University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

A study of equity in education finance: An analysis of the Archdiocese of Los Angeles elementary schools

(USC Thesis Other)

A study of equity in education finance: An analysis of the Archdiocese of Los Angeles elementary schools

PDF

Download

Open document

Flip pages

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content A STUDY OF EQUITY IN EDUCATION FINANCE:
AN ANALYSIS OF
THE ARCHDIOCESE OF LOS ANGELES ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS
by
Susan Abelein
A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements of the Degree
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
(EDUCATION)
December 2002
Copyright 2002 Susan Abelein
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
UMI Number: 3093723
UMI
UMI Microform 3093723
Copyright 2003 by ProQuest Information and Learning Company.
All rights reserved. This microform edition is protected against
unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code.
ProQuest Information and Learning Company
300 North Zeeb Road
P.O. Box 1346
Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
UNIVERSITY PARK
LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90089-1695
This dissertation, written by
Susan B. Abelein
under the direction of fep r dissertation committee, and
approved by all its members, has been presented to and
accepted by the Director of Graduate and Professional
Programs, in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the
degree of
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
ffyyt
T l i i i nnrrJ* q sg y
Director
Date Decem ber 1 8 , 2002
Dissertation Committee
Chair
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
List of Tables iv
List of Figures vi
Abstract vii
Chapter 1 - Introduction 1
Significance of Topic 1
Statement of the Problem 8
Significance of Problem 11
Purpose 13
Research Questions 13
Research Design and Procedures 14
Assumptions 17
Limitations 17
Scope and Delimitations 18
Definition of Terms 18
Organization of the Study 24
Chapter 2 - Review of Related Literature 25
The Archdiocese of Los Angeles 25
Traditional Models of School Finance 47
Entrepreneurial School Finance 55
Higher Education Models of School Finance 61
Summary 65
Chapter 3 - Methodology 68
Theoretical Foundation 68
Summary of Research Methodology 69
Research Questions 70
Data 71
Study Database 73
School Finance Equity Framework 75
Financial Summary Data Tables 82
Statistical Tool - The Simulation 85
Summary 87
Chapter 4 - Findings 89
Examining the Use of the Financial Model 89
Assessing Equity 97
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
iii
Archdiocesan Financial Equity Compared to Accepted
School Finance Equity Standards 108
Summary 119
Chapter 5 - Summary, Conclusions, and Recommendations 120
Summary 120
Review of Findings and Conclusions 123
Recommendations 134
Bibliography 138
Appendices 143
Appendix A: Financial Summary Tables 143
Appendix B: Annual Simulation Output 150
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1.1
Table 1.2
Table 1.3
Table 1.4
Table 1.5
Table 2.1.
Table 2.2
Table 2.3
Table 2.4
Table 2.5
Table 2.6
Table 2.7
Top 5 California Districts Ranked by Enrollment,
LA Archdiocese Included
Top 5 California Elementary Districts, by Size,
LA Archdiocese Included
Key Related Elements of Public and Parochial Schools
Archdiocese of Los Angeles, Number of Schools and
Number of Students per Financial Level, Ranked from
Wealthiest to Poorest Parishes
Archdiocese of Los Angeles, Parochial Elementary
Schools, Financial Model Income Percentages by
Levels 1-7, 8, 9, and 10
Archdiocese of Los Angeles, Number of Parochial
Elementary Schools Per Financial Model Level,
1999-2000 School Year. Range is According to Median
Family Income from Level 1 to Level 10
Archdiocese of Los Angeles, Parochial Elementary
Schools, Financial Model Income Percentages by Levels
Archdiocese of Los Angeles, Parochial Elementary
Schools Average Net Tuition Per Pupil by Financial
Level, 1999-2000 School Year
Catholic Education Foundation Tuition Awards by
Level, 1999-2000 Year
Children’s Scholarship Fund Tuition Awards by
Level, 1999-2000 Year
Financial Model Expense Recommendations Including
Salaries and Benefits, and Other Expenses, by School
Size: Grades K-8 and 9 Classrooms
Financial Model Recommended Per Pupil Rate, Target
Number of Students, and Target Income
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
V
Table 3.1 Archdiocesan Parochial Schools in this Study: 72
Total Schools, Deleted Schools, and Percent of Schools
Represented by Financial Level
Table 3.2 Equity Concepts, Statistics, and Calculations 79
Used in this Study
Table 3.3 Per Pupil Revenue Categories, Including: Local Income, 83
Archdiocesan Subsidy, and Total Income, by Level and
Across Seven Years of Data
Table 3.4 Archdiocese of Los Angeles, Model Income Levels 84
Table 3.5 Local Income and Archdiocesan Subsidy Actual and 85
Model Percentage Comparison
Table 3.6 Original Simulation and Revised Simulation Comparison 86
Table 4.1 Archdiocese of Los Angeles, Model Income Levels 89
Table 4.2 Annual Actual Income Percentages by Level, Includes 90
Local Income and Archdiocesan Subsidy, Across Seven
Years of Data
Table 4.3 Financial Model: Local Income and Archdiocesan Subsidy 91
Table 4.4 Per Pupil Average Local Income, Pre-and Post-Model, 100
Seven Years of Data, Levels 6 and 7 Highlighted in Italics
Table 4.5 Archdiocesan Subsidy, Per Pupil, to Level 6-10 Schools 102
Table 4.6 School Finance Equity Measures of Horizontal Equity 109
and Fiscal Neutrality
Table 4.7 Dollar Increase in Total Income per Financial Level 113
Table 4.8 Annual Percent Increase in Total Income per Financial Level 114
Table 4.9 Statistical Measures of Horizontal Equity 115
Table 4.10 Statistical Measures of Fiscal Neutrality, Including: 117
Correlation and Elasticity, Across Seven Years of Data
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
vi
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 2.1 Archdiocese of Los Angeles, Education Policymaking 30
Governance Structure
Figure 4.1 Levels 1-7 Actual Income 92
Figure 4.2 Level 8 Actual Income v. Model Income 93
Figure 4.3 Level 9 Actual Income v. Model Income 94
Figure 4.4 Level 10 Actual Income v. Model Income 95
Figure 4.5 Level 10 Schools Comparison of Income, 1998-1999 96
and 1999-2000 Compared
Figure 4.6 Average Median Family Income from the Wealthiest, 98
Level 1 to the Poorest, Level 10
Figure 4.7 Post-Model Local Income 99
Figure 4.8 Pre-and Post-Model Archdiocesan Subsidy, Per Pupil, 103
Levels 6-10
Figure 4.9 Total Income, Per Pupil, Levels 1-7 104
Figure 4.10 Total Income, Per Pupil, Levels 8-10 105
Figure 4.11 Median Family Income and 1999-2000 Total Income 107
Per Pupil Compared
Figure 4.12 Horizontal Equity Statistics - Range and Restricted Range 110
Figure 4.13 Horizontal Equity Statistics - Federal Range Ratio 111
Figure 4.14 Overall Percent Increase in Total Income from 1991-1992 112
to 1999-2000 for All Financial Levels
Figure 4.15 Horizontal Equity Statistics - Coefficient of Variation, 115
Gini Coefficient, McLoone Index, and Verstegen Index
Figure 4. 16 Wealth Neutrality Statistics - Correlation and Elasticity 117
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
ABSTRACT
The focus of this dissertation is an equity analysis of the parochial school
finance models followed by the Catholic elementary schools in the Los Angeles
Archdiocese. The participants in this study 180 of the Catholic parochial elementary
schools located in five regions of the Archdiocese of Los Angeles, for seven years of
data gathered between the 1991-1992 through 1999-2000 school years. The framework
used to analyze the equity of the finance model is the School Finance Equity Simulation
outlined in School Finance: A Policy Perspective (Odden and Picus, 2000).
Finance in parochial Catholic elementary schools in the Los Angeles
Archdiocese is unique in relation to their public school counterparts. First, tuition is
determined at each individual school site thus affecting per pupil spending, and second,
the 1995 financial model utilized by the Archdiocese. This study offers useful
information for use by policy makers and financial advisors within the Los Angeles
Archdiocese and its Department of Catholic Schools, with implications as well for other
Dioceses across the nation.
The findings of this study indicate that 1.) wealthier schools generate more local
and total income than poorer schools. This disparity is of concern due to the fact that
the Archdiocese is a Catholic organization. Although each parish, as related by Canon
Law, is financially responsible for itself, the Catholic Social Teachings documents,
representing a culmination of 100 years of Church doctrine, call for social justice
among all the Church represents. 2.) In regard to horizontal equity concept, the
financial income model for parochial elementary schools is equitable. The horizontal
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
equity statistics, calculated via the school finance simulation, indicate an equitable
collection of revenue for all elementary schools and across the seven years of data. 3.)
In regard to the wealth neutrality concept, the financial income model for parochial
elementary schools is inequitable. The wealth neutrality results, also computed via the
school finance simulation, indicate inequity in the school finance income model. That
is, there is an inequitable relationship between average local wealth and average dollars
generated per pupil for the parochial elementary schools across the seven years of data.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
1
A STUDY OF EQUITY IN EDUCATION FINANCE: AN ANALYSIS OF
THE ARCHDIOCESE OF LOS ANGELES ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS
CHAPTER I - INTRODUCTION
The topic of this dissertation is the longitudinal measurement of equity in the
educational financing of the Archdiocese of Los Angeles parochial elementary schools,
and the resulting policy implications for fixture collection and distribution of financial
resources. Eqxxity, having multiple connotations and applications in education, in this
study, exclusively concerns the notion of fairness in the collection and distribution of
financial resources.
The study of equity within the context of financing public schools has been
extensive, with research and litigation having significant impact on school finance
policy. Yet, school finance equity is not a concept or issue exclusive to public
education. This study, an equity analysis of the parochial school financial model for the
Catholic elementary schools in the Los Angeles Archdiocese, has the potential to
significantly impact the discussion and formation of parochial school finance policy.
Significance of the Topic
School Finance Equity
“School finance has and continues to be a top-priority policy issue at the state
and local level, and one of the top issues the public identifies as needing attention at the
national level as well (Odden and Picus, 2000).” Several researchers have investigated
or continue to investigate equity in public school finance. The narrative of education
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
2
finance research begins with James Coleman, who in the 1960’s conducted the study
Equality and Educational Opportunity. In what has come to be known as the “Coleman
Report,” the researcher and his study team raised doubts as to the significance of
amount of funding in yielding student success (Minorini and Sugarman, 1999). This
result confounded researchers.
With the Coleman report as the impetus, research continued regarding school
finance, equity, and adequacy. Arthur Wise studied Coleman’s report and in 1968 he
drew significant conclusions in the paper Rich School, Poor Schools: The Promise o f
Equal Educational Opportunity which addressed the great disparities between wealthy
and poor school districts and the corresponding educational opportunities for students.
His research was “directly targeted to equity in the financing of schools.. .and as such it
had a more immediate impact on the development of school finance equity concepts
(Beme and Stiefel, 1999).” In regard to public school finance, Wise argued for “one
scholar-one dollar” calling for an equalization in spending regardless of where a student
lived (Minorini and Sugarman, 1999).
Building upon the Coleman Report and early Wise research, professor John
Coons and two of his students William Clune and Stephen Sugarman developed a
theory “that combined a concern about poverty with the idea that education was a
constitutionally fundamental interest (Minorini and Sugarman, 1999),” naming this
legal principle “Proposition I” (Minorini and Sugarman, 1999). This was the first
successfully used legal theory in the courtroom and it escalated public debate, while it
furthered investigation of public school finance by local and state courts.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
3
Public scrutiny led concerned citizens and parent groups to call for fairness in
the equitable distribution of resources among public schools and several school districts
and state governments have been driven to analyze the financial equity of funding their
public schools. Beginning with Serrano v. Priest in 1968, plaintiffs “alleged that the
California school funding system was unconstitutional because it created wide
disparities in the quality and availability of resources and educational opportunities [for
students] across the state (Minorini and Sugarman, 1999).” Relying on the equal
protection clauses of both the state of California and United States Constitutions, the
plaintiffs prevailed.
The Serrano decision brought into existence a new realm of education litigation
and multiple states followed with equity disputes of their own. In contrast to Serrano,
where the equal protection clause was used in deciding the presence and degree of
financial equity, the case of Robinson v. Cahill in 1973, was decided due to its state’s
education clause. The clause stated that all students were guaranteed “a ‘thorough and
efficient system’ (Ladd and Hansen, Eds. 1999),” speaking to the educational
opportunity of the state system, but not explicitly addressing financial equity. The
Pauley v. Bailey case of West Virginia in 1982, broadened the influence of school
finance to include adequacy, that is to provide students with a level of resources as to
have the opportunity to perform at desired levels of educational outcomes (Ladd and
Hansen, 1999). Emphasizing equity and adequacy, the case of Abbott v. Burke in 1994
required the state to provide equalization funding to the poorer districts unable to meet a
standard level of per pupil cost; furthermore, the state had to provide additional funding,
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
4
in addition to equalization funding, to assist poorer districts {Abbott v. Burke, 643 A.2d
575, N.J. 1994 in Ladd and Hansen, 1999). These cases, among several others, played a
proactive role in motivating states to examine not only the constitutionality of their
school finance systems, but to offer solutions on how to fix inequitable financial
systems.
Similar notions of fairness, equity and adequacy are found in the social
teachings of the Catholic church which include: the call for dignity of the human
person; the call to serve the community for the common good; the call to honor rights
and responsibilities of self and others; the call to serve the poor; and the call to
solidarity among all in the human family. These are powerful tenets that bind
Catholics together and, for those stakeholders of the Archdiocese, underlie any future
policy reform in regard to parochial school finance equity. Families of the parish
community are what make up the parochial school communities and it is these parish
and school communities that make up the entirety of the Archdiocese. Bound together
by the alliance of their Catholic faith, each parish-school community is responsible,
according to Catholic social teachings, to serve one another, and in particular the
poorest of our community. Catholics are also called to solidarity as a larger human
family regardless of differences, including economic differences. Pope John Paul II
speaks to this commitment of solidarity for the “good of all and of each individual,
because we are all really responsible for all.” Examining the dichotomy of the inherent
challenge of meeting the needs of the poor and generating fairness among all parish-
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
5
school communities providing an appropriate and adequate education for all, is the
essence of school finance equity research.
Parochial School Finance
The stakeholders and policymakers of the Archdiocese of Los Angeles face a
tremendous challenge of how to structure an equitable model for the collection and
allocation of resources among the more than sixty-seven thousand students located in
two-hundred plus parochial elementary schools in the Archdiocese. The formidable
task of creating an equitable school finance model for the Archdiocese is as daunting a
responsibility as it is for public school districts of similar size. In the state of California
there are 977 school districts including unified, high school, and elementary districts.
Based on 1999 census data, the Los Angeles Archdiocese, if public, would rank as the
third largest overall district in the state with an enrollment of 100,437 total students.
See Table 1.1.
Table 1.1: Top 5 California Districts Ranked by Enrollment. LA Archdiocese Included
District Rank Enrollment
Los Angeles Unified School District 1 695,885
San Diego Unified School District 2 138,433
Los Angeles Archdiocese Dept, o f Catholic Schools 3 100,437
Long Beach Unified School District 4 89,214
Fresno Unified School District 5 78,942
Source: California Basic Educational Data System and Archdiocese o f Los Angeles
Census Report, 1999.
Of the over 100,000 students in the Archdiocese of Los Angeles, more than two-
thirds are students in kindergarten through grade eight elementary schools. If
considered a public school district and compared to the elementary school districts
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
6
within the state of California, then the Archdiocese of Los Angeles parochial
elementary school system, with an enrollment of 67,715 students in 1999, would be
considered the largest by far. See Table 1.2.
Table 1.2: Top 5 California Elementary Districts, by Size, LA Archdiocese Included
District Rank Enrollment
Los Angeles Archdiocese Dept, o f Catholic Schools 1 67,715
Bakersfield City Elementary School District 2 27,176
Ontario-Montclair Elementary School District 3 25,151
Chula Vista Elementary School District 4 21,338
Anaheim Elementary School District 5 20,927
Source: California Basic Educational Data System and Archdiocese o f Los Angeles
Census Report, 1999,
In regard to school finance, there are related elements of public and parochial
education, see Table 1.3. Similarities exist in regard to school choice, total revenue,
and equalization aid. Public schools and parochial schools serve primarily the students
of their neighborhood or parish. Public school families may also choose to send their
children to another school within the district, although at times a difficult process; as
well, parochial school families may send their child to another school in the
Archdiocese, yet it likely depends on the convenience of the school’s location. For both
public and parochial schools, total revenue is gathered from a combination of resources.
Both public and parochial schools have sources to of revenue to provide equalization
aid; for the public schools, this funding comes from the state, and for the parochial
schools, this money comes from the Archdiocese.
While similarities exist between public and parochial schools, differences
remain. In regard to local income, public schools rely on a local tax-based subsidy from
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
the state. Lacking access to this tax-based subsidy, parochial schools rely on tuition,
which, set individually by each parish school in the Archdiocese, is price sensitive.
The use of federal funds is common among public schools; in the parochial schools,
although many students may qualify, mainly low-income parish schools seek and
receive the bulk of available federal funds, with a sample of additional schools pursuing
federal funds. The Archdiocese may experience a rise in the number of parochial
schools seeking Title monies due to the approaching implementation of the No Child
Left Behind Act.
Table 1.3: Key Related Elements of Public and Parochial Schools
Public Schools Parochial Schools
Choice Local School
or District School
Local Parish School
or Locally Convenient Catholic School
Local Income Property Tax Property Tax (Unavailable)
and Tuition, Fees, & Fundraising
Total Revenue Combination of Local,
State, and Federal Funds
Combination of Family, Parish, and
Archdiocesan Funds
Federal Funds Highly Accessible Accessible,
but Unlikely to be Used by Most Schools
Equalization By the State By the Archdiocese
Source: Constructed by Researcher, 2001.
The key equity issue for the Archdiocese of Los Angeles relates to income and
the range in tuition charged by parochial schools, as well as fees and the ability to
fundraise. Related to the ability-to-pay principle, wealthier parish schools have the
luxury of setting higher tuition rates because the parents can afford to pay more;
whereas, poorer parochial schools set very low tuition because the parents simply
cannot afford to pay as much. Respectively fees and fundraising, also determined at
each individual school site, widen the divide between the rich and the poor schools of
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
8
the Archdiocese. Equalization aid provided by the Archdiocese seems to lessen this
gap, yet this aid is only available to the poorest schools in the Archdiocese; there are
many schools who are caught in the middle, not wealthy enough to have financial
security and not poor enough to access additional funding from the Archdiocese.
Unequal revenue creates an unequal distribution of such resources, thus generating
inequitable per pupil spending.
Certainly, this study offers much information for the use of stakeholders and
policy makers within the Los Angeles Archdiocese and its Department of Catholic
Schools; with possible implications for other dioceses with similar concerns across the
nation. Additionally, public school finance researchers may gain further insight relating
to complex school finance issues from the conclusions drawn in regard to equity from
this study.
Statement of the Problem
Public school finance models and policy have benefited from decades of
research that address the challenges associated with funding education. Similar
challenges exist in the parochial Catholic systems. The school finance model created by
former a former Superintendent of Catholic Schools for the Archdiocese has three
components: the categorization of parochial schools into financial levels, an income
model of suggested percentages of revenues collected by level school, and an expense
model of suggested dollars to be expended by school size. The Archdiocesan model for
financing parochial elementary schools has not been thoroughly analyzed from a
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
statistical viewpoint using pre- and post-model figures; thus, we do not know if the
model is equitable.
The first component, the categorization of parochial schools, is based on 1990
demographic census data. Using federal income poverty guidelines, whereby in the
Archdiocese each parish’s median family income was determined, each parish’s school
was ranked from the wealthiest, level one schools, to the poorest, level ten schools.
There are varying numbers of students within each financial level, ranging from just
over 1,000 students at level ten to over 15,000 students at level 4. Correspondingly,
there are a varying number of schools in each level from a mere 5 schools in level 10 to
47 schools in level 4. See Table 1.4. Data from the 1999-2000 school year show the
ranking of 218 parish elementary schools in level 1 (wealthiest) through level 10
(poorest); these levels are consistent with the amount of assistance that comes from
parish and Archdiocesan financial aide. According to the financial model, the
Archdiocese subsidizes from 7% to 40% of the income for the three poorest levels
(levels 8, 9, and 10).
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
10
Table 1.4: Archdiocese of Los Angeles. Number of Schools and Number of
Students per Financial Level, Ranked from Wealthiest to Poorest Parishes
Level Number of
Schools
Number of
Students
Wealthiest parishes 1 12 3,625
2 9 3,021
3 30 9,334
4 47 15,163
5 27 8,452
6 30 10,006
7 17 5,254
8* 22 6,315
9*
19 5,291
Poorest parishes 10* 5 1254
Summary 10 Levels 218 67,715
*Schools that receive Archdiocesan subsidy o f 7%, 24%, and 40% o, respectively.
Source: Total Financial Analysis: 1999-2000 (2/15/00), KRD.
The second component, the income model for the Archdiocesan parish elementary
schools, includes four areas in which schools receive income: tuition (including
scholarship aide) and fees, fundraising, parish support, and archdiocesan support. For
the wealthiest level 1 and 2 schools, through the median income and less levels 5, 6 and
7 schools, the financial income model is the same: tuition and fees are to account for
75% of the total school income and fundraising 20% of the total annual school income;
the remaining 5% of income is to come from a parish subsidy. Levels 1-7 schools do
not receive any archdiocesan subsidy. See Table 1.5.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
11
Table 1.5: Archdiocese of Los Angeles. Parochial Elementary Schools,
Financial Model Income Percentages by Levels 1-7. 8, 9, and 10_____
Level Tuition
and Fees
Fundraising Parish
Subsidy
Archdiocesan
Subsidy
1-7 75% 20% 5% 0%
8 76% 14% 3% 7%
9 60% 14% 2% 24%
10 47% 12% 1% 40%
Source: Archdiocesan Elementary Schools, Budget Considerations,
2000.
Thus, in the model, levels one through seven parish schools are completely self-
sufficient. Although some schools may receive the 5% subsidy from their parish
church, in reality, many of these schools do not receive a subsidy from their parish
leaving the school itself responsible for generating the remaining 5%. As well, some
schools receive services from the parish that are not accounted for in annual budget.
For example, the parish may pay utilities for the entire parish, which includes the school
campus or the parish may have a full-time custodian who also works in the school
buildings and on school grounds.
Like the level 1-7 schools in the financial model, level 8, 9, and 10 schools are
also responsible for a percentage of their tuition, fees, and fundraising; however, these
numbers are significantly different. The Archdiocesan subsidy, essentially a flat grant
of equalizing revenue for level 8, 9, and 10 schools, at 7%, 24%, and 40% respectively,
is procured by the Archdiocese. The funding to support these schools come through
organizations and programs including, but not limited to: the Catholic Education
Foundation and Together in Mission annual giving program. Additionally, under
federal guidelines, every eligible school within the Archdiocese is entitled to receive
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
12
federal title money to supplement their educational program; many of the level 9 and 10
school families qualify for the free and reduced lunch program.
Significance of Problem
Notions of school finance in public education have evolved significantly over
the past forty years expanding the consciousness, research, debate, litigation, and
reform of public school financing. Public school systems have been addressing the
problems associated with school finance and equity, including issues such as how to
assess equity and how to create formulas or resource allocation models that are fair to
all students, in all schools, across districts, and within a state. While questions of
equity in education finance have focused primarily on traditional public school systems,
the introduction of vouchers in the school funding mix and openings of alternative
public schools, including charter schools and Edison Project schools, throughout the
1990’s and through the present, extend the question of fairness into the alternative
public schools sector. Funding models in higher education also increase, dimensionally,
the insight and discussion regarding equity in school finance. With multiple public,
alternative, higher education, and private school finance models in existence and the
fundamental principle of equity inherent in school finance, extending the body of
research to include the funding model of the Archdiocese of Los Angeles is appropriate
and relevant.
According to Odden and Picus, “.. .funding in general and the productivity of
the use of education dollars in particular are the issues that are leading school finance
policy deliberations today (2000).” The cause for addressing these problems or issues
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
13
in the public sector is similar to why they should be addressed it the parochial sector. It
is the fundamental interest in equity that has driven the research and litigation in
providing all schools with a thorough and efficient system in which to provide an
adequate education for all school children. There is every reason to accept that the
questions associated with public, alternative, and private school finance equity, pertain
to the parochial school finance as well.
Purpose
This study has a three-fold purpose. First, to add to the existing body of school
finance equity research, thereby extending the breadth of research in equity in school
finance research to include the parochial sector. Second, to utilize an equity analysis
framework, including equity principles and statistics traditionally applied in public
school finance frameworks, that will meet the unique factors of parochial school
finance. Three, to provide the Archdiocese of Los Angeles with an equity statistical
analysis for effectual policy and decision making tool for future policy, planning,
organization, and administration in school finance.
Research Questions
The research questions for this study are similar to the basic research questions defined
in public school finance research:
1. Are the individual parochial Catholic elementary schools in the Archdiocese of Los
Angeles meeting the prescribed income percentages delineated in the Financial
Model for Elementary Schools?
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
14
2. How do we assess the equity of the financial model of the parochial Catholic
elementary schools in the Archdiocese of Los Angeles?
3. When we do assess equity, how does it compare to models set in alternate education
finance sectors?
4. What are the policy implications for the Los Angeles Archdiocese in setting a model
for allocating school resources.
Research Design and Procedures
Participants and Research Setting
The participants in this study are the parochial Catholic elementary schools,
including pupil counts, of the Los Angeles Archdiocese of California. Archdiocesan
parochial high schools are not considered in this study because the Financial Model
only pertains to parochial elementary schools. Based on 1999-2000 Archdiocesan
census summary information, these schools have a student population of more than
67,000. The research setting is the Los Angeles Archdiocese, which stretches as far
south as the Los Angeles County-Orange County border, to as far north as Santa
Barbara County, and as far east as the Los Angeles County-Kem County border.
Research Design and Instruments
The research design this study utilizes is the school finance equity framework
outlined by Odden and Picus (2000) in their text School Finance: A Policy Perspective.
This framework includes four factors: group, objects, principles, and statistics. For this
study, the group is the pupil counts of the elementary schools of the Archdiocese of Los
Angeles and the objects are the fiscal inputs including total revenue and total
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
15
expenditures. The principles of the equity framework include those traditional school
finance research notions of horizontal equity and fiscal (or wealth) neutrality. The
statistics employed within the scope of horizontal equity include: range, restricted
range, federal range ration, coefficient of variation, Gini coefficient, McLoone index,
and Verstegen index; the statistics employed within the scope of fiscal neutrality
include: correlation coefficient and elasticity.
The bulk o f data collected, entered, coded, sorted, analyzed, synthesized and
concluded upon comes from the Archdiocese Department of Catholic Schools Finance
Director for Elementary Schools. The data necessary for this study are the annual
financial model summaries from the 1991-1992 school year through the 1999-2000
school year and are provided by the Department of Catholic Schools of the Archdiocese
of Los Angeles. All data is recorded on a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet.
The statistics are calculated using two tools: Microsoft Excel software functions
and the School Finance Simulation available on-line at
http://www.mhhe.com/schoolfinance. Using the Microsoft Excel software, the simplest
statistics, such as sum and average, are calculated. The more difficult statistics are
computed using the School Finance Simulation developed by Odden and Picus; the
simulation is outlined in their text School Finance: A Policy Perspective. The
simulation, created for the application to public school district data, is slightly modified
to accommodate the unique parochial school finance characteristics.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
16
This study uses one collection of quantitative data. The data includes annual
financial information for 180 parochial elementary schools in the Archdiocese of Los
Angeles for seven of the nine years 1991 through 2000.
The procedure for this study is as follows:
1. Collect data. This includes: obtaining the financial model summaries from the
1991- 1992 school year through the 1999-2000 school year from the Department of
Catholic Schools.
2. Input and code data. This includes: recording all the financial model summaries
into a computer using Microsoft Excel database software and removing school years
and individual schools which, across the nine-year period, have incomplete data.
3. Sort data. This includes: organizing the data according to the needs prescribed by
the equity framework and school finance simulation.
4. Insert the data into the school finance simulation. This includes: using a revised
school finance simulation developed by Picus and Abelein and outlined in the
School Finance Equity Framework created by Odden and Picus, applying formulas
to the appropriate variables for statistical calculation. The concepts and statistics
