Citation
The effect of local education foundations upon fiscal and program equity in selected districts in the State of California

Material Information

Title:
The effect of local education foundations upon fiscal and program equity in selected districts in the State of California
Creator:
Adams, Judith Ann
Place of Publication:
Denver, CO
Publisher:
University of Colorado Denver
Publication Date:
Language:
English
Physical Description:
xvi, 312 leaves : ill. forms ; 29 cm.

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
Educational fund raising -- California ( lcsh )
Educational equalization -- California ( lcsh )
Education -- Finance -- California ( lcsh )
Education -- Finance ( fast )
Educational equalization ( fast )
Educational fund raising ( fast )
California ( fast )
Genre:
bibliography ( marcgt )
theses ( marcgt )
non-fiction ( marcgt )

Notes

Thesis:
Thesis (Ed. D.)--University of Colorado at Denver, 1991. Education
Bibliography:
Includes bibliographical references.
General Note:
Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree, Doctor of Education, School of Education and Human Development.
Statement of Responsibility:
by Judith Ann Adams.

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of Colorado Denver
Holding Location:
|Auraria Library
Rights Management:
All applicable rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier:
25360470 ( OCLC )
ocm25360470

Downloads

This item is only available as the following downloads:


Full Text

PAGE 1

The Effect of Local Education Foundations Upon Fiscal and Program Equity in Selected Districts in the State of California by Judith Ann Adams B.S. University of Illinois, 1963 M.A. Northwestern University, 1971 A thesis submitted to the Faculty of the Graduate School of the University of Colorado in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Education The School of Education 1991

PAGE 2

This thesis for the Doctor of Education Degree by Judith Ann Adams has been approved for the School of Education by -Date L'fl(

PAGE 3

Adams, Judith Ann (Ed.D., Education) The Effect of Local Education Foundations Upon Fiscal and : .... Program Equity in Selected Districts in the State of California Thesis directed by Professor Russell W. Meyers The major purpose of this research was to determine the effect of fund raising by local education foundations upon fiscal and program equity in selected public school districts in California. In addition, characteristics of foundations and foundation districts were identified, examined and presented Case studies of four local education foundations defined as most successful were completed and reported. The population of the study included 113 local education foundations and the school district each supported, as well as the four participants selected for the case study. Thirty-one nonfoundation districts participated in the mail survey which provided data for an examination of program equity between foundation and nonfoundation districts. The research consisted of a two phase design, generating descriptive, quantitative, and qualitative data. Data were derived from foundation and state reports, 31 returned mail surveys, and the case study interviews. The quantitative data gathered were analyzed using "t" test and one way analysis of variance (ANOVA) procedures.

PAGE 4

IV The definition of fiscal equity in this study was derived from the Serrano vs. Priest decision of the California Supreme Court in 1976. The Court directed the State Legislature to create and implement a school finance system which would insure that all public school expenditures per pupil were within $100, adjusted for inflation and measured by the state average Base Revenue Limit. Categorical programs were excluded from this calculation. Key findings of the study included: (1) addition of foundation funds were significant when added to the districts' Base Revenue Limits, but in only three instances did foundation funds create fiscal inequity as defined by the study; (2) expenditure choices funded by local education foundations were, with three exceptions, also supported by district budgets in nonfoundation districts. The exceptions were endowment funds, teacher monetary awards, and student scholarships. Major conclusions of the study were: (1) although fiscal inequities do exist in the California school finance system, they are rarely caused by funds raised by local education foundations; (2) most foundations successful in funds raised per ADA (Average Daily Attendance) are located .in small, affluent communities and support elementary districts; and (3) local education foundations make funds available to foundation districts which allow expenditure choices not available or possible in nonfoundation districts.

PAGE 5

It was recommended that all individuals and/or groups concerned about fiscal equity in California's public school direct their efforts toward examination of the effect of accumulated laws, judicial pronouncements and economic conditions with a goal of creating a more equitable balance in the fiscal resources available to all schools. v The form and content of this abstract are approved. I recommend its publication. Signed

PAGE 6

DEDICATION To my husband, Jack, whose loving support made this accomplishment possible.

PAGE 7

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Grateful appreciation and deep thanks are given to my advisor, Professor Russell Meyers, for his steady encouragement and willing help; Professors Mike Murphy and Kent McGuire, Thesis Committee Members; Dr. Susan Zgliczynski for her statistical expertise; Dr. Ted Kauss for skilled editing and proofreading help; and Mr. Bill Simpson for assistance in preparing computer data banks and graphs. A special thank you to Mrs. Barbara Wegener for he( skills, patience, and good humor in typing the thesis.

PAGE 8

CONTENTS CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION.................................................................................. 1 Background for the Study........................................................ 4 School Funding Prior to 1971. .. .. ... .. ... .. .. ... . ... .. . ... .. ... .. .. .. 4 Serrano I (1971)..................................................................... 5 SB 90 (1972)............................................................................ 5 Serrano II (1976)................................................................... 6 Proposition 13 (1978) ........ .. ..... ... .. .. ...... ... . ... ....... ... . . . . 7 AB 65 (1977)........................................................................... 7 Proposition 4 (1980)....................................... .................... 9 California Lottery (1984).................................................. 9 Serrano Compliance Trial (1984)................................... 1 0 Proposition 71 (1988) ............................................................ 1 0 Proposition 98 (1988).. .................................... ................... 1 1 The Present California School Finance System................................................................................... 1 2 Future Outlook........................................................................ 1 5 Statement of the Problem..................................................... 1 6 Purpose of the Study................................................................ 1 7 Research Questions................................................................... 1 7 Significance of the Study...................................................... 1 8 Definition of Terms.................................................................. 2 0

PAGE 9

ix CHAPTER Assumptions............................................................................... 2 4 Organization of the Study........................... ...... ..... .............. 2 4 II. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE AND RESEARCH...................... 2 6 Historical Background........................ ................................... 2 6 Modern Foundations Organization and Giving Patterns................................ 2 9 Independent Foundations................................. ................ 2 9 Operating Foundations................................. ...... ................ 3 0 Company Sponsored Foundations.................................. 3 0 Community Foundations................................................... 3 1 Local Education Foundations.......................................... 3 1 Development of Local Education Foundations............. 3 3 Local Education Foundations Trends, Organizations and Issues... ....................... 3 9 The School Foundation Movement in California......... 4 5 Summary...................................................................................... 50 Ill. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY.................................. 52 Research Problem.................................................................... 52 Research Design....................................................................... 52 Research Population............................................................... 53 General Population Sample............................................. 53 Mail Survey Population Sample.................................... 53 Case Study Sample.............................................................. 54 Instrumentation........................................................................ 54 Mail Survey Questionnaire............................................... 54 Semi-Structured Interview Guide................................ 55

PAGE 10

X CHAPTER Data Collection.......................................................................... 57 Fiscal Equity ................ :......................................................... 57 Program Equity..................................................................... 59 Local Education Foundation and Foundation District Characteristics .......................... 61 Case Studies .................................................. ....................... 6 1 Treatment of the Data.......................................................... 6 3 Fiscal Equity ....................................... :................................ 6 3 Statistical Procedures.................................................... 6 4 Program Equity.................................................................... 6 5 Foundation District and Local Education Foundation Characteristics....................................... 6 6 Tables .. ; ............................... .......... .......................... :.............. 67 Statistical Procedures.................................................... 6 7 Case Studies .......................................... .............. :................ 6 8 Summary................................................................................. 68 IV. FINDINGS OF THE STUDY............................................................. 7 0 Introduction............................................................................... 7 0 Purposes of the Study........................................................... 7 1 Research Questions................................................................ 7 2 The Effect of Local Education Foundations on Fiscal Equity in Selected Public Schools in California............................................................................. 7 4 Serrano Bands L imits.. .... .. .. .. .. .. . .. .. .... .... .. .... .. .. .. ... .. .. .. .. .. 7 5 The Relationship of All Districts to the Serrano Band................................................. ..................... 7 6 The Relationship of LEF District Revenues and the Serrano Band...................................................... 8 3

PAGE 11

XI CHAPTER Summary............................................. .............. ...... ................. 91 Statistical Analyses................................. ................ . ..... 9 4 Summary ....................... :;;........ ............................. ........... ...... 9 8 Summary of Major Findings Related to Fiscal Equity................................ ......................... ....... .. 100 The Effect of Local Education Foundations Upon Program Equity in Selected Public School Districts in California....... . ...................................... 1 02 Summary....................................................................... ......... 109 A Descriptive Profile of Foundation Districts in the State of California........... . .... ..................... .... ...... . 1 1 0 Foundation District Enrollment..... ...................... . .... 11 0 Population of Foundation District Communities... .................................................. ......... 111 Foundation District Population Density. .......... ....... 1 1 3 Foundation District Wealth..... ............. .... .... ............... 114 Foundation District Type........................ . ................ ...... 11 7 Relationship of Foundation District Characteristics to Amount of Foundation Funds Rai sed Per ADA .......... ........ ............ ........ ...... 1 1 8 District ADA............... .......................................... .. ....... .. 1 1 8 Community Population ........ .... ................ ............... .'.... 119 Population Density....................................................... 1 20 District Wealth......... .... ...... ................ .......................... 1 21 ANOVAS............................................................................. 124 A Descriptive Profile of Local Education Foundations in California.... ..... .... ..... ......... ........ .... ....... 1 24 Date of Establishment of Foundations..................... 1 25

PAGE 12

Xi i CHAPTER Foundation Formation Initiation................................. 1 26 Foundation Board of Directors..................................... 1 27 Decision Making Authority for Foundation Funds........................................................... 1 2 9 Foundation Staffing ...................... 1 31 Summary................................................................................ 1 32 Foundation Funds Raised................................................ 1 3 2 ADA Foundation Funds Raised...................................... 1 3 3 Total Foundation Funds Raised.................................... 1 34 Successful Local Education Foundations................ 1 36 Foundations in Practice: Four Case Studies............... 1 42 LEFA........................................................................................ 142 LEFB........................................................................................ 149 LEFC.......................... ........................................ .................... 154 LEFD........................................................................................ 165 Summary Discussion........................................................ 1 7 6 LEFs A and 8........................................................................ 177 LEFs C and D ............... 1 7 9 V. SUMMARY ,CONCLUSIONS, IMPLICATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS............................................................... 183 Summary................................................................................... 183 Conclusions............................................................................. 1 9 4 Implications of the Study................................................. 1 96 Recommendations................................................................. 1 9 7 BIBLIOGRAPHY............................................................................................ 1 9 9

PAGE 13

X Ill APPENDIX A. EXPENDITURE CHOICES OF 96 LEFS WHICH RAISED FUNDS IN 1987-88 ............................. :.................. 206 B. MAIL SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE.............................................. 21 2 C. SEMI-STRUCTURED INTERVIEW GUIDE............................... 21 4 D. LETIERS ........................................................................................ 2 21 E MAIL SURVEY PARTICIPANTS AND SURVEY RESPONSE SUMMARY........................................... 2 3 1 F. DATA SUMMARY TABLES......................................................... 2 3 7 G REPORTS PUBLISHED BY THE CALIFORNIA STATE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION.............................. 246 H. ANOVAS......................................................................................... 300 I. CHARACTERISTICS OF FOUNDATION DISTRICTS SUPPORTED BY SUCCESSFUL LOCAL EDUCATION FOUNDATIONS........................................................................ 3 0 6 J. PLACEMENT OF CASE STUDY PARTICIPANTS IN THE GENERAL DESCRIPTIVE CHARACTERISTICS PROFILES OF THE 113 FOUNDATIONS.AND FOUNDATION DISTRICTS STUDIED................................ 0 8

PAGE 14

TABLES Table 1. Federal Poverty Index Guidelines............................. ...... ............ 59 2. 1987-88 Serrano Bands by School District Type.................. 75 3 Comparison of the Number and Percentage of All Elementary Districts (N620), Elementary Nontoundation Districts (N-573) and Elementary Foundation Districts (N-47) to Serrano Band Categories, including BRL Dollar Ranges for Each Serrano Band Category.................................... 77 4. Comparison of the Number and Percentage of All High School Districts (N-1 02), High School Nonfoundation Districts (N-95), and High School Foundation Districts (N-7) to Serrano Band Categories, including BRL Dollar Ranges tor Each Serrano Band Category.................... .... .. ......... 7 9 5. Comparison of the Number and Percentage of all Unified School Districts (N-301 ), Unified Nonfoundation Districts (N-242), and Foundation Districts (N-59) to Serrano Band Categories, including BRL Dollar Ranges for Each Serrano Band Category ................................................................................................... 81 6. State Average Base Revenue Limits and Average Foundation Base Revenue Limits by District Type ............... 8 2 7. 1987-88 Revenues Elementary Foundation Di'stricts in Rank Order of Base Revenue Limit Funds and Serrano Band..................... ........................................... ......................... 84 8. 1987-88 Revenues High School Foundation Districts in Rank Order of Base Revenue Limit Funds and Serrano Band Placement............................................. 8 7

PAGE 15

9. 1987-88 Revenues Unified Foundation Districts in Rank Order of Base Revenue Limit Funds and Serrano XV Band Placement.......... .............................................. ........................... 8 8 1 0. Comparison of Revenue Means....................................................... 9 1 11. The Base Revenue Limit Relative to the Base Revenue Limit Plus Foundation Funds Raised (BRLFF) ...................... :... 9 4 12. The Effect of District Type on Foundation Funds Raised per ADA ............ .................. .... .................. . ... ... ............. ... : .... 9 6 1 3. The Effect of Serrano Band Category Placement on Elementary Districts (N-42) Foundation Funds Raised Per ADA................................................................................................... 9 7 14. The Effect of Serrano Band Category Placement on Unified District (N-49) Foundation Funds Raised Per ADA...................................................... .................................................... 9 8 15. Comparison of Percentage of LEFs* and Nonfoundation Districts Providing Funds For Specific Expenditure Choices............................................................................... .............. ..... 1 04 16. Funding Sources of Programs Offered by Nonfoundation Districts ................................... ....................................................... . 1 07 17. Percentages of Nonfoundation District Expenditure Choices Supported by the District General Fund.... ............ 1 08 18. The Relationship Between Average Daily Attendance and Foundation Funds Raised Per ADA........................ ............ 119 19. The Relationship Between Community Population and Foundation Funds Raised Per ADA............................................. 120 20. The Relationship Between Population Density and Foundation Funds flaised Per ADA............................................. 121

PAGE 16

XVI 21. The Relationship Between District Wealth (CCEF Guidelines) to Foundation Funds Raised Per ADA...................................................................................................... 122 22. The Relationship Between District Wealth (Federal Poverty Index) and Foundation Funds Raised Per ADA..... 123 23. Characteristics of Local Education Foundations Defined As Successful.............................................. .................... 138

PAGE 17

FIGURES Figure 1. California School Finance System....................................... 12 2. Foundation District Enrollment.................................. .... ...... .111 3. Population of Foundation District Communities........... 112 4. Foundation District Population Density.............. ............. 113 5. Wealth of District...................................................................... .115 6. Foundation District Wealth.................................................... .116 7. District Type........................................................................ ........ 117 8. Foundation Date of Establishment............................... ........ 125 9. Foundation Formation Initiation........................................... 126 10. Number of Directors on Foundation Board........................ 128 11. Decision Making Authority For Foundation Funds.......... 129 12. Foundation Staffing .......................................................... ;........ 131 13. Funds Raised Per ADA by Foundation.................................. 133 14. Total Funds Raised by Foundation................................ ........ 134

PAGE 18

CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION American schools are in trouble. In fact the problems of schooling are of such crippling proportions that many schools may not survive. It is possible that our entire public education system is nearing collapse... (Goodlad, 1984, p. 1 ). What has occurred in our nation's schools in the past quarter century to cause such a dire statement? Has it been temporary hard times, as some believe, or is American education in the midst of a fundamental change--a reaction to the new social, political and economic realities of the times? Do doubts about the nation's willingness to support its educational institutions mean that America must at last change the way it educates its children? Have we begun a time when we must reduce our ambitions and slowly, but inevitably, disassemble the "American Dream" for many? These are difficult, even painful, notions to many of us; they cause us to question our most strongly held beliefs about American education, and anxiety and discomfort follow the answers. John Goodlad, in A Place Called School, examined several basic assumptions in an ominously titled first chapter, "Can We Have Effective Schools?" In the past, with a few recurring exceptions from some notable doomsayers of various persuasions,

PAGE 19

2 America's schools were considered effective and, indeed, the cornerstone of our democracy. Criticisms of public education were met with a flurry of responses, some frivolous and cosmetic and some which made a significant impact on the schools and students. The recent record is well known to most educators and concerned citizens and, for the purposes of this study, requires no retelling here. However, it is important to focus initially on what has become a controlling factor in the operation of all schools: money or, more importantly, the lack of it. Legislation placing limits on taxes, high inflation in the latter part of the 1970s and early 1980s, the deep economic recession of 1981-83, continuing cuts in federal aid to education, increased financial needs of all social service agencies, and tax-payer dissatisfaction have contributed to the financial woes of the schools (Neill, 1983). Neill stated, "Not since the Great Depression of the 1930s have public schools found themselves confronted with the need to cut their programs so severely" (p. 1 ). This actual or perceived lack of financial resources to pay teachers, improve the curriculum, and/or expand facilities has forced many schools to seek new sources of funds or face reducing the budget--a decision now dependent upon a varied, sometimes unsympathetic or antagonistic constituency. The Conrad Hilton Foundation (1986) identified several elements of the problem succinctly in Balancing Quality and Equity. Toward a Grant Making Program in Pre-Collegiate Public Education. The loss of support for education from one segment of the national

PAGE 20

constituency, people over 65 years of age, has helped create a fiscal crises for educational funding. Another factor is that "baby boomers" of the early sixties are having children in relatively large numbers, producing a temporary bulge in school age population, even though the long term prospect is for a 3 decline in public school enrollment. Also compounding the crisis is the increasing competition for public support from other human services systems which address needs in health, homelessness, AIDS, and welfare. Circumstances other than financial which have impacted the public schools include the weakening of the church and home, lack of a strong political coalition for education, non-supportive attitudes of parents toward schools, and the decline of the traditional American two parent family (Goodlad, 1984). The turbulent years of the sixties, which included the experience of the civil rights movement, demands for social justice, and the war in Viet Nam, left a legacy of search for equality and opportunity which has impacted the public schools greatly (Meade, 1982). The decade of the 1970s, aimed at equity, brought concerns for school finance, school desegregation, women's rights, affirmative action and the rights of children and adults in relationship to the schools (Meade, 1982). By the mid 1970s, 25 states had reformed their system of funding K-12 education by significantly increasing the states' share of total educational costs. Most of the effort to achieve fiscal equity between rich and poor districts within a state took place before

PAGE 21

the end of 1974, in a period characterized by relatively high financial resources (Fuhrman, 1980). 4 A Nation at Risk, one of at least seven national reports that called for reform and improvement, was a catalyst for educational reform in the nation's public schools and the educational issue changed from one of equity to one of excellence in the 1980s. Individual states and school boards responded to the criticism being hurled at education and began introducing changes to raise standards and attain excellence (Odden & Dougherty, 1984). The fiscal issue became how to raise enough dollars to finance reform and pursue quality rather than equity. Background for the Study California, the most populous state with the sixth largest economy in the world, has experienced tumultuous changes in educational funding since 1971 (Ed Source, 1987, October). To better understand what these important changes were and their subsequent effect on California school finance, the major events are chronologically identified and discussed in order to provide the necessary background for this study. School Funding Prior to 1971 A fixed property tax rate was historically levied by school districts to provide the major funding for local schools. This system produced large differences in property tax revenue per district because of the differences of the value of taxable

PAGE 22

5 property among the districts (Goldfinger, 1985). For example, in 1970, 39 school districts had assessed property values per pupil of $200,000 or more, but 17 elementary districts had per pupil values of less than $10,000. Median totals of assessed valuation per pupil by type of district were: elementary, $36,719; unified, $22,429; and high school, $62,045. State support was based upon these statistics without any provision to alter the inherent discrepancy between the poor and rich districts (Chaffee, 1979). Serrano I (1971) In Serrano vs. Priest the California Supreme Court held in 1971, "that education was a fundamental interest of the State" (Ed Source, 1983, p. 2) and if the facts presented by the plaintiffs in the case were accurate, the state's school finance system would be both unfair and unconstitutional. The Supreme Court sent the case back to the Los Angeles Superior Court for a new trial (Serrano II) which would test the truth of the plaintiff's arguments (Ed Source, 1983). This trial was held in 1974 and the court's decision was that California's system of school finance was unfair and unconstitutional. This case was ultimately appealed to the California Supreme Court. SB 90 (1972) Passed in 1972, SB 90 provided a school finance statute which created a revenue limit system for all school districts in the state, which still exists today. The revenue limit, defined as "the specific amount of state and local taxes a school district

PAGE 23

6 may receive per pupil for its general education program" (Ed Source, 1984, p. 10}, was based on the approximate amount each district was spending in 1972. Acknowledging the potential impact of the Serrano I case, the measure adapted a sliding scale designed to bring lower spending districts up to the spending levels of the wealthier districts over time (Ed Source, 1983). Serrano II (1976) On appeal, the California Supreme Court affirmed the 197 4 decision of the Los Angeles Superior Court that the California school finance system violated the Equal Protection Clause of Amendment XIV of the United States Constitution (Pincus, 1977}. It ruled that "California's system of school finance was so dependent on local property wealth that the Constitutional rights of pupils in low property wealth districts were violated because they were denied an equal educational opportunity" (Goldfinger, 1985, p. 3}. The 1974 decision of the Superior Court had not ordered specific methods of financing public K-12 education. Instead, the executive and legislative branches of the state government were given a period of six years to develop a system which would provide protection for all students. In addition, the California Superior Court directed all school districts, by 1980, to spend an amount per student which could not differ by more than a plus or minus $100 per pupil (adjusted for inflation), computed on the individual district's Base Revenue Limit. Identified as the

PAGE 24

Serrano Band (Ed Source, 1990), these spending limitations did not include categorical funding which refers to programs funded through federal and state taxes for a special purpose. The Superior Court retained jurisdiction to determine comp.liance 7 with its decision and, if necessary, to provide "appropriate relief to the plaintiffs" (cited in Ed Source, 1983, p. 2). In affirming the 1974 decision of the Superior Court, the California Supreme Court held that the revenue limit system imposed by the legislature through SB 90 would not provide fiscal equity, noting that "By taking the 1972-73 revenues as its base figure [the revenue limit system] perpetuates inequities resulting from property tax differentials" (cited in Ed Source, 1983, p. 3). As a result, AB 65 was written. AB 65 (1977) AB 65 was passed by the California State Legislature in 1977. More comprehensive than SB 90, AB 65 provided a system to redistribute tax revenues from higher to lower wealth districts through differing inflationary increases. It sought to facilitate local reform through the School Improvement Program, and increased financial support for categorical programs. Proposition 13 (1978) When Proposition 13 was passed in California in June, 1978, AB 65, the 1977 bill passed by the California State Legislature which provided formulas to meet the Serrano mandate, had not yet taken effect. According to Goldfinger

PAGE 25

(1985), "The passage of Proposition 13 ... completely changed the rules of the game" (p. 4). The provisions of Proposition 13 8 created a 60% loss of local property taxes and as a result, invalidated much of AB 65's financial reform (Ed Source, 1983). This tax limitation measure partially solved the tax rate problem created by the Serrano decision, but created other problems for the schools. By setting a maximum property tax rate of one percent, Proposition 13 eliminated the apparent inequities in tax rates between districts and caused the major shift in responsibility for financing the schools from the local district to the state. In a time of rapid property appreciation, Proposition 13 reduced property taxes throughout the state. However, the measure also prohibited voters from approving tax rate increases to support education (Ed Source, 1987, Xi). The huge state surplus in the general revenue fund which existed at the time the law was enacted kept the schools out of financial trouble until 1982-83, when the surplus was exhausted (Ed Source, 1987, October), and the need to add increases for inflation and population growth became major issues of annual debate in the California State Legislature. With no more surplus funds and voter preference not to raise taxes, survival took precedence over leveling up (Ed Source, 1983). Districts were left dependent on the whims of the state legislators and the governor. In addition, districts were dependent on the state's fluctuating economy rather than the stable property tax revenues used before Proposition 13 (Goldfinger, 1985).

