PUBLIC SCHOOL AND COMMUNITY COLLEGE FINANCE I N ARIZONA
A Report to the
Joint Select Committee on Tax Reform and School Finance
of the Arizona Legislature
June 1979
Prepared by the
Research Staff of the Joint Select Committee
INTRODUCTION
This report presents overviews of public school finance and community college
finance i n Arizona. The report i t s e l f is divided i n t o three d i s t i n c t sections:
I. Overview of Public School Finance i n Arizona
11. Financing Capital Outlay
111. Overview of Community College Finance i n Arizona
The separate Financing Capital Outlay s e c t i o n is included i n the r e p o r t because
the s t a t e presently provides no support f o r c a p i t a l outlay. C a p i t a l o u t l a y f o r
school buildings is almost completely supported by l o c a l tax d o l l a r s and t h e r e f o r e ,
has a s i g n i f i c a n t impact on school d i s t r i c t tax r a t e s .
In order to present an o v e r a l l perspective of the magnitude of s t a t e involvement
i n the support of education the following t a b l e is presented.
S t a t e of Arizona Summary Chart of General Fund Appropriations For
Educational Purposes: F i s c a l Year 1979- 80 Operating Budget ($ 720,264,400)
eaf and Blind School
ornmunity College Board
Board of Regents
Arizona S t a t e University
University of Arizona
oard of Medical Student
* Total Appropriation from General Fund = $ 1,193,350,883
** Western I n t e r s t a t e Commission f o r Higher Education
As the chart above i n d i c a t e s , 60.4% of the General Fund Appropriations f o r
FY 1979- 80 were f o r educational purposes. Of t h i s 60.4%, 65.4% was f o r s t a t e aid
t o public schools and 5.3% f o r s t a t e aid t o community colleges. In addition t o
these general fund appropriations, $ 67,000,000 i n general fund monies was appropri-ated
f o r the homeowners property tax reduction program which is designed t o reduce
school d i s t r i c t taxes f o r homeowners.
The following table shows the extent of s t a t e involvement in education at the
public school level in FY 1977- 78. The s t a t e provided 41.92% of t o t a l revenue and
the local d i s t r i c t s provided 44.39% of t o t a l revenue. However, the s t a t e also
provided $ 40 million through the homeowner property tax reduction program. When
these funds are removed as revenue from t h e l o c a l l e v e l and placed as revenues
coming from the s t a t e , the s t a t e ' s contribution increases to 45.96% of t o t a l
revenue and the local l e v e l ' s share decreases to 40.35% of t o t a l revenue.
Sources of Revenue for Arizona Public Schools
in FY 1977- 78
* Includes $ 52,276,191 county levy amount for Teachers Retirement and OASI
** Total does not include cash balances
The following table indicates the state" iinvolvement with community college
financing. In FY 1977- 78 the s t a t e ' s portion of revenue was 32.76% and the local
d i s t r i c t was 44.00%.
Sources of Revenue for Arizona Community Colleges
in FY 1977- 78
Cash
State Local Federal* Tuition Other Balance Total
Revenue $ 35,993,897 $ 48,344,218 $ 704,704 $ 4,107,553 $ 4,723,833 $ 16,000,742 $ 1 09,874,947
Percent of
Total Revenue 32.76% 44.00% 0.64% 3.74% 4.30% 14.56% 100%
* These federal funds are expended through the current operating budget and in most cases they generate
FTSE; however, they do not include all of the federal funds received and expended.
OVERVIEW OF PUBLIC SCHOOL FINANCE I N ARIZONA
A Report t o the
J o i n t Select Committee on Tax Reform and School Finance
of the Arizona L e g i s l a t u r e
June 1979
OVERVIEW OF PUBLIC SCHOOL FINANCE I N ARIZONA
Table of Contents
Page
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
I . SCHOOLFINANCE- PRESENTSYSTEM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
A . Description of School Budget Areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1 . General Maintenance and Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . a .
a . Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
bc .. PHriesstoernyt: ScBhoaosli cFEindaunccaet iSoynsAteimd: . D. e f. i n. i t i. o n. s . .. .. .. .. .. .. ..
d . C a l c u l a t i o n o f S t a t e B a s i c A i d . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
e . BudgetLimit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
fg .. HBoumdgeeotw nOevrse' rrPidroe pEerletyc tTioaxn R. ed. u. cti. on. P. ro. gr. am. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..
2 . Special Education: Handicapped . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
a . Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
bc .. LHeangdiisclaaptpi vede MSitsutdoernyt s E. l i. g i. b l. e . f o. r . Se. rv. ic. es. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. d . D i s t r i b u t i o n of Handicapped Students . . . . . . . . . . .
e . Types of Special Education Serv. i. ces . . . . . . . . . . .
f . Funding of Special Ed~ acation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
g . Budget Limit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3 . Other S t a t e Education Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
a . Special English Training . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
b . Gifted . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4 . aS . pe cFieadl ePrraol jIemcpt sa c. t A. id.: . P.. L.. .81.- 8.74. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..
b . School Construction Assistance i n Federally Impacted
c Areas: P. L. 81- 815 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. .. .. .. . ( 1) T i t l e I -. Educationally Deprived: P. L. 89- 10
( 2) T i t l e I - Migrant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
d . ( 1) Vocational Education: P. L. 94- 482 . . . . . . . . . .
( 2) Vocational Education: S t a t e . . . . . . . . . . . . .
e . Comprehensive Employment and Training Act ( CETA):
P. L. 93- 203 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
f . Career Education: S t a t e . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
g . ( 1) Bilingual Education: T i t l e V I I of the Elementary
and Secondary Education Act . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
( 2) Bilingual Education: S t a t e ( Special English
Training) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
h . Special Education - Handicapped: Education of a l l
Handicapped Children Act. P. L. 94- 142 . . . . . . . . . .
i . Indian Education: T i t l e IV. P. L. 92- 318 . . . . . . . . .
j . Johnson- O'Malley Educational Assistance: P. L. 93- 638 . .
5 . Transportation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
a . Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
b . History of S t a t e Transportation Aid . . . . . . . . . . .
c • Calculation of S t a t e Transportation Aid . . . . . . . . .
Table of Contents ( cont.)
Page
6 . C a p i t a l OutlayIDebt Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1- 55
a . Budgeted Capital Outlay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1- 56
b . Capital Levy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1- 57
c . Adjacent Ways . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1- 58
d . Debt Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1- 58
7 . TeacherRetirement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1- 58
I1 CURRENT EXPENDITURE AND REVENUE LIMITATIONS PLACED UPON ARIZONA
SCHOOLS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1- 61
A . Expenditure Limitation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1- 61
B . T a x R a t e L i m i t a t i o n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1- 61
C . D e b t L i m i t a t i o n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1- 61
D . Other Limitations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1- 68
111 . ANALYSIS OF CURRENT SCHOOL FINANCE SYSTEM: FY 1977- 78 . . . . . . . . 1- 61
A . Analysis of FY 1977- 78 Total Tax Rates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1- 66
B . Analysis of FY 1977- 78 General Maintenance and Operation
C . TAanxa lRyastiess oaf nFdY E1x9p7e7n- d78it uSrep eLceivael lEs d. uc. ati. on. T. ax. R. a. tes. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 11-- 6698
D . Analysis of FY 1977- 78 Transportation Fund Tax Rates
and Expenditures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1- 71 E . . . . . . Analysis of FY 1977- 78 Budgeted Capital Outlay Tax Rates 1- 72 F . Analysis of FY 1977- 78 Capital Levy Tax Rates and Capacities . . . 1- 74
G . Analysis of FY 1977- 78 Debt Service Tax Rates . . . . . . . . . . 1- 75
I BASIC SCHOOL FINANCE ALTERNATIVES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1- 78
A . ProgramArea . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1 . Minimum Foundation Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2 . GuaranteedTaxBase . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3 . Percentage Equalizing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4 . D i s t r i c t Power Equalizing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5 . F u l l S t a t e A s s u m p t i o n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
6 . Equivalance of the Shared Cost Formulas . . . . . . . . . . .
7 . Non- Equalizing General Aid Formulas: Minimum Aid or
F l a t Grant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
B . TransportationArea . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
C . F a c i l i t i e s A r e a . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1 . F u l l s t a t e Assumption . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2 . S t a t e / L o c a l S h a r i n g . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3 . S t a t e F l a t Grant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4 . S t a t e Equalizing Grant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5 . S t a t e Loans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
L i s t of Tables
Page
1. Actual School D i s t r i c t Expenditures f o r FY 1977- 78 by Budget Area . . . 1- 1
2. S t a t e Basic Support Level per AP) M f o r Elementary and High Schools . . 1- 4
3. Total Override Amounts from FY 1975- 76 through FY 1978- 79 by D i s t r i c t ;
Tax Rate Equivalent o f Override Amounts i n FY 1978- 79; N 1979- 80
Override Amounts by C i s t r i c t ; Total Override Amounts from FY 1975- 76
through FY 1979- 80 by D i s t r i c t . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1- 14
4. D i s t r i c t s Which Had Override Elections Which Fai1e. d . . . . . . . . . . 1- 17
5. Appropriations f o r the Property Tax Reduction Program . . . . . . . . . 1- 18
6. D i s t r i b u t i o n of Students by Handicapping Condition, FY 1978- 79 ADM . . 1- 25
7. Type of Program I n which Handicapped Students were Served i n the
1 9 7 7 - 7 8 S c h o o l Y e a r . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1- 26
8. Percentage of School Age Children Served i n Special Education f o r
FY 1977- 78: Arizona vs. National Average . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1- 27
9. Arizona School D i s t r i c t s which Exc- ecded the 11% Special Education
Funding Limit f o r the 1977- 78 School Year . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1- 28
10. Weighted Excess Cost Level and Total Support. Level f o r Ba. ndicapped
S t u d e n t s f o r t h e 1 9 7 8 - 7 9 S c h o o l Y e a r . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1- 29
11. Comparison of ExpermrE- Lt~ tres f o r Special Education and Special Education
S t a t e Aid f o r FY 1974- 75 through FY 1978- 79 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1- 30
12. Changes i n the Special Education Budget Limit f o r Three Selected
School D i s t r i c t s Based Upon the Existlng Budget Limit Procedure f o r
Special Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1- 31
13. S t a t e Funds Expended f o r Special English Training Programs from
FY 1969- 70 through FY 1977- 78 . . . . . ., . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1- 33
14. S t a t e Funds Expended f o r Gifted Programs from FY 1972- 73 through
FY1977- 78 . a . . . . . e . e . . . . . . . * . * e . e . . . . . e . 1- 34
15. Federal Mandates t h a t Alfect a11 Students and Provide No Federal
Funding. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1- 35
16. Federal Non- Educational Mandates t h a t Affect School D i s t r i c t s . . . . . 1- 36
17. Federal Expenditures and Number of Students Served i n Federal
Programs: FY 1977- 78 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1- 49
18. Expenditures and S t a t e Aid f o r Transportation, FY 1974- 75 through
FY1977- 78 . . . . . . . m . . * . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1- 55
L i s t of Tables ( cont.)
Page
19- Total Expenditures f o r Budgeted Capital Outlay and Expenditures per
ADM, FY 1973- 74 through FY 1977- 78 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1- 56
20. Total Expenditures from Capital Levy Fund and Expenditures per ADM,
FY 1973- 74 through FY 1977- 78 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1- 57
21. County School Costs f o r Teacher Retirement and OASI, FY 1970- 71
throughFY1977- 78 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1- 60
22. County Tax Rates Needed t o Fund Teacher Retirement and OASI:
FY1977- 78 e . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1- 60
23. L i m i t a t i o n s C u r r e n t l y Imposed Upon Arizona School D i s t r i c t s . . . . . . 1- 62
24. Range of Total Tax Rates by D i s t r i c t Type f o r T? Y 1977- 78 . . . . . . 1- 67
25. Relationship of P. L. 874 Monies and Tax Rates by Fund f o r Two
Selected D i s t r i c t s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1- 67
26. Range of General Maintenance and Operation Tax Rates by D i s t r i c t
Type f o r FY 1977- 78 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1- 68
27. Median Tax Rate and Range f o r Special Education by D i s t r i c t Type f o r
1 9 7 7 - 7 8 . . . . . . . * . . . . . . . . . . . * . . . . . . . * . . . . 1- 70
28. School D i s t r i c t s with Special Education Tax Rates i n Excess of $ 1.00
forFY1977- 78 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1- 70
29. Average Cost per Bus M i l e and Average Cost per Student Transported by
D i s t r i c t T y p e . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1- 71
30. School D i s t r i c t Tax Rates f o r Budgeted Capital Outlay by D i s t r i c t
Type f o r FY 1977- 78 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1- 72
31. Tax Rates f o r Elementary ( Type 04) and High School ( Type 05) D i s t r i c t s
with Expenditures i n Excess of $ 175 per Pupil f o r Budgeted Capital
Outlay f o r FY 1977- 78 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1- 73
32. Tax Rate Required t o Expend $ 100 i n Budgeted C a p i t a l Outlay p e r P u p i l
i n Selected Unified School D i s t r i c t s i n FY 1977- 78 . . . . . . . . . 1- 74
33. Capital Levy Tax Rates by D i s t r i c t Type f o r FY 1977- 78 . . . . . . . . 1- 75
34. Range of C a p i t a l Levy Capacity per ADM by D i s t r i c t Type . . . . . . . . 1- 75
35. Examples of High Tax Rates f o r Debt Service f o r FY 1977- 78 . . . . . . 1- 76
List of Tables ( cont.)
Page
36. Expenditures and Tax Rates for Debt Service i n Selected Unified
S c h o o l D i s t r i c t s for FY 1977- 78 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1- 77
37. Basic Equalization Formulas Used by States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1- 79
38. State Support for Capital Outlay and Debt Service . . . . . . . . . . . 1- 88
L i s t of Charts
Page
1. Impact of the Equalization Effect of the Current S t a t e Aid Formula 1- 7
2. Growth i n the Basic Support Level f o r an Elementary Classroom . . . a . 1- 10
3. Growth i n the Budget Cost Level ( Budget Limit) f o r an Elementary
Classroom whose BCL was i n Excess of the Basic Support Level . . . . . 1- 11
4. Growth i n the Budget Cost Level ( Budget Limit) f o r an Elementary
Classroom whose BCL was Less than t h e Basic Support Level . . . . . . . 1- 12
5. Seven Percent Budget Limit and the Effect of Overrides . . . . . . . . 1- 13
6 . Operation of Minimum Foundation Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1- 80
7. Local Leeway Minimum Foundation Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1- 81
8. Minimum Program Plus Local Leeway . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1- 81
9. Guaranteed Tax Base . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1- 82
10. D i s t r i c t Power Equalizing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1- 86
L i s t of Appendices
Page
1. School D i s t r i c t Entitlements to Special Project Funds . . . . . . . . . 1- 92
2 . School D i s t r i c t Tax Rates: FY 1977- 78 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1- 114
( a) Unified D i s t r i c t s ( Type 02) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1- 114
( b) Elementary D i s t r i c t s ( Type 03) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1- 116
( c) Elementary Districts ( Type 04) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1- 118
( dl High School D i s t r i c t s ( Type 05) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1- 121
3 . General Maintenance and Operation ( Fund 001): FY 1977- 78 . . . . . . . 1- 122
( a) Analysis of Tax Rates f o r Type 02 D i s t r i c t s . . . . . . . . . . . . 1- 122
( b) Analysis of Tax Rates for Type 03 D i s t r i c t s . . . . . . . . . . . . 1- 124
( c) Analysis of Tax Rates f o r Type 04 D i s t r i c t s . . . . . . . . . . a . 1- 126
( d) Analysis of Tax Rates for Type 05 D i s t r i c t s . . . . . . . . . . . . 1- 129
4 . Special Education ( Fund 002): FY 1977- 78 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1- 130
( a) Analysis of Tax Rates for Type 02 D i s t r i c t s . . . . . . . . . . . . 1- 130
( b) Analysis of Tax Rates for Type 03 D i s t r i c t s . . . . . . . . . . . . 1- 132
( c) Analysis of Tax Rates for Type 04 D i s t r i c t s . . . . . . . . . . . . 1- 134
( d) Analysis of Tax Rates f o r Type 05 D i s t r i c t s . . . . . . . . . . . . 1- 137
5 . Transportation ( Fund 004): FY 1977- 78 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1- 138
( a) Analysis of Tax Rates for Type 02 D i s t r i c t s . . . . . . . . . . . . 1- 138
( b) Analysis of Tax Rates for Type 03 D i s t r i c t s . . . . . . . . . . . . 1- 140
( c) Analysis of Tax Rates for Type 04 D i s t r i c t s . . . . . . . . . . . . 1- 142
( d) Analysis of Tax Rates for Type 05 D i s t r i c t s . . . . . . . . . . . . 1- 144
6 . Budgeted Capital Outlay ( Fund 410): FY 1977- 78 . . . . . . . . . . . . 1- 145
( a) Analysis of Tax Rates for Type 02 D i s t r i c t s . . . . . . . . . . . . 1- 145
( b) Analysis of Tax Rates for Type 03 D i s t r i c t s . . . . . . . . . . . . 1- 147
( c) Analysis of Tax Rates for Type 04 D i s t r i c t s . . . . . . . . . . . . 1- 149
( d) Analysis of Tax Rates for Type 05 D i s t r i c t s . . . . . . . . . . . . 1- 151
7 . Capital Levy ( Fund 420): FY 1977- 78 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1- 15?
