THAN D CONFLICT AC = AGREEMENT PERCENTAGE = 4/6 = .67 AGREE CONFL/CT 107 D. CALCULATION OF CONCORDANCE MEASURE STATE MIIII A 1 1 B '.2 3 AVE E RANK* E RANK RANK CY) 2 , 5 AVE 9 (E RANK-E. RANKr (.3)2 5 5 9 0 2 C 3 4 7 5 2 D 4 2 6 5 1 d 4 2 *AVE E RANK W 1/2141 (N 1 ) -if 12 CE (E RANK - AVE E RANK) m2 (m3 m) (2) (4 + 1) 2 ) . 1 5 12_A_S9 + 4 + 11.. 168 4(64 - 4) 240 .70 108 a difference is that one measure ranges from -1 to 1 compared to 0 to 1. Therefore the concordance measure will be higher than the Spearman rank 6 correlation in all cases. be greater the The Agreement-Conflict measure does not have to and turns out to be greater than p.in a little more than half of the cases in the examples to follow. After the pairwise analysis of the equality and wealth neutrality measures, the second stage in the methodology consists of an examination of the measures in groups of three and four. In these cases the concordance measure is utilized to assess the extent of the agreement among the several equality measures. In addition to the computation of the three statistics for the pairwise comparisons of equality measures and the concordance measures for groups of three and four equality Measures, the rankings yielded by the pairs and groups of three and four equality and wealth neutrality measures are examined to deter- mine the number of unambiguous rankings that can be derived from multiple equality measures. Unambiguous rankings occur when individual states or groups of states can be ranked unambiguously more or less equal or wealth neutral than other states or groups of states. In the elample illustrated in Table V-1, State A can be ranked unambiguousty more equal than States B, C, and based on equality measures X and Y. ,However, no further unambiguous rankings are possible; thus, these four states can be unambiguously rankat in two groups for these two equality measures. If two measures rank a set of states in exactly opposite orders, the number of unambiguous rankings will boo one. The number of unambiguous rankings can also be one when the rankings are very jumbled but not exactly opposite. 6 Kendall, 1970, p. 95 shows that for M equality measures em, u MW-1 In the case of 2 equality measures, W 0 p/2 + .5 so that W is 144 always greater than or equal to p when M 2. 12 . S. 109 The equality and wealth neutrality measures are examined in turn using the methodology described above in the reniainder' of this chapter. A. Equality Measures The analysis of the behavior of the equality measures when used to rank a number of states at one point in time is analyzed in four stages. First, the measures are examined pairwise and in groups of three and four using the unweighted pupil unit of analysis. Second, the measures are examined pairwise for the district unit of analysis and the results from the multiple rankings are briefly discussed. The comparison between the unweighted pupil and district units of analysis are presented in the third stage and the conclusions in the fourth stage. Data are in, hand for a total of 29 states. However, since this examina- tion focuses on the use of a number of equality measures at one point in time, only states where date are available for 1975-76 are examined. This leaves a total of 23 states but since Illinois has multiple district types and only 62% of the pupils are in unit type districts, Illinois is not included in the sample. This leaves 22 states in the sample that is used to analyze the behavior of the equality measures in interstate comparisons.7 A 29 state sample can be constructed where one observation is included for every state. This sample would include the observations from the 22 states for 1975-76 plus Illinois-Unit, 1975-76; California-Unit, 1974-75; Colorado, 1974-75; Kansas, 1974-75; Maryland, 1976-77; Michigan, 1974-75; and Washington, 1974-75. A parallel analysis was carried out in this 29 state sample, however, only the results from the 22 state sample are presented and discussed since the results from the augmented sample are not different from those for the 22 state sample. 7 Even though there are mUltiOle district types in Missouri, since 98% of -the pupils are in Unified districts, Missouri is included in the 22 state sample. 1 .) 110 1. Assessment of Equality Measures Across States Using Unweighted Pupillinit of Analysis The specific question addressed in this part may be stated at follows: When a number of equality measures, canputed using the unweighted pupil unit of'analysis are used to.rank a number of states frail mare ta less equal at one point in time, do the rankings from thedifferent equality measures agree? . In other words, if we'enamine the rankings that result from the application of two or more equality measures computed using the unweighted pupil unit of analysis to a set of states, at one point in time, will there be agreement among the rankings? The rankings that result from the.application of the equality measures to the sample of 22 states in 1975-76 (hereefter referred.to as the 22 state' sample) are compared pairwise using.the three statistics described above and these are displayed in Table V-2. The Spearman rank correlatinns range from p6589 to .9910, the Agreement-Conflict measure from .7270 to .9740, and the concordance measure from .8295 to .9955. Since, given the sample size, all the, rank correlations are highly significant, an arbitrary cutoff of .84 for the rank correlation and the Agreement -Conflict measure .92 for the Concordande measure8 can be used to isolate the pairs of measures that are more in agreement. If these criteria are used simultaneously, the following ten pairs of measures can be said to be more in agrecnent than the other pairs: RANGE-VAR RES RANGE -REL MN DEV RES RANGE-VAR RES RANGE -GINI FED FED FED REL REL RR-REL MN DEV RR-COEF VAR RR-GINI MN DEV-COEF VAR MN DEV-GINI COEF VAR -GINI 8When p .84 for a pair of rankings, W = .92 11 1 See footnote 6. 41 41 TABLE V-2 MEASURES OF ASSOCIATION BETWEEN EQUALITY MEASURES USED ACROSS STATES IN 22 STATE SAMPLE (unweighted pupil unit of analysis) \N RES RANGE FED RR REL MN DEV PERM VAR VAR COEF VAR STD DEV- NLGS RANGE RES RANGE MEASURES OF ASSOCIATION GINI . , .7787 .7840 .8893 .6589 .7400 .8295 .6691 .7530 .8346 :6680 .7270 .8340 .8814 .8480 .9407 .7945 .8270 .8972 .6669 .7360 .8334 .6804 .7620 .8402 Spearman Rank Correlation(pe) Agreement-Conflict Measure4Me. Concordance Measure (W) X .8430 .8130 .9215 .8803 .8570 .9401 .7470 .7710 .8735 .9356 .9090 .9678 .8272 .8180 .9136 .7651 .7970 .8826 .8656 .8400 .9328 At .7199 .7710 .8600 .7233 .7620 .8617 .8916 .8610 .9458 .6725 .7530 .8363 .9243 .883 .9622 .7346 .7920 .8673 .8182 .827 .9091. .9243 .892 .9622 .7549 .7920 .8775 .9910 .974 .9955 X .6770 .7400 .8385 .6623 .7360 .8312 .6702 .7320 .8351 .7199 .7750 .8600 W X .8475 .8230 .9238 .7730 .7840 .8865 .8001 .8010 .9001 AC W .7470 .8050 .8735 .9424 .9180 .9712 X .7425 .7920 .8713 W , FED RR REL MN DEV PERM VAR VAR COEF VAR STD DEV LGS X .8995 .8570 .9497 X X Ps ' AC W At W Ps AC PS 112 In order to,show the actual rankings so that the reader can assess independently whether or niA the equality measures agree, four tables showing pairwise comparisons are presented. Tables V-3 rand V-4 show the rankings for.' thecoefficient Of variation -. Gini coefficient and relative me.an deviation Gini coefficient,:respectively. These two measures are in substantial agreement aS the concordance measure meaiure is above .97 and the Agreement-Conflict ts over .90 in both cases.9 The lines on the SUMMARY RANKING MATRIX show the unambiguous rankings Which will bcdiscussed shortly. Table V-5 shows the rankings for the Federalirsnge ratio - standard devirition of logarithn equality measures, a case where there is relatively moderate. -agreement. Table V-5 shows that there is more agreement between the two measures for the more equal states. Finally Table V-6 shows the rankings that result from a pair of equality measure that do not agree, relative.to.the other pairs. The SUMMARY RANKING MATRIX shows that there are considerable differences despite the significant correlation and convirdance measures.' A different way of assessing the agreement between the pairs of equality measuretis to compute the number of unambiguous ranks yielded by each pair. Table V-3 shows, for example, that there are 5 unambiguous ranks for the COEF VAR-GINI combination and Table V-4 shows 17 unambiguous ranks for the REL MN DEV-GINI combination. Table V-7 displays the number of unambiguous rankings that result when all pairs of the nine equality measures are used to rank the 22 states. The minimum number of unambiguous ranks is one and an example where there is only one unambiguous rank is shown in Table V-6. It is interesting to note that although the rank correlation and concordance measures are significant for all pairs, only one unmnbiguous ranking is present in 18 out of 36 or 50% of the cases, 9The Agreement-Conflict measure is is thown on the tables. (100 - CONFLICT PCT). 100 The CONFLICT PCT TAKE V-3 TEAs..121A MEASURE.SINI MEASURE-cOEF VAR UNIT OF ANAL.-UNMOT Pea STATE RANK VALUE . 2 3 I LOU FLA M VA N C ALA 6 1,722 7 21 N M MISS MEANT CONN S 0 MO MAINE N J ORE 3 C N N MASS TEXAS KT/ N I 22 GA 1 12 11 12 13 11 15 16 17 IS 1, 20 .094,4 09714 16225 .12752 .12011 .12531 ,13652 .13400 .17315 .17200 17163 .10223 1031O .13072 .13407 .22$111 .20S6 .22571 .22431 ,23715 .W22 ,33620 UNIT OF ANAL-4,0MM PUPIL RANK .. t 2 3 4 3 6 1 8 9 10 11 12 13 11 15 16 17 12 15 20 21 22 STATE N M Lou FLA M VA N C ALA MINN NISS ao vERMT MO N H CONN MAINE ORE N J TEXAS MASS 3 C N T KT7 SA VALUE ;25266 ,05541 05527 05522 ,26722 06662 OW62 07456 4762 .02120 .22161 .22522 ') 0220 02222 .12256 01010S 123,5 .11202 11322 .1280 .12463 .15600 SUMMART RANKING MATRIX 2 3 4 LOU FLA I. id VA 3 N M N C ALA MINN f 1 0 5 5 6 6 2 7 ML4$114t-ONIT COEF VAN UMW PUPIL m 8440.09 84.9 Ms'4714 M'74 Am MIAOURL--O 4 I 1 C OMPANISONS COMPANISONS OISAORWILNIS COMpLICI PCT UMIII PUPIL ui 15 a 1.19 TAkE KAN.-1911 ( 1,144.P.4212 RERBURCwREL AN CLV RCROURE....4INI UNIT OF ANALUNMOT PUPIL UNII OF ANAL.~11 PUPIL v. RANK V.-4 srAIC VALUL RANA N 4, LOU R C 41541 WLS 1 omits s 4 BIM VALUE- 1110,011.11; 4 9 $ g $ 6 ii VA FLA ALA MINN RIOS A 9 VEAMT MO N N AMINE CONN TEXAS ONE N J MASS 1 4 4 le 11 12 1$ 14 12 16 11 14 12 26 21 12 O 1441/2 014914 9 .9404 6 014919 / '44530/ .62227 II VA .64515 N C ALA RINN 09119 44669 'OM, 1456 RUB 01001 tisss .1222 11 16 .16225 .13122 913282 11 NO if M II C 15e24 N V NTT .17222 21, N V. 10152 atlas gl NTV ol 43122 .19622 019212 .19422 .14412 21 41732 ,g 0 VEMMT 11 13 14 le 16 17 14 12 A 1259 N R LOU FLA .62122 .111141 02220 $22221 CONN 22INE .121141 OK .14196 .12122 .12272 111104 .11222 .11222 .11414 N J TEXAS RABB 2 C ,111. 1111640 46NXI14 RAMS SUM : I s I el to; NC ( m VA FLA ALA 9 I 12 . 19 SIINN ptss so oppt 16 s 9 9 to lo 14 IS .22 11' 4.0 :ATNE CONN ONE 12 L2 c 14 10 11 is 1, N r 441 Vt1211 2 j mug 14 13 IS 17 tc ts A, AO 63==iRF 29 11 21 31 22 Se 26 24 94 . Is II RMAOURC"UNII RCASUREONII. CORPANISONS 0122WENCNI2 CON0LICI Cf r.7.1 NEL AN utV UMW PUPIL s 4226.22 Us 4224 0 SIMI me PUPIL 211 3111N.L $16111821 SI6Tf11821 430231108V2W WVA WV3421101182W yVA Iffin 40 j/ww dw 11100010111Nw Wine, WOW 801VA 311,111 WNVI1 9-A ISPN018NV 1/404 (/ 101VA 311,18 10.00041. 000.11.1. I N W wise Z N 2 P VA 84ASSe t8866. 1111 8/8416' S 8 OW 88I86 I t * 6 St it it T8 MNI11 NNIW 8SIW AAM 68066 I h W 11I886° II 8SIW StS16' 6 AIWA 991161 8OSTIP, 111986. 186611° St NN02 tg $ 0 66608° it IT astee tit 8 0 189980 66618. little N r tgeLe 8 2 V*889° 89 M A StSte Ages° Sg St It St SI 98 tg al OW 3NINW N r 2w0 8 3 N if @WV pm 88 P VA N 3 861ST° 6 V1V 3NI1111 Se 1 g AIWA a 116868. 111168° 8 no, N N NNO2 8E131 ST DT Si .91 IT St nol Vii Maw' 11,11 II 1 8 () 1111/11I° USW tem 66811. USW 'MI6 (.; wit* MIT' MeV ittgt° 1111161° 106T° C., SLOW 8111188. *Mr T91188. 811101 88831 AIN N A , 61/1/86 Bette eagle 0 C. t *WWWW08 810INNVI1 IlWAVW - - tiny 1. N 3 .P VA b VlA / 1 N W g V1V zz gg /001 gZç8 NNW I 881111 S OW S NNW ST .1111114 ft St At ST 88VM 8 0 WIWI - , AIM 6 N II I r II et tt 61 88 88 SioxiA s 3 2W0 VII, N A 18 r1 8 8 9 L 6 TT g IT 01 6 . g tI ST It LT tat ST ST St 88 la 6 t; ir P4 04 . 81 ST 81 Lt 28 NZ SI Se GI 68 68 el St St Al 86 8* r I-- '1IMO`1VOIV110 MMIlylii .. A M / I INONTWV41103 9INIW1111118910 13114NO2 134 , r. , Wind 011 'it 161101 118°Ntwt 1104 01 lige 4202 WO IWINn lidnd Ill Is Pga EZT TABLE V-5 TEAR.1171 yEAR...1016 NEASURP.STO DES L11 meASUME.FEO A A ONO OF ANAL...KNIIII PUPIL STATE RANK VALUE UNIT OF ANAL.UNIIST PUPIL RANK STATE VALUE LOU FLA d VA N C N A ALA NINN $115 ND TEXAS 6 D 41411 MMMO 001.11DM 1 FLA .16176 1 1 3 4 S 6 'LOU 11161 0$611 1 1 4017110 .111110 4 $ .4041 6 .40771 ,11364 .66667 7 II VA N M ALA N C NINN NO N M VEANT MISS ORE CONN 7 1 16 11 11 13 14 M %1 15 16 17 18 11 /6 al al MAINE 1 0 NTT TWA M 7 i C MASS SA .6911$1 06678 01847 .4103 04111 .15116 .111111 .16151 ,S6766 143771 II 1 16 II 11 13 14 11 16 17 IS 11 1.04115 1.11776 .16 107630 II /A II C 0011 MASS RAM NTT N J N V 61 CONN 4ERMT N H 0111$11 ,61117 asami 1111310 .1160 1117 .14113 .16111 ,111$6 .11117 ,11143 ,111111 .11194 .11316 .111$1 .11116 41456 44716 oh/616 .41376 014171 SUMMAR! RANKING MATRIX LOU FLA i VA i N . 1 1 I 1 I 5 a 4 6 $ 4 a C 6 ALA 7 T MINN Aar-----1--11. MISS ONE 6 0 TEXA6 MAINE N J N N 11 MAT 1 II N C MTV CONN MASS N V OA 11 17 11 11 11 12 11 16 IS 11 14 A 13 11 11 15 17 22 11 12 16 16 14 1$ 10 MLASURL...U0011 6TO Self LIS UNNOI PUPIL COAPANISONS DISAOREOLNIS TABLE V-7 NUMBER OF UNAMBIGUOUS RANKINGS FOR PAIRS, OF EQUALITY MEASURES USED ACROSS STATES IN 22 STATE SAMPLE(unweighted pupil unit of analysis) RES RANGE FED RR REL MN DEV PERM VAR VAR COEF VAR 1 2 1 7 1 RANGE 1 l 1 RES RANGE X 2 2 FED RR REL MN DEV PERM VAR VAR COEF VAR STD DEV LGS 1 X 1 GINX. 2 5 5 5 5 17 1 1 2 1 2 STD DE,/ 165 1 1 118 show relatively more agreement The series of pairwise comparisons do among certain paris or groups of measure:. For example there appears to be relatively more agreement anong the coefficient of variation, relative an devietion and Gini coefficient than among 'Brother set of three measures. Furthennoreofffiestandard deviation of logarithms and the, Federal range ratio are added to this group, the agreement among the ten pairs in this group of five is relatively greater than aaong the other 26 pairs of the nine equality measures. The agreement among the equality measures when used for interstate rankings can be assessed further by examining the agreement among more than two equality measures. Of course, the number of combinations of three or more equality measures, selected from nine, is quite large so that only a selected sample of the multiple comparisons are discussed here. Tables V-8 through B-16 display the rankings resulting from the applica.tion of groups of three and fouP equality measures to the 22 state sample and a summary of the concordance measures and number of unambiguous rankings are listed in Table V-17. These tables reinforce the conclusion that the agreement among the'five measures discussed above is relatively substantial. The concordance measures are uniformly close to .9 or above, and two or more unambiguous rankings can be obtained in every Case. The existence of more than one unambiguous ranking when more than two equality measures are utilized is noteworthy since over half the equality meausres taken Imo at a time result in only one unambiguous ranking. Thus it appears that there are differences among the nine equality measures when they are used to rank a set of states from most equal to least equal when the measures are computed using the unweighted pupil unit of analysis. However, there are groups of measures that show relatively more TABLE V-8 TEAR-1075 TEATT11115 I 2 3 4 5 6 7 0 0 Is 11 la 13 14 15 16 17 10 le 25 21 22 RANK VALUE LOU FLA M.VA N C .10,4 11774 .1903 40750 ALA MINN N A RISS .11071 .12531 5 6 13600 7 1 1 S 4 .15400 HAAT .1751i CONN S 0 MO MAINE * J ORE S C N H MASS TEXAS KTv N 7 OA 17045 17063 UNIT OF ANAL..UNMST PUPIL UNIT OF ANAL...UNMST PUPIL UNIT OF ANAL..UNMST PUPIL STAVE MEASURESINI MEASURESTO OEV LIS ACASJOIE.COEF VAR RANK TEAA--11175 10 11 .11120 1 .1010 11407 13 14 15 .10070 16 .1200 17 10 10 25 11 11 1000 .22374 22431 23770 04312 .13621 VALUE 'STATE LOU FLA VA N C N A ALA MINN MISs .. ... MANX .... 000 1 ,0,11111 1 ,0077 s $101,11 0 .1100 5 6 .11620 .12207 .14133 MO .1601 MIAs .111000 10 IC .1907 ONE MAss MAINE NTT N J .100115 N .20094 .1115i 621052 .11190 .134Si GA 34775 CONN YEAR, N M .37020 IP la 13 10 15 16. 17 19 10 10 11 al .411370 05342 0517 .05510 .05705 .06569 0055 0705i 007ia .0100 .0161 KART IS 11 .54111 .05114 N A LOU FLA M VA N C ALA MINN MISS i 0 0 .10000 VALUE STATE 7 0 AO N N CONN MAINE ORE N J TEXAS MASS $ C N 7 KTT SA 401100 .00010 40020 '.10256 .1000 .1059 411200 .11522 ,12210 .12AA5 .10110 . SUMMARY RANKING MATRIX SUM O L 0 3 A 1 . 5 1 2 RAUENF RAUE..NI 0 4 T 1 7 4 1 0 2 1 1 T 2 S 1 4 I 'S e 5 1 S 5 CE A OF VR 4 5 $ 2 CMAIOS OS0EMNS CNLC E . t.* 7 1 1 1 4 1 t e 15 2 1 I 1 5 1 5 1 1 2 1 5 1 I a . 1 1 I A 7 a I R AS 1 7 0 M S C li 5 ; 1 ON EA .. a M . AN RS KR MIE 7 5 2 2 M V N C N A L 7 E S NO UI 7 UMT PPL .// I NO UI E A NS UI UW PPL MS UI 05 . 1. 1 21 1 1 0 .. . 0 3 il 66.0 18 .1e 10 TABU V-9 NSASOSE--REL RN OCv REASURE-.5TO OEV LOS UNIT OF AN6L--UONM1T PuP1L UNIT OF ANAL--UNUOT PUPIL NAAS t TEA4--1,78 TEAN--1573 TEAR.-1,711 VALUE STATE VALUE STATE MANN 1 11 A 81882 i LOU N C .81563 2 I % g 6818 VA 5 6 7 5 le 11 11 15 14 IS 16 11 18 IV 28 21 St .886Ta .84868 FLA ALA MINN 6 11188 .1061 s 8 0 .11868 s le 11 lg WIRT 1 01950 NO N .12TIS .1606 19666 RAW CONN TEXAS ORE N J 14 ,.14111111 15 16 11 18 15 18 21 al .16868 RAU 8 C N V 18586' 11IV .111888 88 011188 .11668 NAM 0452 1 esses 01111 a 6 6 .10298 *Ilia@ *11625 *11217 TWA 11 0 11 C li .13151 14886 18826 LOU FLA J VA M C v R ALA MINN mass NO 5 8114116 .811116 UNI6 OF AMAL--UNMOT PUPIL STATE VALUE LOU FLA M VA N C ALA MINN a a sass VERRT COON S 0 00,11,4 IBM IBM IMOOMII 2 AgASURE.-COEF VAR. ORE NAOS MAINE KIT 7 s .16261 IP *Mee le *IO 11 *15511 *1S5SS *20654 11 0011 li . 14 N J ona 1$ 8 C 16 .81852 481011 .88488 147711 ' 6 asass *261116 9 J 4 V eA CONN VERNE a s 11 .117526 Alin 4616 RAW 17, N M 18 1, ae II II RA85 TEXAg NTT N V IA 611114 *102,3 18750 *12871 .18881 ,11655 *ONO@ *174116, 7114e ,17863 .182211 *15815 151175 16117 .18818 *12656 *22874 *22451 *111775 wises oases SONAR! RANKING RAIRIX .1) SUR LOU FLA 8 S 1 1 4 I Id VA 4 3 111 11 C 1 % a $ % N R ALA 1 5 7 6 0 T. 7' 3 6 8 Il 12 17 20 5 li 19 15 as NO 41 44 44 44 47 ANN NISI 1 a RO WART MIME ..., 1 = 11 111% 1_ TEXAN ORE CONN g C N J. R655 N M NTT N T OA , 8 s 8 II 11 IP le 16 111 21 15 19 1g le It 17 1% IN 62 17. 21 16 211 211 111 28 15 21 22 g 16 14 15 17 16 14 15 s : 1. 11 li 1 C) all il 62 Me 5e 51 57 59 Gi A E A g U e U 4 I I REASURC--UNAT Conswooms gilsowneEntNIs CoNtLACI OCI 132 MEL RN GEV MEL RN uEV UMUNT PUPIL .UMMOT PUPIL OTO OEV Lei MIST PUPIL gm e5530111 Um 017211 STD KV LOS wimp PUPIL UNIT PUPIL cOeF VAN COLF VAN UMW PUPIL 881 881 881 46 IS 49 tel 16.6 111,8 TAKE t-I0 TCAR19711 TE1W4975 7CAR01915 mEASUME..REL MN OEV MEASURCeSTO OEV LOS UNII OF ANAL.-UNWST PUPIL UNIT OF ANAL..UNINT PUPIL SFAIE RANK RANK VALUE 1 N 14 .27592 1 2 LOU N C .07063' 2 0 0 * W2 08560 08311 id VA 12 13 14 13 16 17 10 19 20 21 FLA ALA MINN RISS $ 0 VEMMT MO N H MAINE CONN TEXAS ORE N j MASS 3 C M / KT/ ,22 SA 5 6 7 I 9 10 11 LOU FLA V VA N C N M ALA MINN RISS MO TEXAN $ 0 S C ORE MASS MAINE NTT N j N T OA CONN OERMT N M * 5 6 .09490 .09916 .12901 .11365 .12302 9 10 12S2S 11 .1320, IR 13 14 10 16 17 IS 19 X0 21 21 7 6 03626 .12796 .100 111320 11036 .10829 15990 .17651 .19336 .21121 VALUE S1ATE UNIT OF ANAL..UNUST PUPIL RANK RIAIE MOMMIMI MOOmm 4=m N M LOU 2 , FLA 1 4112116 .0P111 I .0342 aSSSI 05525 1021% * II .11301 ,.11620 3 6 9122117 7 .14116 .16202 .16922 I N C ALA MINN RISS $ o SCANT MO N M CONN MAINE ORC N J TEXAS MANN $ C 1SOST .12,40 ,19936 .M04 00356 621202 .21190 .21455 .34770 37820 433 5497s 9 12 11 12. 1$ 14 1$ 16 17 15 19 26 21 ES 111 5792 06569 ,16929 S7S5 6 oiling one@ 0,163 'DOSS IISSO00 0131112 .11156 .18010 .18595 o112SO .11121 .12261 .12463 .1SSOS N' V , . KTT SA 0 VALUE ,0114192 0577 . MEASUPE01111N1 . ) SUMMARY NANKING MATRIX SUM 2 1 5 1 1 0 2 10 4 I $ 4 3 4 5 / 7 7 O II 0 2 id VA N C MINN MI33 $ 0 / no VLRAT MAINE TEXAS ORE N N CONN MAW $ C N J KIT N 1' OA . 5 1 LOU N M FLA 11 12 .-a .18 ,. 0 9 11 10 15 15 16 12 19 lo 19 17 21 22 22 9 21 15 10 13 22 20 14 12 17 16 12 IS 13 3 9 11 10 14 17 15 12 11I IS 19 16 21 AS SE 21 24 29 31 41 42 42 44 46 47 50. 50 50 SS SS 62 ra ...a -MEASUR r -- LI N/T REL MN OEV REL MM UE9 STO OCV LOS U4NOT PUPIL UNMOT PUPIL MEASURE.UN ./ 1 o tonolsono ossnentenews conetw PCt !SI 414 MU 6 In 20.1 2.6 .:: 6.. . . WOW PUPIL ITO 0E9 LOS ZiIirt :TX: SIN; MOT PUPIL SINI 4, 011 t...) 29.11 40 S* 1562.101- 'Vs oSSAA 134 tA1111 V-11 UNIT OF ANAL-.UNIIST PUPIL uN/f OF ANAL...uNwsT PuFIL STATE 1 g N C 4 II VA 5 FLA ALA MINk RISS $ 0 6 y 9 I6 11 12 13 14 13 16 17 se IS 16 21 at KANT AO .1 ' VALUE LOU FLA 49390 49774 I I Pi. 1 LOU ,411216 $611341 .10191 .107S/ A 6 V VA N C ALA MINN 4,66164 4,66911 467963 01$376 4 , 3 II VA 011491 osesAS 6 a .04493. 6 .114916 7 N C ALA niNN N N .1067 6 11111 .11165 .14161 .14913 9 KART N 11 15161 MAINE CONN TEXAS ORE N 4 MASS $ C A v XTT OA .16666 .15716 .1461S .16446 .1413A . STATE RANK ews , 47321 N m LOU UNIT OF ANALUNWST PUPIL VALUE STATE SANK 90,1E . 1 MEASUAE-.GINI MEASURE--COEF AAR AtASUNC.REL MN Oty NANK M.Ms YEAN-1971 TEAN14711 YEAN....1AAA 17 16 14 IS 11 4,17611 .14116 .11116 11101 4 0 16 .15411 .11401 .17111 CONN 11 11 11 13 14 11 .13111, .,.11111 .113111 .11699. it .17101 5' 6 7 AM-, S. $ ir 11 11 11 :VERMT CONN MAINE ORE NO mAINE .111111 49314 11 N. 4 4,190710 OAE 1 C N M M155 TEXAS KTY 4 1 SA .19407 44167$ 14 11 .1206.21374 .12411. ,21770 .24311 01611 9L9 16 17 1$ IS IS 21 SI /0 II K II 3 'TEXAS MASS $ .0 N I KT! OA 61117 4911S 45791 .67836 41761. .0166 .0163 .140111 ..61110 ,40eas .11111 .11416 .11191 .11816 .11111 .1121e .11961 AIMS SUMNART RANKING MATRIX LOU a a M I 7 I FLA s 2 3 01 VA 0 I 4 N C ALA 1 6 4 1 1 6 MINN , 0 7 4 : 9 IS 11 14 11 4 12 11 11 11 16 13 17 13 11 11 14 14 11 16 al slat ft 0 KANT no CONN MAINE N M 1 r room 1, 1 1,.)N 4 TEXA5 MA$S 1 pi .SA 111 12 go 21 11 is SP 11 11 13 14 12 15 16 17 15 14 Ei 21 12 SUR 5 9 11 '11 12 17 IS 24 19 IV 34 .17 40 41 46 47 11 14 14 61 '61 66 ; . 1 : : REAsuNEUNI7 AltASUREUNII REL MN UEA REL MN KV uNVIIT PUPIL 1:::: =ft I117.11 UNVII PUPIL UNII51 PUPIL UNWST PUPIL tOEF VA1 Ss COEF AAR :::: Ws 9A11 COMPANISONS 01111REEmENI1 COMpLICI PCI 111 111 111 811 114 6 14 2.6 leg ir P' ; TAKE V-12 1"--) VCAR.,1275 VEW-1970 VEAR.-1176 f VALUE STATE RANK STATE. VALUE RANK .16186 I lo I N R Lou 2831 2 2 $ 5 6 03775 7 2 FLA LOU 5 10572 01165 ii VA .33621 $ N R ALA N C RINN NO N H VERRT MISS ORE CONN N.J MAINE 07221 S O. 17252 KIT TExAs N T s C MASS 6A .2$407 I .5 6 7 , 15 11 12 13 14 15 10 17 1$ 1, 20 21 22 .22113 57W 2 , ,62627 .63123 . FLA M VA N C ALA MINN RISs 2 0 10 VERO 7567$ II RO 710$07 .10128 12 18 N H CONN 8052, 14 .65510 15 16 17 12 1, 20 21 22 NAINE ORE N J TEXAS NAss s C N I XII OA 02762 1.03770 1.24310 1.2,771 2,76350 0 UNII OF ANAL-UNWOT PUPIL UNIT OF ANAL--UNW8T PUPIL liar Of ANAL.-WW8T PufIL RANK REASORE-.COEF VAN REASURE-.11INI REASURE.-FE0 R A 00342 .112$21 0152$ 20722 0656, 1 ,06959 ,27456 .0$762 .83101 .19168 .03502 2 $ $ 5 6 N C ALA. RINK 2 RISS VERRT CONN 8 8 MO 11 12 18 14 15 16 17 12 12 .12236 .12300 .102,5 .11222 .11312 .11220 IT VA N TT le ,0,112$ ,22$111 *ORM LOU FLA 7 , 12666 20 21 .1561$ 22 .0 VALUE ft.m0 STATE MmOmm RADA N J ORE 8 C N H RA22 TEXAS KIT N V SA ,..10298 .1172$ 912171 _.12531 .186,2 .15402 .17816 o .178$2 .11268 .11228 .1131, .1907S .12427 .22871 .21026 22274 .22451 .28772 44662 928620 ) 'SUMMARY RANKING mATRIK SUM LOU FLA V VA N R N C ALA RINN RI2s VERRT MO 2 0 CoNN N ii RAIN( 0RE N J TEXAS 2 C 11822 , KT! 2 I 3 0 6 2 3 4 1 5 5 6 7 7 11 $ 10 12 4 16 13 V 15 12 14 IS 21 21 1/ 11 , 13 12 14 15 16 17 1, 18 21 I 2 8 7 4 5 6 2 IP 12 11 10 17 13 15 14 12 16 1S 211 5 6 10 12 15 16 cAT 22 27 2, 31 36 36 36 42 42 44 54 55 57 SS R EASUREUmIf ' 1.:3P :1 REASURE--UNSI 1 C0041414444 OISANREERENIS CONFLICT PEI . FED R ft FE0 A A 2111 UNFIT PUPIL UMW PUPIL UNMOT PUPIL SIM COEF VAR C0EF vAR WWI PUPIL UNM67 PUPIL uNmer PUPIL 281 181 181 21 82 12 11.7 145 1,2 JI .. 60 lAT : ..") 66 vs 7501.50 Ma 0441/ TABLE V-13 yEAm..197$ REAsURc..Fgo A p STATE flee 15 16 11 11 11 FLA LOu M VA N R ALA N C RIMN no N H PERRI MI51 ORE CONN N J MAINE 1 0 XII TEXAS N / 29 I C 21 22 1 2 I % 6 7 9 le 11 12 1s 14 REASORE--NEL RN OEV REASUNE..6111 UNIT Of ANAL--UNWST PUPIL UNIT OF ANAL.-UNWST PUPIL UNII OF ANNI.--uNdsT PUPIL SINK TEAR.-1176 TEAR.-1971 VALUE RANK 011 t .31119 ,5362g .57231 I 3 4 :sew 4951 RANK 6 N 1 LOU FLA V VA m C ALA 7 RON OM 1 g $ m ,16341 6507 10526 asrss .06549 .66961 6 7 mIss 47606 8 I:, :E:RT ,4671 11 .11147 11 IS NO N N .11101 .09161 9566 is 11 11 CONN NAINE ORE N J 41611 Is .11121 .10266 .11301 11 , ICUs assAS .11111 .11511 .11201 .11466 .19661 6sles 01,629 .15511 ,01152 osesev .65761 1,0577S STATE 15 16 11 MASS 1,1010 101776 Is 21 mAgg I C N I KIT SA 2,7633s II IA 16. 19 ,076e 9 15 16 17 16 11 10 /1 II VALUE mmmm MOMM 5. .4,779 .57504 .4.607 .69619 VALUE IIATE no N R Ulu N C d VA FLA ALA RINN RISS 6 0 vCRA/ NO M N MAINE CONN TEXAS ORE M J MASS $ C M V NIT ON 7612 17163 10571 .00412 a0561 .1149s ,g9916 .11917 .11566 .11511 42925 .11109 .11616 613716 .11126 44511 .11166 .15619 .11991 ,17660 .19196 .11113 SURRART NANKING MATRIX SUR LOU 2 M FLA V VA NC ALA MINN MISS MO KART N il j 6 0 CONN RAINC ORE N J TEXAg ss s c NTT LT 2 1 I I I 3 5 I 4 3 A 3 11 14 7 7 7 17 21 11 6 11 11 12 6 S 11 5 16 11 15 12 14 11 11 as 17 191 IS I% 15 16 17 Is 11 21 21 I/ 11 27 30 31 33 34 40 42 43 07 51 57 56 51 11 ' 59 21 66 11 10 12 14 13 16 17 15 Is 19 .11 1) NEW/Ie.-UN/I PEO A A pco A N 0111 64 MOST PUPIL UNWIT PUPIL UNW0f PUPIL /641.111 Ws osess REASUNE--UNAI COMPANIONS 6111 UNVII FunL NEL mm ocv NEL MN 0E1 UNWsI PUPIL 151 111 isl wow porn. , 013AAREEmEMIS CONFLICI OCI 27 53 6 11.7 14.3 4 TABLE V-14 UNIT OF ANAL..UNWIT PUPIL UNIT OF ANil...UNWST PUPIL. RAN* 2 2 4 5 6 7 8 10 11 '12 SUITE ..v2LUE RANA LOU FLA 82594 82774 I if GA .12293 3 4 2 N C ALA MINN N R MISS VERMT CONN .127511 II 0 717063 .18113 .11519 .42070 13 MO MAINE 1 N .0 15 16 17 10 19 22 21 22 ORE 2 C N H MASS TEXAS KTY N Y SA 5 .12871 .12531 ,12659 .12420 .17316 6 7 11 .1720 18 11 It 13 14 15 12407 16 128711 .22056 17 IS 19 20 21 22 22374 22451 ,22779 .24382 .82620 PATE VALUE LOU FLA G GA 09492 N C N M ALA MINN MISS MO TEXAS 10 3C. RANA ORE mASS MAINE gTT N J N Y .200,4 ,21002 ;;;;;; 04770 ire22 841 CONN VENNI N H .43378 497 VALUE NANA 1 ,N m 05236 I LOU FLA .05842 .05507 a 3 4 6 7 , so GA 05520 N C ALA NINN MISS 5792 .0656, 6959 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 IS 19 20 21 21 5 6 .7 SIAM VALUE N R LOU N C .27119? .87961 00370 041,2 08060 so GA FLA ALA MINN RISS 9493 .09916 410907 07456 00762 8 9ERMT RO M CONN MAINE ORE m J TEXAS MASS S C .02100 .0,163 .09900 .09210 10 MIMI II .10898 .11200 .11322 MO N H MAINE CONN TEXAS ORE N J MASS 3 C .12,111 It If 14 15 16 17 10 18 Y 02200 ite N I* KTY SA .12441 al 22 m11 SA .17681 .19811 .11118 S 0' :Oast 615587 SIM .2 s Alms ..11:554151 UNIT OF.ANAL..UNWST PUPIL UNIT OF ANAL...ONUS,' PUPIL 5 .11628 .12207 .14133 , MEgibitta...KEL MN 0E2 MEASURC.-01NI MEOU12.-STO OCV LOS MEASURE.-COEF VAR YEAR-.1975' YEAR--1975 YEAm--1975 YEAR--1970 9 .098111 18250 .1000 .1W. 11361 .1200 $ 0 ., 03209 .13601 .12796 .14022 .141111 .14046 15019 15,98 SUMMARY RANKING MATRIX SUM LOU FLA W VA N M N C ALA MINN RISS 1 0 m2 VERMT MAINE CONN DKE TEXAS N H N J 2 C MASS KIT N Y GA I 1 2 1 6 2 3 2 3 3 4 5 12 4 ,14 7 5 I I 4 4 6 5 '3 14 16 6 6 7 11 7 7 5 6 8 11 11 11 9 9 IS 10 15 19 17 14 16 10 20 21 21 15 20 13 10 21 ta 19 1 A 41. 17 It 14 8 9 11 10 14 13 15 17 It 16 19 18 16 21 18 28 22 II 9 II 10 13 14 16 15 11 17 19 10 21 28 22 23 27 31 40 43 50 55 57 59 61 63 64 66 62 78 79 85 REASORE--OgIf MEASURE-U.111 COEF VAR COEF VAR COEF VAR STO 0E0 LOS STD OEV LOS SIMI of0 DEV LOS uNIIST PuPIL UMW PUPIL uNWO1 PuPIL UNW2f PUPIL. UNWIT PUPIL UNWIT PUPIL UNWGT PUPIL REL mN DEV SIMI REL MN OCV UNWST PUPIL UMW PUPIL REL. MN 0E0 UNWe PUPIL $* 11514.2 dm .0070 UNI181 PUPIL UNWAT PUPIL COMPAKISONS DISAFAEERENIS COOLICI ref 231 231 231 231 221 231 45 19 15 40 19.5 ,2 210 411 211.2 6 8.6 leo 142 TAKE V-16 TEARw1,78 UNIT OF ANALmUNMST PUPIL' UNII OF AMAL-VOIST PUPIL RAN* VALUE STATE 4 .6 1 441165 1 if VA" 15611 N M LOU N ALA N C ,51181 .88111 4 FLA ALA RINN NISS 00011 .4051 417/9 MOM 7 1173SO Ao N VERMT RISS ORE CONN N J MAINE Is 11 12 1s 14 15 16 17 lg 11 as 21 0,097 61881 *ANSI 1 C .181/1 1 1 II VA .108411 ,AMS 4,0216 .11217 KART 01210 NO ,12,MS N M 112OS KT/ TEXAS N / 15511 07152 04497 12 1$ 14 15 16 17 .85761 1.81771- 11 C 1.8011 MASS OA 1.8,771 1,847 .8018s .S4529 NAME l IS 21 21 2.7081 . & I I 1113741 VALUE CONN TEXAS 18726 ORE 012120 J MASS s C 14886 11 11 11 11 14 11 16 0141211 17 11 11 II 11 11 .111111 .1$1111 V 17iSS KIT OA 015115 021123 SANK VALUE SFATE IMMUMUMP 4 g 6 .11SASS 11 11 $ 21 7 STATE adam; 05/1 FLA LO0 UMIO OF ANAL-.UNMST PUPIL OMIT OF ANALUNIIST PUPIL RANK VALUE, OVATE wwwww MANX wwww WO. Ole. REASUREwSIMI REASURECOE1 VAR MEASURE-.REL RN MCV MEA5URE...1EO tEAR1175 TEARm1171 TEW-1171 LOU FLA M VA N C ALA MINN M M RISS VERMT com s a MO MAINE N J ORE I C N M MASS TEXAS ITV M V OA 121124 01SM 6 .151,22 1 N M LOU FLA M VA N C ALA MUNI 1 .M111 A 0 1 0770 1 1112,3 II ,117111 4 01071 atIOSS .1MS 17SOA 4703 .11222 .18111 11 11 , 11 lA 14 11 16 17 417 *WM .188/11 .11016 .11Sym .11411 .1177, .14181 l 11 11 11 11 s1611 osess .as7 . 55525 .85111 .86561 sasa MISS SIlAS VERMT NO N CONN MAINE oases woos poles .81881 .11118 .18116 .18088 .18891 .11181 0611 N J TEXAS MASS g C N I ITV OA 'USSR elliSS 124AS 1We SUMMARY RANKING MATRIX SUM LOU FLA N M A 2 I 1 7 1 5 2 1 11 11 1 7 1 if VA $ V 3 N C ALA 6 I 3 4 6 I V I 6 11 14 11 It 17 15 SI 42 MATAINE.--14....--11-.......1----11..... VERMT MO $ 0 N el . %., 4 CONN MAINE ORE N J TEXAS s C MASS KIT 18 S 16 I 18 11 12 14 11 Is 11 IT 11 11 I 11 14 li 16 17 11 1, 18 al 0 I 11 11 17 le 11 1$ 14 1, 16 11 IS 11 I 11 . 12 14 IS 16 17 19 18 11 itit_trliF,Fir.fil II OS 5I go at scAsUmCw-USIF mCASUM2--Umil FEO I R 'UNOSI PuPIL UNVIT PUPIL MEL RN NES WONT PUPIL SIMI UMMSI PUPIL UNWIT PUPIL UNMST PUPIL COEF mAR MUST PUPIL S IMI S IMI' UNMST PUPIL : SI SO 74 71 79 Os es an. RN OEV MEL RN OEV COEF VAR UMW PUPIL UAW PUPIL MOIST PUPIL on 18411.11 Wv .1466 CUP VAR OMNI PUPIL COMPARISONS OISAIRCEACNIS Cum7LACI eCt 231 231 211 IS SI 144 184 17' 11.7 11 $ol TABLE V-16 RANK ,VALUE ,534 0,774 1A21 LOU FLA M VA N C ALA MINN N 4 MISS VERMT CONN $ 0 1 t S 4 5 6 T 8 O' 10 11 12 13 14 15 It 17 18 MO MAINE N J ORE 3 C N H MA35 TEXAS KTY N / Mk 19 20 21 22 1 03880 2 013,77 3 10294, 4 11380 11620 12207 5 .14138 .16102. 8 S M VA 4 .1Y316 47040 3 10 II 12 13 14 4 C N M ALA RION MISS RO TEXAS 1 0 3 C ORE IA3$ PAINE KTY N J N V SA CONN VERMT N M 5 6 7 8 1,078 1507 3 LOU FLA .0S4St t .10758 ,1t011 .12531 ,15659 .15400 15 16 .20878 .22056 .22374 .22451 .23773 17 18 13 20 2,C42 21 .018620 22 STATE VALUE RANK N M LOU PLA M VA N C ALA MINN MISS $ 0, VERRT MO N H CONN MAINE ORE N J TEXAS MA3S S C N 7 KIT .05236 1 05140 a VALUE STATE lma Ome 1 417863 .18223 .18513 RANK VALUE STATE . . UNII OP ANAL0UNWIT PUPIL UNIT OF ANAL...UMW PUPIL UNIT OF ANAL...4MM PUPIL UNIT OF ANAL.-UNMST PuPIL STATE MEASURE...PEO N R MEASURE-4TO DEO LOS REASURE.-COEF VAR MANN XLAR--1375 YLAR..1,75 TLAR....1375 6 7 , 10 11 1g 13 14 .18588 19457 .19348 .13355 .20094 .22336 15 16 .621852 .23198 .28400 .34770 578211 17 18 .4887 21 22 13 20 4370 SA 5507 .05520 .05792 .06563 .06353 .37856 .08762 .03100 .09163 .09500 5 6 01,820 10 11 12 13 14 10256 15 03800 . 50570 . 81161 . 35620 FLA LOU A AA N M ALA N C MINN mg N H VCANT MISS ONE CONN N MAINE 87230 .38113 . 40381 *WY, .57804 ,60607 . 63883 . $0 .10300 .1033G .11200 17 1O 13 20 81 Et 11322 .12200 .12463 .1SW PITY TEXAS N 8 C MASS GA .78678 ,795,7 .80183 .0482, .85010 .07302 olsoo7 .08760 1.08778 1.84,18 1.09770 2.761118 SUMMARY RANKING MATRIX SUM l, LOU FLA I I 2 2 2 2 I 6 8 G. VA 3 3 $ 4 3 13 N M N C ALA MINN AI55 7 5 1 4 17 4 4 5 6 5 6 6 5 13 22 7 7 27 8 11 II 33 8 40 AEASURE-UNII 9 16 10 47 50 55 56 57 60 COEF VAR COEF VAN COEF VAN MO. 12 3 0 VERMT ONE CONN MAINE N U N J TEXAS A C II 9 MAU II 6 KIT N 7 8A 15 10 13 17 14 19 16 18 20 21 tt 7 8 3 11 21 13 20 18 22 17 10 15 13 14 12 16 10 12 14 16 17 13 18 21 18 1' 28 tt 12 13 15 9 14 1 N.) UMOST PUPIL UMW PUPIL UMW PUPIL 61 64 $TD 0E5 LOS WONT PUPIL 67 SIMI 20 21 27 1, 74 tt 85 mEASURE.UmI f 810 OEV LO3 UMW PUPIL UMW PUPIL 71 7. P1,141156.08 Ms .8655 DEV. LOA SIMI no R R SIMI FED R R FCO R R UM181 PUPIL UAW PUPIL UMW 'WI% UM PUPIL UMW PUPIL UMW PUPIL CONPAKISON5 OISAGREEmENIS CONFLICI PCT 231 231 031 211 231 231 45 48 57 18.5 0.2 15., 2098 29.7 27 110 19, 32 TABLE V-17 CONCORDANCE MEASURES AND NUMBER OF UNAMBIGUOUS RANKINGS FOR GROUPS OF EQUALITY MEASURES, 22 STATE SAMPLE (unweighted pupil unit of analysis) EQUALITy MEASURES COEF VAR TABLE V-8 X . ST DEV LGS X REL MN DEV GINI X V-11. X .8725 3 X X .8863 5 X X ;9684 5 I .9453 3 X .9588 4 .8878 3 X .9466 3 X .8650 2 V-12 V-13 NUMBER OF UNAMBIGUOUS RANKS 3 / X W ,..8738 X 111-9 .V-10 FED RR X X X X .:. , V-14 X I 1 1 .V-15 X V-16 X X X X X 1 IS , 129 agreement and yield more than one unambiguous ranking when used in multiples of three and four. For example, the coefficient of variation, standard dev- iation of logarithms, Gini coeffilient, and relative mean deviation can be used to rank the 22 states and a clear determination can be made that certain of the states are more equal than others on all four measures. However, there are enough contradictions among all nine measures so that if more than one unambiguous ranking is desired, certain value judgments will have to be accepted so that certain measures are eliminated from the set of nine equality measures. Assessment of Equality Measures Across States Using District Unit of Analysis 2. The specific question addressed in this part may be stated as follows: When a number of equality measures, computed using the district unit of analysis, are used to rank a set of states from more to less equal at one point in time, do the measures agree? In other words, if we examine the rankings that result from the application of two or more equality measures computed using the district unit of analysis to a set of states at one point in time, will there be agreement among the rankings? Three statistics that compare the rankings for the nine equality measures taken two at a time using the district unit of analysis are displayed in Table V-18. The Spearman rank correlations range from .5618 to .9955, the Agreement-Conflict measures from .7140 to .9830, and the concordance measures from .7809 to .9977. Compared to the unweighted pupil unit of analysis these statistics span a wider range but it will be shown that there is more agree- ment among the equality measures when the district compared to the unweighted pupil is the unit of analysis. Again, all the rank correlations and concordance measures are highly significant. However, if the arbitrary cutoffs of .84 for the rank 14 TABLE V- 18 MEASURES OF ASSOCIATION BETWEEN EQUALITY. MEASURES USED ACROSS STATES Ili 22 STATE SAMPLE (district unit of analysis) RES RANGE RES RAWGE FED RR REL MN DEV PERM VAR VARIANCE _00 COEF VAR STD DEV LGS FED REL MN Ag RANGE EL ..8125 .8270 .9063 .7685 .7880 .8842 .8656 .8480 .9S28 .9006 .8660 .9503 X X COEF PERM yAL STD DEV ISS yAg VAR .9108 .8830 .9554 .11125 ,.8289 .9605 .V.10 .9802 .8667 .8400 .9334 .5618 .727 .7809 .8927 .883 .9464 .7933 .805 .8967 .71482 .9503 .9220 .9752 .7143 .801 .8571 .8329 .818 .9164 .8859 .8790 .9430 .7075 .8010 .8538 .9187 .8790 .9593 X X .6578 .7530 §III MEASURES OF ASSOCIATION . 48 .8570 .9424 Spearman Rank Correlation(ps) Agreement-Conflict Measure TAC Concordance Measure (W) .8735 .8400 .9368 ps .7979 .8230 .8989 .9481 .9130 Pc AC .9740 W .9718 .9480 .9859 .8521 .8740 .9260 .9955 .9830 .9977 Ps AC .5935 .7140 .7967 .7120 .7920 .8560 .7436 .7880 .8718 .7075 .7920 .8538 pc X .9277 .8870 .9639 .8261 .9289 .8870 .9644 ps AC .8283 .8740 .9142 9763 Pc .9570 AC .9881 W X .8340 .8740 .9170 Pe AC x .8270 .9063 .775 .8741 .8310 .9130 A. W W AC W W W . 131 correlation and Agreement-Conflict measures (and .92 for the concordance measures) are applied simultaneously to isolate the pairs of equality measures that agree relatively more, 18 of the 36, or half, the measures meet or exceed these criteria. This is considerably greater agreement than existed for the unweighted pupil unitiof analysis where only 10 of the 36 cases met or exceeded these criteria. The greater agreement for the istrict unit of analysis can also be seen when the unambiguous rankings for the pairs of equality measures computed using the district unit of analysis are examined. Table V-19 displays these unambiguous rankings and the agreement measured by this criterion is substantially greater for the district compared to the unweighted pupil unit of analysis. In fact, for 34 of the 36 pairs of equality measures, the number of urambiguous rankings is greater for the district than the unweighted pupil unit of analysis. Simultaneously with the overall higher level of agreement.evidenced for the district unit of analysis, there are groupings of measures that exhibit the most agreement and these groupings are similar to those for the unweighted pupil unit of analysis. There is relatively higher agreement among the Gini coefficient, relative mean deviation, and coefficient of variation than among any set of three measures, based on the unambiguous rankings. ( Furthermore, a relatively high level of agreement is maintained when the Federal range ratio and standard deviation of logarithms are added to the subset of measures. These levebof agreement can be examined further by using groups of three and four equality measures, computed with the district unit of analysis, 0 to rank the sample of 22 states. Table V-20 shows the concordance measure . TABLE V- 19 NUMBER OF UNAMBIGUOUS RANKINGS FOR PAIRS OF EQUALITY MEASURES USED ACROSS STATES IN 22 STATEARMPLE (district unit of analysis) RES RANGE RES RANGE FED RR 4 2 REL MN DEV 5 4 PER VAR VAR COEF VAR. STD DEV LGS 3 8 7 4 3 6 FED RR REL MN DEV PERM VAR GINI 5 X, 6 12 10 4 4 6 X 9 13 . 18 VAR COEF VAR 153 CA1 1%) STD DEV LGS 9 TABLE V.20 CONCORDANCE MEASURES AND NUMBER OF UNAMBIGUOUS RANKINGS FOR GROUPS OF EQUALITY MEASURES, (district unit of analysis) COEF VAR ST DEV LGS X X X X X X GINI REL MN DEV X X X X VI NUMBER OF UNAMBIGUOUS RANKINGS .9197 8 X .9227 8 X X .9292 9 X X .9875 11 X .9578 4 :t .9764 8 .9322 8 X .9660 4 X .9088 4 X X X RED RR X X X X X X. X 134 and the number of Unambiguous rankings for nine examples where three and four equalltY measures are used to rank the 22 states. Evidence from this table strongly-suggests, once again, that there is relatively more agreement when the equality measures are computed using thedistrict compared to the unweighted pupil unit of analysis. The concordance measures eri close to or greater than .92 and in all'casei they are always greater for the district than the unweighted pupil unit of analysis for the'same sets of equality measures. Furthermore, there are a relatively large number of unambiguous . rankings even in comparison to the pairwise analysis of the equality measures computed using the unweighted pupil unit of analysis. For the district unit of analysis there is relatively.more agreement when equality measures are used to rank the 22 state sample compared to the equality measures computed using the_unweighted pupil unit of analysis. . For certain measures, namely.the coefficient.of variation, standard deviation of logarithms, relative mean.deviation, Gini coefficient, and Federal range ratio., three or four equality measures can be used simultaneously and they will yield four or more unambiguous rankings and relatively high concordance measures.' However, the selections ofthe district unit of analysis and the subset nf equality measures are value judgments and most "equity assessors" would probably agree that the district unit of analysis cannot be used alone. 