urces of Evaluation Data:

Berman, P., and M. W. McLaughlin, et al., Federal Programs Supporting Educational Change. Volumes 17, Santa Monica, California: The Rand Corporation, 1975 and 1977.

Campeau, P. L., Packaging as a Strategy for Improving the Process of Diffusing Educational Projects. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Education Research Association, New York City, April 4-8 1977,

Campeau, P. L. et al., First Year Report: Evaluation of Project Information
Package Dissemination and Implementation. Palo Alto, California:
American Institutes for Research, April 1978.

Emrick, J. A., Evaluation of the National Diffusion Network, Vols. 1 and 2, Menlo Park, California: Stanford Research Institute, 1977.

Foat, C. M., Selecting Exemplary Compensatory Education Projects for Dissemination via Project Information Packages, Technical Report UR-242, Mountain View, California: RMC Research Corporation, 1974.

Horst, D. P., A. M. Piestrup, C. M. Foat, and J. L. Binkley, Evaluation Recommendations for Revisions. Mountain View, California: RMC Research Corporation, 1975.

Norwood, C. H., Evaluation of the Field Test of Project Information Packages: Volume II Technical Report, Menlo Park, California: Stanford Research Institute, 1977.

Piestrup, A. M. Design Considerations for Packaging Effective Approaches in Compensatory Education. Technical Report UR-241, Mountain View, California: RMC Research Corporation, 1974.

Stearns, M. S. Evaluation of the Field Test of Project Information
Packages: Volume I-Viability of Packaging. Menlo Park, California:
Stanford Research Corporation, 1975.

Stearns, M. S. Evaluation of the Field Test of Project Information
Packages: Volume 1-Summary Report. Menlo Park, California: Stanford
Research Institute, 1977.

Tallmadge, G. K. The Development of Project Information Packages for
Effective Approaches in Compensatory Education. Technical Report
UR-254, Mountain View, California: RMC Research Corporation, 1974.

The program set up by Section 842 has two major purposes: (1) to reward those States which have equitable and fair systems of school finance by offering reimbursement retroactively for expenditures associated with developing or administering school finance equalization plans and

(2) to encourage States which have not acted to reform their school support plans to develop equitable and fair systems by offering reimbursement for

1/

2/

Section 1202 of PL 95-561, which as of the date of this writing has received no appropriations, authorizes the Commissioner to make grants to States to assist them in developing and implementing plans to revise their systems of financing elementary and secondary education in order to achieve a greater equalization of resources among school districts. To receive such a grant a State must (1) submit an application approved by the State legislature (2) provide that State funds will match the Federal funds on a dollar for dollar basis, and (3) show how their plans build upon the knowledge they gained through plans developed under the Section 842 program

Section 842 contains no appropriation authorization as such. However, Congress, as set forth in the Conference Report accompanying H.R. 5901 (P.L. 94-94), has taken the position that the language of the Act constitutes an obligation for the Federal Government to reimburse States for approved costs and has appropriated the amounts as indicated.

costs of developing new plans. Equitable and fair systems of school finance are defined in the regulations and are summarized below. State equalization plans must be consistent with the provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment and have as their primary purpose achievement of equality of opportunity for all children enrolled in schools in the State's local educational agencies.

Program Operations:

States are required to submit two documents to the Commissioner to apply for funds. The States must submit either a developed plan of State aid or a proposal to develop such a plan. The second document which States must submit is an application for reimbursement. While States are encouraged to submit such an application along with their plan or proposal, they are not restricted to submission of one such application but may submit multiple claims until the total amount of their entitlement has been awarded. According to program regulations, the State plan to equalize expenditures is intended to be a "detailed description of the State's policies, programs, and operating procedures relating to the State's program of financial assistance to local educational agencies in that State." The State plan is further expected to meet certain guidelines as set up in the program regulations. While no State plan is required to meet all guidelines, a State plan must not reject the principles as characterized by the guidelines.

The guidelines for constructing a State financial plan to equalize educational opportunity within the State suggest that:

(1) the plan guarantee an adequate educational program, allow expenditures per pupil to vary with varying costs of the educational needs of pupils, varying costs of educational programs (e.g., special, vocational, or bilingual programs), and varying capital and transportation costs;

(2) the plan not allow the wealth of local educational agencies to
influence school district expenditures and the plan be financed
by an equitable tax system;

(3) the plan encourage citizen interest in educational decision-making,
encourage efficient allocation of educational resources and provide
a means of evaluating its own progress.