( a) Analysis of Tax Rates for Type 02 D i s t r i c t s . . . . . . . . . . . . 1- 152
( b) Analysis of Tax Rates for Type 03 D i s t r i c t s . . . . . . . . . . . . 1- 154
( c) Analysis of Tax Rates for Type 04 D i s t r i c t s . . . . . . . . . . . . 1- 156
( d) Analysis of Tax Rates for Type 05 D i s t r i c t s . . . . . . . . . . . . 1- 158
8 . D( ae) b t ASenravlyicseis ( Fouf nTd a5x0 R0) a: t esF Yf o1r9 T77y- p7e8 02 D i s t r i c t s .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 11-- 115599 ( b) Analysis of Tax Rates for Type 03 D i s t r i c t s . . . . . . . . . . . . 1- 161 ( c) Analysis of Tax Rates for Type 04 D i s t r i c t s . . . . . . . . . . . . 1- 163
( dl Analysis of Tax Rates for Type 05 D i s t r i c t s . . . . . . . . . . . . 1- 165
INTRODUCTION
The Overview of Public School Finance i n Arizona provides a foundation for under-standing
the system of funding public schools i n Arizona. The f i r s t section of the
overview describes each of the current areas of school d i s t r i c t expenditures:
General Maintenance and Operation ( basic education programs), Special Education
( Handicapped), Special P r o j e c t s ( S t a t e and Federal), Transportation, and Capital
Outlay/ Debt Service. In addition t o the expenditures which are made by a school
d i s t r i c t , the overview also describes expenditures which are made a t the county
level for teacher retirement.
The second section of the overview provides a review of the current expenditure and
revenue limitations which have been placed upon Arizona school d i s t r i c t s .
Section three presents an analysis of the current school finance system f o r the
following areas: General Maintanance and Operation, Special Education ( Handi-capped),
Transportation, Budgeted Capital Outlay, Capital Levy Fund and Debt
Service.
Finally, the fourth section of the overview presents a description of a l t e r n a t i v e
methods of financing public schools. Presented i n t h i s section are explanations of
the basic a l t e r n a t i v e s for funding education programs.
I. SCHOOL FINANCE -- PRESENT SYSTEM
A. D e s c r i ~ t i o no f School Budeet Areas
Rather than attempting t o describe Arizona's school finance system as a whole,
t h i s overview discusses each area of a school d i s t r i c t ' s budget s e p a r a t e l y .
Currently, a school d i s t r i c t ' s budget is divided i n t o e i g h t d i s t i n c t budget
areas. The following t a b l e presents a c t u a l school d i s t r i c t expenditures for FY
1977- 78 by budget area:
TABLE 1
Actual School D i s t r i c t Expenditures for FY 1977- 78
by Budget Area
5. Capital P r o j e c t s
c. Adjacent Ways
d. Bond Building
Budget areas 1 through 8 are contained within a school d i s t r i c t ' s budget and most
of these w i l l be discussed i n the overview which follows. The areas which are not
l a t e r d e t a i l e d a r e : Bond Building, Other C a p i t a l P r o j e c t s , Enterprise, and Other.
A b r i e f d e s c r i p t i o n of each follows:
Bond Building: This fund is used t o account f o r monies received from school
d i s t r i c t bond issues. The Debt Service Fund ( Fund 500) is used t o r e t i r e the
issued bonds. Therefore, i f both funds were viewed as expenditures, double
counting would r e s u l t . The fund which impacts on a d i s t r i c t ' s rax rate is the
Debt Service Fund, which is used t o r e t i r e bond issues. This fund is f u l l y
discussed l a t e r i n the overview.
Other C a p i t a l P r o j e c t s : This fund includes a l l other C a p i t a l Outlay trans-a
c t i o n s which a r e not included i n the o t h e r f o u r Capital Outlay funds. Basi-c
a l l y , t h i s fund includes any f e d e r a l monies received through the 815 program
( F a c i l i t i e s Construction Assistance i n areas impacted by f e d e r a l involvement),
monies received through the School F a c i l i t i e s Emergency Aid progran ( s t a t e
funded f o r FY 1974- 75), and monies received through p r i v a t e grants.
Enterprise Fund: This fund is used t o account f o r t h e a c q u i s i t i o n , operation,
and maintenance of school services which a r e e n t i r e l y o r predominantly s e l f -
supporting. Included i n t h i s fund a r e t h e Food S e r v i c e , C i v i c Center, and
Community Schools fund.
Other Fund: This fund accounts f o r funds which a r e not included i n any other
funds, such a s the P a y r o l l Clearing fund.
Section 9 of Table 1, Teacher Retirement and OASI, is not an area of a school
d i s t r i c t ' s budget. However, it is an expense d i r e c t l y associated with a
school d i s t r i c t and is thus included withi. n the overview. A d e s c r i p t i o n is
contained l a t e r within the overview.
The f i r s t budget area which is f u l l y described is General Maintenance and
Operation, which comprises a majority of a school d i s t r i c t ' s expenditures.
1. GENERAL MAINTENANCE AND OPERATION
a. Description
As Table 1 i n d i c a t e d , the General Maintenance and Operation budget
area comprises a majority of a school d i s t r i c t ' s expenditures ( 64.0%).
This budget area contains a l l school d i s t r i c t expenditures not included
i n other s p e c i f i c categories. This includes Administration, Instruc-t
i o n , and Operation; or put another way, t h e b a s i c education program.
S p e c i f i c a l l y , the following expenditure items a r e included:
S a l a r i e s -- C e r t i f i e d and C l a s s i f i e d
Employee Benefits
Sick Leave Payments
Supplies and Materials
U t i l i t i e s
Communications
Tuition
Other Expenses
Utilities Excess Cost
Lease Over One Year
Employee Benefits Excess Cost
The General Maintenance and Operation budget area is the o n l y a r e a of the
budget which was " equalized" as a r e s u l t of Senate B i l l 1001, which was
passed during the F i r s t Special Session of the Thirty- First L e g i s l a t u r e i n
1974. The School Finance Equalization System, e s t a b l i s h e d i n 1974, is
e s s e n t i a l l y the same school finance system which is i n e f f e c t today.
b. History: Basic Education Aid
The following s e c t i o n provides a brief h i s t o r y of the s t a t e b a s i c a i d
program which provided funds f o r the Maintenance and Operation budget
area and which was i n e f f e c t p r i o r t o FY 1967- 68, and from FY 1967- 68
t o FY 1974- 75. This s e c t i o n a l s o provides a b r i e f d e s c r i p t i o n of the
current program a s it has been i n e f f e c t since FY 1974- 75.
S t a t e Basic Aid P r i o r t o FY 1967- 68: Aid payments were made per
pupil on an Average Daily Attendance ( ADA) b a s i s t o a possible $ 200 per
ADA. The s t a t e contributed $ 170, the county $ 10, and i n a d d i t i o n t h e
counties a l s o s e t $ 20 per ADA i n an e q u a l i z a t i o n fund t o be d i s t r i b u t e d
to the poorer d i s t r i c t s i n the county.
S t a t e Basic Aid FY 1967- 68 t o FY 1974- 75: For elementary d i s t r i c t s ,
the s t a t e provided $ 182.50 per ADA, and the county provided $ 17.50 per
ADA. In a d d i t i o n , the s t a t e provided a n a d d i t i o n a l - $ 1 7 5 per ADA l e s s
the amount which could be raised by a $. lo tax r a t e i n each d i s t r i c t
whose assessed v a l u a t i o n p e r ADA was l e s s than the statewide average
f o r a l l elementary d i s t r i c t s . High school d i s t r i c t s received $ 182.50
per ADA from the s t a t e and $ 17.50 per ADA from the county. The s t a t e
provided an a d d i t i o n a l $ 300 per ADA l e s s the amount which could be
r a i s e d by a $. lo tax r a t e i n each d i s t r i c t whose assessed valuation
per ADA was l e s s than the statewide average f o r all. high school dis-t
r i c t s . Although t o t a l s t a t e basic aid i n FY 1973- 74 was approximately
$ 100,000,000, only $ 14,500,000 of t h i s amount was d i s t r i b u t e d through
the e q u a l i z a t i o n formula. S t a t e aid f o r both elementary and high
school d i s t r i c t s had t o be used f o r the maintenance and operation of
the school d i s t r i c t s . The l a s t major f e a t u r e of school finance during
t h i s pertod was the " 6% budget l i m i t . " Under the s t a t u t o r y provision
of t h e c o n t r o l school d i s t r i c t s were authorized t o increase the
o p e r a t i o n a l budget by an amount c a l c u l a t e d each year as a 6% increase
over the statewide average budgeted operational expenditures per ADA
f o r t h e p r i o r year.
S t a t e Basic Aid FY 1974- 75 t o Present: Senate B i l l 1001, passed
during the F i r s t Special Session of the Thirty- First L e g i s l a t u r e i n
1974, e s t a b l i s h e d a school finance system i n Arizona s i m i l a r to the
e q u a l i z a t i o n aid system of Minnesota, and was designed t o provide more
equity among the school d i s t r i c t s i n the s t a t e i n the tax e f f o r t s per
d o l l a r of assessed valuation required t o fund l o c a l education. The
Arizona funding approach s t a r t s from an " average" expenditure l e v e l
per classroom, o r s t a r t e d from t h e a c t u a l cost l e v e l f o r d i s t r i c t s
which were below t h e average expenditure l e v e l per classroom, and then
deducts a uniform l o c a l t a x e f f o r t per d o l l a r of assessed valuation t o
a r r i v e at t h e l e v e l of s t a t e aid. The " qualifying tax rate" or uniform
l o c a l e f f o r t is $ 1.30 per $ 100 of assessed valuation.
c. Present School Finance System: D e f i n i t i o n s
As the preceeding h i s t o r y i n d i c a t e d , the school finance system which
was i n e f f e c t p r i o r to the current finance system b a s i c a l l y provided a
fixed d o l l a r amount per student on an average d a i l y attendance b a s i s
with a small amount of e q u a l i z a t i o n aid.
The present school finance system i n Arizona is an e q u a l i z a t i o n aid
system and is designed t o provide more equity among the school dis-t
r i c t s i n the s t a t e i n t h e t a x e f f o r t s per d o l l a r of assessed valuation
required t o fund l o c a l education. The Arizona funding approach starts
from an " average" expenditure l e v e l per classroom and then deducts a
uniform l o c a l tax e f f o r t per d o l l a r of assessed valuation to a r r i v e a t
s t a t e a i d . The " qualifying tax rate" or uniform l o c a l e f f o r t is $ 1.30
per $ 100 of assessed valuation.
The following s e c t i o n s d e f i n e the three key terms which must be under-stood
i n order to understand the Arizona school finance system.
The S t a t e Basic Support Level: The s t a t e Basic Support Level ( BSL)
is the level of funding which the s t a t e guarantees t o school d i s t r i c t s
before applying the uniform l o c a l tax r a t e of $ 1.30 per $ 100 t o the
d i s t r i c t s ' a s s e s s e d v a l u a t i o n s . In N 1978- 79, the support l e v e l is
$ 1,044.90 per elementary student and $ 1,423.59 per high school stu-dent.
The FY 1979- 80 BSL w i l l be 7% higher than the 1978- 79 l e v e l .
The L e g i s l a t u r e had u n t i l March 1, 1979 t o prescribe a d i f f e r e n t
growth r a t e f o r N 1979- 80. As the L e g i s l a t u r e f a i l e d t o provide a
growth r a t e f o r the upcoming school y e a r , t h e growth r a t e from t h e cur-rent
year ( 7%) is used to a d j u s t t h e BSL. The Basic Support Level was
prescribed i n s t a t u t e f o r FY 1973- 74 and has grown a t 7% per year since
t h a t t i m e . The following t a b l e i l l u s t r a t e s the BSL per elementary and
high school ADM.
TABLE 2
S t a t e Basic Support Level per ADM
f o r Elementary and High Schools
The Budget Cost Level: In FY 1973- 74, a Budget Cost Level ( BCL) was
determined f o r each d i s t r i c t . The BCL is based on the revenue col-l
e c t i o n s of a d i s t r i c t i n FY 1973- 74 which roughly corresponded t o
expenditures i n most school d i s t r i c t s . The BCL has grown each year by
the same d o l l a r amount which the s t a t e BSL has grown, except when a
d i s t r i c t ' s bud- g et cost l e v e l was below the s t a t e BSL. ( This aspect of
the c u r r e n t e q u a l i z a t i o n aid system is discussed l a t e r i n t h i s s e c t i o n . )
The BCL is determined s e p a r a t e l y f o r common school d i s t r i c t s and high
school d i s t r i c t s . The BCL was used i n the determination of s t a t e aid
from FY 1974- 75 through FY 1977- 78. It a l s o forms the b a s i s f o r the
General Maintenance and Operation budget c o n t r o l imposed on school
d i s t r i c t s .
Qualifying Tax Rate: The Qualifying Tax Rate is t h e uniform l o c a l
tax e f f o r t per d o l l a r of assessed valuation required of a school
d i s t r i c t before it receives any s t a t e basic aid. The Qualifying Tax
Rate is used only f o r computational purposes i n the determination of a
d i s t r i c t ' s entitlement t o s t a t e basic aid and is $ 1.30 per $ 100
assessed valuation from common and high schools and $ 2.60 per $ 100
assessed valuation f o r unified schools. The qualifying tax r a t e is
only used t o compute the entitlement t o s t a t e a i d , and t h e a c t u a l levy
f o r a school d i s t r i c t i n a given year may be less than the qualifying
tax r a t e due t o the f a c t t h a t cash balances may be a v a i l a b l e t o
individual school d i s t r i c t s or an i n d i v i d u a l school d i s t r i c t may
choose t o spend below the allowable l e v e l .
d. Calculation of S t a t e Basic Aid
S t a t e aid is c a l c u l a t e d s e p a r a t e l y f o r common and high school d i s -
t r i c t s ; and the elementary and high school components of unified school
d i s t r i c t s a r e a l s o c a l c u l a t e d separately. The f i r s t s t e p i n the
c a l c u l a t i o n is t o multiply t h e Basic Support Level per ADM by the ADM
of the d i s t r i c t o r multiply t h e state Basic Support Level by the number
of s t a t e supported classrooms ( a s t a t e supported classroom is defined
as 24 ADM f o r high school and 26 ADM f o r elementary.)