3. Assessment of Equality Measures Across States: Comparison of District and Unweighted Pupil Units of Analysis The particular, question addressed in this part may be stated as follows: When an equality measure is used to rank a number of states at one point in time, do the rankings that are assigned by the equality measure using the unweighted pupil as the unit of analysis agree with the rankings assigned by the same equality measure using the district as the unit of analysis? 157 135 The focus of this assessment is not on the agreement among two or more equality measures computed using the same unit of analysis as was the case in the previous two parts but whether the equality measures are consistent across units of analysis when used for interstate comparisons: Table V-21 displays the three statistics of association for each equality measure computed using both units of analysis. Note that these statistics are rather low when compared to the pairwise comparisons of different equality measures using the same unit analysis. None of the Spearman rank correlations or the Agreement-Conflict measures is greater than the arbitrary cutoff of .84, except for the range which is unaffected 0 by the' unit of analysis. (The statistics are, however, highly significant.) It should not come as a surprise that the measures are not in substantial agreement across units of analysis since the results of the separate analyses by unit of analysis differed substantially. NoweVer, the lack of substantial agreement across units of analysis forces a Choice of'one unit of analysis or the other if meaningfdl interstate rankings are to be produced by more than one equality measure. The lack of agreement between each equality measure computed with two units of analysis can also be documented by the unambiguous rankings. For the Federal range ratio, relative mean deviation, permissible variance, coefficient of variation, and Gini coefficient only one unambiguous ranking the minimum numberlcan be formed using the same measure computed using both units of analysis. For the restricted range and standard deviation of logarithms there are two unambiguous. rankings. Thus, there is fairly clear evidence that substantial agreement between the equality measures computed using two units of analysis does not exist. 136 TABLE V-21 MEASURES OF ASSOCIATION BETWEEN EQUALITY MEASURES COMPUTED USING THE DISTRICT AND UNWEIGHTED PUPIL UNITS OF ANALYSIS, 22 STATE SAMPLE AGREEMENT CONFLICT MEASURE CONCORDANCE MEASURE 1.00 1.00 1.00 RES RANGE .6217 .7400 .8106 FED RR .4884 .667 .7442 REL MN DEV .5280 .7060 .7640 PERM VAR .6420 .7320 .8210 VAR .8272 .8350 .9136 COEF VAR .7493 .7880 .8746 STD DEV LGS .8103 .8230. .9051 GINI .5596 .7140 .7796 SPEARMAN RANK CORRELATION RANGE IP 0 1 137 4. Conclusions Viewed in a very rough sort of way, the conclusions for the equality measures used for interstate comparisons afe not very different from the conclusions that were suggested for the equality measures used in one state over time. For the equality measures used in interstate comparisons it makes a difference which equality measures are utilized since there is not perfect agreement among the measures. Furthermore, the equality measures that embody similar valuejudgments agree-more OA those for which the implicit value judgments differ. For example, the three measures identified by certain value judgments in Section III, the coefficient of variation, standard deviation of logarithms, and Gini coefficient, were shown to agree relatively more than mott subsets of equality measures. In addition, two other measures that are also insensitive to equal percentage increases, the relative mean deviation and Federal range ratio., were also shown to agree relatively more with the three measures already mentioned than any other set of five equality measures out of the nine examined. Only if a small set of eqUality measure are Utilized for the district unit of analysis, however, will multiple measures produce more than two or three unambiguous rankings. If multiple measures are used with the unweighted pupil unit of analysis or with both units of analysis there will be agreement among the equality measures as judged by the concordance measure, but extensive discrimination, evaluated by the number of unambiguous rankings, will not be forthcoming. Therefore, the selection of particular measures and units of analysis must be made if clear cut rankings are desired from the interstate comparisons. Although same agreement among the measures can be documented, the choice of a measure or unit of analysis is tnportant. 1 ;) 138 B. Wealth Neutrality Measures c The assessment of the behavior of the wealth neutrality measures %ten used to rank a set of states at one point in time is analyzed in four stages. First, the measures are compared pairwise and tn groups ni three and four using the unweighted pupil unit of analysis and second, a similar analysis is carrted out for the district unit of analysis. The third stage includes a discussion of the comparison between units of analysis for the interstate wealth neutrality assessment and the conclusions are presented-in-the foUrth stage. A A somewhat smaller sample is used for the interstate wealth neutrality comparisons than was utilized in the last part for the interstate equality comparisons. All nine wealth neutrality measures are available for only 11 b states Jo 1975-76. However, seven measures, all but EXP DIF and the Hickrod Gini, are available for 18 states in 1975-76. A decision was made to use the 18 state sample in this section for a couple of practical reasons. First, the EXP DIF Measure does not embody certain preferable value judgments and,/Widdition, conflicts substantially with the other eight measures. cases. Second, the Hickrod Gini Cannot be computed in all Thereforefthe 18 state sample for seven wealth neutrality measures is utilized throughout this part. The 18 state sample excludes four states that were examined in the previous part. Alabama is excluded since wealth data are unavialable. Maine, Massachusetts, Georgia are excluded since the slopes and elasticities based on W, W2, and W3 were not calculated in a comparable mannet du* to limitations in the computer program used for the regressions. For completeness, however, thaSpearman Rank Correlations between all pairs of the nine wealth neutrality measures when used for interstate comparisons for 139 the 11 state sample.are presented in Table V-22. The coreelatiOns using the unweighted pupil unit of analysis are presented above the diagonal and the distrIct unit of analysis below the diagonal. This table shows the relatively low level of agreement between EXP DIF.and the other wealth neutrality measures. However, this is not the case for the Hickrod Gini and this measure should be inveStigated further if some of the computational problems can be resolved." Also, it should be noted that the individual rank correla- tions are somewhat different for the 11 state sample compared to the 18 state sample, to be discussed below, although the general conclusions that emerge from an examination of the two samples are not that different. It must be emphasized again that wealth measures are not equalized state wide in the data presented for three dr thestates Louisiana, Mistissippi, and South Carolina. Furthermore, the 15 states in the 18 state sample where there is some form of state wide equalization, the level of equalization varied considerably from around 20% of ful/ market value to 100% of full market value. Therefore, conclusions must be limited to the wealth neutrality measures and not the 11 O' rankings of particular states. 1. Assessment of Wealth Neutrality Measures Across States Using Unweighted Pupil Unit of Analysis The particular question addressed in this part may be expressed as follows: 0 When a number of wealth neutrality measures, computed using the unweighted pupil unit of analysis, are used to rank a set of states from more to less wealth neutral at one point in time, do the rankings from the different wealtrifeutrality measures agree? 101he EXP DIF measure mighte be comsidered to embody more acceptable value judgments if it is divided by mean revenue. However, this possibility has not been investigated in this report. 11It should be noted that the elasticity measures do compensate for different levels of state wide equalization but it is impossible to compensate in cases where there is not state wide equalization. TABLE V-22 SPEARMAN RANK CORRELATIONS BETWEEN WEALTH NEUTRALITY MEASURES IN 11 STATE SAMPLE (unweighted pupil unit of analysis above diagonal, district unit of analysis below diagonal) SIM CORR SLOPE W SLOPE w2 SLOPE W3 EXP DIF HICK GIN! ELAST W ELAST W2 ELAST W3 SIM CORR x .790, .7273 .7364 .0455 .4091 .8091 .6818 .5546 SLOPE W. .7727 X .9273 .9636 :0091 .5545 .8545 .6545 .6636 SLOPE W2 .6818 .9455 x .9818 .2000 .6727 .8727 .7545 .7364 SLOPE W3 .6909 .8727 .9636 x .1545 .6818 .8909 .7455 .7364 EXP DIE .3636 :0818 .0273 .2182 x .5909 .3182 .4909 .5091 HICK 6INI .5000 .5182 .1091 .7364 .5727 x .8364 .9000 .9273 ELAST W .8273 .6364 .4909 .4182 .2455 .3000 x .9364 .9364 .7364 .8000 .8364 .8364 .3818 18000 .6818 x .9818 .5818 .6091 .7000 .7909 .5455 .9545 .4545 ELAST W2 ELAST W3 , . , \ l'S 3 . .9812 141 To put It another way, if we examine the rankings that result from the application of two or more wealth neutrality measures computed using the unweighted pupil unit of analysis to a set of states, at one point in time, will there be agreement among the rankings? The three measures of association computed cor the rankings yielded by the seven wealth neutrality measures, taken two at a time, are displayed in Table V-23 for the 18 state sample. O The Spearman rank correlations range from .3044 to .9897, the Agreement-Conflict measures from .6270 to .9740, and the Concordance measures from .6522 to .9948. The measures that are more highly related, however, are not randomly distributed among the pairs of wealth neutrality measures. It is fairly clear (and consistent with the .84, .84, .92 simultaneous'cut off criteria utilized in the last part) that there is relatively more agreement among the three elasticity measures, ELAST W, ELAST W2, and ELAST W3, and among the three slope measures SLOPE W, SLOPE W2, and SLOPE W3. This is consistent with the method in which the measures are calculated and the resulting value judgments that are embodied in the measures, as discussed in Section II of this report. This pattern of agreement within thf elasticity and slope wealth neutrality measures also.appears when the unambiguous rankings for the pairs of wealth neutrality measures are computed. The unambiguous rankings for the pairs of wealth neutrality measures used for interstate comparisons in the 18 state sample appear in Table V-24. appear By far the largest number of unambiguous rankings between the pairs of slope measures and between the pairs of elasticity measures while there are relatively few unambiguous ranking for the remaining pairs. (Recall that one is the minimum number of unambiguous rankings.) TABLE V- 23 MEASURES OF ASSOCIATION BETWEEN WEALTH NEUTRALITY MEASURES USED ACROSS STATES IN 18 STATE'SAMPLE (unweighted pupil unit.Of inabmis). SLOPE W SIN CORR SLOPE W SLOPE W2 SLOPE W3 ELAST ELAST W2 12,6 SLOPE W2 SLOPE W3, ELAST W .3457 .6410 .6729 .3086 .6270 .6543 .3044 .6270 .6522 .5831 .7520 .7915 X .9525 .9220 .9763 .9505 .9220 .9752 .9897 .9740 .9948 X ELAST W2 ELAST W3 MEASURES OF ASSOCIATION .7060 .7750 .6037 .7320 .8019 Spearman Rank Correlation(p Agreement-Conflict Measure( Concordance Measure (W) .6698 .7710 .8349 .6409 .7520 .8204 .5975 .7390 .7988 Pc .5459 .7320 .7730 .5521 , .7120 :7761 .5067 .6990 .7534 .5273 .7190 .7637 .5212 .6990 .7606 .4840 .6860 .7420 PS AC .9628 .9280 .9814 .9711 pc AC X .5501 . X. .9410 .9856 .9856 .9610 .9928 AC W le W W W PArt w a TABLE' -24 NUMBER OF UNAMBIGUOUS RANKINGS FOR PAIRS OF WEALTH NEUTRALITY MEASURES USED ACROSS 'STATES IN 18 STATE SAMPLE (unweighted pupil unit of analysis) SLOPE W SLOPE W2 SLOPE W3 ELAST W 2 1 2 2 1 2 2 1 1 1 1 SLOPE W x 9 11 1 X 14 SLOPE W3 ELAST W3 1 SIM CORR SLOPE W2 ELAST W2 ELASTW 9 ELAST W2 X 12 4 13 1 '3 144 When the wealth neutrality measures are examined in groups of three and foUr for interstate comparisons, considerable agreement-still exists among the slope: and among the elasticity measures, but not for other .cambinations. Tables V-25 through V-33 display nine examples of the wealth neutrality measures used in groUps of three and four to rank the 18 states. :The concordance measures and the number of unambiguous rankings for the nine multiple comparisons are &linearized in Table V-34. When the three elasticity or slope measures are used together, there are a relatively large number Of unambiguous rankings compared to other multiple rankings examined in this- section.. However, once measures outside of the particular sub-group are combined, the concordance measures drop substantially and the number of unambiguous rankings is always one, the minimum. Thus, there is not considerable agreement among all seven wealth neutrality measures computed using the unweighted pupil unit of analysis when used to rank a set of states at one point in time. In other words, the selettion of the correlation, slope, or elasticity 'measure for. interstateiwealth neutrality,: assessment does make a difference. However, there is considerable agreement among the three elasticity measures and among the three slope measures. Once a particular class of wealth neutrality measures is chosen it is not as critical whether the elasticity or the slope is calculated fran a simple regression of , revenues (or expenditures) on wealth or a regression using higher order wealth terms. But the selectionof either the correlation, slOpe, or elasticity measure involves the 2. selection among a number of.value judgmentt. Assessment of Wealth Neutrality Measures Across States Using District Unit of Analysis The Ouestion addressed in this part may be stated as follows: When a number of wealth neutrality measures, computed using the district unit of analysis, are used to rank a set of states from more to less wealth neutral at one point in time, do the rankings .from the different wealth neutrality measures agree? 1i MX V-25 VEA%-.1975 1,61!..0115 MEAS09E--SLOPE W MEASURS-.ELASI W TEM...1975 mrAsuNc..slti CORR UNIT OF AVAL...uNNOT PUPIL UNIT OF XNAL...uNWO pUPIL RANK STATE VALUE I LOU N m MINN N J N C W VA VERMT N H 5 C TEXAS CONN ORE 3 0 FLA KTT N T MISS .36969 037259 .41110 .41420 .4%016 .40610 .40070 .52550 .59199 2 3 4 5 6 & 9 10 11 12 1,3 14 15 16 IT 10 RANK N M 2 N C TEXAS VERNT MISS M VA % 5 6 : 9 10 11 mo 1,02660 1 3 ...F/i .75930 12 13 77344 14 .76300 .79020 .76241 .00%90 15 16 17 16 VALUE STATE UNIT OF X!AL.-UNWMT PUPIL RANK STAU VALUE 1 MIGS LoU N M N C VERN! MINN TEXAt N J M VA FLA N H .05051 .05921 .06E56 2 1.72000 3 1:,;11:4400 * 5 6 r:1 ::::::: 3.14490 3.26520 3,54050 FLA N H ORE KTT LOU MINN 3 U N T KO 3 C :::;::: 0.63250 10.96500 :::::::: :46:::::: 7 6 9 10 11 12 13 1% 15 16 17 16 'CONN 3 0 ORE MO 3 C N T KTT 10662 .10665 .12400 .10054 f. 13913 .16644 .19096 .19019 .19,74 29110 .35ADT .36123 .3064 .39,72 .40026 SUMMARY RANKING MATRIX N mC N C LOu VINM7 TEXAS N J. W MISS MINN N H CONN FLA ORE, S 0 S C KTT N T MO 1 3 1 13 4 2 7 10 4 3 4 06 6 17 6 5 I% 10 2 5 3 8 11 1% 12 13 9 15 16 16 7 9 11 15 11%. 12 16 17 17 1 5 7 0 9 I 6 11 6 11 16 16 20 20 21 23 23 29 12 10 1% 13 '16, 30 33 10 45 49 50 17 15 41 MEASURE...UNIT SIM CORR SIM CORR SLOPE W UNWGT PUPIL UNWGT PUPIL uoieT PUPIL MILASUnE.-UNIT sLOPE ELAST W FLAG! W UNmsT PUPIL 0NW6T PUPIL UNWGT 'PUPIL CUMPANISOr!S U1S464LLMAT4 CUNFLICI Pf 15 103 1?3 34 3b r 24.4 22,V . 11, I Sr 3002.50 Wm .6666 5) TARE V-20 REWREs....SIN CoRm RANV sTAIC REssuwe...ELARI m2 NFASUIE-.S.LOPE 112 UNIT Or AN4L;-UNWFT PUPIL . 041...orw VLAR..1,75 VEAR...1175 VALUE UNIT oF A!AL -mNrmr rum UNIT OF AVAL--UNMST PUPIL RANK ° RANH VALUE 6141E 3 L(U N M MINN 4 At J 5 N C w VA VF4NT 1 2 ' 43 e N If 9 20 -2 C .551911 7 11 12 As trxAs COHN Off S 0 FLA MTV 15 16" N VMISS 17,, le NO 13 , 1' .3720, 41110 . .40613 :48070 .52550 6 ' .365611 41420 .00016 t4 .42227 72344 41783110 02420 72241 .0140 ,77756 1009100 1 N M : 20:11 ::::::: A VENN! VA FLA N J 4 MISS 3.0415112 5 TEXAS0 6 N M CONS MTV ORE $ U MINX N V LOu MO : C 4,01251 6 .24520 0,20700 MINN N C M VA N J N M TEES ALS : 14 CA 5 6 V 10 7 .G410 .70170 .75530 VALUE STAT.!: atm wo. I. 12 13 IA 15 16° 17 is 0 11 3,36150 . 119 4,120 7 0.0467, 11 V I'L :L: 13 11.610041 12.01000 1S4MOTOS 1800,041 '1: :Oil IA 10 ORE CONN ,49,64 . 003600 210115041 11606000 . (7 f' . SUMMARY RANKINfi MATRIX 1: CURPANISOf9 U1SA6NELMINTS J Sm 2820.50 WX..110168 AV- CONFLIC1 r? 4 ') TABLE B-27 014-.1975 yEAR-.1975 YER11--1/75 MLA5URc..EL.ASI W3, AFASU9E--SLOPE W3 MEASME--SIM CoRR UNIT OF 44AL--UNW6T PUPIL UNIT OF ANAL-uNWAT PUPIL RANK STATE VALUE RANK STATE I LOU N M MINN N J N C w VA VFRMy N H .36969 .37255 1 41110 3 4 5 A N M N C TEXAS VEN47 FLA W V* N J CONY MISS N M ORE MTV S O MINI N I LOU MO S C VALUE UNIT OF Ar1AL.-uNw6y PUPIL RANK sTATE- 1 6 N M LOU MISS VERM! MINN N C i ,T4EF444, VALuL . - 2 3 4 5 6 7 P 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 2 .41420 44016 .45610 .48870 .52550 .55194 .62227 .65010 .70170 .75930 .77344 .78380 .75020 .79241 .80590 S C MIAs cONN ORE S 0 FLA KTY N X MISS MO 7 8 9 10 11 IP 13 14 15 16 17 18 54014 / 1.67580/ 2,28700 2.47950 3,67240 3.72100 4.18380 5.04340 5.51570 5.59100 7.65900 10,17500 12.15000 13.66500 15.49600 17,01900 21,80600 111.01000 2 3 4 5 10 11 1? 15 14 15 16 17 18 FLA S O N H MO CONN OpE 5 C N 7 WIT .03238 41613_ .45026 .13457 .15953 .16046 .17064' .10808 .20169 .21559 .30254 .31227 31/15 .32204 .35127 ...42032 .40555 .59225 suMmARy RANKING MATRIX SUM N A N C VERMT LOu 4 j 7ExAS M 0 MINN MISS FLA N si CONN S o ORE S c KTy MO N y 2 1 1 5 6 7 2 4 1 16 2 4 7 3 8 7 6 9 5 10 6 3 17 14 8 11 13 22 9 15 18 16 14 9 5 10 8 13 11 16 12 17 15 A 3 to 12'\ 14 11 15 16 18 13 17 4 13 15 19 19 20 21 22 29 29 30 33 37 30 43 45 90 48 MEASURE...UN/I SIM CORR SIM CORR SLOPE 05 5= int PUPIL :40/GT PUPIL UNW6T PUPIL 2802.50 Wm .6427 mEASURE..UNIT sLOPE W3 FLAST Ws rLAST W3 UNwmT PUPIL UNWST PUPIL UNWST PUPIL CoNPARISOTIS u1SA6KELmENTS CONFLICT PC1 1!13 57 41 40 26.i 41.4 153 153 670 1" 6 fr TAKE V-28 UNIT OF AIAL...UNW61 PUPIL UHT OF ANAL..uNwFT PUPIL STATE VALUE STATE RANK VA1UE 2 3 5 f 7 1 10 11 12 13 IN 15 If IT IP MISS LOU N m N C VERmT MINN ICKA3 N J W VA PIA N H cONN S O .05851 I 05,21 06156 15382 40665 12%60 13054 13513 2 3 Wes= 4,04661 1 li N .03208 10076 2 4,1131% 3 LOU. miss 11613 13026 1454A7 151153 9 6 T 4,15614 A 16155 7 A 11 VA .1724% .18866 111b51 278111 4 VERN! MINN N C WWII: N J 9 II VA 20/6, FLA .21,5511 It U .30v54 f.31W27 13 .33357 14 MO S C N I NTT 36123 15 16 IT 16 N J FLA N h $ U MO ORE CONI 31446. 51776 .39/6A 3950% .11672 411354 .60265 S C N T NTT 10 11 12 la IN 15 16 17 16 UN11 UF ANAL-- RANK VALUE STAIS M.40M. 1%0%0 29116 .1007A VALUE STATS 0515 ORE. 35972 RANN TEXAS MINI N C 10 11 12 .561010, UNIT OF ANAL...LIMNS! PuP1L VEVIty et .16644 .19096 .15819 .15970 N M MISS LOU MLA5UNc..". =14 awni I TLAA..ly MLAWNL..ELASI WA MrASUAELEPST W2 MEASUNC..ELAST W 'RANA TLA1-.1A75 TLAR--1375 TEAN.-1,75 N H MO CONN ORE .1111/46 .173114 .18000 31,15 .62204 II C 35127 62032 M V ATV .59W25 .436115 SUMMARY RANKINF MATRIX SUM 3 1 1 1 1.0U 2 2 3 3 I 3 2 4 N 7 6 6 5 9 7 13 17 17 15 2 25 A , 10 10 12 VIM ( 1 ,- i 5 6 7 N M MISS N C MINN TEXAS N J y VA FLA N H S 0 mo CONN OPE i c N T NTT 6 7 5 5 10 II 13 15 12 IA 16 17 16 5 13 15 13 10 26 30 34 36 61 %I 1% 15 16 63 NI 17 51 10 5% 11 12 16 17 16 11 fl MEASUNE.-UNIT .mEASUPE..UNIT ELAST M (LAST W ELAST W5 Ss dO UNIIGT PUPIL rLASI W5 UMW PUPIL ELM w3 UNIOGT PUPIL rLAIII MS 4,02.50 UNWST PUPIL UNW8T PUPIL UNWIT PUPIL cumPOIscqm mum:Alumni 1,5 10S INS 11 V 6 CONFLIC; PCO 7.d 5.8 5.N MN .9621 4111 TABLE 1-29 UNIT OF AVAL--UNWST PUPIL UHII OF ANAL...066T PUPIL 1 2 3 4 5 E. 7 A 9 10 11 13 14 15 16 17 UNIT OF Ar.!AL.-uNviet PUPIL STATE VALUE RANK STATE VALUE RANK STAT!: VALUE. N m N C TEXAS vERm7 MISS w VA CONN N J FLA N H ORE KTT LOU miNN S 0 1.02680 1.08430 1.72000 1.96500 2.47750 2.98200 1 .54014 1.67pOo 2.28/00 7 N M N C TEXAa VERN! FLA W VA N J 3.14490 3.26320 5.51450 7.27300 8.26000 8.63250 10.96500 8 9 In .77756 1.69140 1,85100 2,54000 3,08940 3.36150 4.12890 4,26670 4,87250 6,24920 8.28700 8,67000 12,61900 13.80700 15,49900 16.49600 21,93500 110,06000 1 3.121170 N M N C TExAs VEK47 W VA FLA N J MISS 2 3 4 5 6 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 10 11.68600, 14.29000 24.93600 96.30500 N MO s C tP MEAsURS,...ScuPc W0 mrASURE..SLOPE W2 mERSUPE.-SLOPE W RANK yLAI!-.1,15 n001-.1975 YERR.-1975 N II CONS KTT oRE 5 u MIN4 N Y LOU MO S C 2 3 4 5 6 7 2.4740 3.67240 3.72100 4.18380 5.04340 5.51p10 5.591(j0 17 RT7 s 0 MINN N LOU MO 18 C 12 13 14 15 16 7.65900 10.17D00 12.15000 43.66p00 15.10600 1L7.01V00 21.68600 111.01000 SUMMARY RANKING MATRIX SuM .N m N C TEXAS VERPT 1 1 1 2 3 4 2 3 4 5 2 3 a 6 6 a 5 9 0 v11 6 FLA MISS N j CONN N H ORE KTy S 0 MINN LOU 9 k.1m0 S C 5 8 7 7 7 in 9 A 10 II 12 15 , 14 13 16 17 la 15 10 11 12 13 14 16 15 17 la lr 12 11 13 14 16 3 6 9 12 17 20 22 22 25 29 Z4 35 41 42 45 MEASURE.-UNIT HERSURE..UNIT CoMPAMIStrIS UINROKELmLNTS CONFLICT PC1 r) UNWGT PUPIL SLOPE W SLOPE W SLOPE 612 MUST PUPIL siOPE W2 sLOPE W3 townT PUPIL ELOPE 143 UMW PUPIL 1!DB UNWGT PUPIL UNHGT PUPIL 1?3 1?3 12 7.8', 7.0 " 2.6 1,7! 46 a 51 54 $= 4256.50 146..4761 18 #) TABLE 2-30 'FAR-1975 71.14.-1975. 9FAsuRE-SLOPL W NFASuiE..SLOPE WIT OF ANAL.-UNWGI pupa STATE RANK UNIT OF 44AL...UNWS1 PUP7L YALU! STAIE RANK VALUE TFAT....15/5 TEAK...1975 MLAsURE.....cl..A117 W MLA8LIKT....tLAST W2 UNIT OF ANAL....UNw6T PUPIL RANA VALUL STATL ... UNIT UF ANAL...UNWGT eu'Il RANK .... /TAOS VALUE ..... b N m N C TFxAs I 2 3 4 mIs9 w vA CONN N J FLA 5 6 7 A 9 10 11 12 13 19 15 V M 16 17 P , N M 2 N C TEXAs VEWIT W VA 5 77756 7 0 9 18 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 S U. MINif N I I 05?21 2 3 * 5 N 11 .06166 N.0 b MINN IEXAA N J W VA FLA N H CoNN 8 U ORE MO .1082 10665 42400 3 4 a 9 I0 11 12 13 14 15 Jib 17 21.93500 110,06000 3 C .0b0b1 7 16,4%00 LOU MO MISS P. LOU 1 1.69140 1.85100 2.54008 3.08940 3.36150 4.12890 4,26670 4,87258 6,24920 0.20700 8,67000 12.61900 13,80700 15.49900 FLA N J MISS N H CON% KIT ORE 6 5.28320 3.51050 7.27300 8.26000 8.63250 10.96500 11.68600 14.25000 24.93600 96.30500 m0 3 C 1 3 4 3.141190 ORE KT7 Lou MINN S 0 18 1.02680 1.08430 1.72000 1.96500 2.17750 2.98200 3.12070 IR VERN .1 9975 11 12 .29118 .33657 .36123 13 1% 15 .31.41.4 lb II C 39972 17 M 7 KTT 7 13513 a OMNI 9 10 111 .04661 10076 .11314 .16785 .14040 .16614 .16195 .17244 ,I826E VENNI 1EXAA' MINN N C W VA N J FLA v H 8 0 m0 uRE CONN .13054 .1664% .19096 .19519 8 C N T KTT 5 b N R RIss Lou 19551 .27214 01913 .61776 .59764 .55904 .41672 43354 ,48235 WHIPAPT RANKING MATRIX SUM 1 N m N c MISS VENNI TExAS w VA N J LOU FLA MINN -IL N CONN ORE S 0 KTT MO H y S C I 2 3 4 I I 2 7 5 8 I A 4 5 2 4 3 3 5 7 5 6 9 8 A 7 C e 13 9 16 f-' 2 3 6 I% 10 6 9 10 11 31 15 12 14 10 6 11 15 14 13 13 12 12 11 17 12 15 15 13 19 IR 17 16 17 16 14 10 7 17 3S 38 12 6 15 16 17 18 28 32 34 35 w's MEASUAC....UNI T. mEASURE.-UN1 T CUMPARIGON5 1/111A6OILLM1.NI8 CONFLICI PCI Ion 1P3 12 55 103 IP3 1P3 IP3 %I A% 7./ 22.9 24.8 26.8 88.8 3.2 40 41 44 51 53 59 62 65 SLOPE SLOPE SLOPE SLOPE SLoPE ELAST W U. 22 22 W UNWGT UNWGT UNWOT UNWGT UNWGT 'UNwsT PUPIL pupIL PUPIL PUPIL PUpIL PUpIL gLOPE W2 rLAMI 0.11111 rLow w. riAst FLO! 22 UNNOT PUPIL UN2ST uNwsT UNwaT UNWST UNwsT 614 SA 41 6128.00 Wag .7.505 11 . 41 41 pUpIL PUPIL PUPIL PUPIL PUPIL 3 11 TABLE V-31 TEAR...1475 YLA4-1975 MEASmRE--SLOPE W .MFASURE..ELAST W RANK STA1E 1 14 N M N C TFX43 VFRmT MISS w vA CONN N J FLA' N M ORE KTY LOU miNN 15 S 16 N Y MO S C 3 4 5 6 7 9 10 11 12 13 17 18 RANK VALUE VALUE MISS LOU N m N C VER4T MIN4 05851 05921 2400 6 7 1.02600 1.05430 1.72600 1.96500 v 2.167750 5 2.98200 3.12070 3.14490 3.28320 3.54050 7.27300 8.26000 8.63250 10.96500 11.68600 14.29000 24.93600 96.50500 6 7 4EXAS is N J 13054 .3513 W VA .16644 FLA N H CONS S 0 ORL MO S C N Y KTY 19096 19819 2 3 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 RANK .... 1 2 .06156 .10382 .10665 .19970 .29118 .33357 36123 36464 .39972 .48078 UNIT OF AAIALmUNWGT PUPIL UNIT UF AlyAL--UNW5T PUPIL sFAIE . . 1 MEASUKL-4LAST 03 MEASUR!:..ELA51 W2 UNIT OF AMAL--UNWGT PUPIL UNII OF ANAL--UNW6T PUPIL YEAK..A975 y1401..1975 3. ,VEKKI! TEXA8 MINN N C W VA N J 16 17, 18 .04661 .10616 .11314 .13/65 .14646 .1b614 .16195 .17244 .10266 .19551 .27214 .31443 .31176 .39/64 .39904 .416/2 .46454 .46265 N M MISS LOU 5 15 RANK VALUE 614.1.e. .. 4 8. 9 10 11 12 15 14 VALUE sTAIL FLA. N H S 0 MO. ORE CONN S C N Y KTY N M LOU MISS 0.13238 2 4 VERMI 03457 5 6 MINN N E. 7 . TEXAS- .15455 .16046 .11564 8 N J W VA FLA S 0 N H 1 9 10 11 12 .11673 .130g6 0850e .ao749 .21359 30299 14 15 16 CONN ORE 5 C. .51227 ,,51416 .52204 .55127 .42032 17 N Y KTY .01225 13 18 'MO 3345 SUMMARY RANKIN6 MATRIX SUM III M 1 3 I 1 6 MISS VERMT N C 5 4 2 1 2 11 5 4 4 3 4 7 6 13 2 3 3 7 5 14 6 6 9 p 6 -2 7 5 8 9 Loll TEXAS' MINN 14 vA NJ FLA N 1.1 CONN es 9 10 7 S (1 15 OPE MO S C KTy N y 11 17 18 12 16 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 18 17 9 10 11 15 12 14 13 16 18 17 A 10 12 14 141 15 15 16 le 17 17 , 19 20 22 31 32 33 31 44 48 51 54 58 66 66 67 MEASURE.-UNIT mEASURE-..UNI T CuMPARIMMS UNI/GT PUPIL 1*6 1O3 015RGKELMOITS CONFL1c1 130 55 36 40 22.9 24.6 26.1 , . SLOPE SLOPE SLOPE ELAST ELAST ELAST S= W W W W W W2 UNWGT UNWST UNWGT UNWGT UNWGT UNWGT 6616.00 PUPIL pUpIL PUPIL PUPIL PUPIL PUPIL W= 8535 FLASI FLAST FLAST FLAST pLAST FLAST W W2 V3 W2 v3 WS UFWGT MNU6T UNWGT UNWST UNWGT PUPIL PUPIL PUPIL PUPIL PUPIL 4 16 , 13 13 1b3 11 6 742 : 3.9 TMLE V-32 TEAN..1975 TEAR-.1975 . MIASUNt.-LLAST W3 MLAsURc..ELA6I WS MEASMAEALAS7 M RFOURE-..SIM COM vEAK..4,75 TEAn..0/5 , UNIT OF ANALUNWGT-PU0IL UNIT OF ArAL.-UNWOI PUPIL UNIT OF AVAL..UNWOT PUPIL WIT OF AN0L..UNW0T pUpli , , RANK .... STATE Ig 19 FLA, 15 16 17 15 KTT N 7 MISS MO 2 3 4 5 fi 7 a 9 10 11 12 36969 1 . . ... LOU N 8 MINH N J N C w VA VEK8T H H S C TEXas CONN ORE s n I VALUE RANK .... .37259 .41110 .91920 .44016 .48610 .48570 2 3 9 5 6 7 g 52550 9 10 .55199 .62227 .63010 .70170 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 15 75930 77344 71310 79020 79241 110990 STATE VALUE MISS LOU N R N L 05051 05921 KIM 1 N R .06156 2 3 103g2 4 .10565 5 6 MISS LOU VERN! TEAM, MINN N C W VA N J FLA N H 6 U MO ORE coNN S C N 7 K97 12400 03054 13913 16644 MI149 TEXAS N J 7 R M% WVA Fl A N H CONY S O ORL MO S C N 7 KTT STATE ....i RANK .... V 10 1,515 11 197741 ,19118 12 13 14 15 16 17 le 33357 56125 36464 39972 4007 . RANA .... 04661 10516 1 N M. 2 S LOU MISS VENNI MINN M C .11334 13/05 14045 15614 .1610 11244 4 .1.0266 y 10 5 6 19551 21219 7 IEXAs 5 N J w vA .09954 011612 .43354 16- 11 40255 10 SUMMARY RANKINn MATRIX ,11673 .15P2A 61345, .15453 ,16046 .17964 .15500 .20769 .0195? 30799 0 0 N H MO CONN. ORE 5 C N 7 ATV 12 13 14 15 31176 39164 3731 ILlt 11 .31443 VALHI OTAIc VALUL .51227 0141! .32209 65127 .42052 43345 .0,P2t 4 SUM N m LOU MINH VERMT N C MISS TEXAS N J N VA N H FLA -1, )c0NN 1 ORE 6 C MO N y KTT 3 2 1 1 7 1 3 2 g 3 7 6 5 6 5 5 17 10 4 4 7 1 2 7 8 5 6 3 7 9 g 11 9 12 10 20 28 22 23 29 29 32 42 44 49 52 55 57 2 4 6 a 14 13 11 12 9 la 16 15 9 11 10 13 12 14 35 15 17 IP 10 12 15 14 16 13 17 IA . 9 11 14 15 16 13 '17 1A 59 67 69 ,71 . 1 C.) atry 11 EASURL.-UN17 SIM cORR S111 ORR SIM CORR (LOT li ELAST W (LAST 02 $s UNWGT UNWOT UNWGT UNWGT UNWOT wwwsT 6950.00 PUPIL PUPIL PUpIL PUPIL mOPIL PUPIL WA 020 N.LASUR( -.UNIT rLAST rLAST rLAVI FLAST 'LAST 'LAST w Wp Wg WO Wg W3 UNWOT PUPIL UNNOT PUPIL c UN0T PUPIL UNWIT PUPIL UNWGT PUPIL UNWGT PUPIL CoMPANISOIS MI1AMMIX4.HTS CONFLILI pi.1 13 35 45 41 11 0 6 24.5 29.4 26.0 7.2 5.V 103 155 103 laS 103 TABLE V-33 YEAR-.1975 7LAR--1475 yEA1.!-.01* YLAK..L975 EASUME.-SIM CORK MpASURE-SLOPE W MEASURt...ELASI W MEASUmt--tLAST W3 sTAIE RANK 1 2 3 I. 5 6 7 9 10 11 12 IS 14 15 16 17 lA LOU N M MINN N N C W VA VERMT N H S C TEXAS CONN ORE S 0 FLA KIY VALUE RANK . 36969 . 37259 1 .41110 .41420 .44016 3 2 4 . 48610 48870 52550 55199 7 0 9 .62227 .63010 10 11 70170 12 13 14 15 IS 75930. 77344 18380 . 79020 MISS AO .79241 VALUE 'STATE RANK WO- UNII. UF AIAL--UNWGT PUPIL VALUE KANn sTAit VALUE .05851 .05921 .06166 .10882 .10665 1 N A LOU MISS VERM1 MINN N C TEXAS N J M VA hLA S 0 N H MO CONN ORE S C N y KTT .6323f .1167z .13026 .13457 .19453 .16046 .17364 .. 5 6 N UNIT OF A!!A1...UNW61 PUPIL UNIT OF, AVAL-=UNWGT PUPIL UMIT OF ANAL--UNWFT PUPIL 17 18 80990 1.02680 1.08430 1.72000 1,96500 2.47750 2.98200 3.12870 3,14490 3.28320 3.54850 N M N C TEXAS VEK4T MISS M 44 CON4 N J FLA N H ORE KTY LOU MIN4 S 0 N T MO S C 1 2 3 ' 4 :5 ,6 7 8 9 10 \ 7.27500 \8.26000 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 8.63250 10.96500 11.68600 14,29000 24.93600 9630*00 MISS LOU NIT N C VERN! MINN TEXA, N J M VA FLA N H CONN S 0 ORE MO S C N T KTT 2 3 4 12400 5 6 .13054 7 13913 16644 19696 8 .19819 .19,10 29118 .33357 36123 .36464 39972 48078 9 10 11 12 13 14 lb 16 17 18 ) 1850A .20769 .21354 .30294 .31227 .31415 .32204 .65127 .42032 43345 59225 ) SUMMARY RANKING MATRIX SUN m 2 I N C 5 LOU' 2 PP VERAT MISS TEXAS MINA N W VA N H 'FLA CONN S coRc s c AO KTy N y 1 2 3 4 IS 7 17 le 20 26 2 2 7 4 5%, 4 17 5 I 10 3 3 ,14 7 6 3 7 5 44 A 8 6 A 6 27 28 28 9 11 9 12 30 41 14 ln 9 10. 10 11 7 14 13 12 9 14 35 16 15 12 13 14 16 43 44 , 11 18 17 ip 16 11 52 52 15 Is 16 13 Is IA 59 63 63 17 ly 66. 4 cn C.4) AE4SURL.-IINI T. KEASUKE-.UNIT CUMPOISOnS u1SAW.cmcNTS EONFLici pc) *0 SIM CORR SIM CORR SIM CORA SLOPE ill SLOPE (LAST N Er: UNWGT PUPIL UNWGT'll_UpIL UNWGT PUPIL UNWGT PUAIL UNMGT PUPIL "now PUpIL 5592;01 w= .7214 gL0Pf FLAST rLAST FLASI FLASI FLAST W w W5 0 W3 W3 UNVOT PUFTL UNuGT pUpaL 1 1?j 1p3 UMW PUPIL 41 UNVOT pUpIL UMW PUPIL UNm6I PUPIL 55 36 ,0 1b3 3' 13 40 9 1#3 65.9 24.8 26.8 22.9 26.1 5.9 TABLE V-34 CONCORDANCE MEASURES AND NUMBER OF UNAMBIGUOUS RANKINGS FOR GROUPS OF WEALTH NEUTRALITY MEASURES, 18 STATE SAMPLE (unweighted pupil unit of analysis) NUMBER OF UNAMBIGUOUS TABLE V-25 SIM CORR X SLOPE W SLOPE W2 SLOPE W3 ELAST W ELAST W3 ELAST W2 .6886 X X RIOIKINGS , V-26 X V-27 X X V-28 X V-29 X .6468 1 X .6427 1 X .9821 8 .9761 9 .7905 1 X X X I .X ,- V-30 k V-31 X 1,42 X V-33. X X S X X X X X X .8535 1 X X X .8320 1 X .):214 1 X 155 In other words, if we look at the rankings that result froin the application of two or more wealth neutrality measures computed using the district unit of analysis to a set of states, at one point in time, will there be agreement among the rankings? The three measures of association between the rankings from the seven wealth neutrality measures, taken two at a time, are displayed in Table V-35. Compared to the wealth neutrality measures using the unweighted pupil unit of 0 analysis, the measures of association for the district unit of analysis span a somewhat wider range although the pattern of agreement is very similar. The Spearman rank correlation ranges from .2528 to .9628, the Agreement-Conflict measure from .5950 to .9410, and the Concordance measurear .6264 to .9814. At the same time, the groups of measures that are in agreement relatively more than any other groups are the three elasticity measures and the three slope measures. All three of the pairs of slope measures exceed the .84, .84, .92 cutoff utilized earlier and two of the three patrs of elasticity measures exceed this cutoff. Furthermore, the agreement among the two groups is all the more marked since none of the other fifiteen pairs of wealth neutrality measures meet these crfteria. This pattern of relationships between the wealth neutrality measures is repeated when the unambiguous rankings are computed for pairs of wealth neutrality measures. 'These unambiguous rankings are displayed in Table V-36. There are considerably more unambiguous rankings for the pairs of elasticity measures and pairs of slope measures than for most other pair of wealth neutrality measures. This is again the same pattern that was observed for the wealth neutrality measures when the unweighted pupil unit of analysis was utilized. TABLE V- 35 MEASU SLOPE W SIM CORR SLOPE W SLOPE W2 SLOPE W3 ELAST W ELAST W2 OF ASSOCIATION BETWEEN WEALTH NEUTRALITY MEASURES USED ACROSS STATES IN 18 STATE SAMPLE , (distriit unit of analysts) MEASURES OF ASSOCIATION ELAST W2 ELAST W3 .7110 .7650 .8555 .7190 .7926 Concordance Measure (0 .5624 .7190 .7812 .7276 .7520 .8638 .6429 .7190 .8215 pg W .9628 .9410 .9814 .2693 .6010 .6347 .5604 .6990 .7802 ..6930 .7513. X .2838 .5950 .6419 SLOPE W2 SLOPE W3 ELAST W .5046 .6730 .7523 .2528 .5950 .6264 .2714 .6140 .6357 .8452 .8240 .9226 X .9133 .8820 .9567 .8844 .8630 .9422 X X , . .5851 .5026. .6120' .7060 .8060 .6182 .7390 .8091 .8535 .8500 .9267 .7337 .8040 .8669 .9340 .9020 .9670 Spearman Rank Correlation(ps) Agreement-Conflict Measure(AC) Pc AC w At P PS AC PAt 1 3 TABLE V-36 NUMBER OF.UNAMBIGUOUS RANKINGS FOR PAIRS OF WEALTH NEUTRALITY MEASURES USED ACROSS STATES IN 18 STATESAMPLE (district unit of analysis) SLOPE W SLOPE W2 SLOPE W3 ELASTW ELAST W2 ELAST W3 SIM CORR 1 1 1 3 1 SLOPE W X 4 3 1 1 1 X 3 4 SLOPE W2 SLOPE W3 ELAST W ELAST W2' , 2 X X 'to A 7 158 The final comparisons for the.wealth neutrality measures using the district unit of analysis are nine cases where groups of three and four meausres are used to rank the 18 states. Although the actual rankings are not shovel in this report, the concordance measures and number of unambiguous rankings for the multiple comparisons are shown in Table V-37. The concordance measures and the number of unambiguous rankings are larger for the groups of three elasticity However, and slope measures, as would be expected from the pairwise comparisons. the number of unambiguous rankings are coniiderably less than for the wealth neutrality measure using the unweighted pupil unit of analysis, displayed in Table V-34. Thus, elcept for the :linter of unambiguous rankings for multiple compari- sons, the conclusions for the wealth neutrality measures when used across states are very similar for the unweighted pupil and district untls,of analysis. There are substantial contradictions among most wealth neutrality ftasures except the three elasticity measures agree substantially with one another as do the three . slope measures. Some selection must be made among the correlation, slope, and elasticity measures, but the particular functional form of thi slope or elasticity measure is not as important as the choice among the three classes of measures. 3. Assessment of Wealth Neutrality Measures Across States: of District and Unweighted Pupil Units of Analysis Comparison The specific question addressed in this part may be stated as follows: When a wealth neutrality measure is used to rank a set of states at one point in time, do the rankings that are assigned by the wealth neutrality measure using the unweighted pupil unit of analysis agree with the rankings assigned by the same wealth neutrality measure using the district unit of analysis? The focus of this assessment is not omthe agreement or contradictions among two or more wealth neutrality measures as was the case for parts 1 and 2 but whether 1 2; G TABLE V=37 CONCORDANCE MEASUR.,3 AND NUMBER OF UNAMBIGUOUS RANKINGS FOR GROUPS OF WEALTH NEUTRALITY MEASURES, 18 STATE SAMPLE (district unit,of analjsis) SIM CORR SLOPE W SLOPE W2 SLOPE W3 ELAST W ELAST W2 ELAST W3 .7E83 1 .6721 .1 X .661C 1 X .8936 3 .9468 3 X X X .7358 1 X X .8068 1 X X W NUMBER OF UNAMBIGUOUS RANKINGS X X .8323 X .73437 1. 160 ,the wealth neutrality measures are consistent across units of analysis. The measurei of association for the wealth neutrality measures computed using both units of.analysis are displayed in Table V-38. The measures show somewhat more agreement than for the equality Measures used for interstate comparisons For the wealth neutrality measures the measures of association for SLOPE W and SLOPE W2 exceed the .84, .84 measures exceeded this level. .92 cutoff while none of the equality ,(See Table V 21.) Furthermore, there are more than ohe unambiguous ranking's far all pairs except ELAST W and, ELAST W3. There are five unambiguous rankings for SLOPE W, four each for SLOPE W2 and SLOPE W3,three for ELAST W2 and two for SIM CORR. Thus, while there is not perfect agreement between the wealth neutrality measures used for the interstate comparisons computed on two units of analysis, there are not the widespread differences that were observed between units of analysis for the equality measures used for interstate comparisons. Since the conclusions that were drawn for the Wealth neutrality Measures used for interstate compailsons separately for each unit of, analysis were similar, it is.not surprising that there is a reasonable amount of agreement between units of analysis. 4. Conclusions The conclusions for the wealth neutrality masures used for interstate comparisons are relatively straight forward. It clearly makes a difference which wealth neutrality measure or measures are chosen for interstate comparisons. There are considerable and consistent differences among the three classes of wealth neutrality measures identified as the correlation elasticity, and slope classes. However, there appear5 to be considerable agreement among the three slope measures and among the three elasticity measures using either unit of analysis. 161 TABLE V-38 MEASURES OF ASSOCIATION BETWEEN WEALTH NEUTRALITY MEASURES COMPUTEDASING THE DYSTRICT AND UNWEIGHTED PUPIL UNITS OF ANALYSIS, .18 STATE SAMPLE SPEARMAN RANK. CORRELATION .7970 .7730 SIM CORR AGREEMENT CONFL/CT MEASURE CONCORDANCE MEASURE ',.8865 , .8560 .9278 .8950 .9598 .8349 .837G .9174 .7812 .8040 .8906 .7915 .8040 .8958 .7234 .7580 t.8617 SLOPE W .8555 SLOPE W2 .9195 SLOPE W3 ELAST W ELAST W2 ELAST W3 P : 162 This was documented in the wea1J.h neutrality section briefly at the beginning for an 11 state sample and rather extensively for an 18 state sample. In additiOn, there appear to be Atin differences, but not ,substantial ones; for each wealth neutOality measure when the units of analysis are compared. Thus,, ceratin choices must be made among classes of wealth neutrality measures if discriminating interstate comparisons are to emerge. C, . 