{
  "id": "R45827",
  "type": "CRS Report",
  "typeId": "REPORTS",
  "number": "R45827",
  "active": true,
  "source": "EveryCRSReport.com",
  "versions": [
    {
      "source": "EveryCRSReport.com",
      "id": 604229,
      "date": "2019-08-26",
      "retrieved": "2019-08-30T22:12:59.822090",
      "title": "State and Local Financing of Public Schools",
      "summary": "The funding of public elementary and secondary schools in the United States involves a combination of local, state, and federal government revenues, in proportions that vary substantially both across and within states. According to the most recent data, state governments provide 47.0% of these revenues, local governments provide 44.8%, and the federal government provides 8.3%. Over the last several decades, the share of public elementary and secondary education revenues provided by state governments has increased, the share provided by local governments has decreased, and the federal share has varied within a range of 6.0% to 12.7%. The primary source of local revenues for public elementary and secondary education is the property tax, while state revenues are raised from a variety of sources, primarily personal and corporate income and retail sales taxes, a variety of \u201cexcise\u201d taxes such as those on tobacco products and alcoholic beverages, and lotteries in several states.\nAll states (but not the District of Columbia) provide a share of the total revenues available for public elementary and secondary education. This state share varies widely, from approximately 25% in Illinois to almost 90% in Hawaii and Vermont. The programs through which state funds are provided to local educational agencies (LEAs) for public elementary and secondary education have traditionally been categorized into five types: (1) Foundation Programs, (2) Full State Funding Programs, (3) Flat Grants, (4) District Power Equalizing, and (5) Categorical Grants. Of these, Foundation Programs are most common, although many states use a combination of program types. \nA goal of all of the various types of state school finance programs is to provide at least some limited degree of \u201cequalization\u201d of spending and resources, and/or local ability to raise funds, for public elementary and secondary education across all of the LEAs in the state. Such programs often establish target levels of funding \u201cper pupil.\u201d The \u201cpupil\u201d counts involved in these programs may simply be based on total student enrollment as of some point in time, or they may be a \u201cweighted\u201d count of students, taking into account variations in a number of categories\u2014special pupil needs (e.g., disabilities, low family income, limited proficiency in English), grade levels, specific educational programs (e.g., career and technical education), or geographic considerations (e.g., student population sparsity or local variation in costs of providing education). \nAfter state funds reach LEAs, they are combined with locally raised funds to provide educational resources to students in individual schools. Under the traditional, and still most common, method of allocating resources within LEAs, there are no specific budgets for individual schools. Available state and local funds are managed centrally, by LEA staff, and various resources\u2014facilities, teachers, support staff, school administrators, instructional equipment, etc.\u2014are assigned to individual schools. In contrast, a number of LEAs have in recent years applied the weighted student funding concept to developing and implementing individual school budgets. \nThe federal Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) includes one program (Title I-A) and one secretarial authority (Title I-E) that incorporate elements of the equalization and weighted student funding strategies used by states and LEAs. Two of the four ESEA Title I-A allocation formulas employ pupil weighting concepts in the allocation of funds to states and LEAs, and one of those formulas also takes into consideration disparities in expenditures per pupil among each state\u2019s LEAs in calculating grants. The ESEA Title I-E authority allows the Secretary of Education to enter into a demonstration agreement with LEAs that are using or agree to implement weighted student funding systems to establish budgets for, and allocate funds to, individual schools. \nA separate development relevant to many aspects of public elementary and secondary education finance has been increasing interest in the collection and reporting of school-level finance data for public schools. While historically there have not been comprehensive state or federal efforts to calculate or report on specific budgets or expenditure levels for individual public schools, federal efforts to require and support the reporting of such information have expanded rapidly in recent years.",
      "type": "CRS Report",
      "typeId": "REPORTS",
      "active": true,
      "formats": [
        {
          "format": "HTML",
          "encoding": "utf-8",
          "url": "https://www.crs.gov/Reports/R45827",
          "sha1": "aad502eecbc5b386f43a524fc62e562b3a02796d",
          "filename": "files/20190826_R45827_aad502eecbc5b386f43a524fc62e562b3a02796d.html",
          "images": {}
        },
        {
          "format": "PDF",
          "encoding": null,
          "url": "https://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/R45827",
          "sha1": "7a8d531e7ae1e7fabafeffb87cdfd1b3d03ced49",
          "filename": "files/20190826_R45827_7a8d531e7ae1e7fabafeffb87cdfd1b3d03ced49.pdf",
          "images": {}
        }
      ],
      "topics": [
        {
          "source": "IBCList",
          "id": 4810,
          "name": "Elementary & Secondary Education"