PAGE 26

9 Proposition 4 (1980} Further complicating the school finance situation in California was the passage of Proposition 4 in 1980, also known as the Gann Limit (Ed Source, 1987, XL). This measure limited the amount of tax money state and local government could spend no matter what the state collected as income. School districts were included in this limit. Proposition 4 did not have an effect on school finance until 1986-87 when the state realized more tax monies than expected. According to Governor George Deukmejian, the limit contained in Proposition 4 prohibited the state from giving more money to the schools. Tax payers were rebated a total of 1.1 billion dollars from 1986 tax returns while the financial problems of the schools continued to accelerate (Ed Source, 1987, Xl.). California Lottery (1984} The California Lottery was established in 1984 with the intended purpose of providing "additional monies to benefit education without the imposition of additional or increased taxes" (Ed Source, 1985, p. 2). By law lottery income is dedicated solely to education but funds may not be used to purchase property or for capital construction (Ed Source, 1987, Xi, p 8). However, declining sales and the mistaken attitude of some of the public that the schools are now being taken care of with this revenue source have diminished the earlier optimistic projections regarding the lottery and education. Currently, the fluctuating common lottery income provides only a 3.5 percent

PAGE 27

1 0 addition to individual district budgets (Ed Source, 1990). Payments have fluctuated from a low of $89 per student to a high of $178.64 (Ed Source, 1989, p, 2). Serrano Compliance Trial (1984) In 1984, the Superior Court of Los Angeles declared that there was adequate compliance of the State's school districts with the Serrano mandate. The annual COLAs (Cost of Living i Adjustments) determined by the state legislature were modified to provide equal inflation dollar increases for all districts rather than maintaining the adjustments implemented through AB 65 to equalize revenue among the state's 1023 school districts. In 1989, the Serrano case was declared closed and continuing appeals were dropped (Ed Source, 1990). According to figures released by the State Department of Education, the Base Revenue Limits for over 96% of the total K-12 public school population were within a plus or minus $100 band, adjusted for inflation in 1989-90 (Ed Source, 1987, October). In 1988, $1 oo adjusted for inflation equaled $238 (Kirst & Guthrie, 1988, p. 12). Proposition 7 (1988) The Ed Source publication, State Finance (1987), had reported, "California's finance system and supporting budget are complex and critically important, especially to public education. The generally favorable outlook for the economy is clouded by constraints on how much of the state's revenues can be spent"

PAGE 28

1 1 (p. 1 ). An attempt was made on the June, 1988 primary ballot to pass Proposition 71, which would have modified and updated the Gann limit to reflect the current growth and state of the economy in California. It was defeated by a 51-49% margin ("Prop. 71 fails," 1988). Proposition 98 (1988) In November, 1988, Proposition 98, also known as the School Funding Initiative, was narrowly passed by the voters of California. This initiative limited the ability of any governor or legislature to set the budget for public education ("Proposition 98 passage," 1988). Initiated by the California Teachers Association, this proposition created a constitutional guarantee that each year schools would receive at least as much funding as in the prior year, adjusted for inflation and enrollment growth. It further provided that the percentage of the state budget allocated to schools in 1986-87 be maintained in the future. Another provision of Proposition 98 specified that if ever again the state has revenues in excess of its spending limit, the excess would first be used to provide schools with an additional four per cent increase in funding to be used for instructional improvements. Accountability reports, issued by individual school districts, were required by statute to assure voters that this new money was being spent wisely. ("Task Forces Wrestle," 1989). It is too early to know what the effect of the passage of Proposition 98

PAGE 29

will be on education in the State but it seems that California's schools may have achieved a source of stable funding. The Present California School Finance System 1 2 Because of the events affecting school finance which have taken place since 1971, the public schools are now completely dependent on the state government for decisions relating to the amount of money they receive as well as when and how they will receive it (Ed Source, 1990). Figure 1 illustrates the basic components of California's state finance system. Federal State Property Taxes Local Misc Lot!_ery Sources Distribution Categorical General Purpose
PAGE 30

1 3 The Base Revenue Limit (BRL) for each district is determined by the State which also provides dollars to make up the difference between revenues generated through local property taxes which, by Proposition 13, are limited to one percent of the assessed value of property within the district and the mandated Base Revenue Limit. The general operating budget of a school district is determined by the Average Daily Attendance (ADA) multiplied by the appropriate Base Revenue Limit and enhanced by the specific categorical program funds the district is entitled to receive (Ed Source, 1990). At present, the Base Revenue Limits of approximately 30 school districts are met entirely through local property tax revenues. These districts, comprising about 50,000 students, are defined as Basic Aid Districts and are allowed to keep all their local property tax money even if it exceeds their specific Base Revenue Limit. In addition, these districts receive the $120 per pupil in basic aid which is guaranteed by the California Constitution (Ed Source, 1990, June). Until very recently, school districts were not able to ask local voters to approve any measure for schools which would increase property taxes. Proposition 13, passed in 1978, had virtually stopped this means of raising additional funds for schools. However, districts now have two options to raise funds for new school construction and/or renovation. They may opt for establishing a Mello-Roos district which encompasses all undeveloped land in a district. Only those landowners within the proposed Mello-Roos district can vote and the proposal must pass

PAGE 31

1 4 by two-thirds majority. Landowners get one vote per acre. The Mello-Roos tax is assessed by acreage on the undeveloped land until after development, when it becomes assessed by residents. Therefore, developers can pass the tax on to the new home buyer (Armstrong, 1989). Since 1983, 19 of 32 elections to establish a Mello Roos district to levy taxes for school construction have won the required two-thirds approval (Ed Source, 1989, October, XIII, p. 3). The second option, Proposition 46, passed in 1986, allows a two-thirds vote to support local general obligation bonds (for facility construction only) by increasing property taxes (Armstrong, 1989). Few districts have attempted to pass a general obligation bond because of the difficulty of winning such an election. For the most part, those that have been successful have not increased property taxes more than $50 per year in order to insure a successful bond campaign If the vote to pass general obligation bonds required only a simple majority, instead of the two-thirds majority presently in effect, more than 75 percent of all local school bond referenda since 1986 would have been successful ("Schools Scramble for State Funds," 1989, p. 2a). Another response to the problem of lack of funds has been the establishment of local district 501 (c)(3) nonprofit foundations spearheaded by a grass roots effort. The 501 (c)(3) designation refers to the section of the Internal Revenue Code which defines nonprofit, charitable, and tax exempt organizations. These foundations are used as a legitimate, tax

PAGE 32

1 5 deductible means to solicit money, services, and gifts from citizens, business, industry, and, increasingly, from philanthropic foundations (Odden & Dougherty, 1984). Art Thayer of the Association of California School Administration (ACSA), referred to the school foundation movement among public school districts as a rapidly growing trend caused by the loss of local control and lack of stable funding for schools in California (1984). According to the California Consortium of Education Foundations (CCEF), as of September 1988, more than 11 percent of the public school districts in California had created local education foundations (The Directory, 1988). The number of foundations has steadily been increasing since the 1978 passage of Proposition 13, and in 1988, 122 active LEFs currently belong to the California Consortium of Education Foundations (The Directory, 1988). Future Outlook The fiscal dilemma may be only one of a series of difficult problems confronting California schools. A flourishing economy and a rapidly growing population are certain to generate more state taxes and more children to educate. According to Kirst and Guthrie (1988), by the year 2000 one out of eight children in the United States will live in California and, at present, more than one out of five in the state live in poverty. The children will still come to school, but the Gann Limit, in its present form, will make it virtually impossible for schools to receive the funds necessary to keep up with enrollment and the

PAGE 33

1 6 increasing needs of California's children. Kirst and Guthrie further predicted that unless voter enacted limits on property taxes and government spending are revised, California's schools are headed for a bleak future of skyrocketing student population, serious overcrowding, and insufficient dollars to finance education. This is a dismal prediction for a state which once held a national leadership position in per pupil spending (sixth in the nation in 1970) but now ranks 29th in the nation (Ed Source, 1990, June). The educational well-being of children in the state will depend increasingly on "the willingness of people without children to commit public and private resources to children" (Kirst & Guthrie, 1988, p. 4). Already beset with grave financial problems, the schools in California have few viable alternatives to meet the increased costs created by increasing enrollments composed of largely poor minority students. In addition to long deferred maintenance which now must be completed and paid for, the need to fund new school construction, school reform mandates, and even normal staff salary increases makes the situation even more critical. Statement of the Problem The needs of California's public schools surpass available revenues provided by state and local governments. An increasing number of public school districts have formed local education foundations fo.r additional support, collecting tax deductible revenues from individuals, businesses, and

PAGE 34

philanthropic foundations. The effect of this fund-raising strategy on fiscal and program equity among California's public K-12 schools is not known. Purpose of the Study 1 7 The major purpose of the study was to determine the effect of local education foundations upon fiscal and program equity in California's public schools. This study also sought to provide a general descriptive profile of foundation and foundation district characteristics and provide an in-depth case study of four local education foundations defined as most successful by this researcher. Research Questions 1. What is the effect of foundation funds on fiscal equity in selected districts in the State of California? 2. What is the impact of foundation funds on program equity in selected districts in the State of California? 3. How do local education foundations earning $100 or more per student affect fiscal equity? 4. How do the most successful local education foundations affect fiscal and program equity in selected districts? 5. What programs (expenditure choices) are funded by local education foundations in California?

PAGE 35

6. How do the most successful local education foundations choose how to allocate or spend funds that are raised? 7. What are the characteristics of successful local education foundations? 8. What are the characteristics of the school districts and communities where successful local education foundations are located? 9. What variations exist in foundation characteristics relating to revenues, initiation, longevity, board membership, staffing, and decision making authority among the 113 active local education foundations studied? 1 8 10. What variations exist in foundation district characteristics relating to ADA, community population, population density, wealth, location, and district type among the 113 foundation districts studied? 11. How do the most successful local education foundations affect the educational environment of students and school staff members in selected districts? Significance of the Study It has been 14 years since the Serrano decision which mandated an equalized funding system for public education in California. The Serrano decision, along with Proposition 13, have restricted local funding options available to public school districts in California and, in effect, moved the responsibility for

PAGE 36

1 9 school finance to the state government. The governor and state legislature have yet to create effective solutions to the complex financial problems of the schools. As a result, many districts have looked toward local education foundations as a funding source. In 1983, California had more local education foundations than any other state (Andrews, 1983). No systematic study has been made of the effect of foundation raised funds upon fiscal and program equity in California's K-12 schools. Concern that local educational foundations in California have the potential for upsetting equal funding laws brought about by the Serrano decision has been expressed. Both author Jerome Cramer and former State Superintendent of Schools Wilson Riles stated that California's movement toward equity in public education spending could be dismantled by the establishment of educational foundations ("School Foundation," 1983). David Bergholz, past president of the Public Education Fund, conceded that "the most successful education foundations tend to be those in wealthy communities" (cited in Smith, 1985, p. 48) and that "there are some grave implications for equity in school finance that go with the growth of local education funds" (cited in Kotler & Wallace, 1984, p. C-3). California educator, James Reusswig (1983) agreed: There is also consensus regarding what type of district will enjoy some success that being, of course, the district in the affluent community and the district with corporations based within its border. Consequently, districts that had dramatically greater revenues per pupil before Serrano will

PAGE 37

20 again have greater resources than the less affluent districts. Parents don't care less; they simply have less. By and large, the districts that may be successful with foundations are all white, middle to upper class (p. 39). Therefore, as the number of local education foundations continues to grow in California, it is important to determine the effect of foundation raised funds on fiscal and program equity, as well as to provide a general descriptive profile of the characteristics of existing LEFs and their achievements in fund raising. Trends or practices which might serve to undermine the dictates of the Serrano decision and undo the current level of fiscal equity in California's public schools need to be identified and examined. Definition of Terms Average Daily Attendance (ADA) -The number of students actually present or excused for absence on each school day throughout the year, divided by the total number of school days in the school year. Assessed Valuation -Value placed upon personal and real property by a governmental unit for taxation purposes. Real property tax rates in California are limited to 1 /o of assessed valuation. Base Revenue Limit -The fixed amount of general purpose revenue each school district receives from state and local property taxes Base Revenue Limits are determined

PAGE 38

annually and most are funded through a combination of state funds and local property taxes. 21 Basic Aid (California) -The minimum grant of $120 per K-12 pupil guaranteed by the State Constitution. This amount is included in a school district's Base Revenue Limit in districts which receive state aid to make up their Base Revenue Limit. Basic Aid District (California) -A public school district which obtains its Base Revenue Limit solely from local funds. These districts receive $120 in Basic Aid per pupil in addition to their Base Revenue Limit. Categorical Aid (California) --Funds each district receives from the state or federal government for special purposes or categories of students. These funds must be expended for the purpose for which they were granted. California Consortium of Education Foundations (CCEF) -A state-wide organization of local education foundations which provides networking opportunities and support for existing and potential local education foundations. Collaborative Projects -Major efforts to develop programs using community resources to cooperatively support the school district's goals of improving teaching and the curriculum. Most often, more than one school and/or school district is involved. EQualization District -A public school district which receives its Base Revenue Limit from a combination of local and

PAGE 39

state funds. The vast majority of school districts in California are Equalization Districts. Fiscal Equity -Defined as existing when per pupil expenditures among the public schools in California are within 22 the plus or minus $100 band (Serrano Band), adjusted for inflation and measured by the state average Base Revenue Limit. Foundation (Philanthropic) -A legally chartered, eleemosynary fund, administered by a separate and independent board of control and of which the income or principal (or both) is dedicated to promoting the well-being of mankind; includes educational foundations. Foundation District -A public school district which is supported by a local education foundation. High Wealth District -A public school district in California whose assessed valuation per ADA was above the statewide average before funding laws were changed after the Serrano decision. These districts are now referred to as High Expenditure Districts because their Base Revenue Limits are considerably higher than the state average. Local Education Foundation -Often used interchangeably with education foundation or school foundation; refers to the tax exempt, nonprofit corporation which is formed for the purpose of raising money for schools. Low Wealth District -A public school district in California whose assessed valuation per ADA was below the

PAGE 40

23 statewide average before school funding laws were changed after the Serrano Decision. Nonfoundation District -A public school district without the support of a local education foundation. Operating Funds --A sum of money or other resource set aside for the purpose of providing for the everyday financial requirements of an organizations. Program Equity --Refers to the existence of programs funded by local education foundations which are also present in nonfoundation districts Proposition 13 -A ballot initiative passed by the voters of California in 1978 which limited the use of the property tax for financial support of public agencies and restricts the ability of local communities to raise monies for use by these public agencies through tax elections. Serrano vs Priest Decision (Serrano I) -A decision made by the California Supreme Court in 1971 which directed the state legislature to insure that all public school districts were equally funded. Serrano II -A decision made by the California Supreme Court in 1976 upholding the Serrano trial decision by the California Superior Court. Unrestricted Funding -Money contributed to a foundation or school board without being allocated for a specific purpose or program.

PAGE 41

24 501 (c)(3) -The section of the Internal Revenue Code which defines nonprofit, charitable, tax-exempt organizations. The 501 (c)(3) organizations are further defined as public charities, private operating foundations, and private nonoperating foundations. Most foundations limit their giving to organizations which have 501 (c)(3) status, or individuals acting in behalf of those organizations. Assumptions All active education foundations tn California public schools (K-12) belong to the California Consortium of Education Foundations and are listed in The Consortium's September, 1988 directory. Organization of the Study Chapter I includes the introduction, statement of the problem, purpose of the study, significance of the study, questions to be answered, assumptions, definitions of terms, and organization of the study. Chapter II reviews the literature and research relevant to the historical background of foundations, organization and giving patterns of modern foundations, development of local education foundations, trends and issues of local education foundations, and local education foundations in California. Chapter Ill describes the research method and procedures used in conducting the study. Chapter IV describes the

PAGE 42

25 findings and their interpretation related to the questions posed in Chapter I. Chapter V includes a summary of the study, conclusions; implications, and recommendations developed from the findings of this study.

PAGE 43

CHAPTER II REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE AND RESEARCH This chapter reviews a variety of the printed sources (monographs, periodicals, newspapers, pamphlets, dissertations, meeting proceedings, informational brochures, and correspondence) relevant to this study. At this writing, no book devoted solely to the topic of Public Elementary and Secondary Education Foundations has been identified. For organizational purposes, the chapter is divided into sections as follows: Historical Background of Foundations; Modern Foundations Organization and Giving Patterns; Development of Local Education Foundations; Local Education Foundations Trends and Issues; and Education Foundations in California. Historical Background The concept of private philanthropy dates back to ancient times. Fisher (1986) argued that there was little evidence of philanthropy in pre-industrial and nonwestern societies, stating that, "Perhaps the first western evidence of charity is found in Egyptian civilization" (p. 26). Ancient Egypt's Book of the Dead, which goes back to approximately 4000 B.C., praises those who give bread for the hungry and water for the thirsty (Fisher 1986).

PAGE 44

27 In early Greek and Roman civilizations, foundations existed to honor deities (Nesbit, 1985). Charity was eventually extended to philanthropy as support was given to the arts, festivals, education, and recreation which contributed to the general welfare of these societies. Giving was not limited to the needy (Fisher, 1986). Legal provision for the creation, control, and protection of foundation funds was not established until 1601 when the English Parliament passed the Statute of Charitable Uses. This statute, which granted specific privileges to those willing to serve the public good by supporting or performing acts of charity, has served as the basis of American law concerning philanthropy (Fisher, 1986). In time, other countries also gave special status to individuals or groups provided they met the test of serving a charitable function (Read, 1986). As early as 1919, the United States Congress began allowing charitable deductions for philanthropic purposes (Fisher, 1986). This action created the legal climate which fostered the growth of American philanthropy that continues to this day. Despite a serious world wide economic depression and war, favorable treatment by federal income tax laws encouraged the formation of company sponsored and family foundations in the 1930s and 1940s. Following World War II, a large increase in the number of independent foundations occurred in an attempt to escape high tax rates resulting from the war (Read, 1986). In the decade of the fift'ies, more foundations with assets in excess of

PAGE 45

28 one million dollars were established than at any other time in the twentieth century (Nesbit, 1986). However, the number of foundations has increased at a slower rate since the 1950s (Fisher 1986) Read (1986) cited the following reasons for this slowing: 1. Increased regulation and taxation of foundations. 2. Questions of advantages of corporate giving programs over company sponsored foundations. 3. Changes in the overall economy (p. 78) Foundations are now located in every state, although they were originally most prevalent in the Northeastern United States. This fact can be traced to the early economic and industrial development of this area of the nation which enabled many individuals to accumulate great wealth. (Nineteen percent of all foundation assets are located in New York State alone.) In recent years, however, the highest rates of new money growth for foundation assets have been the South, Southwest, and Pacific Coast reflecting the largely favorable economic conditions and population growth in these areas. Conversely, assets of foundations located in the Northeastern United States have experienced a much slower growth rate in recent years (Read, 1986).

PAGE 46

Modern Foundations Organization and Giving Patterns I Foundations are created and organized as charitable 29 corporations or trusts under state laws and their federal-tax exempt status is provided by the Internal Revenue Code. The first major legislation dealing directly with foundations was the Federal Tax Reform Act of 1969 (Read, 1986). The former President of the Council on Foundations, David Freeman, explained the code's definition Starting with the universe of voluntary organizations described in section 501 (c)(3), the Code excludes [from taxation] broad groups, e.g., churches, schools, hospitals, governmental units, publicly supported charities and their affiliates. Publicly supported charities are those which derive much of their support from the general public and reach out in other ways to a public constituency. All of the above kinds of [tax] excluded organizations are commonly and conveniently referred to as 'public charities.' Section 501 (c)(3) organizations remaining after these exclusions are, without more precise definition, 'private foundations' (cited in Read, 1981, p.4). Foundations which differ in legal form, mode of operation, origin of assets or funding, and program are commonly classified into four basic types: Independent, operating, company sponsored and community (Read, 1986). Independent foundations. The most numerous foundations are grant making organizations whose funding is initially supplied by an individual, family, or group of individuals. These

PAGE 47

30 funds are invested as a corpus in interest bearing accounts and only the annual earnings or a portion thereof are dispensed. The individual or family may run the foundation or an independent board of directors may manage the organization. Most limit their giving geographically and/or to several areas of interest. Operating foundations. This type of foundation is created for research, social welfare or any legally permitted charitable cause approved by its governing body. Funds received through endowment or donors are usually expended for programs within the foundation and rarely do operating foundations give funds outside the organization. The Federal 1984 Tax Reform Act permitted operating foundations to seek funding from other foundations and external sources. Company sponsored foundations. These foundations, also called corporate foundations, are created by businesses thereby enabling corporations to participate in philanthropic activities. Although sponsored by a specific corporation, they are separate legal entities. Managed by their own boards of directors, most company sponsored foundations give in communities where they are headquartered or where they conduct major operations. They tend to fund projects related to company interests or activities. Funds are budgeted by the parent organization and "passed" to the company/corporate foundation for disbursement, hence the occasional name, "pass through foundations" (Read, p. 5).