2s 0 VI. Sensitivity Analysis - This section presents a limited number of sensitivity analyses focusing on ' several aspects of equity. measurement methodology. The analyses presented in this part represent an extremely small percentage of the types of analyses that need to be carried out before the importance ot the various choices that are made when equity is assessed are better,understooth: With the available' data, however, only a limited numb& of sensitivity analyses can be carried out. The first part of this section presentt a very brief analysis of the effects of using a weighted student unit of analysis on the equality and a , wealth neutrality measures, particularly when they are observed in one state over time. The secend sensitivity analysis focuses on the effects of alternative specifications of the dependent variable, especially alternative treatment's of debt and capital. The third part of this section presents the equality and wealth.neutrality measures for one state, New York, without the major city, New York City. The questions raised by the existence of large cities can only Ix. touched upon in this report since measures for one year only are available fur New York in the data set accumulated for this report. Finally, issues related to the existence of multiple district types are discussed in the last part of this section. A. Weighted Student Unit of Analysis The assessment of equality and wealth'neutrality using the weighted pupil unit of analysis is important for several.veasons. First, a number of states use a weighted student count extensively in Many public policy decisions 164 including the distribution of state aid. Second, the current regulations that spell out the my in which the Federal government plans to measure equality allow the use of weighted pupil counts at the discretioe of the state and a sensitivity analysis such as this can help to evaluate the significance of this option. Third, as discussed in Section II, it can be argued that when "categori- cals" are included in the dependent (revenue or expenditure) variable, weights that incorporate the categories should be included in the puptl measures as well. The use of,the weighted pupil unit of analysis changes the basic unit in the distribu6bn (nevemmlweighted pupils) and chanies the number of units in the distribution (weighted pupils) compared to the district and unweighted pupil units of analysis, As a result, the use of the weighted pupil unit of analysis has the potential to change the results of the equality or wealth neutrality analysis over time quite considerably when compared to the other units of analysis. The assessment of the weighted pupil unit of analysis is contrained since data are available, over time, for only three states where the same , weighting is used in a particular state for more thiin one year. presented for Florida, Illinois, and New Jersey Analyses are here the results for the equality and wealth neutrality assessments for the reighted pupil unit of analysis are comPared to the results for the unweighted,pupil unit of analysis. 1. Florida The equality and wealth neutrality measures for Florida for all three units of analysis appear in Appendix 8, Tables 8-22 and 8-23, for 1973-74 and 1974-75, respectively. Florida uses a rather detailed set of weightings and these are displayed in Table VI-1. Note that there are weightings for grade 165 TABLE VI-1 Weights for Various Educational Programs in Florida, 1975-76 Risk Programa 1.234 1.00 1.10 Kindergarten and Grades 1, 2, and 3 Grades 4 through 9 Grades 10, 11, and 12 Special Programs for Exceptional Students Educable mentally retarded Trainable mentally retarded Physically handicapped Physical and occupational therapy, part-tima Speech and hearing therapy, part-time Deaf Visually handicapped, part-tiMe Visually handicapped Emotionally disturbed, part-time Emotionally disturbed Socially maladjusted Specific learning disability, part-time Specific learning disability Gifted, part-time Hospital and homebound, pert-time 2.30 3.00 3.50 6.00 10.00 4.00 10.00 3.50 7.50 3.70 2.30 7.50 2.30 3.00 15.00 irocationel-Technits Program° 4.26 2.64 2.18 Vocational Education 1 Vocational Education 0 Vocational Education III Vocational Education IV Voaational Education V Vocational Education VI 1.69 1.40 1.17 Adult Education Propane: Adult basic education and adult high school Community service 1.28 0.675 Vocational-tedmical programs are psi into one of de categories depending upon the relative cost of providing the program. Most expendve are certain shop courses using a greet deal of expensim equipment; Meat expensive are eecretadd courses. Source: Jack Leppert, Laity Hued, Walter Corms, and Heber Fuller, "Pupil Weightiai Programs in School Finance Reform," in School Rnance Reform: A Legislaton'lkndbook. eds. John J. Callahan and William H. Wilkes (Washington, D.C.: National Conference Id State Waimea, 1976). 2' 166 levels and special programs. Theassessments of the equality and wealth neutrality in Florida from 1973-74 to 1974-75 are presented in Table VI-2. The use of the weighted pupil unit of analysis compared to the unweighted pupil unit of analysis changes the assessment of equality and wealth neutrality for selected measures. For the equality measures there are differences for the relative mean deviation, the Gini coefficient as well as the range. For the relative mean deviation and Gini coefficient the unweighted pupil unit of analysis shows more equality between 1973 and 1974 while these two measures for the weighted pupil unit of analysis show less equality. the range. Differences in the other direction can be seen for Thus, depending upon the particular equality measure chosen, the conclusions regarding equality can be different for the two units of analysis. Similar differences occur for the wealth neutrality measures except here there are differences between the unweighted and weighted units of analysis only for the ELAST W measure. But for Florida, this shows that the equality and wealth neutrality measures, particularly ones that may be more attractive from a value judgment point of view, can contradict one another when the weighted and unweighted pupil units of analysis are compared for specific measures. 2. Illinois The equality and wealth neutrality measures for the three district types in Illinois for 1972-73 and 1975.76 are displayed in Tables 0-27 through B-32. The analysis of equality and wealth neutrality between 1972 and 1975 for all three district types and all three units of analysis were displayed in Section IV, Tables IV-12 through IV-14. The pupil weighting system in illinois, known as Title I weighted average daily attendance (TWADA), is based on the number and concentration of Title I students in a particular district) 1For more details on the Illinois pupil weighting system see G. Alan Hickrod and Ben C. Hubbard, The 1973 School Finance Reform in Illinois: Quo Jure? Quo Vadis? Illinois State University, Center for the Study of Educational Finance, March, 1978. 2!'5 0- 167 TABLE VI-2 FLORIDA STATE - UNIT OF ANALYSIS - DISTRICT, UNWEIGHTED PUPIL, WEIGHTED PUPIL DISTRICT TYPE - ALL Change from 1973 to 1974 410 Measure of Equality and Wealth Neutrality EQUALITY A. I. . 1. Range LESS Equal LESS Equal 2. Restricted Range MORE " LESS " LESS " 3. Federal Range Ratio MORE " MORE " MORE " 4. Relative Mean Deviation MORE " MORE " LESS " 5. Permissible Variance MORE " MORE " MORE ." 6. Variance LESS " MORE " MORE " 7. Coefficient of Variation MORE " MORE " MORE " 8. Standard Deviation of Logarithms MORE " MORE " MORE Gini Coefficient MORE " MORE " LESS 9. B. Ill WEIGHTED PUPIL UNWEIGHTED PUPIL DISTRICT I MORE Equal " WEALTH NEUTRALITY 1. Simple Correlation 2. Slope - W 3. Slope - W, W 4. . LESS Wlth Neut LESS Wlth Neut LESS Wlth Neut mo RE MORE " " Is in LESS " " MORE " " MORE " " MORE " " Slope - W, W2, W3 MORE " " MORE " " MORE " " 5. Expenditure Difference MORE " " MORE " " MORE " " 6. Hickrod Gini LESS " " 7. Elasticity - W LESS " " LESS " " MORE " " B. Elasticity -W, W2 MORE " " MORE " " MORE " " 9. Elasticity - W, MORE " " MORE " " MORE " is . 2 W2 % 168 For the equality measures, there are only a couple of differences between the unweighted and weighted units of analysis. The difference in the Unit districts occurs for the permissible variance and in the Secondary districts, the rederal range ratio. There are no differences for the nine equality measures across the two units of analysis in the Elementary districts. The differences between the weighted and unweighted units of analysis for the wealth neutrality measures in the Unit districts are extensive. Seven of the nine wealth neutrality measures indicate less wealth neutrality in 1975, compared to 1972, using the unweighted pupil unit of analysis and more wealth neutrality using the weighted pupil unit of analysis. The wealth neutrality measures for the Secondary and Elementary district types do not vary according to the unweighted and weighted units of analysis. In 211inois examples of.extensive, minor and no differences 'across the unweighted and weighted units of analysis can be documented and, therefore, the issue of unit of analysis Is important in equity assessment. 3. New Jersey The final state examined here is New Jersey where data on comparable pupil weightings are available for 1975-76 and 1976-77. The equalityand wealth neutrality measures for these tmo years in New Jersey are displayed in Tables B-55 and B-56. The pupil weighting systeM utilized in New Jersey is based on a nuMber of different categories and is displaYed in Table IV-3. The assestment of equality and wealth neutrality between 197546 and 1976-77 for,the three units of analysis are shown in Table VI For this time period in New Jersey the equality measures.are the same for the unweighted and weighted pupil units of analysis. For the wealth neutrafity meisures only SLOPE 142 shows,a difference between the 169 TABLE VI-3 New Jersey Weightings for Categorical Aid Programs as cottained in the Public School Education Act of 1975 (N.J.S.A. 18A:7A-20) Special Education Classes . Addi."Aotal Cost Factors Educable 0.53 Trainable 0.95 Orthopedically handicapped 1.27 Neurologically impaired 1.06 Perceptually impaired 0.85 Visually handicapped 1.91 Auditorially'handicapped 1.38 Communication handicapped 1.06 Emotionally disturbed 1.27 Socially maladjusted' 0.95 Chronically ill 0.85 Multiply handicapped 1.27 Other Classes and Services APproved private school tuition SuOplementary and speech instruction Additional cost factor of the handicap plus 1.0 0.09 based on the number of pupils actually receiving such initruction in the prior school year Bilingual education 0.16 State compensatory education 0.11. Nome instruction 0.006 tines the number of hours of instruction actually provided in the prior school year 170 VI-4 TABLE STATE - NEW JERSEY DISTRICT, UNWEIGHTED PUPIL UNIT OF ANALYSIS DISTRICT TYPE - WEIGHTED PUPIL ALL Change from 1976Nto 1976 Measure of Equality and Wealth Neutrality DISTRICT A. UNWEIGHTED PUPIL WE EQUALITY . LESS Equal 1. Range LESS Equal LESS Equal 2. Restricted Range LESS * LESS " LESS " 3. .Federal Range Ratio MORE " MORE " MORE * . 4. Relative Mean Deviation MORE " MORE " MORE. " 5. Permissible Variance MORE " MORE " MORE " 6. Variance LESS " MORE " MORE " 7. Coefficient of Variation MORE " MORE " MORE " 8. Standard Deviation of Logarithms MORE / MORE " MORE " MORE " MORE " MORE " 9. B. . ' Gini Coefficient WEALTH NEUTRALITY 1. Simple Correlation MORE Wlth Neut LESS Wlth Neut LESS Wlth Neut 2. Slope - W MORE " MORE " " MORE " " MORENN MORE " " LESS N " 2 " 3. Slope - W, W 4. Slope - W, W2, W3 MORE " " LESS " 0 LESS N N 5. Expenditure Difference MORE " " LESS " " LESS N N 6. Hickrod Gini MORE " LESS " " LESS N 7. Elasticity - W MORE " " MORE " N MORE N " 8. Elasticity -W, W2 MORE " ". MORE " ' MORE N " 9. Elasticity - W,. W MORE " " LESS " " LESS " " 2"fi 171 two pupil units of analysis. Thus, for one time period in New Jersey there are only minor differences when the weighted compared to the unweighted pupil unit of analysis is employed. 4. Conclusions The empirical importance of pupil weightings has been documented, even with this liMited analysis. The use of a weighted compared to unweighted pupil unit of analysis can change the conclusions drawn from individual and sets of equality and wealth neutrality measures when used to assess a state over time. It should be pointed out that the pupil weighting systems significantly influence the pupil counts in Florida (1.41 million (unweighted) to 1.99 million (weighted)) and Illinois (Unit: 1.27 million (unweighted) to 1.58 million (weighted)) more so than in New Jersey (1.40 million (unweighted) to 1.49 million (weighted)). Tnis probably accounts, to some degree, for the greater differences between the two pupil units of analysis in Florida and Illinois. But the issues surrounding student weightings have only been touched upon here and are clearly wcrthy of further investigation. B. Alternative Revenue Variables The dependent variable used in most instances in this report is local and state revenues excluding revenues for debt service and capital. In Section II it was pointed out that a number of alternative dependent variables can be used in equity analysis and in this part two alternative revenue variables are utilized. The effects of the alternative revenue variables are investigated by comparing the analyses of equality and revenue neutrality in a number of states over time when different revenue variables are employed. New Mexico, and Texas are considered, then New Jersey. 21') First Florida, 172 For Florida, New Mexico and Texas, the revenue variable utilized in the report includes local'revenues for debt service and capital. In this section the alternative revenue variable used for these three states is local and state revenues less expenditures for capital. %eel and state revenues Note that this is not the same as excluding revenues for debt service and capital since capital expenditures are partly debt financed.2 While the alternative revenue variable analyzed in this section for Florida, New Mexico, and Texas is not a preferabli one for equity analysis, it can provide some indication of the sensitivity of the equality and wealth neutrality measures to an alternative specification of the revenue variable. The equality and wealth neutrality measures for Florida, New Mexico, and Texas using local and state revenues less capital expenditures are displayed in Tables VI-5 through VI-13. The data for these three states that are utilized in the other sections of the report are in Appendix B. The analysis of equality and wealth neutrality for the three states with the alternative revenue variable are shown in Tables VI-14 through VI-17. The analogous tables for revenue variable utilized in the report are included in Section IV. When the tables presented in this section are compared with their counterparts in Section IV, the differences are extensive. There are six intertemporal comparisons (two for Florida, three for New Mexico, and one for Texas) and nine equality measures for each intertemporal comparison yeilding 64 (6 x 9) equality measures for each unit of analysis that can be compared with different revenue variables. For the district unit of analysis 21 of the 54 or 39% of the equality measures yield different conclusions for the different revenue variables. A conclusion is considered different or reversed when the same measure shows more equality for one revenue variable and less equality for the other revenue variable. 2Capital expenditures are Iftelito be very lumOy and either vastly exceed or be considerably less than local revenues for debt service and capital. 211 173 TAKE VI-5 STATE NUMBER OF DISTRICTS -- 67 FLA YEAR NOME; OF PUPILS 1972 DISTRICT TYPE NuMRFR OF WEIGHTED PUPILS 1 UNI MEASURES OF MEAN, ESUALITY. ANO FISCAL NEUTRALITY 1. 2. 3 4. 5. 6. as 9. 10, 11, 12. 13, 1.14. 15. 16. /7. 14, 19: 20. 210 MEAN EXP RANGE REs RANG". FED R R REL MN OEV PERM VAR VAR cOEF VAR STO DEW Les GINI SIM CORR SLOPE w SLOPE W2 SLOPE W3 EXP PIP WICK GINI MEAN W 570 DEV W ELAST W ELASI w2 ELAST W3 OF ANALYSIS T UNWEIGHTED PUPIL DISTRICT . 1145.143000 863.58000 1066.3000n 390.75000 462060 .1165n 106.30000 359,94000 54380 09513 87871 8647a 21'69.00000 1745, 2960n 08556 31583 10657,00000 ,11554 .13800 06577 64354 2,5863n 1.95070 3,86760 3,89090 5.69170 169,64000 0.00000 38.41300 17.17800 .17204 ..17307 ,25317 13341n 61,9790n 00600 35,97500 18.017On ,1100s 08301 605677 Variable descriptions: 1. Pupil (unweighted): 2. Revenues: 3. Wealth: 4. Districts: 1369723 Average Daily Attendance ODA). Local and state revenues less capital expenditures. Equalized Assessed value. All 21 WEIGHTED PUPIL 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0600000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0600000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0600000 0.00000 0.00000 0,00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0,00000 TABLE STATE 174 VI-6 NuMaER OF DISTRICTS - 67 FLA NUMBER OF PUPILS --1397320 YEAR d. 1973 -NUMBER OF ousiou PUPILS ..188962 1 DISTRICT TYPE uNIT nF ANALYSIS t MEASURES OF MEAN.EOUALITY, ANO FISCAL NEUTRALITY 'MEW 1, 2. 3, S. 6. 7. 6, 2, 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 18. 0, 10, 19, 20. 21. UNWEIBMTE0 PUP/L DISTRICT 1145.70000 iA28,40000 434,24000 .52730 .11207 997.4400n 1625.4000o 577.71000 ,7727n .14461 MEAN ExP RANGE REs RAN8r PEO R R REL MN OEV PERM VAR VAR COEP vAR STO DEv LGS SIMI SIM CORR 05502 ,2068'," 45508.00000 ,2230m .86200 .1057s 24412,00000 .14811 ,38100 .07895 .40312 2,64880 4,08280 3,88740 ,0971i ,6440n nort w SLOPE w2 SLOPE W3 EXP DIP 02409 MOSS T94.121000 65.09700 .01319 WICK GM REAR w STO 0Ev w ELAST'w ELAST w2 ELAST W3 .40826 34,59200 24,02100 4508000 33,533On .03227 .04635 ,04763 1353S .20915 .19514 "11.. Variable descriptions: 1. a. b. Pupils (unweighted): Pupils (weighted): See Table VIr5 Weighted FTE Set Table VI-5 2: Revenues: 3. Wealth: 4. Districts: See Table (Florida, 1972). 111-5 (Florida, 1972). (Florida, 1972). *ma See Table VI-5 (Florida, 1972). Mao 21-) WEIINTE1 PUPIL 787.93000 1223,30000 285,31000 .49960 .12073 .50063 10400,00000 .12943 .36008 .08481 .32120 100340 3,12890 253850 103.84000 .01086 40.36500 17,21900 .09761 .16029 .15054 TABLE VI-7 175 .. STATE YEAR CMsEi OF DISTRICTS .. FLA WIMSEn OF PUPILS LOS DISTRICT TYPE NUMBER OF WEIGHTED PUPILS I UNIT `-'1)F MEASUAtS OF MEAN. E.UALITY. AND -FISCAL NEUTRALITY 1. 1. 3. 5, G. 7. 111. 111, OMAN EIP .0ISTRIET 1141.90000 795,8300n 538,57000 ,6223n 12314 17256 31167,0000o RANH REs AAWDE FED R R AEL MN DEV PERM VAR VAR 14: 150 it 1 , 10, 111. to 11. SIM CORR SLOPE SLOPE wt SLOPE w3 EXP 0Ir WICK GIN! mEAN 4 sTO 0Ew w (LAST w (LAST w2 (LAST US_ See Table v/-5 UNWEISNTEO PUPIL . lota.00000 55536 2.53720 1,75460 2,1610n 141,6400n 00146 65.10400 30,0430n 15354 .1061a .15082 59284 2.42150 2.37560 2.00750 (Florida, 1972). 1014TED .PUP/L t;70,B0000 755,83000 391,57001 40580 08551 .54050 .tous Variable descriptions: OM. ANALYSIS *15461 .1630n 08674 COEF VAR STO DEV LOS 1, SIN! 11. le. 13. 1416506 .11500 06046- ;31).a6000 .00690 79.96100 31.65500 .16424 16113 .13630 .., 0,00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 o.00000 , 000too 0.00000 0.00000 0.00010 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0000000 TABLE VI-8 176 STATE YEAR mummi OF DISTRIcfS," 88 N M mumBE6 OF PUPILS 1,72 DISTRICT TYPE NUMBEe OF WEIGHTED PUPILS 1 II M I MEASURES OF MEAN. ECUALITY. AND T REAR EXP RANGE 3. Os RANGE 4 S. 6. 7. S. I. 10. 11. 11. 13. -14. Ise 16, /7. 141. 19. 14. 11. law FED R R REL mm DEV PEAR VAR OK tOEF VAR STO OEV LGS GINI SIM CORR SLOPE w SLOPE w2 SLOPE W3 EXP DIP WICK OW MEAN W STO DEV W ELAST W CLAST WO ELAsT 43. nF ,ARALYSIS: WEIGHTEt PUP L UNWEIGMTE0 PUPIL DISTRICT FISCAL NOTRAL/TY 1. O. 276165' . 777.19000 1343.90000 .63270 0.00000, 0 350.05000 .73170 .2.2760o .13564 .80,47 . 13346 . 4,210 1623000000 65234.00000 .32863 15365' .11200 . .350211 . 091625 , *6.17200. 0.00000 46.36000 32.27602 613.31SOn 56.2Son .16147 .10746 29545 1.14100 . 43466 15W3.190000 . 910.0oon .17372 .4055i 1.0369n 2.13262 1.25650 264.03022 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0800004 0.00000 0,00000 0.00000 0,00000 0.04000 0,00000 0,000a0 0.00000 0.00000 453.67000 . 04343 . 04530 , 15634 49.04427 . 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Variable descriptions: 1. Pupils (unweighted): 2. Revenues: Local and state revenue plus Federal tmpact aid (PL 874 revenue) le-s capital expenditures. 3. Wealth: 4. Districts: All. Average Daily Membership Equalized assessed value. ' 1 5 (ADM). 177 TABLE VI-9 $TATE 'n N m NMBER OF DISTRICTS -- TEAR NUMBER 197S' PUPTLS - 273063 NUMerR OF WEIGHTED PUPILS .. DISTRIEf TYPE mF MEASURES OF MEAN. ESUALITY. AND FISCAL NEUTRALITY Oho, MEAN ExP 3. REs RANGE FEO,R R REL MN OEV pckm VAR VAR. EOEF vAR 5TO OEV L6S SIN/ SIM CORR SLOPE w 5534.30000 1135.7000R 22580 62938A. 00264 t72570600000 ,4941m .1501fr Variable descriptions: See Table VI-8 006437 3E35600000. 6272,2 .1E159 197'14 0000200 76,212On $4.57400 014070 .15,46 ELAST Vt (LAST WS 15380 .21547 1,65230 (LAST id ,6100 01600 ,-10726n 185660 20.5,000, SLOPE W3 EXP OIF NICE SIMI MfAN 0 5TO 0Ev w 459.00000 3534.30000 350,26000 00700 '625604 sum we (New Mexico, 1973),.. ii 21% .04 =UNWEIGHTED. PUPIL 6114.0,000' 2. Rem ti DiSTRICT ANA.LYSIS .0EISWTED PUPIL al 16 5, 88 o.00000 0.00000 o.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0,00000 oaeloop Gomm 977S7 o.00000 o.00000 .,43845 om000 .13,250 o.oaoou 0.06000 6.1014q5000 .00621- 51,26800' 36,26300 .07607. 4..03411 10532 000000 0.00000 doeotio 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 TABLE VI-10 178 STATE NUMBER OF DISTRICTS e- 88 TEAR -- 1974 NUMBER OF PUPILS -- 273743 NuMerR OF WEIGHTED PUPILi 1 DISTRICT TYPE uNIT 'OF ANALYSIS MEASURES OF MEAN. (OUALIM ANO UNWEIGNTED PUPIL DISTRICT FISCAL NEUTRALITY .... - 1. 2. 3, 4, 5, 6. 7. 0, 9, 10. 11. 12. MEAN ExP RANG( REs RANGE FED R R REL MN DEV PERM VAR vAR COEF VAR 14,- SLOPE W2 SLOPC HS CRP DIP MICR GIN! MEAN W STO DEv W (LAST w (LAST W2 (LAsT w3 le. 15, 16, 17, 16, 19. 20. al. 94 1.2700n 2486.9000n 1192,7000n 2,42530 .32019 .7457n 176460.00000 ,4299 5TO 0Ev Os 1.00600 23399 GINI SIM CORR SLOPE w .33217 . 1,74746. _1.1216n- 1.0609n 293,00000 0.00000 96,9570n 79,0520n .16024 .17254 , .1706m Variable descriptions: See Table VI-8 (New Mexico, 1973). 27 ;13.64000 2426,90000 547,04000 1,04060 ,19544 .0416$ 40636.00000 ,20246 .53000 . 15416 36311 456600 ,94939 45701 30,03900 0.00000 57,30900 46.74400 .12576 ,07634 .03670 WEIGHT( PUPIL 0.00000 0,00000 0,00000 0,00000 0,00000 0.00000 0,00000 0,00000 0,00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0,00000 0.00000 0.00000 0,00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 TABLE 179 V1-11 ANN. STATE 00 N M pelmeER OF DISTRICTS 88 TEAR 0 1,75 NUMSEW OF PUPILS 0- 265374 DISTRICT TYPE . 1 NAMS01 OF WEIGHTED PUP/LS NI; OF ANALYSIS MEASURES OF MEAN. EOUALITY. AND FISCAL NEUTRALITY 2. 2331.5000ft G29570 FED R R REL MN OEV 5. PERM VAR O. yAR 7, O.__COEF VAR STD DEV LOS 9. GINI 10. SIM CORR 11. SLOPE W 12. SLOPE W2 13. SLOPE W3 14. 15. ESP DIF 16, .WICK GIN/ MEAN W 17. STD DEV W 10, ELAST W 15t. 20. (LAST Wt 0 VI-8 0.00000. .72473 47454.00000 .27735 .52600 .13313 70474 214720,00000 .44712 .9440n ,24319 ,2601A 1.34840 1,7753R 2001240 556.19000 0.00000 94,61400 55,624DA .12310 0.6207 -,22432 1,15 02,05 0.96580 .T020000 .15371 Variable descriptions: See Table ,07804 171,3 .33095 (LAST 0 0.00000 64,11600 53,16500 .07503 900237 59041000 129710 16,50000 (New Mexico, 1973). 2:1;5 WEIGHTED PUP/L 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0,00000 0.00000 0,00000 0.00000 0,00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 '0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 705 44000 *431.50000 1036.40000 MEAN EXP RANGE 3 RES RANGE 21. UNWEIGHTED PUP/L DISTRICT TABLE STATE . TEXAS YEAR 180 VI-12 ,NMSER OF DISTRICTS 1090 NMSER OF PUP/LS .. 2531541 157* DISTRICT TYPE WAGER OF WEIGMTED PUPILS .. 1 nF ANALYSIS UN!: MEASURES Or MEAN. EGUALITY. AND FISCAL NEUTRALITY UNWEIONTEs PUPIL DISTRICT WEIGWTE PUPIL .. . 1. a. 3, MEAN EXP RANGE REs RANGE PEO R R S. G. 7. G. es REL MN KV ERM VAR 1.0. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15 /S. 17. le. 12. sO. 21. 1070.100On 333,0.00000 1502.500nn 5.7354n .001.1 VAR COEF VAR STO OEV L6S SIMI SIM CORR SLOPE W SLOPE w2 SLOPE w3 EXP DIP 475.0000 U3,4.00000 70.14000 1.6040 .720n '.7Gasa 1311000.0000n 1.06210 09,NOn 77252.0000 .0962 .0200 .05304. 1.21220 .46914 062.11-300n WICK GIN ELM W2 .00294 275.00000 916.020On .21764 .3093n CLAST W3 tt97n REAR W STD DEw w ELAM' w 1747 .0,400 .11235.G5616 1.14310 1.43750 1.70360 3*7.11000 .0SGS, 5301.1400 1010000 1320 .15501 .11177 Variable descri tions: 1. Pupil (unweighted): 2. Revenues: 3. Wealth: 4. Districts: Average Daily Attendance (ADA). Local and state revenues less capital expenditures. .110. .1111. Governor's Office equalized value in 1975 per 1975-76 ADA. All. 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 41 181 TABLE STATE YEAR VI-13 $17,MBEi OF DISTRICTS TEXAS NUMBE6 OF PUPILS 1975 DISTRICT TYPE MEASURES OF MEAN. ECUALITY. AND FISCAL NEUTRALITY aft. 3 N. 5. 6. MEAN EXP RANGE REs RANGE FED R R REL MN DEV PERM VAR MN& AO% S. 9. 10. COEF VAR STO DEV LGS GINI 11. 12. 13. 14. 19. 16. 17, 18, 19. 20. 21. 31,11 CORR DISTRICT UNWEISWTED PUPIL 37917 19070 .17744 .78572 98072.00000 403700.0000n 1.61480 .79800 .2773A ,6634S 1.56130 .93191 .57449 1053.00000 .00127 275,08000 916,8200o .32147 29961 1918a .55300 .14784 .45485 1.42530 1.49140 1.87810 374.25000 .02505 93.52700 99.61300 .12753 .13344 .11829 16804 Variable descriptions: See Table VI-12 ANALYSIS 2,802Sn 174.1.4000n SLOPE w SLOPE w2 SLOPE w3 EXP DIF WICK GINI MEAN 4 STO DEV W ELAST w ELAST w2 ELAsT w3 oF 1645.30000 68491.00000 878.16000 1.90840 1336.00000 65691.00000 7 OR AM. 2536472 NUM8E6 OF WEIGNTED PUPILS 1 uNI; 10 2. 1090 (Texas, 1974). MM. 22) WEIGWTED PUPIL 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 000000 0.00000 000000000000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 182 TABLE VI ,-14 STATE - FLORIDA* UNIT OF ANALYSIS - DIST%ICT, UNWEIGHTED PUPIL DISTRICT TYPE - ALL Measure of Equality and Wealth Neutrality Change.from 1973 to 1975 Change from 1972 to 1975 UNWEIGHTED UNWEIGHTED P P A. EQUALITY 1. Range MORE Equal MORE Equal MORE Equal MORE Equal 2. Restricted Range LESS LESS MORE MORE " 3. Federal Range Ratio LESS MORE MORE MORE " 4. Relative Mean Deviation LESS MORE MORETM MORE 5. Permissible Variance MORE mag MORE MORE 6. Variance LESS -Lass MORE 7. Coefficient of Variation MORE MORE MORE MORE 8. Standard Deviation of Logarithms MORE " MORE MORE MORE " Gini Coefficient LESS " MORE MORE MORE " 9. B. " MORE " WEALTH NEUTRALITY 1. Simple Correlation LESS Wlth Neut MORE Wlth Neut 2. Slope - W MORE MORE 3. Slope - W, W MORE MORE LESS 4. Slope - W, W2, W3 LESS MORE LESS 5. Expenditure Difference LESS MORE LESS 6. Hickrod Gini LESS 7. Elasticity - W LESS MORE a. Elasticity LESS MORE 9. Elasticity - W, W2, W3 LESS MORE 2 W2 11 N N N LESS Wlth Neut LESS Wlth Me LESS MORE MORE 0,3RE N N MORE MORE " MORE LESS " LESS MORE LESS LESS *Capital expenditures deducted from state and local revenues. 221 N " MORE N 183 TABLE VI-15 STATE - NEW MEXICO* UNIT OF ANALYSIS - DISTRICT DISTRICT TYPE% ALL Changes from: Measure of Equality and Wealth Neutrality EQUALITY A. Range LESS Equal MORE " MORE Equal 2. Restricted Range LESS LESS " LESS " Federal Range Ratio LESS LESS " LESS " 3. Relative Mean Deviation LESS " LESS " LESS " 4. Permissible Variance LESS " LESS " LESS " 5. Variance LESS LESS " LESS " 6. Coefficient of Variation LESS " MORE " LESS " 7. 8. Standard Deviation of Logarithms LESS " LESS " MORE p Gini Coefficient LESS 9. . IP - - . LESS " p . LESS " 40 B. II I/ WEALIW NEUTRALITY 1. Simple Correlation MORE Wlth Neut LESS Wlth Neut MORE Wlth Niut 2. Slope - W MORE " " MORE " " MORE 3. Slope - W, W MORE " " MORE " " MORE 4. Slope - W, W2, W3 MORE " " LESS " " LESS " 5. Expenditure Difference LESS " " LESS " " LESS " 6. Hickrad Gini 7. Elasticity - W 8. Elasticity -W, 9. Elasticity - W. W 2 " " . W2 2 , W3 MORE " " MORE " " MORE " MORE " " LESS " " MORE " MORE " " LESS " " LESS " *Capital expenditures deducted from state and local revenues. 2 " 0 184 TABLE VI-16 STATE - NEW MEXICO* UNIT OF ANALYSIS - UNWEIGHTED PUPIL DISTRICT TYPE - ALL Changes frail: Measure of Equal and Wealth Neutrality .WIM VI40 A. SOI.W ....,, VFW .er,III EQUALITY 1. Range LESS Equal MORE Equal MORE Equal 2. Restricted Range. LESS m LESS " LESS 3. Federal Range Ratio LESS " LESS " LESS Relative Mean Deviation LESS N. MORE N 4. MORE 5. Permissible Variance LESS " LESS " LESS. " 6. Variance LESS " LESS " LESS " 7. Coefficient of Variation LESS " LESS " 8. Standard Deviation of Logarithms LESS " LESS " Gini Coefficient LESS 9. . OWIVW VP- B. . . . . MORE is MORE " . LESS " MORE " " WEALTH NEUTRALITY 1. Simple Correlation MORE Wlth,Neut LESS Wlth Neut MORE Wlth Neut 2. Slope - W MORE " " MORE MORE Pa 3. Slope - W, W ** MORE " " *ME MORE is " Slope LESS " 11 MORE LESS N N 4. LESS " " MORE LESS " ,5. W W2, W3** Expenditure Difference** " " " N m ii " . 6. Hickrod Gini 7. Elasticity - W MORE " " MORE " " MORE 8: Elasticity -W, W2 ** MORE " " MORE " " ,MORE 9. Elasticity - W, W LESS " H MORE " is LESS 2 , 3** WI *Capital expenditures deducted.from state and local revenues. **Negative wealth neutrality measures evaluated as positive values; i.e. more negative is not more wealth neutral. 2')3 N N "- " " ' 185 VI-17 TABLE STATE - TEXAS* UNIT OF ANALYSIS -.DISTRICT, UNWEIGHTED PUPIL DISTRICT TYPE - ALL Change from 1974 to 1975 Measure of Equality and Wealth Neutrality EQUALITY A. 41 41P UNWEIGHTED PUPIL ISTRICT 1. Range LESS Equal LESS Equal 2. Restritted Range LESS LESS 3. Federal.Range Ratio MORE MORE 4. Relative Mean Deviation MORE MORE 5. Permissible Variance MORE MORE 6. Variance LESS 7. Coefficient of Variation LESS MORE 8. Standard Deviation of Logarithms MORE LESS 9. Gini Coefficient MORE LESS " MORE 11 I. 11 11 11 11 11 11 40 B. 40 41 411 WEALTH NEUTRALITY 1. Simple Correlation MORE Wlth Neut 2. Slope - W LESS 3. Slope - W, W 4. Slope - W, W2, W3 LESS 5. Expenditure Difference LESS 6. Hickrod Gini MORE 2 MORE SI 11 LESS II 11 LESS 11 11 LESS 11 LESS 11 NORE 7. Elasticity 8. Elasticity -W, W2 9. Elasticity - W, W2, W3 11 MORE 11 MORE 11 11 *Capital expenditures deducted from state and-local revenues. 22,1 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 'MORE LESS W MORE Wlth Neut MORE 11 11 MORE 11 11 lb 186 For the unweighted pupil unit of anlaysis 26 of the 54 or 48% of the equality variables in the six-intertanporal ccaparisons are reversed for one revenue variable compured to the ether. The distribution of the differences between the measures among the six intertemporal comparisons are shown in,Table VI-18. There are also widespread differences for the wealth neutrality measures.. Since the Hickrod Gini %%snot computed in all instances, there are somewhat less than 54 comparisons for each unitif analysis. For the district,unit of analysis, the conclusions for the wealth neutrality measures are reversed in -20 of the 51 or 39% of the cases and for the unweighted pupil unit of analysis the conclesions are different in 14 of 49 or 29% of the cases. Again, the distribution of the differences anong the six Antertemporal comparisonS*Qt, displayed in Table VI-18. Capital expenditures are, by their nature, quite lumpy and bound to differ considerably across districts, so that in soma ways this ii not the most appropriate sensitivity analysis for the revenue, variable. Nevertheless, the extent of the reversals are such that we could conjecture that the inclusion of categoricals or Federal revenues could Aake a.difference when a state is being evaluated over time. Obviously, it has been shown that particular attention should be paid to the treatment of capital expenditures. For New Jersey, the alternative revenue variable is different from the one used for Florida, New Mexico, and Texas. In the previous analyses in this report,'the revenue variable for New Jersey was local and state revenues excluding revenues for debt service and capital. In this part, local and state. - revenues including revenues for debt service and capital are analyzed in New Jersey over time and the results for this alternative revenue variable are compared with the results for the local and state revenues excluding revenues 187 TABLE VI-18 NUMBER OF EQUALITY AND WEALTH NEUTRALITY MEASURES THAT ARE DIFFERENT, OVERTIME, FOR ALTERNATIVE REVENUE VARIABLES Florida 72 to 75 Florida 73 to 75 NM 72 to 75 NM NM 73 to 75 74 to 75 Texas 74 to 75 TOTAL Equality Measures. District Unit of Analysis -4/9 1/9 1/9 6/9 7/9 2/9 21/54 6/9 4/9 5/9 6/9 4/9 1/9 26154. District Unit of Analysis 5/9 6/9 0/8 4/8 3/8 2/9 20/51 Unwt Pupil unii of Analysis 1/8 3/8 0/8 5/8 3/8 2/9 14/49 Unwt Pupil Unit of Analysis Wealth Neutrality Measures 226 188 for debt-service- and-capital,-that were analyzed earlier in the report. equality and wealth neutrality for 1974-75, 1975-76, 1976-77 The and 1977-78 with local and state'revenues including revenues for debt seryice and capital as the dependent variable are presented in Tables VI -13- through VI-22. The intertem - poral Comparisons for these data are displayed in Tables VI-23 and VI.24, for_ the district and unweighted pupil units of analysis, respectively!. Since the differences between the two revenue variables are less drastic than,for Florida, New Mexico, and Texas, fewer differences, or reversed measures,. in the three intertemporal comparisons might be expectedtilhen the results in Tables VI-23 and VI-24 are compared to those in Tables IV-24 and IV-25 fewer reversed conclusions do occur. For the 27 equality measures In the three intertemporal comparisons where the district is the unit of analysis only 2 of the 27 or 7% of the cases are reversed; for the unweighted pupil unit of analysis there are different conclusions in 4 of the 27 or 15% of the cases. These figures are somewhat lower than for the three states examined earlier. For the wealth neutrality .seasures there are differences between the conclusions when revenues for debt service and capital are imluded and excluded- in 2 of the 27 or 7% of the cases for the district as the unit of analysis and in 8 of the 25 or 32% of the cases when the vnweighted pupil is the unit of analysis. These figures are still generally lower than was observed for Florida, New Mexico, and Texas but these ...re some differences nonetheless.3 The analysis in this part has demonstrated quite clearly that attention must be paid to the dependent variable in equity analysis. The conclusions in a state over time can change for the equality and wealth neutrality measures examined in this report when different revenue variables are utilized. Although 3Recall that capital expenditures will probably be more lumpy than local and state revenues for debt service and capital. 189 TABLE VT-19 STATE mumbEq OF.DISTRICTS .. 578 M NUMBER OF PuPILS,..- 1449180 1,74 YEAR NUMWO oF WEIGHTED PUPILS .1762596 : DISTRICT TYPE .. I UNIT MEASURELOP MEAN, EQUALITY. AND FISCAL NEUTRALITY OM. So MEAN EXP RANGE RES RANGE FED R R REL MN DEV PERM VAR 70 VhR 1. 20 3 4. S. 4P 8. 9. 10, COEF VAR STO DEV LOS 11. 12. 13. 14o 15. 16, 17. 18, 19. 20. 21, SIM CORR SLOPE w SLOPE w2 SLOPE W3 EXP D/F HICK GIN/ MEAN W STD DEV w ELAST W 6INI LAST W2 ELAST W3 IF ANALYSIS UNWEIOHTEQ PUPIL DISTRICT 1497,70000 4340.80000 1510.90000 4340,80000 1136.10000 1.11440 ' 927.08000 .83540 15530 .18472 .84656 151890.00000 .25794 .25580 0.8500 .86300 91379.00000 .20184 .21580 .11000 .42410 3.82050 4.90790 4,99840 F35,49000 0.00000 60.47000 33.56000 .15425 ,19816 .20181 35848 2.30110 4.51900 4.96960 657.21000 .07500 76.60400 66.12300 011661 .22912 .25196 WEIGHTED PUPIL 1231.50000 3617,30000 901000U0 1.47848 .18211 046735 79868.00000 .22949- .45570 02700 060870 5,66340 7..35640 7.656t0 4615007000 .09100 49:72200 30,37300 .22846 ,29702 .30912 Variable descriptions: 1. a. b. 2. Pupils (unweighted): The number of children who reside in the school district and we enrolled on September 30 in public schooli-iiTher in their own district or in a district to which the school board pays tuition. This count does not include students sent to county vocational schools. Pupils (weighted): The sum of unweighted pupils plus .75 for each AFDC student.. RevenuesvSum of locally-raised revenues for operating expenditures and state aid for operating expenditures. Locally-raised revenues.for capital and debt expenditures are included. Annual Aualized Property Valuation. 3. Wealth: 4. Districts: Includes all districts with resident pupils but excludes county vocational school districts, county special services district, and three school districts with extraordinarily high property wealth and negligible student counts (Teterboro Boro, Rockleigh, and Stone Harbor Boro). 01114 2.2s TABLE . mUmsE,OF DISTRICTS -- STATE - N J Num0E, OF fraiL3 1971 YEAR 190 1,1-20 DISTRICT TYPE MEASURES OF REAM, EQUALITY, AND FISCAL NEUTRALITY 4. 5. 6. 7. 8, 9. 10, 11. 12. 13. 14, 15. 1, 17. 18, 19, 20, 21, IF 1615.70000 2560.40000 1047.00000 1.09720 1613.20000 2460.40000' 1,0200000 .90871 .15219 .17691 COEF VAR STD CIEV LGS GIN/ SIM CORR SLOpE W SLOPE W2 SLOPE W3 EXP 0/F HICK GIN/ MEAN W GTO DEV w ELAST W ELAST W2 ANALYSIS 'UNWEIGHTED PUPIL oISTRIET MEAN EXP RANGE RES RANGE FED R R REL MN DEV PERM VAR VAR el. 1433045 mumfa, oF WEIGHTED PUPILL-.. 1509071 1 UNIT 1. 2, 3. 575 04650 ..86752 106990.00000 .20245 .23020 140520.00000 423237 .18710 .12600' 10900 44070 .34550 1.71500 3.97350 4,75050 723.39000 .06700 85.90000 76,13900 .09118 .21125 .25256 ELA07. W3 1,79890 5.06805 5.19520 594.52000 .05600 66.65300 17,97000 ° .25735 .21077 .21550 WEIGHTED PUPIL 1531.9oono 2661,60000 1074.70000 1.01570 .15713 ,86725 101720,00000 ..20819 .24320 .12200 .4836g .4.19150 5.62630 5.00750 427.45001i 06600 63.45500 36,80100 .17570 ,23317 .24057 Variable descri tions: 1. a. b. Pupils (unweighted): See Table VI-19 (New Jersey, 1974). Unweighted pupils plus weighted pupils as per weightings from Sec. 10A: 7A-20 of the Public School Education At of 1975 . Pupils (weighted): See Table VI-19 2. Revnnues: 3. Wealth: 4. Districts: See Table See Table VI-19 VI-19 (New Jersey, 1974). (New Jersey, 1214). (New Jerszy, 1974). TABLE VI-21' touilof.",. OF DISTRIcTS -- YEAR .-- 197A NUMbER OF PUPILS 1401146 DISTRIET TYpE.... 1 mumbER oF WEIGHTED PUPIL5---- 1492660 STATE 0 AN. 191 N J 576 11. UNIT MEASURES OF MEAN, EQUALITY, AND FISCAL NEUTRALITY 1. 2, 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 1797.60000 5050.80000 1158.10000 .16322 .85808 162990.00000.22459 .13180 .11600 .31470 1.42120 3.29210 3.96170 708.24000 005600 94.93100 PERM VAR vAR COEF VAR 9... SYD.DEVA_GS 10*% GINI 114;1S/M CORR 120:_SLOPE w SLOPE W2 13* SLOPE 143 ExP DIF HICK GIN/ MEAN w STD nEV w ELAsT W ELAST W2 ELAsT w3 WEIGHTED PUPIL 1645.10000 5052.20000. 1074.0000.0 91224 90798 .15566 .14574 87062 86922. 106590,00000 102830.1.10000 18638 t9502 .10110 .17470 .10300 .54610 4.33140 5,87810 6.22810 503.75000 .07200 68,23000 40.44200 .17966 .24379 .25831 . .10200. .50920 3.13950 5.35690 5.64090 476.34000 .06400 72.68600 42.22200 .16339 .22218 .23396 89.3850.0 :07505 ,17386 .20922 . . 1752.50000* 5n50,80000 1120.60000 0540 REL MN .0Eif ANALYST -S UNWEIGHTED pupIL DISTRICT MEAN EXP RAPGE RES RANGE FED R R et 14. 15. 16. 17, 18. 19. 20. 21. IF . Variable descriptions: See Table VI-19 1. a. 'Pupils (unweighted): b..Pupils (weighted): 2. Revenues: See Table:VI-20 See Table V1-19 Wealth: 4. Districts: See Table (New Jersey,.T975). (New Jersey, 1974). See Tablet V1-19 3. (New Jersey, 1974). (New Jersey, 1974). V1-19 ,(New Jersey, 1974). 4 192 TABLE .1//..22 YEAR OF DISTRICTS --575 NUMSE j STATE .. NUMBER OF PUPILS --1359189 1977 VINI NUMBER OF WEIGHTED PUPILS 0.. DISTRICT TypE .. 