include: Horizontal Equity - range, restricted range, federal range ration, coefficient
of variation, Gini coefficient, McLoone index, Verstegen index and Fiscal
Neutrality - correlation coefficient and elasticity.
5. Analysis, Synthesis and Conclusion: This includes: analyzing the results of the a
simulation, synthesizing the body of outcomes, and concluding upon the equity of
the financial model in regard to the posed research questions.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
17
Assumptions
1. This study assumes all financial data provided by the Archdiocese of Los Angeles,
Department of Catholic Elementary Schools is complete and accurate.
2. This study assumes creating equitable resource collection and distribution formulas
and models for school finance in the parochial school sector is as valuable as such
formulas and models created in the public sector. Further, students’ rights to a
thorough and efficient education is applicable regardless of whether they attend
public or parochial school; thus, all schools deserve and equitable collection of
resources and all students deserve an equitable distribution of financial resources.
3. This study assumes that equity is a political concept and as such, connotations of
equity vary by stakeholder, researcher, and policy maker. Thus, although this study
seeks to determine the equity of the Archdiocesan financial model in theory and
practice, there may be alternate interpretations of equity by Archdiocesan
stakeholders.
Limitations
The data utilized in this study have two limitations. First, over the nine-year
period from 1991-2000, the 1997-1998 Total Financial Actuals Summary is
significantly incomplete; it includes data for the poorer level eight, nine, and ten
schools, only. The 1994-1995 Total Financial Actuals Summary is also significantly
incomplete; an entire page is missing from the hard copy of the report and the original is
unattainable. Therefore, this study will examine seven annual financial actuals reports
over a nine-year period. Second, of the 218 parochial schools currently operating in the
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
18
Archdiocese of Los Angeles, this study includes only 180 schools, representing 83% of
the parochial elementary schools. Thirty-eight schools were removed due to various
incomplete sets of data across the nine-year period of annual financial model
summaries. The remaining 180 schools are entirely complete and uniform in the
specific types of data for the seven years of annual Total Financial Actuals Summaries.
Scope and Delimitations
Scope
This study considers the financial resources collected and distributed among 180
parochial elementary schools in ten financial levels in the Archdiocese of Los Angeles,
California. This study includes financial data from 1991 though 2000, excluding the
1994-1995 and 1997-1998 school years.
Delimitations
This study limits the number of comparisons of the Archdiocesan financial
model to include only: the traditional public school finance model, market models of
school finance, particularly entrepreneurial education, and higher education finance
models.
Definition of Terms
Archdiocese of Los Angeles. Department of Schools (Elementary) - educational
organization including parochial and private elementary schools grouped within five
geographical regions, serving an ethnically diverse population of students.
Archdiocese of Los Angeles. Financial Model for Elementary Schools - refers to the
three-part financial model for the Archdiocese of Los Angeles; including: the financial
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
model levels one through ten, the income model of percentage amounts of: tuition,
fundraising, parish subsidy and archdiocesan subsidy, and the expense model.
Coefficient of Variation - in statistics, the standard deviation divided by the mean; the
value ranges from 0 to 1.0, with 0 indicating an equal distribution and is equitable if the
coefficient of variation is less than 0.1 (Odden and Picus, 2000).
Correlation Coefficient - in statistics, indicates the direction and degree of the
relationship between two variables between +1.0 and -1.0 (Odden and Picus, 2000).
Education Foundation - philanthropic organization which, in collaboration with the
Archdiocese of Los Angeles, provides scholarships for poorer children who attend
Catholic schools; elementary school students whose family meet the financial
guidelines and application process prescribed by the foundation are eligible for a tuition
subsidy paid directly to the school.
Elasticity - in statistics, the ratio of percent increase in one variable to the percent
increase in another variable; the value ranges from 0 to a number above that and may
exceed 1.0 - numbers greater than or equal to 1.0 indicate an elastic relationship (Odden
and Picus, 2000).
Expenditure T Imformitv - part of horizontal equity in school finance requiring equal
expenditures per pupil or per weighted pupil for all students in the state (Odden and
Picus, 2000).
Equalization Formula Aid - financial assistance given by higher-level government - the
state - to a lower-level government - school districts - to equalize the fiscal situation of
the lower-level government (Odden and Picus, 2000). In this study, this term may be
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
20
applied similarly as financial assistance given by the archdiocese to level 8, 9, and 10
schools to equalize the fiscal situation.
Equity - in regard to school finance, a concept relating to fairness or justice in the
collection and distribution of resources
Fees - in the parochial school sector, additional monies charged by a school per student
and/or per family for a service rendered or object provided.
Fiscal Capacity - the ability of a local governmental entity, such as a school district to
raise tax revenues; it is usually measured by the size of the local tax base, usually by
property wealth per pupil in education (Odden and Picus, 2000). In this study, this term
may be applied similarly as the ability of a parochial school to raise tuition, fees, and
fundraising revenue.
Foundation Program - a state equalization aid program that typically guarantees a
certain foundation level of expenditure for each student, together with a minimum tax
rate that each school district must levy for education purposes (Odden and Picus, 2000).
In this study, this term may be applied similarly in two ways: 1. The archdiocese
provides additional funding via the Education Foundation which provides an $800.00
tuition subsidy per qualified student; 2. The archdiocese levies an archdiocesan-wide
“assessment” (see Together in Mission Program) - a percentage-based sum of money
that must be raised per parish and turned over to the archdiocese to be used, in part, to
provide a subsidy to financially poorer schools in the archdiocese.
Fundraising - variety of activities conducted by a parochial school or parish in order to
earn additional revenue.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
21
Gini Coefficient - in statistics, the area of a graph between the Gini curve and 45-
degree angle line divided by the area under the 45-degree angle line; the value ranges
from 0 to 1.0 with an value close to 0 suggesting equity - in school finance research
values are usually greater than 0.6 (Odden and Picus, 2000).
Guaranteed Tax Base - a state equalization aid program that “equalizes” the ability of
each school district to raise dollars for education; equal tax rates produce equal per
pupil expenditures and, if necessary, the state makes up the difference in property-poor
districts, and may or may not recoup excess funds for redistribution among property-
poor districts (Odden and Picus, 2000). In this study, this term may be applied similarly
if the archdiocese were to set a standard cost of education per pupil, equal “tax” rates
are similar to equal tuition and fees rates respective of a parishes wealth (see Median
Family Income), with wealthier parishes able to collect tuition and fees above this
standard cost could be turned over to the archdiocese for redistribution among poorer
parishes.
Horizontal Equity - in school finance research, a standard in equity analysis requiring
all students receive an equal share of resources; the “equal treatment of equals”;
includes the statistics: range, restricted range, federal range ratio, coefficient of
variation, Gini coefficient, McLoone index, and Verstegen index (Odden and Picus,
2000).
Income - in the parochial school sector, those funds received from: tuition and fees,
fundraising and development, parish subsidy, and archdiocesan subsidy.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
McLoone Index - in statistics, the ratio of the sum of all observations below the median
(50th percentile) to the sum if all observations had the value of the median; the statistic
opposite of the Verstegen Index; the value ranges from 0 to 1 with 1 indicating perfect
equality - in school finance research values are often between .7 and .95, with .9
desirable (Odden and Picus, 2000).
Median Family Income - the income of all families in a school district rank ordered and
then the median family income would be the amount located midway between the
lowest- and the highest-income families (Odden and Picus, 2000). In this study, this
term may be applied similarly that if the income of all the families in a parish were rank
ordered then the median family income amount would be located midway between the
lowest-income and the highest-income families.
Parish - one part of the archdiocese having its own Roman Catholic church .
Parishioners - the members of a parish; a religious community attending one church.
Parochial School - an educational institution that is aligned with a particular church and
parish.
Private School - an educational institution that is supported by private individuals or a
corporation rather than by a government or public agency.
Pupil Weighted System - a state-aid system in which pupils are given different weights
based on the estimated or assumed costs of their education program; aid is allocated on
the basis of the total number of weighted students (Odden and Picus, 2000). In this
study, this term may be applied similarly for students in the archdiocese.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
23
Revenue Gap - when projected expenditures exceed projected tax revenues (Odden and
Picus, 2000). In this study, this term may be applied similarly when projected
expenditures exceed projected tuition, fees, fundraising, and subsidy revenues.
School Finance - a. the distribution and use of money for the purpose of providing
educational services and producing student achievement (Odden and Picus, 2000); b.
the interrelated issues of raising, distributing, allocating, and using revenues for the
purpose of educating children (Odden and Picus, 2000).
School Finance System - a set of formulas and rules for using publicly collected
revenues to pay for K-12 education (Berne and Stiefel, 1999). In this study, this term
may be applied similarly as a set of formulas and rules (see Financial Model) for using
tuition, fees, fundraising, and subsidies to pay for parochial elementary education.
Subsidy - additional funding from one and/or two sources: the local parish and/or the
Archdiocese of Los Angeles.
Together in Mission Program - a mandatory annual fundraising campaign of the
Archdiocese of Los Angeles in which all the parishes of the archdiocese must
individually raise a minimum additional 10% of the parish’s reported annual offertory
income. These funds turned over to the Archdiocese, which are then allocated to
parishes and parish schools to assist in covering operating expenses, as well as to meet
emergency maintenance and construction needs in the subsidized parishes and parish
schools (O’Connor, 2001).
Tuition - the dollar amount charged for the education per child or per family.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Verstegen Index - in statistics, the ratio of the sum of all observations above the median
(50th percentile) to the sum if all observations had the value of the median; the statistic
opposite of the McLoone Index; the value ranges from 1 and higher with 1 indicating
perfect equality - in school finance research values are often between 1.2 and 1.5
(Odden and Picus, 2000).
Wealth Neutrality - in school finance research, a court-defined principle in school
finance meaning that differences in expenditures per pupil cannot be related to local
school district wealth (Odden and Picus, 2000). In this study, this term may be applied
similarly meaning that differences in expenditures per pupil cannot be related to local
parish wealth.
Organization of the Study
The remainder of this study continues in the following manner: Chapter II
reviews literature related to the the Archdiocese of Los Angeles, parochial school
finance models, traditional school finance models, entrepreneurial school finance
models, and higher education finance models; Chapter III details the research
methodology used in this study; Chapter IV discusses of the outcomes of this study; and
Chapter V submits a summary, with conclusions and recommendations.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
25
CHAPTER II - REVIEW OF LITERATURE
This review of literature focuses on two areas: the Archdiocese of Los Angeles
and comparative school finance models. Specifically, this chapter reviews: a brief
history of the Archdiocese of Los Angeles, Canon Law and the policy making authority
associated with parochial school finance, Catholic social teachings which have the
potential to impact policy making, and a description of the current financial model used
by the Archdiocese. This chapter also reviews: school finance models that may be used
in comparison with, and to offer possible direction, the parochial school finance model,
including: traditional school finance, entrepreneurial school finance, and higher
education finance models.
The Archdiocese of Los Angeles
History
Catholic schools are part of the elementary, secondary, and higher education
landscape in America. Nearly 1,500 Catholic elementary schools were established in
America by 1875 (Grant and Hunt, 1992), with a dramatic increase taking place just
after 1884. In 1884, the Roman Catholic Bishops of the United States gathered in
Baltimore in a Plenary Council, and in this historic meeting, the Bishops agreed that
every parish in America should try to build a parochial school within two years of the
Plenary Council's closing (http://libraries.cua.edu/archives/newcent/plenary.htm). What
followed was a rapid outgrowth of parish elementary and secondary schools. By the
1960’s, enrollment in Catholic schools in America peaked at 5.3 million students, out of
a total school-age population of 44 million (Doyle, 1996). This was a tremendous
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
26
growth in the number of Catholic schools, and parishes and dioceses across the nation
labored to become sound organizations to support and lead them.
The roots of the Los Angeles Archdiocese begin in 1840 with a Franciscan Friar
named Francisco Garcia Diego y Moreno who became the first Bishop of the Diocese of
the “Califomias,” responsible for a territory that reached to the Colorado River to the
east, the Pacific Ocean to the west, the Oregon border to the north, and Baja California
to the south (Weber, 2001). The diocese was renamed in 1849 as the Diocese of
Monterey, and in 1859, the Los Angeles area was incorporated with the northern coast
Monterey diocese for a total of 90,000 square miles of coverage (Weber, 2001). In
1922, Los Angeles split with the Monterey diocese, still including Orange and San
Diego counties, stretching to the Mexican border (Weber, 2001). In 1936, the separate
dioceses of San Diego and Los Angeles were created, and on July 11, 1936, the
Archdiocese of Los Angeles was established, with Archbishop Cantwell as Ordinary of
the Los Angeles Archdiocese (Weber, 2001).
Following Archbishop Cantwell’s death in 1947, Archbishop J. Francis
McIntyre was appointed to head the Archdiocese of Los Angeles; and in 1952, Pope
Pius XII elevated him to the rank of Cardinal - the first in the western United States
(Weber, 2001). During his time as head of the Archdiocese, Cardinal McIntyre led the
extensive growth of the diocese: eighty-two additional parishes and two-hundred-six
schools were built. This is a staggering figure, equaling approximately one new school
per month, for fifteen years (Weber, 2001). Following Cardinal McIntyre’s tenure as
leader of the Archdiocese, Archbishop Manning became the third Archbishop of Los
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
27
Angeles in 1970. After his resignation in 1985, Los Angeles native and, then
Archbishop, Roger Mahoney, was appointed head of the Archdiocese (Weber, 2001).
In 1986, Archbishop Mahoney divided the three-county wide - Los Angeles,
Santa Barbara, Ventura - expansive Archdiocese into five smaller and more manageable
Pastoral Regions: Santa Barbara, San Fernando, San Gabriel, Our Lady of the Angels,
and San Pedro (Weber, 2001). Within each Region are the following number of
parochial elementary schools: Santa Barbara - eighteen; San Fernando - forty-two; San
Gabriel - fifty-one; Our Lady of the Angels - fifty-four; and San Pedro - fifty-three
(Archdiocese of Los Angeles, 2000). According to the 1999-2000 Archdiocese of Los
Angeles census summary, there were just over 67,000 students enrolled in 218 parish
elementary schools, of those, 92.35% were Catholic. The combined elementary and
secondary enrollment in private and parochial Catholic schools in the Los Angeles
Archdiocese of just over 100,000 students making it the fourth largest diocese of
Catholic schools in America (McDonald, 2000).
Canon Law and Policymaking Authority
The office of the superintendent for the Los Angeles Archdiocesan elementary
and secondary schools was established in 1920 (History of the Schools in the
Archdiocese of Los Angeles). In 1987, after the reorganization of the Archdiocese into
five Regions, then Archbishop Mahoney combined the duty of Superintendent to
include both the elementary and secondary schools; and in that year, Monsignor Aidan
M. Carroll was named the first Superintendent of this new office (History of the
Schools in the Archdiocese of Los Angeles). In 1991, Dr. Jerome Porath succeeded
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
28
Monsignor Carroll to become the first layperson as superintendent; and, it was under his
direction and leadership that the first financial model for the elementary schools was
created and implemented.
Due to the Code of Canon Law, the financial model for elementary schools only
has policy implications if it is chosen to be utilized by the individual elementary schools
in the archdiocese. Within the Code of Canon Law, the regulations of the Roman
Catholic Church, each parish pastor is designated as the chief administrator of his parish,
“A parish is a certain community of Christ's faithful stably established within a particular
Church, whose pastoral care, under the authority of the diocesan Bishop, is entrusted to a
parish priest as its proper pastor (Can. 515 §1).” Further, “under the pastor, all
governance of the parish is conducted under the guidelines provided by the Archdiocese
(Damisch, 2001).” “The pastor, as chief administrator of the school, can choose to
administer the school himself or to delegate the authority to administer the school to the
principal, who is hired by him and directly reports to him (Damisch, 2001).” Hence, the
pastor of the parish is the leader of that parish, including the school; the principal,
although head of the school, remains under the authority of the pastor. Yet,
the diocesan Bishop has the right to watch over and inspect the
catholic schools situated in his territory, even those established or
directed by members of religious institutes. He has also the right
to issue directives concerning the general regulation of catholic
schools these directives apply also to schools conducted by
members of a religious institute, although they retain their
autonomy in the internal management of the schools (Can. 806
§ 1).
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Therefore, according to Canon Law, only the Bishop can issue a directive
concerning the general regulation, although the internal management is left to the pastor
and principal. Thus, policymaking authority for parochial elementary schools rest in the
hands of two stakeholders, the local bishop and the parish pastor. Should either choose
to cause a school or schools to implement a particular policy, the parish school would
be obligated, under Canon Law, to do so. The organization and authority may be
described as such: the Los Angeles Archdiocese, which is a Corporation Sole, includes
218 somewhat-autonomous parish elementary schools which are financially and legally
accountable to the larger Corporation Sole (Damisch, 2001).
That is not to say that there is no accountability between individual schools and
the Department of Catholic Schools, see Figure 2.1. Each of the five Regions has one
or more Supervisors who are linked to the individual schools within that Region, with
each school principal working in a collaborative relationship with their Supervisor.
Further, the department offers support and direction for principals in areas of mission,
curriculum, budget, personnel matters, teacher training, and professional development.
Although there is a collaborative relationship between principals and the department,
the certainty remains that as individual schools under the supervision of the parish
pastor, the individual schools are not obligated to agree to or follow guidelines
published by the Archdiocese and Department of Catholic Schools. Thus, the current
financial model implemented during the 1996-1997 school year is the suggested, not
mandated, financial model for individual parish elementary schools.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
30
Figure 2.1. Archdiocese of Los Angeles. Education Policymaking Governance Structure
Pastor
School Personnel
Principal
School Personnel
Principal
Sr. Cecilia Louise Moore, CSJ
Chancellor
Roger M. Mahoney
Cardinal
Msgr. Terrance Fleming
Moderator of the Curia
Vicar General
Sr. Bernadette Murphy, SSL
Secretariat Director for
Educational & Formational Services
Father Albert J. DiUlio, SJ
President
Department of Catholic Schools
Sr. Mary Elizabeth Galt, BVM
Superintendent
Elementary Schools
Regional Supervisors
Nancy Coonis
Superintendent
Secondary Schools
Regional Supervisors
Direct Accountability
................. Indirect Accountability
Source: Adapted by Researcher, 2001. Archdiocese o f Los Angeles, Department o f
Catholic Schools [Governance Structure]. Los Angeles Archdiocese, Department o f
Catholic Schools. June, 1997.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
31
Catholic Social Teachings
With the potential to considerably impact decision making regarding parochial
school finance, are the seven principles from the last century of Catholic social teaching
documents including papal statements, Vatican II writings, and Conferences of Bishops
documents. Catholic social teachings are, “the body of thought and work from the
Catholic Church that addresses the social situations we face in our ever-changing world
(CRS Glossary).” Those seven principles are: the dignity of the human person, the
community and the common good, rights and responsibilities, option for the poor,
dignity of work, solidarity, and care for God’s creation. The U.S. Bishops, in a 1998
statement speak to the importance of the Catholic social teachings, “we call for a
renewed commitment to integrate Catholic social teaching into the mainstream of all
Catholic educational institutions and programs (1998).” These calls for commitment
includes all the stakeholders within the Archdiocese of Los Angeles that guide and
make policy for parochial elementary schools.
Of the seven teachings, five are of particular note considering the notions of
equity or, “justice” as is the term often used by the Catholic church, in options for
school finance models for parochial elementary schools; they are: the dignity of the
human person, the community and the common good, rights and responsibilities, option
for the poor, and solidarity. According to the organization, Catholic Relief Services,
“these messages [Catholic social teachings] are not only Church doctrine, but also
provide individuals with a framework for action.” As a framework for action,
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
32
policymakers in the Archdiocese are called to consider these Catholic social teachings
in their decision-making process regarding parochial school finance.
One Catholic social teaching, the call for dignity of the human person, means all
people are made in the image of God, and therefore, all people have dignity.
Correspondingly, “all people are sacred, made in the image and likeness of God. People
do not lose dignity because of disability, poverty, age, lack of success, or race. This
emphasizes people over things, being over having (Office for Social Justice).” In a
1986 U.S. Bishops’ pastoral letter, the bishops wrote, “Every perspective on economic
life that is human, moral, and Christian must be shaped by three questions: What does
the economy do for people? What does it do to people? And how do people participate
in it?” This social teaching, and particularly this statement by the Bishops, has the
potential to impact school finance policymaking decisions. The questions indicated by
the bishops in their 1998 letter are a powerful guide and challenge in the formation of a
fair and just financial model, due to the fact that there is significant socioeconomic
disparity across the Archdiocesan schools.
A second Catholic social teaching, the call for community and the common
good, means all people have a common bond and as such, are called to respect and
serve one another. Correspondingly, “the human person is both sacred and social. We
realize our dignity and rights in relationship with others, in community. ‘We are one
body; when one suffers, we all suffer.’ (Office for Social Justice).” This social teaching
has the potential to impact and challenge school finance policymaking decisions
because, while the relative autonomy of a parish school is reserved according to Canon
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Law, as an Archdiocesan community, none may suffer and all members must serve one
another. The significance of this social teaching and challenge to achieve financial
equity by policymakers may be best relayed in the 1986 pastoral letter in which the
U.S. Bishops state, “We cannot separate what we believe from how we act in the
marketplace and the broader community, for this is where we make our primary
contribution to the pursuit of economic justice.”
A third Catholic social teaching, the call for rights and responsibilities, means all
people have fundamental rights and corresponding responsibilities to one another.
Accordingly, people have a fundamental right to life, food, shelter, health care,
education and employment. All people have a right to participate in decisions that affect
their lives. Corresponding to these rights are duties and responsibilities to respect the
rights of others in the wider society and to work for the common good (Office for Social
Justice).” This social teaching has the potential to effect school finance policy making
decisions because education is a fundamental right under this social teaching;
furthermore, all involved in education are responsible for ensuring fairness for the
common good. From the publication Peace on Earth the bishops state, “Individual
citizens and intermediate groups are obliged to make their specific contributions to the
common welfare.. .and must contribute their goods and their services as civil authorities
have prescribed, in accord with the norms of justice within the limits of their
competence.” Thus, this social teaching calls upon the Archdiocese to acknowledge the
right to education for all students in our schools and the responsibility to meet all their
needs with justice for all.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
34
A fourth Catholic social teaching, the call for option for the poor, means all
people have a moral obligation to protect and defend the impoverished of our society.
Correspondingly, “the moral test of a society is how it treats its most vulnerable
members. We are called to look at public policy decisions in terms of how they affect
the poor (Office for Social Justice).” This social teaching has the potential to effect
school finance policy making decisions because within the Archdiocese are a number of
schools which serve the poorest of our Catholic community and meeting their financial
need seems a formidable task. Therein lies a great challenge: to create a financial
model that is equitable for all students of all socioeconomic levels, yet focuses on the
needs of the poor, “as followers of Christ, we are challenged to make fundamental
‘option for the poor’ to speak for the voiceless, to defend the defenseless, to assess
lifestyles, policies, and social institutions in terms of impact on the poor (United States
Bishops, 1986).”
A fifth Catholic social teaching, the call for solidarity, means all people have a
duty to work for justice for one another. Correspondingly, “we are one human family.
Our responsibilities to each other cross national, racial, economic and ideological
differences. We are called to work globally for justice. (Office for Social Justice).”
This social teaching has the potential to effect school finance policy making decisions
because it calls upon the Archdiocese to create a financial model that is acceptable in
accommodating the needs of all students who make up the human family of the
Archdiocese. Therein may be their greatest challenge in communicating, implementing,
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
35
and holding schools accountable, to the notion that, according to this social teaching, we
are economically responsible for one another.
Creating a financial model for the parochial school system that is equitable seeks
not only mathematical and statistical equity; it requires justice that is called for in the
doctrine of the Catholic Church. “Catholic social teaching does not maintain that a flat,
arithmetical equality of income and wealth is a demand of justice, but it does challenge
economic arrangements that leave large numbers of people impoverished (U.S. Bishops,
1986).” Maintaining the dignity of the individual, serving the community and the
common good, allowing people their rights and taking responsibility, meeting the
option for the poor, and creating solidarity are five tenets of Catholic social teachings
which have the potential to significantly impact the formation of an equitable and just
financial model for the parochial schools of the Archdiocese. “To satisfy the demands
of justice and equity, strenuous efforts must be made.. .to remove as quickly as possible
the immense economic inequalities.. .(Second Vatican Council, 1965).”
Financial Model for Parochial Elementary Schools
Shortly after his arrival at the Archdiocese, Superintendent Dr. Jerome Porath
published the report, Financing Catholic Schools. The report, completed in June 1992,
included the results of a collection of quantitative and qualitative data, in addition to a
discussion of the responses of a January 1992 meeting of approximately five hundred
pastors, principals, and other Catholic school leaders and supporters of the Archdiocese
of Los Angeles (Porath, 1992). Porath writes, “Assuring the future availability,
affordability and quality of a Catholic school education was an underlying theme for all
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
36
the activities that took place [at the meeting] (1992).” Furthermore, this meeting,
“presented an opportunity to launch a new beginning in the pursuit and establishment of
a stable, long-term and equitable funding base for all Catholic schools.” This 1992
launch was followed, nearly four years to the day, with the introduction and approval of
a new finance plan for parish elementary schools.
On January 31, 1996, Cardinal Roger Mahoney and the Commission on Catholic
Schools adopted this financial plan of action for financing parish elementary schools in
the Los Angeles Archdiocese (Porath, 1996). The financial plan is the product of five
years of strategic planning that included several stakeholders: Archdiocesan priests and
principals, the Pastors Advisory Council on Education, the Catholic School Board, the
ad hoc committee on school finance for the Archdiocese, the Commission on Catholic
Schools, regional Bishops, the Secretariat Director, and the Chief Financial Officer of
the Archdiocese (Porath, 1996).
The first part of the plan is the elementary schools financial level rankings. The
model was created using 1990 United States census data, taking into account the
demographics within set, digitized boundaries to rank parishes and their schools by
wealth, one through ten. At that time, the median income for Los Angeles County was
$42,000.00; and is where the model split into the upper half levels, one through five
having a median income of $42,000.00 or greater, and the lower half levels, six through
ten having a median income of less than $42,000.00; the levels were then indexed from
level one, the highest income parishes, to level ten, the lowest income parishes (Jordan,
2001). In regard to placement of some parishes at levels, “adjustments were made
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
37
where there was evidence that the census either overestimated or underestimated the
income of the parish family most likely to be served (Porath, 1996).” As of the 1999-
2000 school year, the following number of schools remained at each level, see Table
2 . 1.
Table 2.1. Archdiocese of Los Angeles. Number of Parochial Elementary Schools
Per Financial Model Level 1999-2000 School Year. Range is According to Median
Level: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Schools: 12 9 30 47 27 30 17 22 19 5
Source: Adapted by researcher with permission o f the author, 2001. Elementary
School Model Analysis: Total Financial Actuals fo r 1999-2000. Los Angeles
Archdiocese, Department o f Catholic Schools, 2000.
The second part of the financial plan is the income model, which sets different
percentages of types of income for the different levels of schools. According to the
financial model, revenue for levels one through seven can come from three areas:
tuition and fees, fundraising, and the parish subsidy. Additionally, level eight, nine, and
ten schools have a supplementary source of income from the Archdiocese, “schools in
the poorest areas will receive help, but they still have to raise a certain part of the cost
(Porath, 1996),” see Table 2.2.
Table 2.2: Archdiocese of Los Angeles. Parochial Elementary