The second step is t o s u b t r a c t the amount which would be raised by
applying the $ 1.30 qualifying tax r a t e to the d i s t r i c t ' s assessed
valuation. The r e s u l t is the d i s t r i c t ' s e n t i t l e m e n t t o s t a t e basic
aid. I f the c a l c u l a t e d levy amount is i n excess of the Basic Support
Level, then the school d i s t r i c t is not e n t i t l e d t o receive s t a t e a i d .
Thus, a d i s t r i c t with low assessed valuation w i l l receive more s t a t e
aid than a d i s t r i c t with high assessed v a l u a t i o n even though the
d i s t r i c t s a r e i n a l l o t h e r r e s p e c t s the same.
Examples of the Calculation of S t a t e Basic Aid
The following information is given f o r two h y p o t h e t i c a l common school
d i s t r i c t s .
D i s t r i c t A
Assessed Valuation ( A. V.)
Qualifying Tax Lev 1.30 per $ 100 A. V.
20 oog,; o8) - 260,000
($ 1.30 X
Basic Suport Level, 1978- 79, per ADM = 1,044.90
D i s t r i c t B
Assessed Valuation ( A. V.)
Qualifying Tax Levy = $ 1.30 per $ 100 A. V.
5 000 000
)
--
($ 1.30 X ' 65,000
Basic Support Level, 1978- 79 per ADM = 1,044.90
D i s t r i c t A has more assessed valuation than D i s t r i c t B. D i s t r i c t s A
and B each have 520 students.
The f i r s t s t e p i n the c a l c u l a t i o n of s t a t e aid is t o determine the
state Basic Support Level. For 11at:: i . l i ~ t r i c t . This is done by multi-plying
the Basic Support Level per ADM f o r the budget year by the ADM
i n each d i s t r i c t .
D i s t r i c t A
$ 1,044.90 xs20 = $ 543,348
D i s t r i c t B
$ 1,044.90 xS20 = $ 543,348
These amounts a r e the d i s t r i c t s ' Basic Support Levels f o r FY 1978- 79.
The second s t e p is t o s u b t r a c t the amount which would be raised by
applying the qualifying tax r a t e t o the school d i s t r i c t s ' assessed
valuations from t h e d i s t r i c t s ' Basic Support Levels. The r e s u l t is
each d i s t r i c t ' s entitlement to state basic aid.
D i s t r i c t A
( AV)
BSL - ( QTR) ( 100) = S t a t e Aid
D i s t r i c t B
BSL - ( QTR) 0 = S t a t e Aid
D i s t r i c t A's entitlement t o s t a t e b a s i c a i d is $ 283,348 and D i s t r i c t
B's entitlement t o s t a t e b a s i c a i d is $ 478,348, even though they serve
the same number of students. The only reason f o r t h i s d i f f e r e n c e is
the extreme d i f f e r e n c e i n the assessed valuations of the d i s t r i c t s .
However, i f both d i s t r i c t s chose t o spend a t the Basic Support Level,
both would only have t o levy a tax rate of $ 1.30. The following
example shows the impact of t h e e q u a l i z a t i o n e f f e c t of the current
s t a t e aid formula on a per pupil b a s i s .
Chart 1
Impact of the Equalization Effect
of the Current S t a t e Aid Formula
Tax Rate Necessary t o
Provide Expenditure
Level Equal t o the
As t h i s example shows, the amount of s t a t e a i d p e r pupil can vary based
upon the r e l a t i v e wealth of a school d i s t r i c t . However, with an equal
tax e f f o r t ($ 1.30) both School D i s t r i c t A and School D i s t r i c t B w i l l be
able t o expend $ 1,044.90 on each of t h e i r students.
e. Budget Limit
The General Maintenance and Operation ( M& O) budget area is c o n t r o l l e d
by the " 7% l i m i t a t i o n " . The 7% l i m i t a p p l i e s to only p a r t of the
budget area. Excluded from the budget l i m i t a r e U t i l i t i e s Excess Cost,
Lease Over One Year, and Employee Benefits Excess Cost.
The 7% l i m i t not only l i m i t s the General M& O budget area, but a l s o
l i m i t s the annual growth of the Basic Support Level ( BSL) which is a
c r u c i a l p a r t of the s t a t e funding mechanism. The l i m i t i n g e f f e c t of
the 7% growth rate comes from t h e f a c t t h a t a d i s t r i c t ' s Budget Cost
Level ( BCL), which controls t h e d i s t r i c t ' s budget l i m i t , is allowed t o
increase each year by t h e d o l l a r amount of growth i n the BSL.
For example, the BSL for elementary school d i s t r i c t s increased from
$ 25,390.12 i n FY 1977- 78 t o $ 27,167.43 i n FY 1978- 79, an increase of
7%. The d o l l a r amount of increase was $ 1,777.31. Assume t h a t a
d i s t r i c t had a BCL, or budget l i m i t , of $ 28,020 i n FY 1977- 78. In
FY 1978- 79, the d i s t r i c t ' s BCL, or budget l i m i t , would be determined
by adding t h e d o l l a r amount of increase i n the BSL f o r the two years
($ 1,777.31) t o the d i s t r i c t ' s FY 1977- 78 BCL ($ 28,020). The r e s u l t -
ing FY 1978- 79 BCL, or budget l i m i t , would thus be $ 29,797.31. The
BCL f o r the d i s t r i c t thus grew from $ 28,020 i n FY 1977- 78 t o
$ 29,797.31 i n FY 1978- 79. The percentage was 6%, not 7%.
Thus, for school d i s t r i c t s with BCL's g r e a t e r than the BSL, the
M& O budgets are limited to l e s s than 7% growth on a classroom or ADM
b a s i s . The 7% l i m i t applies d i r e c t l y t o the BSL and not the BCL.
The d o l l a r amount of increase in the BSL i s added t o the BCL.
The t o t a l d o l l a r l i m i t may increase or decrease depending on the
number of ADM and, i n turn, the number of classrooms; but on a per
classroom or per ADM b a s i s t h e l i m i t w i l l increase a t a maximum of
7%. This mechanism i s aimed a t equalizing the expenditures per
classroom or per ADM statewide, r e g a r d l e s s of a d i s t r i c t ' s wealth by
slowing down " high spending" d i s t r i c t s ' overtime. However, a dis-t
r i c t may s t i l l exceed the s t a t e imposed budget l i m i t increase
through a budget override e l e c t i o n .
The following c h a r t s i l l u s t r a t e the equalization e f f e c t of the 7%
budget l i m i t and t h e e f f e c t t h a t budget overrides have upon it.
Chart 2 depicts the growth i n the Basic Support Level for an elemen-t
a r y s t a t e supported classroom. The BSL for an elementary classroom
was s e t a t $ 19,370 i n FY 1973- 74. In FY 1974-- 75 the BSL grew by 7%
t o $ 20,726 ($ 19,370 x 0.07 = $ 1,356; $ 19,370 + $ 1,356 = $ 20,726). As
the growth r a t e has remained a t 7%, t h i s process is continued through
FY 1978- 79, as shown in Chart 2.
Chart 3 i l l u s t r a t e s the budget l i m i t of an elementary classroom i n
D i s t r i c t A which had a BCL i n FY 1973- 74 of $ 22,000. The BCL for the
classroom was i n excess of the Basic Support Level i n FY 1973- 74. As
s t a t e d previously, the BCL grows each year by the d o l l a r amount of
growth i n the BCL ( Chart 2 p r e s e n t s t h e d o l l a r amounts of growth).
Thus, i n FY 1974- 75, the BCL, or budget l i m i t , f o r t h e elementary
classroom was $ 23,356. This was determined by adding:
FY 1973- 74 BCL
- Dollar Growth i n BSL
FY 1974- 75 BCL
As shown in Chart 3, the BCI, for the elementary classroom grew only
6%. This addition procedure i s continued through FY 1978- 79 as shown
in Chart 3, with the r e s u l t t h a t the BCL grew a t 6% per year.
Chart 4 i l l u s t r a t e s the budget l i m i t of an elementary classroom i n
D i s t r i c t B which had a BCL i n FY 1973- 74 of $ 15,000. The BCL f o r
t h i s classroom was l e s s than the Basic Support Level i n FY 1973- 74.
For d i s t r i c t s which had a BCL less than the Basic Support Level i n
FY 1973- 74, a five- year Special Budget Increase was allowed. This
was an i n t e g r a l p a r t of the e q u a l i z a t i o n aspect of the Special Budget
Increase, by the end of the five- year period ( FY 1978- 79), no school
d i s t r i c t has a Budget Cost Level below the Basic Support Level.
Mechanically, a s i l l u s t r a t e d on Chart 4, the five- year Special Bud-get
Increase operated as follows:
The BCL i n N 1973- 74 f o r the classroom was $ 15,000, and t o a r r i v e
a t the FY 1974- 75 BCL f o r the classroom, four s t e p s were required.
1. The d o l l a r amount of increase i n the BSL was added t o the
N 1973- 74 BCL ($ 15,000 + $ 1,356 = $ 16,356).
2. The r e s u l t i n g amount was compared t o the FY 1974- 75 BSL t o
determine the d i f f e r e n c e ($ 20,726 - $ 16,356 = $ 4,370). Thus,
the BCL was s t i l l l e s s than the s t a t e BSL by $ 4,370.
3. The d i f f e r e n c e was divided by the number of years remaining
i n the five- year period ( FY 1974- 75 = 5 years; FY 1975- 76 = 4
years; FY 1976- 77 = 3 years; FY 1977- 78 = 2 years; N 1978- 79 =
1 year). As FY 1974- 75 was the f i r s t year the system was i n
operation, t h e df f f erence was divided by f i v e as t h e r e were f i v e
years remaining ($ 4,370 9 5 = $ 874).
4. The amount computed i n s t e p c was added t o the amount computed
i n step a ( the d o l l a r amount of growth i n the BSL added t o
FY 1973- 74 BCL equaling $ 16,356) t o a r r i v e at t h e BCL of the
classroom i n FY 1974- 75:
Chart 4 shows the procedure f o r a l l f i v e years f o r which the Special
Budget Increase was i n e f f e c t . From FY 1973- 74 t o FY 1974- 75, t h e BCL
grew 15%; from FY 1974- 75 t o FY 1975- 76, t h e BCL grew 13%; and t h i s
growth p a t t e r n continued u n t i l FY 1978- 79, when the BCL was equal t o
the BSL.
Chart 5 combines the information presented on t h e t h r e e preceding
c h a r t s . It i l l u s t r a t e s two h y p o t h e t i c a l elementary school classrooms
i n D i s t r i c t A and D i s t r i c t B and begins with the elementary BSL i n N
1973- 74 and shows the BSL increasing a t 7% per year ( Chart 2).
D i s t r i c t A had a BCL g r e a t e r than the BSL while D i s t r i c t B had a BCL
l e s s e r than the BSL. In order t o equalize the allowable expenditure
l e v e l s between the two d i s t r i c t s around the BSL, it was necessary t o
hold D i s t r i c t A's allowable expenditure l e v e l down, while at t h e same
t i m e allowing D i s t r i c t B ' s allowable expenditure l e v e l t o increase.
As discussed previously, D i s t r i c t A's allowable expenditure l e v e l was
limited by t h e d o l l a r amount of growth i n the BSL ( Chart 3). D i s -
trict B's allowable expenditure l e v e l was " brought up'' t o the BSL
through a Special Budget Increase, o r " five- year catch- up program"
( Chart 4).
CHART 2
Growth in the Basic Support Level for an Elementary Classroom
BSL
CHART 3
Growth in the Budget Cost Level ( Budget Limit) for an Elementary Classroom
whose BCL was in Excess of the Basic Support Level
District A
BCL
BSL
CHART 4
Growth in the Budget Cost Level ( Budget Limit) for an Elementary Classroom
whose BCL was Less than the Basic Support Level
BSL
District B
BCL
Special 20,726
Budget - 16,356 -
Increase 4,370
CHART 5
7% Budget Limit and the Effect of Overrides
District A
BCL
BSL
District B
BCL
To i l l u s t r a t e the e q u a l i z a t i o n e f f e c t , i n N 1973- 74, D i s t r i c t A's
BCL was approximately 47% g r e a t e r than D i s t r i c t B's. In N 1978- 79,
the d i f f e r e n c e is only lo%, not taking i n t o consideration the budget
override amount which is shown on Chart 5. The dotted l i n e on the
chart i l l u s t r a t e s t h e e f f e c t t h a t a $ 1,000 budget override by D i s -
t r i c t A had upon equalization. The $ 1,000 override is simply added
t o D i s t r i c t A's BCL each year with no growth allowed i n t h e amount.
Thus, with the override included, i n FY 1978- 79 D i s t r i c t A's allow-able
budget l i m i t was 13% g r e a t e r than D i s t r i c t B's. The override
produces a d i s e q u a l i z a t i o n e f f e c t with t h e r e s u l t t h a t t h e allowable
expenditure l e v e l s of the two d i s t r i c t s d i f f e r e d by 13% instead of
the 10% which would have occurred had the override not taken place.
f . Budget Override Elections
Budget override e l e c t i o n s have been held s i n c e FY 1975- 76. A budget
override allows a d i s t r i c t t o exceed the s t a t u t o r i l y imposed budget
l i m i t . A l l the override e l e c t i o n s which have passed t o date were f o r
d i s t r i c t s t o exceed the General Maintenance and Operation budget area
budget l i m i t ( the " 7%" l i m i t ) .
The following two t a b l e s present d i s t r i c t s which have had override
e l e c t i o n s . Table 3 shows the t o t a l amount of the overrides f o r each
d i s t r i c t from FY 1975- 76 ( the f i r s t year they were allowed) t o FY
1978- 79. The second column shows the tax r a t e equivalent f o r the t o t a l
override amounts based on the FY 1978- 79 assessed valuation of the
d i s t r i c t . The average override tax r a t e equivalent is $ 0.70.
TABLE 3
Total Override Amounts from FY 1975- 76 through FY 1978- 79 by D i s t r i c t ;
Tax Rate Equivalent of Override Amounts i n FY 1978- 79;
FY 1979- 80 Override Amounts by D i s t r i c t ;
Total Override Amounts from FY 1975- 76 through FY 1979- 80 by D i s t r i c t
Total
N 1975- 76 Overrides
through Tax Rate FY 1979- 80 FY 1975- 76
County - M 1978- 79 Equivalent Override through
D i s t r i c t Override Amts. FY 1978- 79 Amounts FY 1979- 80
Apache
Cochise
Willcox Unif . / I13 $ 80,000
Douglas Unif. / I27 273,272
Coconino
F l a g s t a f f Unif. / I1 474,420 0.3485
W i l l i a m s Unif. # 2 64,130 0.2068
Grand Canyon Unif. / I4 99,865 1.7494
Fredonia/ Moccasin 100,000 1.7770
Unif. / I6
Page Unif. / I8 937,617 0.6566
FY 1975- 76
through
FY 1978- 79
County- District Override Amts.
Gila
HaydenIWinkelman $ - 0-
Unif. f41
Graham
Total
Overrides
Tax Rate FY 1979- 80 FY 1975- 76
Equivalent Override through
FY 1978- 79 Amounts FY 1979- 80
Greenlee
Clifton Unif. I/ 3
Morenci Unif. I118 161,712
Maricopa
Phoenix E l . !/ 1
Riverside El. I/ 2
Tempe E l . I/ 3
Isaac E l . # 5
Washington El. I/ 6
Wilson El. I/ 7
Osborn E l . I/ 8
Creighton E l . I/ 14
Murphy E l . # 21
Balsz El. f31
Buckeye E l . 4/ 33
Madison E l . // 38
Glendale E l . 1/ 40
Avondale El. 844
Palo Verde E l . I149
Union E l . % 62
Roosevelt E l . IF66
Alhambra El. 868
Chandler Unif. 1/ 80
Cartwright E l . I/ 83
Buckeye UHS IF1
Gila Bend Unif. / I24
Mohave
Topock El. / I12 30,475
Lake Havasu E l . 1\ 25 75,000
Navajo
Snowflake Unif. // 5
P ima
Flowing Wells Unif. I18 399,967
Amphitheater Unif. 810 350,000
Ajo Unif. 1/ 15 173,879
FY 1975- 76
through
FY 1978- 79
County- District Override Amts.