1 ,F U goo MEASURES OF,MEAM. EQUALITY. AND FISCAL NEUTRALITY 1. 2, 3, 4, 5. 6, IMP 7. 8, 5. 10, 11. 12. 13. 14, 15. 16, 17. le, 19, 20, 41. .92744' .15957 .86184 204520.00000 VAR COEF VAR UNWEIGHTED PUPIL PISTRICT 1974.20000 6084.40000 1285.90000 MEAN EXP RANGE RE$ RANGE FED R R REL MN DEV PERM VAR GINI SIM CORR sLOpE w SLOPE W2 SLOPE W3 EXP DIF H/CK GINT MEAN w GyO 0EV w ELAST W ELAST w2 ELAS7 W3 1414.40000 6n84.40000 1179.70000 84340 14914 .17690 .86755 147410.00000 .20028 .15860 .1500 40700 .37250 1.72150 4.00630 4.56020 .47710 3.87980 4.80810 4.46010 '72.36000 .06100 79.26600 47,14500 .16064 .19908 .18467 22908 STD DEV 1..GS ANALYSIS- 891.94000 06200 10451000 97,79700 .09113 .21209 24141 . Variable descriptions: 1. Pupils (onweighted): 2. Revenues: 3. Wealth: 4. Districts: See Table See Table (New Jersey, 1974). (New Jersey, 1974). See Table VI-19 See Table VI-19 VI-19 (New Jersey, 1974). VI-10 (New Jersey, 1974). WEIGHTED PUPIL 0,00000 0,00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0,00000 0,00000 0.00000 0.00000 '0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0,00000 0.00000 0,00000 0.00000 0,00000 0,00000 140000 0.00000 , 193 VI-23 TABLE STATE - NEW JERSEY* UNIT OF ANALYSIS - DISTRICT DISTRICT TYPE - ALL Changes from: Measure of Equality and.Wealth Neutralfty .IIT IVY .WIW WV/ ...VII ...II w EQUALITY A. IP IP 1. Range LESS Equal Restricted Range LESS H 2. 3. Federal Range Ratio MORE 4. Relative Mean Deviation WIRE 5. Permissible Variance 6. Variance 7. Coefficient of Variation LESS Equal LESS Equal LESS " LESS " " MORE " LESS " " MORE " MORE " H MORE 11 MORE " LESS " LESS " LESS " MORE " LESS " LESS " , MORE . ' . . 8.. 9. B. III Standard Deviation of Logarithms MORE Gini Coefficient MORE " II MORE " LESS " MORE '" MORE " - WEALTH NEUTRALITY 1. Simple Correlation MORE With Neut LESS Wlth Neut LESS Wlth Neut 2. Slope - W MORE 11 " LESS " " LESS 3. Slope - W, W MORE " " LESS " " LESS " N II II Slope - W, W2, W3 moRE 4. MORE " LESS " m Expenditure Difference. LESS " LESS " LESS " N 5. II Hickrod Gini MORE " moRE " LESS " N 6. Elasticity - W MORE " " MORE " " 7. LESS Elasticity -W, W2 MORE " " LESS " " LESS 8. Elasticity - W. W MORE " " MORE " " 03_ LESS " - II " " , t II 2 3 . W *Locally raised revenues for debt service and capital included in revenues. -232 m " N 194 TABLE STATE - VI-24 NEW JERSEY* UNIT OF ANALYSIS -UNWEIGHTED PUPIL DISTRICT TYPE - ALL Changes from: Measure of Equality and Wealth Neutrality A. .--. -- .--- ---- EQUALITY , 1. Range LESS Equal LESS Equal LESS Equal 2. lastricted Range LESS MORE " LESS " 3. Federal Range Ratio LESS " MORE " MORE " 4. Relative Mean DeviatiOn LESS " LESS MORE " 5. Permissible Variance MORE " MORE " LESS " 6. Variance. LESS LESS " LESS 7. Coefficient of Variation, MORE is 8. Standard Deviation of Logarithms MORE 1' MORE " LESS MORE w 'MORE " LESS 9. B. Gini Coefficient ' MORE LESS " N. WEALTH NEUTRALITY 1. Simple Correlation LESS Wlth Neut LESS Wlth Neut MORE Wlth Neut 2. Slope - W LESS " LESS NN MORE " " 3. Slope - W, W2 MORE " " .MORE " MORE " " MORE " " MORE " MORE " LESS " n LESS " LESS. M " MORE " " M 4. .Slope - W, W2, W 5: Expenditure Difference 6. Hickrod Gini LESS . " N " 7. Elasticity - W LESS " " LESS " " MORE " 8. Elasticity -W, W2 LESS " " MORE is " MORE M 9. Elasticity - W, W MORE " " MORE " " MORE is , W3 *Localty raised revenues for debt service and capital included' in revenues. 233 " ' 195 alternatives such as total revenues or current operating expenditures or local plus general state aid were not utilized in this sensitivity analysis, the results do tend to indicate that the conclusions drawn from an analysis of equality or wealth neutrality of a state over time is highly dependent on the particular dependent variable utilized. C. New York City - Separate Analyses of Big Cities The analysis of school finance in general, and educational equity in particular, in certain states limy be more difficult due to the existent of one or two large cities that contain a significant portion of the pupils in a state. Large cities can pose particular problems for several reasons.' First, educational needs and production may be so different in large cities that the educational process should not be compared with the process in the rest of the state.' implicitly or explicitly Second, certain large cities may be financed either out of formula" due to educational differences or political 'demands. Third since many analyses of school finance utilize district level data, neither the district nor,pupil units of analysis are entirely satisfactory'when one or two large cities comprise a significant part of the state. If district level of analysis is utilized, the big city "counts" the same as all other districts in the state and this is not representative ot reality. If the pupil unit of anlaysis is employed it appears as though the state has a large number of pupils at the spending level of the city and the "mixture" of the big city and the rest of the state, in the data sense, may produce statistical averaging that is not appropriate. One way out of this dilemma is to analyze the data for m state With and without the big cities, a practice that is common among school finance researchers. 21' 196 Through this procedure the equity in the state can be compared to the equity in the state without the big city in order to more accurately present the situation in the state. Ideally this analysis should be supplemented with analyses that probe within the city's borders; many of the larger cities serve more pupils than many of the smaller states. .As an example, data have 'been presented for New York State with and with-. out New York City and the equality and wealth neutrality data for New York State without New York City are presented in Table .VI -25. This tan be compared with New York-State (with New York City) which is presented in Appendix B, Table B-64. It is only meaningful to compare the pupil.units of analysis since differences would noi be expected with the districtunit of analysis. In this particular case the changes are not verY dramatic. For the most part, New York State appears to be somewhat niore equal when New York City is included in the unweighted and weighted pupil units of analysis. For wealth neutrality, it is not clearcut whether New York Is more wealth neutral with or Without New York.City in the data base. Thit analysis is net meant tovroduce any conclusions about the particular effects of eicluding large Cities frdn an assessment-of equality' and wealth' neutrality. The reiults, presented here ire spectfic to New York State in 1975. In fact, in certain states it might le expected that the differences could be qUite dramatic. The intention of this.discussion is to show that certain states may be though of in two different ways; both-including the large cities in the state and excluding them. Analysis of equality and wealth neutrality in a state may be More sensitive if it is performed both ways. TABLc STATE YEAR N I 1975 NUMBER OF PUP/L0 RLA3URES OF MEAN, EQUALITY, ANO FISCAL NEUTRALITY -6. 7, 8. 9. 10. 11. 12, 13,- 1*. 15, 16. 17, 16. 15, 20. 21. ALAN EXP RANGE RES RANGE FLO R R. ALL MN OEV pEmm vAR VAR COEF VAR STO OEV LOS SIMI SIR CORR ALOPE'w SLOPE M2 SLOPE Os VW DIP MaCK.SINT MEAN 4 270 OEV 61' ELAST M ELAST M2 ELmsr MS 704 2129187 NUMBER OF WEIGHTED PUPILS 1 UNIT 1. 2, 3, 4. 5. 197 ROMER OF OISTRICIS WITHOUT NYC DISTRICT TYpE VI-25 oF DISTRICT 2064060000 7255.50000 2276,50000 1.56370 A45742 .50617 046220.00000 30957 .30580 .17100 .80650 9,36760 1400100 15.25300 2111.40000 .14500 60.05000 65.21200 2226531 ANALL YS 1 UNWEIGHTE0 PUPIL 2055.60000 7p05,90000 1907,00000 1.27440 .20022 ,86696 577520.00000 .29256 ..27440 .14000 78670 WILIGHTECI rum: -, 2007.00000 3922.90000 1099,110000 1.31170 21203 04768 357050.00000 .25762 .26270 .14000 71,10 15.38300 17017700 18.51000 1143.10000 .11500 12.6,000 . 1,40500 . 15.52000 18.05700 16.46100 1154.00000 A12000 50.88709 30.50500 '4127246 '4516047 ,31,411 .40723 014165 .48165 ,443 64 46464 .,46031 -Variable descriptions: 1. AMR, a. Pupils (unweighted): The sum of pupils in Average Daily Attendance for grades 1-12 plus 1/2 the pupils in kindergarten. This is a district count. b. Pupils (weighted):' The total aidable Pupil Units (TAPU) in the state which is made up of 13 separate categories of students. Weightings are applied for special education needs (students scoring low in the State proficiency, exam), full day kindergarten and grades 1-6, grades 7-12, 1/2 day kindergarten, sumrner school, and evening school. Pupils in classes for the severely ON. handicapped are excluded; students in occupational classes receive only their secondary weight. /OW 2. Revenues: The sum of total local levies, total operating aid paid, transportation and, reorganization incentive aid, severely handicaPped aid (to the Big 5) and occupational education aid (to the Big 5). MNI 3. Wealth: 4. Districts: Only school districts having at least 8 professional staff or more are Full Value of Taxable Real property for 1974 (as equalized by the State). included in the analyses EXCEPT NEW YORK CITY IS EXCLUDED INTENTIONALLY. Corning has been omitted because the state data tapes contained erroneous information. 236 198 D. Observationon Multiple District Types The purpose of these brief comments is to reinforce the point that states comprised of districts that serve different grade levels, multiple district types, Should be analyzed in such a way that these multiple district types are taken into account. There may be a proceudre to actually manipulate the data in a state with multiple district types in order to simulate a single district type throughout the state but this is not a simple procedure and is rarely utilized. However due 'to the nature of most equity measures, meaningful analyses might not be produced if the equal ityor wealth neutrality meausres are computed separately and then averaged. This i so because the equality or wealth neutrality of a group of districts is not th same thing as the sum of the equality or wealth \ neutrality measures. Furthermore, the examination,of states with multiple district types cannot be limited to K-12 (Unit) districts alone since the .equality or wealth neutrality of a state may be significantly influenced by Secondary or Elementary districts. When states are being examined over time, the most methodologically sound procedure appears to be the separate examination of each district type within a state as was done for California, Illinois of this report. and Missouri*, in Sections III and IV For interstate comparisons a simple solution is not at hand so that whatever assumptions are utilized should be clearly spelled out. Given the compleiity of the problem, some sensitivity analysts is probably in order. 0 2" 199 Conclusions VII.' This report.has covered much ground but it is fair to say that many of the questions of equity measurement have not yet been answered. In this section the conclusions that follow most directly from the report itself are discussed first. Throughout this report, a number of additional questions were raised and th.se are summarized in the second part of this section. Finally, there are a number of issues that are not dealt with in this report and these are briefly discussed in the final part of this section. A. Findings of this Methodological Assessment This study has addressed the questions of whether a number of equality and wealth heutrality measures agree, within the respective groups, when used' to assess one state over time or to compare a number of states at one point in time. The basic analyses in this study show that for four assessments; equality in a state over time, wealth neutrality in a state over time, equality across states, and wealth neutrality across states, there is far from perfect agreement among the various measures and between units of analysis. But these findings result from a focus on a particular dependent variable, independent variable, pupil measure, two units of analysis, and a specific set of equality and wealth neutrality measures. Furthermore, the level of comparability for the variables limits the conclusions to measurement methodology and not to specific states. First the specific variables and measures that art utilized are reviewed, then the findings are summarized. 233 200 For the dependent variable, independent'variable and pupil measure, the , definitions discussed here are the preferred-measures. Section II As explained in the preferred measures are not always available. The dependent variable examined in this study is a revenue based measure that includes all local plus state revenues except local and state revenues for debt service , and capital are excluded. The independent variable for the wealth.neutrality measures is assessed value of property equalized at the state-wide level. Average daily membership, rather than attendance, is the preferred pupil definition. Two units of analysis, the dittrict and the unweighted pupil are used throughout the entire assessment. Finally, a set of nine equality measures and nine wealth neutrality measures are used in this study. equality measures include the following: range ratio The range, restricted range, Federal relative meaa deviation, permissible variance, variance, coefficient of variation, standard deviation of logarithms, and Gini coefficient. The wealth neutrality measures examined include a simple Correlation measure,.three slope measures based on regressions with different functional forms, three .elasticlty measures based on the three slopes, the Hickrod Gini, and a measure based on predictions from a regression. Finally, it should be reemphasized that the study utilized data from 29 states (see Table I-1) .aliheugh data incomparabilities reduced the number to around 20 states in eaCh of the four major assessments carried out._ 1. Equality Measures Over Time There is not unmainous agreement when all nine equality measures are used simultaneously, for either unit of analysis, to assess whether a state has become more or less equal over time. For either unit of analysis between 14% and 29% of the intertmnporal comparisons show complete agreement for alf nine 201 measures. . Furthermore, the number of intertemporal comparisons that show complete agreement is reduced below these figures if both units of anali)sis, rather than one or the other, are utilized. However; Figure II-1 displayed a number of properties of the nine equality measures where these properties can be vitwed as value judgments toplicitly taken into account by the measures. The analysis in Section III showed that if the set of nine equality measures is reduced to a specific subset of three or four by accepting certain value judgments and rejecting others, then agreement among this subset of equality measures occurs in close to 90% of the intertemporal comparisons when either unit of analys'L is Agreement among the subset of equality measures is around 70% if utilized. the measures are used for both units of analysis simultaneously. Thus, the basic question* whether there is agreement among all the equality meaSures over:time, is answered no with the tnportant caveat that a subset of measures can be formed to produce so1ittgatia1 agreement bUfthis involves accepting certain value judgments. However, there is substantial agreement among the coefficient of variation, standard deviation of logarithms Gini coefficient, and relative mean deviation when used over time. 2. Wealth Neutrality Measures Over Time The conclusions for the wealth neutrality measures when used to assess whether a state has become more or less wealth neutral over time roughly parallel those for the equality measures. If all nine wealth neutrality measures are utilized simultaneously for either unit of analysis, then all wealth neutrality measuresagree in roughly 30% of the intertemporal comparisons; complete agreement for both units of analysis used simultaneously for all nine measures is less than 20%. But again, certain value judgments are built into these wealth neutrality measures and 24 202 these were illustrated in Figure II-2. If specific value judgMents are accepted and others rejected,a subset of wealth neutrality measures can be formed. Specifically, if the three elasticity measures are used to assess the wealth neutrality in a state over time, agreement among all three measures using either unit of analysis occurs in between 60% and 70% of the intertemporal comptrisons. The results dictate that certain choices must be made before significant agreement can be obtained among the welath neutraity measures. Hopefully, these choices will be made based on a particular set of value judgments rather than empirical convenience. 3. Equality Measures in Interstate Comparisons Interstate comparisons rtme affected by.the selection of equality.measures and Units of analysis. That is, the equality measures and units of analysis' do make a difference'when a number of states are assessed and compared at one point-in time. -However, the extent of the agreement depends to a certain degree on the criteria used to define agreement. For example, using the unweighted pupil unit of analysis', the Spearman rank correlations among the rankings yielded by all pairs of the nine equality measures are statistically significant, although they range from .66 to .99, However, for the same pairs of measures, the number of unambiguous rankings is one, the miaimum numbr, in half of the 36 cases. Therefore, the assessment of agreement depends upon the criteria of agreement.- At the same time, regardless of,the criteria used to measure agreement, there is relatively more agreement among certain subsets of the nine equality measures: For either unit of analysis, there is relatively more agreement among the coefficient of variation, standard deviation of logarithms, Gini 203 coefficient, rel ative mean deviation, and Federal range ratio than among any other subset of five equality measures. Therefore, given the sensitivity of individuals and groups to interstate comparisons, it is probably correct to say that intertemporal cOmparisons are affected by both the choice of the equality measure and the unit of -analysis., Furthermore, there is more agreement among certain measures that embody some common value judgments. 4. Wealth Neutrality Measures In Interstate Comparisons The conclusions for the wealth neutrality measures used in interstate comparisons are limited to seven specific measures that can be viewed as three groups: the correlation, three slope and three elasticity measures. For these seven wealth neutrality measures the conclusions are rather straightforward. Using either the rank correlation or the.unambiguous ranking criteria for agreement there are considerable contradictions among the three groups of measures but substantial agreement among the three slope measures and among the three elasticity measures. Therefore, interstate rankings of wealth neutrality will differ depending upon the type of wealth neutrality measure chosen. To sum up, in general the answer to all four questions is no, do not agree in any case. jal, measures However, the selection of a subset of measures vell make comparisons over time and across states more discriminating or less 40 ambiguous. The critical question then becomes whether there is sufficient agreement on the value judgments so that specific.measures and units of analysis can be selected. 40 204 B. Additional Questions Raised During the Methodological Assesiment During the course of thts assessment a umber of questions wire raised that require analyses that go beyond the assessment described above. For4 . couple of these questions some preliminary sensitivity analyses were performed in Section VI of.the report and, for the most part, these analyses indicate , that'the questions are important. First, there is the question of the dependent Variable. Plausible alternatives to the revenue viriable used in this analysis include current operating eXpenditures, with or without adjustments, loca/ revenues plus state general aid, and total revenues. It'is entirely possible that the assessment of equality and wealth neutrality over time oK Across states can appear very different depending upon the dependent variable utilized. Furthermore, the question-of whether the dependent variable should be'price adjusted should be considered.. Also, the treatment of pensions, social securilty, and other benefits raises questions related to the choice of the deperent variable. Although data on the. above plausible alternatives and speci ic problems. were not analyzed in.Section VI, the analysis focused on alternative: .treatmehts of capital and debt service and showed.certain differences when equality.and wealt), neutrality are used in a state, over ttme. Thi3 analYsis points out that the dependent variable question could potontiallY be critical from in empirical viewpoint.. Second, the weighted pupil unit of analysis appears to be a reasonable unit of analysis under certain conditions. Furthermore, the limited examples presented in Section VI indicate that the weighted and unweighted pupil units of analysis can yield different results when equality and wealth neutrality are assessed over time in a particular state. The questions, then, are whether 205 the weighted pupil unit of analysis should be used=and.whether the differences 0: observed in the limited senlitivity analysii are generalizable. Third, a question can be raised about the measurement of equality and , wealth neutrality in states that contain one or several large cities. An. argument was presented in Section VI that a reasonable'procedure is to - examine states with,and Without the large cities so that the effect on the ,state of the large cities can be more effectively isolat d . may be preferable but when distAct level data are avai Other approaches ble, the existence of large cities raises serious question. Fourth,, there are the questions,of which pupil measure.to use'and whether the choice makes a difference when either intertemporal or interstate comparisons are carried out. The two-choices are attendance and membership-based measures but data were not available to carry out esensiv-lty analysis to compare.the effect the alternative pupil measures on the equality and wealth neutrality measUres. Finally, questions regarding the quality of property value assessment procedures including the methodology utilized in state-wide equalization and their/effect on wealth neutrality measures have been alluded to but not directly addressed. If assessment procedures are faulty in a systematic fashion, a'bias in wealth neutrality measures may result. C. !Stun Not Directly Addressed by this Methodological Assessment A major constraint of this study, which can be translated into an unaddressed issut, is the limiting definition of equity used throughout. The definitions of equity are limitei to two particular classes'of measures and furthermore all possible measures within a class are not (and can not) be considered. 206 The two classes of measures are equality or dispersion measures and ex post measures of "Wealth Neutrality". A third class of measures could be an ex ante measure of wealth neutrality; one that is based on the price paid for educational services and the likely or predicted response to that price rather than on the observed relation between revenues and wealth. Also, there could be a component of equity analysis that focuses on special groups such as educationally and physically handicapped, minorities, or bilingual students to determine whether these groups are treated as'desired, an inequality rather than equality assessment. But even within the two classes of equity measures considered in this report, other measures are possible. For example, equality measures based on 1 utility functions have been introduced in the school finance literature nd these can be viewed from either a children equality or household welfare perspective. Also, the relational wealth neutrality measures used in this report do not include alternative specifications of wealth2 or a constant elasticity specification. Finally, an issue not considered in this report is whether the levels of agreement among the equality and wealth neutrality measures are determined by other, predictable, factors. Is there more disagreement in larger states, states with more districts, states with a relatively low amount of state aid, states that are relatively equal, etc. Now that the contradictions have been documented, the causes of the contradictions remain to be discovered. 1See R. Inman, "Optimal Fiscal Reform of Metropolitan Schools," American Economic Review 68 (1978). and Berne and Stiefel (1978). 2See A. Odder', "Alternative Measures of Schoo'i District Wealth. " Denver ECS (1976). 2- ' A METHODOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT OF EDUCATIONAL EQUALITY AND WEALTH NETURALITY MEASURES by Robert Berne APPENDICES A, B, C A REPORT TO THE SCHOOL FINANCE COOPERATIVE \\ July, 1978 NN Appendix A The definitions utilized in this report were formulated by the Cooperative members in November, 1977 and the final draft of the memorandum that specifies these definitions is contained in Appendix A. An earlier draft of this memorandum (dated January 12,. 1978) was circulated among the Cooperative members and a number of suggested changes were incorporated in this final draft. Complete definitions are set out in Section II of the report. 2I" February 10, 1978 Memorandum To: Participants in the School Finance Cooperative From: Bob Berne Subject: Analysis of the equity of school finance across states. , The purpose of this memo is to set down the various agreements that were reached in Chicago with the subsequent revisions. mentioned in my cover memo, As I if you have any further comments on these, please let me know immediately. In this memo I will discuss the following items: I. II. III. IV. The definitions for the Data and measures to be used in our first cut at interstate equity and equality measures; A format for data reporting; A proposed procedure for the analysis of the.equality and equity measures; A-slightly revised timetable for the calculation of the measures and their subsequent analysis. I would like to state at the outset that my impression of the magnitude of our iritial task is not on the order of "thousands of numbers" for each state-year but instead a somewhat more manageable set of numbers. I. 'AGREED' UPON MEASURES OF EQUITY AND EQUALITY AND DATA DEFINITIONS A. The Measure of Pupils Throughout the discussion below reference will be 2a made to pupils or measures of variables computed on a per-pupil basis. The pupil measures used in the formu- lation of the independent and dependent variables should be the average daily student membership (ADM) of the district. This pupil measure may be unweighted or weighted depending upon the unit of analysis. section G below.) (See If data are n!t available in ADM then the most comparable available measure should be employed and the definition carefUlly explained. In all cases it would be useful if the pupil measure is fully described. B. Measures of Equality It was agreed that the following nine measures of equaliiy will be computed for each distribution: 1. 3. 4. S. 6. 7. 8. 9. Range Restricted Range Federal Range Ratio Relative Mean Deviation Permissible Variance Variance Coefficient of Variation Standard Deviation of Logarithms Gini Coefficient The formula for each of these measures are discussed in Berne, "Equity and Public Education: Conceptual Issues of Measurement" (hereafter referred to as Berne-Equity paper) and the computational conventions discussed in the paper will be followed in our cal.! zulations with one exception. 2b The formula for the standard deviation of logarithms \ should read as follows: 1/2 r, ( Z-logEXPi 5: ' 1E1 P. logEXP. j=1 3 where Z = and ? and Pj are the number of pupils in district i .and j, EXPi and EXPj are the dependent variable'per pupil in district i and j, and N is the total number of districts. When the district is the unit of analysis the formula for the standard deviation of logarithms becomes the following: 2// )1/2 Z-logEXPi) ( 3: j=1 where Z logEXP. N 2C Also the definition of the 5th and the 95th percentile is the number below (above) which five percent of the distribution of values falls. The dependent variable to be used in all the equality measures is discussed in Sections D and G, below. 3 C. Measures of Equity-Wealth Neutrality It was agreed that the following six measures of wealth neutrality will be computed for each distribution: 1. Simple correlation (r) between the dependent variable (EXP) and measure of wealth (W). (See Sections E and F, below, for more complete definitions of EXP and W. In all cases these are measured on an unweighted or weighted per pupil basis.) *2. The slope coefficient (unstdhdardized) from the estimated regression EXP = a + b1W where the slope is b *3. 1. The slope calculated from the estimated regression EXP = a + b1W + b2W2 where the slope is calculated at the mean value of W and equals bl + zbiW. . The slope calculated from the estimated regression EXP = a + b1W + b2W2 + b3W3 where the slope is calculated at the mean value of W and equals bl + 2b 2W + 3b *S. 3 (W)2 The difference between two predicted values of EXP where the prediction equation is EXP = a + biy + b2W 2 + b3W 3 . The values for W are the mean (V) plus and minus one standard deviation of W (SDW). The difference between the two predicted values of EXP (aEXP) then becomes the following: 252 4 LEXP a a + bl(ff + SDW) + b2(7+ SDW)2 + b3(fir + SDW) - (a + bl(W - SDW) + b2(W - SDW)2 + b3(W - SDW)3) a 2b1(&)W) + 4b2(SDW)W 6. + b3(6SDW.W2 + 2SDW3). The bivariate Gini Coefficient (HickrOd Gini) where the variables are EXP and W. (Professor Hickrod has distributed material on this measure to all coOperative members. The material includes a sample program and an explanation.) Do not calculate this measure if the Lorenz Curve "crosses" the 459 line. *Prior to carrying out the calculations for measures #2, 3, 4, and S the wealth measure, W, should be divided by 1102-for ease'of presentation and computation. For comparability it is important that this division be carried out before the measures tre calculated. The division can be made before measures #1 and #6 are calculated since they are unaffected by the division. D. Measures of Central Tentlency In addition to the equality and equity-wealth neutrality measures the mean value of the dependent variable, EXP, and wealth, W should be computed. Also the standard deviation of W should be computed. E. Dependent Variable (EXP) All of the measures described in Sections B, C, and D, above, will be computed for one dependent variable. The agreed upon dependent variable is a revenue based measure that includes all revenues from state and local sources. 2- Where possible revenues for capital projects and debt service should be excluded, with exceptions noted. Where possible revenues for, food service, adult education, 3 community service, and transportation should be included, with exceptions noted. Federal "impact" aid should be excluded from local and state revenues unless state revenues are reduced by the amount of the impact aid; exceptions to this procedure should be.noted. The dependent variable should be computed on a per pupil (ADM) basis in either unweighted or weighted form depending upon the unit of analysis. (See Section G, below.) F. _Measures of Wealth (W) The agreed upon measure of wealth, W, is the state equalized full value of taxable property in each district. In all cases the measure of wealth will be computed on a weighted or unweighted per pupil (ADM) basis. In situations where state equalized full value of taxable property is unavailable, the most appropriate measure should be substituted and explained. G. Unit of Analysis It was agreed that at least two and potent,ially three units of analysis (depending on data availability) would be used.. The two primary units of analysis are the district and the pupil. However, within these two units there are a number of assumptions that must be agreed upon. Note that the use of two or three units of analysis implies that each of the eighteenmeasures discussed in sections B, C, and D, above, will be computed two or three times for each state year. 2:5 1. District as the unit of analysis The inputs for the calculations of the measures using the district as the unit of analysis are, for each district, a measure of the.dependent variable, EXP, on an unweighted per pupil (ADM) basis and a measure of wealth, W, on an unweighted per pupil (ADM') basis. For this set of calculations each district is treated identically. The number of units in the distribution of EXP equals the number of districts in the state. The dependent variable and measure of wealth are defined in parts E and F, respectively. 2. Pupil as the unit of analysis The inputs for the calculations of the measures using the pupil as the unit of analysis, are, for each district, a measure of the dependent variable, EXP, on an unweighted per pupil (ADM) basis, a measure of wealth, W, on an unweighted per pupil (ADM) basis, and a measure of the nuMber of pupils (unweighted ADM's) in the district. For this set of calculations each student is treated identically in the measure. The number of units in the distribution of EXP equals the number of pupils or ADM's in the state. For some of the measures the calculation can be carried out by weighting each district by the number of pupils (ADM's) in the district but this depends to some degree on the statistical package employed. The measures of the dependent variable, wealth, and the pupil count should be the same as that used in the district level of analysis. 3. Weighted pupil as the unit of analysis Some states include a pupil weighting in their Where posible, the measures school district data. discussed in be calculated Sections B, C, and D, above, should using a set of student weightings that are in sc4e way utilized by the state. Since these weightings are likely to be state related, the precise definition of the weighting should be This unit of analysis is discussed in detail. then the same as the pupil itnit described in #2 above, except now the weighted pupil count (weighted ADM) is used (unweighted ADM). in place of the pupil count The inputs for the calculations of the measures using the weighted pupil as the unit of analysis are, for each district, a measure of the dependent variable, EXP, on a weighted per pupil, WADM, basis, a measure of wealth, W, on a weighted per pupil, WADM, basis; and a measure of weighted pupils, WADM's. For this calculation each student is the unit of analysis but the*number of students in each district is now the number of weighted students. Note that if the student weighting that is employed is sensible, then it seems to be appropriate to use weighted students as the denominator cf the independent and dependent variables in addition to "weighting" each district by the number of weighted students. 25f; 8 H. Years of Observation It was agreed that each state would be examined at two points in time whenever possible. It was furtgr agreed that the two years that would be aimed for are 1972-73 and 1975-76. Additional years may bP added if available and judged to be appropriate by the analyst. I. Non-Comparable Districts If a state is organized into districts that are not comparable in terms of grades included in the sets of districts, each set of comparable diltricts should be analyzed separately. If more than one set of districts is analyzed due to differences in grade alignments, then the number of districts and ADM's in each set should be reported as well as a description of the various district types. Also there may be a comparability problem 'within one state over time due to redistricting. In all liklihood the data sets have already been adjusted for this so that the procedure utilized should be reported, if appropriate. The number of ADM's and districts involved in the redistricting should also be reported. II. REPORTING FORMATS The definitions describecov:e yieldeighteen measures for each of two or three units of analysis which equates to 36 or 54 measures for each state-year, assuming a single district type. With two years of data for each of 30 states we will get a total of 2160 or 3240 individual measures. I am proposing that we organize the measures around the state-year. Each state-year will have associated with it 36 measures (or 54 if weighted pupils are included) that can be represented on a single page, small number of punched cards, or on tape. For states reporting multiple district types the state-year-district type becomes the unit of observation. Based on the state-year organization and the size of the data set I am requesting that each research group report their data in printed form and either on cards or tape. awn preference based on my expected analysis procedures is for cards but I realize that this is not possible for all groups. Therefore, I will propose a format for the printed, punched cards, and tape forms. A. Printed Format Since we will be sharing the data among ourselves and 111 perhaps with others it would be efficient for us to report the data in a common printed format. A one page table can be constructed that displays each of theeighteen measures for the three units of analysis for each of the state-years. A sample is displayed on the following page and labelled Table 1. Thus, the total enterprise will yield 62 or more tables of thiL; kind. My 9b Note that the mean value of W and the standard deviation of W (always defined on a per pupil basis) should be displa)%d in Table 1.- Also, the wealth measure should be divided by 1,000 befwee reporting on the table. Finally, please report, for each table, the number of districts and pupils represented on the table in the space on top of the table. The method used to calculate the number of pupils should also be reported at the top of the table (in parentheses). 2 C:i) Table 1 State- Number of Districts Year Number of Pupils ( ) ristrict Type /*limber of Weighted Pupils ( ) Unit of Analysis / Measures of Mean, Equality, and Fiscal Neutrali District Unweig.r.ted P. i il 1. Mean EXP 2. Range 3. Restricted Rang 4. Federal Range Ratio 5.. Relative Mean Deviation 6. Permissible Variance 7. Variance 8. Coefficient of Variation 9. Standard DevPitions of Logarithms 10. Gini Coeffic ent 11. Simple Corre ation-Wealth (W) 12. Slope-44 13. Slope, W, W2 (a 14. Slope W, W2, W 15. Change in Expçnditues 3 Weighted il i) A) WtSD(W) at W. (4, W ) 16. Hickrod Gini Coefficient 17. Mean W($ thousands) 18. Standard Deviation W ($ thousands) 4. 2 ti 11 B. Punched Card Format The fifty four measures displayed in the table, if punched six to a card, can be recorded on nine Each card will have cards for each state-year. , certain identification information and iix measures punched in fields of twelve (E12.5) but in each case Each measure the decimal point should be punched. should contain five significant digits and the numbers should be right justified in the fields. Each card will be organized as follows: Format Punches on Card Descri tion of Data 12 1-2 3-4 5-6 State I; see attached list, table 3. Ireal first year of data, 75-76 la 75. Edstrict type; 01 if all districts equal, otherwise use 02 and, up to 99 Carl number; 01-09. Measure position 1. Measure position 2. Measure position 3. Measure position 4. Measure position S. Measure position 6. . 