Level Tuition Fundraising Parish
Subsidy
Archdiocesan
Subsidy
1-7 75% 20% 5% 0%
8 76% 14% 3% 7%
9 60% 14% 2% 24%
10 47% 12% 1% 40%
Source: Archdiocesan Elementary Schools, Budget Considerations,
2000.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
38
In the financial model, tuition and fees account for the majority of income: 75%
for levels one through seven, 76% for level eight, 60% for level nine, and 47% for level
ten. “Under this new model, schools are encouraged to set their tuition closer to their
actual cost; this means that families with larger incomes will pay more and those with
lower income will need tuition assistance (Porath, 1996).”
The expected percentage of income is not determined by the income of
the families in the parish or by the census report of median family
income for the area. The expected percentage of income, rather, is
determined by an analysis of how much revenue parish schools in each
level are already able to generate. The assumption is made that if some
of the schools in this income level are able to raise this sum of money,
then other schools in the same economic condition should also be able to
do so (Porath, 1996).
Revenue: Tuition
Tuition and fees make up the largest percentage of income and represents the
most expensive part of a student’s education. Tuition is set individually by the pastor
and/or principal of each parish elementary school. Level ten schools charge less tuition
than level one schools, and the rate increases as the ability to pay increases, see Table
2.3.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
39
Table 2.3: Archdiocese of Los Angeles, Parochial
Elementary Schools Average Net Tuition Per Pupil bv
Financial Level. 1999-2000 School Year
Level Net Tuition Per Pupil
1 $2,570.00
2 $2,124.00
3 $2,011.00
4 $1,790.00
5 $1,737.00
6 $1,572.00
7 $1,580.00
8 $1,278.00
9 $946.00
10 $790.00
Source: Adapted by researcher with permission o f the
author. Elementary School Model Analysis: Total
Financial Actuals fo r 1999-2000, ” Los Angeles
Archdiocese Department o f Catholic Schools, 2000.
To aid those families, at any of the financial levels, unable to make the full
tuition payment, financial assistance is available from two sources: the Catholic
Education Foundation and the Children’s Scholarship Fund. Cardinal Mahoney
founded the Catholic Education Foundation in 1988 with the purpose of providing
access to a Catholic education for children and their families who can least afford it
(Ralston and Langer, 2000). The mission of the Foundation is, “to support and enhance
excellence in Catholic schools and to make schools within the Archdiocese as
affordable as possible. The Foundation will seek creative ways to ensure that the poor
and disadvantaged are served by our schools (Catholic Education Foundation).”
In its first year the Foundation provided tuition support to 740 students,
allocating a total $500,000.00; ten years later, for the 1999-2000 school year, the
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Catholic Education Foundation awarded $4,125 million in tuition assistance to more
than 4,250 elementary and secondary school students (Dream, 1999). Through the
2000-2001 school year scholarship amounts are $800.00 per elementary student, and
$1,500.00 per high school student (Dream, 1999). This amount offsets the net cost of
tuition for parents; for example, if a level ten school parent is awarded the $800.00
scholarship, on average this covers the complete cost of the tuition; whereas, if a level
five student receives the scholarship, the family must pay the difference, which is an
average, of $937.00. To receive this tuition assistance, school families must meet
certain financial eligibility guidelines. In addition to meeting the minimum income
scale, parents or guardians must fill out an application form and attach their recent W-2
and their previous year’s income tax return; then, the pastor and/or principal must verify
household size and income and complete a recommendation form per family, and last
the principal must rank each applicant in order of most need to least need.
The applications are then bundled with the rank listing and recommendations
and mailed to the Catholic Education Foundation. A committee from the Foundation
then reads each application packet and makes the final decision as to which applicants
will receive the tuition assistance scholarship. In the 1999-2000 school year, the
Catholic Education Foundation awarded over $2.6 million to 85% of the elementary
schools in the Archdiocese, see Table 2.4.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
41
Table 2.4. Catholic Education Foundation Tuition Awards by Level. 1999-2000 Year
Level CEF Tuition
Award
Number of Schools
in that level
Percent of Schools
Receiving Aid
Percent of Total
Tuition Awards
1 $4,800.00 12 8% 0.18%
2 $17,200.00 9 67% 0.64%
3 $108,000.00 30 60% 4.03%
4 $303,800.00 47 85% 11.33%
5 $337,200.00 27 100% 12.57%
6 $508,600.00 30 100% 18.96%
7 $335,600.00 17 100% 12.51%
8 $490,400.00 22 100% 18.28%
9 $458,800.00 19 100% 17.10%
10 $118,000.00 5 100% 4.40%
Sum $2,682,400.00 218 100%
Source: Adapted by researcher with permission o f the author, 2001. Elementary
School Model Analysis: Total Financial Actuals fo r 1999-2000, Los Angeles
Archdiocese, Department o f Catholic Schools, 2000.
In addition to the tuition awards program, the Foundation also offers the Tuition
S.O.S. Assistance Program. Begun in response to the 1992 Los Angeles riots, the
foundation invested thousands of dollars in tuition assistance to save the inner city
Catholic schools. This is a special scholarship program that specifically targets inner-
city Los Angeles, at-risk students (Dream, 1999). The “Save Our Students” program
offered financial support in the amount of $1,000.00 for elementary students and $2,000
for high school students who were, “in grave risk of jeopardizing their futures due to
financial need or detrimental neighborhood and family influences (Dream, 1999).” As
of 2000, the S.O.S. program has since been eliminated.
The other source of tuition assistance, for all model levels of students, comes
from the Children’s Scholarship Fund. This nationwide, non-profit, philanthropic
organization was founded in 1998 by two private investors, Ted Forstmann and John
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
42
Walton (Maclnnes, 2000). Together, Forstmann and Walton contributed $100 million
and then sought matching partners from around the country, in order to provide
financial scholarships for “disadvantaged” families (Maclnnes, 2000). Each scholarship
recipient was selected at random by the Children’s Scholarship Fund, and once selected
has received either 25%, 50%, or 75% of private school tuition funding, for a total up to
$1,700.00 per year and per child (Maclnnes, 2000). In the Archdiocese of Los Angeles
elementary schools, 1,845 students in 140 schools from levels one through ten, benefit
from the Children’s Scholarship Fund tuition award; 64% of the Archdiocesan
elementary schools had students who received Fund assistance, see Table 2.5.
Table 2.5. Children’s Scholarship Fund Tuition Awards by Level, 1999-2000 Year
Level CSF Tuition Number of Schools Percent of Schools Percent of Total
Award in that level Receiving Aid Tuition Awards
1 $14,922.50 12 33% 0.88%
2 $11,954.00 9 44% 0.71%
3 $52,236.25 30 33% 3.09%
4 $108,545.75 47 43% 6.41%
5 $174,408.50 27 100% 10.31%
6 $406,925.44 30 77% 24.05%
7 $190,005.30 17 65% 11.23%
8 $270,359.80 22 77% 15.98%
9 $394,780.22 19 100% 23.33%
10 $66,387.00 5 100% 3.92%
Sum $1,692,225.26 218 100%
Source: Adapted by researcher with permission o f the author, 2001. Children’ s
Scholarship Fund Analysis: 1999-2000, Los Angeles Archdiocese, Department o f
Catholic Schools, 2000.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
43
Revenue: Fundraising
Fundraising accounts for twenty percent of the income for levels one through
seven schools, fourteen percent for levels eight and nine schools, and twelve percent for
level ten schools (Model Income Levels, 1996). Throughout the archdiocese, the
elementary schools use a variety of fundraisers to make up this percentage of income;
the most popular is the Scrip program. Scrip is a dollar for dollar program in which
families purchase paper or plastic gift certificates from a school and use those
certificates instead of cash for grocery, retail, restaurant, and gas purchases. Each
certificate sold earns a school a percentage of the full value, ranging from two to fifteen
percent. It is up to the individual school to determine whether or not Scrip is an
optional or mandatory fundraiser, and if so, the amount of Scrip purchased or the
amount earned. Other fundraisers may include, but are not limited to: bingo, raffles,
carnivals, candy sales, and magazine drives.
Revenue: Parish Subsidy
The parish subsidy accounts for five percent of the income for levels one
through seven schools, three percent for level eight schools, two percent for level nine
schools, and one percent for level ten schools (Model Income Levels, 1996). The parish
subsidy comes in many forms: it may be a check written to the schools general account;
it may be the payment of a school or shared, parish-school service; or it may be the
payment for a special need or capital project. It is of note however, that there are
schools in the diocese, which according to the model, are to receive a parish subsidy
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
44
and do not; that is the school is completely self-sufficient (Financial Model Actuals,
1990-2000).
Revenue: Archdiocesan Subsidy
The Archdiocesan subsidy is zero for levels one through seven schools; however
for levels eight, nine, and ten schools this subsidy represents a notable percentage of
their income. Prior to the model, the Archdiocese considered giving financial assistance
to any school that requested it; the majority of those were the poorest in the diocese, but
not always (Porath, 1996). The financial model accounts for monetary support by
identifying the parish schools that are eligible for assistance; that is, level one through
seven parish schools must be self-sufficient, whereas level eight, nine, and ten schools
will have Archdiocesan assistance (Porath, 1996). Further, with this financial model, if
a level eight, nine, or ten school raises more that the expected income, “the financial
support of the Archdiocese is not reduced,” and in contrast, “under-funded programs do
not result in quality education or financial stability, consequently, unless a parish school
is committed to do its share, there will be no help from the Archdiocese (Porath, 1996).”
In sum, according to the financial model, level eight, nine, and ten schools are eligible
to receive financial assistance based on the population of students served. These
schools are also expected to apply for e-rate funding and federal funding as well;
whereas, level one through level seven schools assume sole financial responsibility and
may or may qualify or choose to seek federal funds.
The Archdiocesan subsidy of 7%, 24%, and 40% for level eight, nine, and ten
schools respectively, relies on annual Together in Mission funding, which, in the 1999-
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
2000 school year, allocated $3,291,293.00 to forty-four of forty-six level eight, nine,
and ten schools (Financial Model Actuals, 2000). Together in Mission is an
Archdiocesan fundraising program in which all two hundred ninety parishes and
missions in the Archdiocese are required to make a significant monetary commitment
that partially benefits needy parishes and schools throughout the Archdiocese
(O’Connor, 2001). Each parish is assessed a goal amount; this amount is determined at
ten percent of the reported total parish revenue for the previous year (O’Connor, 2001).
The Together in Mission campaign takes place on one Sunday (or more, as needed) in
the year, usually during Catholic Schools Week, and parishioners are asked to make a
donation or pledge. Should the parishioners, as a whole, not contribute or pledge up to
or over the goal amount, then the parish is expected to make up the difference not
contributed. All of the funds are collected and a portion is then dispersed to needy
parishes and schools in the Archdiocese (O’Connor, 2001).
The third part of the financial plan is the expense model, which set for the 1996-
1997 school year, a minimum level for salaries, benefits, and other expenses; the model
increases annually at a rate of three percent. The model presented is for the majority of
elementary schools in the Archdiocese, which are kindergarten through grade eight and
have nine classrooms, see Table 2.6.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
46
Table 2.6. Financial Model Expense Recommendations Including Salaries and
Benefits, and Other Expenses, by School Size: Grades K-8 and 9 Classrooms
School Year Salaries &
Benefits
Other Expenses Total
1995-1996 $404,570.00 $134,678.00 $539,248.00
1996-1997 $419,707.00 $138,718.00 $558,425.00
1997-1998 $429,208.00 $142,879.00 $572,087.00
1998-1999 $442,084.00 $147,165.00 $589,249.00
1999-2000 $455,346.00 $151,579.00 $606,925.00
Source: Archdiocesan Elementary Schools, Budget Considerations, 2000.
The financial model went into effect for the 1996-1997 school year, setting a per
pupil rate equaling $1,587.30 per child for the first year of the plan, based on
$500,000.00 divided by 315 students, with a 3% increase in the per pupil rate per each
additional year (Jordan, 2001). This was the amount estimated to operate a
kindergarten through grade eight school, with nine classrooms and one teacher per
grade level. According to Damisch, all elementary schools in the archdiocese had up to
five years to meet this minimum per child expenditure, inflated at 3% each year (2000).
Table 2.7 illustrates the financial plan per pupil rate growth for the 1996-2000 school
years.
Table 2.7: Financial Model Recommended Per Pupil Rate. Target
Number of Students. and TarRet Income
School Years Per Pupil Rate Students Income
1996-1997 $1,587.30 315 $ 500,000.00
1997-1998 $1,634.92 315 $ 515,000.00
1998-1999 $1,683.97 315 $ 530,000.00
1999-2000 $1,734.49 315 $ 545,000.00
Source: Archdiocesan Elementary Schools, Budget Considerations
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
47
Overall, the model sets target expenditures, but due to the economic circumstances of
individual schools, as well as fluctuations in student enrollment, actual expenditure
amounts may be above or below the target numbers.
In sum, the financial model for the Archdiocesan parochial elementary schools
has three parts: financial level, income targets, and expense targets. The first
component places each school in a financial level consistent with it’s parish and
community wealth; the second proposes income targets for tuition and fees, fundraising,
parish subsidy, and Archdiocesan subsidy; the third suggests expense targets based on
the grade levels served and the number of classrooms. Together, these three
components make up the financial model for the Archdiocese of Los Angeles parochial
elementary school system.
Traditional Models of School Finance
Funding a student’s education in the United States is a combination of revenue
received from three levels of government: federal, state, and local. Although states
differ in the amount from sources of public school revenue, “states are the primary
provider of public school revenues (Odden and Picus, 2000).” Prior to actual funding,
states must calculate the number of students being served; these numbers have
corresponding calculations for the number of faculty, staff, and administration needed
and for the number and size of programs and facilities; the total representing the amount
of money required (Swanson and King, 1997).
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
48
Calculating the Number o f Students
Federal and state governments may use one of the following types of pupil
counts to determine the amount of funding allocated to a school district: average daily
attendance, average daily membership, and enrollment counts. According to Gold,
Smith, and Lawton (1995) seven states use average daily attendance, which is “the
average number of pupils in attendance during specific weeks of the school year
(Swanson and King, 1997).” Twenty-two states use average daily membership, which
is “the average number of pupils enrolled over a particular period (Swanson and King,
1997).” Twelve states use enrollment counts, which are “the actual enrollment on a
given date (Swanson and King, 1997).” The remaining states, “base their allocations
on the number of teachers or instructional units to be funded; this method ultimately
reflects the number of pupils enrolled or in attendance (Swanson and King, 1997).” Just
under half of the states use the previous school years’ data on the pupil count to secure
the current fiscal year funding; while, just over half of the states base their pupil count
on the current enrollment or attendance date which allows districts to serve,
respectively, the actual number of students counted (Swanson and King, 1997).
Revenue needed to serve these pupils is produced from three general sources: federal,
state, and local governments.
Federal and State Funding o f Public Education
There are four basic types of aid disbursed by both federal and state
governments to local school districts: general financial aid, categorical aid, entitlement
programs and block grants (Swanson and King, 1997). General financial aid is
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
49
disbursed with minimal limitations and maximum local control, and it represents the
largest portion of state support for schools (Swanson and Kang, 1997). Categorical aid
is provided to meet specific requirements of the federal or state government, and is thus
constraining in the sense that these dollars represent a specific student, purpose, or
project (Swanson and King, 1997). Entitlement programs, including competitive grants,
are funds directed towards students who qualify due to a particular need or specific
program proposals; these entitlements and grants are examined and assessed by the
federal or state government administering the funding (Swanson and King, 1997).
Block grant funds were an outgrowth of categorical aid when the federal government
combined previous categorical funding into a block grant known as Chapter II funding
(Swanson and King, 1997). Block grants are well-liked because they are based on the
total number of students in a state, have fewer restrictions in their in usage, and gamer
less oversight by federal and state governments (Swanson and King, 1997).
State Funding o f Public Education
The state contributes the bulk of school district revenue through general
financial aid, which is distributed through the following ways: flat grants, foundation
programs, percentage equalizing programs, also known as guaranteed tax base
programs, and full state funding (NEA, 1987). These fundamental programs of state aid
were developed between the 1997s 1905 and 1930 and individually, or in combination,
are in use in all states today (NEA, 1987). An overwhelming majority of the states use
only foundation program or a combination including a foundation program, while just a
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
50
few states use percentage equalizing programs, full state funding, or flat grants
(NEA, 1987).
The development of school aid formulas, which are still in use today, begins
with flat grants, whose creation is attributed to Ellwood Cubberley. In his doctoral
dissertation, written for the Teachers College of Columbia University, Cubberley
studied school districts’ fiscal disparities; he concluded that states should distribute flat
grants that would “provide local districts with an equal number of dollars for each
student in attendance plus an amount for each teacher employed (NEA, 1987).” Odden
and Picus assert that the purpose of flat grants has been, traditionally, to aid the poorest
portion of society (2000). “This finance approach,” according to Swanson and King,
“presumes that the state’s appropriate role is to guarantee each student a minimum level
of schooling, and that fairness is achieved if the state gives equal monies to all (1997).”
However, recognizing the fact that poorer districts have a weaker tax-raising capacity,
Cubberley added that these districts would need additional financial resources provided
by the state; Cubberley proposed that the state create a special fund for this need (NEA,
1987). The advantages, Cubberley proposed, were that flat grants established a
statewide minimum of financial support and it focused on educational needs by figuring
aid on the basis of students and teachers (NEA, 1987) and by maintaining the state’s
minimum involvement in education, flat grants allowed for local control of schools to
remain a priority (Swanson and King, 1997).”
It may have been Cubberley’s proposition that the state create an additional fund
to meet the needs of children in the poorer districts, which led to the development of the
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
foundation program. In 1921, a former classmate of Cubberley and professor at
Columbia University, George D. Strayer along with colleague Robert M. Haig
conducted a study of school finance in the state of New York (NEA, 1987). In a 1923
report, the pair concluded “the flat grants in use at the time were employed by school
districts as a base upon which local funds were added,” without a “mechanism in the
program to equalize resultant disparities (NEA, 1987).” The recommended plan of
Strayer and Haig “emphasized fiscal equalization as opposed to the educational needs
highlighted in flat grant programs (NEA, 1987).” The foundation program, according
to Odden and Picus, “addresses the issue of a minimum quality-education program
(2000).” According to Swanson and King, in a foundation plan, states and individual
school districts partner to finance school programs (1997). The state establishes the
amount to be disbursed per pupil and then calculates the tax rate required to fund the
wealthiest school district (NEA, 1987; Swanson and King, 1997). Due to this required
tax, “districts with greater tax capacity contribute proportionately more,” thus, the
overall “effort is controlled, and fiscal capacity dictates the relative shares of local and
state funds that apply to the foundation (Swanson and King, 1997).” Finally, for poorer
districts unable to meet the required state per pupil spending level, “the state commits
itself to make up the difference between the dollars raised locally through the mandated
tax and the dollars required by the state minimum foundation program (NEA, 1987).”
The greatest advantage of the foundation program is that it equalizes per pupil revenues
regardless of local property wealth (NEA, 1987).
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
52
At approximately the same time the foundation program was developing at
Columbia, Harlan P. Updegraff and Leroy A. King were also studying school finance at
the University of Pennsylvania (NEA, 1987). They believed the foundation programs
were “flawed because the minimum level did not keep pace with the rising costs of
education, and local tax leeway only benefited wealthy districts;” furthermore they
believed that it was the states role “to assist local districts in equalizing educational
opportunities (NEA, 1987)” and rather than states setting per pupil rates, allow local
school districts to determine local expenditures (Swanson and King, 1997). Their
proposed solution is a state school finance plan called percentage equalizing program or
guaranteed tax base program, whereby “local and state shares of locally determined
expenditures are a function of school district wealth relative to the wealth of the state as
a whole (Swanson and King, 1997).” Thus, “the state reimburses a percent of local
expenditures in inverse proportion to the district’s property wealth (NEA, 1987).”
According to Swanson and King, under this type of plan local school district authorities
or voters set a chosen level of spending or taxation and once the level is established it is
the state’s position to equalize funding the school district (1997). Odden and Picus state
that the state policymakers, through the guaranteed tax base, and local policymakers,
through the local property tax determine level of state aid in this program (2000). Due
to local control over the local property tax effort, the program reflects differences in per
pupil spending (Odden and Picus, 2000). Although an unequal amount of revenue is
disbursed by the state per school district, the percentage of revenue per child is
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
53
equalized through redistributing locally raised taxes, and as a result, per pupil spending
is not a product of district property wealth.
A fourth plan for school finance, developed in 1930 by Henry C. Morrison at the
University of Chicago, is full state funding. Following study of school finance
programs, Morrison concluded that all the state funding programs favored the wealthy
school districts despite equalization efforts (NEA, 1987). Believing in state control,
rather than local control, including curriculum design, Morrison’s solution was to make
all local school districts one statewide system, funding schools through a state income
tax (NEA, 1987). Under this school finance plan, the state sets the per pupil expenditure
rate, and districts cannot spend more, nor less than this rate (Odden and Picus, 2000).
According to Swanson and King, “this plan equalizes spending, attains fiscal neutrality,
and shifts the burden for education finance to broader state taxes (1997).” What follows
with so much state bureaucracy and control is the possibility that “more uniform
finances and education policies might bring a regimented education that is inefficient
and heavily controlled by an impersonal bureaucracy (Swanson and King, 1997).”
Local Funding o f Public Education
Local governments also provide revenue to support school districts; the majority
of this revenue is generated through a local property tax. There are multiple equity
concepts that are involved in assessing the usage of property taxes to support public
schools; one comes from the principle of benefits received, which states “taxpayers
should contribute to government in accordance with benefits derived from public
services (Swanson and King, 1997).” The benefits received principle is one of several
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
equity principles discussed by Swanson and King that relate to local school tax policy.
Another notion is the ability-to-pay principle, which states, “taxpayers should contribute
in accordance with their economic capacity to support public services (Swanson and
King, 1997).” The sacrifice principle suggests an equity schema in which the wealthy
pay proportionately higher taxes to those with a marginal ability to pay (Swanson and
King, 1997). Two final principles relating to taxation policy are horizontal and vertical
equity principles. Under the horizontal equity principle, “equivalent tax burdens should
fall upon taxpayers having the same annual income;” in contrast, the vertical equity
principle, “calls for differing amounts of taxes from individuals with different abilities
to pay (Swanson and King, 1997).”
There are multiple alternative revenue sources that school districts and
individual public schools may use to supplement their income, four of which are
outlined by Swanson and King: user charges for educational programs, managing cash
flow through investments and borrowing, financing capital outlay, and partnerships,
foundations, and volunteerism (1997). User charges for educational programs involve
a “privilege-based tax” for users of “specific governmental services;” this charge is
based on the above-mentioned benefits received principal (Swanson and King, 1997).
Additional services that a school provides, such as: summer school, after-school
programs, lunches, field trips, and extra-curricular activities are all examples where, if
legal under local and state laws, a school could charge an additional fee to help pay for,
or at least offset, costs (Swanson and King, 1997). Managing cash flow through
investments and borrowing involves monthly and annual income investments which
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
55
lead to high yield interest earnings, and conversely, when necessary, borrowing money
to answer cash flow problems (Swanson and King, 1997). Financing capital outlay is
necessary when school systems need more funds for a variety of reasons: large
construction or renovation projects, major purchases such as buses, and large
equipment; these types of purchases are unable to be paid off in one school year budget
period, therefore it is necessary to finance capital projects over several years (Swanson
and King, 1997). Partnerships, foundations, and volunteerism represent a private
investment in public education through public-private business partnerships, nonprofit
educational foundations, and voluntarism by parents, community residents, and other
individuals and groups (Swanson and King, 1997). Beyond the required investment by
federal, state, and local governments, these alternative sources of revenue have the
potential to greatly impact a school district or an individual school’s annual income.
Entrepreurial School Finance
While traditional public schooling and it’s common avenues for resource
collection and distribution make up the bulk of public K-12 education, there are
alternative, free market models, which have been implemented in the public sector
worth discussing. Free market competition is a fundamental principle of American
economics and is the basis of free market, competitive education. While the “trend
toward greater accountability continues to grow, the demand for competition is
increasing (Brown and Cornwall, 2000).” In regard to school choice and competition
among public schools, the National Governors’ Association stated, “Schools that
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
56
compete for students, teachers, and dollars will, by virtue of their environment, make
those changes that allow them to succeed (1992).”
Entrepreneurial Education
Entrepreneurship takes two different forms in persons; that is, one may be an
entrepreneur or an intrapreneur (Brown and Cornwall, 2000). According to Brown and
Cornwall, the entrepreneur is a person who seeks out need in the larger marketplace and
develops a plan to meet that need in the form of a “new independent venture (2000).”
In public education, this person may be the owner of a for-profit education management
company, like the Edison project, or the founder of a nonprofit charter school (Brown
and Cornwall, 2000). According to Brown and Cornwall, the intrapreneur works within
an existing organization creating and pioneering innovative products or services that
facilitate an organization to improve and evolve (Brown and Cornwall, 2000). In public
education, this person may be an advocate for particular curriculum advancement or a
champion of a particular need for special education students. According to Pinchot, the
intrapreneur is an individual who is able to confront the status quo and establishment
and lead change in an organization (1985).
Entrepreneurship also takes two different forms in organizations; that is, these
organizations may be entrepreneurial or intrapreneurial (Brown and Cornwall, 2000).
An entrepreneurial organization is “ready, willing, and able to adapt to a changing
environment (Brown and Cornwall, 2000),” and invites and supports intrapreneurial
individuals. Conversely, an intrapreneurial organization is unwilling to change and will
attempt to stifle intrapreneurship; thus, the intrapreneur must fight the bureaucracy to
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
57
achieve positive growth and change or leave the organization and attempt their
innovation elsewhere (Brown and Cornwall, 2000).
According to Hentschke, “Schooling has become simultaneously a personal
improvement strategy, a cornerstone for regional economic development, a national
priority - and a business opportunity (2000).” Two organizations that support
schooling as business opportunity or an entrepreneurial venture are the Association of
Educators in Private Practice (AEPP) and the International Academy for Educational
Entrepreneurship (IAEE). Founded in 1990, the AEPP is dedicated to its mission of
“advancing and promoting private practice teaching as an alternative career path (Leisey
and Lavaroni, 2000).” As the practice of entrepreneurial education continues to grow,
so do the number of members of AEPP, from as few as sixteen in 1990, to more than six
hundred today (Leisey and Lavaroni, 2000). Founded in 1998, by authors Leisey and
Lavaroni, the IAEE is an entrepreneurial organization whose mission is “to identify,
encourage, and support educators who have already invested or are interested in
investing time, energy, and capital to create, develop, and market programs, products,
services, and or technologies designed to enhance and improve education (2000).”
As schooling in America continues to take shape, entrepreneurs create different
types of educational organizations within a community: home school, private school,
nonprofit or for-profit school, or charter school. In any case, the entrepreneur must
have a strategy for planning and implementing their organization. Brown and Cornwall
outline a course of action for planning and implementing an entrepreneurial educational
organization: the first step is to create a mission and rationale for the new school; the
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
58
second step is to develop a marketing plan that communicates the school’s educational
service, cost, location, and value; the third step is to create a revenue plan; the fourth
step is to develop operating and team plans which include descriptions of space and
resource needs, development of the governance structure, policies and procedures, and
staffing plans; the fifth step is to create an expenses plan; the sixth step is the actual
writing of the action plan; and the seventh and final step is to write the executive
summary (2000).
Finance in Entrepreneurial Education
In an entrepreneurial venture, finances play a major role in the organization
coming to fruition. Steps three and five, the revenue and expense plans, are vital to the
success of creating a strategy for planning and implementing a new educational
organization in a community. The revenue plan is rooted in an effective marketing
plan, because “by looking at the structure of the market, the plans to attract segments of
the market to the school system’s array of programs, and reasonable estimates of market
share, a realistic revenue forecast can be determined (Brown and Cornwall, 2000).”
In entrepreneurial ventures, traditional resources do exist for those schools