Pinal
Casa Grande El. / I4 $ 169,996
Red Rock El. 115 24,738
Picacho El. 1/ 33 30,000
Ray Unif. 1113 - 0-
M/ SM Unif. / I8 600,000
Superior Unif . / I15 569,527
Santa Cruz
Sonoita El. 1\ 25
Y avap ai
Bagdad Unif . / I20 107,945
Ash Fork Unif . / I31 61,261
* Seligman Unif. / I40 125,146
- Yuma
Yuma El. / I1 779,029
Quartzsite El. W4 42,500
Hyder El. / I16 21,600
Mohawk Valley El. 1/ 17 55,000
Wenden El. / I19 14,634
Wellton El. / I24 62,000
Tax Rate
Equivalent
FY 1978- 79
Total
Overrides
N 1979- 80 N 1975- 76
Override through
Amounts FY 1979- 80
TOTAL $ 17,494,919 $ 1,460,000 $ 18,954,919
Average Override Tax $ 0.7000
Rate Equivalent
* Total Election Amount = $ 150,671.08; of the t o t a l $ 125,146.08 was f o r the override
and $ 25,525.00 was f o r a judgement.
Table 4 i n d i c a t e s t h e d i s t r i c t s which have h e l d o v e r r i d e e l e c t i o n s which have
f a i l e d . The t a b l e a l s o i n d i c a t e s whether or not the d i s t r i c t has ever had an
override pass. Since FY 1975- 76, 102 override e l e c t i o n s have been held of which 27
have f a i l e d . The 75 which have passed have allowed d i s t r i c t s t o exceed t h e i r
s t a t u t o r i l y imposed budget l i m i t s by $ 18,954,919.
TABLE 4
D i s t r i c t s Which Had Override Elections Which Failed
( P i n d i c a t e s t h a t the d i s t r i c t has had an override pass)
County- District
Apache
Cochise
Coconino
Gila
Graham
Greenlee
Maricopa
Phoenix El. ! I1
Isaac El. iI5
Washington El. # 6
Madison # 38
Glendale El. ! I40
Roosevelt El. / I66
Alhambra El. # 68
Scot t s d a l e Unif . iI4
Havasu El. # 25
son Unif. f 1
Sunnyside Unif. # 12
Ajo Unif. / I15
o t t Unif. ill
* Tucson Unif. ill and Prescott Unif. # I1 were n o t u n i f i e d i n FY 1975- 76 and held
s e p a r a t e e l e c t i o n s f o r elementary and high school.
PY 1975- 76 FY 1976- 77 FY 1977- 78 FY 1978- 79 FY 1979- 80
g. Homeowner Property Tax Reduction Program
Table 5 i l l u s t r a t e s the appropriations made f o r t h e property tax
reduction program.
TABLE 5
Appropriations f o r the Property Tax Reduction Program
FORMULA BASED UPON
* Less revenue from unorganized t e r r i t o r y ( estimate)
- 1973: The homeowner property tax reduction program o r i g i n a t e d i n
1973 as t h e l e g i s l a t i v e response t o s i g n i f i c a n t l y increased property
valuations due t o the i n i t i a t i o n of the Mass Appraisal System ( MAS).
In 1973, a l l tax r a t e s ( counties, c i t i e s , school d i s t r i c t s , e t c . )
were simply reduced by 25%.
1974- 1977: The F i r s t Special Session of the Thirty- First L e g i s l a t u r e
( 1973- 74), the school refinancing s e s s i o n , placed a new property
tax reduction formula i n t o law. The new formula was t i e d t o the new
method of school finance and was limited t o r e s i d e n t i a l property
contained i n organized school d i s t r i c t s . The property tax reduction
formula, i f it were funded a t f u l l computed e n t i t l e m e n t s , was
designed t o reduce a school d i s t r i c t ' s tax r a t e f o r general main-tenance
and operation purposes t o $ 0.10. Although s u b s t a n t i a l funds
were appropriated f o r the program, t h e program was never funded a t
the f u l l computed entitlement.
When the appropriation l e v e l was less than the computed entitlement
t o property tax reduction, each school d i s t r i c t ' s entitlement was
uniformly reduced u n t i l the appropriations f o r property tax reduction
were equal t o the scaled back entitlements. For example, i n 1976 the
t o t a l appropriation f o r secured property tax reduction was $ 33
m i l l i o n , of which $ 250,000 was held and then dispensed f o r adjust-ments
( e r r o r s i n the o r i g i n a l l y computed entitlements). Thus,
i n i t i a l l y t h e r e was $ 32.75 m i l l i o n a v a i l a b l e f o r secured property tax
reduction. The e n t i t l e m e n t s f a l l i n g out of t h e s t a t u t o r y formula f o r
secured property tax reduction, on the other hand, were i n excess of
$ 50 million. Consequently, a l l e n t i t l e m e n t s were reduced by approx-imately
35% t o reduce t o t a l secured property tax reduction t o $ 32.75
million. In 1977, t h e r e as $ 37.75 m i l l i o n a v a i l a b l e f o r secured
property tax reduction. However, computed e n t i t l e m e n t s were i n
excess of $ 55 million and so a l l e n t i t l e m e n t s were uniformly reduced
by approximately 31.5% t o reduce t o t a l secured property tax reduction
t o $ 37.75 million.
The property tax reduction program was keyed t o a d i s t r i c t ' s BCL,
BSL, and i n turn a school d i s t r i c t ' s s t a t e basic aid entitlement.
As previously mentioned, the reduction program was designed t o reduce
the d i s t r i c t ' s tax r a t e f o r general maintenance and operation pur-poses
to $ 0.10. As long as a d i s t r i c t ' s BCL was not more than 30%
g r e a t e r than the BSL, t h e d i s t r i c t ' s general M& O tax r a t e was t o be
reduced t o $ 0.10, i f the program had been f u l l y funded. The basic
s t e p s which were taken t o determine the reduction r a t e of a d i s t r i c t
were as follows:
( 1) Determine i f the BCL was l e s s than t h e BSL multiplied by 1.3
( 30% higher). I f it was less, the BCL was used. I f the BCL was
more than 30% higher than the BSL, it was limited t o the 30%
higher amount. A l l taxes a t t r i b u t e d t o the amount above 30%
were not e l i g i b l e f o r reduction.
( 2) S t a t e aid entitlement was subtracted from t h e BCL or " limited"
BCL determined i n ( 1).
( 3) The d i s t r i c t tax r a t e needed t o fund the r e s u l t determined i n
( 2) was computed.
( 4) $ 0.10 was subtracted from t h e tax rate determined i n ( 3) and
the r e s u l t was a d i s t r i c t ' s property tax reduction r a t e .
In e f f e c t , the property tax reduction program was designed t o
reduce a d i s t r i c t ' s tax rate f o r general maintenance and operation
purposes t o $ 0.10 provided t h a t the d i s t r i c t ' s BCL was not more than
30% g r e a t e r than the BSL. I f a d i s t r i c t ' s BCL was 30% g r e a t e r than
the BSL, t h e d i s t r i c t received no reduction f o r the tax r a t e neces-sary
t o r a i s e t h e amount i n excess of the 302 l i m i t .
Thus, the property tax reduction program was keyed d i r e c t l y t o the
state's school finance system and most s p e c i f i c a l l y t o the Budget
Cost Level. Therefore, i n order f o r the property tax reduction
program t o function as it was designed t o , t h e Budget Cost Level
had t o be a meaningful t e r m .
Analysis of the Property Tax Reduction Program i n 1974 through 1977.
As s t a t e d i n the d e s c r i p t i o n of the Budget Cost Level, the t e r m r e f e r s
to the revenue a d i s t r i c t received from s t a t e and l o c a l sources f o r
maintenance and operation i n FY 1973- 74. So, i n the b a s e y e a r ,
FY 1973- 74, the t e r m BCL included state and l o c a l revenue received
f o r everything but s p e c i a l p r o j e c t s , t r a n s p o r t a t i o n , c a p i t a l p r o j e c t s ,
and debt s e r v i c e .
However, i n FY 1973- 74 some d i s t r i c t s had l a r g e cash balances which
were included as revenues and thus the d i s t r i c t s ' BCL's were i n f l a -
ted r e l a t i v e t o t h e i r a c t u a l expenditure l e v e l s . Because of the
i n f l a t e d BCL's, some d i s t r i c t s had t h e i r e n t i r e d i s t r i c t tax r a t e
reduced t o $ 0.10 through the tax reduction formula. This was because
both the s t a t e basic aid entitlement and the property tax reduction
program were keyed t o t h e i n f l a t e d BCL. For example, i n FY 1973- 74
a d i s t r i c t may have a c t u a l l y needed $ 19,370 ( the BSL) t o operate a
classroom. However, when cash balances were included i n t h e com-putation
of the d i s t r i c t ' s BCL, the d i s t r i c t may have a r r i v e d a t a
BCL of $ 22,000. The tax reduction program was locked i n t o t h i s
$ 22,000 f i g u r e .
A h y p o t h e t i c a l school d i s t r i c t w i l l be used t o i l l u s t r a t e t h e impact
using t h e d i s t r i c t ' s a c t u a l BCL and assuming t h a t t h e d i s t r i c t ' s
a c t u a l needed revenue t o support a classroom is the same as the s t a t e
Basic Support Level. The key thing t o remember is t h a t both s t a t e
aid and the property tax reduction program were based on the assump-t
i o n t h a t the BCL was a n a c c u r a t e r e f l e c t i o n of spending and t h a t
d i s t r i c t s were a c t u a l l y spending t o t h i s l i m i t . The example is f o r
FY 1977- 78, t h e l a s t year which the program was s t r i c t l y t i e d t o
school finance data.
COMPUTED WITH BCL COMPUTED WITH ACTUAL EXPENDITURE LEVEL
( 1) E $ 2 8 , 0 2 0 = 1.1
BSL $ 25,390
( 2) $ 25,390 BSL - 13,000*
$ 12,390 S t a t e Aid
- EXP $ 25,390
BSL $ 25,390 = 1.0
$ 25,390 BSL - 13,000*
$ 12,390 S t a t e Aid
( 3) $ 28,020 BCL $ 25,390 Actual Expenditure Level - 12,390 S t a t e Aid - 12,390 S t a t e Aid
$ 15,630 Amount of Local Levy $ 13,000 Amount of Local Levy
( 4 ) $ 15,630 = $ 1.5630 tax r a t e $ 13,000
$ 1,000,000 + 100 $ 1,000,000 + 100
= $ 1.3000 tax r a t e
( 5) $ 1.5630 - 0.1000
$ 1.4630 Tax Reduction
- 0.1000
$ 1.2000 Tax Reduction
* 1,000,000 A. V. = amount raised by
100 qualifying tax r a t e
Thus, because of the method of computation i n the base year of the
d i s t r i c t ' s BCL, the d i s t r i c t was receiving more property tax reduc-t
i o n than the d i s t r i c t would have i f a c t u a l expenditures were used as
a b a s i s f o r computation.
Once again, both programs, school finance and property tax reduc-t
i o n s , assume t h a t d i s t r i c t s a r e a c t u a l l y budgeting and spending at
the Budget Cost Level. For d i s t r i c t s which had a Budget Cost Level
l e s s than the Basic Support Level, which did not spend t o t h e i r
computed BCL, the " excess" s t a t e aid received by the d i s t r i c t tended
to keep the d i s t r i c t ' s tax r a t e s lower than i f they had budgeted and
spent t o the maximum. This may have been d e s i r a b l e i n t h a t it
rewarded a d i s t r i c t which could operate a program without spending t o
the maximum allowed. For a l l d i s t r i c t s which spent below t h e i r BCL's
( whether the BCL was above or below t h e Basic Support Level) the
property tax reduction amount was overstat. ed as compared t o a c t u a l
spending, because the reduction program assumed t h a t the d i s t r i c t s
were spending t o t h e i r BCL's.
- 1978: The homeowner property tax reduction program was modified
f o r 1978. In 1978 the program was funded a t a l e v e l i n excess of
computed entitlements. The computed entitlement r a t e s were increased
by approximately 6%. The program continues t o reduce a homeowner's
school d i s t r i c t tax b i l l , but is no longer d i r e c t l y t i e d t o school
finance data. The program provided t h a t a homeowner would receive a
reduction at the g r e a t e r of the two following r a t e s :
1. 1977 School Tax Rate ( elementary and high school rates added)
less overrides x 0.35
2. 1977 Reduction Rate ( elementary and high school rates added) x
,-
1.156
The program was expanded t o cover homeowners l i v i n g outside of
organized school d i s t r i c t s . In the p a s t , t h e s e homeowners paid an
" in l i e u " school tax r a t e of $ 1.30, but were not e l i g i b l e f o r the
property tax reduction program. In 1978, these homeowners had the
" in l i e u " school tax rate reduced by approximately $ 1.00.
In 1978, school d i s t r i c t taxes and the " in lieu" school tax a r e
l e v i e d a g a i n s t an a d j u s t e d a s s e s s e d valuation determined by dividing
the a c t u a l assessed valuation by 1- 05. The reduction r a t e s were
applied t o t h e a c t u a l assessed valuation. Because of t h i s , t h e
school d i s t r i c t tax rate and the reduction rate a r e not d i r e c t l y
comparable as they a r e applied t o d i f f e r e n t valuations. A comparable
reduction r a t e t o the school d i s t r i c t rax r a t e can be computed. For
example, the homeowner who pays t h e " i n lieu" school tax rate of
$ 1.30 w i l l have a comparable reduction r a t e of $ 1.05.
- 1979: The homeowner property tax reduction program was continued
based upon the same rates as determined i n 1978. The program con-tinued
t o cover homeowners l i v i n g outside of organized school d i s -
t r i c t s . In addition s u f f i c i e n t funds were once again appropriated
t o ensure t h a t the entitlement rates computed i n 1978 would be
uniformly increased i n 1979.
2. SPECIAL EDUCATION: HANDICAPPED
The Special Education budget area provides f o r t h e funds which are
used by school d i s t r i c t s t o operate s p e c i a l education programs for
a l l e l i g i b l e handicapped and g i f t e d students. ( Because a d i f f e r e n t
funding mechanism i s used f o r g i f t e d s t u d e n t s , the g i f t e d program
w i l l be discussed i n Section C. Other S t a t e Education Programs.)
This budget area covers only the e x t r a or a d d i t i o n a l c o s t s f o r
s p e c i a l education. The expenditure items included within t h i s budget
area are the same as those contained i n the General Maintenance and
Operation budget area; i . e . , s a l a r i e s , b e n e f i t s , supplies and mate-r
i a l s , e t c . Capital Outlay and t r a n s p o r t a t i o n c o s t s for handicapped
and g i f t e d students are not included in t h i s budget area.
b. L e e i s l a t i v e Historv
Special education in Arizona public schools began i n 1929, when the
Arizona School for the Deaf and Blind was e s t a b l i s h e d . In 1961
l e g i s l a t i o n was passed c r e a t i n g a Division of Special Education i n
the Department of Education and ~ r 0 v i d i . na~ d d i t i o n a l funds per
average d a i l y attendance for each physically handicapped, educable
r e t a r d e d , and emotionally disturbed student. In 1971, funding was
provided for the g i f t e d , and in 1972 l e g i s l a t i o n was passed to
include children with s p e c i f i c learning d i s a b i l i t i e s . On May 14,
1973, a law was passed which mandated t h a t a l l school d i s t r i c t s
provide s p e c i a l education programs for the handicapped. This mandate
was t o , and d i d , become e f f e c t i v e during the 1976- 77 school year.