12 12 12 E12.5 E12.5 E12.5 E12.5 E12.5 xam 7-8 9-20 21-32 33-44 45-56 57-68 69-80 40 If we designate the nine cards Cl, C2, and the six positions as Pl, P2, . . . . . 0 C9 . P6, then etch measure can be placed in a position on a card as shown in Table 2. C. Tape Format The tape format should be consistent with the card format. The date for each state year will be displayed in ten 80 character fields with the same format and data as the punched cards. The format for each state year will be 9(412,6E12.5). 40 (Again, 4. decimal points,should be punched and ,numbers right justified.) The 261 State Table 2 Number of Districts Year. Number of Pupils ( ) District Type Number of Weighted Pupils ( ) Unit of Analysis Measures of Mean, Equality, and Fiscal Neutrality District Unweighted Pupil Cl, P1 Cl, P2 Cl, P3 Range Cl, P4 Cl, PS C1,.P6 Restricted Range C2, P1 C2, P2 C2, P3 Federal Range Ratio C2, P4 C2, PS C2, P6 C3, P1 C3, P2 C3, P3 Permissible Variance C3 P4 C3, PS C3, P6 Variance C4, P1 C4, P2 C4, P3 8. Coefficient of Variation C4, P4 C4, PS C4, P6 9. Standard reviaticns of Logarithms CS, P1 CS, P2 CS, P3 10. Gini Coefficient CS, P4 CS, PS CS, P6 11. Simple Correlation-Wealth (W) C6, P1 C6, P2 C6, P3 U. Slope--W C6, P4 C6, PS C6, P6 13. Slope, W, W2 (at Vir) C7, P1 C7, P2 C7, P3 14. Slope W, W2, W3 (at 1) C7 P4 C7, PS C7, P6 15. Change in Expenditures 3 WtSD(W) at VT (N, W4, W ) C8, P1 C8, P2 C8, P3 16. Hickrod Gini Coefficient C8, P4 C8, PS C8, P6 17. Mean W($ thousands) C9, P1 C9, P2 C9, P3 18. Standard Deviation W £9, P C9, PS C9, P6 1- Mean' EXP , 2. 1. 4. E. 6. 7. O Relative Mean Deviation ($ thousands) 262 Weighted Pupil 13 following tape specs, were suggested by the NYU computer consultants and should be used, if possible: 1600 b. p. i. Standard Label Tapes LRECL . 80 BLSIZE nop FB RECFM EBCDIC character representation Also, if tapes are used, please include 'a printout of the tape, the specs of the tape, and if possible, 40 the JCL used to generate.the tape. III. SUGGESTIONS FOR ANALYSIS The primary aim of the analysis should be an evaluation of the consistency of the rankings yielded by the different measures and different units of analysis both across states and over time. The consistency of the measures can be assessed in at leait three ways. First, for two or more selected measures, the rankings ca l. be combined to present a set Of unambiguous rankings. (This procedure was used in the Berna-Equity paper using Missouri data.) If all the measures agree, the number of rankings will equal the number of states; otherwise there will be conflicts among the measures and the number of unambiguous rankings will be reduced. Second, for any set of selected measures a state "profile" can be constructed that shows the ranking for that state on the selected measures. For certain states the profile may only include a small variation in the ranks while for others there may be considerable variation. In this analysis the state riVer than the measure is the primary 263 14 focus of the analysis. The third approach consists of using rank correlations to measure the consistency among the measures. This provides an alternative to the first methodology and does present a numerical, rather than a visual comparison among the measures. These three techniques can be used for at least six comparisons among the measures including the following: 1. For all states at one point in time for each unit of analysis, how consistent are the rankings yielded by the equality measures? Are there states whose ranking is unaffected by the selection of various equality measures? For the equality measures, how consistent are the rankings that result from different units of analysis? Are there states whose rankimg is unaffected by the selection of a unit of analysis? What are the characteristics of the state that cause a change over the measures or u,c.t of analysis? 2. The questions asked in #1, above, can be repeated for the fiscal neutrality measures. 3. The questions asked in #1, above, can be repeated for the fiscal neutrality and equality measures . ) in orde,;'to determine thb consistency'between the 'two classes of equity measures. 264 IS 4. The questions asked in #1, above, can be asked for the equality measures for each state at two points in time. S. The questions asked in #1, above, can be asked for the fiscal neutrality measures for each state at two points in time. 6. The questions asked in #1, above can be asked for the fiscal neutrality and equality measures combined for each state at two points in time. (The firct three questions can also be asked using all observations--two from each state.) This analysis will hopefully allow us to know more about the consistency among the measures as well as the equality among states. It will allow us to make some conclusions and suggestions for future analysis. IV. PROPOSED TIMETABLE A. Receipt of this memo by cobperative members -- 1/18/78. B, Agreement on definitions and data formats suggested in this memo -- 2/478. C. Calculation of measures and reporting to Berne in printed and, punched or tape format -- 3/17/78. D. Analysis of consistency among measures and preparation of preliminary report to cooperative members -- 4/2I/78. 265 16 TABLE 'STATE # 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 Mideast Delaware Maryland New Jersey New York Pennsylvania 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 ANALYSIS GROUP STATE New England Connecticut Maine Massachusetts New Hampshire Rhode Island Vermont 01 02 03 04 3 ETS/EPRI NCSL L.C. ETS/EPRI -- ETS/EPRI L.C./NCSL ETS/EPRI ETS/EPRI Great Lakes Illinois Indiana Michigan Ohio Wisconsin -- Rand Ill. (tentative) -- Plains Iowa Kansas Ill. tentative) NCSL ECS ECS 22 23 Minnesota Missouri Nebraska North Dakota South Dakota 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 Southeast Alabama Arkansas Florida Georgia Kentucky Louisana Mississippi North Carolina South Carolina Tennessee Virginia West Virginia L.C. Southwest Arizona New Mexico Oklahoma Texas IDEA-GARMS 20 21 36 37 38 39 -L. NCSL ECS L.C. -- IDRA-GARMS L.C. ECS L.C. L.C. L.C. -- IDRA-GARMS 266 17 TABLE 3 (continued) STATE # STATE 40 41 42 43 44 Rocky Mountain Colorado Idaho Montana Utah Wyoming 45 46 47 48 49 50 Far West California Nevada Oregon Washington Alaska Hawaii ANALYSIS GROUP ECS NCSL RAND ECS ECS 267 Appendix B Appendix B lists the data contributed by the Cooperative members, 1, The pupil, revenue, and wealth definitions organized by state-year. utilized in each state are also sepcified in this Appendix. Table I-1, in the report, identifies the contributor for each 0 state. Descriptions of the equality and wealth neutrality measures can be found in Section II of the report. For most states, the equality and wealth neutrality measures are computed for all districts in a state. However, several states are organized according to different district types and the equality and wealth neutrality measures are computed for these separate district types in certain cases. When the measures are computed for all districts a "1" appears on the table under "DISTRICT TYPE"; otherwise the particular sub-set of districts rep- resented in the table is spelled out under this heading. The mean and standard deviation of wealth reported in the table are in thousands of dollars. Also, the slopes are calculated from regressions where the revenues are in dollars and the wealth is in thousands of dollars. When a particular measure is not reported it is displayed as "0.00000" in the tablei. 268 TABLE 8-1 NUMBER OF DISTRICTS --126 STATL -- ALA NUMBER OF PUPILS -- 808401 YEAR - - 1972 NumilER OF WEIGHTEU PUPILS -- 1 .0ISTHICT TYPE UNIT 111 MEASURES OF MEAN. EgUALITY, AND FISCAL NEUTRALITY 1. 0 3, 4, 5. 6, 7. 8, 9. 10, 11. 12, 13a 14, 15, 16, 17. 18 19. 20, 21, ALAN LXP RANGE REs RANGE FLU R R ALL MN (XV pLtoi VAR VAN COEF VAR STU OEV LGS GIN! SIM CORR SLOPE W SLOPE W2 SLOPE W5 Exp DIF HICK GINIMLAN W SIO OEV W ELAST W ELAST w2 ELAST W5 DISTRICT 453.00000 746.00000 189.00000 .52079 .12216 .90258 7307,00000 ,15585 .15793 ,08632 0,00000 0.00000 0,00000 0,00000 0,00000 0.00000 0.00000 0,00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 OF ANALYSIS UNWEIGHTED PUPIL WEIGHTED OUP1L 0,00000 0.00000 0.00000. 0,00000 0.00000 0,00000 0,00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00008 0.00000 0.00008 0,00000 0,00000 458.00000 746.00000 i68.80000 ,45854 .10156 ,.95582 4522.00000 .14670 .12955 .07131 o.p0000 o.d0000 0.00000 0,00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000. 0.00000 0.00000 0,00000 0,00000 0.00000 0.00000 1400000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000'IP Variable descriptions: 1. 2. S. ^ Pupil (unweighted): Enrollment Revenues plus other Reverues. Revenues: Total District, County, and State (These revenues include revenues for capital purposes, since these could not be subtracted out.) Not available at district level. 3. Wealth: 4. Districts: All TABLE STATL YEAR B-2 NuMWEci OF DISTRICTS -127 ALA NUmdEg OF PUPILS 1975 DISTRICT TYPE NumdER OF WEIGHTEu PUPILS .. 1 UNI OF ANALYSIS T MLASURES OF MEAN, UNWEIGHTED PUP/L DISTRICT OWALITT, ANO FISCAL NEUTRALITY I. 2, 3, I. 5. 6, 7. 5, 9. 10, 11. 12, 13, 14. 15, 16. 17, 18, 19, 20. 21. 704.00000 703.00000 320.30000 PLAN OCP.. RANGE RES RANGE FLU R R .57241 11373 09356 FILL MN OEV PLAN VAR VAR cuEF VAR STU OEV LGS 11230,00003 ,15715 .14458 .0805 GINI SIM CORR SLOPE W 0,00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 o.00000 o.00000 o.00000 0.0000o SLOPE W2 SLUPE W3 EXP OIF WICK GINI WIN 4 $tO OEV W VAST W ELAST W2 ELAST W3 710.00000 +63.00000 229,00000 .38119 .09493 .93152 .7343,00000 .12071 .11620 .06569 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0900000 Variable descriptions: See Table B-1 763218 (Alabama 1972). 27o WEIGHTED PUP/L 0,00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 411 I TABLE B-3 mUMUE., OF DISTRICTS STATE -- CAL mUMBE4 OF PUPILS - 3004455 197n YEAR NUMbEq OF WEIGHTED PUPILS DISTRICT.TYPE --UNIFIED U NIT EQUALITY, AND FISCAL NEUTRALITY 10. 11. 12. 130 14. 15. 16, 17. 18, 19, 20. 21, . / DISTRICT GOFF VAR STO DEV LGS GIN/ SIM CORR SLOpF W SLOPE W2 SLOPE W3 407000 4,48520 427.73000 .10533 64.72200 46.48200 ,30523 .28803 ,31741 EXP rl/F HICK GINT MEAN W ST') PEV w (LAST W (LAST W2 ELAST W3 UNWEIGHTED 059.51000 2m8o,60000 A98.70000 .71285 .12286 .92245 27%86.00000 .19254 .16306 .08600 .8o109 5.42690 5.41790 5.23490 '54.81000 .07139 49.02200 24.42800 .30952 .30901 .29857 .17704 .90299 382.00000 .26420 .21712 .12312 .82971 4.31300 VAR AN.ALTST,S .PUPIL 914.55000 2080.60000 655.23000 .94938 MEAN EXP RANGE RES RANGE FED R R REL MN OFV PERM VAR 1F .7' MEASURES OF MEAN.- 1. 2, 3, 4. 5. 6, 7. 8. 9. 240 WEIGHTEO PUPTL 0,00000 0,00000 0.00000 000000 U.00000 000000 0.00000 000090 000000 0,00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0,00000 0,00000 0,00000 0.00000 0.00000 000000 0.00000 0,00000 AO. Variable descriptions: 1. Pupil (unweighted): 2. Revenues: 3. Wealth: 4. Districts: Average Daily Attendoe (ADA) State and local revenues excluding revenues for debt service and capital. State equalized assessed value. An unified districts; 2 71 TABLE B-4 sTAlE -7 CAI mumBE4. OF OSTRIET6 YEAR -- 1971 mumbER OF PUPILS -73066881 DISTRICT TYPF --UNIFIED mumbE4 OF 1.,EIGHTE0 ,PUPILS UNIT 242 ANALYSIS IF flivISIIRFS O MFAN. rQUAITTy, AND PT9CAL NEUTPALITY risTRIC7 UMWEIGHTED PUPIL W01614,1E0 PUPIL a 1. P. 3. 4, MEAN EXP RAMGF RES RANGF R FEn 5. A, 7, 8. 9. RE!: mm (WV An. 1]. 12. 13. 15. 16, 17. 1P. 19, 20, 21, q24.61000 2017.90000 470.51000 .77992 .12244 .89693 32'59.00000 970.45000 2217.80000 7p2,46000 I.07980 .19027 08898 PERM VAR 70723.00000 .27404 .23022 .13152 .83627 4.51400 4.80210 _477620_ 476.97000 .11223 69.53600 u9.26300 .32344 .32978 ,34223 VAR COFF VAR sr!, OEV LGS 6INI oRR SI SLnPF W SLOPF W2 sLOPr W3 FXP nrF 4ICK GINT MEAN W sin "Ey w ELAST W (LAST w2 (LAST W3 See Table B-3 (California-Unified, 1970), 216 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0,00000 0.000110 .19515, 0,00000 .1 005 000000 .09 0..n0000 .831 3 5.88030, 6.20650 6.22600 A17.42000 .07923 51.48800 25.52500 .32745 .34562 ,34615 Variable descriptions: 000000 000000 0.00000 000000 0.00000 0.00090 0.00000 0,00000 0.00000 0.0000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 it TABLE B-5 STAT CA! TEARJ 19T, DISTRICT Type NUmtlE4 oF nISTRIcTs 244 NumbEg oF PUP/LS -- 3034628 win:1ER oF t.TIGHTEL) Piwns -- UNIFIED U \ITT nF.ANALYSIS mEASURES OF MFAn!! EvALITy, AND DISTRICT FISCAL NFUTRALITY I. 2, A 4, 5. 6. 7. R. 9. 10, 11, 12, 13. 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19. 20. 21. 1064.3000U 2237.F0000 791.76000 1.00170 .19423 .89343 P6546,00000 MEAN ExP RAMGF RES PANGF FED R R REL MN OEV PERM VAR vAR COEF VAR STD nEV trs .27641 .23041 GINI 0.3254. .80918 4,46300 4.76690 4.79180 512.23000 .11137 SIM cORR SLOPF W SLOPI: W2 sLOpn W3 ExP r/F HICK GIN/ MEAN W STD nEv w ELAST W ELAST w2 ELAST W3 See Table B-3 1'138.00000 0,0u000 0,000(10 3707.00000 .18658 .17256 .09719 .80616 5,75680 6.49040 6.87610 X75.22000 .08226 55.5E1)00 53.33900 .31478 .33621 .33797 27,12100 .30814 Variable descriptions: (California-Unifie4.1970). a ONIID 23 WEIGHTED PUPiL 2P37,60000 c12.86000 ,76037 .14214 .88758 ".06600 41.1. Ok UNWEIGHTED' PUPIL .34741 .36805 0.00000 !0,00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0,00000 0.000410 0,onono uonouo uououo o'on000, 0.00090 0,00300 0,00400 0.000b0 0,00000 0,00000 u.nuouo 0,00000 \TABLE B-6 STATE -- CAL 0,1MBE4 OF cIsTnIcTs -- 251 YEAR pUrAtiE, OF PUP/LS -3058193 1c473 nISTRICT TYPF mumbEq OF WEIGHTED PUPILS .. UNIFIED IF U,NIT MEASURES pF MFAM. EQuALITT,'AND FISCAL NrUTRALITY 1. 2, . RES RANGF 4, 5. 6. 7. 8, 9. 10, 11. 12, 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. FED P R REL PN OFV PERM VAR VAR COEF VAR STn 0EV LGS GIN! SIM CORR SLOPF W SLOPF W2. 19, 20. 21, ELAST W ELAsT W2 ELAST W3 1152.80000 21172.90000 n33.91000 .55646 .10327 .94359 35071.00000 16452 .14276 ..07508 .77746 5.04970 5024220 5.15450 x00061000 .05940 59.63800 29.20000 .26124 .27120 .26666 4.22938 524,13000 \ ExP nTF HICK GINT MEAN W sit' ['EV w POP% .16962 .91015 90307.00000 .24529 .20500 .11631 .81204 4.02400 4.00670 'SLOPE W3 18.. UNWEIGHTED nisTRICT 1225.10000 2472.40000 907.26000 .95386 MEAN EXP RAMGF .09493 A2.45400 60.64300 .27063 .26967 .28465 Valuable descriations: See Table B-3 ANA.LYSTS (California-Unified, 1970). 274 WFIGHTED PUPIL 00.0000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0000000 0.00000 000000 0.00000 b000no oon000 0.00000 000000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0 TABLE B-7 mUMyi:/ oF DISTRICTS ..- STATE -- CAI yrAR rumbE4 OF PUPILS 1°74 U O 1. 2. A. 4, 5. 6. 7. R. 41 9. 10, 11. 12. 13. 14, 15. 16, 17. 18, 19. 20. 21, N! rTSTRICT 10(1,90000 1q33150000 n7P.95000 MEAN ExP RANGF RES RAPGE Frn P R REL 4N DEV PERM VAR COFF VAR STr rEV LGS 'IF ANALYSIS UNWIIGHTFD PUPIL sIm CORR SLOP! w SLOPF W2 -SLOP! W3 EXI-: DIP HICK GINT mEAN W 0000n0 1,45.60000 1033,50000 48C.3t000 0,000(10 0,00000 u.00090 0.0n0n0 0.000U0 .09695 .92343 78426.00000 3475,00000 oonono P1528 .14966 .13231 .76455 4,5486n 4.96570 0.00000 0.00000 0.000uu u.nowni o.noono 0.00000 14.86050 0,400000 7.76000 0.00000 PA33100 61.01600 ,24630 co nEy w ELAST W ELAsT w2 ELAST W3 WFIGHIE0 PUPTL .15204 .IA450 .10327 .79194 3.63480 3.65720 A.58P60 433.74000' .08344 GINI 24832 ,24367 Variable descriptions: See Table B-3 T P2225 VAR 3095609 mumuE2 OF WEIGHTEU PUPILS -- nIF TRIO' TYPF -- UNIFIED MEASURES OF MEAN, EQUALITY, AND FrsrAL NFUTRALITT 248 (California-Unified, 1970). -^ 275 07069 0550 64.22700 31.33600 ,23454 ,25605 ,25062 , o.nno(10 0.0001)0 0.00000 oomouci 0.00000 0010000 TABLE 8-8 STATE NUMISER OF PISTRIC1S . 118 CAL Numeiq OF PLIPIL5 197n YEAR DISTRICT TYPE NuridER OF WEIGHTED PUPILS .. HIGH SCHOOL UNIT MEASURES OF MEAM, EQUALITY, AND FISCAL NEUTRALITT 1. 2. 3, 4. 5. 6. T. M. 9. 10, MEAN ExP RANGE RES RANGF FED P R PEL MN DEV PERM VAR 11. 12. 13. SIM CORR SLOPE W SLOPE W2 SLOPE W3 EXP nmF HICK GINT MEAN W smn nEV W ELAST W ELAST W2 ELAST W3 Ili. 15. 16, 17. 18, 19 20, 21, 97/4.98000 , - 1.17290 .16900 .91127 692144.00000 COEF VAR STD rEV IG5 GIN/ F DISTRICT 1111.90000 1272,70000 VAR 525,444 .23672 .20905 .11806 ANALT5mS UNWEIGHTED PUPIL 38469 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0,00000 0.00000 0,00000 0.00000 0,00000 0.00000 0,00000 U.00400 0,0e000 0.00000 0.00000 o.op000 0,00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 .314453 000000 1027.70000 1'72,70000 711,27000 .96609 .12509 .91171 32504,00000 .17570 1668o .09127 .82881 2.46840 2.97100 2.96970 X60.04000 .07826 133.07000 60.62900 .31962 06281 109330 2.58830 2.52210 594.69000 .10342 182.04000 119.96000 Q3099,42376 .41292 WEIGHTED PUPIL Variable descriptions: 1. Pupil (unweighted); Average Daily Attendance (ADA). 2. Revenues: State and local revenues excluding revenues for debt service and capital. _Wealth: State_equallied_assessed-ve-lue-i4. Districts: All high school districts. 276 fl TABLE 8-9 STATE -- cAL NUMBER oF DISTRICTS -- 117 YEAR -- 1971 NUMBE' OF PUPILS DISTRICT TYPE NumbEl OE WEIGHTED PUPILS HUN SCHOOL UNIT IF ANA YSIS ylEASURES OF MEAN. - UNWEIGHTED PUPIL DISTRICT EWALITY, AND j'ISCAL NEUTRALITY 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. RES RANGE FEn R R REL MN On, PERM VAR OM% .8605 84689000000 .24746 VAR 7. R. ^ 1176.00000 1599.70000 994.56000 1.12420 .17428 MEAN ExF:f RANGE. .1. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18, 19. 20. 21, COEF VAA STO OEV LaS GINI S/M CORR SLOPE W SLOPE W2 SLOPE W3. EXP DIE HICK GINTL. MEAN W .21851 .12352 .84979 1.97830 2.55240 2,51130 616.66000 .10455 195.12000 125.01000 .32824 .42349 SIP 0E11 w ELAST W rLAST W2 ELAST W3 1R80020000 1'99.70000 760.99000 1.01720 .12916 .09987 38876.00000 .18136 .17384 .09470 .53213 41667 MN% ol Variable descriptions: See Table 8-8 533,965 (California-High School, 1970). 2.5800 3.10980 3.12610 A94.37000 .08130 139.64000 62.96800 .33466 .40201 .40412 WEIGHTED PUPIL. 0.00004 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0000000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00090 0.00000 0000000 0.00000 u.noouo 0.60000 0.00000 000000 0,00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 TABLE B-10 117 STATE -- CAL NumbEa OF DISTRICTS a- YEAR -- 1q7, rdurisEI OF RuPILS a- 542,612 DISTRICT TYpr -- HIGH WOOL mUMbE8 oF wEIGHtED PUPILS.-- ANALYSTS UNTT MEASIMES oF MFAN. --EcrUltt-ITY, 00 UNWEIGHTED nISTRICT pur F/SCAL.NFUTRALITY A .9. in, 11. 12. 13. 14, 15. 16, 17. 1R, 19. 2v, 21, 1/82.00000 1465.00000 '44017000 1.03410 .12543 .07606 44827.00000 .17833 .17303 .09401 .82732 2.63750 3.12920 3.13940 815.70000 .07868 148.65000 66.11700 ,33170 .39353 .39482 1294.40000 1565.00000 A97.70000 MEAN EXP 1. RAMGE 2. 3. .-RES RANGE FED P R 4. 5. ,REL 14N DEV 6. -PERM vAg 7. VAR 91497 .16796 07313 A3113.00000 .22272 .20562 COEF VAR STD rEV LGS &INT SI" CORR 01748 A1675 1.92970 2.5689a 2,57950 623.64000 .09827 SLOPE. W SLOPE W2 SLOPE W3 EXP DIE' HICK GINT MEAN W STD rEV w ELAST W ELAST W2 ELAsY W3 2(15.84.000 122.02000 .30687 ,41170 ,41020 Variable descriptions: See Table B-8 (California-High School, 1970). 2 78 WEISPITE6 PUP1L 0 00000 0,00090 0,00000 0,00000 0.00000 0.00000 0,00000 000000 0.00000 400000 0.00000 0.00000 000000 000000 0.00000 0,00000 0.00000 -0,00000 0,00000 000000 000000 41 TABLE B-11 STATE -- CAL NUMLIE YEAR -- 1973 Numbzq oF PUPILS DISTRICT TYpE -- HIGH SCHOOL NuMLIEJ oF WEIGHTED,PUP/Ls IF U N TT MEASURES OF MEAN, EQUALITY, AND FISCAL NEUTRALITY OF DISTRICTS -- 114 DISTRICT 544403 ANALYSIS UNWEIGHTED pUpIL WEIGHTED .PUPIL .119 1. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6. 7, s. 9, 10, 11. 12, 13, 14. 15, 16. 17, 18. 19, 20, 21, 1267,20000 1727,10000 792,77000 .84293 .13714 ,86189 1421.90000 1727,10000 1174.30000 1:17220 .16728 mEAN EXP RANGE REs RANGE FED R R 9EL mN DEV pERm VAR vAR COEF VAR STM nEV IGS oINI SIM cORR SLOPE W SLOPE w2 SLOPE w3 ExP DTP HICK GIN/ .MEAN w SID DEV w ELAST W ELAST w2 ELAsT w3 9373 10146000000 .22401 .20697 ,11765 ,81769 2.26730 2.70450 2.72510 615,31000 .09661 215.12000, 114.87000 . 54701.00000. .18457 .18065 ,34302 ..40913 ,4123T Variable descriettm: See Table B-8 (California-High School, 1970). 279 0,00000 0,00000 0,00000 0,00000 0,00000 0,00000 0.00000 0.00000 4,09976 000000 ,81013 2.71610 3,08970 3,11050 435,69000 .07663 ¶56,04000 69,76200 .33445 ,38046 0,00000 0,00000 4,38302 4'4 000000 000000 000000 0.000u0 000000 0,00000 000000 000000 0,000u0 0,00000 TABLE B-12 STATE YEAR NUMbE CAL Numot4---or WEIGHTED-PUPILS UmTT MEASURES OF MEAN, EQUALITY. AND FISCAL NEUTRALITY 7. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. -1n, 11. 12, 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20s 21. MEAN EXp RANGE RES RANGF FEn R R REL MN OEV PERM VAR Gm SIM coRR SLOPE W SLOP! W2 SLOPF W3 EXP flIF HICK GIN? MEAN W sTo nEy w ELAST W ELAST W2 ELAST W3 ANALYST 8 UNWEIGHTED PUPIL 1117.30000 1779.10000 768.05000 .80166 .12380 .86765 45746.00000 1719.10000 1002.10000 .94101 .15135 .85790 46130.00000 .21211 COEF VAR sTn r4V IGs 1F yTSTRICT 1461./40000 VAR WEIGHTED PUPIL 0.00000 0.00000 0.e0000 0010on0 000000 16147 0.00000 0,00000 0.0oo00 19486 .15864, .0.00000 .10960 .76654 1.60740 2.37290 2.29499 616.29000 .05665 235.56000 136.29000 .25902 .38238 .36981 .0(3826, 0.00000 0.00090 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 000,)00 .74167 1.92640 2.49140 2.52630 %14.75000 .06767 169.55005 81.89400 24795 .32067 .32516 Variable descrtptiOhs: See Table B-8 114 01113E4 Of PURs/LS " 559,589 '074 rasTRIcT TTpr -- HIGH SCHOOL 1, OF DISTRICTS - (California-High School, 1970. 280 .04040130 000006 0,00000 J.00000 0,00000 s TABLE. B413 STATF -- CAL NUMbE; DF DISTRICTS YEAR -- 197n NUMbEq OF PUP/LS --.1(112396 DISTRICT TYPE -- ELEMENTARY NUM8E, OF WEIGHTED PUPILS .-- UNIT mEASURES OF MFAN, EQUALITY, AND FISCAL NFUTRALITY 1. 2, 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8, 9. 10, 11. 12. 13. 14. 15, 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 398/.90000 1098.*90000 1.99710 .10464 .86087. VAR COFF VAR STD DEV'LGS GINI SIM CORR SLOpF W SLOPF W2 SLOPE W3 EXP DIF HICK GIN! MEAN W STD OEV w ELAST W ELAST W2 ELAST W3 165520.00000 .45920 .34759 .20704 .77388 1,11490 1.58300 1.97150 . 1120.700.00 .17118 168./2000 289.39000 .21181 .30074 37454 711 ANALYS/h UNWEIGHTED PUPIL DTSTRICT 5.99000 MEAN EXP RANGE RES RANGE FEn R R REL mM DEV PERM VAR IF - 778.12000 5983.90000 475,70000 .79470 .14990 .91537 25951.00000 .21601 .18775 .10539 .67202 1.79370 2.34980 2.84600- *58.61000 .07764 64.62100 62.97400 .14896 .19515 .2/635 'WEIGHTED PUPIL 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0,00000 0.00000 o.onono 0.00000 0.00090 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00coo 000000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Variable descriptions: 1. Pupil (unweighted): 2. Revenues: 3. Wealth: 4. Districts: Average Daily Attendance (ADA) State and local revenues excluding revenues for debt service and capital. State equalized assessed value. All elementary districts. 281 TABLE 8-14 STATE -- cAL mUrlisZ4 OF raSTRIcTs 4.- 707 YEAR -- 1971 mumisE, oF PUPILS -- 1062811 DISTRICT TYPE -- ELEMENTARY NUMbER OF wEIeHTE0 PUPILS -- UNIT MEASURES OF MEAN. EQUALITY, AND FISCAL NEUTRAL/TY 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. S. 70 0, 9. 10. 11. 12, 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. le. 19. 20. 21, Frn UNK/SHTE0 DISTRICT PUPIL 924.13000 4733,40000 1249.10000 2.21760 ..30e87 MEAN EXP RANGE RES RANGE R REL MN OEV PERM VAR' 4885 175030,00000 .45271 .35292 .21010 .79033 1,20010 1.44850 1.97180 1099.00000 .16970 1eo.20006 275.51000 .23401 .28245 ,38449 VAR COEF VAR STD nEv L.Gs SINT SIM CORR SLOPE W sow'. w2 SLOPE W3 EXP 0/F HICK GINT MEAN W sTn nEv w ELAs7 w ELAsT W2 ELAST 143 IF, ANALYSIS 417,64000 4733,40000 444.03000 000000 000000 000000 .814o3o 0,00000 .15750 .89820 33942,00000 .22532 000000 9198" 0000o0 .11181 .68868 .1.98620 2047750 3,04920 0,00000 0.00000 0,00000 1;59.8600o 000000 .08372 70019300 63,88100 .17051 .21269 .26177 0,00000 Variable descriptions: See Table 9-13 .wrIGHTEO PUPIL (California-Elementary, 1970). 2S2 - 0,00000 000000 0,00000 000000 0,00000 000000 0.00000 0.00000 0,00000 0,00000 AO TABLE B-15 STATE NUMBER OF DISTRICTS -0. CAL 705 YEAR -- 197, NUMBEq OF PUPILS --1051899 CISTRIcT TYPE -- ELEMENTARY NUMBER OF WEIGHTED PURILs N T. T MEASURES OF MEAN, E@UALITY. AND FISCAL NruTRALITY' 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6, 7, 8, 9. 10, 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19, 200 21, mEAN OM PUPIL. 13145.00000 2.16270 507.37000 5m77,51,000 \ \ 31612 .84639 27(020.00000 .50248 .36123 ,21662 .79315 1.39700 1.68110 1,89750 1144.40000 .17627 199.77000 299.36000 .26912 ,32385 .36554 VAR COEF VAR STO nEV LGs GINT SIm CORR SLOPE W SLOPE W2 SLOPr W3 ExP OTF HICK GIN! MEAN W sTn nEV w ELAST W EL:AST 102 ELAST W3 Variable descriptions: See Table B-13 ANALYSTS UNWFIGHTED niSTRICT 1n37,00r00 5977.51000 RAMCF RFs RANGE FED R R REL MN OEV PERM VAR F (California-Elementary; 1970). 23 m55.39000 .7r.1822 .14989 .90980 39,94,00000 .21566 018928 910594 06789, 1.98310 2.45850 2:89110 T87.74000 .07367 76.71800 67.00200 .16767 .20787 ,24444 WFIGHTED PUPIL 0,00000 0,00000 0,00000 000000 000000 0.00000 0,00000 0,00000 0,00000 000000 0.0001.a, 0,00000 0.00000 0000000 000000 0.00000 0.0001)0 000000 9,00000 0,00000 0,00000 TABLE 8-16 STATE -- CAL mumbE4'0F vISTRIOG -- 687 YEAR -- 1975 mumbEq oF PUP/LS r- 1010025 DisTRIcT Type -- ELEMEMAY mUmbEl OF WEIGHTED PUPILS ..,. UNTT g ANALYSIS %4EASIAES OF MEAN. OISTRICT .EGUALTTy AND UNWEIGHTED PUPIL FISCAL NoviTALITY 1.. 2, 34. 4, 5. 6. 7. 5. 9. 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17. 15, 19. 2o. 21, VAR .60461 .34892 COEF vAR sTn hEV LGs G/NT --- ,74615 1,52070 .92805 2.21650 1676.90000 .16441 225.23000 367,52000 SIm CORR SLUT W. SLOPE W2 SLOPE w3 ExP o/F -HICK GNI' MEAN sin hEV w ELAST w ,P7645- .16873 ,40304. ELAsT 2 ELAST W3 Variable descriptions: See Table 1,72,30000 14418.00000 579.23000 ,67977 413698 .92756 45n28.00000 .19789 .17117 .09564 .66260 1.92580 .2.398002.78560 407.09000 406391 84.13300 73,01000 .15110 .18815 .21856 1238.80000 14418,00000 1526.10000 1.97760 .30553 .86537 561020.00000 MEAN EXP RANGE REs RANGE R Fen REL MN DO/ PFRM VAR B-13 - (California-Elementary, 1970). 2s4 -WEIGHTED PUPIL 0,00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0,00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0,00000 0,00000 000000 000000 000000 0.004300 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0,00000 000000 0,00000 0 TABLE B-17 STATE YEAR mum8Eq OF DISTRICTS -- CAL 678 NUMbE; oF PUPILS.-- 991355 1974 DISTRICT TYPE mUMbER OF.WEIGHTED PUP/LS ELEMENTARY .UNTT F ANAL-YSIS MEASURES OF MEAN, EPALITY, AND UNWEIGHTED PUPIL DISTRICT F/SEAL NEUTRALITY .- 1. 2, 3. 40 - 4. 5._ 6. T. 0, 9.. 10, 11. 12. 13\. 14. 15. 164. .-- 17. 1. 1 19. 20. 21, MEAN EXP RANGE RES RANGE FEn R R REL MN DEV PERM VAR .1566.5000p 969.M0000 1514.10000 1.69400 .28856 .87103 538388.00000 .53704 . VAR COEF VAR 03426 ST!, DEV LGS GIN/ SIM 'CORR 1943 .58611 sLopE w SLOPE W2 SLOPE W3 EXP DIF HICK GINT MEAN w SO nEli w (LAST W 4.01210 1.51240 1.80750 1.546.1.0000 415282 253.76000 42492000 .08798 128089 .33570 ELAST42 (LAST w3 Variable descriptions: See Table 8-13 (California-Elementary, 1970). .285 1168.98000 9A95,80000 '75.72000 .59765 .13094 .93237 47x56.00000 .18617 .16032 .08969 .61743 1.37470 1.98050 2.36270 462.14000 .06229 96.66100 97.73800 .11368 416578 ,19538 WEIGHTED' PUPIL 0,00000 0,000n0 0.00000 0,00000 ooloono 0.00000 poloonv 000000 . . 0.00000 0,00000 0.00000 -0,00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0,00080 TABLE 8-18 COL NUMBER OF 0ISTRICI8 --174 YEAR -- 1972 NUMBER OF PUPILS aim' 524244 STATL pISTKICT TYPE NumerR OF WEIGHTED PUPILS .. 1 UNIT OF ANALYSIS ftssuptes OF MEAN1 ONALIr7. ANO FISCAL NOTRALITY 1. 2. 3, 4, 5. 6. 7. MLAN LXP RANGE ALB RANGE FLU R R RLL MN UEV 0._ COES VAR BrU UEV LOS 9, 10. 11. 12. 13, 14. 15. 16, 17, la. 19. 20. 21, ftwm vAlt VAK UNGEIGHTE0 PUPIL DISTRICT 058940 27.13400 81.54000 32.07100 949,32000 26.05800 29.37300 31.97800 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0000000 0.00000 0.00000 0000000 0.00000 0000000 0000000 0000000 0.00000 31205000 00.00000 17243 4,08553 18,46500 14,70100 .42302 ,49171 ,49999 11,162(10 5,76.540 0.00000 0004000 0.00000 0000000 0600009 P.00000 1010.00000 2506.00000 510.00000 ,70637 .14037 603140 11041,40000 2606.0000o 1326.00000 1.89700 .27130 .87127 201150.00000 .37867 .32600 3503600000 .10094 .18614 .00964 19038 BARI BIM CORR SLOPE W SLOPE G2 SLOPE G3 EAp 01F% HICK GINI MLAN w BfU OEV W ELAST W ELAST W2 ELAsT GLIGHTEO PUPIL 79630 .28031 ,32462,35.540 Variable descriptions: 4 1. Pupils (unweighted); 2. Revenues: 3. Wealth: 4. Districts: All districts except two, in Rio Blanco County, with extraordinarily high assessed value per pupil. Average Daily Attendance (ADA). Total local and state revenue excluding debt service and capital. State equalized assessad value. (Equalized to 20.58% of market.) 2S6 TABLE STATE B-19 NUMBrp OF DISTRICIS COL N7IMLIER"'OF PUPILS YEAR + 1974 DISTRICT TYPL 174 518,774 L Numw OF WEIGHTED PUPILS 1 ANALYSiS.' UNIT a MEASURES OF MEAN. EQUALITY, AND FISCAL NEUTRALITY 1. 2, 3, 4, 5. 6, 7. MEAN EXP RANGE RLS RANGE FLU R R REL MN.DEV pttsm VAR vAR 8, 9. 10, CUEF VAR STU OEV LGS 11. 12, 13, 14. 15. 16, 17. 18, 19. 20, 21. SIM CORR SLOPE W SLOPE W2 SLOPE W3 EXP OIF HICK GINI MEAN W su DEV, W ELAST W ELAST W2 ELAST W3 SiN/ ; WEIGHTED PUPIL UNWEIGHTED PUP/L DISTRICT 1317.20000 3i16.00000 754,00000 1527.30000 3116.00000 1694.00000 1,69230 .26560 ,88089 305910.00000 ,36390 ,31000 *18227 ,81900 27,94300 33,25100 34.04300 1135.10000 *15790 21,82300 16,29100 .39927 .47511 75475 .14278 .55503 63458,00000 ,19122 .17900 .10069 ,79000 26,95500 55,33600 56.90400 548,81000 ,,08347 14.06900 7,38130 .28791 ,37742 1 39417 48643 Variable descriptions: S. 1. Pupils (unweighted): See Table 8-18 2. Revenues: 3. Wealth: 4. Districts: See Table 8-18 (Colorado, 1972). State equalized assessed value. See Table 8-18 (Colorado, 1972). (Equalized to 20.7% of market.) (Colorado, 1972). 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0,00000 0.00000 0,00000 0.00000 W.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 000000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 TABLE 8-20 STATE -- CONN mumbEo oF DISTRICTS YEAR -- 197 mUMbE' oF PUP/LS -- 636932 0/STRICT TYPE mUMBE', OF WEIGHTED PUPILS -. U mEASURES OF MEAN, EQUALITY, AND FISCAL NEUTRALITY 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. A. 9. 10, 11. 12. 13. 14, 15. 16, 17. 18. 19. 20, 21. mEAN Exp RANGE REs RANGF FEP R R N1TT 1x1s.Sonon 1271.80000 1181,40000 729.09000 4101.80000 401.03000 .80183 .13796 .88999 55410.00000 .17840 ..77103 .13379 PERm vAR vAR COEF vAR STD nEv LGs' G/N/ SIM CnRR SLOPE w SLOPE w2 sLOPE w3 Eyp niF HICK GINT MEAN W sTn DEv w ELAST ELAsT w2 ELAsT w3 A7686 ANA.LYS1S UNWEIGHTED pVPIL DISTRICT REL r4 Dr.v IF 411334.00000 .17287 .40940 039500 .61400 3.36680 4.80560 5.40290 44m.00000 .06800 79.14400 39.99700 ,20952 .29905 ,33622 168 -.37820 039800 .63010 3.12870 6.24920 5,04340 498.37000 .07600 94,17900 47.30900 .19978' .39904 .32204 WEIGHTED pUPIL 0.00000 0.00000 0,00000 0.00000 0.00000 000000 0.00000 0.00000 0,00000 0,00000 0.00000 0,00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 000000 0.00000 0.00000 0,00000 0,000110 0,80000 Variable descriptions: 1. Pupil (unweighted): 2. Revenues: Net Current Local Expenditures (as a measure of locally-raised revenues) plus total state aid for public schools excluding school building aid. 3. Wealth: 4. Districts: The 169 towns in the state with resident pupils. districts arc excluded. Total adjusted Resident Average Daily Membership in the state. Equalized Net Grant List (1976). 2S Regional school 319V1 LZ-9 Ws 31ViS at61 w113A lanusIo 3dAl .1 913IVISTo L9 38WflN O t1391,4N SO S1Idnd 090N JO 03114913P slIdnd INfl J0 EZL69EL '5I5A'1VNV Obnsv310 Ao 103W 4,1,1/1bne3 03114913MNn 13Iwisio CrV lIdnd 1b3sis A1Ilbbin3N I 6E 'S 't 'S 69 '9 66 '01 "II 'al 621 6bI 621 -91 :L/ '91 661 60Z 6Te MI/ NV3w dx3 39Nvb S3b 39Ntrb GIS b 13b NW A30 WW3d Vi wvA S303 HVA 01S Aul Sel IN/9 WiS 10103 3dOlS M 3d01S aM 3d01S 2M dr: JIG W3IM INIS MOW (.1001104.6 000996226 0000%626st 00082620 0009eIEG 0000069L2 Unto* 0129a' 012LO' 021606 4166 t924,66 0000062IG?I 000096I6uL 9t990' 00690' 900106 Ltf9L' I2SII6 bOtII w22906 6121.26 agates ots9V2 0920et 0001eatt 09922"i 0169a2 0IL2262, 000aL621T k:aloo 0000060 vsaWgv P OIS A0 m 1SW13 M 1Sv13 zi4 1Swi3 2M - 'Z :senuattab 'E :44teaM 0000060 0000060 0000060 0000060 0000060 000006,0 0000060 0000060 0000060 0000060 0000060 0000060 000po'o 0000060 0000060 00000.60 U.006 wain' 29121' 29/LI' 0000060 0000060 00006'0 efieJam/ paztlenb3 passessy *enleA LW 900000 009tI'Ll apuepuem LePol pue elels 'senueneJ :s43P4sW 0000060 uoLToeill LisIs;° :suotldwsep-alciepeA LOnd :(pezOtaburn) 031HSI3M lIdnd .(vav) TABLE B-22 STATE -- FLA NUMBER OF DISTRICTS -- 67 YEAR -- 1973 NUMBER OF PUPILS DISTRICT TYPE -- 1 WIMBr4 OF VEIGHTED PUPILS 1397320 1889821 nF ANALYSIS uNIT . MEASURES OF KEAN. EQUALITY, ANO FISCAL NEUTRALITY 1. 2. 3. 4, 5, 6. 7, 8, 9, 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15# 16. 17. ta. 19. 20. 21. UNWEIGHTE0 PUPIL -DISTRICT MLAN-ExP RANGE RES RANGE FED R R REL M DEV PERM VAR 1187.30000 407.83000 309,32000 .30400 .09430 .92016 16061,00000 .10674 ,10700 .05900 .61781 3,25950 4.69620 4.85070 026.91000 0,00000 54,59200 24,02100 1179.1000n 607,8300n 469,7500n 4818n .0987K .9128n 21281,00000 .1237, VAR cOEF vAR STO 0Ev LSS 1210n .06863 .31919 1,3877n 2080790 2,4262n 143.320An .0008n 49.9800n 33,55300 .0588, .1190, .10284 GINI SIR cORR SLOPE w sLOPE w2 SLOPE w3 EXP OIF HICK GINI MEAN a sTO DEv w ELAST w ELAST w2 ELAST 14987 .21593 .22003 WEIGHTE0 PUFort. 877.86000 434,62000 219,92000 .29210 .05993 .93787 5735.60000 .00629 .08500 .04052 .57861 2.54410 3.73250 3,92400 130.02000 0.00000 40,36500 17,22900 .11698 .17162 .18043 Variable descriptions: 1. a. b. Pupils (unweighted): Pupils (weighted): 2. Revenues: 3. Wealth: 4. Districts: See Table 3-21 (Florida, 1972). Weighted FTE, as per schedule on next page. See Table 8-21 See Table 8-21 See Table B-21 (Florida, 1972). (Florida, 1972). (Florida,.1972). 290 a 00 £Z-9 319V1 bV3A 1338WA JO SI3IH1SIO VIA 11V1S - 938W.14 AO SlIdnd ta6/ 13I1SIO 3dAl -- 3SWI I JO 031H9131 I .a 2 9 .1 *9 66 '01 °II NX3W dX3 3SNvb S31:I °I2 1S%013 900W2I4 00012°622 00012° 222z0' 91126° 00000'410f/ 29010° 001.20 069G2° Sii/GLO 1.2916° U0000'fiL9LI 11660' 00960' INI9 02 °GI *91 'LT 621 '61 00009°2+,21 ' 00010°5141 39AIXN 1i4422-e u6L61°I UslOge/ 0269L°1 00096°60T 29259.0 ocarra 40641Z.f Of092'1 00iL9*ai 2629V w06L0' 19090' 2LILI° sildnd :(Pa1461,amun) aas %gel "ci sLIAnd :(paq.461.am) aas "Z :sanuanaH £ :141LeaM t pq.s1.0 :s13 Gas Lq1 aas LZ-9 alciel LZ-9 aas Nei a ajciej 4ePpolj) '(3L61 LZ:13 ZZ-B 'aPPotd) ."(EL6L 'ePPOLA) (ZL6L 'ePpolj) (3L6L 'ePPOLA) (ZL6L Ica 06292° 29190° 6/696° 00002°9992 2022e ttV0 G 000i4G°022 000/41°24a 06220'2 04,02°V U0au'lg UOL92°09 00012'226 00290° GiO*0° NePeA a :suol.q.dposap L 0304913M 412040' 00091109L 00000°0 00900°Il 00012°La 2M slund tYLSZ661.- Mind 000WaIL WIS 1003 3dOlS M 3d01S 2M 3d01S fM dX3 AIO morH INIS NV3W M OIS A30 M 1SV13 M lSv13 aM .2/ 0301SI3MW1 13IH1SIO u00010IiI2I 03A b b 13b NW A30 W83d bVA vvA S303 bVA Olf S914A3G tES9LtL. 1VNV SISA iItfI S3b0SV3W AO NV3W A4Illine3 ONV 1113SIA AlI1Vb1r3N 49 MOT'? WOO' 00114,602 °assert flaw T° 22140° Weights for Various Educational Programs in Florida, 1975-76 Basic frogman's 1.234 1.00 1.10 Kindergarten and Grades 1, 2, and 3 Grades 4 through 9 Cricks 10, 11, and 12 Special trognmu foe Excepdosal Students Educable mentally retarded Trainable mentally retarded Physically handicapped Physical and occupational therapy, part-thue Speech and hearing therapy, part-time Deaf Visually handicapped, part-time Visually handicapped Emotionally disturbed, part-time Emotions/1y disturbed Socially maladjusted Specific learning disability, part-thne Specific learning disability Gifted, part-time Hospital and homebound, part-time 2.30 3.00 3.50 6.00 10.00 4.00 10.00 3.50 7.50 3.70 2.30 7.50 2.30 3.00 15.00 Vocatioad-Techaied holrearl. 4.26 2.64 2.18 Vocational Education I Vocational Education II Vocational Education III VOcational Education IV Vocational Education V Vocational Education VI 1.69 1.40 1.17 Ado* Education Programa Adult basic education and adult high school Community service 1.28 0.675 *Vocational-technical programs am put Into one of six categories depending upon the relative cost of providing the program. Most expensive are certain shop courses using a great deal of expensive equipment; least expensive age secretarial comm. Source: Jack Leppert, Larry Huxel, Walter Garms, and Heber Fuller, "Pupil Weighting Programs in School Finance Reform," in School Finance Reform: A Legisiaron'Handbook. eds. John J. Callahan and William H. Wilken (Washington, D.C.: National Conference of State Legislatures, 1970. 292 TABLE B-24 STATE -- FLA NUMSFR OF DISTRICTS -- 67 YEAR -- 1975 NUMBEr OF PUPILS --1416516 DISTRICT TYPE -- 1 NUMBER OF WEIGHTED PUP/Ls .. II NI' I T ,oF ANALYSIS. JIM= MEASURES OF MEAN. EQUALITY, AND FISCAL NEUTRALITY 1, 2. 3, 4, 5. 6. 7. a, 9, 10. 11. 12, 13, 14. 15. 16. 11, 16, 1,, 20. 21, %MAN EXP RANGE REs_RANGE FED R R REL MN DEV PERM VAR VAR COEF %/AR DISTRICT UNWEIGHTE0 PUP/L 1174.80000 753,44000 159,62000 .30570 1344.300On 753,4400n 402,920on .3556n .08314 ,9246n 19866.000un .1045% .1050n .05779 *08560' 94676 18055.00000 '09774 , STD DEV LGS GINI 09600 .05507 5403R SIM CORR SLOPE w SLOPE w2 SLOPE w3 EXP DIF HICK GINI MEAN w STD OEV ELAST W ELAST w2, (LAST w3 4177344 3,28320 3,36150. 3,67240 723.15000 .00545 79.96100 31,65500 ,19096 1.97090 1,74060 I,9907n 10.s400n .0034n 69,1040n 35,643On .10131 0894n 0.9551.. .10274 ,21359 Variable descriptions: See Table B-21 (Florida, 1972). 293 WEIGHTED PUPIL 0.00000 0,00000 0.00000 0.00000 000000 0,00000 0,00000 0,00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0900000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 ood000 0,00000 0.00000 0,00000 TABLE 8725 STATE ---GA NUMBER OF DISTRICTS ' 188: YEAR -- 197 , NUMBER OF PUPILS -. 1102079 (JNUMBER OF WEIGHTED PUPILS DISTRICT lypE -. 2 UjIT MEASIIRES OF MfAM, EQUALITY. AND . 2 2. 3, 4. S. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16, 17, 18. 19. 20. 21. MEAN EXp RANGE RES RANGE FED R R REL wN OFV PERM VAR - VAR COEF VAR srn ovi LGs Gimr srm coRR SLOpF W SLOPE W2 SLOPE W3 EXP ru HICK GINT MEAN W VI PrA, W ELAST W ELAST W2 ELAST W3 ANA,LYSIS UNWEIGHTED PVPIL PISTR1CT FISCAL' NFUTRALITY J. 3F -( 570,00000 772;00000 225.00000 .48280 .09243 .90945 6523400000 .14182 .13368 .06870 .55160 A.19100 8.50660. 9,04730 9A.82700 0,00000 1A.53000 5.43800 .P8754 .24669 .26237 Pupils (unweighted): 2. Revenues: 3. Wealth: 0.00000 0.00000 0,00000 58160 0.00000 0,00000 0.00000 9.68100 9.86060 10.10700 111.67000 C.00000 17.51400 6.6(400 .26999 .27500 .28187 4. Districts: Average Daily Membership (ADM). Local and state revenues excluding debt service and capital. Equalized assessed valuation. All. 294 PUPIL 628.00000 772.00000 772.00000 , 2.80030 .21983 .84679 35029,00000 .29793 .31078 .15770 Variable descriptions: 1. WEIG)$TED 0.110900 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 000000 000000 0.00000 0.000(10 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 000000 0.00000 TABl.E 8-26 NOMBER oF rastit/cts --188 STATE -- GA jUMb YEAR -- 1.97c DISTRICT Tyr:sr oF PUP ILS -- 1077114 OmBER OF WEIGHTED PUPILS -. 