which are public and yet, are a variation of traditional public schooling; for example,
magnet schools and charter schools still receive federal, state, and local funding.
However, home schools, private, and for-profit schools require additional and
alternative resources; these may include: partnerships, foundation assistance through
grants, and local fund-raising.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Multiple potential partners for new schools exist in communities that may assist
an entrepreneurial venture; these include: businesses, post-secondary institutions,
public schools, public and nonprofit human service agencies, and community groups
(Brown and Cornwall, 2000). Businesses may provide schools resources such as:
financial support through monetary, product, or service donations, vocational training,
and employment (Brown and Cornwall, 2000). Universities and colleges may provide
schools with the most recent pedagogy in effective schooling or may even provide
student teachers (Brown and Cornwall, 2000). Public schools may be willing to share
resources with new schools, such as sharing facilities or after-school programs. Public
and nonprofit human service agencies may be involved in bringing special health and
welfare services or recreation programs to the school, including drug awareness
programs and athletic opportunities (Brown and Cornwall, 2000). Community civic,
service, fraternal, religious, youth, and senior citizen groups may provide a myriad of
financial support, or more likely a beneficial service to assist the school (Brown and
Cornwall, 2000).
There are several types of foundations that may support an entrepreneurial
education venture: general-purpose, special-purpose, community, corporate, and family
foundations (Brown and Cornwall, 2000). General-purpose foundations are often
national or international organizations, and because of their long-standing reputations
are most often sought out for financial contributions (Brown and Cornwall, 2000).
However, according to Brown and Cornwall, these large foundations seek to support
causes with a national interest, rather than a local one, such as an individual school
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
60
(2000). Special-purposes foundations support particular causes, including education,
and would be more likely to support a local, individual school (Brown and Cornwall,
2000). Community foundations also support particular causes and distribute their funds
based on community need; therefore the new school must be of marketed benefit to the
community to gamer such support (Brown and Cornwall, 2000). Corporate foundations
are an arm of a large company that support, usually, the local community in which the
corporation and it’s employees reside; donations from corporations may come in the
form of stock, money, and products or services (Brown and Cornwall, 2000). Family
foundations are locally controlled and tend to serve the community in which the family
resides or the cause in which the family chooses to invest interest; a new school may
benefit if it employs or enrolls students of the foundation or if education is of interest to
the foundation (Brown and Cornwall, 2000).
Enterprenuerial educators may also seek additional revenue through fundraising.
Brown and Cornwall offer multiple types of fundraising opportunities: face-to-face
solicitation, phone banks, direct mail, and events (2000). Face-to-face fundraising
involves group solicitation of funds via completing pledge cards; Brown and Cornwall
suggest group luncheons or meetings among business, community, or social groups and
having a key solicitor make a pitch for the new school (2000). Phone banks involve
considerable pre-event organization and effort; when phone banks are put into action
callers may solicit donations from individuals including: civic leaders, businesspersons,
neighbors, and friends; and groups, including: businesses, education organizations, civic
groups, and service clubs, as well as area churches (Brown and Cornwall, 2000). Direct
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
61
mail, although not very effective considering a five percent return rate is viewed as
good, is still valuable fundraising in the sense that it combines fundraising with
advertising (Brown and Cornwall, 2000). Fundraising events have the potential to earn
little to great amounts of money for a school while they promote the school through the
particular event (Brown and Cornwall, 2000). Multiple types of events already exist in
the public and private education sectors, from car washes to carnivals, and bake sales to
bingo the rewards are two-fold, financial and promotional.
Higher Education Models of School Finance
Sources o f Revenue
“The price of admission,” as related by Kane, is the amount of dollars necessary
to educate a post-secondary student at a public or private college or university (1999).
The cost per student varies by institution; and according to Kane, in 1994 the annual
cost per student at a private four-year institution ranged from $10,300 to $22,500 and at
public four-year institution ranged from $8,000 to $14,500 (Kane, 1999). The actual
cost-to-educate and the tuition charged, however represent two different rates; the first
represents real cost and tuition includes all other additional funds over the cost to
maintain the institution and to provide institution-funded aid. According to Kane, the
rise in college costs has three fundamental facts:
increases in tuition have far outpaced increases in costs; costs per student
have risen across the board, but especially so at private institutions; and
private institutions are increasingly providing grant aid to a larger share
of their students, making the “sticker” price - the price announced in
college handbooks as the price before financial aid—an increasingly
misleading indicator of actual costs (1999).
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
62
Tuition represents the largest source of income for private higher education institutions,
whereas state and local government spending account for the majority of income for
public higher education institutions (McPherson and Schapiro, 1998). While income
models differ per private institution and by state public institution systems there are
similarities in sources of tuition and additional revenue.
In the financial models of public and private higher education there are a variety
of sources from which to collect revenue. In simplistic terms, income for financing
colleges and universities is provided through: state and local government subsidies
representing an average of twenty-five percent of revenues at private institutions and
average of thirty-three percent of revenues at public institutions, government grant and
loan programs, endowment earnings representing five percent of revenues for private
institutions and less than one percent at public institutions, and tuition (Kane, 1999).
At an annual fifty billion dollar contribution by the collective fifty states, state
government funding represents one-third of public higher education revenues and one-
quarter of higher education revenues for public and private higher education institutions
combined (Hauptman, 2001). This subsidy from the state, provided through taxpayer
contributions, is “invisible” according to Kane, because there is no application to be
completed for this funding, nor is it means-tested (1999). How states choose to fund
higher education has evolved over the last fifty years; appropriations in the 1950’s were
a result of “political distributions;” in the 1960’s allocations became enrollment-based;
in the 1970’s and 1980’s subsidies were based on cost-based inputs added to formulas;
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
63
and, in the 199G’s some states developed formulas based on enrollment or costs, or a
combination of the two (Hauptman, 2001).
Federal and state governments allocate funds to public and private colleges and
universities through grant and loan programs. States contribute to higher education,
primarily, to provide operational support in order to keep tuition low, that is to make
college accessible; whereas federal programs are primarily to assist the individual
student pay for college expenses, that is to make college affordable (Hauptman, 2001).
State and federal governments may also provide research funds for graduate and post
graduate studies (Mumper, 2001).
Tuition and Financial Aid
The cost of a college education varies among and between private and public
colleges and universities. Tuition, room, and board is most expensive at private
universities which charge over $30,000 annually, compared to the average public
institution which, according to a 1999 College Board study, charge $8,000 in tuition,
room, and board (Heller, 2001). The price of a college education, annually on the rise
beyond the rate of inflation, is often discounted due to various forms of financial aid:
grants and scholarships, loans, and work study programs (Heller, 2001).
Although states do provide means tested aid, the federal government allocates
the bulk of student aid through three types of programs: Pell grants which are awarded
to needy undergraduate students; Federal Stafford loans which are either subsidized or
unsubsidized federally-backed government or bank loans; and campus-based programs,
such as the Federal Educational Opportunity Grant Program, Federal Work-Study, and
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
64
Federal Perkins Loan Program, all of which are based on financial need (McPherson
and Schapiro, 1998). The Pell Grant program, like the GI Bill originating in 1944, and
federal student loans are designed as “portable vouchers” for the neediest students, to be
used at any institution public or private (Hauptman, 2001). In 1997, the federal
government passed two tuition tax credits for higher education: Hope Scholarships and
the Lifetime Learning Credits (Hauptman, 2001); these tax credit programs reinforced
the federal government’s commitment to affordable higher education (Hauptman,
2001).
Colleges and universities provide price discounts to their students based on
merit and financial need (Kane, 1999). According to Kane, over forty percent of full
time students at private four-year colleges receive institutional funding, compared to
only eleven percent of full time students in the public sector (1999). Multiple forms of
merit aid exist in higher education including aid for athletic and academic scholarships;
in a competitive college market, universities use these scholarships to attract athletically
talented or academically gifted students (Kane, 1999). Colleges and universities also
give aid based on financial need to students; this aid may be in the form of a grant,
which does not need to be repaid, or in the form of a loan, which does need to be repaid.
In sum, revenue for private and public institutions of higher education comes
from a variety of sources. These revenue sources include federal, state, and local
governments, endowments, and tuition from families and individual students. Tuition,
fees, room and board make up the advertised price of a college or university’s annual
cost, although this number does not represent the true cost to educate, which is less.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
65
The “sticker price” of a college education is often higher, so those additional funds may
be used for other expenses of the university or to provide merit or need-based aid to
students.
Market models of school finance, including entrepreneurial and intrapreneurial
finance, and higher education finance models, including those of public and private
colleges and universities, are interesting and worth considering in relation to parochial
school finance. However, public K-12 school finance literature and methodologies
offer the most traditional and applicable model for comparison.
Summary
The parochial schools of the Archdiocese of Los Angeles grew by more than
eight parishes and two hundred schools under the twenty-year leadership of Cardinal
McIntyre. What followed was organizational and financial structuring that has evolved
into the present governance structure and financial model for elementary schools in the
Archdiocese.
Canon Law limits the authority of the Department of Catholic Schools over the
parish schools, yet the parochial schools, under the umbrella of the Archdiocese, which
is a Corporation Sole, are financially and legally accountable to the Corporation Sole.
Thus, while the financial model is useful in setting financial parameters for pastor and
principals, it is financial policy that is not required to be followed.
The Catholic Social Teachings offer a philosophical and justice-oriented
guideline regarding the overall financing of parochial schools in the Archdiocese.
These teachings focus on seven principle doctrines regarding the just treatment of all
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
66
people and are a framework for action is a resource for current and future financial
policy.
The financial model for the Archdiocesan elementary schools has three
components. The first part of the plan is the financial level ranking of all parochial
schools in the Archdiocese; these levels are based on 1990 census figures. The second
part of the financial model is the income model, which includes percentages of income
in tuition, fundraising, parish subsidy, and archdiocesan subsidy; the poorest schools
receive the greatest amount of aid. The third part of the financial model is the expense
model, which includes minimum levels for salaries, benefits, and other expenses; since
the models’ inception in 1996, these minimum expense levels have increased at a rate of
three percent annually.
Traditional, entrepreneurial, and higher education models of school finance offer
useful comparisons to parochial school finance. Traditional models of school finance,
particularly those programs and policies that have been implemented in the public
sector for the purpose of meeting the needs of the poor and yet maintaining an equitable
system, are of possible interest to Archdiocesan policymakers. Entrepreneurial models
of school finance, particularly the notions of entrepreneurship and intrapreneurship, are
of possible interest to the levels of educators: teachers, pastors, principals, regional
supervisors to inspire and lead proactive growth and change within individuals schools
and regions of the Archdiocese. Higher education models of school finance,
particularly the relationship of tuition setting and institutional aid, are of possible
interest to Archdiocesan policymakers.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
67
Chapter III outlines the methodology used in this study to measure the equity of
school finance models for the parochial elementary schools in the Los Angeles
Archdiocese.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
68
CHAPTER in - Methodology
This chapter includes the following information: the theoretical foundation for
this study, a summary of the methodology used to conduct this study, a review of the
research questions, a discussion of the data and creation of the study database, a
summary of the school finance equity framework used in this study, and a discussion of
the financial data summary tables and school finance simulation used to calculate the
statistics for this study.
Theoretical Foundation
The review of literature of chapter two offers insight into the financial model
used by archdiocesan parochial elementary schools and a discussion of additional
financial models for understanding alternative school finance models. The
Archdiocesan model and the comparative models of school finance discussed in chapter
two lead to the research proposed in this study.
First, the financial data provided by individual parochial elementary schools
within the archdiocese has yet to be compared with the financial model. That is, it is
yet to be determined if individual schools in the archdiocese are actually even following
the suggested financial model.
Second, the Archdiocesan income model for school finance itself has not been
thoroughly analyzed from a statistical context. It is a model that has been prescribed by
the archdiocese to all parochial elementary schools, yet has not been examined for
equity in the way it distributes funds to schools in the archdiocese, it’s archdiocesan-
wide horizontal equity or wealth neutrality.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
69
Third, Total Financial Actuals Summaries, created annually by the Department
of Catholic Schools, have yet to be analyzed from a statistical perspective in regard to
the guiding principles and concepts widely regarded in school finance research and
policy. In particular, the statistics have not been calculated in relation to the concepts of
wealth or fiscal neutrality and horizontal equity.
Fourth, traditional, entrepreneurial, and higher education models of school
finance offer alternative notions of school finance that may be explored by
Archdiocesan policymakers. These models offer the archdiocese additional options for
updating and re-creating the school finance model for parochial elementary schools.
Each of the models - traditional, entrepreneurial, post-secondary, and parochial - share a
common task of generating revenue to cover the cost of educating students. The sources
of funding and equitable distribution of revenue represent a challenge to each type of
educational institution.
Summary of Research Methodology
This chapter presents a comprehensive account of the research methodology
used in this study. For ease of understanding, an initial description of the methodology
is provided below:
1. Initially, a topic of study is chosen and research questions are developed which
frame the remainder of the study.
2. Next, with the research questions as a guide, the applicable data are collected and
recorded into the study database.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
70
3. Then, an examination of an appropriate framework for school finance equity
analysis is conducted. The framework provides factors, components, and statistics
that are necessary to answering the research questions.
4. Following, from the study database, financial summary data tables are created. The
financial summary data tables contain the specific data that are necessary to
compare actual income to model income and to calculate equity statistics.
5. Finally, applicable data from the financial summary data tables are inserted into a
school finance equity simulation. This school finance simulation generates the
equity statistics necessary to answer the research questions posed for this study.
Research Questions
The first research question is unique to this particular study, while the remaining
three research questions are similar to the basic research questions defined in school
finance research but unique in their application to Catholic schools rather than the more
traditional use of these measures in public settings:
1. Are the individual parochial Catholic elementary schools in the Archdiocese of Los
Angeles meeting the prescribed income percentages delineated in the Financial
Model for Elementary Schools?
2. How do we assess the equity of the financial model of the parochial Catholic
elementary schools in the Archdiocese of Los Angeles?
3. When we do assess equity, how does it compare to models set in alternate education
finance sectors?
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
71
4. What are the policy implications for the Los Angeles Archdiocese in setting a model
for allocating school resources?
Data
Source, Description, Representation
This study uses one source of quantitative data provided by the Archdiocese of
Los Angeles, Department of Catholic Schools. The data are the Total Financial Actuals
summaries for 218 parochial elementary schools in the Archdiocese of Los Angeles
from 1991 through 2000 school years. Of the nine-year span of data, two school years,
1994-1995 and 1997-1998 were omitted from this study due to large amounts of
incomplete data. Of the up to 218 schools listed in the Total Financial Actuals
summaries, thirty-eight schools were deleted from this study due to incomplete
information across the seven-year period. Some schools were deleted because they
went out of operation or had a minimum of one year of incomplete financial
information, see Table 3.1. In sum, this study covers seven school years of financial
data for a total of 180 parochial elementary schools, representing between 73% to 100%
of all the schools in each financial level.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
72
Table 3.1 Archdiocesan Parochial Schools in this Study: Total Schools.
Deleted Schools, and Percent of Schools Represented by Financial Level
Level Total Schools Deleted Schools % Represented
10 5 1 80
9 19 2 89
8 22 1 95
7 17 0 100
6 30 8 73
5 27 6 78
4 47 7 85
3 30 8 74
2 9 2 78
1 12 3 75
Sum: 218 38
Source: Constructed by Researcher, 2001.
Limitations o f the Data
With 180 schools remaining, the following are limitations remaining in the set
of data provided by the Department of Catholic Schools:
1. Each school in the archdiocese sends a year-end budget report, otherwise known as
a master audit data report, to the Department of Catholic Schools. This form is
standard across the archdiocese. This study cannot determine or account for data
entry errors made by individual schools in reporting their final year-end financials
on the master audit data report.
2. Upon receipt of the master audit data report, the financial information provided by
each school is then hand-entered onto a Total Financial Actuals summary report
spreadsheet. This study cannot determine or account for errors made when these
data were taken from the individual master audit data reports and recorded onto the
Total Financial Actuals summary report.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
73
3. It is understood in the archdiocese that, although schools do complete a master audit
data report, these reports may not include money that is in a reserve fund.
Individual schools may or may not have a reserve fund; it is impossible to determine
how many schools have these reserve funds and how much money is in a school’s
reserve fund. Thus, while a school reports an amount of total income in their master
audit data report, this amount may not necessarily include or reflect the monies in a
reserve fund.
4. The parish subsidy, which in this study is recorded as part of a school’s local
income, may not include or reflect products or services provided for by the parish.
For example, the parish may order and pay for all the paper supplies necessary for
the parish and school, yet the school does not record this product under parish
subsidy; also, a parish may pay for landscape maintenance of the parish and school
grounds, yet the school does not record this service under parish subsidy. It is
impossible to determine the actual amount of subsidy provided, through products
and services, by a parish to a school.
Study Database
Using the Total Financial Actuals summaries provided by the Department of
Catholic Schools, a study database was created. This database only includes that
information which is pertinent to this study. The Total Financial Actuals summaries list
by row, all parochial schools in the Los Angeles Archdiocese, and by column,
descriptive and financial information for each school. O f the information provided in
these summaries, the following descriptive information was used in creating the study
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
74
database: the parish-school code number, level designation, geographical region
location, deanery assignment, number of students, and number of classrooms. Of the
information provided in these summaries, the following financial information was used
in creating the study database: parish subsidy, local income, archdiocesan subsidy,
education foundation, total income, total expenses, and median family income that is
based on 1990 census data. The descriptive and financial information, for all ten
financial levels, remain constant across the seven years of data.
Seven of the nine years of provided data were used in this study database. The
1994-1995 school year has been omitted from the study database because the Total
Financial Actuals summary provided is missing financial information for forty-seven
schools. The 1997-1998 school year has been omitted from the study database because
the Total Financial Actuals summary provided is missing financial information for all
level one through level seven schools.
Of the 218 parochial schools in the archdiocese and for the seven remaining
school years, 180 schools are represented in the study database. Thirty-eight parochial
schools have been deleted from the study database because, in one or more years,
necessary financial information for this study was incomplete.
Preparation o f the Study Database
There were multiple steps involved in preparing the study database. The
following is a summary of the process of preparing the database for this study:
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
75
1. Data for the 218 parochial elementary schools, for the 1991-1994, 1995-1997, and
1998-2000 school years were hand-entered by the researcher from hardcopy
Financial Actuals summaries, onto seven Microsoft Excel 5.0 spreadsheets.
2. The seven years of data were examined to see if any schools closed over the seven-
year period. These schools were then deleted across all seven years of data. Then,
the seven years of data were examined to see if any schools were missing specific
financial information, such as: parish subsidy, archdiocesan subsidy, local income,
total expenses. These schools were then deleted across all seven years of data.
Thirty-eight schools were omitted from the study database due to school closings or
incomplete financial data.
3. Each spreadsheet was sorted by financial level, from the poorest level ten through
the wealthiest level one schools, and then ranked in their level groupings.
School Finance Equity Framework
In 1984, Berne and Steifel created a comprehensive school finance framework
that continues to be used as an outline for school finance equity research today. The
framework includes four components: group, object, principles, and measures (Berne
and Steifel, 1984). For this study, the group represented is the student population of the
180 parochial elementary schools of ten financial levels. The object is the input of
dollars through local and archdiocesan revenues. The equity principles investigated in
this study are horizontal equity and fiscal neutrality. The statistical measures used in
this study are: range, restricted range, federal range ratio, coefficient of variation, Gini
coeffecient, McLoone index, Verstegen index, correlation coefficient, and elasticity.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
76
The school finance equity framework created by Berne and Steifel has evolved
since its original creation in 1984. In their text, School Finance: A Policy Perspective,
Odden and Picus (2000) offer a similar, yet updated version that is used in this study.
The updated framework is an outline to be used in an analysis of school finance data,
which includes factors, components, and statistics.
Factors o f School Finance Used in this Study
The factors of the school finance equity framework are those four components
of the Beme and Stiefel framework (1984), put into interrogative form. The question
form is how the outline is presented in the Odden and Picus school finance framework
(2000). The group represents the “who” of the study; in this study it is the students of
the 180 parochial elementary schools of the archdiocese. The objects represent the
“what” of the study; this is in terms of the inputs, which are the total revenues from
local and archdiocesan sources. The principles are the “how” of the study; these are the
concepts of horizontal equity and fiscal neutrality. The statistical measures are the
“how much” of the study; these are the measures that gauge the existence and/or degree
of horizontal equity and fiscal neutrality.
Components o f School Finance Used in this Study
The components of the school finance equity framework are those concepts that
are studied in the course of the research. For this study, the components are the school
finance equity concepts of horizontal equity and fiscal neutrality. The understanding of
school finance equity is one which has evolved greatly over the latter half of the 20th
century due to the role played in school finance decisions by courts and in tandem, the
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
77
research of equity in education finance. “Above all,” according to Berne and Stiefel
(1999) “the idea of equity involves value judgments about how to determine fairness in
the financing ofK-12 education.” Of the multiple school finance concepts, the equity
concepts explored in this study are horizontal equity and fiscal neutrality.
Several theories in regard to equity in school finance emerged during the 1960’s.
Researcher’s Wise, Coons, Clune, and Sugarman developed notions involving the
fairness in the collection and distribution of tax dollars, at both local and state levels.
According to Berne and Stiefel, Wise’s “major contribution lies with application of the
equal opportunity concept to school finance in the law and especially his development
of the wealth neutrality concept (1999).”
“Wealth neutrality as a school finance equity concept specifies that no
relationship should exist between the education of children and the property wealth (or
other fiscal capacity) that supports the public funding of that education (Berne and
Stiefel, 1999).” Of the concept, Wise argued, using the Equal Protection Clause of
Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution, seeking to end unequal
spending between districts, for dollar equity; that is, “one scholar-one dollar (Minorini
and Sugarman, 1999).” When the concept has been applied in the courts, “court
activity,” according to Berne and Stiefel, “has focused on ex post definitions of wealth
neutrality,” in which, “analysts look for statistical relationships (associations) between
education, usually measured in dollars, and school district wealth (1999).” In sum, the
principle of fiscal neutrality seeks to eradicate the relationship between the location in
which a child resides, the number of dollars assigned based on that location’s
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
78
guaranteed tax base, and the number of dollars allocated to that child in relation to the
child’s location within or among school districts.
Another school finance equity notion discussed in this study is the concept of
horizontal equity. According to Minorini and Sugarman, “The push for dollar equity is
what some scholars have referred to as horizontal equity (1999).” “Horizontal equity...
specifies that equally situated children should be treated equally (Berne and Stiefel,
1999).” In analysis, researchers separate children into groups: general, at-risk, and
special education (Beme and Stiefel, 1999). “Horizontal equity provides that students
who are alike should be treated the same: ‘Equal treatment of equals’ reflects the
horizontal equity principle (Odden and Picus, 2000).” Thus, dollars are allocated
equally among children per the specific group in which they belong.
Statistics o f School Finance Used in this Study
The major equity concepts of horizontal equity and fiscal neutrality have
corresponding statistical measures. Briefly, the equity concept of wealth neutrality uses
the correlation coefficient and elasticity statistics; and the horizontal equity concept
uses range, restricted range, coefficient of variation, Gini coefficient, McCloone index,
and Verstegen index. (Odden and Picus, 2000). Table 3.2 illustrates the school finance
equity concepts, corresponding statistics and susequent calculations applied in this
study.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
79
Table 3.2: Equity Concepts, Statistics, and Calculations Used in this Study
Concept Statistic Calculation
Horizontal Equity
Range Most total revenue dollars
- least total revenue dollars
Restricted Range total revenue dollars at the 95th percentile
- revenue dollars at the 5th percentile
Federal Range Ratio Restricted range/ revenue dollars
at the 5th percentile
Coeffecient of Variation Standard deviation/mean
Gini Coefficient Cumulative measure of the object % vs. %
increment number observations
McLoone Index Sum of all observations below the median
divided by the sum of same observations if
all had the median revenue
Verstegen Index Sum of all observations above the median
divided by the sum of same observations if
all had the median revenue
Fiscal Neutrality
Correlation Measure of the extent of the linearity of
the relationship of property value per pupil
and total revenue per pupil
Elasticity %change in total revenue per pupil relative
to %change in property value per pupil
In regard to the horizontal equity concept, measures of range, restricted range,
coefficient of variation, Gini coefficient, McCloone Index, and Verstegen Index may be
applied. The first statistic is the range, which looks at the difference of value between
the largest and smallest observation (Odden and Picus, 2000; Goertz and Natriello,
1999). “The range does not indicate the degree of equality or inequality for any of the
other observations, and thus is a poor indicator for assessing the degree of equity of the
system (Odden and Picus, 2000).” Related to the range is the restricted range statistic
which drops the outliers from the observation to include only those from the 5th
percentile to the 95th percentile distribution (Odden and Picus, 2000; Goertz and
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
80
Natriello, 1999). “The restricted range is preferred to the unrestricted range, but neither
are good indicators of the equality of the distribution of the object for the entire
educational system inequality (Odden and Picus, 2000).”
The next measure of horizontal equity is the coefficient of variation, which is
arrived at by dividing the standard deviation by the mean; its value typically varies
between 0 and 1, with 0 indicating that the object (dollar) is uniformly distributed to all
students (Odden and Picus, 2000; Goertz and Natriello, 1999; Pedhazur and Schmelkin,
1991). The coefficient of variation can exceed a value of 1.0 if the standard deviation is
larger than the mean of the distribution; this rarely happens in school finance (Picus,
2002). “This calculation measures the dispersion of expenditures across districts
within a state. It is a quantitative representation of what Berne and Stiefel (1984) call
“horizontal equity,” the notion of providing all similarly situated students with equal
amounts of educational resources.
The next statistic is the Gini coefficient which “measures the degree to which
each cumulative percentage of pupils receives an equal percentage of revenue (Goertz