PAGE 48

31 Community foundations These foundations serve a specific community or region, are supported by a variety of donors, and are administered by a board of directors representative of donor and community interests. Identified as "public charities" by the Federal Internal Revenue Code because of their special characteristics, they have been granted maximum tax deductions. Because of this favored tax status, community foundations have grown more rapidly in recent times than other kinds of foundations. A public school education foundation is a specific type of community foundation whose function is to support a local public school district with private funding. Hereafter, "local education foundations" and "LEFs" are used interchangeably to identify these public education foundations. Local education foundations. Clay (1985) defined a local education foundation as: ... privately operated, nonprofit organizations established to assist public schools. They are charitable organizations different from school districts, public institutions or local governments. They are designed to meet United States Internal Revenue Service regulations pertaining to charitable organizations [and] ... are::'governed by specific laws that make gifts to these organizations tax deductible. Consequently, the separate, nonprofit, educational foundation enables donors to receive maximum tax benefits for their gifts (p.1 ). According to statistics gathered by The Foundation Center located in New York City, there were 25,639 active private grant-making foundations and 677 active private operating

PAGE 49

32 foundations in 1988. The grant-making foundations held estimated combined assets of $102 billion and awarded grants totaling nearly $6.4 billion. The private operating foundations did not fund any projects for outside groups; funding was limited to internal activities (National Data Book, 1988). Contrary to the expectations of many, philanthropic giving established a record in 1987. Warnings by professional fund raisers that the 1986 Tax Reform Act would severely reduce contributions because nonitemizers could no longer deduct charitable gifts did not prove to be true. Despite the stock market "plunge" of October 1987 and several highly publicized scandals involving television evangelists, new record highs in total contributions were achieved. More than 93 billion dollars were donated; four-fifths of this total ($76.82 billion) was contributed by individual donors. Bequests accounted for an additional $6.0 billion and corporations contributed $4.5 billion (McMillen, 1988). Two cautions did appear. First, although the number of actual dollars contributed by individual donors increased in 1987, the annual rate of increase from such giving dropped from 9.2 percent to 6.6 percent. Explanations include the stock market problems of 1987 and/or the decline in the increase of personal income from 1986 to 1987. Second, in 1987, foundations increased their giving by 8.1 percent over 1986, but corporate giving remained the same for the first time in 5 years. The

PAGE 50

33 amount donated to education increased 7.5 percent from 1986 to 1987, totaling $10.84 billion. Donations to education accounted for 11.26/o of all giving in 1987 (McMillen, 1988). Development of Local Education Foundations Historically, philanthropic foundations have given high priority to the support of education. According to Havighurst (1981 ), education continued to be the principal field of foundation activity because it was viewed as a means of promoting human well-being. Traditionally, this support had been limited to higher education. Other than a few experimental projects, there had been no general program of support to public or private elementary or secondary education (Havighurst, 1981 ). Of the one billion dollars given annually to education by corporations, only 3.5 per cent are allocated for public and private K-12 education. Public precollegiate education receives less than a third of this total, amounting to only 1/2 to 1o/o (Lobe, 1985 p. 13). Dale Mann stated, ... [public] schools are raising 10 times as much through ticket sales and cake sales as they are through involvement with the private sector" (cited in Lobe, 1985, p. 15). This funding picture may be changing. In 1988, The Chronicle of Higher Education reported that philanthropic giving to public K-12 education increased, stating: "Corporate grant makers are increasingly interested in precollege education. While giving to colleges and universities increased in 1987, contributions to

PAGE 51

elementary and secondary schools grew by a larger percentage" (McMillen, 1988, p. A22). 34 Initially, foundations funded education projects government would not or could not fund because of lack of commitment and/or funds. This situation changed greatly beginning with the late 1950s. Major influxes of federal and private funding to increase educational opportunities continued in the 1960s through the 1970s and into the 1980s when the business community once more became involved in education. Realizing that training provided by the business community could not substitute for a sound elementary and secondary education, and for their own self-interests as well as for philanthropic reasons, businesses have become increasingly involved with LEFs (Timpane, 1984). According to Clay (1985), ... the idea of starting a foundation comes from a small group of individuals in the community. It may be the superintendent or members of the school board, a handful of concerned parents, or a few business leaders that are worried about the negative impact on the community by deteriorating school conditions. These few individuals become a force in the community that creates the momentum and initiative to start a foundation (pp. 9-1 0). The creation of LEFs re-established a means for participation in the public schools by business and other community interest groups. David Bergholz (1982), in a speech presented at the School Foundation Movement Conference (a meeting co-sponsored by the Ford Foundation and the San

PAGE 52

35 Francisco Education Fund) stressed the importance of the role of the education foundation as a broker between the community and the schools. In his words, "The [LEF is a] translator between schools and the corporate world, a flexible tool which allows community input and involvement in a supportive manner". He further explained, "Our [LEF's] ability to move quickly, when requested to do so, on some of the issues that press on the school system is important...[This is a] crucial service" (p. 13). Decreasing per capita dollars, politically inspired taxpayer revolts, increasing needs brought on by a large influx of non-English speaking students from Southeast Asia and Latin America, and an apparent decrease in achievement and test scores have brought many schools to the point of fiscal crisis. This situation can be better understood and explained by the following observations: (1) There are fewer children of tax payers in school than ever before; the voter support base for education has been diminished ("School Foundation," 1983). (2) Tax limitation measures such as Proposition 13 in California and Proposition 2 1/2 in Massachusetts have been very effective. Loss of local control for financing schools has occurred with the increase of state responsibility for financing public education (Nesbit, 1983). (3) There was reduction in federal aid to education (Neill, 1985).

PAGE 53

(4) The effects of high inflation created a negative financial situation for educators (Neill, 1983). 36 (5) Demands made upon local, state and federal governments for increased financing of other public services have been successful (Neill, 1983). (6) School reform measures created additional demands on public schools without provision for sufficient funding (Odden & Dougherty, 1984). (7) Financial equalization measures in some states created large deficits for some school districts (Guthrie, Kirst, 1985). (8) Public perception was that schools were not efficient in educating students (Neill, 1983). In view of the preceding observations, it is not surprising that the establishment of a 501 (C)(3) local education foundation, with its tax incentives to donors, is looked upon as an effective way to raise supplementary funds. Its intended beneficiaries are students and teachers in public K-12 education (Neill, 1983). Although local education foundations throughout the nation have individual organizational patterns, all have the common goal of improving the quality of education in a school district by raising funds to be spent within the school district (Shoemaker, 1983). By 1980, a smattering of local education foundations existed nationwide. The Ford Foundation's study, A Foundation

PAGE 54

37 Goes to School aided the school foundation movement significantly in the early 1980s. A Foundation Goes to School set a trend in the Ford Foundation's thinking about the nature of institutional change in education (Meade, 1980). The study found that improvement of the quality of education was best achieved at the local level, in individual communities, in schools and classrooms with a higher level of teacher involvement. Meade (1980) stated that: ... if philanthropy wants to improve schools, their foundations need to support activities that somehow directly or not will make the point of contact [teacher to pupil] more effective" (p. 24). In October, 1982, the Ford Foundation, in conjunction with the San Francisco Education Fund, sponsored the School Foundation Movement Conference. Many of the four hundred participants from throughout the nation who attended shared their own LEF experiences with attendees from other LEFs. Some came to gather information about how to establish a LEF in their home district. It was estimated that one hundred LEFs existed at that time, most of them less than three years old and located in California (Nesbit, 1985). The national education reform reports of the early 1980s also helped the school foundation movement nationwide (Nesbit, 1985). According to Bergholz, the LEF ... attempts to create linkages between the community and the school system [and] helps to create a positive atmosphere in which significant school

PAGE 55

38 improvement may take place" (cited in Lobe, 1985, p. 15). Mann agreed, stating that: ... seeking money is not the only object, but foundations build collaboration between the school and community which leads to mutual understanding" (cited in Lobe, 1985, p. 15). In this spirit, the Ford Foundation provided the Alleghany Conference of Community Development in Pittsburgh with two million dollars to establish the Public Education Fund (P.E.F.) which began in 1983. The role of this fund was to give seed money and technical assistance to LEFs across the nation (Lobe, 1985). The five year goal (1983-88) of the Public' Education Fund was to provide assistance to a minimum of 40 local education foundations located in areas with significant minority and low income populations (The Public Education Fund, 1985). It was specifically excluded from assisting local education foundations whose primary purpose was to maintain existing programs and budget. Rather, its goals were to enrich or supplement school programs (Kotler & Wallace, 1984). In November, 1987, Bergholz reported that the Public Education Fund had made grants to more than 50 education funds and given technical assistance to many more. The Public Education Fund dissolved as an independent organization on December 31, 1987 and was re-established as PEF/NET. PEF/NET is not a grant-making organization, but rather one which provides a network for the foundations it has supported, gives technical

PAGE 56

39 assistance and continues advocacy of and to local education foundations (The Public Education Foundation, 1988). In furtherance of its goals, the PEF developed a resource guide for interested school districts, entitled The Local Education Funds: A Resource Guide (1987). Local Education FoundationsTrends. Organizations and Issues Local education foundations are unusual in several ways The vast majority do not have an endowment nor do they award external grants. Most donors are parents, and volunteers are used widely to work for the foundations (Shoemaker, 1983). Funds are solicited for various purposes. For example, Texas State Technical Institute founded an LEF to provide funding to purchase the necessary equipment to keep pace with modern technology (Griffith, 1983). The San Francisco Education Fund, one of the first and best known LEFs, focuses on individual school sites and classrooms by awarding grant money for small projects, usually initiated by teachers (Kommers, 1982). In Tulsa, Oklahoma, Central High School alumni formed a foundation and provided $70,000 worth of varied services and equipment, and in addition established a $50,000 endowment fund (Powell, 1986). The LEF established by the Ramsay Alternative High School in Birmingham, Alabama, raised $140,000 in 1982-83 which was used to fund a recruitment program for students, expand and finance advance placement courses, and provide money for upper

PAGE 57

40 classmen to take the National SAT exams ("Foundations Aid," 1983). As these examples demonstrate and as the literature indicates, many LEFs are established to supplement, rather than replace local, state, and federal funds Shoemaker (1983) identified three organizational models most often utilized by education foundations to disperse funds within school districts. In the first model, money raised by the LEF is given to the school district for inclusion in the district's general fund. The Board of Education establishes fund raising and spending priorities. This type of foundation funding is considered to be unrestricted. In the second model, grant proposals are submitted from the school district to the foundation which decides what program(s) gets funded. The Board of Education establishes the process but is not involved in the decision making. In the third model, school and foundation boards jointly determine expenditures, based upon agreed funding priorities. All LEFs have a board of directors with a staff of paid and/or volunteer members. Fund raising ranges from a sophisticated schedule of activities to a one time event ("School Foundation Movement," 1983). What makes a foundation successful? Clay (1985), Calvin (1982), Griffith (1983), Allen (1982), Bergholz (1987), and Nesbit (1985) concur that the selection of the board of directors is crucial. During the School Foundation Movement Conference in 1982, Mary Mason (1982) warned, "A [local] school foundation is

PAGE 58

only as good as the board you pick to run it" (p. 18). Members should be respected and influential in the community. Bergholz argued that so, too, is the foundation's executive director: 41 In the long run, it is the executive director ... who is the local education foundation's most important asset, and it is she or he who makes the organization work. Finding the right person to provide this leadership needs to be one of the foundation's highest priorities (Public Education Fund, 1988, cover letter). Other characteristics identified as necessary for success include a statement of purpose as to what the fund is to accomplish (Freeman, 1983), supportive school district personnel and trustees, the foundation established as a separate entity from the school district ("School Foundation Movement," 1985), and successful application for 501 (c)(3) tax exempt status through the Internal Revenue Service (Nesbit, 1985). Powell (1986) identified a charismatic, knowledgeable school representative and a computerized mailing list as very important. A definitive analysis related to the success or failure of education foundations was developed by the Public Education Fund. After working 5 years with more than 150 urban school districts, the PEF published its findings in an effort to help varied communities establish their respective LEFs (The Public Education Fund, 1988). Some of the findings follow: 1. Trust building between the school district and the private sector represented by the foundation has to be the major thrust in the initial stages of the relationship.

PAGE 59

42 2. Initial, small efforts to provide money for the school district need to be developed into larger activities to promote lasting school improvement. 3. Representation and participation of community organizations needs to be encouraged from the beginning by the LEF. 4. Frequently there is a large gap between what the school system believes is an appropriate role for the LEF and the foundation's perceptions as to what is needed by the school district. This is a continuing source of tension for both parties. 5. In its initiation stage, the foundation needs to establish clearly what geographic territory and what school districts it will support. 6. The transition of more mature LEFs from their major role of fundraising to substantive school improvement is difficult. 7. Most collaborative projects offered by some LEFs have had the support of larger, national, philanthropic foundations. 8. The presence of an educated, energetic, and dedicated staff along with a clear mission statement are the most important factors in establishing a successful LEF. 9. It is important to maintain district-wide focus in a large school system and not center efforts on one or a few schools (pp 8-13).

PAGE 60

43 Proponents of LEFs argue that the movement has been successful because the foundation is an entity separate from the school district which gives it credibility when presenting school financial issues to the general public (Neill, 1983). Bergholz stated that the real value of LEFs is when the long term commitment by the business community to support the schools occurs, especially in light of the fact that only twenty percent of America's families have children in school (Kotler & Wallace, 1984). Griffith (1983) reported that the LEF provides a mechanism for raising funds that is nearly self-generating. According to Lobe (1985), these foundations provide a structure for community volunteers to work together to raise money and allocate funds as local needs arise. In addition, Cramer (1983) reported that the 501 (c)(3) status of LEFs provide an opportunity for tax deductions for contributors which public institutions without a foundation cannot provide. Throughout the literature, there is general agreement that LEFs have "marshalled community interest in public schools [and] placed education on the front burner" (The Public Education Fund, 1985, p. 15). LEFs have their critics. Most criticisms center upon issues of equity and influence. Lobe (1985), Shoemaker (1983), Cramer (1983), Odden & Dougherty (1984), and Freeman (1983) have expressed concerns that "foundations have the potential for upsetting equal funding laws" (Shoemaker, 1983, p. 128). In Executive Educator (December, 1983), Freeman quoted business

PAGE 61

44 executives as saying foundations are necessary because they provide "a way to get around state laws that try to equalize the funds different school systems can spend" (p. 27). Neill (1983) criticized the "lack of control by the school board and school management" (p. 13). He also noted that the issue of accountability could be a problem because the foundation may think itself more accountable to donors than to schools or parents. A variation of this issue revolves around the fact that local public school expenditures are approved by the district board of trustees. Cramer (1983) asked, "Will foundations composed of a separate board of directors pose problems and gain undue influence in the public schools?" (p. 20). Bergholz raised the same issue with the following question, "Will privately raised funds make our schools quasi-private?" (cited in Cramer, 1983, p. 21). Caroll Johnson, Professor Emeritus of Columbia University, gave another perspective, "Foundations are no substitute for broad based support. If you're unsuccessful in convincing your public to give adequate support to your school through taxes, how long are the corporations and wealthy individuals going to bail you out? (Cramer, 1983, p. 22). Not all foundations are successful. School foundations flounder because of a belief that a nonprofit organization should be staffed by volunteers (Clay, 1985). Other "pitfalls" identified

PAGE 62

45 by Clay (1985) are: not establishing funding priorities, political infighting, unclear goals, time lines not set for activities and spending, wasted time and effort, and competition of other fund raising organizations (p. 6). Freeman (1983) identified other potential problems: increased paper work, increased burdens on school staff, and fraud possibilities. Possible fraud was implied in the case of the Dallas, Texas, Foundation for Quality Education (F.Q.E.), conceived by former superintendent Nolan Estes and James Bond, a local fundraiser (Levin, 1979). F.Q .E. was to manage real estate investments for the school district with the long-term goal of elimina t ing bond referendums and lowering tax rates. After a three years of existence and much self-touted success, F.Q.E. was dissolved in 1979 amid allegations of a financial scandal. School board members, dissatisfied with the foundation's management by Bond, blamed all the foundation's fiscal problems on his activities (Levin, 1979). Fortunately, this experience appears rare in the literature about local education foundations. The School Foundation Movement in California The school foundation movement in California had a false beginning in 1969 when the Laguna Beach School District established a foundation to provide "frills" The foundation soon died for lack of interest and the school foundation movement in California lay dormant until the radical changes in school finance

PAGE 63

46 in the 1970s and 1980s revived it. Financial problems created by the Serrano vs. Priest Decision, Proposition 13, Proposition 4, rapidly increasing enrollments, decreasing federal support and increasing costs had singular and combined effects in recreating the movement (Andrews, 1983). California now boasts 122 active LEFs (The Directory, 1988), clearly the result of the loss of local control of financing schools brought about by the Serrano Decision and the passage of Proposition 13 (Andrews, 1983). The predictions voiced by Kirst and Somers (1981) have been borne out in California: Public school finance in the 1980's is going to be more a matter of state school finance The states will assume an increasing role in education. Local tax payers will continue to vote down revenue measures. Defense, energy, and the aged will consume limited federal funds. Even at state levels, school interests will be squeezed by increasing competition from social services, particularly child care .... Given the 1980's promised austerity, competition for scarce resources and adversity, the state education sections must begin to realign in order to protect the gains they made in the period of educational growth (p. 19). In 1982, the management consultant firm of Peat, Marwick, Mitchell and Company surveyed California school districts about education foundations (Neill, 1985). Only 66 of of the 308 returned surveys which provided the information sought. The districts with foundations were nearly ten times as successful in fund raising as were districts without foundations which attempted to raise funds through parent groups directly

PAGE 64

47 related to the individual schools (Allen & Hughes, 1982). The amount of money raised ranged from an average of $60,952 by districts with foundations to an average $7,540 for those without foundations (Neill, 1985). The survey also revealed that from 1978-79 to 1981-82, the number of school districts with established foundations increased from 13 to 40. The amount of money raised during those years increased from $282,000 to $2,400,000 The authors of the survey predicted an increase in the number of LEFs if the 1982financial conditions continued to exist (Allen & Hughes, 1982). As a follow-up to the Peat, Marwick, Mitchell survey, Art Thayer, Assistant Executive Director of Operations of the Association of California Administrators (ACSA), sent a questionnaire about local education foundations to all public school and community college districts in California. Its purpose was to update the Peat, Marwick, Mitchell survey and obtain new information about the School Foundation Movement in California (Thayer, 1984). Of the 461 responding districts, 107 had local education foundations. Several of these were community college districts. An additional 4 7 districts were studying the feasibility of establishing a LEF or had already begun the process (Thayer, 1984). In his follow-up report of the survey, Thayer (1984) recommended that ACSA not take a position about LEFs in California He stated:

PAGE 65

48 There is a developing controversy over whether foundations are a legitimate method to fund school district programs or an effort to subvert the Serrano-Priest decision of the California Supreme Court on equal financing for all pupils. Other proponents say this is a way to stimulate local control of education and others say this is an attempt to circumvent the restrictions of Proposition 13 on educational financing ... ACSA does not have a position on whether school districts should or should not establish foundations. If local districts or consortiums of districts and/or other agencies establish foundations, ACSA does not have a position on whether the funds should be spent for enrichment, restoration or preservement of programs (p. 1 ). Thayer continued: "It is far too soon to effectively evaluate these effects upon public policy and education in California. One fact is paramount this issue should be periodically studied and evaluated" (p. 2). School foundations in California, as in the rest of the nation, have both their proponents and critics. In addition to the equity issue, Reusswig (1983) expressed the concern that "the more successful the foundations become, the less support there will be for appropriate school finance" (p. 40). Abbott (1983) countered: The diminution of support for adequate school revenue is at best a weak argument against foundations. With foundations in California springing up like lupine in spring, the state legislature and governor have just passed a historic school finance bill [SB813] against all odds (p. 43).

PAGE 66

49 Knox (1986) and Reusswig (1983) predicted that LEFs would flourish in affluent areas but suggested that, "it is safe to say that the children of the poor will not benefit from the foundation movement" (Reusswig, 1983, p. 39). Thomas (1983) stated, "Critics contend the foundations are creating spending discrepancies between high-wealth and low-wealth districts as gaping as they were before Serrano" (p. 395). Abbott (1983) indicated successful foundations could be established in every community and stated, "If equity and foundations are concerns, then those fears should surely diminish when we look closely at the Foundation Movement in major urban areas Washington, Pittsburgh, and San Francisco" (p. 43). Cohen (1980) added: "Until the state comes up with adequate resources for all children, it makes no sense to see everyone equally poor" (p. 24). She further pointed out that there is unequal support for students because of the funding opportunities created by the state and federal categorical programs that affluent districts do not quality for. Andrews stated that "It appears the equity issue will continue to be debated, with or without foundations. Unfortunately the foundation concept only heats the argument because it appears that the successful foundations are those located in the former 'high-wealth' school districts" (p. 47). The school funding crisis in California remains unresolved. Kirst and Guthrie (1988) maintain that enrollment

PAGE 67

50 growth and fiscal limits threaten school improvements and that only California voters can change the dismal financial school funding situation. They stated, Proposition 13 wrested control of local schools from locally elected officials and moved it to the state. Then the Gann limit removed the ability of state policy makers to provide for school needs. Californians are left to ask: 'Who controls our schools?' The answer, according to Kirst and Guthrie, "They [the voters] do" (p. 3). Whether California will continue to remain in a school funding crisis is not yet known. With the need for more funds still apparent, Andrews (1983) argued that, "School districts will continue to seek ways to supplement operating budgets" (p. 48). For some public school districts, the local education foundation may help provide needed funds. Summary Many public elementary and secondary school districts across the nation are facing serious difficulties in financing essential educational programs to meet the needs of today's students. There are few alternatives to local, state and federal funds aside from the private philanthropic sector. Increasingly, the public schools are creating educational foundations under applicable federal and state laws and seeking grants and gifts to

PAGE 68

51 supplement operating funds. Several major independent grant making foundations have supported this effort and there are a few signals that others may follow. School districts in California were among the first and most numerous to seek private gifts to augment district funds. Because this trend has spread so rapidly, many knotty problems arise. This study sought to examine the effect of local education foundations upon fiscal and program equity in selected public schools in California.