Since the passage of the Special Education Mandate i n 1973, much
concern has been r a i s e d by t h e L e g i s l a t u r e over s p e c i a l education.
The following is a l i s t i n g of l e g i s l a t i v e a c t i o n since the passage of
the Special Education Mandate.
1974 -- SB 1001: Legislation was passed authorizing county school
superintendents to e s t a b l i s h s p e c i a l education programs. Also
provided was s t a t e support for s p e c i a l education programs equal t o
90% of excess c o s t . " Excess cost" was defined as t h e a d d i t i o n a l cost
necessary t o educate a handicapped student above t h e c o s t of edu-c
a t i n g a non- handicapped student. ( Excess cost was not allowed t o
exceed the Basic Support Level per Average Daily Membership ( ADM) for
elementary and high school s t u d e n t s r e s p e c t i v e l y ) .
1975 -- HB 2416: L e g i s l a t i o n was passed providing t h a t s t a t e support
for s p e c i a l education programs not t o t a l more than the amount appro-p
r i a t e d . Growth r a t e s were e s t a b l i s h e d for t o t a l allowable excess
cost and t o t a l allowable number of students for s t a t e aid purposes.
Also, as an e q u a l i z a t i o n f a c t o r , a qualifying tax r a t e was estab-l
i s h e d which was equal t o the d i f f e r e n c e between the t o t a l allowable
excess cost and the appropriation. Budget c o n t r o l s for d i s t r i c t s '
s p e c i a l education programs beginning with FY 1977- 78 were added. The
growth i n a d i s t r i c t ' s budget was limited t o the percentage change i n
the t o t a l allowable number of students for s t a t e aid purposes plus
the percentage change m u l t i p l i e d by the annual growth r a t e ( 7% i n
previous y e a r s ) .
1977 -- HB 2023: L e g i s l a t i o n was passed which placed s e r i o u s l y
emotionally handicapped children under the Special Education mandate;
c l a r i f i e d d e f i n i t i o n s of handicapping conditions; c l a r i f i e d and
strengthened the evaluation and placement procedure t o be followed;
and provided a new method of funding by which " weights" a r e applied
t o the various handicapping conditions so t h a t t h e children i n the
more " severe and costly" handicapping c a t e g o r i e s receive more s t a t e
funding. Bilingual i n s t r u c t i o n was removed from t h e s p e c i a l educa-t
i o n budget. I n s t i t u t i o n a l voucher funds were e s t a b l i s h e d t o provide
f o r educational funding through the Department of Education f o r
handicapped children placed i n the Arizona S t a t e School f o r the Deaf
and Blind and Arizona Training Programs a t Coolidge, Phoenix, and
Tucson. The Department of Education was required t o a u d i t the
s p e c i a l education programs of school d i s t r i c t s .
1978 -- HB 2332: L e g i s l a t i o n was passed which removed the s p e c i a l educa-t
i o n budget l i m i t f o r d i s t r i c t s with an a c t u a l average d a i l y membership
of 500 or less.
-- BB 2426: L e g i s l a t i o n was passed which provided t h a t county
school superintendents must i s s u e c e r t i f i c a t e s of educational con-venience
f o r pupils t o a t t e n d school when t h e p u p i l s are placed i n a
r e s i d e n t i a l f a c i l i t y operated or supported by the Department of
Economic Security ( DES). The expenditures made by the d i s t r i c t which
were a t t r i b u t a b l e to t h e s e p u p i l s a r e exempt from t h e d i s t r i c t ' s
s p e c i a l education budget l i m i t i n the amount t h a t funds are received
f o r the pupils. In addition, t h e l e g i s l a t i o n provided t h a t d i s t r i c t s
may conduct j o i n t evaluations of handicapped pupils with DES i f the
pupils a r e receiving mental r e t a r d a t i o n programs or s e r v i c e s through
DES and f u r t h e r provided t h a t school d i s t r i c t s s h a l l e n r o l l handi-capped
p u p i l s who r e s i d e i n r e s i d e n t i a l f a c i l i t i e s operated or
supported by DES i f DES so requests.
c. Handicapped Students E l i g i b l e f o r Services
Under Arizona law, students who are from f i v e t o 21 years of age and
are handicapped t o such an extent t h a t they do not p r o f i t from t h e
regular school program and who need s p e c i a l education i n s t r u c t i o n ,
s p e c i a l support s e r v i c e s , o r both, a r e e l i g i b l e f o r placement i n a
s p e c i a l education program. The major d i s a b i l i t y c a t e g o r i e s are:
Mentally Retarded: Those c h i l d r e n w i t h s i g n i f i c a n t subaverage
general i n t e l l e c t u a l functioning which adversely aff e c t s educational
performance. Included i n t h i s category a r e children c l a s s i f i e d as
educable mentally handicapped ( W) and t r a i n a b l e mentally handi-capped
( TMH).
Seriously Emotionally Handicapped: Those c h i l d r e n with s e r i o u s
s o c i a l or behavioral problems so severe t h a t they require s p e c i a l
c l a s s e s or s p e c i a l s e r v i c e s .
Hearing and Visually Handicapped: Those c h i l d r e n whose hearing and
v i s i o n deviate from normal t o such a n e x t e n t t h a t s p e c i a l c l a s s e s or
s p e c i a l s e r v i c e s are required i n order f o r them t o be educated.
Homebound or Hospitalized: Those students who are unable to attend
school due to i l l n e s s , disease, accident, pregnancy, or handicapped
conditions. In order to be e l i g i b l e for placement in a homebound
program, a medical doctor must c e r t i f y that the student w i l l be
unable to attend regular c l a s s e s f o r a period of not l e s s than three
school months.
Physically Handicapped: Those children who have a physical handicap
or d i s a b i l i t y which impedes t h e i r educational progress in the regular - -
classroom without the support of special classes or special services.
Learning Disabled: Those children who exhibit a s i g n i f i c a n t dis-crepancy
between a b i l i t y and achievement when i n t e l l e c t u a l a b i l i t y ,
age, and previous educational experience in the regular classroom are
considered. Learning disabled does not include learning problems
which are due primarily to visual, hearing, speech, or motor handi-caps,
mental retardation, emotional disturbance, or environmental
disadvantage.
Speech Handicapped: Those children who have a communication disorder
such as s t u t t e r i n g o r impaired a r t i c u l a t i o n which c a l l s a t t e n t i o n to
the c h i l d ' s abnormal speech, i n t e r f e r e s with communication, or causes
the child to be maladjusted.
d. Distribution of Handicapped Students:
The State of Arizona currently has 10 categories of exceptionality in
special education. For the 1978- 79 school year the t o t a l special edu-cation
ADM accounted for 8.80% of the t o t a l s t a t e ADM. The number and
percentage for each special education category is shown in Table 6 .
TABLE 6
D i s t r i b u t i o n of Students by Handicapping Condition,
FY 1978- 79 ADM
Source: Arizona Special Education Census, ASEC 71, 6/ 79.
Category
Learning Disabled
Spreech Handicapped
Educable Mentally
Handicapped
Seriously Emotionally
Handicapped
Trainable Mentally
Handicapped
Homebound/ Hospitalized
Physically Handicapped
Hearing Handicapped
Multiple Handicapped
Visually Handicapped
Four c a t e g o r i e s of handicapping conditions account f o r over 90% of
the students served i n s p e c i a l education: learning disabled, speech
handicapped, educable mentally handicapped, and s e r i o u s l y emotionally
handicapped.
e. Types of Special Education Services
Percentage of A l l Students
0% 1% 2 % 3 % 4 % 5 %
I i I I
120,968 Students
I
14.28%
Two major i n s t r u c t i o n a l c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s , Resource Programs and
Self- contained Programs, a r e used i n Arizona. Table 7 lists t h e type
of s e r v i c e by category of exceptionality.
% 5%
I I
1 9,233 Students 11.88%
I
15,162 students1 1.05%
I
( 10.81% ( 3,977 Students)
I
1- 1 0.34%
0.13%
( 1,658 Students
I
( 628 Students)
I
[ 0.10% ( 499 Students)
I I / 0.09% ( 424 Students)
I I
0.08% ( 409 Students)
I I n 0.04% ( 198 Students)
I I
0% 1% 2% 3 % 4
TABLE 7
Type of Program i n Which Handicapping Students
were Served i n t h e 1977- 78 School Year
Key 1/////// 1 Resource Program
Physically Handicapped [ / / / / / / / / / / / / / / 6 9 % / / / / / //// / / / I /
Visually Handicapped ~ / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / 9 6 % / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / 4% 1
Hearing Handicapped ~ / l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l / 8 s ~ / l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l / / / 1/ 2/% 1
Homebound/ Hospitalized
] / / / / / / / 4 1 % / / / / / / / / /
[ / / / / / / / / / / / / 5 4 % / / / / / / / / / / /
1- 1 Self - contained Program
Learning Disabled
Speech Handicapped
Total Handicapped
Source: Arizona Special Education Census, ASEC 71, 6/ 19/ 78
[ 6/ / / 1
~/////////////////////// 99.7%//////////// 0/./ 3%// 1 ///
1 / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / 7 7 % / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / 23% 1
0% 25% 50% 75% 100%
A
Resource Programs served approximately 80% of the t o t a l s p e c i a l
education students for the 1977- 78 school y e a r . In a Resource
Program, students are taken from the regular classroom on a scheduled
b a s i s and provided with s p e c i a l a s s i s t a n c e . This s p e c i a l a s s i s t a n c e
is provided e i t h e r i n small groups or i n d i v i d u a l l y .
Self- contained Programs are provided t o a small percentage o f handi-capped
students. Students p a r t i c i p a t e in these programs because
they cannot be educated s a t i s f a c t o r i l y i n a regular classroom, even
with the use of supplementary aids and s e r v i c e s , due t o the nature
and s e v e r i t y of t h e i r handicaps. Programs provided t o a c h i l d i n h i s
home or i n a h o s p i t a l when the student is unable t o a t t e n d school due
t o i l l n e s s , d i s e a s e , a c c i d e n t , o r other handicapping condition a l s o
f a l l under t h i s category.
I f a school d i s t r i c t cannot provide s a t i s f a c t o r y s p e c i a l education
s e r v i c e s through its own f a c i l i t i e s and personnel, t h e d i s t r i c t may
contract with another public school or an approved p r i v a t e s p e c i a l
education school f o r t h e services.
Table 8 lists the percentage of the school aged population served i n
s p e c i a l education by handicapping category f o r the 1977- 78 school
year.
TABLE 8
Percentage of School Age Children* Served i n
Special Education f o r FY 1977- 78: Arizona vs. National Average
peech Handicapped
e n t a l l y Retarded
motionally Disturbed
* Percentages based upon number of school aged students obtained from the U. S.
Department of Commerce, Bureau of t h e Census ( 541,000 f o r Arizona) I ** Based upon average between the number of s p e c i a l education students i n programs
on October 1, 1977 and February 1, 1978.
Source: Bureau of Education f o r the Handicapped, January 1979
The percentage of students served i n Arizona d i f f e r s from t h e percent
served n a t i o n a l l y by about one t h i r d of one percent ( 0.35%). However,
d i f f e r e n c e s do e x i s t by handicapping c o n d i t i o n w i t h Arizona being above
the n a t i o n a l percentage f o r l e a r n i n g d i s a b l e d and emotionally handi-capped
and below t h e n a t i o n a l l e v e l f o r speech handicapped, mentally '
retarded, homebound/ hospitalized, physically handicapped, and v i s u a l l y
handicapped.
The highest percentage of the school population served i n s p e c i a l
education, f o r school d i s t r i c t s with 500 or more t o t a l students, was
14.90% f o r the 1977- 78 school y e a r . Of the 232 school d i s t r i c t s i n the
s t a t e , 43 d i s t r i c t s had s p e c i a l education populations which exceeded
11%. However, 27 of these school d i s t r i c t s had 500 or less t o t a l
students. Table 9 lists those d i s t r i c t s which served more than 11% of
t h e i r students i n s p e c i a l education f o r FY 1977- 78 and which had more
than 500 students.
TABLE 9
Arizona School D i s t r i c t s which Exceeded the 11% Special
Education Funding Limit f o r FY 1977- 78 School Year
Bullhead City Elementary
Florence Unified
Sacaton Elementary
Creighton Elementary
Avondale Elementary
Superior Elementary
Lake Havasu Elementary
Camp Verde Unified
Bagdad Unif ied
Liberty Elementary
Phoenix Elementary
Casa Grande Elementary
Eloy Elementary
Laveen Elementary
Wilson Elementary
f . Fundinp of Special Education
For the 1971- 72 through the 1973- 74 school years, s t a t e aid f o r t h e
handicapped was d i s t r i b u t e d on a f l a t grant b a s i s . For the 1974- 75
school year, the L e g i s l a t u r e began a funding program which covered
90% of a school d i s t r i c t ' s a d d i t i o n a l cost ( excess cost) f o r the
operation of a s p e c i a l education program. This funding formula was
only i n e f f e c t f o r the 1974- 75 school y e a r . The 90% Excess Cost
Formula was replaced by an e q u a l i z a t i o n formula s i m i l a r t o the
General Maintenance and Operation Formula, beginning with the 1975- 76
school year. This formula remained u n t i l the 1977- 78 school y e a r .
Beginning with the 1977- 78 school year, a new weighted funding
formula was e s t a b l i s h e d .
The Current Weighted Funding Formula: Special education programs
f o r the handicapped a r e c u r r e n t l y funded using a weighted funding
formula. Under t h i s formula, handicapping conditions a r e placed i n t o
t h r e e d i f f e r e n t categories, o r weighted groups, representing the
appropriate excess costs involved i n educating each type of student.
The excess cost amounts a r e the same f o r students whether they are i n
elementary or high school. Special education s t u d e n t s r e c e i v e the
monies apportioned under t h i s method in addition t o t h e i r basic
education entitlements. Therefore, the t o t a l support l e v e l for a
handicapped student i s the Basic Support Level and the excess c o s t
support l e v e l combined. Table 10 shows the handicapping c o n d i t i o n s ,
weighted excess cost l e v e l s , and t o t a l support l e v e l for each cate-gory,
for the 1978- 79 school y e a r .
TABLE 10
Weighted Excess Cost Level and Total Support Level
for Handicapped Students for the 1978- 79 School Year
I * Excess c o s t l e v e l is i d e n t i c a l f o r elementary and high school s t u d e n t s .
To compute s t a t e a i d , a school d i s t r i c t m u l t i p l i e s the number of
s t u d e n t s w i t h i n each category by t h e a p p r o p r i a t e excess c o s t f i g u r e .
A portion of t h i s excess cost amount i s r a i s e d by l o c a l funds through
a q u a l i f y i n g tax r a t e s i m i l a r to the funding mechanism for s t a t e
basic aid. For the 1978- 79 school year, the q u a l i f y i n g tax r a t e for
s p e c i a l education i s $ 0.1998 per $ 100 of a s s e s s e d v a l u a t i o n . This
q u a l i f y i n g tax r a t e may vary from year to year depending on the l e v e l
of the s t a t e appropriation. By s t a t u t e , a t o t a l allowable excess
cost has been e s t a b l i s h e d for a l l school d i s t r i c t s . For example,
for the 1978- 79 school year the t o t a l allowable excess cost was
$ 49,575,240 and the s t a t e apropriated $ 25,200,000. The l i m i t s for
p r i o r years were: 1975- 76, $ 30,000,000; 1976- 77, $ 39,600,000; and
1977- 78, $ 46,332,000. If the excess cost for a l l school d i s t r i c t s in
the s t a t e exceeds the s t a t u t o r i l y e s t a b l i s h e d l i m i t , each d i s t r i c t ' s
computed excess cost is p r o p o r t i o n a l l y reduced. To fund the d i f f e r -
ence between the two amount ($ 24,375,240 FY 1978- 79) a q u a l i f y i n g t a x
r a t e was determined by dividing the $ 24,375,240 by the assessed
valuation t o a l l d i s t r i c t s providing s p e c i a l education programs. If
the amount of s t a t e aid appropriated changes, so does the q u a l i f y i n g
t a x r a t e change. This provision i s a major d i f f e r e n c e from the
funding mechanism, where the q u a l i f y i n g tax r a t e is s e t a t $ 1.30 f o r
s t a t e basic a i d .