and Natriello, 1999).” “Its value ranges from 0 to 1.0 with a completely equitable
distribution occurring when the Gini index equals zero (Odden and Picus, 2000).” The
next measure of horizontal equity is the McLoone Index, which examines “the bottom
half of a distribution, to indicate the degree of equality only for observations below the
50th percentile (Odden and Picus, 2000).” “A value of 1 indicates that per pupil
expenditures in the lowest-spending districts are equal to the median (Goertz and
Natriello, 1999).” The Verstegen Index is the opposite of the McLoone Index, applying
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
81
the same calculation and analysis however, to the upper half of the distribution (Odden
and Picus, 2000).
In regard to the wealth neutrality concept, measures of the correlation coefficient
and elasticity m aybe applied. The correlation statistic, in its simplest terms, “indicates
the degree to which there is a linear relationship between two variables (Odden and
Picus, 2000). The result ranges in value from -1.0 to +1.0, with values closer to a -1.0
constituting a negative correlation and values closer to +1.0 indicating a positive
correlation; a correlation coefficient at zero verifies a random relationship between the
variables (Odden and Picus, 2000). For example, comparing per-pupil revenue and
property wealth; a correlation of zero would indicate that there is no relationship
between the variables (Goertz and Natriello, 1999). Elasticity is the “ratio of percent
increase in one variable to percent increase in another (Odden and Picus, 2000).” The
statistic can be either positive of negative, and a result equal to or greater than 1.0
indicates elasticity (Odden and Picus, 2000). An example of elasticity is provided by
Odden and Picus, “an elasticity that equals 1.0 indicates that revenue increases in
percentage terms at the same rate as property wealth. Elasticities below 1.0 indicate
that spending does not increase at the same percentage rate as local property wealth
while elasticies higher than 1.0 indicate revenues increase faster than the rate of
increase in property wealth. Negative elasticies indicate that revenue declines when
property wealth increases in value (2000).
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
82
Financial Summary Data Tables
To facilitate the research necessary to conduct this study, Financial Summary
Data Tables were created. There are seven Financial Summary Data Tables; one table
for each year of complete data for seven years. Each table illustrates the average, sum,
and per pupil average of local income, archdiocesan subsidy, total income, and median
family income for each of the ten financial levels. These tables are a concise
representation of the data necessary for comparing actual income percentages with
model income percentages, and for condensing the data to be entered into the school
finance simulation. See Appendix A.
Preparation o f the Financial Summary Data Tables
Following the completion of the study database, a financial summary data table
was created for each year included in this study. For each year included in this study,
the following numbers are calculated: the sum and average number of students per
level, and the average, sum, and per pupil average for local income, archdiocesan
subsidy, and total income; the median family income is given. See, Appendix A,
Financial Summary Data Tables A.1-A.7. This condensed version of the Financial
Summary Data Tables provides an initial glance at the types of revenue increase across
the seven years of data and by level. See Table 3.3. A complete discussion of this table
follows in chapter four.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
83
Table 3.3: Per Pupil Revenue Categories. Including: Local Income, Archdiocesan
Level Per Pupil Revenue 91-92 92-93 93-94 95-96 96-97 97-98 99-00
10 Local Income $929 $994 $983 $1,051 $1,178 $1,239 $2,233
10 Arch. Subsidy $796 $723 $687 $771 $759 $894 $877
10 Total Income $1,725 $1,717 $1,670 $1,822 $1,937 $2,133 $3,110
9 Local Income $1,153 $1,225 $1,125 $1,387 $1,489 $1,676 $1,862
9 Arch. Subsidy $279 $305 $422 $328 $374 $447 $498
9 Total Income $1,432 $1,530 $1,547 $1,715 $1,863 $2,123 $2,360
8 Local Income $1,908 $2,257 $1,547 $1,761 $1,794 $2,120 $2,351
8 Arch. Subsidy $99 $97 $97 $115 $107 $120 $117
8 Total Income $2,007 $2,354 $1,644 $1,876 $1,901 $2,240 $2,468
7 Local Income $1,643 $1,658 $1,799 $1,958 $2,033 $2,306 $2,854
7 Arch. Subsidy $18 $94 $21 $10 $8 $4 $ -
7 Total Income $1,661 $1,752 $1,820 $1,968 $2,041 $2,310 $2,854
6 Local Income $1,522 $1,608 $1,654 $1,840 $1,981 $2,169 $2,473
6 Arch. Subsidy $34 $21 $17 $13 $6 $ - $ -
6 Total Income $1,556 $1,629 $1,671 $1,853 $1,987 $2,169 $2,473
5 Local Income $1,788 $1,855 $1,961 $2,184 $2,248 $2,623 $3,050
5 Arch. Subsidy $8 $8 $2 $2 $ - $1 $ -
5 Total Income $1,796 $1,863 $1,963 $2,186 $2,248 $2,624 $3,050
4 Local Income $1,803 $1,885 $1,995 $1,773 $2,307 $2,808 $3,178
4 Arch. Subsidy $2 $4 $ - $3 $1 $ - $ -
4 Total Income $1,805 $1,889 $1,995 $1,776 $2,308 $2,808 $3,178
3 Local Income $1,867 $1,949 $2,081 $2,437 $2,453 $2,683 $3,386
3 Arch. Subsidy $ - $ - $ - $4 $ - $ - $4
3 Total Income $1,867 $1,949 $2,081 $2,441 $2,453 $2,683 $3,390
2 Local Income $2,021 $2,158 $2,260 $2,564 $2,651 $2,839 $3,530
2 Arch. Subsidy $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
2 Total Income $2,021 $2,158 $2,260 $2,564 $2,651 $2,839 $3,530
1 Local Income $2,489 $2,629 $2,752 $3,040 $3,210 $3,300 $4,123
1 Arch. Subsidy $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $12 $ -
1 Total Income $2,489 $2,629 $2,752 $3,040 $3,210 $3,312 $4,123
Source: Constructed by researcher, 2001.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Actual Income and Model Income Percentage Comparison Tables
Recalling the Archdiocesan Income Model, see Table 3.4 and using the financial
data summary tables as a template, levels one through seven were combined and two
columns were added, to calculate the percentage of local income and percentage of
archdiocesan subsidy.
Table 3.4: Archdiocese of Los Angeles. Model Income Levels
Level Tuition Fundraising Parish
Subsidy
Archdiocesan
Subsidy
1-7 75% 20% 5% 0%
8 76% 14% 3% 7%
9 60% 14% 2% 24%
10 47% 12% 1% 40%
Source: Archdiocesan Elementary Schools, Budget Considerations, 2000.
The financial model for revenue separates tuition, fundraising, and parish
subsidy; for the comparison tables, these three components were combined under the
column heading “local income,” while the column heading, “archdiocesan subsidy,”
remained the same. The purpose of combining levels one through seven, adding these
two columns, and calculating these percentages is to be able to compare actual level
income with model level income, see Table 3.5. With this information, it is possible to
answer the first research question.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
85
Table 3.5: Local Income and Archdiocesan Subsidy Actual and Model Percentage
Comparison_______________ _______ _______ _______ _______ _______ ______
Levels 1-7 91-92 92-93 93-94 95-96 96-97 98-99 99-00
Local Income 99% 99% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
Arch. Subsidy 1% 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Model Local Income 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
Model Arch. Subsidy 0 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Level 8 91-92 92-93 93-94 95-96 96-97 98-99 99-00
Local Income 95% 96% 94% 94% 94% 95% 95%
Arch. Subsidy 5% 4% 6% 6% 6% 5% 5%
Model Local Income 93% 93% 93% 93% 93% 93% 93%
Model Arch. Subsidy 7% 7% 7% 7% 7% 7% 7%
Level 9 91-92 92-93 93-94 95-96 96-97 98-99 99-00
Local Income 81% 80% 73% 81% 80% 79% 79%
Arch. Subsidy 19% 20% 27% 19% 20% 21% 21%
Model Local Income 76% 76% 76% 76% 76% 76% 76%
Model Arch. Subsidy 24% 24% 24% 24% 24% 24% 24%
Level 10 91-92 92-93 93-94 95-96 96-97 98-99 99-00
Local Income 54% 58% 59% 58% 61% 58% 72%
Arch. Subsidy 46% 42% 41% 42% 39% 42% 28%
Model Local Income 60% 60% 60% 60% 60% 60% 60%
Model Arch. Subsidy 40% 40% 40% 40% 40% 40% 40%
Statistical Tool - The Simulation
Odden and Picus (2000) constructed a school finance simulation to accompany
their text School Finance: A Policy Perspective and is available on-line at
http://www.mhhe.com/socscience/education/odd/sims.htm. The school finance
simulation is a twenty-district calculation of equity statistics that is run using an Excel
worksheet labeled Sim20. For this study, the twenty districts were pared down to only
ten districts which correspond to the ten levels within the archdiocese.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
86
The original simulation calls for the following data: pupils, property value per
pupil, property tax rate, local revenue per pupil, state revenue per pupil, and total
revenue per pupil. The simulation had to be modified slightly, first, to account for only
ten levels of data instead of twenty; second, to rename the state revenue category as the
archdiocesan subsidy category, and the property value per pupil category as the median
family income per pupil category; and third, to delete the property tax rate category, see
Table 3.6 and Appendix C: Annual Simulation Output C.l. - C.7.
Table 3.6: Original Simulation and Revised Simulation Comparison
Original Simulation Data Columns Revised Simulation Data Columns
District Level
Pupils Pupils
Property Value per Pupil Median Family Income 1990
Property Tax Rate Deleted, No Effect on Calculations
Local Revenue Per Pupil Local Revenue Per Pupil
State Revenue Per Pupil Archdiocesan Revenue Per Pupil
Total Revenue Per Pupil Total Revenue Per Pupil
Source: Constructed by researcher, 2001.
The data used to run this simulation come from the financial summary data
tables. Each column heading of the simulation requires an explanation as to what that
data actually represents. The first data column is the ten financial levels of schools in
the archdiocese in descending order. The second data column represents the total
number of pupils in each level for the 180 schools used in this study. The third data
column is the average, median family income based on the original 1990 census data.
The archdiocese hired Urban Decision Systems, Inc. in the early to mid-1990’s
to gather socioeconomic data on each parish to compute the median family income per
parish. Urban Decision Systems, Inc. did provide 1992 and 1996 estimates and 1997,
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
87
2001, and 2006 year projections, however, because this study begins with the 1991-
1992 year and continues through the 1999-2000 year, the original 1990 estimate is used
across all simulation years for consistency.
The fourth data column is local revenue per pupil. The data in this column is the
sum of all tuition, including tuition assistance, fees, fundraising, and parish subsidy; it is
the total of all revenue minus the archdiocesan subsidy. The fifth data column is
archdiocesan revenue per pupil, which represents the average allocation per pupil of the
funds raised through the archdiocesan Together in Mission program. The sixth and
final data column is the total revenue per pupil and represents the level’s average of all
income per pupil.
Overall, the Odden and Picus (2000) simulation was used to calculate the equity
statistics that are most common in school finance research. The resulting simulation
report for this study includes horizontal equity (range, restricted range, federal range
ratio, coefficient of variation, Gini coefficient, McLoone index, and Verstegen index)
and fiscal neutrality (correlation coefficient and elasticity) statistics. These statistics,
calculated across the seven years of data, are reported in the findings of chapter four.
Summary
This chapter began with a discussion of the reasoning that supports the purpose
of this study. The purpose includes the notion that while public education has and
continues to be studied by researchers and scrutinized by public policymakers, parochial
education is as deserved of such study and examination. This study proposes to
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
88
examine the archdiocesan financial income model as has been implemented by 180 of
218 parochial elementary schools.
The chapter continued with a thorough explanation of the methodology used to
carry out this study. The methodology includes the collection of data, preparation of the
study database, organization of school finance equity framework, creation of financial
data summary tables, and the running of the school finance simulation. This process
provides the necessary components to answer the four research questions that founded
this study and will be answered in the following chapter.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
CHAPTER IV - FINDINGS
The research methodology outlined in chapter three provides the foundation for
completing this equity study of parochial school finance. This chapter presents the
findings given by the utilization of the research methodology and is outlined by the
research questions that have framed this study from the beginning.
Examining the Use of the Financial Model
1. Are the individual parochial Catholic elementary schools in the Archdiocese of Los
Angeles meeting the prescribed income percentages delineated in the Financial Model
for Elementary Schools?
Under the leadership of Dr. Jerome Porath, the Archdiocese of Los Angeles,
Department of Catholic Schools, adopted the Financial Model for parochial elementary
schools in the archdiocese. The income model sets percentage amounts of revenue to
be collected by individual schools in each of the financial levels, see Table 4.1.
Table 4.1: Archdiocese of Los Angeles. Model Income Levels
Level Tuition Fundraising Parish
Subsidy
Archdiocesan
Subsidy
1-7 75% 20% 5% 0%
8 76% 14% 3% 7%
9 60% 14% 2% 24%
10 47% 12% 1% 40%
Source: Archdiocesan Elementary Schools, Budget Considerations, 2000.
Table 4.2 shows the actual income percentages by level. Levels one through
seven are nearly consistent in their self-sufficiency. Level eight schools are also
relatively consistent in their level of local revenue, annually generating 94% to 96% of
their income locally, and receiving between 4% and 6% from archdiocesan subsidy.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
90
Level nine schools show a moderate range in their level of local revenue, annually
generating from 73% to 81%, and receiving between 19% and 27% from archdiocesan
subsidy. Level ten schools reveal steady local revenue across six of the seven years of
data, with a significant jump in local revenue in the 1999-2000 school year.
Table 4.2: Annual Actual Income Percentages by Level. Includes Local Income and
Archdiocesan Subsidy. Across Seven Years of Data___________________________
Levels 1-7 91-92 92-93 93-94 95-96 96-97 98-99 99-00
Local Income 99% 99% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
Archdiocesan Subsidy 1% 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Level 8 91-92 92-93 93-94 95-96 96-97 98-99 99-00
Local Income 95% 96% 94% 94% 94% 95% 95%
Archdiocesan Subsidy 5% 4% 6% 6% 6% 5% 5%
Level 9 91-92 92-93 93-94 95-96 96-97 98-99 99-00
Local Income 81% 80% 73% 81% 80% 79% 79%
Archdiocesan Subsidy 19% 20% 27% 19% 20% 21% 21%
Level 10 91-92 92-93 93-94 95-96 96-97 98-99 99-00
Local Income 54% 58% 59% 58% 61% 58% 72%
Archdiocesan Subsidy 46% 42% 41% 42% 39% 42% 28%
Source: Constructed by Researcher, 2001.
From the 1991-1992 school year through 1998-1999 school year, income
generate locally in level 10 is between 54% and 61% of the total, with 39% to 46% of
their total revenue coming from archdiocesan subsidy. However, in the 1999-2000
school year marks a significant increase in locally generated revenue, primarily through
development efforts, rising to 72% with just 28% of their total revenue coming from
archdiocesan subsidy.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
91
In order to answer the first research question, tuition, fundraising, and parish
subsidy percentages were combined into one category named local income, see table
4.3.
Table 4.3: Financial Model: Local Income and Archdiocesan Subsidy
Levels Local Income Archdiocesan Subsidy
1-7 100% 0%
8 93% 7%
9 76% 24%
10 60% 40%
Source: Constructed by Researcher, 2001.
Having combined the model’s local income categories into one, the financial
model income levels are complete and may be compared to the actual percentages
across the seven years of data. Because the model was put into effect for the 1996-1997
school year, this study offers a pre-model and post-model analysis of the actual income
percentages in comparison with the financial model.
Figure 4.1 illustrates the average actual income versus model income for all
level one through seven schools; in this study, 139 of 172 schools are represented. Prior
to the financial model, in the 1991-1992 and 1992-1993 school years, level one through
seven schools received minimal, if any, subsidy from the archdiocese. As of the 1993-
1994 school year, the data indicate levels one through seven were self-sufficient,
generating 100% of their revenue locally. For levels one through seven schools, these
schools have met the financial model percentage for 100% local income both prior to
and following the inception of the archdiocesan financial model in 1996.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
92
100%
80%
60%
o
£ 40%
CD
20%
0%
Figure 4.1 Levels 1-7 Actual Income
-
91-92 92-93 93-94 95-96 96-97 98-99 99-00
School Y ears
■ Local Income — Archdiocesan Subsidy
The greatest differences in the financial model lie in the revenue expectations
for level eight, nine, and ten schools. Level eight schools are to collect 93% of their
income locally, through tuition, fundraising, and parish subsidy, while the archdiocese
provides 7% of their total income. Figures 4.2, 4.3, and 4.4 illustrate the comparison of
average actual revenue percentages with model income percentages for level eight, nine,
and ten schools.
Figure 4.2 represents the average actual income versus model income for level
eight schools; in this study, twenty-one of the twenty-two level eight schools are
represented. On average, the level eight schools are near or on target for actual
income model expectations both pre- and post-model. The local income model target of
93% was exceeded in all years by 1% to 3%, while the actual archdiocesan subsidy was
just under the model target of 7%, off by 1% to 3%. Thus, pre- and post-model, the
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
local income raised by a parochial school is, consistently, more than the model income
percentage; correspondingly, the archdiocesan subsidy for these level eight schools is
less than the expected model income percentage.
Figure 4.2 Level 8 Actual Income vs. Model Income
100%
90%
80%
70%
| 60%
| 50%
5 40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
91-92 92-93 93-94 95-96 96-97 98-99 99-00
School Years
■ Local Income
■ Model Local Income
■ Archdiocesan Subsidy
■ Model Archdiocesan Subsidy
Figure 4.3 illustrates the average actual income versus model income for level
nine schools; in this study, seventeen of the nineteen level nine schools are represented.
Pre- and post-model, the data indicate that level nine schools are generating more
revenue than the model requirement. The model income target for local revenue is 76%
and for archdiocesan subsidy is 24%. Level nine schools generated from 3% to 5%
more in local revenue than the model expectation; correspondingly, the archdiocese
provided 3% to 5% less than the model expectation.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Figure 4.3 Level 9 Actual Income vs. Model Income
100%
90%
80%
70%
| 60%
3 50%
■ = 40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
H ► —
=£
91-92 92-93 93-94 95-96 96-97 98-99 99-00
School Years
-♦—Local Income
-±— Model Local Income
■ Archdiocesan Subsidy
•Model Archdiocesan Subsidy
94
Figure 4.4 illustrates the average actual income versus model income for level
ten schools; in this study four of the five level ten schools are represented. The Figure
reveals that pre- and post-model actual income is nearly on target with the model; the
1999-2000 year is the exception over the seven-year period. From the 1991-1992
school year through the 1998-1999 school year the local income fluctuated from 6%
below to 1% above the 60% model income target; those greatest fluctuations occurring
in the 1991-1992 and 1992-1993 school years, prior to the implementation of the model.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
95
Figure 4.4 Level 10 Actual Income vs. Model Income
100%
90%
80%
70%
§ 60%
§ 50%
& 40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
91-92 92-93 93-94 95-96 96-97 98-99 99-00
School Years
■ Local Income
■ Model Local Income
■ Archdiocesan Subsidy
■ Model Archdiocesan Subsidy
Figure 4.5 reveals the most significant fluctuation, post-model, in the 1999-2000
school year. In this year, while the archdiocesan subsidy is slightly more than the
previous 1998-1999 school year, the local income generated increased significantly; this
increase is due to three of the four level ten schools who garnered development support.
The archdiocesan subsidy averaged 202,000 in 1998-1999 and increased moderately to
213,000; the major increase came in local income, which averaged 209,000 in 1998-
1999 and increased significantly to an average 543,000 in 1999-2000.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
96
Figure 4.5: Level 10 Schools Comparison of Income,
1998-1999 and 1999-2000 Compared
800,000
700.000
600.000
g 500,000
g 400,000
« 300,000
200,000
100,000
0
i i
School A School B School C School D Average
Four of Five Level 10 Schools
□ 1998-1999 Local Income ■ 1999-2000 Local Income
□ 1998-1999 Arch. Subsidy □ 1999-2000 Arch. Subsidy
There are several possibilities as to why there was a significant increase in local
income in the 1999-2000 school year. Of the four schools represented, schools A, B,
and C had a notable increase in local income, while school D experienced steady
growth in local income from 1998-1999 to 1999-2000. Focusing on schools A, B, and
C however, each school had twenty-plus additional students in the 1999-2000 school
year, which account for some increase in local income. Yet, the bulk of the local
income increase has been attributed to strong development efforts in the forms of
receipt of foundation grants, religious communities or wealthier parochial schools
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
97
adopting level ten schools, tapping into community resources, and having created
successful development boards.
In summary, the levels one through nine parochial Catholic elementary schools
in the Archdiocese of Los Angeles are, on average, at or near the prescribed income
percentages in the financial model for elementary schools. The level ten schools mark
the greatest deviation from the model, which occurs only recently, in the 1999-2000
school year.
Assessing Equity
2. How do we assess the equity of the financial model of the parochial Catholic
elementary schools in the Archdiocese of Los Angeles?
Having examined the actual income and model income comparisons in the first
research question, it is evident that pre- and post-model, archdiocesan schools are at or
near the model expectations for income. The next step is to assess the equity of the
financial model as practiced by schools in each level.
Median Family Income
The assessment of equity of the financial model for the parochial Catholic
elementary schools in the Archdiocese of Los Angeles begins with an examination of
the raw data across the seven years of the Financial Summary Data Tables, see
Appendix A. Median family income, local income, archdiocesan subsidy, and total
income for the seven years of data have been displayed in four Figures and
corresponding data tables. These tables reveal median family income, local income,
archdiocesan subsidy, and total income per each financial level.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
98
Figure 4.6 represents the median family income average for levels one through
ten. It is important to note that the median family income is based on 1990 census data.
These values, for all ten financial levels, are consistent across the seven years included
in this study. The disparity of median family income is evident when comparing the
wealthiest level one school’s median family income average of $90,779 to the a median
family income average of the poorest level ten schools of $16,109. Thus, there is a
substantial variation in wealth across the ten financial levels.
Figure 4.6: AverageMedian Family Income from the Wealthiest.
Level 1 to the Poorest. Level 10
I00000
90000
80000
70000
60000
C/3
M
50000
Q
40000
30000
20000
10000
LIL - 1 .
-907792
X,55275:i|;T
■ . 9 r: “ y y
': : VL:lS^45933::;'i: ': : 7
..................................
4y|:
• , ^Stti38013
: T - ' : ■ t
6
"♦428460:
yi ; i |5fg2469'
; :;77'16109
3 4 5 6 7
Financial Levels
10
■ Median Family Income
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
99
Local Income
The first revenue Figure presented illustrates the growth of local income in the
three years post-model, see Figure 4.7. The initial observations are within each level,
where there is a visible annual increase in local income. Also, while the 1991-1998
school years reveal a steady growth in local income, see Table 4.4, the 1999-2000
school year reveals a significant increase in local income across all ten financial levels.
Figure 4.7: Post-Model Local Income
to
J 3
'o
Q
4500 T
4000 - }
3500 4 -
3000 4
2500 4
2000 |
1500 |
1000 4
i:
500 |
o 4
“
4 5 6 7 8
Financial Levels
9 10
■ 96-97
H 98-99
El 99-00
Comparing across levels, the disparity of local income generated by financial
level is apparent. Level one schools generate significantly more local income than all
other schools, most notably the less fortunate level eight, nine, and ten schools.
Interestingly, while looking across the Figure, the data indicate a direct correlation
between financial level and local income; however an deviation from the norm occurs
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
100
with the level six schools generating less local revenue than the level seven schools
consistently across the seven years of data, see Table 4.4.
Table 4.4: Per Pupil Average Local Income. Pre- and Post-Model, Seven
Years o f Data, Levels 6 anc 7 Highlie ited in Ita ICS
Level 91-92 92-93 93-94 95-96 96-97 98-99 99-00
1 2489 2629 2752 3040 3210 3300 4123
2 2021 2158 2260 2564 2651 2839 3530
3 1867 1949 2081 2437 2453 2683 3386
4 1803 1885 1995 1773 2307 2808 3178
5 1788 1855 1961 2184 2248 2623 3050
6 1522 1608 1654 1840 1981 2169 2473
7 1643 1658 1799 1958 2033 2306 2854
8 1908 1494 1547 1761 1794 2120 2351
9 1153 1225 1232 1387 1489 1676 1862
10 929 994 983 1051 1178 1239 2233
Source: Constructed by Researcher, 2001.
Examining the data more closely, it is clear that on average, the level six schools
have generated less local income than the presumably poorer level seven schools, see
Table 4.4. The gap between level six and seven schools local income fluctuates across
the seven years of data. In the 1992-1993 school year, the gap is at it’s least, on
average, $50.00 per child compared to the 1999-2000 school year, where the gap is at
it’s greatest, on average, $381.00 per child. This gap is less pre-model and more post
model. In the four years between 1991 and 1996, the largest gap of $145.00 is in the
1993-1994 school year. Whereas post-model, the average gap grows continually from
$52.00 in 1996-1997, to $137.00 in 1998-1999, and is at it’s largest of $381.00 in the
1999-2000; recall, the 1997-1998 data set was incomplete and not included in this
study.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
101
The other apparent inconsistency is in the striking growth of local income for
the level ten schools. This point was made in answering the previous question in
relation to the average actual income versus model income, yet it also relevant to this
question.
There are only five level ten schools in the archdiocese, four of which are
included in this study. Of the four schools, in the 1999-2000 school year, three of them
experienced a near doubling in their local income, while the fourth experienced modest,
consistent growth. The local income increase from the 1998-1999 school year to the
1999-2000 school year was, on average, $994.00 per pupil. This dramatic rise in local
income for three of the level ten schools has, as previously noted, been attributed to the
following: foundation grants, communities or other schools adopting and supporting
level ten schools, community resources, and, most likely, through development boards.
Archdiocesan Subsidy
In regard to the archdiocesan subsidy, only levels six through ten are discussed.
The archdiocesan subsidy is a lump sum subsidy, not a per pupil subsidy; for this study,
the archdiocesan subsidy is translated into per pupil dollars. Recall, prior to the
implementation of the model, levels six and seven did receive an archdiocesan subsidy;
however, as part of the financial model, levels six and seven archdiocesan subsidy were
phased out of archdiocesan subsidy, see Table 4.5 and Figure 4.8. It is evident from the
data table and Figure that level six and seven schools were weaned from the
archdiocesan subsidy. The minimal amount of archdiocesan subsidy is noticeable for
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
102
level six schools, as well as for level seven schools, particularly when compared to
levels eight, nine, and ten.
Table 4.5: Archdiocesan Subsidy, Per Pupil, to Level 6-10 Schools
Level 91-92 92-93 93-94 95-96 96-97 98-99 99-00
6 34 21 17 13 6 0 0
7 18 94 21 10 8 4 0
8 99 97 97 115 107 120 117
9 279 305 315 328 374 447 498
10 796 723 687 771 759 894 877
Source: Constructed by Researcher, 2001.
Levels eight, nine, and ten schools received an archdiocesan subsidy both prior
to, and following, the implementation of the financial model in the 1996-1997 school
year. Level eight schools experienced a near consistent lump sum subsidy, equaling a
range of $97.00 to $115.00 per pupil prior to the model, and a slight increase in subsidy,
ranging from $107.00 to $120.00 per pupil, following the implementation of the model.
The increased number of students in this level, from 5,819 students to 6,071 students,
respectively, explains the decrease in subsidy from the 1998-1999 school year to the
1999-2000 school year. Therefore, for level eight schools, the archdiocesan subsidy
remained relatively consistent, with a minimal growth per pupil in subsidy across the
seven years of data.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
103
Figure 4.8: Pre- and Post-Model,
Archdiocesan Subsidy. Per Pupil, Levels 6-10
c 3
o
Q
1000
900
800
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
7 8 9
Financial Levels
10
1 191-92
0 92-93
□ 93-94
□ 95-96
■ 96-97
■ 98-99
0 99-00
Level nine schools experienced a steady increase in subsidy both prior to, and
following, the model implementation. Prior to the model, the annual increase in the
lump sum subsidy averaged between $10.00 and $26.00 per pupil; following the
model’s implementation, the annual increase in subsidy expanded to an average range
of $51.00 to $73.00 per pupil. Correlating to the increase in subsidy following the
implementation of the model, is the growing number of students in that level, which
went from 4,459 students in the 1996-1997 school year, to 4,738 students in the 1999-
2000 school year.
Receiving the greatest allocation of archdiocesan subsidy, level ten schools
experienced the greatest fluctuation in subsidy. Prior to the model, the lump sum
subsidy was, when converted into per pupil dollars, annually inconsistent ranging from
$687.00 to $796.00 per pupil; following the model, while the inconsistency in subsidy
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
104
remained, the allocation was higher, equaling a range from $759.00 to $894.00 per
pupil. The decline in the calculation of per pupil aid from the 1998-1999 to the 1999-
2000 school year may be attributed to the dramatic rise in the number of students, from
906 to 972, respectively.
Total Income
Figure 4.9 illustrates average per pupil total income for levels one through
seven. It is evident from the Figure, that across the seven years of data, the average
total income per pupil in every level has increased, with the greatest common increase
occurring in the 1999-2000 school year.
Figure 4.9: Total Income, Per Pupil Levels 1-7
4500 T
i
4000
3500
3000
jg 2500
£ 2000
1500
“ 1
1000
500
6 1 3 4 5 7 2
□ 91-92
j H 92-93
□ 93-94
□ 95-96
■ 96-97
:□ 98-99
i H 99-00
Financial Levels
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
105
Similar to the local income Figure, there is an discrepancy, occurring between
level six and level seven schools, in the consistent decline of average total income per
pupil from level one to level seven. While the levels six and seven are near identical in
their total income for the first six years of the data, the most recent, 1999-2000 year
marks an inconsistency, wherein level seven schools are generating more on average
per pupil revenue than the level six schools. Overall, the Figure 4.9 represents the
disparity in the generation of total revenue from level to level; nearly consistent is the
relationship between level and wealth. That is, level one schools are generating more
total income than level two schools, level two schools are generating more total income
than level three schools, and so on.
Figure 4.10: Total Income, Per Pupil Levels 8-10
□ 91-92
■ 92-93
□ 93-94
0 95-96
■ 96-97
198-99
199-00
10
Financial Levels
Figure 4.10 represents per pupil average total income for levels eight, nine, and
ten over the seven years of data. As evidenced by the Figure, these three levels average
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
106
total income per pupil is similar; although, in the 1999-2000 school year, significant
increases were realized by three of the four level ten schools represented in this study.
When comparing Figure 4.9 and Figure 4.10, the disparities between levels one
through seven schools and the eight, nine, and ten schools is readily apparent. In the
most recent year of this study, the average total income across the first seven levels for
the 1999-2000 school year is $3228.00, while the average level eight is $2,468.00, the
average level nine is $2,630.00, and the average level ten is $3,110.00.
The final comparison, represented in Figure 4.11, illustrates the relationship
between median family income and total income, per level for the most recent 1999-
2000 school year’s data utilized for this study. Minus level seven and level ten, the data
indicated that there is a direct relationship between median family income and total
income per pupil generated for the 1999-2000 school year.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
107
Figure 4.11: Median Family Income
and 1999-2000 Total Income Per Pupil Compared
3110.
10
360
9
2468.
8
854.
7
:473;
6
.3050 .
5
178,
4
390.