PAGE 69

CHAPTER Ill RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODOLOOY Research Problem This study examined the effect of local education foundations upon fiscal and program equity in selected public school districts in California. General descriptive data related to the characteristics of local education foundations (LEFs) and foundation districts were also presented. Additionally, case studies of four local education foundations defined as most successful by this researcher were compiled. Research Design This study was intended to generate descriptive, quantitative, and qualitative data and was conducted in two phases. For phase one, descriptive and quantitative data were collected through a review of the relevant literature, document studies, and a survey instrument. A case study approach using semi-structured interviews with selected participants provided the descriptive and qualitative data for phase two.

PAGE 70

53 Research Population General Population Sample There were 1023 school districts in California in 198788. The Base Revenue Limit for each of these districts was researched and examined to order to construct the descriptive tables presented in Chapter IV. One hundred thirteen active local education foundations each supporting a single school district were studied to provide descriptive and qualitative data about education foundations and foundation districts. Two additional LEFs each supported more than a single district were excluded from the study because the effect of fund raising by a single foundation upon the BRLs of multiple districts could not be accurately determined. All LEFs studied belonged to the California Consortium of Education Foundations (CCEF). Mail Survey Population Sample Using the table of random numbers found in Educational Research, (Borg & Dall, 1983, pp. 905-907), fifty unified, high school, or elementary nonfoundation districts were selected to provide data about nonfoundation district expenditure choices. Thirty-one (62%) superintendents completed and returned the survey which provided descriptive and quantitative data necessary for phase one of the study.

PAGE 71

Case Study Sample A case study method was utilized involving four foundation districts, two selected as the most successful in raising funds per ADA and two chosen because they raised the most total funds. I nstru mentation Mail Survey Questionnaire 54 A short, simple survey instrument was developed to gather data related to program equity It was mailed to superintendents of 50 randomly selected nonfoundation districts to determine which programs existed in the district. The procedure to select the items included in the survey began with a compilation of the programs funded by local education foundations which were reported in The Directory (1988). Examination of the data related to programs funded by the 113 local education foundations revealed that those identified by 19 LEFs could not be accurately determined because these foundations either provided funds for district "wish lists" (which did not identify specific programs) or gave unrestricted funding to the school district (see Appendix A). The program choices of the remaining 94 local education foundations reported in The Directory, (1988) included: fine arts, teacher mini-grants, capital equipment, student scholarships, student field trips/camps, computer equipment, teacher monetary awards after-school enrichment, capital building fund, athletics,

PAGE 72

55 endowment fund, library/curricular materials, salaries for additional staff responsibilities, book fair, drug prevention, drop out prevention, public relations, teacher inservice, high school newspapers, and band uniforms (see Appendix A). In order to construct a mail survey of reasonable length, some limitations on the number of program choices available were imposed. The 13 program choices selected for the survey questionnaire were funded by at least four LEFs (see Appendix B). In addition to identifying program choices available in their districts, the nonfoundation superintendents had the option of providing data about how program choices were funded. Respondents were asked only to identify funding sources, i.e. general fund, parent organizations, community organizations, etc. Additional details were not requested because it was felt that the survey might become too long and complicated and not be completed by the respondents. Semi-structured Interview Guide To collect the qualitative data necessary for phase two of this study, a semi-structured interview guide was developed for the case studies (see Appendix C). Initially, a lengthy pilot questionnaire to determine and collect the data for the case studies was prepared by this researcher and evaluated by a group of qualified and experienced educators. This group of experts included two university professors, the chairperson of the Superintendent's Council of San Diego and Imperial Counties, a

PAGE 73

56 finance expert from the San Diego County Office of Education, and two Assistant Superintendents of Business Services in nearby school districts. After considerable review, most were in agreement that a questionnaire which was lengthy enough to generate all the desired information was probably too long to be completed by most respondents. The experts agreed that a well organized case study approach would be the best method to use. This recommendation was consistent with the work done by Borg (1983), in which he found that the case study that "makes a detailed examination of a single subject or group or phenomenon is an appropriate alternative research method to gather qualitative data" (p. 442). Borg also identified the semi-structured interview as "generally [the] most appropriate for interview studies in education [because] it provides the gathering of valuable data that could not be successfully obtained by any other approach" (p. 442). The interview guide was prepared after additional review of the literature an d examination of the descriptive data contained in The Directory {1988). The works of Thayer {1982), Anderson (1983), and Nesbit (1985) also contributed ideas which were adapted as questions for the interview. As a means to both check the appropriateness of the interview guide and provide this researcher with opportunities to become familiar with interview techniques, the guide was used as a practice interview on a foundation president and a

PAGE 74

superintendent. Both of these volunteer participants and their organizations were excluded from the case study. 57 The six general areas included in the interview guide were: foundation development, organizational structure, operation, fund raising, expenditure choices, and foundation successes and district benefits. Each area comprised one section of the interview guide and each question within the section was intended to generate information about the major concerns of the study. The interview guide did not include questions relating to district size, type, location, B.R.L. and wealth, because this information was gathered prior to each interview. Data Collection Fiscal Egujty A review of relevant documents and reports was conducted in order to compile the data presented in the tables related to fiscal equity. Data related to 1987-88 fund raising efforts and foundation district wealth for each LEE belonging to the California Consortium of Education Foundations were provided by The Directory (1988). Yearly reports collected from the Local Assistance Bureau, California State Department of Education, provided district type, Base Revenue Limit (BRL), and Average Daily Enrollment (ADA) information for each of the state's 1023 districts, including the 113 foundation districts studied These reports were entitled (1) 1987-88 Annual K-12 Data By Base

PAGE 75

Revenue Limit per ADA and (2) 1987-88 Annual K-12 Data by County. Local. District 58 The assessed valuation for each school district in the State of California was this researcher's first choice of a criterion to determine the wealth of individual school districts for data collection purposes. However, since the passage of Proposition 13 in 1978, the property tax rate state-wide has been fixed at 1% of assessed valuation. The property tax does not change until the property is sold, at which time the new assessment is the same as the sale price. Therefore, the state no longer compiles assessed valuation data for reference purposes because assessed values are now set by the market place instead of the county assessor. Also, tax rates do not vary, except in the very few instances where communities have been able to pass a local school referendum for capital construction by two-thirds majority. After checking several County Offices of Education, it was decided that since assessed valuation data was I no longer collected, other readily available measures of wealth had to be found. I The Federal Poverty Index, which establishes guidelines calculated annually, was the most frequently used criterion to establish the wealth of a district. This Index determines district wealth by the percentage of school age children in the district falling within Federal Poverty Guidelines. The lower the percentage of students below the poverty level, the higher the wealth of the community.

PAGE 76

The concept of using the Federal Poverty Index as a criterion defining wealth was adapted from the Curriculum Information Center's publication, C.I.C. School Directory for California (1989). The C.I.C Directory is a complete reference source providing comprehensive data on public and private schools in California for marketing and sales purposes. Table provides data relating to the Federal Poverty Index. Table 1 Federal Poverty Index Guidelines Wealth of Community Rich Average Poor Program Eguity Percentage of School Age Children Falling Below Federal Poverty Level 0-4.9% 5-24.9% 25%+ 59 In order to gather program choice data from nonfoundation districts, a short, uncomplicated questionnaire was prepared (see Appendix 8). Beginning March 1, 1990, superintendents of fifty randomly selected districts were sent the mail survey questionnaire along with a cover letter (see Appendix D) explaining the purpose of the study and completion instructions. Superintendents were asked to check the programs provided in their districts and they were also given an option to identify the source of funding for each program checked.

PAGE 77

A follow-up reminder with a second copy of the questionnaire enclosed was sent to each district which had not replied to the initial mailing within three weeks (see Appendix D). The reminders were mailed on March 23, 1990. Thirty-one (62%) of the superintendents completed and returned the survey; all but one included the optional funding information (see Appendix E). 60 As the data collected were examined, it became clear that to characterize expenditure decisions as programs was inaccurate and possibly misleading. For example, the following may be termed programs without undue confusion: fine arts, after school enrichment, athletics, public information, drug prevention, foreign language, teacher mini-grants, guest speakers, student awards, and teacher inservice. Other choices, including book fair, science fair, student newspaper, capital building fund, computer equipment, teacher monetary awards, school staff supplemental salaries, band uniforms, and specialized endowment funds do not readily fall within the usual and customary understanding of the term, "program." For this reason, activities, purposes, programs, and other decisions implemented with the expenditure of foundation funds were identified and referred to as "expenditure choices." This definition, made to be more representative of the broad range of activities that are supported and to avoid the qualitative and quantitative complexity of defining programs, was used throughout the remainder of the study. In the interest of examining and reporting the equity (or lack thereof) between

PAGE 78

61 foundation and nonfoundation districts, the commonly understood terms of program equity were retained for the study. Local Education Foundation and Foundation District Characteristics The data necessary to answer study questions related to foundation and foundation characteristics were provided through document studies and reports. Data identifying the characteristics of foundation fund raising, initiation, longevity, board membership, staffing, and decision making authority were collected from The Directory (1988). Data related to foundation characteristics of district ADA, type, and location were collected from the report, 1987-88 Annual K-12 Data by County, Level, District Names, published by the California State Department of Education. The GIG School Directory (1988), published by the Curriculum Information Center, provided additional data related to district wealth. The Directory (1988) provided data regarding community population and population density. Case Studies Semi-structured interviews were conducted with district superintendents, foundation executive directors and/or foundation presidents. In an effort to establish rapport with the interviewees and obtain some level of expertise in interviewing, this

PAGE 79

researcher prepared for interviews by reading the following books and by practicing interviewing techniques contained in them: 62 1. Walter R. Borg and Meredith D. Gall, Educational Research, An Introduction (1983). 2. James G. Gooddate, The Fine Art of Interviewing (1982). A practice tape-recorded interview was conducted with a superintendent before contact was made with case study participants. Foundation executive directors and superintendents from the four selected school districts were sent letters explaining the study, requesting their participation and assuring confidentiality on March 29, 1990 (see Appendix D). Follow up telephone calls were made during the second week of April, 1990, confirming the respondents' acceptance and establishing interview times. Follow up letters confirming the telephone arrangements were mailed to each participant on April 16, 1990 (see Appendix D). The taped interviews were conducted in May, 1990, and each lasted from 45 minutes to two hours. After each interview, a letter of appreciation was sent to interview participants, thanking them for their assistance in this study (see Appendix D).

PAGE 80

63 Treatment of the Data Fiscal Equity The organization and statistical analyses of data relating to fiscal equity were performed in two steps. The first step was organization of the data into useable tables followed by statistical analyses in step two. The raw data relating to district type, ADA, total foundation funds raised, foundation fund raised per pupil, Base Revenue Limit, total district revenue, and Base Revenue Limit plus foundation funds per ADA for the 113 foundation districts of the study were organized into a comprehensive table (see Appendix F). This table provided much of the raw data for the tables discussed in this section. Serrano bands for 1987-88 were developed for elementary, high school, and unified districts by identifying the state mean BRL for each district type and then determining upper and lower limits of each Band by calculating a plus or minus $100 sum adjusted for inflation ($238) For each type of district, the number and percentage of all nonfoundation and foundation districts were compared with regard to placement of the BRL within the Serrano Band categories. Base Revenue Limit ranges for these categories were calculated. The average state BRL for each district type was compared to the foundation district mean BRL for each district

PAGE 81

64 type and the differences between the two were presented in table format. For each type of district, the BRLs for all foundation districts were rank ordered from highest to lowest revenue limits and placed in the appropriate Serrano Band category. After identifying which districts already had BRLs exceeding the upper Serrano Band limit, funds raised per ADA by the supporting foundation were added to the district BRL to determine whether there was movement to a higher category. Next, the revenue mean sot all LEF districts was compared to the revenue mean of only LEF districts which raised funds in 1987-88. Differences were recorded in table format. Statistical Procedures The significance of education foundation fund raising on foundation district revenues was addressed to begin an examination of the problem. A "t" test was conducted to test the relationship between the Base Revenue Limit and the BRL plus foundation funds raised per ADA (BRLFF). The results were presented and discussed in Chapter IV. In order to statistically examine and verify any differences indicated in the calculations related to the Serrano Band placement categories and foundation funds raised per ADA, the following null hypotheses were constructed and tested at the .01 and .05 level:

PAGE 82

65 Hypothesis 1: There is no significant difference between the Serrano Band category placement and foundation funds raised per ADA in elementary foundation districts raising funds in 1987-88. Hypothesis 2: There is no significant difference between Serrano Band category placement and foundation funds raised per ADA in unified foundation districts raising funds in 1987-88. Hypothesis 3: There is no significant difference between district type and foundation funds per ADA. For each ANOVA found to have a significant F ratio, Scheffe's multiple comparison test was done to identify where the significant differences were found among the groups tested. It is important to note that the Scheffe test is very conservative and indicates the means of two groups to be significant only when the means are far apart and the population (N) is fairly large. A micro computer statistical analyses package was used to test all the hypothesis of the study. Dr. Susan Zgliczynski, Associate Professor in the School of Education, University of San Diego, was utilized as a consultant in this component of data collection and analyses. Program Equity Using the 13 item questionnaire prepared for this study a mail survey of 50 randomly selected superintendents of nonfoundation districts was conducted. The data received from the 31 respondents to the mail survey were carefully examined and a table was prepared identifying the percentage of foundation

PAGE 83

districts and nonfoundation districts which funded expenditure choices listed on the questionnaire. 66 Thirty responding superintendents also provided optional funding source information relating to the expenditure choices in their nonfoundation districts which was presented in table format. A table was constructed presenting data related to nonfoundation district expenditure choices funded by the district's General Fund compared to the percentage of nonfoundation districts supporting the specific expenditure choice. Foundation District and Local Education Foundation Characteristics The data which described foundation district characteristics of enrollment, wealth, location, type, community population, and population density were accumulated and depicted in bar graph form. These graphs, presented as a series of figures in Chapter IV, are followed by a discussion of their relationship to the study. In similar fashion, data which described foundation characteristics of fund raising revenues, board membership, staffing, decision-making authority, longevity (time in existence) and initiation (founding constituency) were also accumulated, organized and depicted in bar graphs. A second series of figures, identifying these graphs and followed by commentary are included in Chapter IV.

PAGE 84

67 Tables Tables were developed comparing the foundation funds raised per ADA to the variables of district wealth, district enrollment, district type, population density, and community population. A chi square analysis was attempted to determine the effect district wealth has upon funds raised per pupil by local education foundations. An examination of the tables revealed that none could yield reliable results using the chi square method of analysis because multiple cells in all the tables had frequencies less than 5. Although these tables were found to contain insufficient data for meaningful statistical analyses, they are included and discussed for informational purposes in Chapter IV. The characteristics of the 13 foundations defined as successful were examined, presented in table format, and findings were discussed. Statistical Procedures ANOVA procedures were also done at the .01 and .05 levels to further clarify the interaction between the dependent variables of foundation funds raised per ADA and the independent variables of foundation longevity, foundation district wealth, and community size. The null hypotheses tested were: Hypothesis 4. There is so significant difference between the length of time a foundation has existed (longevity) and foundation funds raised per ADA (FFADA) in the 113 foundations studied.

PAGE 85

68 Hypothesis 5. There is no significant difference between foundation district wealth (using CCEF guidelines) and foundation funds raised per ADA in the 113 foundation districts studied. Hypothesis 6. There is no significant difference between foundation district community size and foundation funds raised per ADA in the 113 foundation districts studied. ANOV A findings were presented and discussed m Chapter IV. Case Studies Individual transcripts were made from the taped interviews of the four case study participants. For each participant, the interview transcript was carefully read and the content organized firsr by topic and then by interview question. Non essential information and redundant answers were removed. Separate reports were written about each participating foundation in the case study, using the organization of the semi structured interview guide to organize the reports. Care was taken to present the data in the same order for each report. A summary comparison of the four LEFs examined followed the individual case studies. Summary The research for this study consisted of a two phase design and was intended to generate descriptive, quantitative, and qualitative data. The population sample chosen for phase one

PAGE 86

69 of this study included 113 local education foundations and the school districts they support. Fifty nonfoundation districts were surveyed for comparison purposes. Data for this phase were collected through state reports, documents studies, and a survey instrument. Figures and tables were prepared and statistical analyses were conducted where appropriate. The research population for phase two was limited to four local education foundations defined as most successful by this researcher. Data were collected through a case study method, using semi-structured interviews of presidents, executive directors, and superintendents representing the participant foundations and districts. Transcripts of the interviews were edited and organized by topics, and the resultant narratives were analyzed to answer research questions related to the case studies.

PAGE 87

CHAPTER IV FINDINGS OF THE STUDY Introduction This chapter discusses the findings obtained from data provided about 113 local education foundations each supporting a single school district. This group of LEFs provides additional financial resources to slightly more than 11 per cent of the school districts in California. The 1987-88 school year, the most recent 12 month period for which there is complete foundation fund raising data and complete state financial reports available, was chosen as the time period for the study. Four foundations included in the 113 chosen for this study, defined as most successful by this researcher, were the subjects of an in-depth examination through the case study method. Local education foundations, identified as LEF A and LEF B, were selected for the case study because they raised the most dollars per pupil; local education foundations, identified as LEF C and LEF D, were selected because they raised the greatest total dollars during the period. Fifty nonfoundation districts were surveyed by mail. Of these districts, 31 responded which resulted in a 62% return.

PAGE 88

71 With the participants chosen, the research process was conducted and the resulting data are presented, analyzed and discussed in this chapter in the following order: The Effect of Local Education Foundations Upon Fiscal Equity in Selected Public School Districts in California. The Effect of Local Education Foundations Upon Program Equity in Selected Public School Districts in California A Descriptive Profile of Foundation Districts in California. A Descriptive Profile of Local Education Foundations in California. Local Education Foundations in Practice: Four Case Studies. A summary of the findings follows each section of data presented. Purposes of the Study The primary purpose of this study was to examine the effect of local education foundations upon fiscal and program equity in selected public school d i stricts in California The second purpose was to provide a general descriptive profile of the

PAGE 89

113 local education foundations and the school districts each support. The final purpose of this study was to examine and describe four local education foundations, defined as most successful by this researcher, through the case study approach. Research Questions Questions to be answered included: 72 1. What is the effect of foundation funds on fiscal equity in selected districts in the State of California? 2. What is the effect of foundation funds on program equity in selected districts in the State of California? 3. How do local education foundations earning $100 or more per student affect fiscal equity? 4. How do the most successful local education foundations affect fiscal and program equity in selected districts? 5. What programs (expenditure choices) are funded by local education foundations in California? 6. How do the most successful local education foundations choose how to allocate or spend funds which are raised? 7. What are the characteristics of successful local education foundations?

PAGE 90

8 What are the characteristics of the school districts and communities where successful local education foundations are located? 9. What variations exist in foundation characteristics relating to revenues, initiation, longevity, board membership, staffing, and decision making authority among the 113 active local education foundations studied? 73 10. What variations exist in foundation district characteristics relating to ADA, community population, population density, wealth, location, and district type among the 113 foundation districts studied? 11. How do the most successful local education foundations affect the educational environment of students and school staff members in selected districts? Data for the findings were collected from the following sources: 1. Documents from the Local Assistance Bureau, California State Department of Education. 2. The Directory (1988), published by the California Consortium of Education Foundations. 3. GIG's School Directory (1988), published by the Curriculum Information Center. 4. Materials published by Ed Source. Ed Source is a non profit organization offering in-depth information on school finance and related issues in California.

PAGE 91

74 5. A survey mailed to fifty nonfoundation districts. 6. A semi-structured personal interview of superintendents and/or foundation directors or presidents of four foundation districts. 7. Publications of the local education foundations and/or the school districts of the four case study participants. The Effect of Local Education Foundations on Fiscal Equity in Selected Public School Districts in California There are three types of school districts in California elementary (Grades K-8), high school (Grades 9-12) and unified (Grades K-12). For the purposes of this study, fiscal equity exists when per Average Daily Attendance expenditures of all types of school districts fall within their respective Serrano Band. The State Legislature sets the average state Base Revenue Limit (BRL) annually for each district type, allowing a plus or minus $100, adjusted for inflation and measured by the average BRL. The average state BRL, with its upper and lower limits, is referred to as the Serrano Band. The inflation rate, determined by the State Legislature, is a political decision and does not always reflect the actual inflation rate. In 1987-88, $100.00 adjusted for inflation (for Serrano Band calculations) equaled $238.00 (Kirst & Guthrie, 1988, p. 12).

PAGE 92

The raw data on which all subsequent calculations to determine fiscal equity in the 113 foundation districts studied are based are provided in Appendix F. Throughout this chapter, each foundation district is identified by a researcher assigned number. Serrano Bands Limits Table 2 displays the average state Base Revenue Limit and the upper and lower limits of the Serrano Band for each district type. Table 2 1987-88 Serrano Bands by School District Type BRL BRL BRL 75 (Lower Limit) (State Average) (Upper Limit) $ $ $ Elementary 2270 2508 2746 High School 2887 3125 3363 Unified 2434 2672 2910 The data presented in Table 2 indicates the upper and lower limits for each Serrano Band and the BRL dollar ranges among the three Serrano Bands.