1 UNIT MEASURES oF MEAN. EQUALITY, AND FISCAL NeUTRALITY OF- ANALyS! S UNWE/GHTED PUPIL DISTRicT WEIGHTED PUPIL , 1. 2, 3, 4, 5. 6, 7. 8, 9. 10, 11, 12. 13. 14. 15. 16.. 17, 180- 19, 20, 21, MEAN EXP RANGE RES RANGF R FED REL MN DFV PERM VAR vAR COEF VAR STD rEV LGs :GIN/ SIm cORR SLOPE W SLOPE w2 SLOPE W3 EXP DIF HICK 9INI MEAN W STD DEV w ELAsT W ELAST W2 ELAST W3 . .876,00000 8385,00000 1015,00000 2.76330 :21T23 .83536 86683;00000 845.00000 8385.00000 444.00000 .70290 .17444 .88197 334640.00000 .68462 .32914 .13370 ,9s220 20.96900 6,68460 0.00000 344.72000 0.00000 27.79800 25.71700 .68982 .21990 0.00000 , .3.3620 ,s4770 .15680 .93050 20.95000 7.51690 0:00000 377.96000 0.00000 27.35300 12.40506 .65416 .23471 0.0r000 Variable descriptions: See Table B-25 (Georgia, 1972). OM, 94' .- 0. 3 0,00000, 0,00000 0.00000 0.00000 '040000 000000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 000000 0,0000u 0,00e90 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0,00000 0.00000 0.000no' 0,00000 0,00000, TABU B-27 NuMBEF, OF U itTRICT§' -- 413 STATL.-- ILL 'YEAR NIIMEIER OF PUPILS - 1252221 11472 PISTRICT.TYPE 141016FR-0F WLIGHTE0 PUPILS -1580303 UNIT, I4 I T 'OF 'A'NALYSI.S MLASURr5 'OF IFAN. UNWEIGHTEO EQUALITY, AND FISCAL NEUTRALITY :PLWIL WEIGHiE0 PUPIL V 2. 3, 4, 5, 6, 7. 8, 9. ,59.37p .06127 11n 94740 11.157,00W 9$260.6G 00 .,10.661 09J74 ,102011 .09700 GINI ,G560 05250 OA CORR ,7/144 t,4,526p .59011 ,8,12780 b,79(, An 1004600 CuEF vAR SID DEv LUs SLOPE W SLOPE w2 SLOPE w3 ExP OIr HICK GINI . 10.59-h00 7.bLsOn 165,446ne . MOW W 17, 18, 19. ?0. 21. 252,11nno .2B6bo .08526 336.8400. REA. Mm DEV atRul VAR VAR 10. 11. 12. 13, 14. in36.601)00 1459,86000 .990.74non 939.b5non me.AWE00 RANGE RLseRANGE FE0 R R 1, lo3.23000 .03640 22.A8400 7.19170 .17160 .24188 .23412 0406n 24,1h7on, It,14nOn' .15704 0.4137 SW nEv w ELAS1 w ELAST w2 ELAS1 Wa ,15t.47 820.64000 774,04000 267.57000 .35390 .09570 .87900 9849,60000 .12004 .12000 .06240 .50463 8.42390. 11.21400 11.04700 130.75000 0.00000 18.13300 5,04530 .16614 .24779 .244to VarJ4b1e descriptions: 1. a. b. Pupils (unweighted): Average Daily Attendance (ADA). Pupils (weightel): Title I weighted average daily attendance (TWADA). Title I students given additional weighting based on number and concentration of Title I students in the district. 2. Rerenues: Local revenues for operations, general state aid, and state ceegorical aid, excluding debt service and capital. 3. Wealth: 4. Districts: Equalized assessed valuation. AI K-12 Unit districts. 2J6 TABLE 41 B-28 .cTATL -- ILL NimilBEp oF 31sTRIcTS -- 444 YEAR -- 1975 N9M3ER OF PUPILS OISTkIfj TYPE --UNIT NumBER OF WEIGHTED UNIT Olt ^ OF 1273036 Uij.S 1579633. ANAL'YSIS mLASURES OF- MF.ANT EQUALITY, ANO FI.CAL NEUTRALITY 1. 2. 3, 4, 5.. 6. 7, 8, 41 9. 10, 11. 12. 13, ig. 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21. MEAN ExP RANGE RES RANGE FLO P R 31SIRICI 1156.60oon 109i,6unOn 50;.6100n 1396.20000 1n91.30000 769,750J0 ..51.89n .77740 ,t9633 .9133n 9(1;06,00000 .21500 e21800 .11980 .P4iP8 10656 REL. MN OEV pLeim VAR vAR 26714.0onnn .13774 cOEF VAR STO OEV LGc .1330n ,u7520 .3o13n 3.73140 1.65210 1,759in .79.79300 .01220 26,87600 15,1970n .08452 GINI SIM CORR SLOPE w SLOPE 42 SLOPE 43 ExP car HICK GINI 'ALAN W sTO lEv w ELAST w ELAST 42 ELAST 43 9.11500 14,20100 18i3100 219.64000 0.00000 25.05300 8.07950 .16352 .25482 03747 03976 02391 Variable descriptions: See Table B-27 (Illinois-Unit, 1972). 2:)7 0 WEIGHTED PJP/L JNWEI6HTED . 1125.20000 10,6I,.90000 579,52000 .4P000 0.1126 .L92060 20130.00006 .12609 .15100 06750 .10640 2,15140 3,55710 3.55660 52,46500 0.00000 20.19000 . '6,92030 03914 .06024 .06436 : TABLE 5-.29 NumGro OF OISTRICIS -- STA-rt. NumBER OF P,JPILS -- 257,633 1971 Y5,AP NUMBER OF WEIGHTED PUPILS -324,438 DISTRICT TYPE -- :-ZCONDARY uNIT OF mtASUiES OF %WAN. EIScAL NEUTRALOY 3, 4, 5. 6. 7, 3. 9. 10.. 1333,00000 1592,3300n 954.870nn RANGE: PEs RA4GE FLO R R REL. ml DEV )DtRm VAR vAR COEF vAR 510 OEV LGS G1NI Sin CORR SLOPE W sLOFE 11. 12. 13. 14, 15, 16. 17. , 1397.711090 1592,3060o ,?2,900q0 ,9,583n 87920 .18349 ,8833n 100750,00,0On .23816 .22000 ,12570 .75219 6.7717n 7,4527n ,:.16848 SLOPE w3,, 7,48(.50 EAP OIF RICK GINI 515.9600n ,3687, ,40581 .4076s ELAST W2 ELAST ,13 .830.50 40750 80988.ogono .20661 52635,00000 . 35,2630-n Slu'OEV W .11460 .66067 8.54230 10,01100 9,95670 423,75000 .07620 ,64,50600 21,26300 .40995 ,46417 .46305 14riable descriptions: b. Pupils (unweighted) Pupils (Weighted) See Table 8-27 See Table 8-27 See Table 8-27 2. Revenues: 3. Wealth: 4. Districts: See Table 8-27 i109.90000 1274,70000 715.40000 ,55270 .17229 .20710 .20400 r .20100 .09140. ELAST.il 1. a. . PUPIL , 72,5830n MON W 19, 20, 21. ulLIGHTE0 L. mLAN ExP 2. ANALYSIS UNWEIGNTED PUPIL DISIRICT FciiALtyy. AND 1. ;42 (Illinois-Unit, 1972). (Il-inois-Unit, 1972). (Illinois-Unit, 1972). (Illinois-Unit 1972). All Secondary districts. 298 .1(1660 . .W6567 -4,00140 10,211400 10.22000 546.40050 .07811 51,46200 16.99600 .41736 .47496 .47556 TABLE B-30 NiIMBER OF onTRICIS -YEAR -- 1975 NUMESEROF PUPILS DIST1.41CT TYPE -- SECONDARY NIIMBFR UNIT n F F SC AL 'NEUTRALITY 1. 2, 3, AM. 5. 6. 7, 6, 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14, 15. 16. 17, 18, 19. 20. 21. 1644.2000n 1615,1000n 1076.6000n ,b417n mLAN ExP ONGE RLs RAmGE FLO R R RLL MN OEV ..1510S pi-Rm VAR vt(H cOEP VAR STU OCV LGS GINI SIM CORR SLOPE w SLOPE w2 SLOPE w5 EXP OIF HICK G/NI MEAN w .89620 102340.00000 .1945A .18300 ,10470 1756.4(000 1.615.10000 1187,90000 .86440 014133 .9u3oo 102460.0u030 .16435 017800 .10120 3719 TLAST 12 4.8981n 4.9058n 4,9455n 330.97000 ,0503n 74,07508 35,085on .27067 .22102 ELAST (43 .22281 $T O oEv w ELAST w 6,53050 7,28830 7,95640 .65,510o0 .050b0 TO.40200 23.4240 .26478 .29550 .3P178 Variable descriptions: 1. a. h. See Table B-27 Pupils (unweighted): Pupils (weighted): See Table 2. Revenues: 3. Wealth: 4. Districts: See Table B-27 B-27 See Table B-27 (Illinois-Unit, 1972). (Illinois-Unit, 1972). (Illinois-Unit, 1972). (Illinois-Unit, 1972). All Secondary Districts. 299 329718 ANALYSIS UNWEIbHTED PUPIL 31 TRTcT AND 261371 OFInGHTEG PUPILS wt./151.1-1ES OF MEpm. EAL.LTY 129 WEIGHTED PJPIL 1576.50000 3290.00000 935,74000 .91920 .14584 .89710 EX252,00000 .18980 .15400 .10470 .49309 6,87650 7,86670 -8,39960 304.35008 .05350 55,8680o 18.78800 .21868 .51694 .34055 TABLE B-31 SrATL - ILL NuMBEq OF DISTRICTS -489 YEAR -- 1971 NUMBFR OF PUPILS DISTRICT TYPE 'u ELEMENTARY NJMBER OF WEIGHTED PUPILS UNIT MLASURES OF MEAN, EQUALITY, AND FISCAL NEUTRALITY 1. 2, Sup 4, 5. 6. 7, 8, 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15, 16. 17, 10. 19, 20. 21. O'F q30.28000 904,24000 1977.7000n 593.4700n ,8260n .15646 RANGE REs RANGE FED R REL MN ovi PERM VAR OR COEF VAR SID DEv LGS 1c:177,70000 574,300on .75210 .14106 PlIn 92860 44097,0ne00 ,23223 34552,00000 ,19981 .17900 .10090 .70372 7,31950 8.81050 8.90090 317,92000 .07530 29,50200 17,35000 ,23212 .27941 .28227 .1970n 1083n G1NI ,71486 4,22340 6,07610 5.7609n SIM CORR SLOPE W SLOPE W2 SLOPE w3 EXP DIP HICK GINI MEAN W siO OEV W (LAST w ELAST W2 (LAST W3 405.,61110n 07820 36.007On 35,28700 1685s .24249 .23023 Variable descriptions: 1. a. b. See Table 8-27 Pupils (unweighted): Pupils (weighted): See Table 2. Revenues: 3. Wealth: 4. Districts: See Table.B-27 8-27 See Table B-27 (Illinois-Unit, 1972). (Illinois-Unit, 1972). (Illinois-Unit, 1972). (Illinois-Unit, 1912). All Elementary districts. 4. 570940 ANALYG1S UNWEIGHIED PUPIL DISIRICY ',ILAN EXP 559463 WEIGHTED PUPIL 911.72000 1043.50000 612,14000 ,88080 .15127 .91300 36913,00000 .21073 193u0 0.0810 .70628 7.73390 9.37860 9,64910 339,16000 .08070 28.90800 17,54600 ,24522 ,29737 .30595 TABLE B-32 STATt -- ILL NUMBER OF DISTRICTS YEAR -- 1q75 NUMBER OF PUPILS DISTRICT TYPE -- ELEMENTARY NUMBER OF 9EI6HTED PUPILS -.6,19179 UNIT nF DISTRICT 1. 2, 3, 4, 5. 6, 7, Et, 9. 10. 11. 12. 13, 14. 15, 16. 17. 18. 19, 20. 21. UNWEIGHTED PUPA 1178.900On 278e.00000 877.85000 1,J4380 .18715 .85270 MEAN Ex(' RANGE REs RANGE FED R R FRU. MN DEV PERM VAR 96564,00ml. vAR ,COEF VAR 2136n STD DEV LGS .233011 1528n DIN/ .67070 4.83Fbn 5,84360 4.6922n 395.1100n SIM CORR SLOPE SLOPE W2 SLOPE W3 EXP DIF HICK G1NI MEAN 9 sTu DEv W ELAST w 44 07100 45.104130 . 43.0750a 1246.40000 1788,0000U n01.53000 .91450 414568 .85770 65395.00000 .20517 .1990e .1090c .51820 5.96190 6,45050 6.19970 275,16000 .05100 56.18600 22,2270c .1730c) .17691 .2136A .1715A ELAST 6,2 ELAST 43 .18727 .17999 Variable descriELioris: 1. a. b. Pupils (unweighted):, See Table Pupils (weighted): See Table 2. Revenues: 3. Wealth: 4. Districts: See Table B-27 See Table B-27 B-27 B-27 (Illinois-Unit, 1972). (Illinois-Unit, 1972). (Illinois-Unit, 1972). (Illinois-Unit, 1972). All Elementary districts. 301 506529 ANALYSIS MEASURE'S OF MEAN. EMJALITY, AND FISCAL NEUTRALITY 448 WEIGHTED PUPIL 1216.10000 2781.00000 819,95000 .96770 .15655 486660 68271.00000 .21486 .20700 .11500 .54572 647450 7.25500 7.25573 319.60(00 .605930 55.50400 22.02400 .18795 .21062 .21064 TABLE B-33 STATE NUMBER N. DISIRIcTs -- 309 SANS NUmbER OF PUPILS YEAR -- 1972 D/STRICT TYPE mUMBER OF WEIGHTED PUPILS 1 UNIT mrAsimEs OF MEAv, EOWALITY, AND FISCAL NEUTRALITY 1, 2. 3. 4. 5. A, T. A. 9, 10, 11. 12, 13, 14, 15. 16. 17. 114. 19. 20. 21, MEAN EXP RANGE RES RANGE FED P R REL PN PERM VAR VAR COEF VAR STD nEv LGs GINI SIM. CORR SLOPE W SLOPE W2 SLOPE W3 EY!' nu HICK GINT MEAN W sTn DEV w ELAST W (LAST W2 ELAST WS 469458 DISTRICT 1011.00000 3397.00000 8A4.00000 1.34970 .22645 .81482 103740.00000 .31365 .29596 .16030 .56950 9.74500 11.12700 0.00000 419.53000 0.00000 35.21700 18.62200 .33946 .38760 0.00000 OF ANALYS/S UNWEIGHTED pupIL 489.00000 3397.00000 650.00000 1.06790 .17663 .62746 5555o.00000 .26113 .29135 .13240 .57060 9.76600 11.21500 0.00000 420.06000 0.00000 26.44300 ln.63woo .29108 .3?359 0.00000 Variable descriptions: 1. Pupils: 2. Revenues: 3. Wealth: 4. Districts: Average Daily Membership (ADM). Local and state revenues excluding debt service and capital. Equalized Assessed Valuation. All. 3u2 WEIGHTED PUPIL 000000 000000 0.00000 0.00000 000000 o.00000 -o-v10000 0.00000 000000 0,0001/0 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 TABLE 8-34 NUMBER OF r1SIRICTS -- 308 STPTE . KANS YEAR NUMBER OF PUPILS 1974 IUMbEqOF VEIGHTED PUPILS .. DISTRICT TYPE .- I UNIT MEASURES OF MEAN. .EQUALITY AND FISCAL NEUTRALITY 1. 2. 3, 4, 5. 6. 7; 8. 9, 10, 11. 12. 13. 14, 15. 16. 17, 18. 19. 20. 21, MEAN EXP RANGE RES RANGE FEn R R REL MN OEV PERM VAR VAR DISTRICT 1946,00000 4553.00000 2199.00000 -1.9575 ..28616 .78572 532040.00000 COEF VAR srn DEV LGS GINI SIM CORR SLOPE W SLOPE W2 SLOPE W3 EXP DIF HICK GINI MEAN W STD DEV w ELAST W ELAST W2 ELAST W3 . Variable descriptions: See Table 8-33 (Kansas, 1972). 111. 447033 .37482 .35318 .20050 .84490 20.93100 25.15900 0.00000 14E14.00000 0.00000 52.03400 29.44400 ,55967 ,67273 0.00000 3F ANALYSIS UNWEIGHTED PUPIL 1484,00000 4553,00000 132n.00000 1.30840 .22761 .88501 221410.00000 .317os .28951 .15580 .84630 21.02100 25.32400 0.00000 1485,40000 0.00000 36,57900 17.49400 .51814 .62421 0.00000 WEIGHTED PUPIL u.opouo 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 -04-0-0-000 0.00000 0.00000 0,00000 0.00000 0,00000 0.00000 0,00000 0.000o0 0,00000 0.noonu 0.00000 000000 0.00000 0.00000 TABLE STATL B-35 N;m8E:, OF oISTilICTS -- 189 KTY NUMBER OF PUPILS YEAk -- 1972 DISTNICT YPL NUMBER OF wEIGHTE0 PUPILS -- I UNIi. mLASURrs OF MEAN, EQUALITY, ANO FISCAL NEUTRALITY MLAN EXP RANGE RLS RANBr FLO R R 1. 24 5, 4. 5. 6, 7. 8, 9. 5465P' 08834 0491,5010m 1497P .18800 ,0771A GilI 10. II. 12, .13, 14. 15. 16. 17, 18, 19. 20. 21, 282,06o0n, 659.92000 s59,03000 407,32000 90067 6066n: Om CORR SLOPr w SLOPE 42 SLOPE.W3 EIP DIF HICK GINI mLAN 4 SIO DEV W ELAST W ELAST w2 ELAST W3 5,1510,, 3,v35on 5.15700 9468808. .6457A 36.50000 14.902On .22123 WEIGHTED PUPIL UNWEIGHTED PUPIL 3iS1RICT .11001 \ COEF VAR SIO DEVA.G3 ANALYSIS 'OF 615.48000 559,83000 REL. ml DEv pt.Rm VAR vAi 656,247 .16509 ,92096 16354.00000 .19378 .18598 ,10674 .70090 6,36500 6,66900 8.91100 056,40000 .08229 39.26200 .,20613 .18619 14236(0 037806 ,39677 .55016 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.01000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 000000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0100000 0.00000 0.00000. Variable descriptions: 1. Pupil (unweighted): 2. Revenues: 3. Wealth: 4. Districts: Average Daily Attendance (ADA). Local and state revenues excluding debt service and capital. State equalized assessed valuation. All (Equalized to 100% of market value.) TABLE STATL KTY YEAR 1975 OISTr410 TYPE NoMBE.R OF JISTRICIS AVM. 1. 2, 3, 4, 5. 6, 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12, 13. 14. 15, 16, 17, 18, 19. 20. NIIMBER OF WEIGHTED PUPILS I MLASURPS OF MEAN. EQUALITY, AND FISCAL NEUTRALITY DISTRICT 865.5900n 858,4200n 307,0500a MLAN EXP RANGE REs RANGE FEU R R .41961 .10750 .90426 REL. MN DEV PLRM VAR VAR cOEF VAR STU DEN LGs GINI SIM CORR SLOPE w SLOPE w2 SLOPE W3 EXP DIF HICK G/NI MEAN W STO DEv W ELAST w ELAST w2 ELAST w3 NI T n F ANA-47 VNWEIGHTED PUPIL 19858 02333 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0,00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 5753n ,78380 .8,26000 , (Kentucky, 1972). WEIGHTED (NPIL o.doono 0.00000 0.00000 51052,00000 ,23779 .21852 4,0850n 3,75400 5.0590n 114.1800n ,04520 48,3640n 18,6650n .22825 .20975 ,1709, YSIS 960.47000 A38442000 651.03000 ,8S407 17E93.000pn .15367 .15800 .07619 Variable descriptions: See Table 8-35 182 NUM8Fp OF PUPILS -- 622483 U . B-36 12463 8,28700 10,17500. a16,70000 .10573 65,32300 21444600 .48078 ,482Z5 ,59225 0.0000.0 TABLE B-37 STATt YEAR NUMBER OF DISTRICTS "66 LOU .WIMdE4 OF PUPILS 1972 OISTKICT TYFt NIIMSER OF WEIGHTEO PUPILS .. 1 UNIT MLASUKES OF MEAN. EWIALITY. ANO FISCAL NEUTRALITY 1. 2, 3, 5. 6, 7. 3. 9. .10, 11. 12, 13. 14. 15, 16, 17, 18, 19. 20, 21, filtAN.LXP RANGE RLS RANGE FLU R R RLL MN OEV pe.Rm VAR vAR COEF VAR STU OEV LSS GINI SIM CORR SLOPE W SLOPE W2 SLOPE W3 EXP OIF HICK 6101 MLAN w SIO DEV w ELAST W ELAST w2 ELAST W3 840159 oF, ANAL YSIS UNWEIGHTE0 DISTKI T 'PUPIL 705.00000 405,00000 i79.00000 ,29388 705.00000 405.00000 244.00000 .40956 .07963 .90942 5156,00000 0.0208 .09950 .05571 .17407 3.17260 15.36200 12,63400 0.00000 0.00000 6.51500 5.97000 .02851 .13806 .11354 0725, ,92799 5685.00000 .08097 .08625 04541 ,386i5 6,32670 11,26700 11.00600 0.00000 0,00000 7,23500 8,24700 .06493 .11563 .11377 WLI6Nre0 PJPIL 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0,00000 0.00000 0.00000 0,00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Variable descriptions: 1. Pupils (unweighted); 2. Revenues: Local and State Revenues: Local revenues include property taxes in the following categories: constitutional tax; special maintenance and operations tax; special leeway tax - - at both the parish and district/ward level. Revenues also include: rents, leases, sales taxes, tuition, special appropriations, interest, grants, sale of junk, and miscellaneous. State revenues _ Average Daily Membership (ADM). are from the school equalization fund, sixteenth section lands (interest), codofil (Frpnch language), revenue sharing, severance tax, contribution to teacher retirement, the state portion of vocational education, crippled and exceptional children's fund, and adult education. Assessed Value. (Note Equalized Assessed Value is not used in aid distribution until 1976-77.) 3. Wealth: 4. Districts: 06 All 41 TABLE B-38 Sig% LOU WM8E1; OF DISTRICTS --66 YEAR 1975 NiiMdER OF PUPILS --830550 UISTRICT TYPi. NUMaER OF WtIGHTEU PUPILS 1 UNIT MtASURES OF MEAN. EQUALITY. AND FISCAL NEUTRALITY 1, 2. 3, 4, 5. 6. 7. 8, 9. 10. ONO 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. DISTRICT 1059.00000 585.00000 399.00000 .44165 .08692 .92144 15195.00000 MtAN tXP RANGE REs RANGE' FtU R R RtL MN DEV latrim VAR VAA COEF VAR STO DEV LGS GINI SIM CORR SLOPE W SLOPE W2 SLOPE W3 EXP OIF HICK GINI MtAN 0 SIO OEV W ELAST W ELAs7 w2 ELAST W3 .11860 .11088 .06111 .28082 6.95350 28.37100 26.83300 0.00000 0,00000 6.39400 5.01600 04279 .17459 14667 F ANALYSIS UNWEIGHTED PUPIL 1049.00000 585,00000 283.00000 ,31165 .07963 .90618 10155.00000 .09594 .09492 .05342 ,36969 8,63250 16.49600 17.01900 0.00000 0.00000 7,1950o 3,80100 .05921 ,11814 .11673 WLIGHTED PUP% 0.00000 0.00000 0600000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0600000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.0000C 0.00000 0.00000 Variable descriptions: 1. Pupils (unweighted): 2. Revenues: 3. Wealth: 4. Districts: See TableB-37(Louisiana 1972). Same as Louisiana 1972 but local revenues also include food service collections and state revenues include all vocational education revenues. See Table 8-37 (Louisiana, 1972). See Table B-37 (Louisiana, 1972). TABLE B-39 STATE YEAR. mumsER oF DISTRICTS .265 MAINE NUMBER oF PUPILS -- 246676 1972 r.ISTRICT TYPE NumeER OF WEIGHTED PUPILS 1 UMIr OF *ANALYSI S. MEASURES OF MEAA.. EQUALITY, AND FISCAL NFUTRALITT 1, 2. 3. 4. 0, 68 MCAN EXP RANGE RES RANGE. FED R R REL.MN OFV' PERM VAR 7. 8. COEF VAR 9. VAR to.. smn DEv.LsS, GINI 11, 12. 13, 14. 15, 16, 17, 18, 19. 20. 21, SIM CORR SLOPE W SLOPE W2 SLOPE W3 EXP DIF HICK GINI MEAN W STD rEv w ELAST W ELAST W2 ELAST W3 UNWE/GHTEU PUPIL DISTRICT 938.e000n 9919.00000 1180.00000 2.52650 .30892 .80590 463490.00000 .72546 .3/044 .22010 .57670 3.13000 2.11180 0.00000 530,81000 0.00000 60.89500 125.44000 .20320 .13710 000000 524.00000 9919.00000 548.00000 897030 .15661 .85029 35085.00000 .22720 .22692 .11550 .57680 3.13300 2.13550 0.00000 519.11000 0.00000 30.28300 21.64100 .11614 .07848 0.00000 Variable descriptions: 1. Pupils: 2. Revenues: 3. Wealth; 4. Districts: Average Daily Membership (ADM) Local and state revenues excluding debt service and capital. Equalized Assessed Valuation. All. I, .W:g7LT EU 410 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0,00000 0,00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.t10000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 000000 o.aoono 0,00000 0.00000 0.00000 40 TABLE STATE ',TAR B-40 "ollmBER OF 0ISIR/c4s MATNr OmbEl OF PUPILS 197 275 246621 NUMBE1 OF VE4GHTLD PUPILS olsTRICT TYPE -- 1 UNIT MEASURES OF MEAN. EQuAlITT. AND FISCAL:NEUTRALITY DISTRICT 3 F A.NAWIS UNWEIGHTFD PUPIL WEIGHTED pupIL 1. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11, 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18, 19. 20, 21, MEAN Exp RANGE ,REs RANGE FEp p R REL MN OFV PERM VAR vAR COEF VAR STn nEv LGs GINI 1113.00000 3379.00000 1014.00000 1.40190 .21164 .85106 134930.00000 .33014 .29195 .15360 SIM CORR' SLOPE w SLOPE W2 SLOPE W3 ExP CIF HICK OINI MEAN W sTn rEv w ELA5T w (LAST W2 ELAST W3 4,31500 .85400 7.39330 0.00000 649.50000 0.00000 77.41500 135.44000 .05940 .16647 000000 Variable descriptions: See Table B-39 (Maine, 1972). 3u9 1036.00000 5379.00000 619.00000 .85510 .13606 .87994 36073.00000 .10319 .20336 .09820 .31600 .86300 2.40070 0.00000 679.71000 0.00000 42.52900 31.42500 .03542 .09A53 0.0n000 0,00000 0.00000 0,00000 0,n0000 0.00000 0,00000 000000 0.00000 1.1.00000 0.00000 000000 o.nnono oonnno uonnuo o.nonuo 0.00000 nonnno uououo 0.00000 000000 000000 Var. TABLE B-41 SfATE NU&ER QF DISTR/CTS MRLND NUMBER OF PUPILS vEAR -- 1974 DISTRICT TYPE 24 829,094 NUMBER OF WEIGHTED PUPILS 1 1. UNIT MEASURES OF MEAV, EQUALITY, AND FISCAL NEUTRALITY 1. 2. 3. 4, 5. 6. 7. 8, 9. 10. 11. 12. 13, 14. 15. 16. 17. 18, 19, 21, MEAN EXP RANGE RES RANGE FED R R REL MN Dry PERM vAR VAR COEF VAR STD 11E%, LGS GINI S/M CORR SLOPE W SLOPE W2 SLOPE W3 EXP n1F HICK GIN/ MEAN W srn nEv w ELAST W ELAST W2 ELAST W3 3F ANALYSIS wrIGHTED UNWEIGHTEU DISTRICT 1476.00000 93/1.00000 584.00000 .50040 41831 .82517 46557.00000 .14619 .14059 .07970 .60430 8.56700 13.58200 15.12100 521.50000 0.00000 47,54800 17.23500 , .27590, ,45753 48711 .PUPIL PUPIL, 1t17.00000 938.00000 925.00000 .64450 .12970 .95853 61599.00000 .15390 v14975 .08400 .70710 9.52400 14.06600 16.02900 545.68000 0.00000 49,84900 15.67000 .29561 .43363 .49414 .0.00000 000000 000000 0.00000 0.00000 000000 000000 . 0.00000 0.00000 6,00000 0.00090 0,00000 000000 41 0.00000 0,00000 0.00000 0.00000 0 000000 000000 0.00000 000000 Variable descriptions: Average Daily Membership (ADM), 1. Pupils: 2. Revenues: 3. Wealth: 4. Districts: Local and state revenues excluding debt service and capital. Equalized Assessed Valuation. All. 31 o 0 TABLE B-42 NUMBER OF DISTRICTS .... YEAR'17- 1975 NUMBER oF PUPILS -- 1144459 p/STRIrT TYPE -- 1 NUMBER OF WEIGHTED PUPILS --' UNIT MEASURES oF MEAN-I EOHAL;TY. AND FISCAL NEUTRALITY ASS X. 2. 3, 4. 5, 6. 7. 8. 9. AM*. 351, STATE -- PASS 10. 11, 12. 13. 14, 15. 16, 17. 18. 19. 20, 21, MEAN EXP RANGE RES RANGE FED p R REL MN OFv pERM VAR DISTRICT COEF VAR S7o OEV LGS GIN! s/m CORR SLORF W SLOPE w2 SLOPE W3 Ex,' DIF HICK GINI MEAN w sTO PEV w ELAsTJ4 ELAST W2 ELAST w3 . ANALYSIS uNwEI6HTEL1 PUPIL 1646.00000 455%00000 930,000001 :73070 .13162 89003 120760.00000 vAR OF 21111 .17646 09660 .63780 1.52200 206000 0.00000 600.91800 0.00000 81,68400 145.65000 ,07553 .10223 0.00000 1697.00000 4559.00000 1421.00000 1.09770 WEIGHTED PUPIL 000000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 15829 vloono .91002 144130.40800 .22374 .20094 .11280 .62260 1.52100 2.06500 0.00000 590.85000 0.00000 55.13900 33.75800 .04942 .06710 0.00000 0.00000 0,00000 0.00000 0.00000 0,00000 0.00000 0.08000 0,00000 000000 0,00000 0,00000 0,00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.40ouo 0.00000 .=6. Variable descriptions: Average Daily Membership (ADM). 1. Pupils: 2. Expenditures from local and state revenUes, with minor exceptions, Revenues: excluding debt service and capital. 3. Wealth: 4. Districts: Equalized Assessed Valuation. All. 311 TABLE 8-43 NIMHIR UF DISTRIC1S-7- 524 varH -SIATE YEAR -- 1931 4UMBER OF PUPILS -- 2,179,299 OIST/i10 tYmE AUMBEP OF dLIGHTEU.PjPILS 31k 11 1EASJRES OF lEAN. CPUALITY. AND rIscAL NcuTRALITy 2, 3, 4 FE0 P. .5040n 410154 ,98057 14167,00n00 ,1425n .13045 vAR COEF VAR STO 0Ev LGS v9. 10, 11, . 07231 . SLOPE w. sLoPE W3 Exp 0Ir HICK GINI MEAN w sTO 0Ev W ELAST w ELAST wP ELAs7 W3 15, 16, 17, to, 19. PO. 17131,00060-' .14841 .13961 .07800 ,71340 .6004n 3,95270 4,13$14 4,11770 147,52onn .04274 54.0500n 18.00n0n SIM CORR 12, la. A' N A g82.42000 A47,72000 422,06000 .58704 .10884 .92506 354,46(10n REL MI OEV PERM VAR 5, 6, 7, 8, :-SIR.7cT P. OF L UNOEIGHTED. PUPIL 835.25non 847,72000 MEAN ExP RANGE REs RANGE t, NIT 6,16t90 6,254911 6.x6690 09,51000 .05465 57,79400 /5,18200 .26409 .26790 ,27269 0.6492: ,1716R 07181 SIS wEIGHTEnPUPIL 0.00000 0,00000 0.00000 0,00000 0.00000 0,00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.60000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0,00000 0.0000G 0,00000 0,00000 0.00000 0.00000 0,00000 0.00000 Variable descriptions: 1. Pupils (unweighted): State aid membership defined as the number of pupils legally enrolled at the close of school on the,fourth Friday following Labor Day. 2. Revenues: State and local revenues excluding revenues for debt service and capital. 3. Wealth: 4. Districts: State equalized assessed value. All 3 AD TABLE B-44 STATL -- MICH AiMBro OF OISTRICTS -- 523 YEAR -- 1972 NUMBEn OF PUPILS DISTRICT TYPE NUMBER OF WEIGHTED PUPILS 7- UNIT 41 MEASURES OF MEAN. EQUALITY, AND_ FISCAL NEJTRALITY . 1, 2, 3, 4.- 5, 6, 7. 9. 10. 12. 13. 14. 15, 16, 17. 18, 19. 20. 21, mr:AN ExP RANGE RES RAIGE FEJ R R pERM VAR vAR COEF VAR STO 0Ev Las G131 sqm CORR, SLOPE W SLOPE w2 SLOPE w3 ExP DIF HICK GINI MEAN W STO DEV W (LAST W (LAST w2 ELAST W3 UNWEIGHTE0 PUPIL 0,00000 0.00000 0,00000 0,00000 0,00000 2.1598.00000 0.00000 15436 .14353 08138 000000 396,.99000 .5040n .10214 ,,,93491 17984,0000n ,1464n .13159 . ,07221 .5991A .62802. 3.8680n 3.7961n 5.04330 160.8200n 39.45600 20.7730n 5.57900 5.57100 5:65680 181.13000 .05038 40.79300 16.46600 -.1623q -.24016 15937 .25901 .24351 04275 .16137 Variables descriptions: See Table B-43 (Michigan 1971). 101. 400 wEIGHTEn POPIL o47.64000 1228,50000 439.12000 .55479 .11058 .91482 916.00000 1229,50000 REL. M4 0EV 2157133 ANALYSIS nF SIK1 T MD- 313 b,opocio 0.00000 0,00000 0,00000 0,00000 0,00000 0,00000 0,00000 0,00000 0,00000 0,00000 0.00000 0,00000 0,00000 TABLE 8-45 STATt AOMBEo OF DISTRICTS -- 523 4IC4 NUMBER OF PUPILS --2.121,090 YEAR -- 197; DISTRICT TYPE -- NAM8E4 OF WEIGHTE0 PUPILS .. 1 uNIT mfASU4ES OF MEM!. EnUALITY. A40 FISCAL NEUTRALITY I. 2 3 4. 5. 6. 7. 8, 9. 10. 11. 12. 13, 14. 15. 16, 17. 18, 20. 21. 09794 ,S222A PERM VAR , VAR 2067900000 COEF VAR S13 OEV LGS GI41 SIM CORR SLOPE w SLOPE W2 SLOPE W3 VIP OIF HICK GTNI MEAN W S1O DEU W' ELAST W ELAST w2 ELAsT ,14n61 .13031 ,0717n .58254 5.50470 3,46520 5.04790 142,55000 .03614 42,2290n 23,90200 .14471 1430A .12584 1n19.30000 1;30.00000 497,99000 ,55472 9522 40478 21n74,00000 .13734 13146 .07138 ,63670 5,20923 5,49890 5.27480 199,81000 O 4415 44,15000 18.11900 .21309 .22494 .21577 Variable descriptions: See Table 8-43 ANALYSI S uNWEIGHTED PUPIL DISTRI T 10,2,7nnon 1130.8noon 459.4000A .5497A MEAN EXP RAA6E REs RANGE FrO R R, REL 44 OEV r.F (Michigan 1971) 31 4 WEIGHTED PUPIL 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000. 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0,00000 0.00000 0.00000 0,00000 0.00000 0,00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0,00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 IP V, TABLE STATE fEAR B-46 NuM8E0 OF DISTRICIS -- 523 mICH mpriBFo OF PUPILS 2,100,243 1974 NIIMBFR tlF 4LIGHTEO PUPILS GISTHIcT TIPT: -- 11N I ^ rF ANAL YS I MEASURES OF MEAPI. EQUALITY, AND FISCAL NEJTRALITY 2, 3, 4, 5. 6. 7, A, 9. 0, 11, 12, 13, Om CORR SLOPE w SLOPE W2 STD DEv W ELAST W ELAST 42 ELAST w3 19. 20. 21, 2u657.00300' ,13206 .12592 .12514 ,0697A 0INI 10,- .922,17 -03337 COEF VAR STD nEv LGS EXP rIF HICK GTNT 1169.10000 1155.50000 536,95000 ,55467 409339 2278708000 vAR 1 4 16, 17, UNWEIGHTED' PJPIL 31S1RICT 1131,9onan 1155.500On 473,1600n .50393 .0974P .692079 MEAN EXP RANGE REs RANGE FED R R REL MN OEV PERM VAR 147,--S-L7w3 111O T MEAN .4 06965 51887 2,715n .61423 4,66510 3,2972n 2.96490 170,4100n ,U322s 47,016nn 25,665nn ,11463 5,25500. 4462350 197,32000- 04036 ,1392q.. 0260g Variable descriptions: See Table B-43 (Michigan, 1971) OM. 315 48,55600 20.58600 .19111 .21458 ,19696 S WEIGHTED PJ2/1. 0.00000 0,00000 0,00000 0,00000 0.00000 0,00000 0,00000 0.00000 0.00000 0,00000 0,00000 0,00000 0.00000 0.00000 0,00000 0,00000 0.00000 0.00000 0,00000 0.00000 0.00000 TABLE B-47 STATL Mom 41.1"IgR OF 00TRICFS_!"1.455____ YEAR -- 1971 NUM8ER OF PUP15.S .-51014,6518 uISTmicT TVPL ...... 1 mUmtsER OF WLIGHTEu PUPILS -- UNI; PLASURES OF REANt. ENUALITY, ANO FISCAL NEUTRALITY 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. 6, 7, 8, 9. 10. 11. 12, 13, 14, 15. 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, mLAN LAP RANGE RL3 RANGE FLU R R RLL MN UV pe.Rm VAR vAR CuEF VAR STU OEV Las sun SIN CORR SLOPE w SLOPE w2 SLOPE w3 ExP 0/F RICK GINI RtAll w STU Oev w ELAST W ELAST w2 ELAST OF ANALYSIS WLIGNIE-0 UNWEIGHTE0 PUPIL '01STRICT 9/2.66000 .1430,00000 401,00000 .50440 ,10352 .91754 22009,00000 .15252 948.59000 1430,00000 444.00000 ,57963 .11240 .90666 24115.00000 :16371 .15100 .08169 ,25970 6,62800 5,80300. 1.70000 1122800 0.00000 10.30900 6.08500 .07203 .06507 .01848. PJP/L 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 14737 000000 .07611 *41270 12.55300 11.55400 10.55200 i00.35000 0.00000 10,55400 4,72730 ,14627 .13533 .12289 0,00000 0.00000 0,00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00080 Variable descriptions: I. Pupils; Average Daily Membership (ADM). Total state and local revenues excluding debt service and capital. 2. Revenues: 3. Wealth: 4. Districts: All districts except two with extraordinarily low property value per pupil. Total assessed valuation. (Equalized to 27.49% of market value.) 316 TABLE 8-48 STA% 6 MINN P47,MBFR OF OISTRICIS YEAR - 1975 N.',MtiEp OF PUPILS uISTRICT TYPE MLASURES OF MEANt EUUAL1TY4 ANO FISCAL NEUTRALITY 2. 5, 14. 5. 6, 7 8. 9. CULP. .VAR 10o 11, 12. 15. 14. 15, 16, 17, 15, 19, 20. 21, 61NI SIM CORR SLOPE W SLOPE W2 OF 1519.50000 1083.00000 506.00000 .45668 .09554 .91103 ANALYS71 UNWEIGHTE0 PUPIL alSTRICT MLAN EXP RANGE RL5 RANGE FLU R R RLL MN OEV FoLmi VAR VAR 873,057 tiuridER OF WLIGHTEU PUPILS 1 UNIT 1. 435 15*4.20000 1083.00000 562900000 .49779 .09916 .92969 34052.000M 2575.00000 .13988 .12500 .06852 oi1030 2.05800 4.54800 5.49500 67.22500 0.00000 .12b51 .12207 SIU OEV LOS SLOPE W5 EXP OIF HICK GINI MEAN W 5F0 OEV ELAST W CLAST W2 FLAVr A3 06959 .41110 10.96500 15.80700 15,66500 175,89000 0.00000 15.31400 6.56230 .12400 .15614 .15453 151145600 9.89300 .02411 .05328 .04094 Variable descriptions: 1. Pupils (unweighted): 2. Revenues: 3. Wealth: 4. Districts: See Table See'Table B-47 1-47 (Minnesota, 1971). (Minnesota, 1971). Total assessed valuation (Equalized to 22.06% of market value.) See Table B-47 (Minnesota, 1971). 317 S WEIGHTCO PUPIL 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000' 4.00000, 0.00000 0.00009 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 .00000 _TABLE -B 49-- STATL -YEAR W,MdEs, OF DISTRICIS --150 MISS WiridElt oF PUPILS 1971 UISTRICT TYAL ALIM8174 OF WLIGHTEU PUPILS .. I UNI MLASURES OF MEAN, EWUALITY. ANO FISCAL NEUTRALITY I. 2, 5, 4, S. ALAN EXP RANGE REs-RANGr R FLO ALL AN OEV pLRA VAR 7. 8, 9. vAR 16, 11. 12, 13, 14. 15. 16. 17. 18, 19. 20. 21. COEF VAR STO cleir LGS GINI SIM CORR SLOPE W SLOPE W2 SLOPE Ws EXP OIF HICK GINI MEAN STO OEV W CLAST W ELAST W2 ELAST W3 526424 T n F UNWEIGHTEo PaPIL DISTRICT 464.00000 333.00000 166.00006 .48369 .10281 691856 3611.00000 .12956 .16444 .07150 ANALYSIS 478660000 333.00000 302,00000 .77926 6.00000 0,00000 0.08000 0.00000 ..12267 000000 692355 5710.00000 .15796 .11041 0.00000 0,00000 00431 41767 ,73980 2,07140 4.'7400 475630 4.5500 0.00000 0.00000 5.58600 12,16100 .02498 .05999 .05488 WEIGHTED PUPIL 4,75650 2814480 0.00000 0.00000 14.82400 11.05000 .05447 .14751 .06652 clommo same 6.60000 .06000 0.00100 0.06000 0.06000 0.00000 0.00000 0.80000 0.60600 000000 0.66000 coomo Variable descriptions: 1. Pupils (unweighted): 2. Revenues: Local and State Revenues: Local revenues include all revenues from local sources: property taxes; mineral lease tax; other taxes; tuition and End of first month enrollment. transportttion fees; sixteenth section income; and revenues from intermediate sources. State revendes are for the minimum program, vocational education, community funds, the severance tax, homestead retebursements, driver education, adult education, and textbooks. However, since local revenues include property taxes for capital purposes, expendutures for capital and debt services are excluded from the revenue total. 3. Wealth: 4. Districts: Assessed property valuation. (Note, not equalized.) All OS-8 318V.I. SSIW knou CL6T 13T1IST0 10A1 n N S3Vnsv Ao 6103W $AITlyno ONV 1V0sTA Ali-1%11110N ID 61 6? 'e 6t, S 9 vime 'L, 6 mom. 60I. 'II 'rg. 62/ 641/ 60 09/ 'LI egI '6I 'pot IOINISTO 0000veu Nv1W dx3 3SNOL sly 39Nvw 01A W V llw NW A30 Wiod )41/A wvA A3o0 WvA OIS AlO /NTS wTs atio3 . movots ommouz eiast" L69406 aftT6' 0000060169 60t/I6 fiTOTT" 26190' LI/Le 'Magee 34101S M 3do'S aM 0d0lS 2M cm] AIO w3TH INft 09?26641 0126964) 000000 0000060 000069 Miv1W M OIS A30 M IS1/13 M Isr9 OSL Ao 03PWA AO SlIdnd w3PWA Ao n304913/4 SlIdOc; I dP v. 8MOS WA-1%1N 031NSI1M 031HST3mNO lIdnd 0000010 00000'40,' 0000coots- ocmovo 00000%01 00000.0 0000060 0000060 0000010 0000060 0000060 0000060 0000060 0000060 0000060 0000060 0000060 00000'0 0000060 0000060 gL9S1' L06016 919Z6' 000006902T - 0041;T' VSVIT0 ' 9SSL0 Ita6L' OSLitea 0199et OLc/c0; 0000060 0000060 000Ag6LT 0069t6t/ Oft/Via 000006 90414106 IGSSO° 9LOSI' 9a0VI' 00001160 USW I294,06 aM iSv13, Sm V11. avienivA :suoildposap wisl an' algel Odississii0617-8 I sormisTo 1,13SW.:N 'WE GTE 0000060 0000060 TABLE c:TATt. B-51 N1JM6Ep OF DIsTRICTS. -- 455 m0 YEAR -- 1974 Numbra OF PUPILS nIST:41cT TYPE -- UNIFIED NuMBEa OF JETGHTE1 PUPILS -- UNIT 848,858 oF ANALYSIS mEASURES GF MEAN, E-JUALITY, AND DIS1RICT UMWEII,HTED PUPIL FISCAL NEUTRALITY 1. 2, 3. MEAN ExP RANGE 07463 991.72000 2283,90000 507,11000 ,65984 .14013 ,92622 29794,00000 3057.00000 ,18971 .15300 ,C8319 ,75400 .19953 .17461 .09853 ,82580 27,90800 24,37800 24.34700 81,11000 ,07825 13,86400 5,83830 .39183 ,34129 .34086 90q483000 2263,90000 425,09000 ft-5 RANGE 4, 5. 6, 7, 8, 9. 10. FED R R 4,56714 REL MN ()EV ,11769 11. SIM CORR SLOPE w SLOPE w2 sL0PE 43 EXP DIF 12, 13, 14. 15. 16, 17, 18, 19. 20. .21. PERM VAR vAR COEF VAR SIO OEV LGS GINI 21,6910p 15,44100 15.23200 152.75oon .05895 HICK GTO MEAN W 12,42200' 6,02P00 .29476 .21082 420796 Sial DEv W ELAST ELAST w2 FLAST 43 WEIGHTED PUPIL 0.00000 0.00000 0,00000 0,00000 0,00000 0,00000 0,00000 0,00000 0,00000 0,00000 0,00000 0,00000 0,00000 0,00000 0,00000 0,00000 0,00000 0,00000 0,00000 0,00000 0,00000 Variable descriptions: 1. Npil (unweighted): 2. Revenues: 3. Wealth: 4. Districts: Average Daily Attendance (ADA). Total local and state revenue excluding debt service and capital. Reported assessed valuation. (Equalized to 33.3% of market.) All Unified districts. 32o TABLE B-52 sTATc NV.1BER OF DISTRICTS =- 454 m0 YEAR -- 147 NOMBER OF PUPILS DISTH.IcT TYPE -- UNIFIED NuMBrp OF WEIGHTED PUPILS -- UNI; MLASURES OF MEAN, EQUALITY, AND FISCAL NEUTRALITY 1.. 2, 3, 4, 5. 6, 7. 8. 9, 10, 11. 12, 15, 14, 15. 16. 18. 19, 20. 21. 2322,50000 496,15000 RANGE RES RANGE , .b5691 FLO R. R ,11879 .87629 36131,00900 .10059 ,15109 .08299 .73690 18.9GSOn 14,9590o 15,08400 RLL MN DEV , pLRM VAR VAR CuEF VAR STO OEv LGS GINI SIM CORR SLOPE w SLOP E w2 SLOPE w3. ExPOIF 219,614000 ;0588, 15,31300 7.2060n HICK GINI mLAN d STU DEV W ELAST w ELA$T W2 ELAST W3 2827A .21184 .21361 Variable descriptions: See Table 8-51 0 AN,ALYSIS UNWEIGHTED PUPIL DISTRICT 1081.30000 'ALAN ExP nF (Missouri-Unified, 1974). 321 834,394 WEIGHTED PJP/L 1157.70000 9322,50000 2.89000 ,57304 0-2925 0,00000 0.00000 0,00000 0.00000 0,00000 93162 000000 44510.00000 .18223 ,16282 0.00000 09163 0,00000 0,00000 0.00000 0,00000 0.00000 0,00000 .8099J 24,93600 21,93500 21,68600 290.40000 .07057 16,77100 6,85230 ,36123 ,31776 .31413 000000 000000 .0,00000 0,00000 0.000,00. 0.00000 0,00000 0.00000 TABLE B-53 SThTc. 4.MBEg OF DISTRICTS -- 1F.AR -- V974. NJIILIER CF ,PUPILS, flISTrIICT TYPe. N 1 T nF ANALYSiS UNWEIGHTE0 PUPIL 3iSIRICT gi,SCAL NEUTRALITY 1. 2, 3, 4, 5. 4tAN ExP RAAGE REs RANGE 6, 7, 8, PERM VAR 9. 10. 11, 12, 13. 14, 15. 16, 17. la. 19. 682.40011 1040,400On 274,95000 Ft:0 R R REA_ m4 0EV vAR cuEF VAR SrD 0Ev LOS GIN! SIA cORR, SLOPE w 679.27U00 1040.4ouoo. 320,q6000 4847n 56583 .15350 ,93512 19921,0000n .20141 0.6900 .12992 .92456 1461600000 ,20619 .16987 )926, 9043 ,t,638n ,69650 14,84500 8.46600 7,55900 123,49000 .06003 9,56270 6,6714o .20899 .11918 .10613 11.60700 9.02200 8,3210n 117,2400n .0548n 11,162on 6,56A0n ,19297 .14746 ,136an SLOPE W2 SLOPE w5 EXP DIP HICK GINI mEA4 w STO 0Ev W TLAST ELAST w2 ELAST 24,671 NumsEp.OF wEIGRTE0 PUPILS .. ELEMENTARY 4EASuRFS 3F 4EAN. E-UALTrY. AN0 110 WEIGHTED PUPIL 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Variable descriptions: 1. Pupil (unweighted): 2. Revenues: 3. Wealth: 4. Districts: Average Daily Attendance (ADA). Total local and state revenue excluding debt service and capital. Reported assessed valuation. (Equalized to 33.3% of market.) All Elementary districts. -32412 41 TABLE sTATE B-54 NUMBER OF DISTRICT-S, -- 105 10.0 YEAR -- 1975 NIIMBFR OF PI,IPILS 0IS*NICT TYPE -- NUMBER OF WEIGHTED PUP/LS --, ELEMENTARY OF- ANALYSIS OM. mLASURFS.OF MEAN. FgUALITY, AND FISCAL! NEUTRALITY 1. 2. 3, mLAN ExP RANGE 4, 5, 6. 7. 8, 9. rEn R It RLL mN 0Ev PLRM VAR VAR COEP vAR SIJ 0Ev LGS G1NI 10. 11. 12. 13, 14. 15. 16, 17, 18 . 19,603 19. 20. 21. 1729.700Orf 928.64006 .,57157 .13439 .92376 41590.00000 ,21804- SLUpt SLOPE w2 ELOPE w3. EYP DIF HICK GTN/ MLAN W SIO DEv W 938.21000 1728.70000 .464,15000 ,62356 .43424 .90352 46410,00000 02.962 ,17900 5349 .0.9720 .09709 ,5564n 10.686on 5,41POn 4,55500 18P.66000 , umilFIGfiTE0 PUPIL 938.68006 REs RANIGE Sill CORR DISIRICT 05571. 16,8586n 10,65806 71640 12,69600 9.14300 9.15400 p26.57000 062.87 14.7920n 12.15500 ELAST W ,191.6R .21)317 ELAST w2 ELAST w3 0.5669 ,I534A .14415 Variable descriptions: See Table B-53 (Missouri-Elementary, 1974). 323 .4480 WEICmtED PJP1L 0.00000 000000 Pomo 0.00000 0.00000 0.000o0 ooloopo o.00noo o.upoon 0,00000 0.00000 0.00000 000000 000000 0,00000. 0.00000 000000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000, TABLE B-55 STATE -- N H mUM5E4 OF CISTPTCTS -- 167 YEAR -- 1.47% Numwo OF Fup/Ls -- 174197 DISTRICT TYPE -- 1 NumSEq OF WEIGHTED PUPILS 1F ANALTSTs 'UN7T AD mEAsuRES OF MFAN, E01JALITY. AND UNWEIGHTED PUPIL DISTRICT FISCAL NEUTRALITY 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. MEAN EXp RANGE RES RANGE FEn R R REL MN 4rV PERM vAR VAR COEF VAR STn nEV LGS GINT Sim CORR SLOPE W SLOPE W2 SLOPE W3 EXP RIF HICK GINT MEAN W STD nEy w ELAST W ELAST W2 ELAST W3 1197.00000 4001.90000 783.15040 .91570 .18545 .86303 146420.00000 .31968 'PUPIL 1164.60000 0,00000 4,101,90000 0.,10000 '51.54000 .60607 .13289 0,00000 0000,00 0.00000 0.00000 o.00000 o.000no '059467 65477.00000 .22056 04530 .54970 .09500 .52550 3.54850 4.87280 5,59100 423.18000 .07200 .15400 .62360 2.23430 0,50450 3.5.990 754.34000 .09600 96.33400 106.86000 .17982 .20156 ,28400 65.04600 37.84500 .19019 .27214 .31227 000000 0,00000 0.000110 000000 0,00000 0,00000 0.00000 0.00000 ofn0000 0,00000 0,00000 0.00000 0.00000 Variable descriptions: Total number of pupils in Average Daily Membership in 1. Pupils (unweighted): residence. 2. Revenues: The sum of locally raised revenues, and all state aid paid excluding school building aid, area vocational school.aid and "other revenue from state sources" (primarily construction aid for area vocational schools). 3. Wealth: 4. Districts: Includes all single town districts and cooperative school districts in the state. Equalized Property Valuation for 1974. 324 TABLE 8-56 411 0. STATE NuMuE4 OF. PISTPtcTs -- J mUMBEq OF WEIGHTED PUPILS -1762596 ,OMIRICT TYpE 1F ANALYSIS UNIt .MEASURES OF MEAN, EGOALITy, AND FIcCAL NEUTRALITY MEAN EXP RANGE RES RANGr 1. 2. 3. 4, 5. 6, 7. R. 10 FEPPP REL "N DFV PERP VAR VAR COEF VAR STO °EV L.0s GINI 10. 11. 12. SIM CORR sLOpE w SLOPF W2 SLOPE W5 EXP MIF HICK SINT MEAN W STM nEV w ELAST W ELAST W2 ELAST W3 . 13. 14. 19. 16, 17. 16. 19. 20, 21, OF PUPILS '14494,0. NUMbE YEAR.-... 1974 578 1412.40000 4667.00000 1021.90000 1.04470 .17750 .85402 126390.00000 .25135 .35420 .12700 .46580 2.18170 3.17200 4.26010 966.02000 .06700 76.60400 66412500 .11635 .21543 .23214 WEIGHTED PUPIL UNWEIGHTED PUPIL DISTRICT 1400.50060 4667.00000 611.02000 .78060 .14621 .67362 70u89.00000 .18957 .28650 .10400 .38960 3.08190 3:87150 3.88150 '60.52080 0.00000 -60.47090 33.56000 .13307 .16716 - 46759 1151.50000 3907,90000 754.92000 .97128 .16612 0117086 60054,00000 .21281 .50110 .11700 ,59910 4.83370 6.23000 6,47140 393.21000 08200 0 49.72200 30.87500 .20872 .26901 p7944 Variable descriptions: 1. a. Pupils (unweighted): The number of children and are enrolled on September 30 in public or in a district to which the school board include students sent to county vocational who reside in the school district schoiii either in their own district pays tuition. This count does not schools. .75 for each AFDC student. b. Pupils (weighted): 'The sum of unweighted pupils plus for operating expenditures and state aid 2. Revenues: Sum of.locally-raised revenues Locally-raised revenues for capital and debt for operating expenditures. expenditures are excluded. 