Two s e t s of l i m i t s e x i s t i n the excess cost aid formula. F i r s t , a
school d i s t r i c t may only count up t o 11% of t h e i r t o t a l school
population for s p e c i a l education excess cost aid. Secondly, the
t o t a l excess cost in the s t a t e may not exceed $ 49,575,240 for the
1978- 79 school year. School d i s t r i c t s with 500 o r l e s s students i n
the regular program are exempt from the 11% l i m i t .
Adjustment for Small School D i s t r i c t s : Small d i s t r i c t s with small
enrollments find t h e c o s t of educating handicapped c h i l d r e n higher.
This is due t o f a c t o r s such as lower pupil- teacher r a t i o s . To cover
these higher c o s t s , school d i s t r i c t s with a t o t a l enrollment in t h e
regular program of 101 t o 500 students can increase t h e i r allowable
excess cost for s p e c i a l education by 15% and school d i s t r i c t s with a
t o t a l enrollment of 100 o r l e s s can increase such excess cost by 30%.
S t a t e Aid and Special Education Expenditures: Local d i s t r i c t expen-d
i t u r e s and s t a t e aid f o r s p e c i a l education has increased dramat-i
c a l l y i n r e c e n t y e a r s . Table 11 presents t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p of t o t a l
s p e c i a l education expenditures to s t a t e aid from 1974- 75 t o 1978- 79.
TABLE 11
Comparison of Expenditures for Special Education and
Special Education S t a t e Aid for FY 1974- 75 through FY 1978- 79
Millions of Dollars School Year
- Key - - - T Soptaelc iSapl eEcdiualc aEtidounc aEtixocne sEs xCpoesntd iStut aretse Aid . . . Local E f f o r t
* Gifted expenditures a r e a l s o indicated in t h i s t o t a l .
** Estimate for FY 1978- 79 based upon p r i o r years expenditure p a t t e r n s .
g. Special Education Budget Limit
Beginning with the 1977- 78 school year s p e c i a l education expenditures
were placed under a budget l i m i t . Under t h i s budget l i m i t expen-d
i t u r e s f o r s p e c i a l education a r e allowed t o increase by 7% p e r p u p i l
p e r y e a r . For example, a school d i s t r i c t with 100 handicapped
students, and a per pupil expenditure l e v e l of $ 1000 f o r the 1976- 77
school year, was allowed t o increase the per pupil amount by $ 70 ( 7%)
f o r the 1977- 78 school year. Assuming t h a t the d i s t r i c t would a l s o
have 100 students i n the 1977- 78 school year expenditures i n the dis-t
r i c t would increase from $ 100,000 ($ 1,000 X 100) f o r N 1976- 77 t o
$ 107,000 ($ 1,070 X 100) f o r N 1977- 78. The l i m i t is a l s o effected
by changes i n the number of s p e c i a l education students with l e s s stu-dents
meaning a decrease i n capacity and a d d i t i o n a l s p e c i a l education
students causing an increase i n capacity. However, the maximum num-ber
of handicapped students t h a t can be counted f o r budget capacity
is 11% of the school d i s t r i c t ' s t o t a l ADM. A school d i s t r i c t with
1,000 students could have up t o 110 students count f o r budget capac-i
t y purposes.
The s p e c i a l education budget l i m i t has some major d i f f e r e n c e s from
the budget l i m i t f o r regular education. In s p e c i a l education each
school d i s t r i c t e s t a b l i s h e d a l i m i t based upon the s p e c i a l education
budget adopted f o r the 1976- 77 school year. Each d i s t r i c t ' s budget
has increased by 7% on a per pupil b a s i s since t h a t time. Examples
of what has happened i n t h r e e school d i s t r i c t s follows:
TABLE 12
Changes i n the Special Education Budget Limit f o r Three
Selected School D i s t r i c t s Based Upon t h e Existing
Budget Linit Procedure f o r Special Education
This system, i n c o n t r a s t t o the system f o r r e g u l a r education, has no
provisions t o r e s t r a i n high expenditure school d i s t r i c t s or t o provide
any type of r e l i e f f o r those school d i s t r i c t s which were very low
spending when t h e budget l i m i t became e f f e c t i v e . I n a d d i t i o n ,
students are counted f o r budget capacity purposes on an unweighted
b a s i s . For example, a d i s t r i c t adding one speech handicapped student
would gain the same increase i n capacity as a school d i s t r i c t adding
a multiple handicapped student.
School d i s t r i c t s with less than 500 students i n the regular education + Z
program a r e exempt from t h e budget l i m i t .
3. OTHER STATE EDUCATION PROGRAMS
a. Special English Training
In 1969, l e g i s l a t i o n was passed which provided for Special English
c l a s s e s i n kindergarten through grade t h r e e . The a l l o c a t i o n of
funds for t h i s program was $ 25 per ADM. For the f i r s t year o f the
program, the L e g i s l a t u r e a l l o c a t e d $ 100,000. P a r t i c i p a t i o n under
t h i s s t a t u t e was limited t o one year p e r p u p i l .
In 1973, l e g i s l a t i o n was passed which increased t h e a l l o c a t i o n of
funds to $ 50 per ADM. This l e g i s l a t i o n a l s o allowed students up
t o four years of p a r t i c i p a t i o n and made grades four through e i g h t
e l i g i b l e for a s s i s t a n c e . Table 13 shows the s t a t e funds expended and
ADM f o r Special English Programs from the 1969- 70 school year through
the 1977- 78 school year.
b. Gifted
In 1971, l e g i s l a t i o n was passed providing s t a t e support of educa-t
i o n a l programs for t h e g i f t e d . The s t a t e reimburses public school
d i s t r i c t s a t a r a t e of $ 50 for each i d e n t i f i e d c h i l d enrolled i n an
approved program f o r g i f t e d o r t a l e n t e d students. The l e v e l of s t a t e
support per pupil has remained constant.
To be e l i g i b l e for placement in a g i f t e d program the student s h a l l
demonstrate achievement and/ or p o t e n t i a l a b i l i t y i n one or more of the
following areas:
( 1) Creative or productive performance;
( 2) Specific academic a p t i t u d e -- 95 p e r c e n t i l e or above on standard-ized
achievement t e s t i n one or more s u b j e c t a r e a s ; or
( 3) General i n t e l l e c t u a l a b i l i t y -- I. Q. 130 or above, based on an
individualized t e s t i n g program.
No more than three percent of a school d i s t r i c t ' s student population
may be counted f o r g i f t e d s t a t e aid.
During the 1972- 73 school year, only f o u r school d i s t r i c t s p a r t i c -
ipated i n the s t a t e supported g i f t e d program. For the 1978- 79 school
year, the number of p a r t i c i p a t i n g school d i s t r i c t s has increased t o
71. The number of students in s t a t e supported g i f t e d programs grew
from 590 students in 1972- 73 t o almost 10,000 students i n 1977- 78.
Table 14 shows the s t a t e funds expended and the number of c h i l d r e n
served in g i f t e d programs since 1972- 73.
TABLE 13
State Funds Expended for Special English Training Programs
From FY 1969- 70 through FY 1977- 78
State Funds
$ 878,386
$ 832,827 17,567
$ 791,351 ,
$ 253,598
5,072
ADM
$ 100,000 $ 100,000
2,000
ADM
$ 96,172
4A'D23M4 1 3,846
I ADM
$ 62,616
2,504
ADM
TABLE 14
S t a t e Funds Expended f o r G i f t e d Programs from
N 1972- 73 through FY 1977- 78
S t a t e Funds
, $ 499 100 $ 450,000 , 9,000 Students
Students
Students
Source: S p e c i a l Education Services - G i f t e d Programs, Arizona Department of
Education, F a l l 1978
4. SPECIAL PROJECTS
This s e c t i o n provides a b r i e f d e s c r i p t i o n of both state and f e d e r a l programs f o r
which the funding l e v e l exceeded one m i l l i o n d o l l a r s i n FY 1977- 78. P r i o r t o
d e s c r i b i n g t h e s e programs, f e d e r a l mandates w i l l be b r i e f l y d i s c u s s e d . Table 15
i n d i c a t e s f e d e r a l mandates t h a t a f f e c t a l l s t u d e n t s b u t which provide no f e d e r a l
funding .
TABLE 15
Federal Mandates and Court Decisions t h a t Affect
A l l Students and Provide No Federal Funding
T i t l e IX of the Education To ensure nondiscrimination on the b a s i s of sex i n
Amendments Act 1972 educational programs and a c t i v i t i e s . Each agency
must appoint a T i t l e I X o f f i c e r and conduct a s e l f -
evaluation.
P. L. 94- 482 Vocational Requires s t a t e agencies and l o c a l d i s t r i c t s to e l i -
Amendments of 1976 minate sex bias in educational curriculum, a c t i v i -
t i e s and programs.
Section 503 and 504, The To make a l l school programs and a c t i v i t i e s t o handi-
Vocational R e h a b i l i t a t i o n capped students. Each d i s t r i c t must appoint a 504
Act of 1973 o f f i c e r .
Age Discrimination Act P r o h i b i t s d i s c r i m i n a t i o n on t h e b a s i s of age i n
of 1975 educational programs and a c t i v i t i e s . Each d i s t r i c t
must appoint an age d i s c r i m i n a t i o n o f f i c e r .
Fami ly Education Rights Requires every d i s t r i c t to annually inform students
and Privacy Act ( Buckley and patrons of t h e i r r i g h t s t o access to student
Amendment ) records. Buckley f u r t h e r r e q u i r e s grievance pro-cedures
t o be made a v a i l a b l e .
Baker vs. Owen Supreme Court decision t h a t r e q u i r e s a l l d i s t r i c t s
t o o f f e r minimum due process procedures including
due n o t i c e , r i g h t t o speak i n own defence, and
o t h e r s b e f o r e a d m i n i s t e r i n g corporal punishment.
Goss vs. Lopez
Law vs. Nichols
Wollman v s . Walters
Supreme Court decision t h a t r e q u i r e s a l l d i s t r i c t s
t o o f f e r minimum due process procedures to s t u d e n t s .
Supreme Court decision t h a t r e q u i r e s each d i s t r i c t t o
survey a l l students t o determine Home Language and
then prepare i n s t r u c t i o n for students in the
appropriate language.
Supreme Court d e c i s i o n r e q u i r e s a l l schools t o pro-v
i d e e v a l u a t i o n , t e s t i n g , and other forms of a s s i s -
tance to nonpublic schools.
I n a d d i t i o n t o these Federal mandates which d i r e c t l y address school d i s t r i c t s and
s t u d e n t s a t t e n d i n g public schools t h e r e a r e a l s o federal non- educational mandates
t h a t a f f e c t school d i s t r i c t s . These are l i s t e d below i n Table 16.
TABLE 16
Federal Non- Educational Mandates t h a t
Affect School D i s t r i c t s
T i t l e V I and V I I of the To overcome past discriminatory h i r i n g p r a c t i c e s
1964 C i v i l Rights Act by requiring school d i s t r i c t s t o t a k e a f f i r m a t i v e
a c t i o n t o h i r e minority group members.
Occupational Safety and A l l employees are required t o meet Federal s a f e t y
Health Act standards i n employees working environment. Fail-ure
t o meet t h o s e s t a n d a r d s w i l l r e s u l t i n f i n e s .
Office of C i v i l Rights To assess school d i s t r i c t s l e v e l on noncompliance
Data Collection with a l l Federal! mandates.
As mentioned previously t h i s s e c t i o n provides a b r i e f d e s c r i p t i o n of both
s t a t e and f e d e r a l programs f o r which the funding l e v e l exceeded one million
d o l l a r s i n FY 1977- 78. ( Table 17, at the end of t h i s s e c t i o n provides a
comprehensive list of f e d e r a l programs, expenditures, and number of students
served i n FY 1977- 78.) The following terms w i l l be used throughout the s e c t i o n
i n the d e s c r i p t i o n of f e d e r a l s p e c i a l p r o j e c t s :
-- Matching requirement means a school d i s t r i c t o r t h e s t a t e must provide a
c e r t a i n amount of funds t o qualify f o r f e d e r a l funds. The percentage
required f o r matching may vary with the program.
-- Maintenance of e f f o r t means a required l e v e l of funding e i t h e r i n the
aggregate or on a per- pupil b a s i s which a d i s t r i c t must maintain i n order
t o continue t o receive f e d e r a l funds.
-- Coordination with s t a t e / l o c a l f e d e r a l programs means the f e d e r a l regula-t
i o n requires the s t a t e or l o c a l school d i s t r i c t s t o coordinate the fed-eral
program with s t a t e or l o c a l programs i n the same area.
Appendix 1 lists f o r most of the s p e c i a l p r o j e c t s discussed i n t h i s s e c t i o n
the entitlement of each d i s t r i c t i n FY 1977- 78. Three of the s p e c i a l p r o j e c t s
discussed i n t h i s s e c t i o n provide funds t o a small number of d i s t r i c t s and
these d i s t r i c t s a r e l i s t e d i n the a p p r o p r i a t e a r e a .
a. Federal Impact Aid: P. L. 81- 874
Federal Impact Aid, commonly r e f e r r e d t o as 874, provides funds t o school
d i s t r i c t s which have had t h e i r tax bases reduced because of exempted
federally- owned property o r which have had t h e i r school attendances sub-s
t a n t i a l l y increased due t o f e d e r a l a c t i v i t i e s . During FY 1977- 78, school
d i s t r i c t s ' e n t i t l e m e n t s t o 874 monies t o t a l l e d approximately $ 23.6 million.
There a r e no s t a t e or l o c a l funds expended t o receive 874 monies. The
entitlement by d i s t r i c t is l i s t e d i n Appendix 1.
Federal Impact Aid is not t r u l y a s p e c i a l p r o j e c t i n the sense t h a t fund-ing
is not provided f o r a c e r t a i n purpose. Impact Aid can be used by
a school d i s t r i c t in the following budget c a t e g o r i e s : General M& O
( Fund 001) , Special ducat ion ( Fund 002), Transport a t ion ( Fund 0041, and
Budgeted Capital Outlay ( Fund 410). P. L. 81- 874 funds are not considered
when a school d i s t r i c t determines its budget l i m i t based on t h e Budget Cost
Level. The estimated revenues t o be received through 874 are simply
added to the BCL t o determine the d i s t r i c t ' s aggregate budget l i m i t . A
d e s c r i p t i o n of the impact of 874 funds on d i s t r i c t s ' t a x r a t e s and
expenditures i s discussed in Section 111, Analysis of Current School
Finance System: EY 1977- 78.
Although there are numerous conditions under which a d i s t r i c t may be
e l i g i b l e for 874 funding, the following conditions are the main areas
under which school d i s t r i c t s q u a l i f y . For Arizona, e l i g i b i l i t y has been
e s t a b l i s h e d for the second condition l i s t e d .
-- The tax base of the d i s t r i c t has been reduced as the r e s u l t of the
a c q u i s i t i o n of r e a l property by the f e d e r a l government since 1938.
The a c q u i s i t i o n must c o n s t i t u t e 10% or more of the assessed valuation
of the d i s t r i c t a t the time of a c q u i s i t i o n . In a d d i t i o n , the acqui-s
i t i o n must have placed a s u b s t a n t i a l and continuing f i n a n c i a l burden
on the d i s t r i c t .