PAGE 93

The Relationship of All Districts (N-1 023) to the Serrano Band 76 To gain an understanding of the relationship of California's 1023 school districts to the Serrano Band, Tables 3, 4, and 5 were provided from information gathered from the 1987-88 Annual K-12 Data by Base Revenue Limit per ADA (see Appendix G). These tables present data relating to placement in Serrano Band Categories by district type for foundation and nonfoundation districts. Serrano Band categories are divided into three groups: Above Serrano Band Limit, Above State BRL Average and Below State BRL Average. Since no district had a BRL less than the lower limits of the Serrano Band, the category, Below Serrano Band Limit, was not included. These tables also include the BRL ranges of the Serrano Band categories for both foundation and nonfoundation districts. Table 3 depicts the relationship of all elementary districts (N-620) to the Serrano Band categories and includes data related to the BRL dollar ranges for each Serrano category.

PAGE 94

77 Table 3 Comparison of the Number and Percentage of All Elementary Districts (N-620), Elementary Nonfoundation Districts (N-573) and Elementary Foundation Districts (N-47) to Serrano Band Categories, including BRL Dollar Ranges for Each Serrano Band Category Elementary Districts (N-620) Above Above Total Serrano Band BRLAverage Total Above Below State Districts and Limit (within limit) BRL Average BLR Average Percent Nonfoundation N-573 154=27% (91 %) 1 61=11% (85%)2 BRL$ Range $7515-2749 $2745-2509 Foundation N-47 15=32% (9%) 1 11 =23% (15%)2 BRL$ Range $3728-2753 $2727-2541 Totals & Percent 169=27% N-620 (100%) 72=12% (1 00%) Key: 0/o within parentheses = 215=38% (89%)2 26=55% (11%)2 241 =39% (100%) 358=62% (92%)3 $2506-2359 21=45% (8%)3 $2498-2362 379=61% (1 00%) 1 percent of total above Serrano Band Limit 2 percent of total above BRL average 3 percent of total below BRL average 4 percent of total districts 573=1 00% (92%)4 47=100% (8%)4 620=1 00% (1 00%)

PAGE 95

78 The data provided in Table 3 indicate that 154 (27%) nonfoundation districts and 15 (32%) foundation districts exceeded the Serrano Band upper limit, creating fiscal inequity in these districts. The majority (62%) of nonfoundation districts show Base Revenue Limits below the state average. BRL ranges in the category Above Serrano Band Limit vary widely for both foundation and nonfoundation elementary districts. This situation can be explained by the fact that there exists a number of very small school districts which still exceed the Serrano Band Limit levels and by law are allowed to keep all school revenues generated in the district. The three nonfoundation districts with the highest Base Revenue Limits had fewer than 1 00 students each and are located in the same county. They received their total BRLs from local taxes which generate high revenue due to oil producing properties. Six of the seven elementary foundation districts with Base Revenue Limits exceeding $3000 have an average of 730 students each and all are located in the wealthy communities of the San Francisco Bay area. Table 4 presents data depicting the relationship of all high school districts (N-1 02) to the Serrano Band categories and includes data related to the BRL range for each Serrano category.

PAGE 96

79 Table 4 Comparison of the Number and Percentage of All High School Districts (N-1 02), High School Nonfoundation Districts (N-95), and High School Foundation Districts (N-7) to Serrano Band Categories, including BRL Dollar Ranges for Each Serrano Band Category High School Districts (N-1 02) Above Above Total Serrano Band BRLAverage Total Above Below State Districts and Limit (within limit) BRL Average BLR Average Percent Nonfoundation N-95 15=16% (94%) 1 9=9% (90%)2 BRL $Range $4049-3373 $3353-3136 Foundation 1 = 14% N-7 (6%)1 BRLS Range $3391 Totals & Percent 16=16% N-102 (100%)1 1=14% (1 0%)2 $3186 1 0=1 0% (1 00%)2 Key: % within parentheses = 24=25% 71 = 75% (92%)2 (93%)3 $3123-3053 2=28% 5=72% (8%)2 (7%)3 $3110-3067 26=25% 76=75% (1 00%)2 (1 00%)3 1 percent of total above Serrano Band Limit 2 percent of total above BRL average 3 percent of total below BRL average 4 percent of total districts 59=1 00% (93%)4 7=1 00% (7%)4 1 02=1 00% (1 00%)4

PAGE 97

80 The data provided in Table 4 indicate that I 6 high school districts, including one foundation district, exceeded the upper limit of the Serrano Band, creating fiscal inequity in nearly I 6/o of all high school districts The majority of foundation (72%) and nonfoundation (75%) districts had Base Revenue Limits below the state average. Only one high school district (nonfoundation) had a BRL exceeding $4000; that district is located in the same oil rich county which also supported the three highest Base Revenue Limits of the elementary districts Table 5 presents data depicting the relationship of all unified school districts (N-301) to the Serrano Band Categories and includes data relating to the BRL range for each Serrano category.

PAGE 98

81 Table 5 Comparison of the Number and Percentage of all Unified School Districts (N-301 ), Unified Nonfoundation Districts (N-242), and Foundation Districts (N-59) to Serrano Band Categories, including BRL Dollar Ranges for Each Serrano Band Category Unified Districts (N-301) Above Above Total Serrano Band Average Total Above Below State Districts and Limit (within limit) Average BLR Average Percent Nonfoundation N-242 20=8% (67%) 1 89=37% (84%)2 BRL $Range $4575-2918 $2902-2674 Foundation N-59 1 0=17% (33%) 1 17=29% (16%)2 BRL $Range $3581-2918 $2889-2675 Totals & Percent 30=1 0% N-301 (1 00%) 1 1 06=35% (1 00%)2 Key: % within parentheses = 1 09=45% (80%)2 27=46% (20%)2 136=45% (1 00%)3 133=55% (81%)3 $2671-2637 32=54% (19%)3 $2691-2457 165=55% (1 00%)3 1 percent of total above Serrano Band Limit 2 percent of total above BRL average 3 percent of total below BRL average 4 percent of total districts 242=1 00% (80%)4 59=1 00% (20%)4 301=100% (1 00%)4 The data provided in Table 5 indicate that 30 (1 0%) unified districts, including 10 foundation districts, exceed the upper limit of the Serrano Band creating fiscal inequity in these districts. The majority of both foundation and nonfoundation districts had Base Revenue Limits below the state average. The seven districts with Base Revenue Limits exceeding $3500 were

PAGE 99

82 either located in affluent areas or had very low student enrollment (less than 400 students). These two variables have a great effect on BRLs. For example, wealthy districts with low enrollment enjoy very high BRLs; average wealth districts with very low enrollment enjoy high BRLs. Table 6 presents data which compares the average Base Revenue Limits of 113 foundation districts with the Serrano Band averages for all districts (N-1 023) by district type. Tabl e 6 State Average Base Revenue Limits and Average Foundation Base Revenue Limits by District Type District Type Elementary High School Unified BRL (N1 023) (State Average) $2508 3125 2672 1987-88 Serrano Bands BRL (N-113) (Foundation Average) Difference $2675 $167 3141 16 2767 96 The data presented in Table 6 indicate that both elementary and unified foundation districts had Base Revenue Limits ($167 and $96 respectively) considerable higher than the state average for these district types. Only a minimal difference ($16) was found between the Base Revenue Limits of high school foundation districts and nonfoundation districts The reason for

PAGE 100

83 these differences can be explained: when BRLs were set by the state, they were set at roughly each district's 1972 spending level. The wealth of some foundation districts was so great that they still continued to exceed the state average 18 years after the establishment of the Base Revenue Limits. The Relationship of LEF District Revenues and the Serrano Band The following tables were prepared in order to provide data for equity analyses between the Serrano Band placement of each district (by type) and district revenue (BRL plus foundation funds raised per ADA). Table 7 provides revenue data related to elementary foundation districts.

PAGE 101

84 Table 7 1987-88 Revenues Elementary Foundation Districts in Rank Order of Base Revenue Limit Fuhds and Serrano Band Placement District Above Serrano Band ($2747 and up) (N=15) 51 61 1 1 1 46 106 73 22 94 11 3 63 9 95 58 43 57 Mean Above BRL Mean ($2508-2746) (N=11) 85 88 28 31 86 49 25 55 Revenue Base Revenue Limit Funds (Rounded to nearest $) $ 3728 3374 3255 3230 3199 3076 3071 2945 2842 2805 2788 2777 2773 2763 2753 3025 2727 2683 2654 2641 2640 2620 2610 2602 Foundation Funds Per ADA $ 1 03.17 98.25 543. 92 88.11 180.00 .22 0 39.24 1 .80 1 06.03 11.05 59.94 34.53 407.33 50.23 114. 92 503.40 11.21 208. 33 0 35.64 80.82 3 .69 38.18 Table Total $ 3831.17 3472.25 3798.92 3318.11 3379.00 3076.22 3071.00 2984.24 2643.80 2911.03 2799.05 2836. 94 2807.53 3170.33 2803.23 3140.17 3230.40* 2694.21 2862.33* 2641.00 2675.64 2700.82 2613.69 2640.18 (continued)

PAGE 102

85 Base Revenue Limit Funds (Rounded to Foundation District nearest $) Funds Per ADA Total $ $ $ 64 2587 68.83 2655.63 66 2580 5.08 2585.08 99 2541 22.51 2563.51 Mean 2626 88.88 2714.79 Below BRL Mean ($2508-27 46) (N-11) 12 2498 3 .28 2501.28 82 2490 .36 2490.36 20 2482 14 7.92 2629.92** 1 01 2482 1.47 2483.47 36 2478 10.80 2488.80 53 2477 105.08 2582.08 .. 78 2474 0 24 74.00 112 2471 5.42 2476.42 48 2468 0 2468.00 11 2464 .38 2464.38 68 2462 1.42 2463.42 62 2460 40.29 2500.29 107 2460 7.75 2467. 75 27 2459 3.27 2462.27 45 2459 0 2459.00 103 2459 2.58 2461.56 80 2458 16.02 24 74.02 98 2457 7 .75 2464.75 11 0 2455 51.78 2506.78 1 3 2454 7.81 2461.81 52 2362 2.42 2368.42 Mean 2463 19.80 2482.80 Grand Mean (N47) 2681 66.33 2747.33 Key: Foundation funds added to BRL placed district above Serrano Band Limit. ** Foundation funds added to BRL moved district from below state average BRL to above state average BRL.

PAGE 103

The data presented in elementary Table 7 indicate that fiscal inequity was present in 15 LEF districts before the 86 addition of foundation funds. The addition of foundation funds moved two districts (numbers 85 and 28) beyond the upper limit of the Serrano Band, which resulted in fiscal inequity in these two districts. The addition of foundation funds enabled two districts (numbers 20 and 53) to move from Below BRL Mean to Above BRL Mean. All four districts were supported by foundations raising in excess of $100 per ADA. The means calculated for elementary district Base Revenue Limits and foundation funds raised per ADA indicate that the wealthier districts making up the Above Serrano Band category were supported by foundations raising more funds than districts in the other two categories. However, there were also districts in each category which were supported by foundations raising over $100 per ADA. Table 8 provides revenue data related to the high school districts.

PAGE 104

87 Table 8 1987-88 Revenues High School Foundation Districts in Rank Order of Base Revenue Limit Funds and Serrano Band Placement Revenue District BRLFunds Fnd Funds Total (Rounded to Per ADA Nearest $) Above Serrano Band ($3361 and up) (N-1) 65 3391 15.65 3406.65 Above BRL Mean ($3125-3360) (N-1) 37 3186 5.84 3191.84 Below BRL Mean ($2886-3124) (N-5) 41 3110 0 3110.00 34 3085 24.04 3109.04 2 3083 .72 3083.72 39 3070 0 3070.00 1 05 3067 12.34 3079.34 Mean 3083 7.42 3090.42 Grand Mean (N-7) 3142 8.37 3150.37 Table 8 indicates that foundation raised funds per ADA added to the BRL in each of the seven high school districts did not cause movement among the Serrano Band categories. The inequity present in one district (number 65) was not caused by the addition of foundation funds. Table 9 provides revenues data relating to unified districts.

PAGE 105

88 Table 9 1987-88 Revenues Unified Foundation Districts in Rank Order of Base Revenue Limit Funds and Serrano Band Placement District BRLFunds Fnd Funds Per Total (Rounded to ADA Nearest $) Above Serrano Band ($291 0 and up) (N-1 0) 6 3581 135.64 3716.64 76 3550 6.81 3556.81 96 3371 45.09 3416.09 5 3101 6.28 3107.28 79 3026 49.80 3075.80 54 3013 2.50 3105.50 24 2997 13.43 301 0.43 93 2960 6.47 2966.4 7 71 2934 3.15 2937.15 60 2918 7 .74 2925.74 Mean 3145 7.69 3172.79 Above BRL Mean ($2672-2909) (N-17) 1 7 2889 0 2889.00 47 2885 80.44 2965.44* 92 2840 0 2840.00 1 6 2836 .15 2836.15 32 2836 26.22 2862.22 77 2803 32.77 2835.77 102 2786 61.88 2847.68 90 2770 129.87 2899.87 3 2749 14.23 2763.23 1 0 2742 4.20 2746.20 15 2717 0 2717.00 89 2707 21.42 2728.42 30 2702 6.46 2708.46 69 2698 0 2698.00 8 2688 2.74 2690.74 42 2675 2.71 2677.71 87 2675 .92 2675.92 Mean 2765 22.59 2787.18 Table (continued)

PAGE 106

89 BRLFunds (Rounded To Fnd Funds Per District Nearest $) ADA Total$ $ $ Below BLR Mean ($2434-2671) (N-32) 83 2671 .54 2671.54 21 2668 35.40 2703.40* 44 2667 2.31 2669.31 59 2667 9 .17 2676 19* 97 2661 0 2661.00 19 2656 0 2656.00 100 2656 35.31 2691.31* 40 2655 0 2655.00 38 2654 .83 2654.83 84 2654 4.46 2658.46 74 2653 19.26 2672.26** 7 2648 3.67 2651.67 29 2647 26 2647.26 67 2647 5 .18 2652.16 50 2646 .64 2646.64 70 2646 5.26 2651.28 91 2646 0 2646.00 14 2645 1.12 2646.12 26 2645 6.50 2651.50 56 2645 3 .12 2648.13 75 2645 0 2645.00 33 2644 .99 2644.99 104 2644 .34 2644.34 108 2643 .99 2643.99 109 2642 3 .87 2645.87 81 2641 2.57 2643.57 23 2640 3.37 2643.37 1 2639 0 2639.00 72 2639 .73 2639.73 35 2638 2.38 2640.38 18 2459 60.24 2519.24 4 2457 1.58 2458.50 Mean 2637 6.57 2644.32 Grand Mean (N-59) 2760 14. 76 2774.76 Key: Foundation funds added to BRL placed district above Serrano Band Limit ** Foundation funds added to BRL moved district from below state average BRL to above state average BRL

PAGE 107

90 Table 9 indicates that 10 foundation districts were found in the category, Above Serrano Band. Fiscal inequity was present in these districts before foundation raised funds per ADA were added to the district BRL. Only one district (6), was supported by a LEF raising in excess of $100.00 per ADA. One district, (47), moved from Above BRL Mean category to Above Serrano Band category with the addition of foundation funds to the BRL creating fiscal inequity in this district. Foundation raised funds per ADA added to the district BRL permitted four districts (numbers 70, 100, 21, 59) to move from the Below BRL Mean to the category, Above BRL Mean. The means calculated for foundation funds raised per ADA indicate the districts included in the Above Serrano Band category raised the most funds. The difference in the means calculated for foundation funds raised per ADA was greater between the categories Above BRL Mean and Below BRL mean. However, the difference in the means of the BRLs between these two groups is not large. The data presented in Tables 7, 8, and 9 indicate that 17 foundation districts did not raise / any funds during 1987-88 . ... Table 10 provides revenue data (by district type) comparing all foundation districts (N-113) and foundation districts raising funds (N-96).

PAGE 108

Table 10 Comparison of Revenue Means: All LEF Districts and only LEF Districts Raising Funds During 1987-88. MeanBRL Rounded to Mean District Type nearest $ BRL& FF Difference Elementary All Districts (N-47) 2681 2747.33 66.33 Districts Raising Funds (N-42) 2688 2762.22 74. 22 High School All Districts (N-47) 3142 3150.37 8.37 Districts Raising Funds (N-5) 3162 3173.42 11.42 Unified All Districts (N-59) 2760 2774.76 14 76 Districts Raising Funds (N-49) 2772 2789.28 17.78 KEY: BRL = Base Revenue Limit BRL FF = Base Revenue Limit and Foundation Funds Raised Per ADA 91 Table 10 shows that differences in the means between all foundation districts and foundation districts which raised Funds in 1987-88 are small. However, if these same differences were applied to districts with large enrollments, they represent a considerable amount of money. Summary For this study, fiscal equity was defined as existing when per ADA revenues of all school districts were within a plus

PAGE 109

92 or minus $100, adjusted for inflation. This definition of fiscal equity was affirmed as recently as 1989 when appeals resulting from the 1984 Serrano compliance trial were dropped and the case declared closed (Ed Source, 1990, p. 14). An examination of the Base Revenue Limits of all of the state's 1023 school districts found that 215 (169 elementary, 16 high school, 30 unified) school districts had BRLs which exceeded the upper limits of the respective Serrano Band. Fiscal inequity existed in these districts before the additional of foundation raised funds. Of these 215 districts, 26 were foundation districts supported by LEFs, of which 25 raised additional funds for the school districts they supported. In three instances, foundation raised funds moved the district beyond the upper limit of their respective Serrano Band. The districts supported by these foundations were all located in small, semi-rural communities and were identified as "Rich" by the Federal Poverty Index. Foundation funds enabled six districts to move from the category Below BRL Mean to Above BRL Mean. Foundations defined as successful in this study raised $100 or more per ADA or total funds of $1 ,000,00 or more in 1987-89 Eleven districts were supported by foundations which raised $100 or more per ADA. Of these 11, six foundation districts (numbers 6, 43, 51, 63, 106, 111) had BRLs which exceeded the Serrano Band before foundation funds per ADA were added to their Base Revenue Limit. The considerable sums raised

PAGE 110

93 by these foundations created even larger inequities among these elementary districts. This funding appears to confirm the prediction often expressed in the literature that the most successful foundations would be located in wealthy districts. When examining the issue of fiscal equity, it is clear that the effect of elementary districts is most pronounced. The highest percentage of districts (including. both foundation and nonfoundation) with BRLs above the Serrano Band Upper Limit were elementary districts. The greatest range of Base Revenue Limits for districts with BRLs above the Serrano Band Upper Limit are found in elementary districts. This may be explained by the fact that the majority of districts in California (61 %) are elementary and more than half have fewer than 1000 students. The combination of small communities which result in low enrollments and the continuation of 1972 revenue limits for school funding purposes provide the conditions which helped create and continue to maintain inequities in school funding. The elementary foundation districts have even greater potential for impacting fiscal equity. The majority of elementary LEF districts have BRLs above the state BRL average. All other types of districts (foundation unified and high school, and nonfoundation elementary, unified, and high school) have a majority of BRLs below the state average. Elementary foundation districts placed in the category Above Serrano Band had the highest ($114.92) mean for foundation

PAGE 111

funds raised per pupil of all the foundation districts studied, indicating the wealthiest elementary districts are raising the most foundation funds per ADA. Statistical Analyses 94 To begin the examination of the effect of foundation fund raising upon foundation district revenues, a "t" test analyzed whether the addition of foundation funds resulted in a statistically significant difference in the amount of revenue per ADA. Table 11 shows that the addition of foundation funds to the Base Revenue Limits of foundation districts is highly significant (P < .01). Table 11 The Base Revenue Limit Relative to the Base Revenue Limit Plus Foundation Funds Raised (BRLFF) Variable M so BRL 2712.9646 386.8311 3 .8104 BRLFF 2758.7194 399.9883 p < .01 Null Hypothesis = Rejected Simply put, foundation funds added to the BRL of a foundation district make a significant difference in the amount of revenues available for each child's education. These additional monies may be used to enhance the curriculum by providing a

PAGE 112

95 broader spectrum of co-curricular and enrichment activities. They may pay for additional classroom equipment, more teachers and/or teacher aides. While these funds do not necessarily create fiscal inequity as defined by this study, it is virtually certain that in a district supported by a successful education foundation, they may have a beneficial effect on the education the children receive. It is equally unlikely that nonfoundation districts enjoy the same advantage. In order to measure any differences that appeared on Tables 7, 8, and 9, one way analyses of variance (ANOVA) procedures were done. Each ANOVA was followed by a Scheffe test to determine the means between which significant differences existed. It is important to note that there must be a very large difference in group means to be considered significant when using the Scheffe test because of the effect of the differences in the group sizes. Table 12 provides data that indicate district type is a significant factor in the amount of foundation funds raised per ADA in the 113 foundation districts studied.