3
35 3 0 .
2
.4123,
1
0 20000 40000 60000 80000 100000 j
____________________Dollars_____________________
■ Median Family Income ■ Total Income
Research question two sought to assess the equity of the financial model.
Analyzing the financial model according to the individual categories of income in terms
of median family income, local income, archdiocesan subsidy, and total income, across
the seven years of data completed this. Continuing the equity assessment, research
question number three seeks a comparison of the financial model statistics with norms
set in school finance research.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
108
Archdiocesan Financial Equity Compared to
Accepted Public School Finance Equity Standards
3. When we do assess equity, how does it compare to models set in alternate education
finance sectors?
In this study, the Odden and Picus School Finance Simulation (2000) was used
to calculate the equity statistics in order to draw conclusions regarding the horizontal
equity and fiscal neutrality of the applied archdiocesan income model. The statistics
used in this study to gauge horizontal equity were: range, restricted range, federal range
ratio, coefficient of variation, Gini coefficient, McLoone index, and Verstegen index, as
well as, correlation and elasticity, to determine fiscal neutrality.
In order to calculate these statistics the simulation required specific income
information. Chapter III provided an explanation of the simulation and particular
modifications that were necessary to run the simulation for this study. In review, the
original simulation was created for twenty districts; in this study, the simulation had to
be altered to account for the decrease of districts to only ten, and to renaming the
category as level. The next simulation category is the pupil count category; this
category represents the sum of students for the entire level. The remaining four
categories’ data: median family income, local income, archdiocesan subsidy, and total
revenue were calculated by finding the average per pupil amount of income for each
category. The reconfiguration and renaming of the categories had no impact on the
effectiveness of the simulation.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
109
Information from the data summary tables, described in chapter three and
located in Appendix A, was transferred into the simulation. The simulation was run for
all seven years of data. The complete output from the simulation is located in Appendix
C under the title Annual Simulation Output. An initial glance at the equity statistics is
found in Table 4.6, with charted illustrations and a discussion of the statistics to follow.
Table 4.6: School Finance Equity Measures of Horizontal Equity and Fiscal
Neutrality
Horizontal Equity 91-92 92-93 93-94 95-96 96-97 98-99 99-00
Range 1,057 1,099 1,205 1,325 1,347 1,189 1,763
Restricted Range 465 567 616 788 750 706 1062
Federal Range Ratio 0.3 0.36 0.37 0.44 0.39 0.33 0.43
Coeff. of Variation 0.12 0.13 0.14 0.17 0.14 0.13 0.15
Gini Coefficient 0.04 0.06 0.07 0.06 0.07 0.06 0.08
McLoone Index 0.93 0.9 0.88 0.97 0.91 0.89 0.83
Verstegen Index 1.05 1.1 1.11 1.11 1.13 1.13 1.07
Fiscal Neutrality 91-92 92-93 93-94 95-96 96-97 98-99 99-00
Correlation 0.82 0.95 0.97 0.92 0.98 0.95 0.87
Elasticity 0.37 0.37 0.35 0.33 0.3 0.27 0.22
Source: Constructed by Researcher, 2001.
Conducting the study using the per pupil averages for the categories of income,
the simulation calculated the equity statistics that are standard in school finance equity
studies. The statistics calculated include: range, restricted range, federal range ratio,
coefficient of variation, Gini coefficient, McLoone index, Verstegen index, correlation,
and elasticity. Corresponding to each statistic are accepted equity norms which are the
bases for concluding whether or not the Archdiocese of Los Angeles parochial
elementary school finance model as implemented is equitable.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
The first statistics reported are range, restricted range, and federal range ratio,
see Figures 4.12 and 4.13. Odden and Picus (2000) regard range and restricted range as
poor indicators of equity; whereas, the federal range ratio is considered the best of the
three range statistics, because it is not sensitive to inflation. It is evident from the data
that all three range statistics reveal substantial growth over time, which is beyond
normal inflation.
Figure 4.12: Horizontal Equity Statistics
Range and Restricted Range
2000
1750
1500
1250
1000
750
500
250
0
91-92 92-93 93-94 95-96 96-97 98-99 99-00
School Years
— Range Restricted Range j
Examining the range and restricted range statistics, as they are calculated in
most school finance research, it is evident that there is a disparity in average total
revenue per pupil across the seven years of this study, see Figure 4.12. Exclusive of the
1998-1999 school year, both the range and restricted range statistics indicate a growing
trend in the difference of average total dollars per pupil, with a dramatic increase in the
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Ill
difference occurring in the 1999-2000 school year. Without an equity standard or
indicator for restricted range, determination of equity is not possible. However,
stakeholders may have an opinion as to acceptable range or restricted range values to
indicate equity.
The federal range ratio, computed by calculating the total revenue difference
between the 95th and 5th percentile, divided by the value of the 5th percentile, is
displayed for the seven years of data in Figure 4.13. Having removed the outliers, the
data indicate a fluctuating federal range ratio across the seven years included in this
study. All of the values, across the seven years of data, are above the commonly used
federal range ratio value of .25. Thus, this school finance statistic indicated inequity in
the model.
Figure 4.13 Horizontal Equity Statistic -
Federal Range Ratio
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
91-92 92-93 93-94 95-96 96-97 98-99 99-00
Federal Range Ratio
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
112
The overall percent increase from the first year of this study, 1991-1992 to the
final year of this study, 1999-2000 reveals a substantial growth in total income, see
Figure 4.14. It is evident from the data that schools in nine of the ten levels have
experienced a 60-80 percent increase over the nine-year period. Only financial level
three experienced a mild increase in total income of 20 percent over the nine-year
period.
Figure 4.14: Overall Percent Increase in Total Income
from 1991-1992 to 1999-2000 for All Financial Levels
90% -p
80%
70%
1 60%
< D
§ 50%
■ g 40%
| 30%
^ 20%
10%
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Financial Levels
Tables 4.7 and 4.8 show the dollar increase and percent increase in total income
per financial level across seven years of data. Recall, two years of data were not used
from 1991-2000: 1994-1995 and 1998-1999. With these two years absent, seven years
of comparative data remain. Levels one, two, three, five, six, seven, and nine reveal a
year-by-year increase in total income; yet, levels four, eight, and ten experienced
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
113
fluctuations in the total income. For level four, the 1993-1994 to 1995-1996 school
year mark a decrease in total income per pupil; this decline may be attributed to a
student population explosion of nearly 3,000 additional level four students. Therefore,
with such a great increase in student population, the average total income per pupil
declined significantly in 1995-1996 and began to rise in the years following. For level
eight, this fluctuation is consistent with fluctuations in enrollment. For level ten, this
fluctuation occurs between the 1992-1993 school year and the 1993-1994 school year.
This drop in total income may be attributed to the increase in number of students
combined with a decline in archdiocesan subsidy; thus lowering the overall total income
per pupil average.
Table 4.7: Dollar Increase in Total Income per Financial Level
Level 91-92 92-93 93-94 95-96 96-97 97-98 99-00
10 $1,725 $1,717 $1,669 $1,823 $1,937 $2,132 $3,110
9 $1,432 $1,530 $1,547 $1,715 $1,863 $2,123 $2,360
8 $2,007 $2,354 $1,644 $1,876 $1,901 $2,240 $2,468
7 $1,661 $1,752 $1,820 $1,968 $2,041 $2,310 $2,854
6 $1,556 $1,629 $1,671 $1,853 $1,987 $2,169 $2,473
5 $1,796 $1,863 $1,963 $2,186 $2,248 $2,624 $3,050
4 $1,805 $1,889 $1,995 $1,776 $2,308 $2,808 $3,178
3 $1,867 $1,949 $2,081 $2,441 $2,453 $2,683 $3,390
2 $2,021 $2,158 $2,260 $2,564 $2,651 $2,839 $3,530
1 $2,489 $2,629 $2,752 $3,040 $3,210 $3,312 $4,123
Source: Constructed by researcher, 2002.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
114
Table 4.8: Annual Percent Increase in Total Income per Financial Level
Level
91-92
92-93
% Inc.
92-93
93-94
% Inc.
93-94
95-96
% Inc.
95-96
96-97
% Inc.
96-97
97-98
% Inc.
97-98
99-00
% Inc.
91-92
99-00
% Inc.
10 -0.46% -2.74% 9.10% 6.31% 10.12% 45.80% 80.29%
9 6.84% 1.11% 10.86% 8.63% 13.96% 11.16% 64.80%
8 17.29% -30.16% 14.11% 1.33% 17.83% 10.18% 22.97%
7 5.48% 3.88% 8.13% 3.71% 13.18% 23.55% 71.82%
6 4.69% 2.58% 10.89% 7.23% 9.16% 14.02% 58.93%
5 3.73% 5.37% 11.36% 2.84% 16.73% 16.23% 69.82%
4 4.65% 5.61% -10.98% 29.95% 21.66% 13.18% 76.07%
3 4.39% 6.77% 17.30% 0.49% 9.38% 26.35% 81.57%
2 6.78% 4.73% 13.45% 3.39% 7.09% 24.34% 74.67%
1 5.62% 4.68% 10.47% 5.59% 3.18% 24.49% 65.65%
Source: Constructed by researcher, 2002.
In addition to range, restricted range, and federal range ratio, the statistics
commonly used in school finance research to assess equity are found in Table 4.9 and
Figure 4.15. These four statistics: coefficient of variation, Gini coefficient, McLoone
index, and Verstegen index, are horizontal equity statistics, which assess the equal
treatment of equals.
An initial examination of the statistics reveals little fluctuation in each measure.
The range of difference, across the seven years of data, for the coefficient of variation is
.05, while the range of difference for the Gini coefficient is also .05. The range of
difference for the McLoone index is larger at .14, while the range of difference for the
Verstegen index is .06.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
115
Statistical Measures 91-92 92-93 93-94 95-96 96-97 98-99 99-00
Coeff. of Variation 0.12 0.14 0.14 0.17 0.14 0.13 0.15
Gini Coefficient 0.04 0.03 0.07 0.06 0.07 0.06 0.08
McLoone Index 0.93 0.97 0.88 0.97 0.91 0.89 0.83
Verstegen Index 1.05 1.06 1.11 1.11 1.13 1.13 1.07
Source: Constructed by Researcher, 2001.
First, the value of the coefficient of variation ranges from .12 to .17 across the
seven years of data. The norm range for this statistic is 0 to 1.0, with 0 indicating an
equal distribution. In school finance equity research, a school system is considered
equitable if the coefficient of variation is less than 0.1.
1.2
1
0.8
'3
cr
0.6
W
0.4
0.2
0
Figure 4.15: Horizontal Equity Statistics -
Coefficient of Variation, Gini Coefficient,
McLoone Index, and Verstegen Index
;
91-92 92-93 93-94 95-96 96-97 98-99 99-00
School Years
■ Coeff. of Variation
■ McLoone Index
■ Gini Coefficient
■ Verstegen Index
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
116
The values presented in Table 4.9 indicate, and the line with diamond-shaped
markers in Figure 4.15 plotting the coefficient of variation just above the .1 marker line
illustrate, that across the seven years of data, the financial actuals for the archdiocese
are only slightly inequitable both pre- and post-model.
Second, the Gini coefficient ranges from .03 to .08 across the seven years of
data. The norm range for this statistic is 0 to 1.0, with a value close 0 indicating
equality. The values presented in Table 4.9 indicate and the line with small square
markers in Figure 4.15 plotting the Gini coefficient just below the .1 marker line,
illustrate that across the seven years of data, the financial actuals for the archdiocese are
equitable both pre- and post-model.
Third, the McLoone Index examines the bottom half of the ten financial levels,
targeting levels six through ten, only. The range for this statistic is 0 to 1.0, with a value
of 1 indicating perfect equality. In school finance research, the norm for equity is set
between .7 and .95, with .9 desirable. In this study, the statistical values range from .83
to .97 across the seven years of data. The values presented in Table 4.9 indicate, and
the line with triangle markers in Figure 4.15 plotting the McLoone Index just below the
1.0 marker line illustrate, that across the seven years of data, the financial actuals for the
archdiocese either meet or exceed equity expectations both pre- and post-model.
Fourth, the Verstegen Index examines the upper half of the ten financial levels,
targeting levels one through five, only. The norm range for this statistic is 1.0 or higher,
with a value of 1 indicating perfect equality. In school finance research, the norm for
equity is set between 1.2 and 1.5. In this study, the statistical values range from 1.05 to
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
117
1.13 across the seven years of data. The values presented in Table 4.9 indicate, and the
line with “x” markers in Figure 4.15 plot the Verstegen Index just above the 1.0 marker
line illustrate, that across the seven years of data, the financial actuals for the
archdiocese either meet or exceed equity expectations both pre- and post-model.
The remaining equity statistics involve the concept of fiscal neutrality. The
principle of fiscal neutrality states that dollars available per pupil may not be attributed
to local wealth. The statistical measures and values for the correlation coefficient and
elasticity are shown in Table 4.10 and Figure 4.16.
Table 4.10: Statistical Measures of Fiscal Neutrality, Including: Correlation
and Elasticity, Across Seven Years of Data
Statistical Measures 91-92 92-93 93-94 95-96 96-97 98-99 99-00
Correlation 0.82 0.73 0.97 0.92 0.98 0.95 0.87
Elasticity 0.37 0.35 0.35 0.33 0.3 0.27 0.22
Source: Constructed by Researcher, 2001.
Both the correlation coefficient and elasticity statistics reveal the relationship
between the median family income per pupil and the total revenue per pupil. The first
statistic is the correlation coefficient, which identifies the linear relationship between
median family income and total revenue per pupil. The correlation coefficient ranges
from - 1.0 to +1.0 with values closer to 0 indicating no relationship between the two
variables. The data indicate a fluctuating relationship pre-model and a steadier, yet
downward trend post-model. The values presented in Table 4.10 indicate and the line
with triangle-shaped markers in Figure 4.16 plotting the correlation coefficient show a
weak, positive relationship between median family income and total revenue for the
1991-1992, 1992-1993 years. And, a stronger positive relationship in the two years
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
118
prior to, and three years following, implementation of the model. Yet, the data also
indicate a post-model trend of a weakening of the relationship between median family
income and total revenue.
Figure 4. 16: Wealth Neutrality Statistics
Correlation and Elasticity
1.20
1.00
0.80
0.60
0.40
0.20
0.00
91-92 92-93 93-94 95-96 96-97 98-99 99-00
School Years
Correlation — ■— Elasticity
The other fiscal neutrality statistic is elasticity, which indicates the magnitude of
the relationship between median family income and total revenue per pupil. Elasticity is
the ratio of percent increase in median family income to the percent increase in total
revenue per pupil. Elasticity ranges from 0 to any number with values greater than or
equal to 1.0 indicating an elastic relationship between the two variables. The data
indicate a trend beginning in 1991-1992 at .37 and continuing steadily downward across
the seven years of data to .22 in 1999-2000. The values presented in Table 4.10 and the
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
119
line with square-shaped markers in Figure 4.16 plotting elasticity indicate a lack of an
elastic relationship between median family income and total revenue.
In summary, the horizontal equity statistics, which examine the concept of the
equal treatment of equals, reveal overall equity in archdiocesan elementary school
finance. While the coefficient of variation indicates slight inequity, the Gini coefficient,
McLoone index, and Verstegen index indicate equity. The McLoone Index, which
examines the equity of levels six through ten, and the Verstegen Index, which examines
the equity of levels one through five indicate equity which meet or exceeds equity
standards set in school finance research. The fiscal neutrality statistics, which examine
the relationship between median family income and average total revenue per pupil,
reveal a strong and positive relationship, although weakening, between the two
variables.
Summary
This chapter presents the findings based on the calculation of statistics through
utilization of the school finance simulation. Three of the four research questions were
answered sequentially using the indications of the statistics. The fourth and final
research question is answered in chapter five of this dissertation.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
120
CHAPTER V - SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS
This chapter is divided into three parts: a summary of this study, conclusions
drawn from the findings, and recommendations based on those conclusions. The
summary section briefly discusses the breadth of the study, while focusing on the
methodology. The conclusion section refers to the research questions and the findings
of chapter four, exploring those findings and drawing significant conclusions based on
those findings. The recommendations section focuses on the fourth and final research
question offering policy suggestions based on the conclusions drawn.
Summary
This dissertation has researched the equity of school finance for the Archdiocese
of Los Angeles parochial elementary school system. The following summary is broken
into three sections. Section one describes, in general, the study of equity in school
finance and the purpose behind parochial school finance research. Section two briefly
recounts the history of the school finance model developed and implemented by the
archdiocese. Section three discusses the methodology used to carry out this study.
Section One: The Study o f Equity in School Finance
Prompted by the early Coleman research, the study of equity in school finance
remains a topic of interest to educators, researchers, lawyers, policymakers, and other
stakeholders. Notions of fairness in collection and distribution of educational resources
provide the impetus for such research in the areas of K-12 public education, higher
education, private and parochial education, and alternative schooling.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
121
Three equity concepts often frame school finance research, they are: horizontal
equity, vertical equity, and fiscal neutrality. Horizontal equity speaks to the equal
distribution of resources across all students. Vertical equity allows for an unequal
distribution of resources in order to meet the varying needs of students belonging to
special groups of a school population. Fiscal neutrality states that there should be no
relationship between district wealth and per pupil expenditures. These three equity
concepts drive school finance research, and their corresponding statistical measures
provide the data necessary to conclude upon the equity of a school finance model or
system.
Section Two: The Archdiocesan Model o f School Finance
The Archdiocesan elementary school finance model is a three-part model, which
includes a financial level component, income model, and expense model. The financial
levels are parish-school rankings, from level one to level ten, based on local wealth. In
order to determine median family income, an extensive data gathering process was
conducted by an outside agency. Using primarily socioeconomic information from the
1990 census report, this agency issued reports stating the median family income of each
parish-school. The archdiocese used this information to place each elementary school
into a financial level scale with level one representing the wealthiest schools and level
ten representing the poorest schools.
The income model includes four types of revenue: tuition and fees, fundraising,
parish subsidy, and archdiocesan subsidy. Levels one through seven schools are
responsible for all local revenue and receive no archdiocesan subsidy. Levels eight,
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
122
nine, and ten schools are responsible for the majority of their local revenue and receive
from seven to twenty-four to forty percent, respectively, of the remaining revenue in
the form of a lump sum subsidy from the archdiocese.
Section Three: The Process for Researching Equity in School Finance
The process in conducting this school finance equity study involved: the
development of research questions to frame the study, followed by the collection of
data, entering and sorting of data, comparison of raw data, and running the appropriate
data in a school finance simulation to generate the equity statistics. The study
concludes with a discussion and analysis of the findings and conclusions, and a
synthesis of the conclusions, which shape policy recommendations.
Four research questions provide the basis for conducting this study:
1. Are the individual parochial Catholic elementary schools in the Archdiocese of Los
Angeles meeting the prescribed income percentages delineated in the Financial
Model for Elementary Schools?
2. How do we assess the equity of the financial model of the parochial Catholic
elementary schools in the Archdiocese of Los Angeles?
3. When we do assess equity, how does it compare to models set in alternate education
finance sectors?
4. What are the policy implications for the Los Angeles Archdiocese in setting a model
for allocating school resources.
The data for this study, annual financial actual summaries, were collected from
the Archdiocese of Los Angeles, Department of Catholic Schools. The data from these
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
123
reports were then entered into multiple Microsoft Excel worksheets and sorted
according to financial level. Raw data from these worksheets was used to calculate
averages for each level, and those averages were used for an initial examination of
possible financial trends or relationships in the data. Summary information of the data
was used to operate the school finance simulation. The Odden and Picus (2000) school
finance simulation, available via the World Wide Web at: http://www.mhhe.com/
socscience/education/ odd/index.htm, was used to calculate statistics corresponding to
horizontal equity and fiscal neutrality school finance concepts.
Review of Findings and Conclusions
Four research questions frame this school finance study. Study findings
corresponding to the first three research questions were arrived at by examining raw
data, computing averages, and calculating statistics via the school finance simulation.
Those study findings provide information necessary to draw conclusions related to the
research questions. Study findings corresponding to the final research question were
arrived at by evaluating the results of the first three research questions.
Examining the Use o f the Financial Model
1. Are the individual parochial Catholic elementary schools in the Archdiocese of Los
Angeles meeting the prescribed income percentages delineated in the Financial
Model for Elementary Schools?
According to the findings presented in chapter four, levels one through seven
individual parochial elementary schools are at or near the prescribed income model
percentages presented in the Financial Model Income Levels, both pre- and post-model.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
124
Prior to the model, in the 1991-1992 and 1992-1993 school years, levels one through
seven individual schools were generating 99% of their total income; and, as of the
1993-1994 school year were collecting 100% of their income. Thus, both pre- and post
model, levels one through seven schools were meeting the financial model, which
required 100% income generation by the individual parish school.
According to the findings presented in chapter four, levels eight and nine
schools are at or near financial model guidelines. By percentages of income, the data
indicate level eight and nine schools are generating more local income than
recommended by the income model and are, conversely, by percentages of income,
receiving less subsidy from the archdiocese.
According to the findings presented in chapter four, level ten schools
experienced the greatest fluctuation in actual income. In the first six of the seven years
of data for this study, level ten schools were at or near the model income. Yet, in the
1999-2000 school year level ten schools were able to generate a significantly greater
percentage, 14% more than the previous school year, of local income. This increase is
due to a variety of factors, including: receipt of foundation grants, religious
communities or wealthier parochial schools adopting specific level ten schools,
contributions from the community, and through the involvement of development
boards.
Conclusions
■ The financial model serves as an organizational tool for all parochial
elementary schools, yet financially serves only level eight, nine and ten schools.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
125
Schools in all levels were either at or near model specifications both pre-and post
model. Levels one through seven schools are completely responsible, according to the
model, for generating all their income locally, making all of these schools entirely self-
sufficient. Levels eight, nine, and ten schools, recipients of a percentage of their total
income from the archdiocese, are served by the financial model, which publicly
acknowledges the accountability the archdiocese has toward needier schools. Therefore,
it follows that there is no need for a financial model for levels one through seven
schools. It appears the purpose and significance of the income model is to recognize
and hold accountable the archdiocesan responsibility for a percentage of levels eight,
nine, and ten schools’ total income.
■ Level ten schools garnered significant support from outside contributors.
It is evident from the findings that three of the four level ten schools represented in this
study have greatly improved their ability to generate local income. This ability to
invoke monetary support of these schools, through various avenues, is a testament to the
individuals and groups of people who have a great concern for inner city
schoolchildren, representing the greatest need in generating revenue.
Assessing Equity
2. How do we assess the equity of the financial model of the parochial Catholic
elementary schools in the Archdiocese of Los Angeles?
The financial model for the archdiocese includes four income categories: tuition
and fees, fundraising, parish subsidy, and archdiocesan subsidy. For this study, the first
three categories of income have been combined under the title local income. According
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
126
to the findings presented in chapter four, conclusions in regard to median family
income, local income, archdiocesan subsidy, and total income emerge.
First, it is apparent there is correlation between median family income and per
pupil average of local income. That is, level one schools have the highest median
family income and generate more per pupil income, values in median family income
and the corresponding ability to generate decreases significantly moving through the
financial levels, to level ten. The resulting correlation is evident: the greater the
median family income and correspondingly, the more able to pay a higher tuition and
fee amount, leads to greater average per pupil spending.
Although this trend is clear and present, the first variation to this correlation are
the level ten schools which, due to a significant increase in alternative local funding in
the 1999-2000 school year, were able to generate more average per pupil local income
than in all years prior. In doing so, the average of level ten schools yielded more local
income than the average of levels six, seven, eight, and nine schools. In all years prior,
however, level ten schools did have the least average per pupil income and,
correspondingly, the lowest median family income.
The second variation to this correlation is the comparison of wealthier level six
schools to poorer level seven schools. All post-model data findings indicate level seven
schools generated more local income on average, per pupil than seemingly wealthier
level six schools. Explanations for this apparent inconsistency comparing, specifically,
levels six and seven, may be due to the following: inaccuracies in placing multiple
individual schools in the incorrect financial level, socioeconomic shifts in the parish-
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
127
school community, or successful marketing efforts at individual level seven schools
causing a significant increase in local income.
Second, in regard to the archdiocesan subsidy, a phasing-out period occurred
following the implementation of the financial model for levels six and seven schools, to
adjust to becoming self-sufficient in generating income. Prior to the model, levels six
and seven schools were receiving an archdiocesan subsidy. Still, in the model’s first
year, levels six and seven received an archdiocesan subsidy; in the model’s second year,
level six schools did not receive a subsidy, while level seven schools continued to
receive a subsidy. By the third year of the model, level seven schools did not receive an
archdiocesan subsidy; thus, levels one through seven were weaned from the subsidy and
after a three year period, were able to meet model expectations locally.
Third, due to fluctuations in enrollment in levels eight, nine, and ten schools, the
lump sum archdiocesan subsidy, when figured on an average per pupil basis, also
fluctuates. That is, an increase in enrollment has a corresponding decrease in the
average per pupil archdiocesan subsidy; conversely, a decrease in enrollment has a
corresponding increase in the average per pupil archdiocesan subsidy. While the
allotment is in the form of a lump sum, the significance of this fluctuation is the
resulting inconsistency in average per pupil spending.
Fourth, for levels one through five is a relationship between financial level and
total income. The trend in the relationship is apparent across the seven years of data.
The average total income per pupil is greatest for level one and decreases by level,
through financial level five. It appears that the determination of financial level per
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
128
school by way of median family income is accurate. That is, it is apparent that there is a
relationship between median family income and the ability to generate revenue.
Fifth, the level six average total income per pupil is less than the level seven
average. Occurring across the seven years of data included in this study, both pre- and
post-model, this reverse in the relationship between financial level and total income
contradicts the established correlation.
Sixth, there is little disparity in the relationship between financial level and total
income for level eight, nine, and ten schools across the first six years of data. In six of
the seven years used in this study, between the 1991-1992 school year through the
1998-1999, average total income per pupil is nearly identical in the three levels, with a
sharp increase in total income for level ten occurring in the 1999-2000 school year.
Thus, placement of individual schools within each level, when the model is applied
combining a percentage of local income with a percentage of archdiocesan subsidy,
appears to have created a standard level of total income for these three poorest financial
levels.
Seventh, scanning across the seven years of data, the overall disparity in the
financial levels’ average total income per pupil is evident. Levels one through seven
schools have more average total income per pupil than level eight, nine, and ten
schools. Levels one through seven schools have the ability to generate locally 100% of
their total income, compared to the percentages of local income generated by the eight,
nine, and ten schools even with the financial assistance of the archdiocese in
supplementing income to arrive at a total income. Although the archdiocesan subsidy
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
129
provides additional dollars to level eight, nine, and ten schools, this lump sum subsidy
and the lack of ability to generate greater local resources, create schools that operate
with significantly less total income than levels one through five schools, and just less
than level six and seven schools.
Conclusions
■ Levels one through seven schools are responsible for 100% of their local
income. Having the model constructed by percentages is acceptable when all income is
the responsibility of the school and parish. However, for levels eight, nine, and ten
schools, having the model constructed by percentages is impracticable. Using
percentages lacks clarity in terms of the actual dollars generated at the local level and
allocated at the archdiocesan level.
■ Level ten schools have, in the 1999-2000 school year, generated
significantly more local income than in previous years. This additional revenue is
attributed to receipt of additional income from outside sources through successful
development efforts..
■ Wealthier schools generate more local and total income than poorer
schools. This disparity is of concern due to the fact that the Archdiocese is a Catholic
organization. Although each parish, as prescribed by Canon Law, is financially
responsible for itself, the Catholic Social Teachings documents, representing a century
of current Church doctrine regarding social justice: a call for dignity of the human
person, a call for community and the common good, a call for the rights and
responsibilities, a call to service for the poor, and a call for solidarity.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
130
Archdiocesan Financial Equity Compared to
Accepted School Finance Equity Standards
3. When we do assess equity, how does it compare to models set in alternate education
finance sectors?
Research in the area of school finance includes an understanding of equity
concepts and corresponding equity statistics. This study examines the horizontal equity
and fiscal neutrality of the financial income model. Horizontal equity refers to the
equal treatment of equals, such that all students in the archdiocese have equal means to