3. Wealth: Annual Equalized Propert) Valuation. Includes all districts with resident pupils but excludes:county 4. Districts: and three vocational school districts, county special services district, negligible high property wealth and school districts with extraordinarily Boro). Rockleigh, and Stone Harbor student counts (Teterboro, TABLE -8...57- STATE -- N j NUMBE4 OF DISTRICTS . 575 YEAR --'1q75 Numtav OF PUPILS"'14550415 DISTRICT TYPE -- 1 mUMbia OF wEIGHTE0pLIP/Ls ..15091N9 U 4 EASURFS OF MEAN, EQUALITY, AND FISCAL NEUTRALITY 1. 2, 3. 4, 5, 64 7. mEAN EXP RANGF RES RANGE FEn R R REL mN DEv PERM VAR 44, COEF VAR STn OEV LGS GIN/ S/M CORR SLOPE W SLOPE W2 SLOPE w3 EXP niF HICK GINT MEAN W sTn nEy w ELAST W ELA57 W2 ELA5T W3 1,0 12. 13; 14, 15. 1.6, 17. is, 19, 20, 21, . 1,00830. 17323 .83449 113240,00000 .22219 .27050 .12100 PUPIL 1411.20000 2706.10000 439.78000 .84529 .14836' .87063 83123.00000' .19070 .23190 40300 .41420 3,14490 .4.12890 4.18380 A17.71000 .05000 66.85300 37,97000 . 37040 , 1,63690 3,50760 4.09720 623.91000 .06300 85.90000 76./3900 -.09284 .19895 .23239 "11 ANALYSIS UNWEISNIED " nISTRICT 1514.50000 2706.10000 1057.10000 VAR IF T .13913. .18266 ,0508_ UEIGHTED. .PUPIL 1435,10000 2537.70000 935.44000 .91624 .15494 .87776 77741.00000 .19429 .27460 .10500 .46310 3.50870 4.58030 4,63260 349.79000 .05800 63.48500 36.00100 O 5522 .20262 . 20493 lariable descriptions: 1. a. Pupils (unweighted): Set Table 8-56 (New Jersey, 1974). Unweighted pupils plus weighted Mils as per weightings described on following page (from Sec. 18A: TA-20 of the Public School Education Act of 1975). low Pupils (weighted): 2. Revenuft; 3. Wealth: See' Table B-56 See Table 8-56 4. Districts: See Table B-56 (New Jersey, 1974). (New Jersey, 1974). (New Jersey, 1974). 32 ; New Jersey Weightings for Categorical Aid Pkograms as contained in the Public School Education Act of 1975 (N.J.S.A. 18A:7A-20) Additional Cost Factors Special Education Classes Educable 0.53 Trainable 0.95 Orthopedically handicapped 1.27 Neurologically impaired 1.06 Perceptually impaired 0.85 Visually handicapped. 1.91 Auditorially handicapped 1.38 Communication handicapped 1.06 Emotionally disturbed 1.27 Socially maladjusted 0.95 Chronically ill 0.85 Multiply handicapped 1.27 Other Classes and Services Additional cost factor of the handicap plus 1.0 Approved private school tuition 0.09, based on the, number of pupils Supplementary and speech instruction actually receiving such instruction in the prior school year Bilingual education 0.16 State compensatory education 0.11 0.006 times the number of hours of instruction actually provided in the prior school year Home instruction 3°7 TABLE B,58 mumer.* oF DISTRICTS -- 576 STATE -- M YEAR mUM8E 197A OF PUP/LS 1401146 mumbE; OF WEIGHTED PUPILS --1492660 DISTRICT TYPE -- 1 WI IF ANALYS/S EAsuRrS oF mrAm, 'FISC"L NFUTRALITY 1. 2. 3. 4, 5. E. 7. 8. 9. 1703.90000 5056.30000 1058.00000 mEAN EYFC RANGE RES RANGF FEn P R .15473 ,85808 IA9790,00000 .21943 .15160 ,11000 .32060 1.34110 2.77900 5,19430 571.05000 PERM VAR VAR COEF VAR STD DV/ !Gs GIMI 10, 11.- SIM CORR SLOPE W 12. 13. 14, 15. 16, 17. 18. 19, 20. 21, 1467.70000 -1565.40000 5'156.30000 5057,10000 972,87000 tI07.10000 .82836 05845 REL FANJ.Drv SLOPE W3 EXP VIE HICK GIN!' MEAN:0 .89139 . 88568 76016.00000 . 16999 . 17613 . 18530 .10490 0)9300 . 50970 3.10550 4.12060 4.27000 *61.25000 3,47500 4.62010 . 05100 72.68600 42.22200 .13555 .17959 .18645 Variable descriptions: 1. a. Pupils (unweighted): b. Pupils (weighted): See Table 2. Revenues: 3. Wealth: See Table See Table B-56 See Table B-56 4. Districts: See Table 9-56 B-56 B-57 (New Jersey, 1974). (New Jersey, 1975). (New Jersey, 1974). (New Jersey, 1974). (New Jersey, 1974). 326 . 9700 . 46250 .04900. ELAST W ELAST W2 ELAST W3 .13803 807;67.00000 -94.93100. 89,38500 .07472 .15483 .17797 STn--V711 W . 84808 . 13120 . SL0PEW2 WEIGHTED' PUPIL UNWEIGHTED puPIL OISTRICT EotlaiITv, AND 4.86070- 393.15000 .06000 68.23090 40.44200 . 15146 -.20137 .21186 TABLE B-59 YEAR ..... 0,18E, oF DISTRICTS -- 575 j STATE -- NUMBER OF PUP/LS -- 1977 plUmbER oF hEIG*HTED pUP1LS nISTRIDT Type UNIT IF MEASURES OF MEAlq. 2, 3. 4, 5. 6, 7. R, 9. 10, 11. 12, 13. 14, 15. 16, 17. 18. 19, 20. 21, MEAN EXP RANGE RES RANGE FED R R REL MN DFV PERM VAR VAR COEF VAR STD DEV LGS GINI SIM CORR sLOpr W SLOPE W2 SLOPE W3 EYP DIR HICK GIN! MEAN W 1872.00000 5553.00000 1209.80000 ,89805 .15247 ,06714 171600,00000 .22129 1123.70000 5'53,00000 1m57,60000 478799 43678 ,87823 11740,00000 ,10831 .16720 .09900 -.42950 3.12820 4.07220 4,14760 x41.08000 .17190 ,11100 .38670 3,63790 3..45280 3.81790 Revenues: 3. Wealth: 4. Districts: See Table 000000 .19276 ,21315 0.00000 See Table 8-55 8-55 See Table B-56 See Table 8-56 000000 000000 .17700 18027 Variable descriptions: 2. 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0,00000 0,00000 0,00000 0,00000 0.00000 0,00000 13597 AM. Pupils (unweighted) 000000 000000 09144 .79.26600 97,79700 1. 0.00000 41,14500 04900 .05500 10451000 ELAST W ELAsT W2 ELAST W3 WrIGHTED PUPIL 0,00000 0010000 0.00000 0.00000 746..75000 9111 0Ev w ANALYSIS UNWEIGHTED PUPIL DISTRICT 'FOUALITY, AND FISCAL NEUTRALITY 1. 1359189 (New Jersey, 1974). (New Jersey, 1974). (New Jersey, 1974). (New Jersey, 1974). 329 000000 TABLE B-60 STATE NUMBER OF DISTRICTS -- N M NUKBrR OF PUPILS YEAR - 1972 DISTRICT TYPE MEASURES OF MEAN, EUUALITY, AND FISCAL NEUTRAL/TY 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 259 21. MEAN EXP RANGE RES RANGE FED R R REL MN DEV PERM VAR OA COEF vAR 5TO OEV L6S GINI SIM CORR SLOPE W SLOPE w2 SLOPE W3 EXP DIP HICK GINI mEAN W STO OEV W ELAST w' ELAST W2 ELAST W5 276155 NuMBFR OF WEIGHTED P4PILS 1 fiNI. 1. 88 nF ANALYSIS 946.09000 968.6600n 654,55000 ,9662n .19507 .88711 54820.00000 .2469A .22500 13035 .4999x .2,0761n -2,813on 2,9359n 345.3/0on 11,00000 68,3150n 56,3830n .1496n a20270 .2115A WEIGHTED PUPIL UNWEIGNTED PUPIL DISTRIcT 751436000 q66.60000 086.48000 .41070 10599 .59522 14908.00000 .15255 .13200 .06804 .48140 1.78890 1.36960 .06527 36.80400 ' .00046 46.36000 32.07600 011614: .08126 .00387 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00010 0,00000 0,00006 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Variable descriptions: 1. Pupils (unweighted): 2. Revenues: 3. Wealth: 4. Districts: Average Daily Membership (ADC Local and state revenues plus Federal impact aid (PL 874 revenue). Equalized Assessed Value All 339 TABLE 8-61 STATE -- N M NuMBER OF DISTRICTS .- 88 YEAR -- 1973 NUMBER OF PUPILS DISTRICT. TYPE -- 1 NUMBER OF WEIGHTEU PUPILS 273743 OF ANALYSIS uNIT .. a .. MEASURES OF MEAN, EQUALITY, AND FISCAL NcuTRALITY A., 2, 3, 4, 5. 6. 7. 8, 9, 10. 11. 12, 13, 44, 15. 16. 17, 18, 19, 20. 21. DISTRICT 4067,8000n 2761,8000n 979,6000n MEAN ExP RANGE RE3 RANGE FED R R REL MN DEV PERM VAR 1.2744n .2376A .06849. 147930,0000n VAR ,36021 ,27700' ,1604A COEF vAR STD DEv LDS GINI SIM CORR ,32739 1,9501n 2,8474n 2,98130 407.2200n, 0.00000 76.21200 64,5740n ,1391A .20322 .2127A SLOPE. W SLOPE w2. SLOPE w3 EXP OIF NICK GINI mEAN . STD DEv w (LAST w (LAST W2 (LAST W3 uNWEIGHTED PUPIL A59.60008 2761.80000 565,61000 ,49730 .10974 ,97606 22753,00000 .17958 ,14000 .06968 ,36544 1,51110 ,71979 .,11484 LI5.80400 0.00000 51,26800 56,26300 0)9227 .04595 -400701 WEIGHTED PUPIL' 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0,00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0,00000 0.00000 0.00000 0,00000 0,00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0,00000 0,00000 0.00000 0.00000 Variable descriptions: See Table B-60 (New Mexico, 1972). 4i. 331 TABLE t-62 STATE - CAsEci OF oISTRIcTs -88 N M YEAR -- 1974 NuMBrR OF PUPILS -- 273063 DISTRICT TYPE -- 1 N'Imerq OF WEISMTE0 PUP/LS -- ONIT MEASURES OF MEAW, EQUALITY, AND FISCAL NEUTRALITY' 41EAN ExP RANWE RES RANGE FED R REL MN OEV PERM VAR VAR COEF vAR 9,. sTp DEv L6S 10. GINI 11, SIM CORR 12. SLOPE w' SLOPE w2 *3. 14 SLOPE w3 EXP DIF 15. 16. NICK GINI 1. 2. 3, 4, 5. 6. 7. 8, 17, 18, 1,, 20. MEAN w sTp DEw w 'ELAST w ELAsrw2 ELAST W3 DISTRICT 1230.000On 1922.1000n 1205,3000n 1,42490 .25744 .87254 160760.00000 32594 .2890n .1684P .34503 1,7325n 2,7894n 3,07780 538.77000 0.0000n 86,9570n 79,052On ,12244 .19/20 .21754 OF ANALYSIS UNWEIGHTED PUP/L 947,89000 ,t922.10000 356,38000 ,42930 09324 .94382 25491,00000 0,6842 .13300 06447 ,49183 1..67,90 1,46720 1,06230 95.46200 0.00000 57.30900 46,74400 ,10156 05870 .06422 , Variable descriptions: See Table B-60 (New Mexico, 1972). 332 WEIGHTED PUPIL 0,00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.40000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00400 0.04000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0,00000 0,00000 0,00000 (600000 0,00000 0,00000 0,00000 .0.00000 40 40 TABLE 8-63 YEAR WJABER,OF DISTRICTS -- 88 N M STATE W,MBER .OF PUPILS -- 265374 1975 NUMBER OF WEIGHTED PUPILS -- DIETRICT TYPE -- 1 uNI: MEASURES OF MEAN.' EQUALITY, ANO FISCAL NEUTRALITY DISTRICT OF UNWEIGHTED PUPIL .6 1. 2, 3, MEAN ExP RANGE RES RANGE 4 FED R R 6, REL MN OEV PERM VAR 8, g. COEF VAR STD DEV LGS 5. 7 OR 10. 11, 12. 13. 14, 15, 16, 17, 18. 19, 20. 21, 1338.4000m 1554,8000n 1094.400On 1,10420 2261A .9088A 134270.00000 .2737A . 25100 ,14511 .26419 GINI SIM CORR SLOPE W SLOPE w2 sLOPE w3 EXP DIr NICK.GINI 1.08010 I,8868n 2,34430 469, 3500n 0,0000n 94,9160n 89,624On 'MEAN W sTO 0Ey W ELAST w ,07660' ,1338i 16625 MAST w2 ELAST W3 Variable descriPtions: See Table B-60 (New Mexico, 1972). 333 ANALYSIS WEIGHTE0 PUPIL . .069.50000 .s54,80000 353,1200Q .,37230 .07592 06132 21467,00000,13699 .11300 .05236 ,37259' 1,02680 ,77756 ,54014 57.43300 0.00000 64,11600 53,16500 .06156. .04661 .03238 0.00000 o.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0,0,0000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 o.00doo 0,00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 000000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000. 0.00000 TABLE B-64 STATE - N Y NUM$Z2 OF CISTPICTS.7 705 YEAR - 197% NUM$0 OF PUP/LS DISTRICT TYPE 3005012 32095e2 NumffiE2 OF WEIGHTED PUPILS 1 UNTT "TASURES,OF MEAN, EQUALITY, AND FISCAL NEUTRALITY 1P ANALYSIS WEIGHTED- ,UNKISHTED DISTRICT 41 PUPIL PUPIL 1111. 1. 2. 5. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10, 11, 12, 13, 14. 15. 16. 17, 18. 19. 20. 21, MEAN EXP RANGE RES RANGE FED P REL MN OFV PERM VAR vAR COEF VAR sTn MI" LOS GMT Sim CD8R SLOPE W SLOPE w2 sLOPE W3 ExP PIP HICK oINT MEAN w STD DEV w ELA5T W ELAST W2 ELAST W3 2065.00000 7233.00000 2274.10000 1.56190 .25730 .90485 645450,00000 .38906 .30560 .1710G . .80650 1.36030 13.49900 25.24500 2108.90000 .14900 60.08000 69.16700 .27257 .40729 .44354 2179.80000 7'33.90000 1'91.20000 1.03770 .17686 ..81589 282%70.00000 .2u382 .23400 .12200 .79020 14.24000 15.44900 15.44600 *10.86000 .10400 60,97300 29.39000 .39972 .43354 .43345 ODEIMP.M. 2044.20000 6922.90000 1543.70000 1605350 16138 .80840 250700.00000 .24494 .PS230 1300 6820 ,1 )9400 1t,30404 15.19900 429.500n0 '.095n0 57,17800 27.29100 .394a2 .42807 .42513 . Variable descriptions: 1. a. Pupils (unweighted): The sum of pupils in Average Daily Attendance for grades 1-12 plus 1i2 the pupils in kindergarten. This is a district count. b. Pupils (weighted): The total aidable Pupil Units (TAPU) in the state which is made up of 13 separate categories of students. Weightings are applied for special education needs (students scoring low on the state proficiency exam), full day kindergarten and grades 1-6, grades 7-12, 1/2 day kindergarten, -summer school, and evening school. Pupils in classes for the severely handiz capped are excluded; students in occupational classes receive only their secondary weight. The sum of total local levied, total operating aid paid, transportation aid, reorganization incentive aid, severely handicapped aid (to the Big 5) and occupational education aid (to the Big 5). 2. Revenues: 3. Wealth: 4. Districts: Only school districts having at least 8 profetsional staff or more are included in the analyses. These are the major school districts typically employed has b migni ng een SaitellYgnagantadstitrlartigt ItitlitignA36881iTAM Full Value of Taxable Reel Property for 1974 (as equalized by the state). 331 41 41 TABLE B-65 STATt' N C NumdER OF oiSTRICIS --133 YEAR muMsEp OF PuP/LS -- 1040725 1972 WImdEA OF wLIGHTEU PUPILS -- uISTKICT TYPL . 1 UNly mtASURES OF MEAN. EWUALITY, AND FISCAL NEUTRALITY 4. 5. MtAN tXP RANGE Rts RANGE FtU R R RtL MN 0EiL S. Fst.Rm VAR 7. vAR COEF VAR 4. 2. .3. e, 9. Igo 10. 11. 12, 13.- ON% 14. 15. 16, .17. 18. 19, 20. 21, DISTRIO 629.00000 300.00000 201.00000 .36873 .07103 , STU DEV LGS 'GIN! SIM CORR . SLOPE w SLOPE W2 SLOPE W3 ,EXP OIF HICK SINI MtAN w STO DEV W ELAST W .ELAST We ELAST W3 92112 3377.00000 .09237 .08996 .05076 .54948 3.12130 2,45230 1,60200 0.00000 0,00000 32.69600 10,26900 .16225 OF .ANA-LYSIS UNWEIGHTED PUPIL 459.00000 300,00000. 2,4,00000 51269 .09271 ,93279 5472,00000 .11987 .11575 06652 ,75750 502620 4,22690 3.76550, 0.00000 0.00000 56,28400 10,26100 4,28534. 12747 24013 .08327 .21387 Variable descriptions: 1. Pupils (unweighted): 2. Revenues: 3. Wealth: 4. Districts: Average Daily Membership Operating revenues from state and local sources. Eilualized assessed value All. 335 WEIGHTED PUPIL 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0,00000 -0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.04000 0.00440 0.00000: 0.00400 ,0.00000 4.00000 0.00000 0.00800 0.00000 0.00000 0,0900 TABLE STATL YEAR B-66 Numm, oF lusTftIcTs N C' mows) OF PUPILS . 1151500 1975 UISTKI;T TYPE mown OF wEIGHTEu\pUPILS 1 UNIT MLASURES OF MEAN. EWUALITY, ANO. Fl5CALJ4EUTRAL1TY 1, 2. 3, 4, 5. 6, MEAN LXP RANGE RLS RANGE FLO R R FILL MN OEV pLpol vAR ,VAR COEF VAR 5, 9. 15. 11. 12. 15, 14. 15. 16, 17, 15, 19. 20. 21, DISTRICT \ ANALY*1 S OF UNWEIGHIE0 PUPIL 900.00000 444,00000 540.00000 . 42951 504.00000 444.00000 251:00000 . 52241 06779 . 93270 . 55575 . 95092 6155.00000 9345.00000 . 05897 SIU'OEV. LSS GIN! 08858 04846 SIM CORR. SLOPE W SLOPE'W2 SLOPE W3 EXP OIF HICK SINI MEAN W STO OEV W ELAST W ELAST W2 ELAST w3 e27173 .50004 . 06756 .55692 0.00000' 0.00000 51,59300 42,58400 . 10382 . 16195 . 04615 moos . 1058 .10296 .05792 .44016 1.05430 1,69140 1447580 0.00000 0.00000 06.17400 57.75700 07909 . Variable descriptions: See Table 146 B-65 (North Carolina, 1972). 336 16046 PUP/L 0.00000 0.000 ,00 0.00000 \ 0,00000 \ 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 04 00600 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0,00000,.- 000000 0960000 000000 000000 0.00004 000000 0,00000 0.0000o TABLE B-67 40 STATE - ORE Nm5(4 OF DISTRIDIS YEAR -- 1975 NAMwER oF PUPILS -.443494 0IsTKIET TYPE 296 WIMBER OF WEIGHTEu PUPILS -- 1 UNIT OF ANALrsts MEASURES OF MEAN. UNWEIGKED OISTRICT EQUALITY, ANO PUPIL FISCAL NEUTRALITY 0 REAR EXP RANGE RES mANGE' 3. FED R R 4, 5,- REL MN OEV PERM VAR 6. vAR 7, COEF VAR 8. 1. 2. 1 570 DEV 1GS 10: 11., 12. 13, 14, 15. 1607.50000 6091,00000 1%21.60000 6091,00000 19V300000 06,00000 79847 00114 0.4320 .80510 87203,00000 2,10980 .53523 579E60.00000 ,45917 ,37200 .21543, ,70850 GINI SIR CORR' SLOPE W SLOPE w2 SLOPE W3 EXP'00 NICK aINI 17e 'SEAN w STO DEV w 18, (LAST W 19. (LAST w2 20. (LAST w3 21. 16., 7,67400 ,10,68700 10,73300 1509.00000 .17802 93.30900 19407 *19955' .10256 ,70170 7,27800 8,67000 7.65900 456.43000 .10256 69,76700 . o.00aoo 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 o.u0000 0.00000 o.00000 000000 0.00000 0.00000 om000 am000 0.00000 000000 o.00000 o.00000 a.00000 0.00000 0.000o0 7029200 i,8,49100 043201 .60162 .60421 9764 0.000.00 05127 0.00000 03357 Variable descriptions: Resident' Average,Danx Membership. 1. Pupil (unweighted): 2. Revenues: Local revenues and state equalizatipn and flat grant aid excluding debt service and capital. 3. Wealth: 4. Districts: Assessed property valuation equalized to 100% of market value. All TABLE B -68 S C NUmdEm OF 013TRICT5 -m92 YEAR ---1?72 moidED OF PUPILS --64'19819 STATE UISTRIGT TYPE Numavt OF WLIGHTEu PUPILS -- 1 UNIT MEASURES OF MEAN. EQUALITY, 040 FISCAL NEUTRALITY 1, 2. 3, 4, 5. 6, 7. 8, 9. . 10. 11. 12, 13, 14. 15, 16. 17, 18, 19, 20. mEAN EXP RANGE REs RANGE FLO R R REL MN GEV PLRM VAR , VAR' COEF VAR STU OEV LOS Gin SLOPE SLOPE W2 SLOPE W3 EXP OIF HICK GINI MEAN 4 Sto DV w Et-AS.7 w ELAST W2 ELAST w3 ANALYSIS UNWEIGHTE0 PUPIL alSTRIET 491.00000 07.00000 372ooloo 372,00000 294.00000 .80706 .11678 .90450 6003.00000 248.00000 ,74071 .11560 .55548 5416.00000 .14980 .14813 .08504 PUPIL 000000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0,00000 0,00000 1,15284 15266 000000 000000 doom() .00474 ,75655 50.45700 /1457500 93.06900 0.00000 -0.00000 2,37900 ,87400 . 45.70100 61,36600 60.96400 0,00000 0.00000 2,25700 1,02100 .21008 .28208 .18024 kit:1614TO 0.00000 . ,,63060 SIM -CORR nf oeu0000 0.00000 000doo oeoo os00000 000000 oompoo 37612 42,72 0.00000 0.00000 ,43671 Variable descriptions: .1. Pupils (unweighted): 35 day enrollment. 9 2. Revenues: Local and State Revenues: Local revenues include: current property taxes, delinquent taxes. other taxes, appropriations, and other local receipts. State revenues include all revenues except: vocational ed,...A:ation -- construction and equipment, and the state school building fund. 3. Wealth: 4. DistrictS: Assessed property valuation. (Equalized values not available). All .\ 33s 8-69 TABLE fiumeE4 OF OISTRICIS --92 STATL - S c YEAR NUMdER OF PUPILS 197% NumdER OF MLIGHTEU PUPILS .. UISTK1CT TYPE - UNIr MLASURES dF MEAN' EgUALITY, AND FISCAL NEUTRALITY 1. 2, 3 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 16. 17, 18. 19. 21. MLAN t P RANGE RLS RANGE. FLO R R RLL MN OEV I'Lltm VAR VAX COEF VAR SIU OEV L6S GINI SIM CORR' SLOPE M SLOPE M2 SLOPE M3 EXP OIF HICK 61N1 MLAN w STO DEV M ELAST M ELAST M2 ELAST W3 618839 D1STRI T 794.00000 1137.00000 610.00000 1.06440 .17374 .83029 35864.00000 .23848 .21996 .12021 .38614 70.51200 98.43700 101.12000 0.00000 0.00000 2.75300 1.04300 . .24448 3%131 .35269 Variable descriptions; See Table B-68 (South Carolina 1972). 33j F ANALYSIS uNWEIGHTED Pue/L MLIGHTED PUPIL A05.00000 1;37.00000 604.00000. 0.00000 1.04910 , 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 15990 .86841 2A259.00000 .20878 .1994S .11622 .55199 96.30800 110.06000 111.01000 0.00000 0,000005.04800 1.08400 004000 000000 000000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00.000 000000 0.00000 0.00000 0.000-00 vommo 0.0000 ovome owummo 36464 0,00009 .41672 .42032 0.00000 000000 'TABLE B-70' NI-IMBEn OF DISTRICTS STAYL .. % 0 195 , YEAR -- 1973 NJMSra OF PUPILS DISTRIi7 TYPE. -- i NJMBEa OF WEIGHTEO PUPILS 157,539 ..,, 1, mLASuRrS UF MEAN, EoLIAL1TY, ANO g I T JISIRICT 'WAN CO 2. 9, 4. 5. RANGE rEs RANGE FLO R R RLL MN 0EV 6, pt.Rm VAR 7. 8, 9. VAR 10. 11, 406,22000 . 67/14 .12899 ,16687 .90123 46568,00000 06903 22750,00000 ,19692 .21307 .09643 ,81930 12,99600 14.49100 24570 25500 1222S ,s4o0n 13.03500 .15.83300 14.59600 411,7500n ,09187 SLOPE w SLOPE w2 SLOPE-49 ExP 01F HICK GINI- 21. 104.90000 90083 sI%1 CORR 12, 13. 14. 13, 16, 17. 18. 19, 765,96000 875.90000 1934.9000n 591,47000 COEF VAR STU OEV LGS G1N1 MtAk wv 27,'92700 STO nEv W ZLAST w ELAST W2 ELAST W3 13,92000 ,41447 ,43984 ,4641n WEIGHTED PUPIL UNWEIGHTED PUPIL FISCAL NEUTRALIVY le ANALYS.1 S n F 14.16500. 071,44000 .08063 26.73300 9.46190 .35191 . 39201 .39346 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.0000ft oomou 0.0000a 0.00000 4).00tioo 0.00000 , 0.00000 6.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Aooloo 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Variable descriptions: Average Daily Membership (ADM). 1. Pupils (unweighted): 2. Revenues: 3. Wealth: Total equalized assessed valuation non-agricultural property. 4. Districts: Total state and lcoal revenues excluding debt service and capital. All 34o including agricultural and a TABLE STA% 8-71 WIMBER OF olsTRIcrs -195 S 0 1J7IMBER OF PUPILS YEAR "'" 1974 U1STKICT TYPE NumBEF) OF WLIGHTEU.PUPILs 1 N to MLASVRES OF MEAN. E&UALITY, AND FISCAL NEUTRALITY 1. !ILAN EXP 2. 3. OINGE RLs RANGE FLD.R R REL IN OEV 4, Jr . Fq.Rm vAR vAR COEF VAR 9. 10. 11. 12. 13, 14. 15, 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 8-70 8m4.55000 1612,60000 441.52000 64159 .1667 ,b9188 .12724 55975,00000. 2q106,00000 ,19964 ,21408 87509 .0.2177 09810 .5114n 13,2180n 13,39700 1i.17501 387,3800n .09631 3u.389nn 14.26100 .41424 .42611 .,79670 41289 Variable descriptions: See Table ANALYSIS .9780 ..i32011 SIM CORR SLOPE W SLOPE 12 SLOPE W3 EXP O1F HICK 31N1 MLAN d STO DEv W ELAST W ELAST W2 ELAST ; PuPIL ..P395g StU Et, LGs. GIN1 I UMWEIGHTED DISIRTCT 9C9.L9Onn 1612,60nnn 707.67n00. . 154,354. (South Dakota, 1973). V. 3 (1 12,40100 13,74000 13.42300 107,18000 .08172 0..92600 10,95300 .31436' .33254 .34441 wLIGHTEO PUPIL 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.(9000 TABLE B-72 STATL NuM8E0 OF otsTRICTS:-- 195 S 0 YEAR -- 1975 mown OF PUPILS -- 151,370 nISTRICT TYPE -- 1 NUMBER OF WEIGHTED PUPILS .. UNIT mLASuRFS OF MEAN. EGUALITY, ANU FISCAL NEUTRALITY 1. 2, 3, 4 5. 6, 7, 8, 9. 10, 11. 12, 13, 14, 15. 16, 17 18. 19. 20. 21. OF ANALYSIS UNWEIGHTED PUPIL DISTRICT MLAN ExP RA.GE* RES RANGE FLO R R RLL mN Dv/ PLRm VAR 1051.500On .1695,2008n 15885 88420 11365 07444 vAR 55148,000nn *42294 .2160n .11550 29494,00000 12,68304 12,92700 11.63600 J49.55000 ,00707 32,62805 11.68600 12,61400 12.15400 064,53000 15.1130 n 11,23500 ..29118 ,81443 .30294 709.5.6009 ,88454' COEF VAR sTu nEv LGS DIN! 567.93900 1695,20000 584,73000 7952 11865 .19087 )4762 75930 19494 S1m 17.04R SLOPg: SLOPE w2 sLOPE w3 ExP nlp HICK GIN! mEAN w STD 9Ev W ELAST w ELAST w2 ELAST w3 06753 24.111%00 .68264 449000 ,34200 Variable descriptions: See Table B-70 (South Dakota,1973 ). 3 WEIGHTED PUPIL 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0,00000 0.00000 0,00000 0.00000 0,00000 0400000 0.00000 0400000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0400000 0.00000 0400000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 40 TABLE NUMBER OF DISTRICTS - 1090 TEXAS STATE YEAR B-73 NUMBER OF PUPILS ID- 2531541 1974 DISTRICT TYPE NI-0%ER OF WEIGHTEU PUPILS .. 1 oF ANALYSIS UNIT MEASURES OF MEAN, OTUALITY, AND FISCAL NEUTRALITY ^ 1. 2, 3. 4, 5. 6. 7, 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13, 14. 15. 16. 17 13, 19. 20. 21. MEAN EXP RANGE REs.RANGE FED R R *EL MN GEV ',ERR vAR vAR COEF VAR STO DEV L6S GIN! S1M CORR SLOPE W SLOPE W2 SLOPE W3 EXP DIF HICK GINI MEAN K STO DEV W ELAST W ELAST W2 ELAST W3 UNWEIGHTE0 PUPIL DISTRICT 1255.40000 25164.00000 1530.50000 2.17390 .34930 .82835 1245400.00000 .88896 .39200 .24476 .72107 .57748 1,40560 .61491 1478,80000 .00510 275,07000 916,82000 .19226 .30798 .17855 10g9.50000 25i64.00000 750.58000 141200 .16039 83930 63494.00000 .24476 .22600 .12099 .60420 1.48970 1,74540 2.05500, 418,82000 .01880 93.41400 101.89000 .13517 .15837 13647 Variable descriptions: 1. Pupil (unweighted): 2. Revenues: 3. Wealth: 4. Districts1 Average Daily Attendance (ADA). Local and state reVenues. Governor's Office.equalized value tn 1975 All. divided by 1975 ADA. WEIGHTED- PUPIL 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 oeu0000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 TABL6 B-74 STATE -- TEXAS NUMBER OF DISTRICTS - 1090 YEAR -- 1975 NUMBER OF PUPILS -- 2536472 DISTRICT TYPE -- 1 CMBER OF WEIGHTED PUPILS -- IINI; MEASURES OF KEAN. EQUALITY, A40 FISCAL NEUTRALITY 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. B. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 141 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. MEAN ExP RANGE REs RANGE FED R R REL MN (KV PERM VAR VAR COEF vAR ST0 Inv LQS GINI SIM CORR SLOPE w SLOPE w2 SLOPE w3 UNWEIGNTED PUPIL DISTRICT 1510.4000n 67188.00000 1747.10000 1,9727n .3555, .84949 4681800.00000 1,4326n .3770n .2461A EXP ()IF HICK GINI MEAN w STO OeV W ELAST w ELAST W2 ELAST 418 1232.30000 67188,00000 776,15000 .88760 .14028 .88372 745**,00000 22*51 18,00 .10395' 6684A ,62227 1,72000 1,85100 2,28780 455.86000 1.57760 1.06900 79846 1464.1000n .00049 278.0700n 916.82000 01883 93,52700 99,61300 13054 14045 28731 .1946A .14541 .17364 Variable descriptions: See Table B-73 nF ANALYSIS (Texas, 1974). 3.1.4 WEIGHTED PUP/L 0.00000 0,00000 0.00000 0,00000 0.00000 0.00000 o.d0000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0,00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0,00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 TABLE' B-75 STATE -. VERmT NUMBE4 OF VISTRicTs YEAR -- 1979 ONE, oF FtWILS -- 108759 DISTRICT TYFE -- 1 NumsE, OF WEIGHTED PUPILS -u T IF 246 ANALYSIS MEASURES OF 'VAN, MALITy, AND nISTRICT FISCAL NEUTRALITY 1. 2. so. 4, 5. 6, 7. 8. 9. 10, 11. 12. 13. 14, 15. 16, 17. le, 19, 20. 21. MEAN ExP RANGE RES RANGE FEn R R REL mN DEV PERM VAR VAR COEF vAR STO DEw LGS GINI 1202.50000 2359.20000 768.93000' 90061 .16004 P6131 70735.00000 .22117 .43230 ,11400 .48600 1,07160 1.64020 1.82240 SIM CORR sLOpE w SLOPE W2 SLOPE w3 ExP DiF HicK GIN/ MEAN W STD DEV w ELAST W ELAsT w2 ELAST w3 439..60000 .05100 11)4.92000- 120.61000 409350 .14311 ,15901 UNWEIGHTED. PUPIL WEIGHTED PUPIL 1?23.20000 0,00000 2*5910000 '0,00000 f32. 7000 .69889 .1250g .68027 44.59.00000 .17316 .43370 .09100 .48870 1.96500 2.54006 2.47940 '61.24000 .02600 66.38700 52,68100 .10665 .13785 .13457 0,00000 0.00000 0,00000 0,00000 0.000110 0,00000 000000 000000 oepoono. 0.00000 000000 0,000u0 0,00000 000000 o.tioou0 0.00000 000000 000000 000000 Variable descriptions: 1. Pupils (unweighted): The sum of elementary and secondary pupils in Avera e Daily Membership in residence within a school district, whose educat on is paid-for by public funds, averaged over the first 30 days of the school year. 2. Revenues: 3. Wealth: 4. Includes all 246 non-union school districts--those with resident pupils Districts: and which are eligible for state aid. The sum of local yield and all state aid excluding building aid. 100% of Fair Market Value for 1974 as equalized by the state. 3 TABLE STATL B-76 N;MET0 OF pISTRICTs WASA 294 \ TEAk -- 1970 DISTRICT TYPE -- mtASURES OF MEAN. EwJALITY, AND FISCAL NEUTRALITY MtAN EXP RANGE REs .RAmGE FED R R RtL mV DEV PERM-VAR V AR GIN:i UNWEIGHTED PUPIL 813.7900P 4549,50pon 780,4400G 1,45120 .25257 E75544 792,180410 4545,5.0000 1318500000n 481900000 09482 19203 452,04000 ,61927 .1590. --ocszbe-- 00864 ,54510 2,20000. - 2,75300 3.12900 239,250'4 .063h9 7unOn SIM CORR sLOPE SLOPE W2 SLOPE W3 1,9260n 1,4550n 1,75700 463,5700n VP DIF 1163A HICK SINI MtAN w cru EiCy W ELAST W (LAST w2 ELAST w3 .0 F. ANALYSIS 31STRICT ,4462n .31000 ,17821 CUEF vAR S10 DEV L65. 10. 11, 12, 13, 14. 15, 16, 17, 18, 19. 20. 21. 776,125 NuMBER.OF WELGHTED PUPILS 1 uNI; 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. 6, 7, 8, 9. OF PUl'ILS -- 1-friEsER a 58,368.00 110,43000 131,9h00n .26136 35,24200 16215' 19744 .20291 .,23842 P5062 WEIGHTEC PUPIL 0,00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0,00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Variable descriptions: Enrollment. 1. Pupil (unweighted); 2. Revenues: 3. Wealth: State adjusted value of local property. value.) 4. Districts: All districts except three with extraordinarily high assessed value per pupil. Local and state revenue excluding debt service and capital. 3 lf; (Adjusted to 100% of market . TABLE 8-77 W,M8Egs OF 0IsTRIC1S STATL Njr48FR OF PUPILS -- 745,312 1974 NJM6ER OF wEIGHTEU PUPILS -- 01sTRIcT TYPE -- N I T 00,LASURES OF MEAN. EcuALITY, ANO FISCAL NEUTRAL/TY 1, 2, 3. 4, 5, oLAN ExP RANGE ReS RANGr FLO R R 6, PLRM VAR 7. VAR 9, 10, 11, 000 12, 13. 14, 15, 16. 17, 18, 19. 20. 21. 3ISTRIcT 1145,500nn 5606,8000n 1505.2000n 1,9702n ,27667 ,84519 p94610.00000 REL q,4 DEV 47474 COES VAR sTO DEv LGs GIN/ sIM CORR SLOPE W SLOPE w2 ,35600 .20029 .6061A 2,15600 4.27ton -5,56800 1027,80000 .13708 SLOPE -w3 EXP OIF HICK GIN/ MLAN W sTO Inv w ELAST w ELAST w2 (LAST w5 112,5100n 152,5000n .21217 .42079 .53144 . Variable descriptions: See Table 294 8-76 (Washington, 1970). 34 r F ANALYSIS UNWEIGHTEO PUPIL WLIGHTED PJPIL 1007,70000 5606,80000 731.74000 1,10110 .15866 ,81552 0,00000 0.00000 0.00000 5100.00000 0.0000.0 .20892 .21428 .11515 .52530 000000 0.00000 a00000 aol0000 0.00000 o.00000 0,00000 3,466-v0 a00000 4.06700 1.00000 .4.75900 'A27,75000 .06755 62,49100 54,43400 ,19913 ,23.366 27342- 000000 0.00000 o.oa000 0.00000 o.topoo 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 TABLE 8-78 mumblEct OF DISTRICTS -- STATE -- W VA YEAR ptUMBE:q OF FUPILS 1975 TISTRICT TYPE UNIT 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9, 10. 11, 12. 13.. 14. 15, 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. DISTRICT .0 F. ANALYSIS UNWEIGHTED 'WEIGHTED PUP/L' PUPIL 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 3.8000 1038.00000 311.00000 313.00000 .35620 .08492 .95063 11417.00000 .10293 .09977 .05520 .40610 2.98200 3'08940 3.72100 157.22000 155.11000' ,HIcic SINr Doodoo MEAN W sTn OEV w ELAST W ELAST W2 ELAST W3 54.62600 20.14300 .16051 .16815 .20331 0.00000 57,93700 23.39800 .16644 .17244 .20769 MEAN EXP RANGE RES RANGE FEn P R REL NN DEV PERM VAR VAR COEF VAR sTn rEv LGs GIN/ SIM CORR SLOPE W SLOPE W2 SLOPE W3 EXP n/F 366398 mUMBE4 OF WEIGHTED PUPILS 1 MEASURES OF MFAN, EQUALITY, ANO FISCAL NEUTRALITY 55 lo39.0opoo mll000to 373.00000 .44030 .09123 .88862 16789.00000 .12466 .11501 .06290 .47460 3.05300 3.19020 Variable descriptions: Average Daily Attendance (ADA). 1. Pupils: 2. Revenues: 3. Wealth: 4. Districts: Local and state revenues excluding debt service and capital. Equalized Assessed Valuation. All. 000000 0.00000 oopono 0.00000 oapono 0,00000 0.0000c 0.00060 0.00000 0900000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 oatoono 0.000110 000000 0.00000 300000 10 Appendix C For states where data are available for more than one year, all Appendix C, years reported for each state are presented in the Tables in organized by state and unit of analysis. analyze These tables are used to Vie behavior orthe measures over-time and this analysis is , contained in Sections III and IV of the report. 0 3 ..±.9 TABLE C-1 STATE ALA OISTRICI UN/T OF.ANALYS/S UISTRICT TYPE 1 MEASURES OF MEAN. E6UALITY, ANO FISCAL NEUTRALITY le 2. 0111/ 011. $1. OM% 3. 4. 5. 6. 7, a. 9. 10. 11, 12, 13, 14. 15. 16, 17, 18, 19, 20. 21, MEAN EXP RANGE RES RANGE FLO R R REL.MN OEV PERM VAR vAR COEF VAR° STO OEV L6S GIN1 SIN CORR SLOPE W SLOPE W2 SLOPE W3 EXP OIF HICK GIN1 MAN STO OEV W ELAST W ELAGY w2 ELAST w3 400 Sources: e Tables B-1 and B 2. 1972 453.00000, 746,00000 159.00000 .52019 .12216 .90258 7307,00000 ,18885 .15793 .05632 0.00000 0,00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 1975 704.00000 763.00000 328.00000 .57241 .11373 .59356 11250.00000 .15715 .14458 .08085 0.00000 0,00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0,00000 0,00000 TABLE C-2 STATL ALA UNIT OF ANALYSIS -0, UNWSI PUPIL DISTRICT TYPE 0# 1 MtASURES OF MEAN. CUUALITY, ANO FISCALNCUTRALITY 1. 2. MLAN 4XP RANGE Us RANGE ) FEU R R' 3, a 5. 6, 7. 8, 9. 10. 11. 12, 13, 14. 15. 16. 17, 18. 19, 20. 21. RLL MN DEV ptAm vAR VAR COEF VAR SW De.V L6S GIN1 SIM COKR SLOPE W SLOPE W2 SLOPE W3 EXP OIF HICK GINI ALAN w STO OEV W ELAST W ELAST W2 ELRST W3 Sources: 1972 1975 458.00000. 746.00000 710.00000 763.00000 168.00000 443e54 2a900000 10156 .93382 4522.00000 .14670 .12985 .07151 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 00000o 0.00000 000000 0.000oo .38119 .09493 /3152 7343.00000 .12071 1120 .06569 0.00000 0.00000 040000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Tables 8-1 and 8-2. , 35i TABLE C-3 STATE -- CA1 1JNIT OF APALYST5 0ASTRIcT DISTR/CT TYpE - UNIFIED ilEASURES oF mrAN. EDLIALITT., AND FISCAL NFUTRAL/TY 1. 2. 3. 4, 5. 6. 7. 6, 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 15. 19. 21, mEAN EX!' RAW RES PAM6F FED P P REL m4 Dry PE96 vAR VAR VIET VAR S7n pry LOS Olml Si0 CORR sLOpE W EXP VUF HICK GIRT MEAN w sTn PEV w ELAsT W ELAST W2 ELAST W3 Sources: 1°71 914.55000 2080.6000A 655.23000 670...6000 94938 171,04 .90299 S9382.08000 .26420 .21712 .12312 82971 SLOPE', Y2 WIPE W3 170 4.31300 4.07000 4.48520 427.73000 .10533 64.72200 .46.48200 .30523 .29803 .31791 271/.80000 732.46000 1.07960' .190P7 88898 70723.00000 . .2790.9 . 23022 1972 1073 1974 1064.50008 2257.60000 791.76000 1.0017e 1225.10000 2472.9v000 907.26000 .9p386 131)0.9000U 1942? 89393 86546.00000 27691 23091 .13152 -.1325* 83627 .805111 4.51900 4.60210 4.77620 476.97000 .11223 69.53600 49.26800 . 32344 52976 59223 Tablei 8-3 through B-7. 352 4.46300 4.76690 26962 ,.91015 90307.0v000 .29529 .2v506 ,.11431 .800P A.0e400 4.01/670 4.7900 512.2000 11137 4.2e95C b24.1300n 75.06600 53.35900 82.90600 60.64300 .21063 241967 3147 33621 .35797 07993 01:346b 1923.DUOUu 8/2.,0001.1 .6222b .Lb209 .vc401.1 78426.00b0v .g1626 .1b491, 11,327 .441/4 3.6.549v 5.10b724 5.p9e6u 456.14000 0344, K8.631011 61.0600 z46150 .g485k Z*847 TABLE C-4 SysTE -- CAL UNIT Or ANALYSIS DISTRICT TYPE . UNwo PUPIL UNIFIED 4EASURES or mrAm, [DUALITY. AND ryrcAL NrU7RALITY 1. 2. 4. 4. 5. 5. 7. P. 9. 10, 11. IP. 13. D. 13. 15. 17. IS. 19. 2P. 21. REAR EXP gum"' RES RAW rEp P R n_ p9 DEV PERI' VAR VAR CDEr vAR STD Dry LOS SIMI SIP CORR 5LORE W sow w2 SLOPE W3 ExP NICK GIN? %TAN W RTO PEW w ELAST W ELAST w2 ELAST W3 Sources: 1970 1971 1972 1373 1974 859.51000 2080.60000 498.70000 424.63000 2117.80000 470.51000 1038,00000 22376000P 71285 1228G 77192 12244 1152.89000 2472.10000 533.91000 76037 14214 .52244 .887811 2730.000On .81603 32459.08000 55546 19327 54351 1245.6900u 1915.D0000 480.88000 .45246 .0,690 37507.00000 35371.00000 .1925* .0515 8650 0075500000 16452 .3630i. .17005 .0919e .17256 .1'276 .01508 .7f7465.04570 5.24220 .0860W .80105 8.425/0 5.41790 5.23490 254.81000 0713, 49.02P00 24.42800 3015, .30901 29857 Tables 8-3 through 8-7. 612.16000 0,719 83153 .88515 5.88030 6.20650 6.21600 5.756140 1117.42000 .07123 51.48800 25.52800 .32745 .34562 .34615 6.41040 607510 375,22000 .08226 55,5600p 27.12100 30819 .34791 .36505 5.1**,50 300.61000 .09140 59.53800 29.28000 .25124 2,120 26666 90344 .18231 0/069 .19955 9.54060 9.'6570 9.06050 503.400u 05530 69.c2709 31.40600 Z5459 y5600 .80054 TABLE C-5 ST,TE -- CAL UNTT OF ANALYSTS DISTRICT OISTRIET TYpE -- HIGH SCHOOL ,.EASURES Or MEAN, EDUAITTY. AND FISCAL NOTRALITy 1. 2, 3. 4EAN EXP RANGE 4. 5. 6: rEn R REL mN DEV PrR4 VAR 7. VAR. 5. 9. 10. 11, 12. 13, 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21, RES RANG'. COEF VAR $Tn nEV LOS GINI SIP CORR SLOPE W sopr w2 SLOP! W3 EN!, nff 4ICX GINT MEAN w STD rEV w ELAST W ELAST W2 ELAST W3 Sources: 297* 1970 1971 1972 1,373 1111.9000n 1272.70000 975.95000 1.17290 1176.00000 '449.70000 94.56000 1.12420 .17428 .58695 04;59.00000 .24746 1294.4000A 1565.00000 897.700Ur .91497 1421.9'1000 1461.81100u 1727.1u000 47/9./u0uu 1002.6000u .16796 .119726 "14491 .4*13b A7313 85113.000ne 8,373 10146pown0 9A16u.uu00u P2272 .2w401 .20562 .11746 .51675 1.92970 2.558en 2.57950 .2'1697 16900 .91127 69284.00000 .25672 .20905 .11806 .86281 1.59330 2.58830 2.52210 594.69000 .10342 182.04000 119.96eac .90997 .42376 .41292 .21051 .12352 .84979 1.97850 2.55290 2.51130 ;16.66000 .10455 '95.12000 125.01000 .32824 .42349 .41667, Tables B-8 through 8-12. 354 1174.5'1000 1.1/220 .11765 .84769 2.21.730 205.4900r 2.7u430 2.7d570 615.34000 .0,661 215.1d000 122 .0k00T 114.0(.0p0 .30687 .44170 .34502 .4%013 4102n 41237 623.54000 .091427 .4se790 21211 .1096u .0654 1.074u 2.672vu 2,490 616.2900u .Ut4.6.5 255.W300U I3604/00U .kZTO2 .3t,258 .56981 TABLE C-6 STATE CAL UNIT OF Aokysts "'GT PUPIL DISTRICT TYPE -, HIGUSO0OL- vrAsuREs OF ArAm. couALur, AND' 197o 1971 1972 1973 1979 1027.70000 1,72,70000 71/427209 : .96609 .12509 14p0.20000 1999,70000 Y60.99002 1.01720 .12918 .89987 33476.00000 .1E136 .17384 .29470 1182,00000 1565.00000 844.17000 131700202 44427.00001' 1267.24000 1727.14000 192.71000 .6,203 .1471* .88189 54701,06900 .1785S 16857 17305 .1.065 .0,976 ./5264 .09401 82732, 81213 ,14161 1.V2640 2.48140 2.i263u A14.13000 .FISCALANTRALITY , 1. 2. 3. i4E6N EP6 4. FEn R.9 mv. MN DEV PERO VAR vAR COEF STD DEv LOS 6141 5. E. 7. A. 9. IP. 11. 12. It. 10.t. 1c, . 17. 1e. 19. 2e1 1. RAMIE RES 116016E sip roalt SLOPE' w SLOPE. w2 OL9Pr v5 CAP D1F PICK 07NT PAEAN w $1-0 EL6S7 V EL6S7'w2 ELAST w3 Sources: w ,.91171 42604.00000 .17570 .16630 .09127 .82881 2.46840 2.97100 2.9697n 460.0400n .07628 133.07000 60.62900 .31962 .38469 .38453 , .8321,3 2.5P880 3.10980 3.12612 494.37000 103410 12543 .87686 2.63750 3.12920 31394ft 415.70000 0P130 07860 159.64000 62.96800 .33466 148.65220 66,11700 60201 40412 .39357 .39482 Tables 8-8 through 8-12. 355 3317p 2.71610, 3.06970 3.11;i52 -435.6'000 .01563 156.06000 69.76200 434445 .36046 .38302 1779,10000 7680500U 11166 1238U .66766 4,04608000 6826 6787. 169.,O0011 v1.0,400 .24795 02067 .42516 STATE -- CAL UNIT OF ANALYSIS -. DISTRICT 0/STRICT TypE ,0EASuRES OF ELEMENTARY EANI EWALITY. AN 1970 2971 1972 1973 885.99000 3983.90000 424.13000 4733.40000 1'44.10000 2.21760 .30887 1037.00000 b977.50P0P 1345.00000 1238%8v000 14418,04000 1526.14000 1.9f760 FISCAL NFUTRALITT I. 2. 3. 4. 5. MEAN VP RANGE REs RANGE/ Frn R R REL PN 06/ 7 ( PERM vAR 7. 6. 9. 10. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 1. 19. 2n. 21. cnrF vAR' STO CEV LGS 0IMI SI* cOR sLOpE w SLOPE W SLOPE w (02 niF ..86087 i 84885 : .45920i .3475,1 45271 35292 .20704 .77s8R 1.11490 1.58110 1.971 0 1120.70000 1113 .21010 .79033 1.28010 1.44850 1.97180 1r99.08000 .16970 168.32 00 11040000 282.39,000 '75.51000 .23401 .28245 / mEAN d srn npi w (LAST W ELAST W2 rLAST W3 Sources: : 1.99710 .30464 165520.00000; 17530.00000 VAR 1:12cw GI 109890000 . .3 074 38449 .3! 454 Tab es B-13 through B-17. 1 356 206270 .31612 84630 278020.00000 .50848 36123 .21662 .75315 1.39700 1.68110 1.39750 1144.4000n .17677 199.770p0 299.36000 26912 .323RF .36554 1974 1366.A0OUU ,395.60000 1514.1000U. 1.6940y 30853 .86537 . 20856 b61020,04000 %6u461 b3b3901WIJUIN ."105 .D37u4 .38426 .54892 .21053 74615 1.5g070 .9e,05 2.21680 1676.90800 .16441 225.2*(100 367.5g000 1.01p40 1.80750 1546.1000U 2!648 . A0,790 . 1bR73 .28089 A.$57u , 44304 . AV94* . D8611 101210 . 1*782 Pb3./bnou 4c4.9g0OU TABLE C-8 STATE -- CAL AItaTr OF A"ALYSTS UNwitT FUPIt DIsT4TET TYPE -- WYENIARY prASURES OF MEAN, EDUAITTY, AND FISCAL NEUTRALITY 2. 4EAN EXP RANGE 3. RES "PR' 1. 4. go 6. 7. A. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14, 15. 16. 11. Ir. 1°. ?0. 21. FED 11 R -tEL IN DEV PERm VAR vAR EMT VAR STD VE2 LSS SINT SI0 CORR SONDE w SLOPE 1°2 SLOPE' 83 ExP DIF HICK SINT 'IAN W sTn rEv w ELAST W EL 45T W2 LOST 113 Sources: 197n 778.12000 3483.90000 475.70001 70474 .149,n .51537 26251.00000 21601 18775 .10539 .67202 1.79370 2.34984 2.84600 358.61000 .07764 64.62100 62.97400 .14896 .19515 .23635 2971 1972 1973 1974 17.64000 907.3700o 5977.500er 10To.32000 14418.02000 575.22000 .6,977 8895.40000 3/5./2008 4733.40000 444.03000 .88030 .15755 .89820 33442.00000 .22532 19804 .1118f .68868 1.98620 2.47750 3.04420 w49.46000 0372 70.19300 63.88100 .17051 .21265 .26177 55509000 .79422 .14585 90985 38254.00000 .21566 .18520 0,0594 .57898 .1.98310 2.43#54 2.49110 587.74000 .07567 76.71000 67.00200 .16767 .20707 .24444 .1669/1 .92756 45025.02000 .12709 .11117 -.02564 .64260 1.9e9R0 2.32800 1168.21100U 95768 .13054 .23231 47386.8000U .18617 .16032 .41969 .41743 1.374711 1.'11050 2.70'160 2,3627v 407.02000 .04391 84.123o0 73.01200 .12110 .12015 41,2.3000u .21,456 .42530 .41622V 96.46102 87.138011 .11368 16378 Tables 8-13 through 8-17. 