PAGE 113

Table 12 ANOVA Summary Table The Effect of District Type on Foundation Funds Raised per ADA Source Among Within Total p < .005 Scheffe Group Mean df 2 11 0 112 High School (N-7) 8.37 ss 74482.78 732970.06 807452.84 MS 37241.39 6663.36 F 5.59 Null Hypothesis= Rejected Unified (N-59) 14.8102 Elementary (N47) 66.1253 96 The Scheffe Test revealed that elementary districts (Group 3) raised significantly more funds than unified districts (Group 2). Group 1, which was the high school districts, did not indicate a difference from Groups 2 and 3 because of its very small sample size (N-7). Table 13 provides data that found Serrano Band category placement to be a significant factor in the amount of foundation funds raised per ADA in the 42 elementary districts which raised funds. The elementary foundation districts supported by foundations (N-5) which did not raise funds in 1987-88 were not included because they would have altered the results and

PAGE 114

97 presented a false picture of the effect of Serrano Band placement on foundation fundraising per ADA. Table 13 ANOVA Summary Table The Effect of Serrano Band Category Placement on Elementary Districts (N-42) Foundation Funds Raised Per ADA Source Among Within Total p < .05 Scheffe df 2 39 41 ss 92484.22 568701.07 661185.79 MS 46242.11 14582.08 Null Hypothesis = Rejected F 3.17 Group Above Serrano Band (NAbove BRL Mean (N-1 0) Below BRL Mean (N-18) 1 4) Mean 131.7554 89.0264 23.0989 The Scheffe Test found that elementary districts included in the category, Above Serrano Band, raised significantly more funds at the .05 level than districts included in the category, Below BRL Mean. Table 14 provides data that found Serrano Band category placement to be a significant factor in the amount of foundation funds raised per ADA in 49 unified districts which raised funds. The ten unified foundation districts which did not raise funds in 1987-88 were not included because they would have altered the

PAGE 115

results and presented a false picture of the effect of Serrano Band placement on foundation fundraising per ADA. Table 14 ANOVA Summary Table The Effect of Serrano Band Category Placement on Unified District (N-49) Foundation Funds Raised Per ADA Source df ss MS F Among 2 6075.48 3037.74 3.67 Within 46 38083.40 827.90 Total 48 44158.88 p < .05 Null Hypothesis= Rejected Scheffe Group Above Serrano Band (NBelow Serrano Mean Below Serrano Mean 10 (N-12) (N-27) Mean 28.1000 31.7558 7.8419 98 Because of the conservative nature of the Scheffe Test, it indicated that there were dissimiliarities, but not significant differences between Group 2 (Above Serrano Mean) and Group 3 (Below Serrano Mean) at the .01 and .05 level. Summary Statistical analysis found that LEFs supporting elementary foundation districts raise significantly more funds

PAGE 116

than high school or unified districts (see Table 12). Although nothing is reported in the literature to explain this finding, several possibilities can be advanced which may lead to more understanding. There is considerable acceptance of the notion 99 that success in a child's earliest years in school are a predictor of later achievement. This perception may motivate donors to look more favorably upon the needs of elementary districts as compared to high school or unified districts. The same perception may stimulate fundraisers working in behalf of elementary districts to be more active in pursuit of contributions. The homogeneity, sense of neighborhood, common purposes/problems, and sense of community of elementary districts may also enhance the fundraising effort. Yet another explanation may be connected to the possibility that parents of the youngest children tend to be more involved with their schools. The last, and likely most important reason, relates to state law, geography, and concentration of wealth. California law permits the continued existence of small elementary districts whose boundaries include areas of considerable wealth. Fundraising among wealthy parents and community members may be more easily accomplished and more lucrative in such districts. The importance of a district's placement within a specific Serrano Band was indicated by the significance found through a statistical analysis of the 91 foundation districts

PAGE 117

100 which raised funds in 1987-88. Districts considered wealthy in 1972 are the majority of districts which constitute the Above Serrano Band category in 1987-88. Elementary foundation districts included in this category were found to raise significantly more funds (P < .05) than those foundation districts whose Base Revenue Limits placed them in the category, Below Serrano Mean. This finding confirms predictions expressed throughout the literature that the most successful fund raising by LEFs would be found in wealthy school districts. In addition, the statistical analysis of unified districts supported the placement in the Serrano Band categories with regard to foundation funds raised per ADA was significant. Summary of Major Findings Related to Fiscal Equity 1. The Base Revenue Limits of 189 nonfoundation districts and 26 foundation districts in the state exceed the Serrano Band without the addition of foundation raised funds. 2. The addition of foundation funds per ADA to the Base Revenue Limits of foundation districts enabled three districts (two elementary, one unified) to move beyond the upper limit of the Serrano Band. 3. The addition of foundation funds per ADA to the Base Revenue Limits of foundation districts enabled six districts (two elementary, four unified) to move from the category Below BRL Mean to the category Above BRL Mean.

PAGE 118

1 01 4. For each district type, average Base Revenue Limits are higher for foundation districts than for nonfoundation districts. 5. The addition of foundation funds raised per ADA to the district Base Revenue Limit did make a significant difference in the 113 foundation districts studied. 6. In foundation districts supported by LEFs raising $100 or more per ADA, six of 11 districts were found to be above the upper limit of the Serrano Band before the addition of foundation funds. Two of the 11 districts moved above the upper limit of the Serrano Band when foundation funds were added to their Base Revenue Limits . 7. Foundations supporting elementary districts raised significantly more funds per ADA than foundations supporting high school or unified districts. 8. Serrano Band category placement was found to have a significant effect on foundation fund raising per ADA in elementary and unified school districts. 9. The majority of elementary foundation districts had Base Revenue Limits above the state average.

PAGE 119

The Effect of Local Education Foundations Upon Program Equity in Selected Public School Districts in California 102 For purposes of this study, program equity was defined as the existence in nonfoundation districts of those expenditure choices which were similar to or identical with the expenditure choices of LEFs in foundation districts. Expenditure choice is a proxy term for programs or activities supported by district resources in nonfoundation districts and LEF funds in foundation districts. During the study of the 113 foundation districts, it was found that only 96 LEFs reported raising funds during the 198788 school year. Of the 96 LEFs which raised funds, 19 did not make specific expenditure choices. These foundations either provided funds for district "wish lists" (which did not identify specific programs) or gave unrestricted funding to the school district (see Appendix A). As a result, program equity comparisons were based only on the 77 local education foundations which chose to fund specific programs and the 31 nonfoundation districts responding to the mail survey. A study of the data (see Appendix F) indicated that the 19 local education foundations providing "wish list" or unrestricted funding to school districts raised mean foundation funds per ADA of $23.39, which is at least three times greater than the mean of foundation funds raised per ADA ($5.58) of LEFs which specified expenditure choices. Therefore, the potential

PAGE 120

103 impact of fund raising upon fiscal and program equity may be greater in the districts these 19 LEFs support than in the districts supported by the 77 local education foundations which make specific expenditure choices. It also appears that the role in expenditure choice decision-making of the 19 LEFs is not necessarily one of an independent third party. This may reflect a substantial level of trust between the LEF and the school district, prior agreements between the foundation board and school district as to what expenditure choices should be funded and/or a belief that elected school board trustees should make the expenditure choice decisions which impact the education of students within the community. Table 15 presents data comparing 13 expenditure choices of local education foundations and nonfoundation districts. (Foundations which provided "wish list" or unrestricted funding were not included in the calculations.)

PAGE 121

104 Table 15 Comparison of Percentage of LEFs* and Nonfoundation Districts Providing Funds For Specific Expenditure Choices Expenditure Choice Percent of LEFs (N=77) Reporting Expenditures* Fine Arts 35.1 Teacher Mini Grants 49.4 Add'l Capital Equip 9.1 Student Scholarshps 9.1 Student Field Trips/Camps 10.4 Computer Equipment 15.6 Teacher Monetary Awards 3.9 After School Enrichment 3.9 Cap Building Fund 6.5 Athletics 6.5 Endowment Fund 6 5 Library/Curricular Materials 27.3 Salaries for Add. Staff Rsp. 14.3 Percent of Nonfoundation Districts Report ing Expenditures (N=31) 87.0 35.5 77.4 29.0 90.3 90.3 0 35.5 25.8 71.0 0 100.0 65.0 *Note: The figures listed in the percent of LEFs column refer only to the percentage of foundations funding each expenditure choice. They do not reflect foundation district support of expenditure choices which may increase the total. Table 15 indicates that with two exceptions the expenditure choices made by 31 nonfoundation districts and 77 LEFs are similar. Program equity, defined as the existence of expenditure choices which are similar in both foundation and nonfoundation districts, does appear to exist with two exceptions, teacher monetary awards and endowment funds.

PAGE 122

105 Nonfoundation districts cannot legally create endowment funds in California which explains why this expenditure choice is not found in these districts. However, the LEFs which support foundation districts may create endowment funds and invest money in them. Annual earnings from these funds may be used to fulfill the special purpose for which they were established or be retained to increase the principal amount. Teacher monetary awards are a legal expenditure choice option in California public schools (California Educational Code Service, 1988, Section 44015, p. 2146) but were not supported through district or other funds in nonfoundation districts. Findings suggest that only foundation districts are able to implement this expenditure choice in a planned, budgeted, announced, and predictable manner. The same appears to be the case for student scholarships. Although there is no apparent prohibition against them and students in nonfoundation districts are awarded scholarships, funds are provided by service or fraternal organizations outside of and separate from the structure of the district (see Table 16). In this regard, there is no formal relationship between the school district and these organizations as there is in a local education foundation supporting a specific school district. It is important to note that although Table 15 indicates that a higher percentage of nonfoundation districts provide

PAGE 123

106 funding for specific expenditure choices (Fine Arts, Additional Capital Equipment, Student Scholarships, Student Field Trips/Camps, Computer Equipment, After School Enrichment, Capital Building Fund, Athletics, Library/Curricular Materials, and Salaries for Additional Staff Responsibilities), foundation districts may provide additional support for these items through district funds and/or other funding sources. Funding sources for expenditure choices reported by the 31 superintendents responding to the optional question about funding included: general fund, state lottery money, Chapters I and II categorical funds, School Improvement Program (SIP) Fund, state grants, building fund interest, developer fees, building fund, parent organizations, state 50/50 construction matching program, community organizations' grants, Association of Student Body (ASB) funds, compensatory education entitlements, Forest Reserve Fund, Mello Roos fees, general obligation bonds, and community foundation grants. Districts often reported combining funds from more than one source to pay for a particular expenditure choice. For example, fine arts could be funded through a combination of funding sources, such as the general fund, lottery, and parent organization. Table 16 presents data related to the funding sources of expenditure choices made by nonfoundation districts.

PAGE 124

Table 16 Funding Sources of Programs Offered by Nonfoundation Districts (Numbers refer to number of districts using that specific funding sources. A district may use one or more sources per program.) Expenditure Choices Fund'g Source Fine Arts Teacher Mini Add'l Cap. Student Student Field Computer Grants Exp. Scholarships Trips/Camps Equipment G .F. 21 3 14 18 18 Lot 5 7 9 7 8 Chapter 1 SIP 2 3 2 Grants 1 4 BFI Dev Fees 2 1 Bldg Fund 1 Parent Org 3 3 8 4 State 50/50 CampEd 2 5 2 ASB Com Ed Chapter II 1 FAF Mello Roos CommunityFnd GenObg Bds After School Capital Bldg Enr ichm ent Fund 4 4 1 5 3 2 1 3 1 2 Key : GF General Fund ST 50/50 State 50/50 Construction Matching Funds Lot Lottery Com Org Community Organizations BFI Building Fund Interest ASB Association of Student Body Funds SIP School Improvement Dev Fees Developer Fees Program Bldg. Fund Building Fund Library/ Athletics Salaries Curricular Materials 19 16 31 2 5 1 15 2 10 9 2 3 2 2 FAF Forest Reserve Fund CampEd Compensatory Education Mello Roos Mello Aoos Fees ......... Prnt Org Parent Organization 0 GenObg Genearl Obligation Bonds -.....)

PAGE 125

108 Table 17 presents data related to the percentages of nonfoundation district expenditure choices funded by the General Fund. The General Fund is primarily comprised of the district Base Revenue Limit multiplied by the district ADA and does not include categorical or building funds. Table 17 Percentages of Nonfoundation District Expenditure Choices Supported by the District General Fund Expenditure Choice Fine Arts Teacher Mini Grants Additional Capital Expenditures Student Field Trips/Camps Computer Equipment After School Enrichment Athletics Additional Library/ Curricular Materials Salaries for Additional Staff Responsibilities Percent of Districts (N-31) Providing Funds for Specific Expenditure Choices from All Sources 87.0 35.5 77.4 90.3 90.3 35.5 71.0 100.0 65 Percent of Districts (N-31) Reporting Support from General Fund 67.7 09.7 45.2 58.1 58.1 12.9 61.3 100.0 51.6

PAGE 126

1 09 The data presented in Table 17 indicate that 9 of the 13 expenditure choices identified in the questionnaire were supported by the General Fund in nonfoundation districts. Without foundation funds, expenditure choices in nonfoundation districts may be more limited and more closely related to the activit i es of the basic educational program. This may explain why the choices of After-School Enrichment and Teacher Mini-Grants were the ones supported least by the General Fund. In foundat ion districts LEF funds may supplement or supplant General Fund obligations which makes more money available to support education in the district. Summary A variety of expenditure choices offered by foundation districts are also offered by nonfoundation districts. In seeking to determine program equity, the issues are so complex, i.e., the many ways budget allocations can be made between salaries, materials, programs, etc. that precise qualitative determination of program equity between foundation and nonfoundation districts cannot be made by this study. Although a definitive finding about program equity between foundation and nonfoundation districts was not possible, it seems logical that foundation district budgets may be able to provide more educational opportunities for district students. Foundation funds often supplement district expenditures and,

PAGE 127

11 0 therefore, additional expenditure choices can be made by the school board because more money is available to support education in the foundation district through district budgets, funds raised by the supporting LEF, and other nondistrict fiscal sources available, i.e., parent groups. A Descriptive Profile of Foundation Districts in the State of California In this section, data are presented comparing the 113 active local education foundations districts which are supported by a local education foundation. Data include variations existing in the district characteristics of district enrollment, community population, population density, wealth, and district type. The Directory (1988) provided all the information necessary to construct the figures which follow (see Appendix F). Foundation District Enrollment Figure 2 provides data related to the district enrollment (ADA) of the 113 districts studied. The six ranges of enrollment, each represented by a bar on the figure, were adopted from information published by Ed Source (1990, p. 3}. The percentage contained within the bar or within the parenthesis represents the percentage of foundation districts that have an enrollment between the ADA ranges listed at the left of the bar. The figure at the end of each bar is the number of districts which comprise the percentage.

PAGE 128

., c c"g Ecn e. C::J w, .5 -1-999 1,000-4,999 5,000-24,999 25,000-49,999 50,000-99,999 100,000 + 0 (1.8%) (1.8%) 10 20 30 Number of Dlatrlcta Figure 2. Foundation District Enrollment 1 1 1 45 40 50 Figure 2 indicates that the majority of LEFs are located in school districts of less than 5,000 students and the fewest LEFs are in districts exceeding 50,000 students. This is consistent with published reports that more than half of all districts in California had enrollments of less than 100 students and fewer than one percent had enrollments exceeding 50,000 students. (Ed Source, 11. 1987). The two districts in the state with the largest enrollment each have a local education foundation. Population of Foundation District Communities Figure 3 provides data related to the community population of the 1 13 foundation districts studied. The

PAGE 129

I I 2 categories of foundation district community population ranges were developed after examining and tabulating population figures reported for each LEF in The Directory (1988). 0-9,999 c: 1 0,000-49,999 0 :I 50,000-99,999 c.. 0 ll. 100 000-499,999 500,000 and over 0 1 0 20 30 40 50 60 Number of Districts Figure 3. Population of Foundation District Communities As Figure 3 indicates, almost 62% of LEF districts have populations of fewer than 50,000 people. Figures 4 through 6, which follow, report population density and two alternative measures of community wealth. Examined together, they provide a better understanding of how these variables effect foundation districts. An analyses of the data presented by the four graphs follows Figure 6.

PAGE 130

1 1 3 Foundation District Population Density Figure 4 presents another way of looking at the population of foundation district. Using the code developed by the California Consortium of Education Foundations (CCEF), A represents the most urban environment while E represents the most rural. CCEF developed its code to indicate the concept of population density rather than overall population. A CP "0 B 0 u c 30 0 c ;: CIS :; D. 0 a. 0 0 10 20 30 Number of Dlatrlcta Figure 4. Foundation District Population Density (Using CCEF Directory Coding System) 40

PAGE 131

114 It is interesting to note that the California Consortium of Education Foundations determined that an equal number of LEFs were located at opposite ends of the population density spectrum, that is, most urban and most rural. The remainder were distributed in the pattern similar to that of a normal Bell Curve. Foundation District Wealth Foundation district wealth was identified by two methods: CCEF guidelines (Figure 5) and the Federal Poverty Index (Figure 6). CCEF identifies district wealth with a numerical system. The number 1 represents the most wealth communities with number 5 representing the least wealthy communities. CCEF developed these guidelines by utilizing 1980 census data which included per capita income, median household income, and median family income. The numerical code was developed by taking an average of the above factors and calculating the codes to achieve a distributions similar to the normal curve. Figure 5 provides data related to the 113 districts studied using CCEF wealth guidelines.

PAGE 132

CD 2 '8 0 3 0 5 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 Number of Dlatrlcta Figure 5. Wealth of District: Foundation District Wealth (Using CCEF Directory Coding System) 1 1 5 The Federal Poverty Index identifies communities as Rich, Average, and Poor as determined by the percentage of school age children falling within the Federal poverty guidelines. Figure 6 provides data related to the wealth of the 113 foundation districts studied as determined by the Federal Poverty Index.

PAGE 133

116 Rich z:: .:: ca C Average-. u 't: !e. c Poor 40 60 80 100 Number of Dlatrlcta Figure 6. Foundation District Wealth (as determined by Federal Poverty Index) The discrepancies found between Fig'ures 5 and 6 may be explained by three facts: (1) The average wealth designation utilized by the Federal Poverty Index ranges from 5% to 24.9/o of children falling within the Federal poverty guidelines, which allows wide variations of wealth; (2) the CCEF Code used to designate district wealth was based on 1980 census data which may have been outdated by 1987-88 and (3) the number of categories (three and five, respectively) differed in each method of determining districl wealth. When the graphs in Figures 4 and 6 are examined together, one important fact emerges: no LEEs support a district

PAGE 134

characterized by CCEF codes as being both most poor and most rural. 117 In general, Figures 2, 3, 5, and 6 indicate that the majority of foundation districts have an ADA of less than 5000 students, are located in communities of less than 50,000, and are of average wealth. Foundation District Type Figure 7 provides data related to the district type of the 113 foundation districts studied. Elementary !. >(6.2%) -High School (,) 't: ;; Q Unified 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 Number of Dlatrlcta Figure 7. District Type

PAGE 135

118 Figure 7 indicates that the majority of foundations support unified school districts. There are few LEFs supporting high school districts. This explanation for this may be that of all district types, high school districts had the highest percentage (11.3%) above the upper limits of the Serrano Band without the addition of foundation funds (Ed Source, 1989, Card 20). Relationship of Foundation District Characteristics to Amount of Foundation Funds Raised Per ADA This section examines the relationship between the foundation district characteristics of average daily attendance (ADA), district wealth, community population, population density, and foundation funds raised per ADA. These tables may provide additional insight into the issue of fiscal equity. District ADA. Combining data gathered from Figure 2 and Appendix F, Table 18 provides data related to foundation district ADA and foundation funds raised per pupil.

PAGE 136

Table 18 The Relationship Between Average Daily Attendance and Foundation Funds Raised Per ADA Foundation Funds Raised Per ADA District ADA $0-4.99 $5-24.99 $25-99.99 $100-$200 + 199.99 1-999 3 4 6 4 2 1000-4999 1 0 12 14 3 2 5000-24,999 35 9 0 0 25,000-49,999 3 0 0 0 50,000-99,999 0 0 0 100,000 + 2 0 0 0 0 Districts 54 27 31 7 4 1 1 9 Districts 1 9 41 45 4 2 2 11 3 Table 18 indicates that 29 (48%) districts of fewer than 5000 ADA raised less than $25.00 per pupil, but only 1 (2/o) district of 53 districts with ADA exceeding 5000 raised $25 or more per ADA. Community Population. Combining data from Figure 3 and Appendix F, Table 19 was prepared and provides data related to community population and foundation funds raised per ADA.

PAGE 137

120 Table 19 The Relationship Between Community Population and Foundation Funds Raised Per ADA $0-4.99 $5-24.99 $25-99.99 $1 00-$200 + District 199.99 0-9999 5 2 5 4 2 18 10,00049,999 1 9 1 2 1 6 3 2 52 50,00099,999 1 6 7 0 0 0 23 100,000499,999 12 5 0 0 0 1 7 500,000 and over 2 0 0 0 3 District 54 27 21 7 4 11 3 Table 19 indicates that only 39 (56%) of all foundation districts with fewer than 50,000 people were supported by LEFs raising less than $25 per ADA. However, all 43 (1 00%) foundation districts with community populations of more than 50,000 raised less than $25.00 per ADA. Population Density. Combining information provided by Figure 4 and Appendix F, Table 20 was prepared and provides data related to population density and foundation funds raised per ADA. Based on CCEF guidelines, the letter A designates the most urban environment; the letter E designates the most rural.

PAGE 138

1 21 Table 20 The Relationship Between Population Density and Foundation Funds Raised Per ADA. Foundation Funds Raised Per Pupil Population Density $0-4.99 $5-24.99 $25-99.99 $100-199.99 $200 + District A 1 0 6 0 0 0 1 6 B 1 8 6 0 0 25 c 1 4 7 7 2 0 30 D 6 6 9 2 3 26 E 6 2 5 2 1 6 Districts 54 27 21 7 4 11 3 Table 20 indicates that only 20 (48%) of all foundation districts located in the two least densely population areas raised less than $25.00 per ADA. However, 41 (98%) of the 42 districts located in the most densely populated areas raised less than $25.00 District Wealth. Combining information gathered from Figure 5 and Appendix F, Table 21 was prepared and provides data related to foundation district wealth and foundation funds raised per ADA. District wealth is defined by California Consortium of Education Foundation guidelines which designate the richest districts by a number 1 and the poorest districts by a number 5.

PAGE 139

122 Table 21 The Relationship Between District Wealth (CCEF Guidelines) to Foundation Funds Raised Per ADA Foundation Funds Raised Per ADA District Wealth $0-4.99 $5-24.99 $25-99.99 $1 00-$200 + Districts 199.99 o 8 4 3 16 2 8 7 9 2 27 3 33 1 6 4 0 54 4 1 2 4 0 0 0 1 6 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 Districts 54 27 21 7 4 11 3 Table 21 indicates that only 16 (37%) districts identified as wealthy (categories 1 and 2) raised less than $25.00 per pupil, all but five of the remaining 70 districts raised less than $25 .00 per pupil. The Federal Poverty Index provides another method of examining wealth. Districts are identified as Rich, Average, or Poor, depending on the percentage of school age children which fall within the Federal poverty guidelines. Combining information gathered from Figure 6 and Appendix F, Table 22 was prepared and provides data related to district wealth (as determined by the Federal Poverty Index) and foundation funds raised per ADA.