a Catholic education. According to the findings presented in chapter four, multiple
conclusions may be drawn from the results of the statistical measures calculated using
the school finance simulation.
In regard to horizontal equity, the first three statistics calculated were range,
restricted range, and federal range ratio. According to the findings, there is a
fluctuating disparity between level one and level ten schools in total income per pupil.
Because these are poor indicators of horizontal equity there are limits to the usefulness
of these statistics. However, all three statistics do reveal a trend of growing disparity
across financial levels average total revenue per pupil.
In regard to horizontal equity, the coefficient of variation, Gini coefficient,
McLoone index, and Verstegen index are the foremost indicators of equity. In regard to
the coefficient of variation, which relates the uniform total revenue per pupil across all
financial levels, the findings indicate that the financial actuals for the archdiocese are
inequitable both pre- and post-model implementation. Yet, the degree of inequity is
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
131
minimal, with the statistics ranging from just three-hundredths to seven-hundredths
above the equity threshold. In regard to the Gini coeffiecient, which relates the degree
to which all pupils are attributed total revenue, the findings indicate equity. The range
for this statistic is from 0 to 1.0, with values closer to 0 indicating equity. Across the
seven years of data, the calculation ranges from 0.03 to 0.08; thus, both pre- and post
model according to the Gini coefficient the model is equitable.
Horiztonal equity is also indicated by the McLoone index and Verstegen index.
The McLoone index examines the equity of levels six through ten only, while the
Verstegen index examines the equity of levels one through five only. The McLoone
index statistic ranges from 0 to 1.0, with a value of 1.0 indicating perfect equity; the
equity norm for school finance research ranges from .7 to .95, with .9 desirable. The
findings indicate that across the seven years of data, for levels six through ten schools,
total revenue is equitable. The Verstegen index ranges from 1 or higher, with a value
of 1.0 indicating perfect equity; the equity norm for school finance research ranges from
1.2 to 1.5. The findings indicate that the values exceed the equity norm, thus are closer
to 1 than the given range of 1.2 to 1.5. Therefore, according to the Verstegen index, the
findings indicate that across the seven years of data, for the levels one through five
schools, total revenue is equitable.
The second equity concept applied to this study is the fiscal neutrality concept,
which asserts that total revenue available per child may not be attributed to local wealth.
Median family income and total revenue were used to calculate the correlation and
elasticity statistics applicable to this concept.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
132
The first fiscal neutrality statistic is the correlation coefficient, which computes
the linear relationship between median family income and total revenue. The
correlation coefficient ranges from -1.0 to +1.0 with values closer to 0 indicating no
relationship. The findings reveal, post-model, a strong and positive relationship
between the two variables. The findings also reveal, post-model, that the value of this
statistic, although strong and positive, seems to be lessening.
The second fiscal neutrality statistic is elasticity, which calculates the magnitude
of the relationship between median family income and total revenue. Elasticity
examines the ratio of percent increase in median family income to the percent increase
in total revenue per pupil. Elasticity ranges from 0 to any number, with values greater
than or equal to 1.0 indicating an elastic relationship between the two variables. Across
the seven years of data the values indicate a lack of an elastic relationship between
median family income and total revenue.
Conclusions
■ In regard to the horizontal equity concept, the financial income model for
parochial elementary schools is equitable. The horizontal equity statistics, calculated via
the school finance simulation, indicate an equitable sum or collection of revenue for all
ten financial levels and across the seven years of data; therefore, indicating equity in the
financial income model for elementary parochial schools.
■ In regard to the fiscal neutrality concept, the financial income model for
parochial elementary schools is inequitable. The fiscal neutrality results, also calculated
via the school finance simulation, indicate inequity in the school finance income model.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
133
That is, there is an inequitable relationship between average local wealth and average
dollars generated per pupil for the ten financial levels and across the seven years of
data.
Implications fo r Archdiocesan School Finance Policy
4. What are the policy implications for the Los Angeles Archdiocese in setting a model
for allocating school resources?
As a result of this study, which has utilized seven years of financial data for 180
parochial elementary schools in ten financial levels, there are multiple policy
implications for the archdiocese when considering a model for allocating school
resources. These policy implications are a result of the equity analyses of the
statistical data.
■ Because levels one through seven schools are locally responsible for 100%
of their income, the financial model is not applicable to schools in those levels.
Therefore, income model serves only to levels eight, nine, and ten only; these are the
only schools to receive an archdiocesan subsidy.
■ The Catholic Social Teachings are a potential source for basing the construct
of a newly developed financial model for the parochial elementary schools of the
archdiocese. Fiscal neutrality, in terms of the relationship between local wealth and the
ability to generate revenue, as well as the overall disparity of local wealth from level one
through level ten schools must be addressed when considering a new financial model.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
134
Recommendations
1. Reconfigure or eliminate the financial levels.
It is evident from this study that a number of schools were incorrectly placed in
a financial level, particularly schools in levels six and seven. In addition, with the
publication of the 2000 census data and corresponding shifts in the socioeconomic
status of parishes and schools, should archdiocesan stakeholders choose to reconfigure
model levels, it is incumbent upon such policymakers to reassess the placement of
individual schools in their current financial level.
Should archdiocesan school finance stakeholders choose to eliminate the
financial levels, what follows must include an identification process to classify and
support those poorer schools who will still need an archdiocesan subsidy to remain a
viable Catholic school in the archdiocese.
2. Determine the archdiocesan subsidy in terms of minimum dollars per child, not by
percentages or lump sum allocations.
In the public sector, schools are allocated funds based on enrollment. If a
minimum dollar standard is set for archdiocesan sponsored subsidy schools, and
enrollment figures are available, funding should be allocated based on enrollment rather
than in a lump sum subsidy. Furthermore, in addition to the amount of archdiocesan
subsidy per student, the archdiocese should collaborate with these individual schools to
determine the amount of local income the school has the ability to generate and follow
up with budget planning.
3. Establish a minimum per pupil spending level for the Archdiocese.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
135
Similar to practice in the public education sector, the archdiocese needs to set a
minimum level of spending per student, for that student to receive an adequate or
thorough and efficient education.
4. Examine higher education models of finance.
The financial models used by public and private colleges and universities are a
viable source for replication in parochial schools. Tuition rates and financial aid
practices in these models offer insight and direction for Catholic schools. Finance
models in higher education portray an inflated cost to educate (tuition) in order to use
those additional monies to subsidize students who need financial aid. Cost-based or
need-based tuition is a concept discussed in parochial elementary and secondary sectors,
and is in alignment, theoretically, with this component of the higher education model.
5. Seek to lessen or eliminate the relationship between median family income wealth
and the average total revenue available to educate.
The fiscal neutrality principal states that the number of dollars spent per pupil
should not be dependent on local wealth. Clearly, the disparity of dollars available per
pupil is evident in the financial levels. Again, referencing the Catholic Social
Teachings’ call for solidarity, policies and practices within the archdiocese need to be
created and implemented to lessen this correlation, thus lessening the disparity in
resources.
6. Replicate the development model implemented in the three level ten schools in as
many poorer schools as possible.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
136
It is evident from this study that three level ten schools experienced a marked
increase in total revenue in the 1999-2000 school year. The presence, efforts, and
generosity of development boards, foundations, and various communities explain this
growth. The revenue benefits are apparent, and if these schools and others like them
were able to generate such resources, it would contribute to a school’s ability to
generate local income and offset the archdiocesan subsidy, freeing up archdiocesan
resources to supplement other schools.
7. Infuse the message of the Catholic Social Teachings in policies that affect parochial
school finance.
Catholic Social Teachings such as: maintaining the dignity of the individual,
serving the community and the common good, the call for rights and responsibilities of
each person, option for the poor, and call for solidarity should be considered when
revisiting or recreating financial policy for parochial elementary schools. Archdiocesan
efforts to involve all parishes in the subsidizing of less-fortunate schools through the
Together in Mission Program are commendable, however the gaping disparity between
the fortunate and less fortunate remains. Although Canon Law prohibits a mandatory
involvement in aiding less fortunate schools, having infused the messages inherent in
the Catholic Social Teachings, principals and pastors may be called to participate in
resource sharing.
8. Motivate and train pastors and principals to become intrapreneurial.
An intrapreneurial educator, that is a person who affects significant change
within an organization, is needed in all schools in the archdiocese, especially poorer
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
schools. Intrapreurialism involves leadership, which create a clear mission for the
school, develop marketing and development plans, and involve key stakeholders,
enabling the school to draw in, otherwise unavailable, resources.
The archdiocese should provide professional development opportunities in the
areas of marketing and development for pastors and principals to become creative
thinkers and active participants in selling the message of the benefits of a Catholic
education and securing needed and supplemental income and to be able to acquire
outside sources of revenue, through development practices, beyond fundraising, is
essential in providing for the financial future of Catholic schools. An Archdiocesan-
wide marketing campaign, similar to those conducted in other large dioceses has the
potential to benefit all the parish schools.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
138
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Archdiocese of Los Angeles. Department of Catholic Schools. (2000).
Elementary school model analysis: Total financial actuals for 1999-2000. (pp. 1-10).
Los Angeles: Department of Catholic Schools.
Archdiocese of Los Angeles. Department of Catholic Schools. History of the
schools in the archdiocese of Los Angeles. [On-line]. Available: http://schools.la-
archdiocese.org/staples/history.htm.
Archdiocese of St. Paul and Minneapolis. Office of Social Justice. Catholic
social teaching. [On-line]. Available: http://www.osjspm.org/cst/.
Archdiocese of St. Paul and Minneapolis. Office of Social Justice. Catholic
social teaching: Major themes from Catholic social teaching. [On-line]. Available:
http ://www.osj spm.org/cst/themes.htm.
Berne, R. and Stiefel. (1999). Concepts of school finance equity: 1970 to the
present. In H. F. Ladd, R. Chalk, & J.S. Hansen (Eds.), Equity and adequacy in
education finance: Issues and perspectives (pp.7-33). Washington, D.C.: National
Academy Press.
Brown, R.J. and Cornwall, J.R. (2000). The Entrepreneurial Educator.
Lanham, Maryland: Scarecrow Press, Inc. (pp. 10-11,49-58,97-102, 114-116, 128-
133).
Catholic Education Foundation. 2001-2002 Tuition assistance: Family income
guidelines. Los Angeles: Catholic Education Foundation.
Catholic Education Foundation. 10 years: Grant the dream. Los Angeles:
Catholic Education Foundation.
Catholic Relief Services. Glossary. [On-line]. Available:
http://www.catholicrelief.org/definitions.cfrn.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
139
Damisch, K. (2001, May). Discussion of the governance and relationship
between and among the Archdiocese, bishops, pastors, and principals. Personal
interview.
Doyle, D. P. (1996). The politics of school reform. [On-line], Available:
http://www.theamericanenterprise.org/taeso96e.htm
Goertz, M.E. and Natriello, G. (1999). Court-mandated school finance reform.
In H. F. Ladd, R. Chalk, & J.S. Hansen (Eds.), Equity and adequacy in education
finance: Issues and perspectives, (pp.99-135). Washington, D.C.: National Academy
Press.
Gold, S.D., Smith, D.M., and Lawton, S.B. (Eds.). (1995). Public school
finance programs of the United States and Canada, 1993-1994. Albany, NY: American
Education Finance Association and The Center for the Study of the States, (p. 26).
Grant, M.A. and Hunt, T.C. (Eds.) (1992). Catholic school education in the
United States: Development and current concerns. New York: Garland Publishers.
Hauptman, A.M. (2001). Reforming the ways in which states finance higher
education. In Heller, D.E. (Ed.), The states and public higher education policy:
Affordability, access, and accountability, (pp. 64-72). Baltimore, MD: The Johns
Hopkins University Press.
Heller, D.E. (2001). Trends in affordability of public colleges and universities:
The contradiction of increasing prices and increasing enrollment. In Heller, D.E. (Ed.),
The states and public higher education policy: Affordability, access, and accountability.
(pp. 11-38). Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press.
Hentschke, G. C. (2000). Foreward. In Leisey, D.E. and Lavaroni, C. The
educational entrepreneur: Making a difference, (p. 18). San Rafael, CA: Edupreneur
Press.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
140
Jordan, P. (2001, February 13). Background information on the creation of the
Financial Model for elementary schools. Phone Interview.
Kane, T. J. (1999). The price of admission: Rethinking how Americans pay for
college, (pp. 20-54, 58, 80). Washington, D.C.: The Brookings Institution Press.
Ladd, H. F. and Hansen, J.S. (Eds.). (1999). Making money matter: Financing
America’s schools. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.
Leisey, D.E. and Lavaroni, C. (2000). The educational entrepreneur: Making a
difference, (pp. 25-30, 199-204). San Rafael, CA: Edupreneur Press.
Machines, J. (2000). General information on the Children’s Scholarship Fund.
Personal communication.
McDonald, D. (2000). United States elementary and secondary schools 1999-
2000: The annual statistical report on schools, enrollment and staffing. Washington,
D.C.: National Catholic Educational Association.
McPherson, M.S. and Schapiro, M.O. (1998). The student aid game: Meeting
need and rewarding talent in American higher education, (pp. 5-13, 25-26, 60-61).
Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Minorini, P.A. and Sugarman, S.D. (1999). School finance litigation in the
name of educational equity: Its evolution, impact, and future. In H. F. Ladd, R. Chalk,
& J.S. Hansen (Eds.), Equity and adequacy in education finance: Issues and
perspectives (pp.34-71). Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.
Mumper, M. (2001). The paradox of college prices: Five stories with no clear
lesson. In Heller, D.E. (Ed.), The states and public higher education policy:
Affordability, access, and accountability, (pp. 39-63). Baltimore, MD: The Johns
Hopkins University Press.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
141
National Education Association. (1987). Understanding state school finance
formulas. United States: Nation Education Association, (pp. 9-11).
National Governors’ Association. (1992). School choice: A special report.
Princeton, NJ: Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, (p. 47).
The New American Bible. Nashville: Catholic Bible Press, 1987.
O’Connor, K.T. (January, 2001). Archdiocese of Los Angeles: Together in
Mission Training Manual. Los Angeles: Archdiocese of Los Angeles.
Odden, A. and Picus, L.O. (2000). School finance: A policy perspective. New
York: McGrawHill. (pp. 159, 162-163, 167, 179, 188, 195-197).
Pedhazur, E.J. and Schmelkin, L. (1991). Measurement, design, and analysis:
An integrated approach. Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates,
Publishers, (pp. 37-38, 44-45).
Picus, L.O. (2002). Discussion on elementary school finance. Phone Interview.
Pinchot, G., III. (1985). Intrapreneuring. New York: Harper & Row
Publishers.
Pope John Paul, II. Sollicitudo Rei Socialis, no. 38.
Pope Paul VI. (1971). Octogesima adveniens. A call to action. Encyclical
letter. ( 1 1 . 46). [On-line], Available: http://www.osjspm.org/cst/oa.htm.
Pope John XXffl. (1963). Pacern in terris, Peace on earth. Encyclical letter.
( 1 1 . 53). [On-line]. Available: http://www.osjspm.org/cst/pt.htm.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
142
Porath, J. (1992). Financing Catholic Schools. Los Angeles: The Department of
Catholic Schools, Archdiocese of Los Angeles, (pp. 1-2).
Porath, J. R. (1996, January 31). Financial planning for parish elementary
schools: Archdiocese of Los Angeles. Power Point presentation, Los Angeles, CA.
Second Vatican Council. (1965). Gu.ad.ium et spes, The Church in the modem
world. ( 1 1 . 66). [On-line], Available: http://www.osjspm.org/cst/gs_cosl.htm.
Swanson, A.D. and King, R.A. (1997). School finance: It’s economics and
politics (2n d ed) New York: Longman Publishers, Inc. (pp. 94-95, 130-131,158-184,
192-193, 198-205, 215-216, 226-227).
United States Bishops. (1998). Sharing Catholic social teaching: Challenges
and directions, (pp. 1-3). [On-line]. Available: http://www.osjspm.org/cst/q_bish.htm.
United States Bishops. (1986). Economic justice for all: Pastoral letter on
Catholic social teaching and the U.S. Economy. ( 1 1 . 1, 25, 74). [On-line]. Available:
http ://www.osj spm.org/cst/ej a.htm.
Weber, F.J. (2001). Archdiocese history: Nuestra senora de los Angeles de la
porciuncula. [On-line]. Available: http://www.la-archdiocese.org/Framein/lahisten.htm
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
143
APPENDIX A
Financial Summary Data Tables
A. 1. 1991 -1992 School Year. 180 Parochial Elementary Schools
Level Archdiocesan
Schools
Students Local
Income
Arch.
Subsidy
Total
Income
Median Family
Income 1990
10 AVERAGE 190 176469 151262 327731 16109
10 SUM 760 705875 605048 1310923
10 PP AVERAGE 929 796 1725 16109
9 AVERAGE 257 296078 71602 367680 20159
9 SUM 4365 5033329 1217235 6250564
9 PP AVERAGE 1153 279 1432 20159
8 AVERAGE 291 554622 28920 583542 24692
8 SUM 6104 11647054 607327 12254381
8 PP AVERAGE 1908 99 2008 24692
7 AVERAGE 303 497305 5379 502684 28460
7 SUM 5147 8454185 91447 8545632
7 PP AVERAGE 1643 18 1660 28460
6 AVERAGE 329 501002 11069 512072 33306
6 SUM 7242 11022048 243528 11265576
6 PP AVERAGE 1522 34 1556 33306
5 AVERAGE 309 552288 2367 554655 38013
5 SUM 6486 11598046 49706 11647752
5 PP AVERAGE 1788 8 1796 38013
4 AVERAGE 326 588737 561 589297 45933
4 SUM 13059 23549470 22425 23571895
4 PP AVERAGE 1803 2 1805 45933
3 AVERAGE 315 588021 0 588021 55275
3 SUM 6930 12936469 0 12936469
3 PP AVERAGE 1867 0 1867 55275
2 AVERAGE 303 612820 0 612820 65262
2 SUM 2123 4289743 0 4289743
2 PP AVERAGE 2021 0 2021 65262
1 AVERAGE 287 713925 0 713925 90779
1 SUM 2581 6425323 0 6425323
1 PP AVERAGE 2489 0 2489 90779
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
144
A.2. 1992-1993 School Year, 180 Parochial Elementary Schools
Level Archdiocesan
Schools
Students Local
Income
Arch.
Subsidy
Total
Income
Median Family
Income 1990
10 AVERAGE 181 180200 131063 311263 16109
10 SUM 725 720798 524252 1245050
10 PP AVERAGE 994 723 1717 16109
9 AVERAGE 258 316092 78622 394714 20159
9 SUM 4388 5373560 1336578 6710138
9 PP AVERAGE 1225 305 1529 20159
8 AVERAGE 287 429493 27816 457309 24692
8 SUM 6037 9019356 584137 9603493
8 PP AVERAGE 1494 97 1591 24692
7 AVERAGE 302 500074 28239 528313 28460
7 SUM 5127 8501255 480063 8981318
7 PP AVERAGE 1658 94 1752 28460
6 AVERAGE 333 535034 6953 541986 33306
6 SUM 7318 11770741 152955 11923696
6 PP AVERAGE 1608 21 1629 33306
5 AVERAGE 312 579400 2510 581910 38013
5 SUM 6559 12167404 52704 12220108
5 PP AVERAGE 1855 8 1863 38013
4 AVERAGE 328 618809 1446 620255 45933
4 SUM 13130 24752369 57833 24810202
4 PP AVERAGE 1885 4 1890 45933
3 AVERAGE 320 624254 0 624254 55275
3 SUM 7045 13733589 0 13733589
3 PP AVERAGE 1949 0 1949 55275
2 AVERAGE 304 656753 0 656753 65262
2 SUM 2130 4597270 0 4597270
2 PP AVERAGE 2158 0 2158 65262
1 AVERAGE 294 772018 0 772018 90779
1 SUM 2643 6948163 0 6948163
1 PP AVERAGE 2629 0 2629 90779
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
145
A.3. 1993-1994 School Year, 180 Parochial Elementary Schools
Level Archdiocesan
Schools
Students Local
Income
Arch.
Subsidy
Total
Income
Median Family
Income 1990
10 AVERAGE 199 195805 136821 332626 16109
10 SUM 797 783218 547284 1330502
10 PP AVERAGE 983 687 1669 16109
9 AVERAGE 268 329682 84150 413832 20159
9 SUM 4548 5604599 1430542 7035141
9 PP AVERAGE 1232 315 1547 20159
8 AVERAGE 288 445505 27851 473356 24692
8 SUM 6046 9355615 584862 9940477
8 PP AVERAGE 1547 97 1644 24692
7 AVERAGE 303 544681 6321 551002 28460
7 SUM 5146 9259577 107456 9367033
7 PP AVERAGE 1799 21 1820 28460
6 AVERAGE 334 551745 5607 557352 33306
6 SUM 7339 12138385 123354 12261739
6 PP AVERAGE 1654 17 1671 33306
5 AVERAGE 310 608006 714 608720 38013
5 SUM 6512 12768123 15000 12783123
5 PP AVERAGE 1961 2 1963 38013
4 AVERAGE 328 654290 0 654290 45933
4 SUM 13121 26171614 0 26171614
4 PP AVERAGE 1995 0 1995 45933
3 AVERAGE 323 671437 0 671437 55275
3 SUM 7098 14771618 0 14771618
3 PP AVERAGE 2081 0 2081 55275
2 AVERAGE 306 691924 0 691924 65262
2 SUM 2143 4843465 0 4843465
2 PP AVERAGE 2260 0 2260 65262
1 AVERAGE 302 830239 0 830239 90779
1 SUM 2715 7472152 0 7472152
1 PP AVERAGE 2752 0 2752 90779
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
146
A.4. 1995-1996 School Year, 180 Parochial Elementary Schools
Level Archdiocesan
Schools
Student Local
Income
Arch.
Subsidy
Total
Income
Median Family
Income 1990
10 AVERAGE 223 234468 171998 406466 16109
10 SUM 892 937872 687990 1625862
10 PP AVERAGE 1051 771 1823 16109
9 AVERAGE 269 372632 88238 460870 20159
9 SUM 4567 6334742 1500052 7834794
9 PP AVERAGE 1387 328 1716 20159
8 AVERAGE 279 492139 32100 524239 24692
8 SUM 5868 10334924 674103 11009027
8 PP AVERAGE 1761 115 1876 24692
7 AVERAGE 304 595252 2912 598165 28460
7 SUM 5168 10119286 49512 10168798
7 PP AVERAGE 1958 10 1968 28460
6 AVERAGE 330 607363 4318 611681 33306
6 SUM 7262 13361982 95000 13456982
6 PP AVERAGE 1840 13 1853 33306
5 AVERAGE 307 671443 635 672078 38013
5 SUM 6457 14100302 13340 14113642
5 PP AVERAGE 2184 2 2186 38013
4 AVERAGE 403 713976 1170 715146 45933
4 SUM 16111 28559027 46800 28605827
4 PP AVERAGE 1773 3 1776 45933
3 AVERAGE 318 773716 1338 775053 55275
3 SUM 6986 17021746 29427 17051173
3 PP AVERAGE 2437 4 2441 55275
2 AVERAGE 303 776031 0 776031 65262
2 SUM 2119 5432217 0 5432217
2 PP AVERAGE 2564 0 2564 65262
1 AVERAGE 303 922382 0 922382 90779
1 SUM 2731 8301435 0 8301435
1 PP AVERAGE 3040 0 3040 90779
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
147
A. 5. 1996-1997 School Year. 180 Parochial Elementary Schools
Level Archdiocesan
Schools
Students Local
Income
Arch.
Subsidy
Total
Income
Median Family
Income 1990
10 AVERAGE 227 267504 172216 439720 16109
10 SUM 908 1070017 688864 1758881
10 PP AVERAGE 1178 759 1937 16109
9 AVERAGE 262 390610 98150 488760 20159
9 SUM 4459 6640373 1668547 8308920
9 PP AVERAGE 1489 374 1863 20159
8 AVERAGE 284 509288 30363 539651 24692
8 SUM 5962 10695045 637628 11332673
8 PP AVERAGE 1794 107 1901 24692
7 AVERAGE 300 610771 2329 613100 28460
7 SUM 5107 10383106 39596 10422702
7 PP AVERAGE 2033 8 2041 28460
6 AVERAGE 317 628117 1850 629967 33306
6 SUM 6974 13818577 40694 13859271
6 PP AVERAGE 1981 6 1987 33306
5 AVERAGE 307 689584 0 689584 38013
5 SUM 6443 14481270 0 14481270
5 PP AVERAGE 2248 0 2248 38013
4 AVERAGE 330 761181 225 761406 45933
4 SUM 13196 30447238 9000 30456238
4 PP AVERAGE 2307 1 2308 45933
3 AVERAGE 318 780150 0 780150 55275
3 SUM 6996 17163294 0 17163294
3 PP AVERAGE 2453 0 2453 55275
2 AVERAGE 308 815736 0 815736 65262
2 SUM 2154 5710151 0 5710151
2 PP AVERAGE 2651 0 2651 65262
1 AVERAGE 305 978757 0 978757 90779
1 SUM 2744 8808815 0 8808815
1 PP AVERAGE 3210 0 3210 90779
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
148
A.6. 1998-1999 School Year. 180 Parochial Elementary Schools
Level Archdiocesan
Schools
Students Local
Income
Arch.
Subsidy
Total
Income
Median Family
Income 1990
10 AVERAGE 227 280553 202419 482972 16109
10 SUM 906 1122212 809676 1931888
10 PP AVERAGE 1239 894 2132 16109
9 AVERAGE 263 440951 117620 558571 20159
9 SUM 4473 7496171 1999534 9495705
9 PP AVERAGE 1676 447 2123 20159
8 AVERAGE 277 587340 33234 620574 24692
8 SUM 5819 12334136 697920 13032056
8 PP AVERAGE 2120 120 2240 24692
7 AVERAGE 300 690818 1318 692137 28460
7 SUM 5093 11743912 22411 11766323
7 PP AVERAGE 2306 4 2310 28460
6 AVERAGE 319 692538 45 692583 33306
6 SUM 7023 15235836 1000 15236836
6 PP AVERAGE 2169 0 2170 33306
5 AVERAGE 302 793024 343 793367 38013
5 SUM 6350 16653498 7200 16660698
5 PP AVERAGE 2623 1 2624 38013
4 AVERAGE 325 913373 0 913373 45933
4 SUM 13011 36534929 0 36534929
4 PP AVERAGE 2808 0 2808 45933
3 AVERAGE 315 845266 73 845338 55275
3 SUM 6931 18595845 1600 18597445
3 PP AVERAGE 2683 0 2683 55275
2 AVERAGE 307 871974 0 871974 65262
2 SUM 2150 6103816 0 6103816
2 PP AVERAGE 2839 0 2839 65262
1 AVERAGE 314 1036593 3889 1040482 90779
1 SUM 2827 9329338 35000 9364338
1 PP AVERAGE 3300 12 3312 90779
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
149
A.7. 1999-2000 School Year. 180 Paxochial Elementary Schools
Level Archdiocesan
Schools
Students Local
Income
Arch.
Subsidy
Total
Income
Median Family
Income 1990
10 AVERAGE 243 542692 213038 755729 16109
10 SUM 972 2170766 852150 3022916
10 PP AVERAGE 2233 877 3110 16109
9 AVERAGE 279 518972 138866 657838 20159
9 SUM 4738 8822522 2360730 11183252
9 PP AVERAGE 1862 498 2360 20159
8 AVERAGE 289 679578 33921 712696 24692
8 SUM 6071 14271145 712333 14966622
8 PP AVERAGE 2351 117 2465 24692
7 AVERAGE 309 881938 0 881938 28460
7 SUM 5254 14992938 0 14992938
7 PP AVERAGE 2854 0 2854 28460
6 AVERAGE 326 806202 0 806202 33306
6 SUM 7173 17736436 0 17736436
6 PP AVERAGE 2473 0 2473 33306
5 AVERAGE 306 932979 0 932979 38013
5 SUM 6424 19592551 0 19592551
5 PP AVERAGE 3050 0 3050 38013
4 AVERAGE 322 1022748 0 1022748 45933
4 SUM 12872 40909918 0 40909918
4 PP AVERAGE 3178 0 3178 45933
3 AVERAGE 315 1065002 1364 1066365 55275
3 SUM 6920 23430038 30000 23460038
3 PP AVERAGE 3386 4 3390 55275
2 AVERAGE 309 1091843 0 1091843 65262
2 SUM 2165 7642901 0 7642901
2 PP AVERAGE 3530, 0 3530 65262
1 AVERAGE 318 1309146 0 1309146 90779
1 SUM 2858 11782310 0 11782310
1 PP AVERAGE 4123 0 4123 90779
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
APPENDIX B
Annual Simulation Output
B.l. 1991-1992 School Year
Level Pupils
Median
Family
Income
Per Pupil
($)
Local
Revenue
Per
Pupil
($)
Arch.
Revenue
Per
Pupil
($)
Total
Revenue
Per
Pupil
($)
10 760 16109 929 796 1,725
9 4365 20159 1153 279 1,432
8 6104 24692 1908 99 2,007
7 5147 28460 1643 18 1,661
6 6925 33306 1522 34 1,556
5 6486 38013 1788 8 1,796
4 12752 45933 1803 2 1,805
3 6930 55275 1867 0 1,867
2 2123 65262 2021 0 2,021
1 2581 90779 2489 0 2,489
Weighted Average 40,911 1,747 52 1,799
Weighted Standard Deviation 16,436 283 117 224
Median 35,660 1,796 21 1,801
Totals Equity Measures
Amount Percent Horizontal Equity
Local Revenue 94,623,514 97.09% Range $1,057
Arch. Revenue 2,832,579 2.91% Restricted Range 465
Total Revenue 97,456,093 100% Federal Range Ratio 0.30
Coef. Of Variation 0.12
Pupils 54,173 Gini Coefficient 0.04
McLoone Index 0.93
Verstegen Index 1.05
Fiscal Neutrality
Correlation 0.82
Elasticity 0.37
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
B.2. 1992-1993 School Year
Level Pupils
Median
Family
Income
Per Pupil
($)
Local
Revenue
Per
Pupil
($)
Arch.
Revenue
Per
Pupil
($)
Total
Revenue
Per
Pupil
($)
10 725 16109 994 723 1,717
9 4388 20159 1225 305 1,530
8 5788 24692 1494 97 1,591
7 5127 28460 1658 94 1,752
6 7318 33306 1608 21 1,629
5 6559 38013 1855 8 1,863
4 12823 45933 1885 4 1,890
3 7045 55275 1949 0 1,949
2 2130 65262 2158 0 2,158
1 2953 90779 2629 0 2,629
Weighted Average 41,336 1,776 58 1,834
Weighted Standard Deviation 16,812 313 114 246
Median 35,660 1,870 14 1,807
Totals Equity Measures
Amount Percent Horizontal Equity
Local Revenue 97,450,347 96.86% Range $1,099
Arch. Revenue 3,164,245 3.14% Restricted Range $567
Total Revenue 100,614,592 Federal Range Ratio 0.36
Coef. Of Variation 0.13
Pupils 54,856 Gini Coefficient 0.06
McLoone Index 0.90
Verstegen Index 1.10
Fiscal Neutrality
Correlation 0.95
Elasticity 0.37
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
B.3. 1993-1994 School Year
Level Pupils
Median
Family
Income
Per Pupil
($)
Local
Revenue
Per
Pupil
($)
Arch.
Revenue
Per
Pupil
($)
Total
Revenue
Per
Pupil
($)
10 797 16109 983 687 1670
9 4548 20159 1232 315 1547
8 6046 24692 1547 97 1644
7 5146 28460 1799 21 1820
6 7339 33306 1654 17 1671
5 6512 38013 1961 2 1963
4 13121 45933 1995 0 1995
3 7098 55275 2081 0 2081
2 2143 65262 2260 0 2260
1 2715 90779 2752 0 2752
Weighted Average 40991 1860 51 1911
Weighted Standard Deviation 16518 342 116 270
Median 35660 1880 10 1892
Totals Equity Measures
Amount Percent Horizontal Equity
Local Revenue 103,168,334 97.35% Range $1,205
Arch. Revenue 2,812,474 2.65% Restricted Range $616
Total Revenue 105,980,808 100% Federal Range Ratio 0.37
Coef. Of Variation 0.14
Pupils 55,465 Gini Coefficient 0.07
McLoone Index 0.88
Verstegen Index 1.11
Fiscal Neutrality
Correlation 0.97
Elasticity 0.35
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
B.4. 1995-1996 School Year
Level Pupils
Median
Family
Income
Per Pupil
($)
Local
Revenue
Per
Pupil
($)
Arch.
Revenue
Per
Pupil
($)
Total
Revenue
Per
Pupil
($)
10 892 16109 1051 771 1,822
9 4567 20159 1387 328 1,715
8 5868 24692 1761 115 1,876
7 5168 28460 1958 10 1,968
6 7262 33306 1840 13 1,853
5 6452 38013 2184 2 2,186
4 16111 45933 1773 3 1,776
3 6986 55275 2437 4 2,441
2 2119 65262 2564 0 2,564
1 2731 90779 3040 0 3,040
Weighted Average 41,233 1,969 53 2,022
Weighted Standard Deviation 16,180 393 127 338
Median 35,660 1,899 7 1,922
Totals Equity Measures
Amount Percent Horizontal Equity
Local Revenue 114,502,702 97.37% Range $1,325
Arch. Revenue 3,095,795 2.63% Restricted Range $788
Total Revenue 117,598,497 100% Federal Range Ratio 0.44
Coef. Of Variation 0.17
Pupils 58,156 Gini Coefficient 0.06
McLoone Index 0.97
Verstegen Index 1.11
Fiscal Neutrality
Correlation 0.92
Elasticity 0.33
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
154
B.5. 1996-1997 School Year
Level Pupils
Median
Family
Income
Per Pupil
($)
Local
Revenue
Per
Pupil
($)
Arch.
Revenue
Per
Pupil
($)
Total
Revenue
Per
Pupil
($)
10 908 16109 1178 759 1,937
9 4459 20159 1489 374 1,863
8 5962 24692 1794 107 1,901
7 5107 28460 2033 8 2,041
6 6974 33306 1981 6 1,987
5 6443 38013 2248 0 2,248
4 13196 45933 2307 1 2,308
3 6996 55275 2453 0 2,453
2 2154 65262 2651 0 2,651
1 2744 90779 3210 0 3,210
Weighted Average 41,075 2,170 56 2,226
Weighted Standard Deviation 16,618 392 138 312
Median 35,660 2,141 4 2,145
Totals Equity Measures
Amount Percent Horizontal Equity
Local Revenue 119,209,646 97.47% Range $1,347
Arch. Revenue 3,090,668 2.53% Restricted Range $750
Total Revenue 122,300,314 100% Federal Range Ratio 0.39
Coef. Of Variation 0.14
Pupils 54,943 Gini Coefficient 0.07
McLoone Index 0.91
Verstegen Index 1.13
Fiscal Neutrality
Correlation 0.98
Elasticity 0.30
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
155
B.6. 1998-1999 School Year
Level Pupils
Median
Family
Income
Per Pupil
($)
Local
Revenue
Per
Pupil
($)
Arch.
Revenue
Per
Pupil
($)
Total
Revenue
Per
Pupil
($)
10 906 16109 1239 894 2,133
9 4473 20159 1676 447 2,123
8 5819 24692 2120 120 2,240
7 5093 28460 2306 4 2,310
6 7023 33306 2169 0 2,169
5 6350 38013 2623 1 2,624
4 13011 45933 2808 0 2,808
3 6931 55275 2683 0 2,683
2 2150 65262 2839 0 2,839
1 2827 90779 3300 12 3,312
Weighted Average 41,155 2,476 65 2,541
Weighted Standard Deviation 16,755 425 164 323
Median 35,660 2,465 3 2,467
Totals Equity Measures
Amount Percent Horizontal Equity
Local Revenue 135,152,668 97.43% Range $1,189
Arch. Revenue 3,568,321 2.57% Restricted Range $706
Total Revenue 138,720,989 100% Federal Range Ratio 0.33
Coef. Of Variation 0.13
Pupils 54,583 Gini Coefficient 0.06
McLoone Index 0.89
Verstegen Index 1.13
Fiscal Neutrality
Correlation 0.95
Elasticity 0.27
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
156
B.7. 1999-2000 School Year
Level Pupils
Median
Family
Income
Per Pupil
($)
Local
Revenue
Per
Pupil
($)
Arch.
Revenue
Per
Pupil
($)
Total
Revenue
Per
Pupil
($)
10 972 16109 2233 877 3,110
9 4738 20159 1862 498 2,360
8 6071 24692 2351 117 2,468
7 5254 28460 2854 0 2,854
6 7173 33306 2473 0 2,473
5 6264 38013 3050 0 3,050
4 12872 45933 3178 0 3,178
3 6920 55275 3386 4 3,390
2 2165 65262 3530 0 3,530
1 2858 90779 4123 0 4,123
Weighted Average 40,916 2,910 71 2,981
Weighted Standard Deviation 16,830 548 177 455
Median 35,660 2,952 0 3,080
Totals Equity Measures
Amount Percent Horizontal Equity
Local Revenue 160,868,818 97.60% Range $1,763
Arch. Revenue 3,949,955 2.40% Restricted Range $1,062
Total Revenue 164,818,773 100% Federal Range Ratio 0.43
Coef. Of Variation 0.15
Pupils 55,287 Gini Coefficient 0.08
McLoone Index 0.83
Verstegen Index 1.07
Fiscal Neutrality
Correlation 0.87
Elasticity 0.22
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Cost of university -based online, distributed, and traditional learning