4111 TABLE C-9 STATL COL UNIT OF ANALYSIS DISTRICT DISTNICT TYPE' 1 MLASURES OF MEAN, EWUALITY, AND FISCAL NEUTRALITY 1. 2. 3. 4, 5. 6. 7, a. 9, AN. emb. 10. 11. 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17. 18, 19. 20. 21. MLAN LXP RANGE ALS RANGE FLO R R ALL MN OEV PLRM VAR OR COEF VAR $TU OEV LGS GIN1 SIM CORR SLOPE W SLOPE w2 SLOPE W3 EXP 01, NICK 61N1 MLAN W STU OEV w ELAST W (LAST W2 (LAST W3 1972 1974 1184.400" 1527.30000 3116.00000 2606,00000 1326,00000 1.,89700 .27160 .87127 201150,00000 37867 02600 .19038 .88940 27,13400 31,54000 32,07100 949.32000 17243 18,46500 14.70100 ,42302 .49171 49999 AIM .10%. Sources: Tables B-18 and B-19. MY. 356 104.00000 1,69230 .26b60 ,88089 305910.00000 .36390 ,31000 .18227 ,81900 27,94300 53,25100 54,04300 1165.10000 .15790 21,82300 16.29100 .39927 .47511 .48643 TABLE C-10 STATL COL UNWGT PUPIL UNIT OF ANALYSIS 6ISTRICT TYPL 1 MLASURES OF MEAN. EVUALITT, ANO FISCAL NEUTRALITY 1. 2, 3. .4. 5. 6. 7. 8, 99 109 11. 12. 13,- 14. 1972 1010 00000 2606.00000 510.00000 .70667 914067 .83140 35653.00000 MLAN LXP RANGE RLS RANGE R FLU ALL MN OEV PLRM VAR vAR 446,4 COEF VAR S1U OEV LOS GINI SIM CORR SLOPE W SLOPE a2 SLOPE W3 EXP OIF 16; -HICK ow- 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. MLAN W STU OEV W ELAST w ELAST W2 ELAST W3 Sources: Tables B-18 and B-19. . .18314 .09964 .79660 26.08800 29.37300 31997800 372.05000 .08358 11.16200 5.76340 .28831 .32462 935340 1974 1317.20000' 3,16,00000 7s4,00000 .75475 .14278 985803 63468.00000 .19122 .17900 010069. .79000 26.95500 65433600 36990400 144481000 908347 1'06900 7.38130 .28791 .37742 .39417 TABLE C-11 STATE -- FLA UNIT OF ANALYSIS oIsTRIcT DISTRICT TYPE -- 1 MEASURES OF MEAN. EQUALITY: AND FISCAL NEUTRALITY 1. 2. 9, 4, 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. Is. 16. 17 18. 19. 20. 21. MEAN EvP RANGE REs RANGE FED R R REL MN DEV PERM VAR vAR COEF VAR STD DEV LGS GINI SIM CORR SLOPE w SLOPE w2 SLOPE W3 EXP DIP MICK 61NI mEAN M sTO 0Ev W MAST w ELAST w2 ELAST W3 Sources: 1972 1973 1974 1975 970.11000 493,89000 1179.10000 601.83000 469.75000 .45180 .0987S .91280 21051.00000 ,12372 1541.40000 712.47000 416.01000 .55890 .07585 .91621 17674.00000 1344.30000 753,44000 402,92000 .35560 .08314 19866,00000 09911 10485 12100 06863 .09800 .10900 .05179 .31919 1.38770 2,80790 2.42620 .42343 1.79790 1.75080 1.78950 57800000 .46290 09130 .,11A32 12513,00000 11531 01400c ,n6358 m7319 3.95960 36910 3.33710 145.72-900 --fw3--32000 .n0123 35.97500 .00040 49.98000 53.55300 .05882 .11902 .10294 1901700 03197 .12123 02375. Tables B-21 throtigh B-24. ,3130 05413 .00165 60.56700 31.31200 .08118 92460 54038 1,97090 1,74060 1.9987_0 -L-39;34401F-- 07905 .00340 69,10400 38.64300 .10131 .08948 .08091 10274 TABLE C-12 STATE FLA UN1:07 PUPIL UNIT OF ANALYSIS DISTRICT TYPE 1 MEASURES OF NEAR. COUAL/TY, A40 FISCAL NWRALITY 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. S. 9. 10. 11. Ia. 15. ALAN EXP RANGE RES RA49e FE() R R REL 94 OEV PERM II...a vAR COEF VAR STO OEV LGS 01N/ SIM CORR SLOPE SLOPE 1.10 14 SLOPE W3 16 17 WICK GINI MEAN W STO OEV W CLAST W IA, 20. 21. COST (LAST V3 Sources: .1972 1973 953.98000 493.98000 221.46000 1157.30000 607.83000 309.02000 0,270 00900 59430. 92016 .n7310 .94384 7091.90000 .n8828 16041.00000 10674 n8900 n4906 76347 .10700 .05980 .61781 3.25950 M.69620 RsAS070 3.79280 3.76540 A_.40150 1427,fi080 000000 38.41300 1707800 .15070 .15163 .17753 _ ,26.91000-0.00000 54.59200 24.02100 .14987 21593 .22303 Tables B-21 through B-24. 3Ci itre 13113.60000 712.47000 33931000 .28500 07383 92116 13239.00000 .08562 08700 .04824 .73305 3.08390 3.21980 3.200_ 176.00000 000000 71,00800 27,34400 *16299 17014 17172 1975 1374.80000 755.44000 359,62000 .30570 .08560. 90.71. 18055,00000 .09774 .09800 .05507 .77344 3.28320 3.36150 223.15000 00545 79,96100 34(4500 .19096 49551 21359 TABLE C-13 STATF 6A. UNIT OF ANALYSIS -- DISTRICT r/STRIC Type.-- 1 MEASURES OF MEAN EQUALITY. AND FISCAL NEUTRALITY 1, 2. 3, 4, 5. 6. 7, P. 9, 10. 11. 1Z. 13, mEAN EX^ RANGE RES RANGE FEO P REL MN DEV PERM VAR IS. 19. 20, 21. 570.00000 772.00000 225,00000 "45.00000 8385.00000 444.00000 .70290 .17444 .86197 534640.00000 .68462 .32914 .13370 .93220 .0945 6523.00000 .1418p vAR CDEF VAR STD [TV iGS 1336A .061470 GINI' .55160 8.19100 8,50660 _9.0473A 98.32700 0.00000 16.53000 SIM rORR SLOPE W SOW w2 ExP PIF HICK DINT mEAN W sTn ELAsT w ELAST W2 ELAST W3 1 Sources: 1975 .48280 .09243 4 15, 16. 1972 Tables 6-25 and B-26. 20.9E.900 6.0460 0.000(10 344.72000 0.00000 27.79r300 5.431300 25.71700 .23754 .24669 (26237 .21990 0.00000 .632 TABLE C-14 STATE GA UNIT OF ANALYSIS -- uNWGT PUPIL rISTRICT TYPE -- 1 MEASURLS OF MEAN, EQUALITY, AND FISCAL NEUTRALITY 1, 2. -3, 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9, 10. 11., 12, 13, 14-. 15, 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21, MEAN EXP RANGE RES RANGE FEp R R REL MN 0F1, PERM VAR VAR COEF VAR. STO OEV LGS SIN/ SIM CORR SLOPE W SLOPE W2 SLOPE W3 EXP niF HICK GINT MEAN W sTD nEV w ELAST W ELAST W2 ELAsT W3 Sources: Tables B-25 and B-26. 1972 2975 628,00000 772.00000 772,00000 2.80030 .21983 .04079 35029.00000 .29793 .31078 .15770 .58160 9.68100 9.86060 10.10700 111,67000 0,00000 976.00000 83.560000u 1015,00000 2.76330 -.21123 .83536 86683400000 .33620 1'7,51400 6.66400 .26999 .27500 ,28187 44770 .15680 .93050 20.95000 7.51690 0.00000 377.96000 0.00000 27,35300 12.40500 ,65416 .23471 n,00000 TABLE C-15 s7ATL -- ILL UNIT OF AMALTSIS OISTNICT TYPE 9ISTRIC1 UNIT MLASURES OF MEAN. EwUALITY, A4U FISCAL NEUTRALITY 1. 2, 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. a, 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14, 15. 16. 17, 18. 19. 20. 21. NILAN EXP RA4GE RL5 RANSE FLO R R RLL MA DEV PLRM VAR vAR CUEF VAR SIO DEV LOS 1975 994.7400n 93Q015000 106060000 101.30000 .407 506.61000 .51090 .10656 .910a0 26714.00000 .13774 .13300 .07520 .30130 ,T3140 1.65210 1,75510 29,79300 .01220 26.gr400 13,19,00 .06452 .03742 .18647 03976 .393rn .08127 .94400 11157.00000 .10661 .10200 n5680 G141 5IM CORR SLOPE W SLOPE W2 SLOPE W3 EXP DIF HICK GIN! MEAN W STO DE!, W ELAST W ELAST W2 ELAST w3 Sources: 1972 .67844 6,43260 5.79060 7.0800 165.44000 34060 24,18700 11,14000 .15704' Tables B-27 and 8-28. 3 TABLE C-16 STATL ILI UN/T OF A'NALTSTS JANGT PUPIL DISTKICT TYPE -- UNIT ILAsuirs 3F mFAN,E6UALITY. ANU piScAL MEJTRALITY 1. 2, 3, 4, .5. G. mtAN CxF RANGE Efts RANGE LO R R 9tL M4 DEV FLRM VAR 7. VAR COEF VAR sla OEV LGS ,15. -G1NI 514 CDRP. SLOPE '4 SLOPE 42 SLOPE 43 EU, DIF ICK GINI 16, 17. *ILAN 4 1). 20. 21, sIO.DEV W ELAST ELAST 42 ELAsT w3 Sources: 1975 V,35.60050 939.65000 252.11000 1396.20006 ..,8860 .08526 04760 9b30,60000 8, 9. 10. 11. 12, IS, 14, 1972 . Tables 8-27 and 8-28. 09574 09700 05250 .590/1 5.12780 ln,94600 10.59500 1b3.23000 03640 2203400 7.198.70 .17960 .94158 2.5412 101.30000 769.75000 77740 .19633 .91330 96+06.00000 .21500 .21600 .11980 .24528 9.11300 14.20100 13.35100 .219.64000 0.00000 25.05300 8.07950 .16S52 .25402 .23921 TABLE C-17 STATt -- ILL ' UNIT OF ANALYSIS -- WGT OUPIL OISTRLO TYPE --uNrf MEASURES OF MEAN, EQUALITY, AND FISCAL NEUTRALITY I. MEAN-EXP 2, 3. 4, 5. 6. RANtiE 7. VAR 8, 9. COEF VAR STD OEV LGS la. 11, 12. 13. 14. 15. 16, 17, 13, 19. 20. 21. REs RANGE FED R R REL MN DEV PERM VAR GIN/ SIM CORR SLOPE 4 SLOPE 42 SLOPE:43 EXP DIP HICK 91NI MEAN 4 STO DEV W ELAST W ELAST 42 ELAST 43 Sources: Tables B-27 and 8-28. 1972 1975 800,A4000 774,n4000 267,S7000 .15330 .09570 ,n7900 9b49,40000 .12094 .12000 .06240 ,N0463 1125.20000 in61.90000 379,52000 .42000 .11126 .92060 11,42390 11.21400 11.04700 130.75000 0.00000 18,1330o 5,94530 .18614 p4779 24410 2n.;30.00300 .12609 .18100 .04780 .1)640 2:18140 3.35710 3.58660 52,46500 0.00000 20.13000 6.92030 .05914 .06024 TABLE C-18 STATE -- !Lt. ON/T OF ANALYSIS DISTRICT UISTIGT TYPE -- SECONDARY MEASURES OF EWUALITY, ANO FISCAL NEUTRALITY 1. 2, 3. 4, MLAN RANGE REs RANGE FLO / R 5. 6. FILL MN GEV 7. 8. vAR 9. 10. 11. 12. 13, 14. 15. 16, 17, 18, 19. 204 21. PERM VAR COEF VAR SIO OEV LGS GINI SIM CORR SLOPE W SLOPE w2 SLOPE W3 EXP OIF HICK G/NI MEAN W STO OEV W ELAST W 1975 1535.00000 lb92,x0000 1644.20000 1615.10000 95407000 ,1076,600Cr .84170 .15105 .89620 ,9503C 410;1.49 881,30 100780,00000 .23E16 .22000 1-AG1* w2 ELAST w3 Sources: 1972 Tables B-29 and B-30. 102340.00000 19456.18300 2570 10470 ..75219 .53719 4.89810 4,90580 4.94550 330.97000 .05030 6.77170 7.45270 7.48650 515,98000 9140 72,40!00 35,,6300 36872 .40581 .40765 74.07s0C 35.08500 22(427 .22102 .22281 TABLE C-19 STATE -- ILI UNIT OF ANALYSIS -- UNwGr PUPIL OISTRIct TYPE -- SECONDARY mtrisuaEs aF MEAN. F.UALITY, AND FISCAL NEUTRALITY 1. MtAN .ExP 2. 3, 4, RANGE Rts.RANGE FED R R 5. 6. 7, 8, 9. REL. MN OEV 10. 12. 13. 19. 15. 16. 17, 18. 19. 20. 21. pERM VAR vAR cOEF VAR STO DEv LGS GIN1 SIM CO9R SLOPE w SLOPE 42 SLOPE W3 EAP OIF HICK GINI MtAN 4 STD DEv W ELAST w ELAST w2 ELAS,T 43 Sources: 1572 1975 1597.70,000 1.59',30000 1756.40000 892,90000 1157,90000 .86940 .141E3 .90300 1029G0.00000 0.8435 .17800 a-MO .16848 .88050 iC988.n0000 .70,361 ,20100 .11460 ,A6067 8,94230 10,01100 9.98670 423,75000 .07620 64,A0600 21,26300 .40998 .46417 .46505 Tables 8-29 and B-30. 41 30,-38 1A15,100(.0 .10 0 .4779 6,55050 .7,28850 7.95640 A65,51000 .0b050 70.40260 23,42800 .26478 .2550 .32178 TABLE C-20 STATt UN'T OF ANALYSIS - WGT 0UP/L ulsT,410 TYPE - SECONDARY 4 MEASURES OF MEAN. EjUAL1TY, ANO FISCAL NrUTRALITY 1. 2, 3. 4, 5. 6. 7. 8, 9, MtAN ExP RANGF 10. 11. 12. 13, -14. 15, 16. 17, 181 19. 20. 2r. GINI .SIM CORR fit. RANGr FCC) R R 1972 1975 1109.90000 1274,70000 1376.56000 1290.00000 935,74000 71500000 .A8270 .17229 .A8710 01820 5283500000 66252.00060 .18980 .18400 .10470 ,49303 RtL my Do/ PtRM VAR WIR COEF VAR .P0710 .P0400 .11660 SIO OEVLGS SLOPE w sL0RE wi SLOPE 43 EXP OIF HICK Gna MEAN W STO OEti W ELAST w ELAST 42 (LAST 4:1 Sources: 66567 9.00140 10.,440o 10.,2096 346.40000 .07810 51,46200 16,99800 .41756 , , , -.47490 .47386 :14584 89710 6.1q350. 7,8667, 8.39960 304.35000 .053E0 55.80803 18,78900 .27868 .31894 .34055 Tables B-29 and 8-30. 31'4" *J.) TABLE C-21 STATL -- ILL UNIT OF ANALYSIS -- OISTRIcr 1 'OISTRICT TYPE -4' ELEMENTARY ft.ASURES OF MEAN. EGUALITY, ANO FISCAL NEUTRALITY! 1. 2. 3, 4, 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 12, 13, 14. 15. 16, 17, le, 19. 20. 21. mtAN EXP RANGE RLs RANGE FED R R RtL MN DeV lat_RM VAR vAR CUEF VAR S1O iEv LGF GINI SIM CORR SLOPE SLOPE v-2 SLOPE v3 EYP oi HICK GlNI MtAN W sTo DEv ELAST ELAST k2 ELAsr Sources: Tables Br31 and B-31. 1972 904.p.4000 .1178.90n0i! 1977'..70000 9788.00000 fq7.t3030 593.47000,dkR600 1.043.80 05646 .1871F, 042110 44097.80000 .P527n 96564.00086 ,2636n .25300 .3223 .10on op630 13280 ,71.106 .67070 4.22540 4.851:350 E,0410 5.;.76990 5.64560 4.69220 40F,FliCno 315,11(10e 07020 .07100 36.0'700 43.104011 3,2000 66b5 .2421.9 .2303 43,07501 .17691 017,Gr .1/15r TABLE C-22 STATt -- ILL UNIT OF ANALYSIS -- UNwGT PUPIL DISTRICT TYPE ELEMENTARY MLASURFS OF MEAN. EWALITY, ANO FISCAL NEUTRALITY 1. 2, 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. MtAN ExP RARIGEs, RES RANGE FtU R R RtL M4 OEV gittim VAR S. VAR COEF VAR 9. S1U DEV LGS 10. 11* 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17, 10. 19. 20. 21. GINI SIM ;ORR SLOP0E w SLOPE w2 SLOPE w3 1975 930.98000 1977.70000 574.?0000 .75210 1,946.40000 04106 .14568 ;85770 2799.00000 *01.53000 91450 .92860 34552.00000 .19951 .17900 .10090 .70372 7011950 8.01050 VP OIF 6505.00000 .20117 .19900 .10900 51820 5.96190 6445050 6.19970 075.16000 .05100 36.18600 22,22706 .17309 915727 .17999 0..40090 3179°2000 HICK GINI MtAN s10 0Ey w ELAST ELAST ELAST Sources: 1972 .0,7530 29.1%0200 17,A5000 .23Z12 .27941 .78227 Tables B-31 and B-32. 3 TABLE C-23 STATE -- ILL uNIT OF Ar4ALYsIS -- 041T PUPIL 13IsT141.CT "PE: --ELEMENTARY MLASURES OF MEAN. EOUALITY, ANO FISCAL NEUTRALITY 1. P. 3, 4, 5. 6, 7, 8, 9. 10, 11. 12. 13. 14. 15: 16, 17, 18, 19. 20. 21, MLAN ExP RANGE RLs RANGE FLO R R RfL MN DEV PLRM VAR VPR 075 911.72000 1843,50000 1216.10000 2781.00000 819.95000 .96770 .15655 .86660 68271.00000 .21486 .20700 61.2.14000 ,88080'' '05127 .01500 5691300600 COEF VAR S1O 0Ev LGs GINI 514 CORR SLOPE o SLOPE 42 SLOPE 43 ExP DIF HICK GINT mLAN W sTO OEV W FLAST EY%5T w2 ELAST w3 Sources: 1972 ,p1073 .19-600 0.0610 .70628. 7.73330 '4.37860 q.c.4910 539,16000 08070 2C,90800 17,54610 ,24522. 629737 .30h/5 Tables B-31 and B-32. 3:12 11500 ,5457e 6.47430 7.25500 7.25570 A19,60nou .05q3u 55.30400 22,02400 1b795 .21062 210614. TABLE C-24 ST,TE - MANS UNTT OF ANALYSTS . DISTRICT DISTRICT 1TPE 2 MEASURES OF MFAr, EQUAL/Ty AND FISCAL NEUTRALITY 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. in. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21, MEAN EXP RANGE RES RAMGF fEn P .REL Mn DEv PERM VAR VAR COEF VAR sTn nne Lss GINT Sim CORR SLOPE W SLOPE W2 SLnPF W3 EXP nTF HICK:GIN/ MEAN W sTn npf w (LAST W (LAST W2 ELAST W3 Sources: Tables B-33 and B-34. 1972. 1011.00000 3397.00000 884.00000 1.34970 .22645 .81482 103740.00000 .31865 .29598 .16030 .56950 9.74500 11.12700 0.0Onclo , 419.53000 0.00000 35.21701 18.82200 .33946 :38760 0.00000 1974 1146.00000 4553.00000 2199.00000 1.95750 .28616 .78572 532040.00000 .37482 .35318 .20050 .84490 20.93100. 25445900 0040000 148400000 0.00000 52.03400 29.44400 .55967 .67273 0.00000, TABLE C-25 STATE -- KAN'S UNIT OF ANALYSIS -- UOGT PUPIL CISTkICT TypE 1 mEASURLS OF MEAN', EQUALITY, AND FISCAL NEUTRALITY 1, 2. 3. MEAN. EXp 7. 8. 9. VAR R4NGE RES RANGE FED P R 4, REL MN DEV 54 6., PERm VAR . COEF VAR ST0 rEV LGR 10, 11. 12. GIN! 13.. 14, 15w16, 17. 18. 19, 204 21, -S!.0pE W2 SIM CORR sLOpE W SLOPE W3. EXP n/F HICK GIN/ MEAN W sTri DEV w ELAST W ELAST W2 (LAST W3 4ources: Tables B-33 and B1-34. 1972 1974 889,00000 3397400000 650,00000 1.06790 .17683 1454,00000 4553w00000 1320.00000 1.30840 .21761 .88501 221410.00000 .31708 .28951 .15580 .84630 21.02100 .25.32400 0.00000 14p5,40000 0,00000 36.57900 17:49400 .62814 .62421 0,00000 82746 53A50,00n0n .26113 .29135 .13240 570P0 9,7860011.21500 13.00000 420,06000 cionnon 26.44300 10.63400 ,29108 ,33359 0,00000 TABLE C-Z6 KTY STAIt UNIT ANALYSTS -- DISTRICt OISPUCT 1 MtASURES OF MEAN. ErlUALITY. AND, FISCAL.NEjTRAl1TY 1. 'ILAN EXP 2. 3. 4, RANGE RtS RANGE FLO .R R 5.. W. MN DEV 6. 7. 8. 9. PtRM VAN .10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17, lso. GINI SkM CORR PO. 21. V" CUEF VAR STO DEV LLS SLOPE w SLOPE W2 SLOPE .W3 fXP DIP HICK SINI 1972 1975 11115.48000 860.09000 838.42000 559,83000 282,06000 .84652 .11001 .40067 0491,80000 .14972 .13800 .07718 .60660 3,75100 3,49500 3.15700 94,08840 ,04578 ?ILAN 36010006. STD DEV W ELAST ELAST 42 ELAST W3 14.90200 .22123 ,00613 Sources: Tables B-35 and B-36. 8619 307.85000' .41961 .10700 90426 17693.00000 .15367 .13800 .07619 .57330 4,08500 3.75400 3.05900' v14.18000 04520 48,36400 18.66500 .22825 .20975 .17092 TABLE C-27 STA% -7 KTY UNIT OF ANALYSTS UNWGT PUPIL oISTR10 TYPE -4. MLASURES OF MEAN', EclUALITY. AND . 1972 1975 ILAN ExP 659.9200V RANGE RtS RANGr FLO'R 1 RtL MN OEV PLR1 VAR Lj59,A3000 430.47000 g38.42000 FAGCAL NEJTRALI1y 1. 2. 3, 4, 5. 6. 7. 8, 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15, 17, 18, 19, 20. 21. VAN COEF VAR SID DEV LGS 407,32010 ,70854 .16509 92096 92333 51102,00000 .23779 .21851 .12463 .10674 Sim CORR SLOPE w SLOPE 42 SLOPE 43 EAP D1F HiCK Gim/ MEAN W STU DEV W ELAST , ELAST W3 Sources: .88407 419355 16354.00000 .193/h .18590 GMT LAST 42 61.03000 Tables B-35 and B-36. .7089(1 78381 .6.16810 8,260fj0 A,91100 236,40000 8.29710 16.17500 416,70000 .10573 n8229 39.,62,J0 65,323:10 14,P3600 .37886 .19677 21.44600 .48078 ,48235 ,59225 .3016 TABLE C-28 STA% LOu DISTRIV UNIT OF ANALYSIS UISTRICT TYPE 1 MLASURES OF MEAN. EWUALITY, AND FISCAL NEUTRALITY .1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6, 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15, 16, 17, 15. 19. 20. 21. MLAN EXP RANGE fts RANGr FLO R R RM. MN DEV . RAM VAR vAR COEF VAR STD DEV LWS GINI SIM CORR SLOPE W SLOPE W2 SLOPE W3 Exp DIF HIcK GIN1 MLAN W STOIIEV. ELAST W ELAST ELAST Sources: Tables 8-37 and B-38. 1912 1975 703.00000 405.00000 244.00000 .40956 .07963 .90942 5156.00000 .10208 .09950 1069.00000 585,00000 3/9.00000 05571 .17407 3.17260 15.36204 12.63400 0.00000 0.00000 6.31800 3.97000 .02851 .13806 .11354 44165 .00692 92144 15i95.00000 11860 11038 06111 .28082 6,95850 28.37100 23.83500 0.00400 0.00000 6.39400 5.01600 .04279 17459 14667 TABLE C-29 :STATE LOU. UNIT OF ANALYSIS -- UNWGT PUPIL DISTRICT TYPE- 1 MEASURES OF MEAN. 'EQUALITY. AND FISCAL NEUTRALITY 1, 2, 3. 4, 5. 6. 7. 8, 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14, 15. 16, 17. 18, 19, 20. 21, MEAN EXP RANGE REs RANGE FEU R R REL MN DEV PERM VAR VAR COEF VAR STU DEV LGS GINI SIM CORR SLOPE W SLOPE W2 SLOPE W3 EXP DIF HICK GINI MLAN w STU DEV W ELAS7 W ELAST W2 ELAST W3 Sources: 1972 1975 705,00000 405.00000 1049.00000 585,00000 283.00000 .31165 .07963 ,90618 179,00000. .29358 .07259 .92799 3635.00008 .08597 .08625 04841 .38615 6,32670 11.26700 11608600 0,00000 0.00000 7,23500 3.24700 .06493 .11563 11377 Tables 8-37 and B-38. 37's 1005,00000 .09594 .09492 .05342 .36969 8.63250 16.49600 17.01900 0.00000 0.00000 7.1900 3,80100 .05921 .11314 .11673 TABLE C-30 STATE MA/NF DISTRICT UNIT nF ANALYSIS rISTRICT TYPE Ow.. 1 MEASURES OF MEM', EQUALITY. AND FISCAL NEUTRALITY 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. MEAN EXP RANGF RES RANGE FEn R K REL MN DEV PERM VAR VAR 3.--CDEF VAR 9. STO OEV LGS 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16, GIM1 SIM CORR SLOPE W SLOPE W2 SLOPE w3 ExP nIF HICK GNI 17: JAEAN W 18 SO rEv w 19. 20. 21. (LAST W (LAST W2 (LAST W3 Sources: 1972 3975 93e.0000n 9919.00000 1180,0000n 2,32650 1113,00000 3379.00000 1014.00000 1.40190 .21164 .85106 134930.00000 .33014 .29195 .15360 .32500 .85400 2.39330 0,00000 649.50000 0.00000 77.41500 135.44000 .05940 .16647 0.00000 00442 &0590 463490.00000 .72546 .38544 .22510 57670 3.13000 2.11180 0.00000 530.81000 o.00000 60.89500 125.4400n .2032A .13710 0.00000 Tables B-39 and B-40. 37!) TABLE C-31 STATE mowir UNIT oF ANALYSIS UNWGT PUPIL DISTRICT TYpE -- 1 mEASURIS oF MEAN. EQUALITY, AND FIScAL NFUTRALITY 1972 1975 824600000 9919.00000 546.08000 .97030 .15661 .65029 .35086.00000 .22720 .22692 .11550 .57680 1056.00000 5379.00000 619.00000 .85510 .13606 .87594 66023.00000 .18319 .20336 .09820 .5/600 AM. 1, 2. 3, 4. 5, 6. 7, 8, mEAN Exp RANGE RES RANGE FED 0 REL mN Ofv PERm VAR vAR COEF VAR DEV LGS 10. GIN1 11, SIM CORR SLOPE w SLOPE w2 SLOPE W3 ExP D/F 12, 13. 14, 15. 16. 17. 16. 19. 20, 21. 44ICK GINI MEAN W STn nEV w (LAsT:w (LAsT W2 ELasT w3 Sourdes: AO. Tables 8-39 and 8-40. 86300 4_..13500 2,13550 0.00000 519.110000.00000 30.26300 21..64100 .11514 .07848 0.00000 , 2.40070 0.00000 629.71100 0.00000 42.51900 31.42500 .03542 09853 0.00000 TABLE-C-32 TA% *IC4 'NTT 3F AmALYSTS OIORICT IISTK1CT TYPE - 1 MiAS.J4rS OF REAM. rPTJALITY. AV, FISCAL°4EX1RALITY 4. 5. 6. 7. 4LAN ExP RA4GE leS RANAC FED R 4 REL PI 3CV PERM JAR yAR COEF VAR STD lEV LG!" G141 SI" CORR SLOE 17. 15. t9. 20. 21. SLOPE w2 SLDPE FYP HICK .i6r 4L4n sy3 3Lv ELAST w ELAST W2 ELAST W3 Sources: 1971 1972 1009000 06492 916.00000 i'29.90000. *36.89000 .50400 .10214 .15493 17954.00000 .14640 .15199 .07221 .59116 3.86800 3.79610 3.54380 ;60.82000 .0*275 58.45600 20.77300 .16239 .1726R .17/31 .16137 635.P5000 b47.72000 354.36000 50400 10154 13057 1415700000 .1425n .19049 .07233 .0040 3.15270 4.13170 4.11770 147.32000 .04274 34,45000 Tab1esB-43 through B-46. 15937 1973 1974 11122.70060 1131.96000 1159.5u000 473.16000 1361050000 459.40000 .54/76 97/4 92229 20679.00000 .14061 .13031 07170 .58254 *3.50470 3.46520 304710 1.42.95000 50393 .09740 .92071 22767.00000 16937 .12514 06976 .51887 2.71350 3.29720 *2.18410 170.41800-- 03229 .0361* 42.22900 23.90200 47.81600 28.86500 14471 14309 11469 15921 .12585 .12601 TABLE C-33 STATE *" MIC4 AJPIL UNIT OF ANALTSIS JISNIcT T,Y°C. 1 N. 4EASURCS OF MEAN. EQUALITY. AND FISCAL NCUTRALITY 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. A. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 15. 19. 20. '1. mLAN ExP ReiNGE RES PANIGE rE0-4 4 REL MN DEV POtA VAR uA4 cOEF VAR sIO DEV GINI SIM CD4D4 SLOPE W SLOPE 42 SLOPE .J5. ExP OIF HICK G/NI mEAN 4 STO DEV W COST W CLAST w2 rLAsT 43 Sources: 1971 1972 1973 1974 882.42000 847.72000 422.06000 o47.64000 1,25.50000 439.12800 .38479 .1185A 1079.30000 1/30.80000 457.99000 1159.10000 .g(1704 .10554 .92506 17151.00000 .14541 .15901 ,n7500 .71340, 2 6.15590! 6.,5490' 6.36690 185.s1000 n5465 37.7940C, 1%15200 36409 .36790 .,7269 Tables B-43 through B-46. .91452 21595.00000 .15436 .14353 .08138 .62802 5.57900 5.57100 5.65650 141.13000 *05038 40.79500 16.46600 .24016 .23951 .24351 55472 .09522 .90475 21974.00000 .13734 .13016 07135 .63670 5.20/20 5,40890 5.21450 159.51000 .04415 44.15000 18.11900 .21309 .22494 .21577 1.155.50000 536.55000 .55467 .09339 .92287 24657.00000 13206 .12592 .06965 .61423 4.68510 5.25500, 9.82350 197.32000 .04036 45.55600 20.58600 .19131 .21455 19696' TABLE C-34 STATL MINN UNIT OF ANALYSIS i OISTRIO uISTrUCT TYot. 1 MLASURES OF MEAN. EWUALITY. ANO FISCAL NEUTRALITY I. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. T. a, 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21, MLAN tAP RANGE RLs RANGE FLU R R RLL MN 00 pt-wm VAR VAR COEF VAR STU OEV LGS GINI SIM CORR SLOPE W SLOPE W2 SLOPE W3 ClIP OIF H1Cg GINI MLAN W STU OEV W ELAST W ELAST W2 ELAST w3 Sources: 1971 948.89000 1430600000 444.00000 :87963 .11240 .90666 24115.00000 .16371 .15100 .08/69 .25970 6.62800 5.80300 1.70000 11.22800 0.00000 10,30900 6.08500 .07203 .06307 .01840 1975 1319.30000 1083.00000 506.00000 .45668 4,09554 .91103 34052.00000 Tables B-47 and B-48. 3;:s 13988 12500 .06852 .11030 2.05800 4,54800 3.49800 67,22500 0.00000 15.45600 9.89300 .02411 .05328 034094 TABLE C-35 M/NN STATL UN/T OF ANALYSIS + uNwGr Punt. UISTKICT TYPE MLASURES OF MEANg. EQUALITY, AND FISCAL NEUTRALITY 1, 2, 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. MLAN LXP RANGE fts RANGE FLU R R RLL MN OEV PLKM VAR VAR CMS VAR 9. ^ ^ 1 10. 110 12. 13. 14. 15. 15, 17. 16. 19, 200 21. STU DEV LSS DIN! SIM CORR SLOPE W SLOPE W2 SLOPE W3 EAR 0IF HICK GINI MILAN W STU OEV W ELAST W ELAST W2 ELAST W6 Source: Tables B-47 and 8-48. 1971, L975 972.66000 1430.00000 401.00000 .50440 010302 .91754 22009.00000 .152b2 .14757 1804.20000 1063.00000 07611 .41270 12.95300 11.96400 10.88200 100.35000 0.00000 10.58408 4.72750 .14627 .13533 .12269 5k02.00000 .49779 .09916 .92969 28795.000" 1261 .12207 .06959 .41110 10.96500 13.60700 13.66500 173.89000 0000000 15.31400 6.36230 .12400 .15614 .15453 TABLE C-36 STATL mn, MISS' UN/T OF ANALYSIS OIStrRICI UISTKICT TYPE.- I MLASUKtS OF MEAN. EUUALITY, ANO FISCAL NEUTRALITY 1. 2. 3 4, 5. 6. 7. 8, 9. 10. 11. 12, 13, 14. 15, 16, 17, 18 19. 20. 21. MLAN EXP RANGE REs RANGE FED R R 1975 464.00000 333,00000 186,00000 725.00000 540.00000 .272.00000 45748 48369 RCA. MN DEV PLRM VAR 1971 , vAR' COEF VAR STU DEV L6S GINI SIM CORR SLOPE.W SLOPE w2 sLon w3 EXP DIF HICK GINI MEAN W SID DEV W ELAST W ELAST W2 ELAST W3 .08697. .91432 6848,00000 .11409 .11014 .10281 01856 3613,00000 .12956 .16444 07050 06193 .41767 2.07140 4.97400 4,55030 0,00000 0,00000 5,59600 12,16100 .02498 .05999 .05488 .47717 2,73820 4,93260 4.69010 0.00000 0.00000 6.80700 14,4690G .02571 .04631 .04406 Sources:' Tables B-49 and B-50. 3 TABLE C-37 STATL -- muss UNWGT:PUPIL UNIT-OF ANALYSIS OISTRIDT TYPE 1 MEASURES OF MEAN. -EQUALITY, AND FISCAL NEUTRALITY 10 2, 3, 4, 5. 60 7, 0. 9. 100 11. 12. 13, 14. 15. 16e 17, 16. 19 200 210 MEAN EXP RANGE REG RANGE FLU R R REA. MN DEV PERM VAR VAR" cbeF VAR STU OEV LOS GlNI S11 CORR SLOPE W SLOPE W2 SLOPE '44 EXP DIF HICK QINT MEAN W STU OEV W ELAST W ELAST W2 CLAST W3 r, Sources: Tables B-49 and B-50. 1971 1975 470.00060 333,00000 302,00000 .77726 .12267 .92355 5710.00000 .15796 .14541 .08431 744.00000 5*0.00000 465,00000 -078678 .10907 092618 13156.00000 .15400 03950 1.75650 4,75650 2,14466 0000000 0,00000 14,82400 11,55000 005447 .14761 .06652 14133 .07656 .79241 2.47750 4.26670 5.5170 0.00000 0000000 17,57000 14.11300 .05951 010076 013026 TABLE C-38 STA% -- m0 uAIT OF .ANALYFIS 01CfR1C) OtSrr(10 TYPE: -4. UNIFIED mLASuRcS OF MEAN, Eciu'ALJTY. AND 1974 1975 909.83000 2283,90000 425.09000 1061.30000 2322,50000 436,15000 .55691 .11879 .87629 84181100000 .18059 FISCAL NEUTRALITY 1. 2: 3, 4, 5. 6. 1. 9. 10. 11. 12, 14. 14. 15. 16. 17, 18. 19. ZO. 21. 4LAN Exp RANGE RIG RANGE FLO R R FILL MN GEV' pr.Rm VAR VAR cuEF VAR STO DEv L6S GIN/ sIm CORR SLOPE w SLOPE w2 SLOPE w3 ExP DIF HICK GIN/ mEAN 56714 .11769 .87463 . , 29794,010000 ,,-/0.8971 sru of.v W ELAST w ELAST w2 ELAST.143 Sources: Tables B-51 and B-52. _ .15300 15100 08319v, .08299 ,75400' 03690 21.59100' X5,44100 19,96800 15..p5200 182,75000 .05095 12,42200 6,02600 .p94T8 21082 .20796 1405900 15.08400 918,64000 .05802 15,31800 7,20600 .28278 .211b4 .21861 319VI 6E-D - 74.011S IINn o OM sisA1VNV 19mNO 2dAl OtinSV31,01 :10 Nlf3N 4A1I1Vna3 ONV 1vos7J lintobir3N 1. C. 2 41 .5 .9 'L .9 .6 '01 "T1 .a/ .2/ .+11 .9/ 661 'OZ "Ie f)L6I 003aL166 NV1W dX3 35NO S38 39hvb Old b b llb Wt4ld Nit tjA 300 8vA 0q00g*Vio 00011°Los 00069°?0G hn2LG' 9x0W GUat" a?9&)* 00000'LG162 v5661° Z9126° 00000'0IGhb 24Z91' GWZ9I' 29160' ogcae 026013' 110996.b2 piS A3G snl INTS VTS 11603 3d01,3 P 00986'Le 3d01S am :MO'S fr dX3 JI0 MOTH INIS NV1W M OIS A20 M UO9Lii'M? IS)413 M iS1713 ZM JSV13 2M :sapanos 0000,L'LSI1 oo/Ob.2qu figtc9. A30 )117A GL6I sajqej lg-g pue -zg-g JOPIVi7? 'GZ21.0' Oce2V" 2PI62' 00GfeI7 0099912 0)06e9bZ 4101.0' 031LL'91 02ZSd'9 2ZI92*. 9LLT2' 9100.' TABL C-40 STIat -- 49 .UN1T OP. ANALYSTS pISTHICT TYPE -- 40 IWO 9I1T4I:T ELEMENTARY MLASURES 3F MEAN. E;JALITY, AMO FISCAL NEUTRALITY 1.974 1.975 682.94000° 958.63000 1728.70000 428.84000 57.187 1. *ILAN ExP 2. 3, 4. RA1Gr Rts RANGE FE0 4 R 5.. FILL M1 0E5 6.111gg ocim VAR 05512 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12, 13, 14. 15. 16. 17, 21. 1040.40000 274,93000 1892101000 COEF VAR SIJ nEv LGc GIMT SI4 CORR SLOPF w SLOPE W2 sLOPF w3 EXP 01; HICK GTNI MLAM slO lEv W ELAST w ELAST W2 ri-.AST Sources: 15439 . 2376 41890.05000 ..211404: .16900 n9262 .56380 11,A0700 9.n2200 8.32100 1170400,0 .054q0 1106200 6,46800 .19297 .14746 3600 .17400 .09720 06640 i0i600 801200 8.55500 152,16000 .05571 16.85400 10,65400 .1916a .13189 15146 Tables B-53 and B-54. 3 ,y TABLE C-41 STATL UNIT OF ANALYSIS -- ON.IGT / OIST41c7 TYPE - ELEMENTARY mtAS(1RFS OF MEAN, E.4UALLTY, ANO FISCAL NEUTRALITY %. 2. 3, RLs RANIGr -:)75 b79.27000 3040,40000 320,96000 1723.700.00 968.21000 464,15400 4, rE0 R R .9651'45 .CalS56 RLL MM ()EV PLR"! VAR vAR .12992 .13424 5. 6. 7, 8, 9. 10. 11. 1?. 13, 14. 15, 16. 17. 18. 19. 70. 21. ^ MtAN RANGE 1974 q2456 00552- 19616.00000 46410.00000 .22962 CUEF VAR, SID 0EV LGS GINI SIM CORR SLOPE W SLOPE w2 SLOPE WS EXP OIF HICK GIN1 MLAN 4 510 nEv d BAST w ELAST W2 ELAST W3 Sources: 00619 .i6987, .n9043 .F.965o .09709 .71S40 12,(19c.,00 14,84500 8,46600 7,53900 123,49000 .06003 9,14300 9.18400 226.0/000 .06287 9.4270 6,7140 P0899 12:15500 .11918 .10613 Tables 8-53 and 8-54. AM. 390 14.7300 .0.0017 .14415 .14480 , TABLE C-42 STATE -± N J WITT OF ANALYSTS -. 01S/R/t/ 0/sTRICY Type.. 3, mEASURES OK Mr0P, EnUALITy. itm0 F1StAL NruTRALITY 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. A. 7, A. 9. 10, 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17 10. 19, 21. mEAN Exp RANGE REs PANGF FEn P R REL PA, ArV PERI* VAR VAR° COEF vAR STD mEv iG GINT S/4 FOKR SLOPE W SLOPE w2 SLOPE W3 ExP CIF HICK GIN/ MEAN W STD NEW w ELAST W ELASY W2 EL0s7 ki0 Sources: . .1974 2975 197g 1977 1412.40000 If:14.50000 4667.0 012012 2706.10000 1,57.90000 1.00830 .17323 .85ww9 113'40.00000 .2221, .27050 1703.40000 5056.10000 10b8.00000 1872.00000 5553.00000 1209.00000 .67005 .15247 4 1021.90000 1.04470 .17750 .55402 1262190.00000 .25135 .35420 .12700 .4058n 2.18170 3.97200 4.20010 566.02000 .06700 76.60400 66.12500' .11033 .21544 .23214 Tables B-56 through B-59. . 06300 05.90000 76.13900 .05200 .19595 23239 86714 171600.04000 aw129 .13160 11000 .12100 .37040 1.63600 3.50760 4.09720 x23.91000 .A!5043 .15473 .85000 139790.00000 a .32060 1.3811e 2.77,11ft 3,19430 571.05000 .04900 94.93100 00.305P0 .07472 1544S 17797 .17190 .11100 38470 1.64790 3.45280 3.83790 746.7*(100 .05500 104.51000 97.7,700 0,144 .1,276 .21315 TABLE'C-4 0 STATE -- N j UNIT OF ANALYSTS UNW6T PIWIL DISTRICT TYPE -- 1 ASAIREg OF MOW, EOlthLITy, AND F/ScAl. NFUTRALITY . 1. 2, 3, 4, 5. 6, 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. mEAh EXP RANSF RES RANGF FED R P REL s4 Ord PERM VAR v0R COEF VAR- STD DEW LOS CINI: 5/11 CORR SLOPE SLOPE W2 SLOPE W3 EXP DIF H1CX GINT a. 0 SEAN W 74* 1e. -419. 20. STD nEsi w 22. ELAST ELASI W2 ELhsT W3 Sources: 1974 2975 1976 2977 1400.50000 4647.000t0 1'11e20000 2706.10400 1623,,70000 01102noo 1139.79000 1667.700PP 5056.30000 1007.100RO .78060 . 32836-, .14621,- . 1?1^0 .6: 59 .84529 .14836 .87382 ,' .87063 70465.00000 -83123.00000 .19o78 .18957 .23190 .26650 ; .10300 .10400 .41420 .38960 3.14490 3.011130 4.12890 3.87150 3.88150 4.18380 '17,71000 '260,52opo .05000 (1.000bo 66.85300 60.47000 37.97000 33.560011 .13913 .13307 .18266 .16716 .16759 .18508 , Tables B-56 through 8-59. -39') 30367.00AP 0,099 .10490 09300 .46250 3.10880 4.1206P 4..27800 361.2500p . 051011 72.6860e 42.2220p 1355M 5553.00000 1057.60000 . .70799 .13676 .8(823 117340.00000 .10831 . 14720 .00900 .4d953 3.12820 4.0(220 4.19760 391.00000 .09,00 79.-4P600 . 1795. "?..4300 1^597 .1(700 .10645 . 10027 318t11 1717-3 , w 11V1S ItNn 40 gISI1VP.V 3d11 -- Ownsm se JOTISIO I Nv3w 'AI7mne3 ONY 1d3SIS ALI1VW41314 .1 e .s, 1 17 . fir 'VI *II at .1.1 .0 0 11 . fil 'Oa T2 O 3 39040 g3V 39mVX 034 W 1311 Mg r30 WW3d vI 'yr 1302 Uvr Olg A30 Se1 :NIS WTS WWC3 3d01S 3d01S 34015 2,1 dx3 410 Ndlif NV3V r OIS r30 r 1Sd13 m 1Sv13 1Sv13 gm :saunoS e ZLit. 000WW*6 MLiT gLfig 000WOUI 0000,09121 41000etiOT 0009vegli owletsol 0000rqua 000glefig, 00009.giii 0000I'lait 00002.g0gT 119020 1114.0g° 01,911. 1421.0. 00000.0gW4 MO 400000209T GASee lager, 91.0ie 00000.0iplet Vigte. 001/a. 00602° 00Tgr -11,1091°,. 0091. SeSte / LOW' 00000°02246 90*g. ag' 'W 0190.2 02Idia O OiSS402 000TIOSMS 00000'0 0001019 00291092 09GMI °LW* salcirl 09-8 Omuta °E9-8 ttag O &gag° OIOSeT Ogifter 0210i*a 00022°L0* INWOO°9 02Tiogi O 00*/$**9 Ogigg° eV M 000096,16ST NIOget Mtge GUM' (meet OTO,0°I otimeg 001102 VOLLsegg orsalT 20690.0 00z2V9O 0022966/ 'tut' ouGt. igLIV ofttfez OgOgrig* 00000°C 00,4**i 00wWil 09210. 221,16 lb TABLE C-45 STATE - N M, UNwGT PUPIL UNIT'OF.ANALTSIS DISTRICT TYPE 1 MLASURES OF MEAN. EQUALITY, AND 1972 '1975 1974 1975 781.38000 963.46000 839.60000 2761.50000 565.61000 967.99000 1922.10000 356.58000 1069.50000 1554.80000 355.12000 FISCAL NOTRALITY 1. 2, 5, 6. 7.* 0. 9. 10. 11, . . 18, 14. 15. 16. 17, 18, 19, 21. MEAN EXP RANGE RES RANGE FED R R OEV REL PERM VAR yAllt . COEF VAR STO DEv 1.65 GINI SIM CORR SLOPE w SLOPE w2 SLOPE W3 EXP DIPNICK GINI NEAN w STO lEy w ELAST W ELAST V2 ELASr,w3 Sources: 23%68000 .41070 .1Q599 .99522 14205.00000 .15255 49750 42930 57250 .10974 .97606 22715.00000 .17958 .09524 .94552 25491.00000 5200 14000 .13500 A6504 .06968 06447 49183 .07592 .96112 21467.00000 .15699 .11100 .05236 .57259 1.02680 .77756 .54014 57.45300 0.00000 64.11600 95.16500 .06156 .04661 .03238 ' 36144 .45140 1.75090 1.51110 71979 106960 06527 , _0.1484 56.60400 .n0046 46,46000 52.07600 L13.8G400 0.00090 51.26500 36.26500 00614 09227- .n8126 .00587 .04395 .00701 16842 1.67990 1.46720 1.06230 95.46200 0.00000 57.50900 4674400 .10156 .08870 06422 Tables 6-60 through B-63. 0 3LI,1 . TABLE C-46 STATt N C UNIT OF ANALYSIS DISTRICT TYPt OLSTRICI 1 MtASURES OF MEAN, EQUALITY, AND FISCAL NOTRALITY 1. 2, 3. 4, 5. 6, 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12, 13. 14. 15. 16, 17, 18. 19. 20. 21. MCAN tXP RANGE REs RANGr FEU R K REL MN OrV PLRM VAR VAR 1972 1975 629.00000 300,00000 201,00000 .36875 .07103 .92112 3377,00000 A84.00000 444.00000 051.00000 .32241 COEF VAR SIU OEV las 09237 08996 G1RI sol CORR .05076 SLOPE W SLOPE W2 SLOPE W3 EXP DIF HICK GINI MLAN w SlU OEV w 'ELAST W ELAST W2 ELAST W3 Sources: Tables B-65 and 6-66. 54948 3,12130 2,45230 1.60200 0.00000 0,09000 32.69600 10.26900 .16225 12747 .08327 06779 .93270 6155.00000 05597 08858 04846 .27175 .50004 .86156 85692 0.00000 0.00000 51.59300 *2.58400 .04615 08008 07909 TABLE C-47 STATE N C UNWGT PUPIL UNIT OF ANALYSIS UISTKICT TYPL 1 MEASURES OF MEAN. EQUALITY. ANO FISCAL.NEUTRALITY 1. 2. 8, 4, 5. 6. 7, 8. 8. 10. 11. 12. 18. 14. 15. 16, 17, 18. 19. 20. 21. MEAN EXP RANGE REs RANGE FEO R R RLL MN 'My PERM VAR VAR CUES VAR SIO DEV LGS GIN! SIM CORR SLOPE W St.OPE W2 SLOPE W3 EXP DIF HICK GINI MEAN W SIU OEV W ELAST W ELAST w2 ELAST W3 Sources: Tables B-65 and B-66. 1972 1975 688.00000 300.00000 274.00000 .51269 800.00000 444,00000 340.00000 .42951 .08370 .95092 9383.00000 .10758 .10298 .05782 .44016 1,08430 1.69140 1.67580 0.00000 0.00000 86.17400 57.78700 .10382 .16195 .16046 09271 .93279 5672.00000 .11987 .11575 .06552 .75750 5.02520 4.22890 3.76650 0.00000 0.00000 56.28400 10.26100 .28534 .24013 .21387 TABLE C-48 S C STATt UiSTRIcr UNIT OF ANALYSIS DISTRICT Type,. 1 McASURES OF MEAN. EWUALITY, ANO FISCAL NEUTRALITY 1. 2, 3 4. 5. 6, 7. 8, 9. 10. 11. 12, 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. MtAN LX1) RANGE Rt.s. RANGE FLJ R R RLL MN DEV PLAM VAR vAR COEF VAR SIU OEV LGS GINI SIM CORR SLOPE W SLOPE 1d2 SLOPE W5 EXP OIF HICK OINI MLAN w SIU DEV W ELAST W ELAST W2 ELAST W3 Sources: Tables B-68 and B-69. 1972 491.00000 372,00000 268,0000 .74071 11560 .85848 5416,00000 .14980 .14813 .08304 .63060 45.70100 61.36600 60.96400 0.00000 0,00000 2,25700 1,02180 .21008 28208 .28024 1975 7/4.00000 107,00000 610.00000 1.06440 .17374 .63029 35104,00000 .23848 .21996 .12021' .36614 /0.51200 98.43700 101.72000 '0.00000_ 0900000 2.75300 1.04300 .24448 .34131 .33269 TABLE C-49 r STATL uwIT OF ANALYSIS -- uNwo. puPIL DISTRICT TYPL'-- 1 MEASURES OF MEAN. EQUALITY. AND riscAL NEUTRALITY 2, 3, 4, 5. 6. 7, 8, 9. 10. 11. 12, 15. 14. 15, 16, 17, 15, 19. 20. 21. MEAN EXP RANGE REs RANGE FLU R R REL MN DEV PLRM VAR VAR COEF VAR STU DO/ LUs GIN! OM CORR SLOPE W SLOPE W2 SCOPE W3 Exfa DIF HICK GINI. MEAN W STU DEV W ELAST W. ELAST W2 ELAsT w3 Sources: Tables B-68 and B-69. 1972 507,00000 372,00000 296,00000 ,80706 .11678 00450 6003,00000 .15284 .15266 .03474 ,75655 8045700 91.57900 95,06900 000000 000000 2.37500 ,87400 .37612 42972 ,43671 1975 A05.00000 107,00000 604,00000 1.04910 .15990 .86841 28259,00000 .20878 19945 .11322 .55199 96.50500 06000 111,01000 0.00000 0,00000 5,04800 1,08400 .36464 ,41672 .42032 TABLE C-50 Si-ATL 0 W4/T OF ANAOSTS 01STI4ict 1Y9L -- 1 MLASUiES UF MEANt E6UALITY. 1,40 1973 .F1SCAL NEUTRALITY - 1. 3, 4 5. 7, A, 9. 10. 11. 13. 14. 15. 16, 17, 18. /9. 20. 21. MLAN EXP RANGE RtS RANGE FLO R R RtL MN DEV PLRM VAR VAR CuEF VAR SID DEv L6S GINI SIM CORR SLOPE w SLOPE V2 SLOPE W3 ExP DIF HICK GINI MEAN W 510 DEV W ELAST W DAS"! W2 ELAST W3 Sources: 1974 1975 1081.b0000 1695,20000 705.56000 87e30000 c169.69000 1934,90000 581,47000 1612.60000 707.47000 .900t13 997!0 8459 .16687 .90123 .16676 .15483 09188 08420 46568,000011 53973.00000 .23958 .25208 .12177 .81140 1&,2180n 58144,00000 .22298 .21600 .11552 ,45/0 p350C .122R5 ,A4080 1.,,n3500 13,A3300 1A0S9600 411.75000 09787 27412700 13.q2000 .41447 .43984 ,u6410 ._13,597en 14.1760n 567,58000 .09631 30.33900 14,26100 ,.41424 .42611 41284 Tables 9-70 through B-72. 32!) 4,79490 12,68300 12.92700 11.33600 349.55000 08707 52,62500 15,11300 .38264 ,69000 .54200 -TABLE C-51 sTATt 0 0, uNIT OF ANALYSTS UISTHicT TYPE UVVO POPIL WPM MEAS0RES OF MEAN, E6UALITY. ANC) 1973 19704 1975 765.96000 nw4.550pri 19311,90000 40A,;12000 1612,600E0 441,3200n .64959 967,93000 1695,20000 5A4,73000 FISCAL NEUTRALITY 1. 2. 3 4, 5. 6, 7, 8. 9. 10. 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19. 20. 21. MEAN ExP RANGE REs RANGE FEB R R FILL MN DEV PERM VAR yAR COEF VAR sTO 0Ev LOs. GIN! . 9643 . slm CORR SLOPE w sL0Pr w2 SLOPE w3. EXp DIF HICK GIN! mEAN W STO 0EVA4 ELAST w ELAST w2 ELAST 43 Sources: .67114 0\2899 .06903 22750,00000 .19692 .21397 ,s1540 12,19600 14.45100 14,16500 271,44000 .08063 20,73500 q,46190 .35181 .39201 38346 Tables B-70 through B-72. 40 ..12724 07952 .11365 .87509 07444 29106.000co 29894,00000 617863 .19964 .21408 .09810 ,79670 12,408E0 13,74000 13,42300 307,18000 .08172 21,92600 10,9530P 31836 .35254 .34441 19087 06762 ,75930 11,60600 12.61900 12,15800 254,b3000, ,06753 24,11000 11,23500 .29110 .61443 .30294 TABLE C-52 STATE TEXAS UNIT OF ANALYSIS -- OISTRIcT DISTRICT TYPE MOD 1 MEASURES OF MEAN. EGUALITY..ANO FISCAL NEUTARLITY 1, 2. 3. 4, 5, 6. 7. 8. 9, 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15, 16. 17. 15. 19. 20. 21. MEAN ExP RANGE RES RANGE FED R R REL MM OEV PERM VAR vAR COEF VAR 5TO DEv LGS GM SIM CORR SLOPE W SLOPE w2 SLOPE w5 EXP DIc MICK G/NI KAN W 5T0.0Ew w ELAST w MAST W2 ELAST W3 Sources: Tables 8-73 and .1,74 1975 1250.40000 25164.00000 1530.30000 1510.40000 67i88.00000 1747.10000 1,97270 .55552 .84949 4681800.00000 1.43260 2.'17390 014930 .A2835 1245400,00000 ,A8896 .39200 .04476 .72107 .87748 1.40560 ,A1491 1478.A0000 .00510 275.07000 916.A2000 ,19226 .30798 .17855 .37700 .24616, .64#443 1957760 1.06900 ,79846 i464.10000 .00049 ,T5.07000 416,82000 .28731 .19468 .14541 TABLE C-53 STATL- TEXAS UNIT op ANALYSIS -- UNWsT PUPIL DISTRICT TyPe 1 MMASURES OF MEAN. MALITY AND 1. 2, 3. MEAN EXP RANGE 4, FED R R REL MN DEV PLRM VAR 5. ^ 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13, 14. 15. 16 17 18 19. 20. 21. ft:3 RANGF vR COEF VAR STO DEV LOS 81N1 SIM CORR SLOPE W SLOPE W2 SLOPE W3 1029.50000 25164,00000 750,58000 1.11200 16089 -.83930 63494,00000 .24476 022600 .12099 ,60420 1.40970 1.74540 2.05500 ... EXP ()IF 418.112000 HICK SINI MEAN W STO OEV W ELAST W ELAST W2 95.41400 101,09000 .13517 .15837 MAST W3 Sources: 1975 1974 FISCAL NEUTRALITY 1500 18647 Tables 8-73 and B-74. /Oh 4!)2 1252.30000 6700,00000 776.15000 .55760 .14028 .85372 76544,00000 .22451 .18900 .10395 .62227 1,72000 1,85100 2.25780 455.56000 .01853 93,52700 /9,61500 .13054 .11048 .17364 . TABLE C-54 STATE WASd 0:STRICT IMIT OF ANALYSIS UISTRICT TYPE I MLASURES OF MEAN. E0OALITY. AND FISCAL.NEJTRALITY le 2, 3, 4, ,5. 6, MLAN EXP RANGE RES RANGE FLU R RLL Mi OEV VAR 8, 9. COEF VAR SID DEV LGS 10e 11, 12, 13. 14. 15. 16, /7. 18. 19, 21. 6INI SIM.CORR SLOPE W SLOPE W2 SLOPE W8 ExP DI HICK SINT MLAN STU OEV W ELAST W 813./9000 4649,30000 760,44000 1,45110 .25257 1143.30000 m606,60000 1303.20000 1;97020 .27667 A7559 64519 291'610.00000 1 6 . 21217 ELAST W3 Sources: 1974 151850,00000 .44620 .31000 .17621 .70000 1,92600 1.45530 1,75700 463,37000 .11636 110.43000 131,95000 RAM VAR '7. 1970 Tables B-76 and 8-77. .47474 . 35600 .20029 .60610 2.15600 4.27600 3.36800 1A27.00000 13708 112.51000 19744 42079 - .23642 933144 TABLE 'Cr55 STA% Iwo WASA UNwGr PUPIL UNIT OF ANALYSIS OIST(CT TYPE 1 OM. MLASURES OF MEAN. EQUALITY. ANO, FISCAL NEUTRALITY ^ 1. 2. 3, 4, 5. 6, 7, MLAN EXP RANGE RES RANGE FLO R R RLL MN DEV PLRM VAR 8. COEF VAR STO OEV LGS 9. 0. 10. 11. 12, 13, 14. vAR GlNI SIM CORR SLOPE 4 SLOPE W2 SLOPE W3 Exp DIP ,--HTCR-GINI MEAN w 17, STU DEv W 18, ELAST W 19. ELAST W2 20. ELAST w3 21. Sources: 1970 1974 792.18000 4549,50000 482,04000 .81917 108i.70000 5606,80000 791,74000 1.10110 .15866 .81532 .15931 ,86388 23019,00000 .19482 .19203 .10834 .54510 2,20000 2,75300 51640,0000 ,2o092 .21428 .11515 .52530 3,46600 4,06700 3, 259,29000 .06389 58,30000 38.24200 .16215 P0291 .23062 Tables B-76 and B-77. 4P.,14 327,75000 .06755 62,49100 54,43400 .19913 .23366 ,27542