PAGE 140

123 Table 22 The Relationship Between District Wealth (Federal Poverty Index) and Foundation Funds Raised Per ADA Foundation Funds Raised Per ADA $0-4.99 $5-24.99 $25-99.99 $100-199.99 $200 + Districts Rich 6 4 13 5 4 32 Average 47 22 8 2 0 79 Poor 0 0 0 2 Districts 54 27 21 7 4 113 Table 22 indicates that only 10 (31 /o) of districts identified as Rich raised less than $25.00 per ADA, but 71 of the 81 (88/o) average or poor districts raised less. The minor discrepancies in the findings of the two measures of wealth may be explained by the fact that different criteria were employed in the categorization used in each method. Although the results in Tables 21 and 22 are not exact, they indicate a similar finding: foundation districts identified as wealthy by both methods raise considerably more funds than districts identified as average or poor. This finding is consistent with predictions expressed throughout the literature. In summary, the findings which emerge from an examination of Tables 18, 19, 20, 21 and 22 indicate that the districts which are supported by LEFs raising the most funds per ADA have fewer than 5000 students and are located in wealthy, rural communities. Districts supported by foundations raising the least funds are poor and located in densely populated

PAGE 141

communities of more than 50,000 people. This finding is consistent with predictions reported in the literature. 124 ANOVAS. ANOVAs were run to statistically test the variables of wealth and community population on foundation funds raised per ADA. The statistical significance of differences exceeded P < .0001 for both (see Appendix H), indicating that district wealth and community population were very important determinants in predicting the success of foundation fundraising per ADA. The post hoc test provided more specific data about each variable. The wealthiest communities of fewer than 10,000 population were significantly different from the three population groups which ranged between 10,000 to 499,000 people. The finding resulting from the ANOVA was consistent with the reports in the literature, the data collected through a document study and the case study interviews. A Descriptive Profile of Local Education Foundations in California In this section, data are presented comparing the 113 active local education foundations studied. Data describes variations existing in the foundation characteristics of revenues, longevity, initiation, staff, decision making authority, and fund raising. The Directory (1988), an annual informational report on all member foundations published by the California Consortium of

PAGE 142

125 Education Foundation (CCEF), provided the necessary information for this section of the study (see Appendix F). Date of Establishment of Foundations. Figure 8 provides data identifying the years in which the 113 local education foundations were established 1979 r;" ..-10 (8.8%) 1980 c CD 1981 E .s:: 1982 .!! :0 1983 II 1984 w -1985 0 ... 1986 II Cll > 1987 :/ (4.4%) '/ -:.1113 (11.5%) / ... 29 (25.7%) / 19 (16.8%) 1/ 16 (14.2%) 1/ (6.2%) 1/ (5.3%) '/ ...a5 (4.4%) / (2.7%) 1988 .,/ I I 0 10 20 30 40 Number of Foundation Figure 8. Foundation Date of Establishment The majority (56.7%) of local education foundations were established in the three year span of 1982-84. This data reflect the state's difficult financial situation during those year. The large financial surplus which was used to bail out school districts after the passage of Proposition 13 in 1979 was exhausted by 1982. By the end of 1984, SB 813 (passed in 1983) was providing millions of new dollars to education for various

PAGE 143

126 reforms. The California Lottery, established in 1984 to provide additional funding for education had also begun to have an effect. As Figure 8 suggests the increase in school funding provided by SB 813 and the Lottery may have caused a dramatic drop in the number of foundations established after 1984. It also appears that in its relatively short history the school foundation movement in California responds inversely to the perception of whether state revenues appear limited or seem adequate. The Directory (1989), reported that only two foundations belonging to CCEF were in the formation process in 1989. Foundation Formation Initiation. Figure 9 provides data identifying the person(s) or group responsible for initiating formation of the 113 local education foundations studied. 1) Superintendent 2) Parents 35 3) School Board 4) Community Members 5) Combination of N:Jove 6) Unknown 0 10 20 30 Number of Foundation Figure 9. Foundation Formation Initiation 40

PAGE 144

127 Parents were the largest single group (31 %) initiating the establishment of a foundation. One explanation of this may be due to the fact that in the early years of the school foundation movement in California, parents were among the first to realize that money (and hence programs) were beginning to decline because of the implementation of the revenue limit system and the passage of Proposition 13. Creation of an educational foundation to raise money was one of the few ways programs could be kept or reinstated. To the present day, parents continue to be deeply involved in the formation and establishment of educational foundations. Foundation Board of Directors. References to the importance of the foundation board are found throughout the literature. In 1985, Nesbit stated, ... the proper selection of these persons (foundation board) has determined the success of education foundations" (p. 34). Among the most important responsibilities of the Foundation Board members are: (1) establish credibility and visibility, (2) determine fundraising and allocation policy, (3) identify and cultivate individual, corporate, and private foundation prospects, (4) assume compliance with all state and federal statutes and tax laws, and (5) contribute to fund raising goals.

PAGE 145

Figure 10 presents data representing the number of directors on foundation boards for the 113 local education foundations studied. 1-5 II 27 ... 6-10 0 (.) Cll ... c 11-14 0 27 ... 15-20 Cll .s:J E ::I z 21-26 27+ 0 10 20 30 Number of Foundation Figure 10. Number of Directors on Foundation Board 128 Fifty-four (47 .8%) local education foundations have 15 or more directors on their respective foundation boards One explanation for this fact is that the larger the number of board directors, the greater the potential for more contributions. A large board also increases the potential for prospect networking peer solicitations, and broad cultivation and stewardship. The case study also revealed that the foundations studied expected each director to contribute. Larger numbers of directors may also

PAGE 146

provide representation of the diverse groups within the community. 129 The Public Education Fund (PEF) identified the size of the foundation board to be a crucial factor in its success, large enough to assure diversity but small enough to work efficiently. The PEF also warned that to avoid board member burnout, foundation boards needed to be large enough so all board members were not required to do everything (Five Years, 1989). Decision Making Authority for Foundation Fund. Figure 11 identifies the group with authority to make decisions relating to the expenditure of foundation funds in 113 local education foundations. >-i: 1) Foundation Board 0 s:. :1 c 01 2) School Board .IC :; :1 g 3) Found. Brd WISch. Board iii u c 4) Joint Committees 81 (13.3%) (7 .0%) (8.0%) 0 20 40 60 80 100 Number of Foundtlons Figure 11. Decision-Making Authority for Foundation Funds

PAGE 147

130 The majority (71.7%) of local education foundation boards choose specific expenditure choices they will allocate funding to before presenting foundation funds to the school board. This method of operation is referred to as a "third party role" throughout the literature and its importance is emphasized repeatedly It enables the foundation to be seen by the community as more independent, objective, and responsive to achieving the educational needs of the schools. The literature revealed that the public sometimes will contribute to an educational foundation rather than to the school system because of distrust or dissatisfaction with the district. The literature also indicated foundations which make decisions independent of the school districts provide funds for supplemental programs, not for maintenance and reinstatement of district programs. In 86.7% of cases, expenditure choices are made either wholly by the foundation board or by the foundation board in concert with the school board or through joint committees. In 13.3o/o of foundation districts, expenditure choices funded by the foundation are made by the school district. There are some cautions in interpreting the authority of the foundation board too literally. First, allocation of funds for most expenditure choices are made from an awareness of district needs. No local education foundation could long survive totally ignoring school district educational goals. Conversely, it would not seem prudent for a school board to retain sole decision making power regarding funds

PAGE 148

raised by the LEF when members of the foundation board had a strong interest in how foundation funds could be spent. 1 31 Foundation Staffing. Figure 12 provides data related to the staffing patterns of each of the 113 foundation studied. Volunteer 88 CD > CD ... 01 Part Time c: ;: ca -en Full Time Paid 0 20 40 60 80 100 Number of Foundations Figure 12. Foundation Staffing Although the literature indicated that the most successful foundations employed paid staff, the great majority (77.9%) are entirely operated by volunteers, Reasons which may explain this are (1) foundations closely aligned with their school districts often utilize school district personnel as well as volunteer help. In these cases, district personnel are not given additional salary; (2) many foundations do not raise enough funds

PAGE 149

132 to employ professional staff; and (3) some foundation and district personnel strongly believe that an organization formed to raise additional funds for schools should not be allocating money for salaries. Summary In general, most foundations were initiated by parents, established between 1982-84, have between 10 and 20 members on the board, maintain or participate in expenditure decisions and are staffed by volunteers. Foundation Funds Raised Local education foundations were established in California for the purpose of increasing the amount of money available for education in the individual school districts each supported. There are two criteria which can be used to measure their success. The first is to divide the sum of the annual amount raised by the district ADA to determine the amount of funds raised per pupil in ADA (Figure 13). This method is useful in all districts and most applicable in small districts. The second method is to simply compute the total raised for the year and make a s omewhat subjective judgment about whether it was enough to improve the educational program (Figure 14). This method is most applicable to large districts.

PAGE 150

133 ADA Foundation Funds Raised. Figure 13 provides data related to the amount of funds raised per pupil by each of the 113 local education foundations. $0-$4.99 54 Cl) $5.00-$24.99 > Cl) ..J D $25.00-$99.99 c 'C c ::J $100-$199 LL $200 + {3.5%) 0 1 0 20 30 40 Number of Foundations 50 60 Figure 13. Funds Raised Per ADA by Foundation Of these foundations, nearly half (47.8%) earned less than $5.00 per pupil in 1987-88. This fact may be explained by the following reasons: (1) volunteer staffing sometimes does not result in consistent, knowledgeable fund raising; (2) parents, major contributors to school foundations, may not be able to make sizable donations in average or poor communities; (3) fund raising efforts sometimes diminish after initial efforts; and (4) fund raising efforts are sometimes allocated to a one time expenditure.

PAGE 151

134 Total Foundation Funds Raised. Figure 1"4 indicates the total amount of funds raised by each of the 113 local education foundations. .. >_ c ., ...... Ill o= c: 0 -0 .,c: c:_ ::IlL 0-4,999 4.500,999 25,000-99,999 100,000-499,999 500,000-999,999. 1,000,000 + (0.8%) 0 10 20 Number of Foundation Figure 14. Total Funds Raised by Foundation 35 35 30 40 The size of the district is an important factor when considering the impact of foundation fund raising. For example, 35 (31 %) of LEEs raised total funds of $25,000 to $99,999. This amount could represent an amount in a small ADA district which is sufficient to fund a number of expenditure choices. Students could participate in the basis of preference or need but every pupil could experience one or more activities.

PAGE 152

135 In order tor large ADA districts to provide the I same expenditure choices and afford their students an to participate to the same extent, supporting LEFs would have to raise very large sums of money each year. However, be. cause of i size, even a few dollars per ADA can ultimately make positive difference. For example, $5 per pupil may not purchase : very much by way of educational programs for individual students : but if it is multiplied by an ADA of 500,000, the resultant $2.5 million could have an effective impact. Expenditure choices which fund pi.lot and teacher mini-grants aimed at improving instructional methods and materials are usually the choices of large ADA I Teacher inservice programs, carefully planned and geared toward making teachers more effective in the classroom, are also I frequent choices. Foundations supporting large districts simply cannot general fiscal resources in sufficient quantity to offer the expenditure choices small LEF districts regularly In considering whether foundation fundraising : impacts I fiscal equity as mandated by the Serrano decision, two l factors must be considered. The first and most readily is the i amount of money raised per ADA. In cases where the is I high, it should trigger a careful analysis of total funds available I per ADA for comparison with Serrano Band Limits. The second consists of the level at which the BRL for the district was I determined. If that level was close enough to the limits of I

PAGE 153

136 the Serrano Band, then comparatively fewer dollars need to be raised by the foundation to exceed it. The opposite of these circumstances is the instance where a foundation raises considerable funds per ADA but does not exceed the Serrano Band upper limit. In this situation, the likelihood is great that the BRL was low enough that even highly successful fund raising does not cause the district BRL to exceed the upper limit of the Serrano Band. This is not to say that in a district of this nature, foundation raised funds do not significantly impact the educational program the district is able to provide. In some instances, districts which fit this description are able to retain, increase, or supplement educational choices which would not be possible without foundation fund raising. During the case studies, one district's reported experience closely fit this example. Figures 13 and 14 indicated that only thirteen (11.5%) of the 113 local education foundations studied raised either more than $100 per ADA or total funds of $1,000,000 or more. These foundations, defined as successful by this study, are presented in the following section. Successful Local Education Foundations Districts supported by LEFs which raise $100 or more per ADA have the greatest potential impact on fiscal equity. Using data available in The Directory (1988) and collected from official

PAGE 154

137 California fiscal reports (see Appendix G), a table was prepared showing selected characteristics of 13 LEFs which met the study definition of successful education foundations. Table 23 presents data relating to the foundation characteristics of year founded, initiation, number of directors, staffing, funds raised per ADA, total funds raised and decision making authority. The data reported in Table 23 provides information relating to the characteristics found in the thirteen local education foundations raising more than $100 per ADA or more than $1 ,000,000 in total funds. Six (46%) were established in 1979, the year that Proposition 13 went into effect and local tax revenues were limited. In 1982-83, and carrying over into 1984, previously accumulated surplus funds in the State Treasury were exhausted and the full impact of Proposition 13 was felt by California school districts. Five (38%) of the 13 foundations were formed in these years. Parents were the primary foundation initiators in 7 (54%) ,districts and were partially involved in the formation of two others. Findings gathered through case study interviews indicated that in affluent areas, parents better understand the potential value of fundraising and many have the skills, resources, and experiences to provide the leadership and effort necessary for the establishment of a local education foundation.

PAGE 155

138 Table 23 Characteristics of Local. Education Foundations Defined As Successful; Organized in Rank Order of Foundation Funds Raised Per ADA LEF Year Foundation Number Total Funds S taffing Allocation Founded Initiation of Fnd Funds Raised Authority Directors Raised Per ADA 1987-88 1987-88 111 1979 Parents 12 161,000 543.92 Part-time Joint Com clerical paid School and Fnd Mmbrs 85 1979 Parents 22 148 000 503.40 Volunteers SchooiBd 43 1980 Parents 30 411,000 407.33 1 full-time Fnd Board 28 1979 Parents 26 350,000 208.33 Volunteer Fnd Board 106 1982 Parents, 1 0 150,000 179.06 Volunteer Fnd Board Superintendent, SchooiBd 20 1988 Parents 1 1 425,000 147.92 Volunteer Fnd Board 6 1979 Parents 42 650,000 135.64 2 part time School Bd paid 90 1979 Community 25 350,000 129. 87 Volunteer School Bd 63 1982 Parents 22 167,000 106.03 2 part time Parents, Principals 53 1983 Community 1 9 60,000 105.00 Volunteer Fnd Board 87 1984 Community 15 65,000 1 03.17 Volunteer SchooiBd 89 1979 Cmty Fnd 27 1,300,000 21.00 12 full-time Fnd Board 56 1984 Community 33 1,800,000 3 .00 6 full-time Fnd Board

PAGE 156

139 Ten (77%) of the 13 foundations had foundation boards of 15 or more members which could build a broad advocacy and constituent base for the school districts. This number could increase personal contributions to the foundation and enable more individual prospects to be solicited. Volunteer staffing of 7 (54%) of the successful LEFs located in districts of fewer than 2000 students (see Appendix I) possibly reflect a situation where people may tend to be more involved because board members and administrators are more accessible in,/smaller school districts. Volunteerism in / foundations located in wealthy communities (see Appendix I) may also indicate economic circumstances where one or both parents do not have to work or are in positions where time is within their control. Findings in the literature also support the notion of noneducators in most aspects of foundation fundraising Credentialed teachers and administrators in public schools have little or no training or education to prepare them to manage a fund raising enterprise. Many of them see activities which are necessary to raise money (cultivation and solicitation of prospects) as unprofessional and inconsistent with the role of an educator. The complexity and magnitude of the fundraising task, and the greater exposure to highly organized and effective fundraising in metropolitan areas, enables most large district educators to overcome this bias. These types of districts

PAGE 157

140 recognize the need to employ a cadre of professional fundraisers to be successful. Some of the factors identified by the Public Education Fund (1988) as necessary for foundation success are found in the LEFs earning $100 or more per ADA and include: (1) socio economic and racial homogeneity of small affluent communities more readily promotes constituency building, often difficult in large urban areas with wide differences in socio-economic backgrounds, race, and ethnicity and (2) the longevity record of the majority of successful foundations indicates that they have had a long-term commitment to the school districts they support, an ingredient necessary for continued success. This factor was confirmed by an ANOVA (see Appendix H) which found that LEFs established between 1979-81 raised significantly more funds than those established after 1981. The data in Table 23 indicate that the two LEFs raising total funds of $1,000,000 or more during 1987-88 had characteristics more similar to each other and less similar to LEFs raising $100 or more per ADA. These foundations were initiated by nonparents and fundraising was conducted by a professional, paid staff. The literature indicated that urban foundations received the majority of their funding from private philanthropic foundations rather than from local fundraising and individual contributions, a finding also confirmed in the case study interviews.

PAGE 158

1 41 Findings indicate that the eleven local education foundations earning more than $1 00 per ADA are similar to each other. All but one are located in communities of less than 20,000 people. The majority of these LEFs are located in either San Mateo or Marin Counties, both identified as rich by Federal Poverty Guidelines (see Appendix 1). The ADA of each of the 11 districts does not exceed 5,000 students and 8 of the foundations support elementary school districts. According to the Federal Poverty Index, 9 (69%) are located in areas identified as "Rich." These research data confirm earlier predictions found in the literature that the most successful foundations would be in small districts located in affluent communities. The two local education foundations raising $1 ,000,000 or more in 1987-88 served large unified school districts in highly industrialized urban cities of average wealth. However, corporations, large businesses, and private philanthropic foundations located in these areas offer funding opportunities not as available in small communities. The level of success of urban LEFs may be attributed to the strong likelihood that school problems in large cities have increasingly become the concern of civic minded corporations, businesses, and philanthropies, thereby motivating support.

PAGE 159

142 Foundations in Practice: Four Case Studies Four local education foundations, defined as most successful by this researcher, were selected as participants for the case study reports. Topics investigated were foundation development, organization, operation, fund raising, programs, foundation successes, and district benefits. For purposes of clarity, 10 figures depicting the placement of the case study participants in the general descriptive characteristic profiles of the 113 foundations and foundation districts studied are included in Appendix J. Figure titles describe the specific characteristics being presented. The case study reports regarding LEFs A and B, the foundations raising the most funds per ADA, are presented first, followed by case study reports on LEFs C and 0, the foundations raising the most total funds during 1987-88. LEFA LEF A is located in a wealthy community in Marin County and serves a single elementary school district of fewer than 400 students. The current Base Revenue Limit of the district exceeds the Serrano band without foundation funds added. LEF A was initiated by parents after the passage of Proposition 13 in 1979 created diminishing resources for the district. The initial impetus for parents to establish a foundation was the impending dismissal of teachers because of loss of funds. No seed money was made available to start the foundation. As the foundation president of LEF A explained, "There was a move to dismiss

PAGE 160

143 several popular teachers for economic reasons. The parents rallied around and said, 'We think there is a better way of doing it. We think we can raise enough local money to keep them on.' It was obvious that they thought they would be raising money for a one-time effort. Time proved them wrong and the foundation continued." The Foundation President further stressed that parents in the school district wanted their children to attend a school which was, "well above the state's standard with smaller class size than what was allowed by the state." The present mission of the foundation is to provide additional funding for staff, programs, and facilities which will enable the school district to provide more than state requirements and maintain the educational program now existing in the district. The by-laws of LEF A provide for a foundation board of 12 directors and a foundation president chosen by the foundation board. No school district employee, including the superintendent, is a board member although the superintendent attends foundation board meetings. All foundation board members have children attending school in the district. When asked how board members were chosen, the Board President replied, "We have a nominating committee consisting of an individual lady, who has actually been around here longer than have. Her approach has been to ask 'Who is interested?... What skills do we need?' We look for skills. Then we look over our

PAGE 161

144 donor list to see if any of the people who demonstrated support in any way would be good board members. So there is no formula but there are two things looked for--skills and support." The foundation Board President noted, ... The foundation has actually acted as a sort of training ground for the [school] board. The present board of five has only one [member] who has not been on the board of the foundation . and at this point, we are all social friends. All the members of our [foundation] board know each other on a personal basis." Neither the foundation board president nor the superintendent stated explicitly whether foundation board members were also expected to be financial contributors to the foundation. The decision making relationship between the district and foundation is now coordinated through a committee called the Joint Committee on Priorities. Formed several years ago by the cu.rrent Superintendent, the Joint Committee consists of the Superintendent, two school board members, and the directors of the foundation board. They meet several times a year to discuss the school and foundation budgets, identify district needs, determine district priorities, and establish fund raising goals for programs the foundation will fund. Prior to this reorganization, the foundation acted independently and lacked direction from the district. The foundation's present role is to coordinate its goals and fund raising activities with the school district.

PAGE 162

145 The Superintendent spoke at length about his role in working with the foundation, stating, "We give them the glitz. That's maybe my contribution to the foundation ... to organize the budget in such a way that the community is aware that certain programs couldn't exist if it wasn't for the foundation. As small as this district is, I'm not sure this is the place for an administrator who hasn't had much experience. Because you can really get worked over by this community [including the foundation] and you can be intimidated by it. Because in the community, there are billionaires whose kids go to this school. .. and they come in with ideas, and you've got to find a way to harness that energy and direct it and get them to work through the processes. You also have to realize that big money people have expectations and they complain a lot and then towards the end, that tends to go away. Sometimes you have to really live through that for a while in terms of decisions you've made. So you live with that." Programs chosen to be funded by LEF A must fit into the entire district plan and are approved by the Joint Committee before being presented to the Board of Education. Foundation spending authority also rests with the Joint Committee which makes the funding decisions subsequently presented to the school board. Because of the close Joint Committee coordination process, the Superintendent stated that there have not been any problems with foundation funds at the school board level.

PAGE 163

146 There is no formal evaluation process for foundation funded programs nor a formal reporting process to foundation donors. Information regarding foundation funded programs is conveyed through district newsletters, parent organization newsletters, and staff members during Open House and Back to School Night. Since its formation in 1979, LEF A has raised in excess of $1,200,000. This amount does not include the $900,000 capital campaign recently concluded to convert the original school house, built in 1879, into a district library. Total funds raised in 1987-88 reached $161,000 excluding the capital campaign contributions. LEF A has no endowment fund. Part-time clerical help is employed by the foundation. The hourly wage is minimal but is thought to maintain a level of motivation and serious effort. A professional fund raiser was hired by the foundation board to run the recent capital campaign fund drive to renovate the original school into a library. The school district provides office space, telephone, and janitorial service for the foundation. The foundation president estimated that 1987-88 fundraising efforts cost LEF A about 9% of the total funds raised. Most of these overhead costs were to used pay the salary of the professional fund raiser hired to! the library effort. The Superintendent considered the annual auction as the most successful fund raising event and the general solicitations of individuals as the least successful. Donated items for the auction have included vacations in the U.S.A. and Europe, automobiles (Rolls Royce and Jaguar) and even a vasectomy!