PDF

Cost -effectiveness analysis of two multiple-subject (crosscultural, language, and academic development) internship credential programs in California

PDF

Implementation and levels of use of technology plans in a Southern California K--12 district and its middle school

PDF

Implementation of educational policy: Technology implementation in a California middle school

PDF

A qualitative exploratory study of a proceduralized system to learning key sport knowledge: Will a proceduralized approach enhance cognitive aspects of sport team performance?

PDF

Graduate student enrollment management: Toward a model that predicts student enrollment. A case study at Phillips Graduate Institute

PDF

Induction practices in four public school districts in northwest Washington State: Perceptions of new teachers, mentors, and principals

PDF

A longitudinal comparative study of the effects of charter schools on minority and low-SES students in California

PDF

A central office staffing model to provide for an adequate education

PDF

Implementation challenges of a school district's technology plan at the middle school level

PDF

An analysis of the elementary principal's role in implementing school accountability within California's high -priority school: A case study

PDF

An analysis of the elementary principal's role in implementing school accountability within California's High Priority School: A case study

PDF

K--12 technology policy and practice: Relationships between a California school district's technology plan and middle school technology implementation

PDF

California school dropouts: An analysis of the common characteristics and duration of programs identified as successful in retaining students in school

PDF

An analysis of per-pupil resource allocation at an urban elementary school

PDF

Measuring the encroachment of special education and transportation programs on the general fund of California’s unified school districts in nine southern counties: implications for state school f...

PDF

"Show me the money": Analyzing student-level resource allocation and use in a large urban elementary school

PDF

A comparative analysis of mandated cost reimbursements in California school districts

PDF

Accountability practices: A comparison between two elementary schools under different governance models

PDF

Exploring a team-based model for organizing schools: The case of Fenton Avenue Charter School

Asset Metadata

Creator Abelein, Susan Barbara (author)

Core Title A study of equity in education finance: An analysis of the Archdiocese of Los Angeles elementary schools

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Philosophy

Degree Program Education

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag education, elementary,Education, Finance,Education, Religious,OAI-PMH Harvest

Language English

Contributor Digitized by ProQuest (provenance)

Advisor Picus, Lawrence O. (committee chair), Allen, Kathleen (committee member), Hentschke, Guilbert (committee member)

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c16-242016

Unique identifier UC11334680

Identifier 3093723.pdf (filename),usctheses-c16-242016 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier 3093723.pdf

Dmrecord 242016

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Abelein, Susan Barbara

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the au...

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus, Los Angeles, California 90089, USA