If a State does not submit a plan but instead submits a proposal to develop a plan, the proposal is expected to address itself to the guidelines outlined above. As an example, studies described in the proposal should recognize any weaknesses in the State's current financial system in meeting the guidelines. After the proposal has been funded, the State remains obligated to submit the developed plan to the Commissioner for approval or disapproval.

Before submitting the application for reimbursement to the Commissioner the State agency must have solicited views of the financial plan from the State's Governor, local educational agencies, and other interested parties.

Once the State plan (or proposal) and application for reimbursement have been approved, the Commissioner determines the allocation of funds to be made. According to the rules and regulations, "the entitlement of each State shall be determined on the basis of a straight-line formula, such that the entitlement of the most populous State shall be $1,000,000, the entitlement of the least populous State shall be $100,000, and the entitlement of each other State shall fall between these amounts based on the ratio of that State's population to the population of the Nation as a whole." These entitlements are not annual entitlements but rather entitlements associated with the program which expires on September 30, 1978.

As part of program operations, the U.S. Office of Education conducts on site reviews of every funded Section 842 proposal. Additionally, the USOE conducted two Regional Workshops in 1976 and one National Workshop in 1977. They also conducted a technical assistance conference in March 1978, and an Implementation Strategy Workshop in July 1978.

Program Scope:

As of December 15, 1978, 46 States had submitted applications for reimbursement under Section 842 with awards totaling $12,704.513. Table I indicates the status of the States with regard to the submission of equalization plans. The table indicates that only 11 States have submitted previously developed plans. Thirty-five States have submitted proposals to develop a plan of equalization while four States have not yet submitted a proposal or a plan and hence have not requested funds under this program. Table II gives the entitlement, the amount of funds requested, the amount of funds awarded and the amount of remaining funds in the entitlement for each State.

A March 1978 report entitled, Summary of State Projects, compiled interim reports from 35 of the 37 States which submitted proposals to develop a plan of equalization. Only Arizona and Massachusetts did not submit an interim report in time for inclusion in the March 1978 report. The report indicates that the State Department of Education is the recipient of Section 842 funds in 32 of the 35 submitting States. The three remaining States of Arkansas, North Carolina, and Oregon had the following agencies as recipients respectively: The Joint Interim Committee on Education, the Governor's Commission on Public School Finance, The Legislative Review Office.

The report indicated that major activities were under way in all but five of the reporting States, which, at the publication date of the report, had just begun Section 842 activities. These five States were: Idaho,

Louisiana, Maryland, Oregon, Tennessee and Texas. For the 30 States with major activities under way, the report placed these activities in 11 categories. Table III indicates the nature of the 11 activities, the States undertaking the activities, and the frequency with which each activity is undertaken among the States. The report also categorized the research projects of the 30 States into 6 major topics with a number of subtopics in each. Table IV indicates the topics and subtopics, the States undertaking each subtopic, and the frequency of undertaking.

Program Effectiveness and Progress:

At this time, an evaluation of program effectiveness must necessarily be limited to initial activities of the States. Of the 39 States which had not developed a plan, all but four (Navada, New Hampshire, Virginia, and West Virginia) have submitted proposals.

The Section 842 program has been especially timely for States under court order to revise their school finance systems, such as California, New York, Ohio, New Jersey, Washington, and Connecticut.

As of December 15, 1978, implementation of plans have occurred only amor.g those eleven States which received retroactive cost reimbursements for developed plans. Among those States, only Rhode Island's plan has not yet been implemented because it has not yet passed the State legislature.

Ongoing and Planned Evaluation Studies:

There are no ongoing evaluation studies. Planned evaluation studies are still in the formative stage, but may take either or both of the following directions:

(1) a study to determine the extent of equalization achieved by the States which obtained reimbursement funds;

(2) a study to determine the extent to which the legislation provided the stimulus to States to develop State financial aid plans to obtain equality of educational opportunity.

Sources of Evaluation Data

Summary tables from the School Finance Unit, Bureau of Elementary and
Secondary Education, USOE (April 14, 1978).

Summary of State Projects, prepared by Anne E. Just, Educational Program Specialist, School Finance Staff, USOE, March 1978.