-- The combined Average Daily Attendance ( ADA) of e l i g i b l e children i s
3% of the t o t a l ADA of the d i s t r i c t , and i s a t l e a s t 10 ADA, o r 400
ADA, which i s the l e a s t . The c r i t e r i a which the parents of a F h i l d
must meet t o make t h e c h i l d e l i g i b l e for funding are:
( 1) working on and l i v l n g on t h e f e d e r a l land
( 2) working on and l i v i n g o f f t h e f e d e r a l land
( 3) working off and l i v i n g off t h e f e d e r a l land
The 3% requirement does not have to be met during the two f i s c a l years
which follow the year i n which the d i s t r i c t met the requirement and
was e n t i t l e d to payment. However, any payment to a d i s t r i c t which no
longer meets t h i s requirement cannot exceed 50% of the entitlement
during the year i n which the d i s t r i c t was q u a l i f i e d .
-- The d i s t r i c t ' s ADA of e l i g i b l e children i s l e s s than 90% of the pre-ceding
year and t h e r e has been a c e s s a t i o n of f e d e r a l a c t i v i t i e s within
the d i s t r i c t ; provided t h a t the decrease in ADA o r c e s s a t i o n of f e d e r a l
a c t i v i t y r e s u l t e d i n a decrease of e l i g i b l e ADA t o 3% o r more of t h e
t o t a l current y e a r ' s ADA and is a t l e a s t 10 ADA. The amount of the
d i s t r i c t ' s entitlement f o r t h e f i s c a l year and for t h e 3 succeeding
f i s c a l years w i l l not be l e s s than 90% of the d i s t r i c t ' s entitlement
f o r t h e preceding year.
I n a d d i t i o n school d i s t r i c t s may be e l i g i b l e for a d d i t i o n a l a s s i s t a n c e .
Arizona school d i s t r i c t s c u r r e n t l y a r e e l i g i b l e under the condition l i s t e d
below. Although t h e r e a r e s e v e r a l o t h e r conditions under which a d d i t i o n a l
funding can be received, school d i s t r i c t s i n Arizona are not c u r r e n t l y
e l i g i b l e .
-- D i s t r i c t s which provide programs designed t o meet the s p e c i a l educa-t
i o n a l and r e l a t e d needs of handicapped students and whose parents
a r e on a c t i v e duty i n the uniformed services may claim such children
f o r 150% of the entitlement f o r e l i g i b l e children.
The r u l e s and r e g u l a t i o n s promulgated t o implement 874, provide a mechanism
whereby s t a t e funds can be supplanted by f e d e r a l 874 funds. Basically the
mechanism operates as follows: ( 1) rank school d i s t r i c t expenditures a f t e r
grouping by grade l e v e l served, ( 2) determine the expenditure l e v e l a t the
5th and 95th p e r c e n t i l e of the t o t a l ADM and ( 3) i f the percentage d i f f e r -
ence at the two p e r c e n t i l e l e v e l s is 25% or less expenditures are deemed
t o have been equalized. A t t h i s point s t a t e funds can be supplanted by
f e d e r a l 874 funds.
b. School Construction Assistance i n Federally Impacted Area: P. L. 81- 815
P. L. 81- 815 is s i m i l a r t o 874 i n t h a t it too is not a s p e c i a l p r o j e c t
i n t h e same sense as other f e d e r a l programs. The 815 program provides
a s s i s t a n c e f o r construction of school f a c i l i t i e s i n school d i s t r i c t s
where s u b s t a n t i a l increases i n school membership are a r e s u l t of f e d e r a l
a c t i v i t y o r where reconstruction of f a c i l i t i e s is necessary because of a
n a t u r a l d i s a s t e r . Also l i k e 874, no state or l o c a l monies need t o be
expended i n order t o receive 815 funding.
During the last four years, school d i s t r i c t s i n Arizona have received the
following appropriations f o r the 815 program:
However, beginning with FY 1977- 78, Arizona was a l l o c a t e d through the BIA,
approximately $ 12 m i l l i o n t o be received by two school d i s t r i c t s . Although
no funds were received i n FY 1977- 78, the two school d i s t r i c t s w i l l receive
the funds over the following 3 t o 4 year period. The two d i s t r i c t s are
Parker Elementary ( which has received approximately $ 298,000 t o date during
FY 1978- 79 and Alchesay Unified).
Like the 874 program, t h e r e a r e numerous e l i g i b i l i t y c r i t e r i a which a dis-t
r i c t can m e e t i n order t o qualify f o r 815 funding. The purposes of the
5 c a t e g o r i e s of f e d e r a l impact recognized by the a c t a r e as follows:
-- f o r increases i n numbers of children who r e s i d e on f e d e r a l property
s i t u a t e d i n whole or i n p a r t i n the same s t a t e as a school d i s t r i c t
o r w i t h i n reasonable commuting distance of the d i s t r i c t .
-- f o r increases i n numbers of children who r e s i d e with a parent employed
on f e d e r a l property s i t u a t e d i n whole or i n p a r t i n the same s t a t e as
a school d i s t r i c t o r w i t h i n reasonable commuting d i s t a n c e of the dis-t
r i c t , or have a parent on a c t i v e duty i n the uniformed s e r v i c e s .
-- for increased in number of children whose membership r e s u l t s from
a c t i v i t i e s of the United S t a t e s c a r r i e d on e i t h e r d i r e c t l y or through
a contractor .
-- for membership residing on Indian lands and which has not formed or
w i l l not form the b a s i s f o r payment under other provisions of the Act.
-- for inadequately housed children in f i n a n c i a l l y d i s t r e s s e d school dis-t
r i c t s where federal property c o n s t i t u t e s a substantial part of the
school d i s t r i c t .
The only school d i s t r i c t s in Arizona which currently qualify for 815 funding
qualify under the category concerning schools on Indian lands. To qualify
the d i s t r i c t s have met - a l l of the following conditions:
-- the estimated number of children who w i l l reside on the Indian lands
as of the close of the increase period for which application i s f i l e d ,
has not and w i l l not form t h e b a s i s f o r payment under other provisions
of the act and ( a) the t o t a l number of such children i s at least 15 and
w i l l comprise a t l e a s t 1/ 3 of the t o t a l number of children in the dis-t
r i c t or ( b) the Indian land on which the children reside is a t l e a s t
113 of the t o t a l area of the school d i s t r i c t or ( 3 ) the applicant
d i s t r i c t i s providing a free public education for at l e a s t 100 children
who reside on Indian lands outside s f the applicant school d i s t r i c t .
-- the immunity of such lands from taxation has created a s u b s t a n t i a l and
continuing impairment of the d i s t r i c t ' s a b i l i t y to finance needed
school f a c i l i t i e s ( t h i s i s waived when the d i s t r i c t i s educating 100
children who reside on Indian land outside the d i s t r i c t ) .
-- the applicant school d i s t r i c t i. s making a reasonable tax e f f o r t and i s
exercising due diligence in availing i t s e l f of s t a t e and other financial
assistance a v a i l a b l e f o r i t s purpose.
-- the applicant d i s t r i c t does not have s u f f i c i e n t funds from a l l other
sources to provide the needed minimum f a c i l i t y for a t l e a s t 95% of
the t o t a l membership estimated as of the second year following the
period for which application i s f i l e d .
Although many of the school d i s t r i c t s which are located e n t i r e l y on Indian
lands are e l i g i b l e for 815 funding, the actual appropriation for t h i s
program can best be described as sporadic over the l a s t several years.
D i s t r i c t s have had applications for 815 funds approved, but the appropri-a
t i o n l e v e l for the program has not been s u f f i c i e n t to meet the needs.
c . ( l ) T i t l e I- Educationally Deprived: P. L. 89- 10
The purpose of the funding under t h i s t i t l e i s to improve the i n s t r u c t i o n a l
programs to meet the needs of educationally disadvantaged students in low
income areas. Educationally deprived r e f e r s to those children who have
need f o r s p e c i a l educational assistance in order that t h e i r level of
educational attainment may be raised to that appropriate for children
t h e i r age.
Low income, as used i n determining T i t l e I fund a l l o c a t i o n , r e f e r s t o the
federal government's o f f i c i a l s t a t i s t i c a l measure of poverty as used i n
compiling the 1970 decennial census. This measure, known as the Orshensky
Index, d e f i n e s poverty l e v e l s according to family s i z e , number of c h i l -
dren, age and sex of head of household and whether the residence i s farm
or nonfarm. Census counts of children ages 5 through 17 from " poor"
f a m i l i e s as defined by t h i s poverty matrix are used as t h e primary b a s i s
for computing T i t l e I funds a l l o c a t i o n .
For FY 1977- 78, Arizona was a l l o c a t e d $ 17,686,137 under T i t l e I- Education-a
l l y Deprived. Each d i s t r i c t ' s entitlement is presented i n Appendix 1.
Matching Requirement -- There i s no matching requirement for T i t l e I-Educationally
Deprived, which means t h a t no s t a t e of l o c a l funds need to be
s p e c i f i c a l l y expended i n order to receive T i t l e I monies.
Maintenance of E f f o r t -- Section 126( a) of P. L. 95- 561 r e q u i r e s T i t l e I
p a r t i c i p a t i n g school d i s t r i c t s t o maintain the same l e v e l of expenditures
from s t a t e and l o c a l sources f o r t h e provision of free public education in
each of the two years immediately preceding t h e year f o r which a p p l i c a t i o n
for T i t l e I funds is made. Arizona a c t u a l l y checks for compliance between
the 3rd and 2nd years preceding the grant year because d a t a f o r the 1st
preceding year is not a v a i l a b l e a t the time T i t l e I a p p l i c a t i o n s a r e
submitted.
Expenditures d a t a used for checking compliance i n t h i s area i s from the
d i s t r i c t ' s General Operating Fund, Special Education Fund and Transpor-t
a t i o n Fund, exclusive of expenditures for c a p i t a l o u t l a y but including
c o s t s of textbook purchases. School d i s t r i c t s can meet t h i s requirement
on a per- pupil b a s i s or on t h e b a s i s of expenditures i n t o t a l .
Coordination with State/ Locally Funded Programs -- T i t l e I- Educationally
Deprived does not r e q u i r e coordination with other programs.
( 2 ) T i t l e I- Migrant
The purpose of the T i t l e I- Migrant program is t o provide i n s t r u c t i o n a l ,
h e a l t h and n u t r i t i o n a l s e r v i c e s t o children of migratory a g r i c u l t u r a l
workers and o f migratory fishermen. Services may be provided to a c h i l d
under the Migrant Child Education program only a f t e r the l o c a l school
d i s t r i c t has determined t h a t the c h i l d i s e i t h e r a c u r r e n t l y or formerly
migratory c h i l d as defined below.
Currently migratory c h i l d means a c h i l d : ( a ) whose parent or guardian i s
a migratory a g r i c u l t u r a l worker or a migratory f i s h e r ; and ( b) who has
moved within the past twelve months from one school d i s t r i c t to another or
i n a s t a t e t h a t i s comprised of a s i n g l e school d i s t r i c t , has moved from
one school a d m i n i s t r a t i v e a r e a to another to enable the c h i l d , the c h i l d ' s
guardian, o r a member of the c h i l d ' s immediate family to obtain temporary
or season employment in an a g r i c u l t u r a l o r f i s h i n g a c t i v i t y . This d e f i -
n i t i o n includes a c h i l d who has been e l i g i b l e t o be served under t h e
requirements in the preceding sentence, and who, without the parent or
guardian, has continued to migrate annually t o enable him or her t o secure
temporary or seasonal employment in an a g r i c u l t u r a l o r f i s h i n g a c t i v i t y .
An " a g r i c u l t u r a l a c t i v i t y " means ( a) any a c t i v i t y d i r e c t l y r e l a t e d t o the
production or processing of crops, d a i r y products, poultry or l i v e s t o c k
for i n i t i a l commercial s a l e or as a p r i n c i p a l means o f personal subsis-tence;
( b) any a c t i v i t y d i r e c t l y r e l a t e d t o t h e c u l t i v a t i o n o r harvesting
of t r e e s ; or ( c ) any a c t i v i t y d i r e c t l y r e l a t e d to f i s h farms.
" Fishing a c t i v i t y " means any a c t i v i t y d i r e c t l y r e l a t e d t o t h e catching or
processing of f i s h or s h e l l f i s h for i n i t i a l commercial s a l e o r a s p r i n c i p a l
means of personal subsistence.
" Formerly migratory child" means a c h i l d who: ( a ) was e l i g i b l e t o be
counted and served as a c u r r e n t l y migratory c h i l d within the past f i v e
y e a r s , b u t i s not now a c u r r e n t l y migratory c h i l d ; ( b) l i v e s in an area
served by T i t l e I- Migrant education p r o j e c t ; and ( c) has the concurrence
of h i s or her parent or guardian to continue t o be considered a migra-t
o r y c h i l d .
There is a t o t a l of s i x years of program e l i g i b i l i t y , a one- year s t a t u s
as a " currently migratory child" and up to f i v e a d d i t i o n a l years as
a " formerly migratory c h i l d " .
For the school year 1977- 78 Arizona's a l l o c a t i o n of T i t l e I- Migrant
funds t o t a l l e d $ 3,010,360, of which $ 2,680,750 went to school d i s t r i c t s .
Thirty seven elementary and secondary school p a r t i c i p a t e d i n the program as
well a s one u n i v e r s i t y . Approximately 10,000 students counted for funding
purposes.
Matching Requirement -- There i s no matching requirement for T i t l e I-Migrant.
Maintenance of Effort -- The r e g u l a t i o n s r e q u i r e t h a t each d i s t r i c t make
a v a i l a b l e to each migrant c h i l d a l l f e d e r a l l y , s t a t e and l o c a l l y funded
programs offered in the d i s t r i c t . Migrant funds supplement o t h e r f e d e r a l ,
s t a t e and l o c a l l y funded programs i n which migrant children p a r t i c i p a t e .
Coordination with State/ Locally Funded Programs -- T i t l e I- Migrant r e q u i r e s
c o o r d i n a t i o n w i t h sta t e / l o c ~ l l yf unded programs.
1 Vocational Education: - P -. L. 94- 482
The federal vocational education program provides funds ($ 6,684,043 i n
FY 1977- 78 of which $ 1,237,017 went to school d i s t r i c t s ) t o a s s i s t d i s t r i c t s
i n updating and expanding e x i s t i n g vocational education programs or t o
provide a s s i s t a n c e when l o c a l funds are inadequate to maintain the e x i s t i n g
v o c a t i o n a l e d u c a t i o n a l program.
To q u a l i f y f o r funds, the s t a t e must have a " State Board of Vocational
Education" t o a c t as t h e r e p r e s e n t a t i v e of the s t a t e and t o be s o l e l y
responsible for the a d m i n i s t r a t i o n of the v o c a t i o n a l e d u c a t i o n program.
In Arizona, the S t a t e Board of Education functions in t h i s capacity.
Matching Requirements -- S t a t e and l o c a l funds together must be equal t o
the federal a- p- p ro- p riation. The t o t a l s t a t e funds expended t o receive federal
vocational education d o l l a r s were approximately $ 3.7 m i l l i o n . Local funds
provided the remainder.
Maintenance of E f f o r t -- The law r e q u i r e s t h a t each d i s t r i c t maintain a
l e v e l of funding i n t o t a l d o l l a r s equal t o , or not l e s s than 5% l e s s , than
t h e i r previous y e a r ' s funding l e v e l .
Coordination with State/ Locally Funded Programs -- The f e d e r a l r e g u l a t i o n s
r e q u i r e coordination with s t a t e , l o c a l l y and o t h e r f e d e r a l l y funded pro-grams
such as CETA.