        }
      ]
    },
    {
      "source": "EveryCRSReport.com",
      "id": 602823,
      "date": "2019-07-23",
      "retrieved": "2019-08-12T22:15:15.146085",
      "title": "State and Local Financing of Public Schools",
      "summary": "The funding of public elementary and secondary schools in the United States involves a combination of local, state, and federal government revenues, in proportions that vary substantially both across and within states. According to the most recent data, state governments provide 47.0% of these revenues, local governments provide 44.8%, and the federal government provides 8.3%. Over the last several decades, the share of public elementary and secondary education revenues provided by state governments has increased, the share provided by local governments has decreased, and the federal share has varied within a range of 6.0% to 12.7%. The primary source of local revenues for public elementary and secondary education is the property tax, while state revenues are raised from a variety of sources, primarily personal and corporate income and retail sales taxes, a variety of \u201cexcise\u201d taxes such as those on tobacco products and alcoholic beverages, and lotteries in several states.\nAll states (but not the District of Columbia) provide a share of the total revenues available for public elementary and secondary education. This state share varies widely, from approximately 25% in Illinois to almost 90% in Hawaii and Vermont. The programs through which state funds are provided to local educational agencies (LEAs) for public elementary and secondary education have traditionally been categorized into five types: (1) Foundation Programs, (2) Full State Funding Programs, (3) Flat Grants, (4) District Power Equalizing, and (5) Categorical Grants. Of these, Foundation Programs are most common, although many states use a combination of program types. \nA goal of all of the various types of state school finance programs is to provide at least some limited degree of \u201cequalization\u201d of spending and resources, and/or local ability to raise funds, for public elementary and secondary education across all of the LEAs in the state. Such programs often establish target levels of funding \u201cper pupil.\u201d The \u201cpupil\u201d counts involved in these programs may simply be based on total student enrollment as of some point in time, or they may be a \u201cweighted\u201d count of students, taking into account variations in a number of categories\u2014special pupil needs (e.g., disabilities, low family income, limited proficiency in English), grade levels, specific educational programs (e.g., career and technical education), or geographic considerations (e.g., student population sparsity or local variation in costs of providing education). \nAfter state funds reach LEAs, they are combined with locally raised funds to provide educational resources to students in individual schools. Under the traditional, and still most common, method of allocating resources within LEAs, there are no specific budgets for individual schools. Available state and local funds are managed centrally, by LEA staff, and various resources\u2014facilities, teachers, support staff, school administrators, instructional equipment, etc.\u2014are assigned to individual schools. In contrast, a number of LEAs have in recent years applied the weighted student funding concept to developing and implementing individual school budgets. \nThe federal Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) includes one program (Title I-A) and one secretarial authority (Title I-E) that incorporate elements of the equalization and weighted student funding strategies used by states and LEAs. Two of the four ESEA Title I-A allocation formulas employ pupil weighting concepts in the allocation of funds to states and LEAs, and one of those formulas also takes into consideration disparities in expenditures per pupil among each state\u2019s LEAs in calculating grants. The ESEA Title I-E authority allows the Secretary of Education to enter into a demonstration agreement with LEAs that are using or agree to implement weighted student funding systems to establish budgets for, and allocate funds to, individual schools. \nA separate development relevant to many aspects of public elementary and secondary education finance has been increasing interest in the collection and reporting of school-level finance data for public schools. While historically there have not been comprehensive state or federal efforts to calculate or report on specific budgets or expenditure levels for individual public schools, federal efforts to require and support the reporting of such information have expanded rapidly in recent years.",
      "type": "CRS Report",
      "typeId": "REPORTS",
      "active": true,
      "formats": [
        {
          "format": "HTML",
          "encoding": "utf-8",
          "url": "https://www.crs.gov/Reports/R45827",
          "sha1": "2629a5cabd0075479b03d069bd06b8e92c13378a",
          "filename": "files/20190723_R45827_2629a5cabd0075479b03d069bd06b8e92c13378a.html",
          "images": {}
        },
        {
          "format": "PDF",
          "encoding": null,
          "url": "https://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/R45827",
          "sha1": "d38a3e14137098dac7a9d1ad6d4fa8175f0290ce",
          "filename": "files/20190723_R45827_d38a3e14137098dac7a9d1ad6d4fa8175f0290ce.pdf",
          "images": {}
        }
      ],
      "topics": [
        {
          "source": "IBCList",
          "id": 4810,
          "name": "Elementary & Secondary Education"
        }
      ]
    }
  ],
  "topics": [
    "Economic Policy",
    "Education Policy"
  ]
}