( 2) Vocational Education: S t a t e
The s t a t e vocational education program designates courses in a g r i c u l t u r e ,
mining, manual t r a i n i n g , domestic science and other vocational p r o j e c t s
for students. For FY 1977- 78 the s t a t e appropriated $ 3,704,000 for voca-t
i o n a l education. Of t h i s amount, school d i s t r i c t s received approximately
$ 1,575,000. The remaining s t a t e funds were used ( among other things) f o r
area vocational c e n t e r s , adult vocational education, cooperative education,
v o c a t i o n a l r e s e a r c h and teacher t r a i n i n g . In a d d i t i o n , $ 593,300 was
appropriated to t h e S t a t e Department of Education for administration of
vocational education.
S t a t e money is combined with federal a s s i s t a n c e money and is a l l o c a t e d on a
competet ive b a s i s .
e. Comprehensive Employment and Training ( CETA): P. L. 93- 203
The CETA program seeks q u a l i f i e d a p p l i c a n t s from minority groups and
a s s i s t s them i n entering apprenticeship programs. It promotes the
development of apprenticeship programs in cooperation with i n d u s t r i e s i n
the r e s p e c t i v e s k i l l e d c r a f t s or t r a d e s . Approximately 4,500 students
were served by CETA programs in FY 1977- 78. The expenditure for the CETA
program for the year was $ 2,462,641. ( This does not include CETA c o n t r a c t o r s
or administration.)
Matching Requirements -- There i s no requirement for school d i s t r i c t s to
match federal funds i n order t o o b t a i n these funds.
Maintenance of E f f o r t -- There is no maintenance of e f f o r t for school
d i s t r i c t , because tK< re i s no d i s t r i c t money going i n t o the maintenance of
the CETA programs. There may be a l i t t l e money, however, going i n t o the
a d m i n i s t r a t i v e c o s t of having CETA employees.
Coordination with State/ Locally Funded Programs -- Such coordination is
n o t r e q u i r e d by t h e f e d e r a l r e g u l a t i o n s , but it s t a t e s t h a t coordination
ought t o e x i s t .
Approximately $ 6 m i l l i o n of the CETA money for Arizona i s linked in some
manner with federal or s t a t e Vocational Education programs. In Maricopa
and Pima Counties and the City of Phoenix, the educational s e r v i c e s for
the CETA programs are provided through the local school d i s t r i c t s . By
law, T i t l e 20 ( CETA) r e q u i r e s t h a t 6% o f t h e CETA money must go to the
S t a t e Educational Agency Vocational Education Board to support the prin-c
i p a l sponsor of a CETA- Vocational program.
f . Career Education: S t a t e
The state- funded Career Education program provides students with the
opportunity to be oriented to the world of employment. Orientation i s
provided through classwork, apprenticeships, and on- the- job work experi-ence.
Appropriated funds may be a1 located for:
- Increasing high school c a r e e r education enrollment.
- Making career t e s t i n g and counseling a v a i l a b l e t o each common and high
school pupil.
- Obtaining, preparing, and maintaining reading m a t e r i a l , f i l m s , t a p e s ,
and other equipment for the purpose of giving each c h i l d an o r i e n t a t i o n
t o the world of work through common school c l a s s e s and a v a i l a b i l i t y t o
common and high school pupils.
- Retraining common school teachers and counselors for t h e c a r e e r orien-t
a t i o n of pupils to the world of work.
- Providing for teachers and a curriculum for common school d i s t r i c t s
i n s t i t u t i n g a course in o r i e n t a t i o n to the world of work for grades
7, 8, and 9.
- Providing a d d i t i o n a l teacher- coordinators to implement and coordinate
on- the- job work experience for a d d i t i o n a l ptlpil- trainees and, i f necessary,
provide t r a n s p o r t a t i o n for such pupils.
- Employing persons to c o o r d i n a t e a p p r e n t i c e s h i p - r e l a t e d t r a i n i n g for
r e g i s t e r e d apprenticeship programs.
- Providing each county with the means to conduct workshops for a l l common
and high school d i s t r i c t s within the county.
- S t a t e career a s s i s t a n c e s h a l l a l s o provide for an organized statewide
program of ~ u b l i ci nformat ion and cornmunit y involvement for parents in
t h e m e r i t s of c a r e e r education.
The following i s a l i s t of Career Education funding a l l o c a t i o n s for
FY 1977- 78:
County/ School D i s t r i c t
Apache
Coch i s e
Benson UHS 119
Cocon ino
F l a g s t a f f Unif. // I
Page Unif . 4/ 8
Tuba City Unif. 1/ 15
Fredonia/ Mocassin Unif. H6
Grand Canyon Unif. A4
Gila
Gr ah am
Greenlee
Maricopa
Dysart Unif. 1/ 89
Agua F r i a UHS 11216
Roosevelt Elem. 1/ 66
Mesa Unif. // 4
Phoenix IJHS 11210
Tempe UHS 11213
Glendale UHS 1/ 205
Paradise Valley Unif. 4/ 69
Buckeye UHS # 201
S c o t t s d a l e Unif. 4/ 48
Mohave
Colorado City Elem. 1/ 14
Bullhead City Elem. / I15
Pima
Marana HS 1/ 106
Tucson Unif. 111
Flowing Wells Unif. 118
Amphitheater Unif. 1/ 10
Pinal
Casa Grande UHS 1/ 82
Apache Junction Unif. 1/ 43
Coolidge Unif. 4/ 21
Santa Cruz
Nogales Unif. 411
Patagonia UHS 1/ 20
Yavapai
Yuma
Yuma UHS 1/ 70
Somerton Elem. // I1
Yuma Elem. # 1
Gadsden Elem. 1/ 32
Tot a1
Amount*
~ ounty/ Consortium Amount *
Apache- Nava j o $ 213,357
Career- Bound ( Scottsdale,
Paradise Valley, Cave Creek) 214,571
CETAS ( Tempe Area) 127,352
Central Maricopa 367,365
Coconino 142,531
Cochise 200,978
Mohave 117,720
P ima 623,544
Pinal 117,028
Santa Cruz 69,844
San Tan ( Southeast Maricopa County) 82,574
Tri- County ( Graham, Greenlee, Gila) 160,857
WACOP ( Western Maricopa County) 336,930
Yavapai 95,058
Y uma 113,891
Total
U n i v e r s i t i e s Amount
Northern Arizona University $ 22,855
University of Arizona 33,905
Arizona S t a t e University 65,260
Total $ 122,020
(* All f i g u r e s rounded t o the nearest d o l l a r ) .
In t o t a l i n FY 1977- 78, $ 3.8 million was expended f o r career education
i n grades K- 12 and 389,177 students were served.
( 1 Bil ingual Education: T i t l e V I I of the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act
T i t l e V I I of ESEA a s s i s t s i n meeting the educational needs of children
whose n a t i v e language is other than English. The f e d e r a l a s s i s t a n c e is
limited t o the establishment of new programs or the expansion of e x i s t i n g
programs. P r e s e n t l y , a d i s t r i c t can receive funds under T i t l e V I I f o r a
period of t h r e e years. The goal of T i t l e VII- Bilingual Education funds is
t o provide f i n a n c i a l a s s i s t a n c e t o d i s t r i c t s t o get t h e i r programs estab-l
i s h e d and organized and then have the d i s t r i c t assume the f i n a n c i a l
r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r t h e program a f t e r t h e f e d e r a l money is no longer
a v a i l a b l e . It is n o t p o s s i b l e t o determine t h e extent of l o c a l monies, i f
any, which go i n t o the f e d e r a l b i l i n g u a l program.
D i s t r i c t s compete n a t i o n a l l y f o r funding under approximately 500 grants.
The average grant is approximately $ 130,000. In FY 1977- 78, grants were
received by 25 school d i s t r i c t s i n Arizona. There were approximately
12,000 c h i l d r e n served by the $ 3,211,169 a l l o c a t i o n . Of t h i s a l l o c a t e d
amount, $ 2,761,895 went to the school d i s t r i c t s and the remainder went to
students i n p r i v a t e and Indian schools. The f e d e r a l r e g u l a t i o n s t a t e s t h a t
the federal a s s i s t a n c e w i l l not exceed 113 of the p e r p u p i l expenditure of
the d i s t r i c t receiving a s s i s t a n c e . D i s t r i c t s must be taking advantage of
a l l s t a t e funding t h a t is a v a i l a b l e t o the d i s t r i c t .
( 2) Bilingual Education: S t a t e ( Special English Tra-- i ning)
As mentioned in Section 3, Other S t a t e Education Programs, the s t a t e
b i l i n g u a l education program for FY 1977- 78 was funded a t $ 50 per ADM.
Students in grades K- 3 receive p r i o r i t y in funding p r i o r t o those i n
grades 4 through 8. The t o t a l s t a t e appropriation for FY 1977- 78 was
$ 1 m i l l i o n , which a t $ 50 per ADM meant t h a t i n t o approximately 20,000
students would be served. In a c t u a l i t y in FY 1977- 78, $ 878,389 was
a l l o c a t e d t o school d i s t r i c t s .
The program is designed to be supplemental to the f e d e r a l b i l i n g u a l and
regular educational program. D i s t r i c t s may provide t h e program f o r pupils
not t o exceed an accumulated period o f f o u r years per pupil.
B a s i c a l l y , t h e f e d e r a l b i l i n g u a l program o f f e r s i n s t r u c t i o n in the s t u -
dents f i r s t language while the s t a t e program i s designed to a s s i s t stu-dents
i n learning English.
h. Special Education- Handicapped: Education for A l l Handicapped Children
Act, P. L. 94- 142
Federal funding for the education of handicapped students is provided t o
Arizona under t h e provision of P. L. 94- 142. This law s p e c i f i e s a number
of a c t i v i t i e s t h a t schools must engage i n to ensure t h a t handicapped
c h i l d r e n receive a f r e e , a p p r o p r i a t e p u b l i c education. For example, it
r e q u i r e s s p e c i a l i s t s to e v a l u a t e t h e needs of the c h i l d and determine the
most a p p r o p r i a t e e d u c a t i o n a l environment for the c h i l d ; it r e q u i r e s t h a t
an i n d i v i d u a l i z e d educational program be developed for each c h i l d i d e n t i -
f i e d a s needing s p e c i a l education or r e l a t e d s e r v i c e s ; i t r e q u i r e s schools
to n o t i f y p a r e n t s , to include them i n the decision- making process and io
provide them with an opportunity for a hearing i f they are d i s s a t i s f i e d
with the decision. Currently, s t a t e law and r e g u l a t i o n s for educating
handicapped children are almost i d e n t i c a l with P. L. 94- 142.
The l e v e l of funding under P. L. 94- 142 has increased dramatically. For
example, i n FY 1977- 78, Arizona's a l l o c a t i o n was $ 2.5 m i l l i o n , of which
$ 1.8 m i l l i o n was d i s t r i b u t e d to school d i s t r i c t s during the f i s c a l year,
and the estimated a l l o c a t i o n for FY 1979- 80 i s in excess of $ 9 m i l l i o n .
The s t a t e funds expended in FY 1977- 78 for s p e c i a l education t o t a l l e d $ 24.6
m i l l i o n and l o c a l funds t o t a l l e d $ 35.1 m i l l i o n .
Matching Reauirement
Currently, no matching requirement e x i s t s under P. L. 94- 142. However,
funds under t h i s program can only be used for the excess cost of s p e c i a l
education programs. To meet t h i s requirement, a school d i s t r i c t must
spend as much on a handicapped c h i l d as i s spent on a non- handicapped
c h i l d before using P. L. 94- 142 funds.
Maintenance of E f f o r t
Under P. L. 94- 142, a school d i s t r i c t must maintain its l e v e l of expendi-tures
from s t a t e and l o c a l sources. Also, a school d i s t r i c t may not use
P. L. 94- 142 funds to replace a cost t h a t was previously met with s t a t e and
l o c a l funds. However, a provision e x i s t s i n P. L. 94- 142 t h a t allows a
s t a t e t o waive the supplementing requirement of P. L. 94- 142. In order t o
be approved f o r a waiver, a s t a t e must provide c l e a r and convincing evi-dence
t h a t a l l handicapped children have a v a i l a b l e to them a f r e e appro-p
r i a t e education. Currently, only Massachusetts h a s a p p l i e d f o r t h i s
waiver and t h e i r request was denied by the United S t a t e s Office of Education.
I'
i. Indian Education Act: T i t l e I V , P. L. 92- 318
Indian Education, T i t l e I V , provides support to school d i s t r i c t s t o a s s i s t
them i n developing and e s t a b l i s h i n g educational s e r v i c e s and programs
s p e c i f i c a l l y designed t o improve educational o p p o r t u n i t i e s f o r Indian
children.
Grants may be used f o r remedial or compensatory i n s t r u c t i o n , counseling,
t e s t i n g s e r v i c e s , s p e c i a l education and pre- school programs.
Grants may a l s o be authorized t o i n s t i t u t i o n s of higher education t o pre-pare
persons t o serve Indian children as teachers, a i d e s , s o c i a l workers
and a n c i l l a r y educational personnel.
School d i s t r i c t s apply d i r e c t l y t a HEW f o r a s s i s t a n c e . Allocation is
based on the need of those I n d i a n s t u d e n t s . To be counted as an Indian
student, t h a t person must be a member of a recognized t r i b e or a decendent
of people who were enrolled members of a t r i b e . In order t o b e a n enrolled
member, the person must prove t h a t he or she is 114 or more degree Indian
blood. In FY 1977- 78, T i t l e I V provided $ 3,137,227 i n funds which served
29,950 students.
Matching Requirement -- There is no matching requirement i n the Indian
Education Act.
Maintenance of E f f o r t -- The Indian Education Act requires d i s t r i c t s to
maintain the same l e v e l of funding as they had i n the previous y e a r .
Federal funds may not be used t o supplant s t a t e or l o c a l funds.
Coordination with State/ Locally Funded Program -- The Indian Education Act
does not r e q u i r e coordination with s t a t e / l o c a l l y funded programs.
j. Johnson- O'Malley Educational Assistance: P. L. 93- 638
Johnson- O'Malley, commonly r e f e r r e d t o as JOM, assists i n upgrading Indian
education by assuring adequate educational o p p o r t u n i t i e s f o r Indian c h i l -
dren attending public or t r i b a l schools. In FY 1977- 78, Arizona received
$ 543,677 i n supplemental JOM funds which served 6,800 students i n 27 school
d i s t r i c t s . These supplemental funds by d i s t r i c t a r e shown i n Appendix 1.
In addition $ 473,042 i n supplement~ l JOM was received f o r s e v e r a l p r o j e c t s
which served 2,360 students. The p r o j e c t s and number of e l i g i b i e JOM
students a r e l i s t e d below.
Project JOM Funding E l i g i b l e JOM Students
Ak- Chin Indian Community
Ft. McDowell
GRIC - Blackwater
GRIC - Casa Grande H . S .
GRIC - Coolidge Unif. S. D. ! I21
GRIC - Gila Crossing
CRIG - Carl Hayden H . S .
Hopi Tribe
Hopi Tribe ( H. B. C.)
Hualapai Tribe
San Lucy D i s t r i c t
San Xavier
Yavapai- Apache Camp Verde
Yavapai- Prescott
Yavapai- Tonto Apache Payson
Subtotal $ 333,089.50 1,760
Central Child Dev. Center
F l a g s t a f f Indian Center
Kee N'Bah
Phoenix Indian Center
Tucson Indian Center
Subtotal $ 139,9- 5- 2 .07 - 603
TOTAL
Operational money ( or basic JOM, as it is r e f e r r e d t o ) may be expended only
on I n d i a n s t u d e n t s and only a f t e r a l l s t a t e and l o c a l funds f o r the p a r t i c -
u l a r program a r e expended. Funds under t h i s p a r t may only be expended i n
those areas of the budget which a r e included i n the c a l c u l a t i o n of per
p u p i l c o s t s . Basic JOM funds began t o be phased out over a 3- year period
beginning with FY 1975- 76, although some d i s t r i c t s received a waiver during
t h i s t i m e period t o continue t o use JOM funds as b a s i c