PAGE 164

147 Possible conflicts between the foundation and the district's other fundraising organization, the P.T.A. have not occurred because of the close communication between the two groups. Fundraising by LEF A has enabled the school district to offer students more educational opportunities, highly trained teachers, smaller class size, and a new, well stocked library. According to the Superintendent, "every kid and teacher benefits." Examples of programs offered to students and funded (wholly or partially) by the foundation include K-8 Spanish, classroom aides, general music/strings instruction, field trip transportation, and counseling. When asked if regular district funding could provide these programs, the Superintendent replied ... these programs would be cut. It would be a very basic school. Grades 6-8 are organized like a middle school. I'm sure that would disappear, too. .. We're becoming more and more dependent upon foundation dollars to continue the programs that we now have." The addition of foundation funds averaging $543 per student allows the district budget to cover expenditures extending beyond the basic programs mandated by the state. Foundation funds provide teachers in the district money for inservice opportunities. In addition, money is available to staff members for conflict management training thereby helping them to be more effective in working with peers, students, and parents As the Superintendent proudly stated, "Here's a school

PAGE 165

148 with 22 staff members with an $8000 plus staff development budget. With these resources, there aren't too many places that people can't go to and I feel it's made a definite impact on the staff." During the interview process, the Foundation President and the Superintendent were asked separately why they thought LEF A was so successful. Both noted the size of the community as being the key factor for success The Foundation President explained, "The people love this community and they love this school. School is the number one civic activity of the community. We have no civic activity other than school. It is not big enough to have a symphony orchestra or magnificent town hall. The school is really identified as the center of town activity. There is an awful lot of loyalty... People love living in this community and one way they like to express that delight is by contributing to the school. I don't think there is any other way of explaining the tremendous amount of support we get." The Superintendent expressed a belief that he played an important role in creating the conditions of success, stating, "I think that there is a lot of trust in the leadership of the school and I think that s a lot of comfort because they kind of tested me out. Since then, I've really had a free hand in what I wanted to do, including from the foundation board."

PAGE 166

149 LEFB LEF B, like LEF A, is located in a small, wealthy community in the San Francisco Bay Area. The foundation serves an elementary school district consisting of one K-8 school. The district's Base Revenue Limit falls within the Serrano Band By 1979, Base Revenue Limits created by the Serrano Decision, Proposition 13, and declining enrollment had all combined to create a large budget deficit in the district. The response by several parents was to initiate a foundation in order to provide a means of making up lost state revenues. The superintendent explained, "Our base revenue limit is about $500 less than a neighboring school district and that seemed very unfair. If we had $500 more per student, we would have an additional $155,000 which is a lot in a small school district, so this figure was used as a guideline originally, $500 per child. The foundation gave the parents of this district a tax deductible way to provide the additional dollars to the school district budget in order to maintain staff and programs they wanted to continue. This original mission of the foundation, to raise approximately $500 per student annually, is unchanged." The foundation received no seed money during the time it was initiated and established. In LEF B, the foundation board consists of 10 members There is an unwritten expectation that each member will be a donor. No district employee, including the Superintendent, is a foundation board member although the Superintendent does attend

PAGE 167

150 meetings. New board members are chosen by the current board; the president is selected by the foundation board. According to the superintendent, "When vacancies occur, the Board picks its own people to replace them. It's not an election where we advertise through a newsletter. They just try to get other people they know [who] have an interest in working on the foundation [who have] an expertise in investments and things like that." The Superintendent defined the role of LEF B in the school district as ... a completely supportive role since its inception. The foundation board trusts the school district to do with the money what it sees fit. We have a credibility in the community and credibility with our parents and I think they feel we are doing a good job." Unlike most local education foundations, the board of LEF B does not determine how foundation raised funds will be allocated. All monies received by the foundation are given directly to the Board of Education without restriction. The Superintendent explained that the foundation directors relied on the school board and her to set the priorities for the allocation of foundation raised funds. Besides the high trust level which always existed between the foundation directors and the school board members, the Superintendent pointed out an additional reason why the School Board had control over foundation raised funds stating, "I think it's very important in any District that parents who are contributing to foundations not have a larger

PAGE 168

voice in the school than parents who are not contributing, for obvious reasons." 1 51 Fundraising goals are established by the foundation board after a determination is made as to the amount of money necessary to maintain existing programs. At present, foundation funds comprise 15% of the school district's operating fund. No funds are spent on foundation staffing; all services are volunteered and expenses were limited to stationery and stamps. In 1987-88, total foundation funds raised exceeded $148,000 resulting in additional funding of $503 per student. With foundation raised funds added to the district's Base Revenue Limit of $2727 per student, the district's BRL exceeded the Serrano Band in 1987-88. The foundation's sole fundraising effort, direct solicitation of parents and community members, is considered very successful. Success of this strategy, according to the Superintendent, is due to the wealth of the community. She explained, "I think if I was in another district with a much lower socio-economic clientele that the direct solicitation may not be a factor. Because of the socio-economic level of our donors, the direct solicitation is effective. I don't think it's the strategy as much, but it's the community." Some difficulties are caused by the various fundraising activities sponsored by different groups within the school, but efforts were being made to coordinate all the fund raising in the district so parents were not continually being solicited.

PAGE 169

152 The unrestricted additional funding provided to the school board by the foundation allows the district to reduce class size, the number one priority in the district as reported to parents. District class size averages 22 students. The Superintendent affirmed this commitment stating, "The priority in this district has been small class size and, so typically, the foundation enables us to have four additional teachers on staff ... or four teachers' worth of programs." In addition to the classroom teachers, the school district provides credentialed specialists for Art, Music, Musical Theatre, Physical Education, the Library, and the Learning Lab. The Learning Lab provides support for students in K-8 with skill building and enrichment activities. It is staffed with a part-time teacher, a full-time learning specialist teacher, and a five hour instructional aide. Study skills are a regular part of the sixth grade program. LEF 8 provides the majority of funds for these programs. All students in the district benefit from the small class size and enrichment opportunities according to the Superintendent. The school's recent report card (mandated by Proposition 98) indicates that student averages in all areas tested ranged between 96-99% on the 1987-88 California .. Assessment Program (C.A.P.) tests. Student achievement over three years on the C.A.P. tests qualified the school to apply for, and be named, a California Distinguished School. This recognition is the highest honor a school can achieve from the state. Seventh

PAGE 170

and eighth graders from the school won individual medals and first prizes for overall competition with private and public schools in the County Academic Pentathlon. The district's 153 faculty participated in math, science, writing, literature and enrichment workshops. Professional growth was supported with foundation money budgeted for conferences, workshops, release time and staff development days. When asked what would happen to the school district if foundation funds were no longer available, the Superintendent predicted that average class sizes would increase to 28 students. She based this prediction on the fact that prior to foundation funding, reductions in district revenues had caused physical education, foreign language, and fine arts programs to be dropped. The Accountability Report Card, sent to all parents, states, "Without the financial support of the parents and community, the quality of education for our children would suffer The wealth of the community was identified by the Superintendent as the major factor for the success of LEF B. She discussed other possible factors contributing to the foundation's success by stating, "I think the high commitment that the parents have to the quality of their child's education and toward a small class size has been very important. The amount of time and energy that is focused in on the school and the reputation of the school, all of those things contribute."

PAGE 171

154 LEFC LEF C, located in a large, urban area, supports a unified school district and is considered a national leader among educational foundations. The Base Revenue Limit of the district falls within the Serrano Band. Initiated in 1979 by the trustees of a local philanthropic foundation, it was organized at a time when the city's educational system was considered highly ineffective by the community. The founders of LEF C believed that community resources to improve the large urban school district could be tapped through an education foundation. The initiating philanthropic foundation provided "seed" money to LEF C which covered the first two years' operating costs. At its inception, the mission of LEF C was to improve the quality of public education in the city. The original mission, the executive director explained, "has not lost its integrity but has expanded its scope by continuing to build a broader constituency for the public schools.... It's purpose is to ask everyone to be an investor in the [city's] public school system through the Ed Fund." LEF C has a foundation board of 30 directors, one of which is chosen president by the foundation board. The foundation uses a socio-economic matrix in an attempt to create a broad representative of the diverse elements of the community. The Executive Director commented on the selection of board members, "We made a matrix so people are chosen now according to our need for diversity. We look at the ethnic distribution and the skills and expertise that we want.... And then we look at

PAGE 172

155 where the gaps are and ask the board members and anyone else who could nominate a candidate. When we are really considering someone, we call them up and ask them if they are interested, ask for their resume, take them out to lunch, talk with them, and then decide whether or not appointing them is a good thing to do." In response to a question regarding financial support by members of the foundation board, her reply was, "Everyone [board members] is expected to be a financial contributor of some measure ... but we do not mean by that that you are asked to join this Board because we know that you are able to give us $3,000 or $10,000 up front." The board has multiple committees, necessitating a large number of directors to fill the many committee positions. In the words of the Executive Director, "If you are going to run an organization that really does manage and give staff the support of so many committees, you have to have board members who are free and able to serve on these committees. It's very laborious and intensive but, again, in the interest of constituency building and bringing people in and working it very democratically, that's the way we do it." Few, if any, parents are LEF board members and no district employee is a voting member on either board. The role of school district staff is strictly advisory. However, the President of the Board of Education selects a school board member to sit as a voting member of the foundation board. The Superintendent

PAGE 173

works directly with the Executive Director and major contributors to the foundation. 156 All decisions regarding allocations of foundation raised funds are made solely by the Foundation Board of LEF C and then presented to the school board for acceptance. The principles of LEF C which best define its role are stated as follows : the foundation will support only those programs which are needed and wanted in the district; the foundation will supplement rather than supplant district funding obligations; and the foundation will work cooperatively with the Board of Education and Superintendent of Schools. LEF C is not considered a local education foundation, but rather a local education fund. The Handbook, printed by the Public Education Fund, provides the following definition for a Local Education Fund. A local Education Fund is a third-party nonprofit entity whose agenda, at least in part, consists of developing supportive community and private sector relationships with a public school system. It provides limited private sector support to launch initiatives and broker relationships leading toward school improvement. (1988, p. 2) The role of the foundation as an independent third party, legally and philosophically separate from the board of education and the school district, was stressed by the executive director. It is this third party role, she believes, that allows the LEF to establish trust and act as an intermediary between the community and the schools on a permanent basis.

PAGE 174

157 The trust level now enjoyed by LEF C and the school district was not present in the beginning, according to the Executive Director. She stated, "It [the relationship between LEF C and the school district] became a problem when we began to latch on to meaningful funding. The school board and even the school district began to think that we were stepping into the area of staff development and things that the schools had traditionally been doing. Besides that, the school board was not fully consulted and they felt they should have a greater role in the allocation of funding and should be able to take credit." Describing the current trust level between the foundation and the school district as the best it has ever been, the Executive Director explained how LEF C has built trust. In her words, ... we have built trust by humble access to teachers and principals through the magic of small grants. We have built trust with the school board by assuring them that we are not going to be politically active and we have built trust with our teachers and top district people through extensive use of collaboratives." The routine activities of LEF C are carried out by 14 full time staff members, 6 project coordinators, and more than 50 volunteers. The foundation's paid positions include executive director, finance director, bookkeeper, 2 administrative assistants, program director, allocations director, 5 development officers, evaluation director, and marketing director. The project coordinators are usually school district employees and work at the school sites.

PAGE 175

158 The interview revealed that LEF C made a conscious decision at its formation to target the teacher in his/her individual classroom as the most effective way to improve the district's public schools. The Executive Director explained, "Our philosophy from the beginning was that schools knew what they needed and wanted and we were going to listen. We were going to be value free. We weren't going to develop our own program. We were located within the fabric of the schools. This condition has changed a little now because we know in the 90's that we have to be a catalyst for change because everyone needs it." To improve student achievement and provide more learning opportunities for students, LEF C strives to motivate, and stimulate teachers. By awarding small grants to individuals teachers, the foundation helps them create their own special projects to meet student needs. Enough money to fund 150 teacher created programs and a smaller number of school team grants is allocated annually. Awards range from a maximum of $1 ,000 for half-year projects to $5000 for full year projects .. Approximately one-third of all teacher initiated projects are funded each year. More would be supported if funds were available. According to foundation literature, grant proposals are solicited from the school sites twice a year, reviewed and selected by the foundation's allocation committee. In addition, LEF C makes a small number of year-long school team grants up to $5,000 for projects implemented by a team of teachers led by the

PAGE 176

159 principal or department head. Since its inception in 1979, LEF C has allocated over $600,000 for more than 1300 Small Grants' projects. Approximately 50% of the projects are evaluated each year by the Evaluation Committee {board members and LEF C volunteers) at their respective sites. The evaluation committee observes the program and talks with teachers and students, seeking to identify the factors which made the project successful. Site visits are also used as an opportunity to improve teacher morale and as a way to become aware of new ideas for future project development. All Small Grants' recipients are required to complete a narrative and financial report for the foundation. Project reports are annually published and disseminated to the district's schools and teachers LEF C has increasingly become involved in developing programs through the Collaborative approach. Collaboratives are major efforts to integrate community resources in support of the school district's goals of improving teaching and the curriculum. Most often, more than one school site is affected and in the case of national collaboratives, different school districts are involved. Although the collaborative projects encompass the entire district rather than a single classroom or school, the Executive Director explained, "They are still predicated on the idea that the teachers are the primary force in educational reform. Using community resources including universities, businesses, museums, and multicultural organizations, teachers are given the

PAGE 177

160 opportunity to free thems-elves from the isolation of the classroom to interact with peers from throughout the district, and learn from community experts in their fields. Through working with noted institutions, organizations, and individual, teachers are provided with the methods, materials, and support necessary to provide improved instruction and greater educational opportunities for their students." Prospects for funding collaborative programs are first sought by the LEF staff. Unlike the Small Grants Program, the major programs and collaboratives are initiated by the foundation staff. Often program ideas also come from major philanthropic foundations such as Rockefeller or Ford. They have specific programs for which the school district may qualify. It is the responsibility of the foundation staff to be aware of these funding opportunities which are appropriate for the school district. After the staff gathers the initial information about a potential program, two steps must be taken. First, school district staff is consulted to determine if the program is acceptable. Secondly, information about the proposed program coupled with the obligations the LEF would need to assume if the program were chosen for funding are presented to the foundation Program Development Committee. It is this committee's responsibility to either direct foundation staff to pursue the adoption of the program or drop the proposal. If staff are directed to continue, program details as well as funding assurances are prepared and then presented to the foundation

PAGE 178

1 61 Board of Directors for approval. If approved, LEF C will have its recommendation presented to the district school board for acceptance. Major programs and collaboratives depend upon additional funds from private philanthropy for full implementation. Contributors receive publications reporting foundation expenditures through the foundation's public relations office. Major foundations and corporations providing restricted funding also receive detailed budget program and evaluation reports LEF C has raised more than $10,000,000 since its inception, including the Endowment Fund. The endowment fund, initiated in 1986, met its goal of $3,000,000 in May 1989. During 1987-88, LEF C raised funds totaling $1,300,000, averaging $21.00 per student. When foundation raised funds were added to the district's BRL, the Base Revenue Limit remained within the Serrano Band. LEF C attempts to raise funds from all sectors of the community in which it is located Funds are solicited from philanthropic organizations and corporations as well as from individual contributors. Individual fund raising is conducted through personal solicitations, cultivation events, year-end requests, direct mail, and the annual Holiday Luncheon. Funding needs for the Small Grants Program are financed by individual fundraising efforts and through the foundation's endowment fund. The annual Holiday Luncheon was considered the foundation's most successful fundraising event. For the Luncheon, businesses,

PAGE 179

corporations, and individuals purchase tables at prices high enough to generate revenues considerably in excess of costs. 162 The least successful fundraising effort was identified as the direct solicitation of individuals for contributions. The estimated annual cost to fund raise is 11% of the total funds raised. Fundraising goals are established each February when the foundation board and foundation staff determine what money is necessary for program commitment as well as the minimal financial needs of ongoing Collaborative projects. The fund raising goal for 1989-1990 was $1.9 million. Possible funding sources are reviewed along with projected budget obligations in order to set funding goals. Fundraising by other groups within the school district does not negatively impact foundation fundraising efforts. The Executive Director attributes this fact to the large size of the school district and the situation that other fund raising efforts are conducted by parents at individual school sites. The Small Grants Program is entirely supported by foundation funds. Collaborative projects are funded through a combination of foundation and district resources. Collaborative projects currently being implemented in the school district include: Mathematics Collaborative, Science Collaborative, Improving Urban Elementary Science, the Arts Project, the Humanities Education, Research and Language Development

PAGE 180

163 (HERALD) Project, the Peer Resource Program, the School Library Project, and the Teacher Disseminator Project. The Executive Director estimated that approximately 800 teachers have been involved in collaborative projects in a single year and one-third of the district's students (20,000-25,000) are annually affected by either the Small Grants Program or the Collaborative projects. Teacher opportunities to improve their instructional expertise are available through Collaboratives in Math, Science, Arts, and Humanities. The Peer Resource Program involves training of high school students to enable them to work with peers on such issues as drop-out prevention, AIDS education, substance abuse, academic achievement,and campus violence. Peer Resource Programs reach about 18,000 students annually. Thirty-one elementary school libraries were provided a basic collection of classical and children's literature through foundation funds in order to provide additional support for the literature-based instruction program. When asked what would happen to the Small Grants Program and the Collaborative projects if foundation funds were no longer available, the Executive Director answered, "I feel the impact would fall mostly on the teachers and the school sites.... The money that is raised by a school foundation has as much impact in human value as it does in monetary value." She explained that the amount of foundation funds raised has little effect on the school district budget of nearly

PAGE 181

164 $250,000,000. She predicted that without foundation funds, there would no longer be a Small Grants Program for teachers and most classroom teachers would not be able to implement new ideas or approaches requiring additional funding. Since district personnel costs were shared by the foundation and the district in some Collaborative projects, the district budget would be affected if the foundation were no longer there to pick up its share of salaries. The school board would need to decide whether or not the Collaborative projects would continue. The Executive Director attributed the success of LEF C to ... people knowing and caring out there. In 1979, I didn't know if anyone in the universe would invest a penny in the public schools The most important factor of the success of [LEF C] has been that it truly is a grass roots movement...people taking into their own hands the responsibility for their community." The Executive Director also noted the initiating foundation's financial support and organizational expertise, the dedication of the members of the first foundation board, and the fortuitous timing of the formation of LEF C as factors instrumental in the foundation's success. She explained that the foundation was established after an intensive study of the school district by the Office of State Superintendent of Education created an awareness of the problems facing the school district, and community leaders were ready to become involved in hopes of improving the system.

PAGE 182

165 In her concluding comments, the Executive Director shared what she felt was the real value LEF C brought to the school district, stating, "We have built an infra-structure that has introduced the school district to the good will -and the possibilities of really opening up the schools to community participation. They have received nothing but good things in return: encouragement, collegiality, respect and resources. The joyful thing is to see that the foundation can be an intermediary, caring enough to put people together and patient enough to see what happens. We've really shown the community that public schools aren't foreign, that they are something the community should pay attention to. The kids are promising! I am humbled when I go out there and find that people come up to me and tell me how much the foundation means. I'm really heartened by the effect of this non-profit and what it has been able to do." LEFD LEF D is located in an urban area and supports a large, unified school district. The district Base Revenue Limit falls within the Serrano Band. The effort to establish the foundation was initiated in 1983 by two community members concerned about the effectiveness of the city's public schools. In order to gain the initial support of banks and utility companies, the proposed foundation was organized and promoted to include the city school district and several other districts in the metropolitan area.

PAGE 183

Although LEF D legally includes more than one district, in actuality only the city public school district is supported. 166 During efforts to gather supporters for an LEF, one of the initiators learned of the Public Education Fund (PEF). It was looking for urban school districts to support. The Executive Director recounted the PEF's dilemma, ... they [PEF] had crossed our city, Chicago, and New York off because New York was too political, Chicago was hopeless, and no one knew anyone here and they thought it was too big!" After some careful examination, the founders decided that the philosophy of the new LEF D matched that of the PEF. They applied for and were awarded seed money by the PEF. The award centered upon the announced intention of LEF D to become an independent educational fund rather than an education foundation. The Executive Director expressed her perception of the choice as follows, "Frequently, the problem the PEF has is getting people to be independent of school districts, to make independent judgments. That is probably the single most important thing of what is different between the public education funds and the rest of the foundations. That's why David Bergholz [president of PEF] has a terrible struggle with the California Consortium of Education Foundations; he thinks most of them don't have their own mission." In 1984, a steering committee composed of 40 influential community members authorized the formation of LEF D and filed for State and Federal 501 (C)(3) status.

PAGE 184

167 The original mission of LEF D was to improve the city's schools and strengthen the public's perception about education. This mission has since changed to reflect the current crises facing the city's schools, according to the executive director. The new mission statement reads "[LEF D] mobilizes the private sector to reform public education in the [name of city] area." The organization of LEF D has three main components: Board of Directors, Advisory Councils, and Foundation Staff. The Board of Directors consists of 33 members and reflects the ethnic diversity of the Community. Board members are selected through a nominating process for a renewable 3 year term. The foundation board chairperson is selected by the nominating committee for a two year term. When asked if parents of children attending schools in the district served on the foundation board, the Executive Director replied, "Very few. It is not a parent organization at all. We have tried all along to get parents on our board, but because we meet downtown, the affluent parents won't come downtown and the parent leaders from the inner city schools have already been hired as part-time aides in the district so we can not take them on our board." No school district employees serve on the board because the foundation is independent of the school district. Foundation board members are expected to be financial contributors, either personally or through their businesses. The Foundation Board of LEF D has the sole decision making power over what programs the foundations will choose to

PAGE 185

168 fund. The role of district staff and school board members is to serve as advisors or consultants when asked. The Executive Director recounted that from the beginning the independent role of LEF D was philosophically accepted by both the Superintendent and the School Board. She further explained, "Trust has been established by acting as friends of the schools. We are not a business community getting into school bashing. We are not going to do anything reformers within the school district wouldn't want to do.... We still feel we can perform the greatest role by creating a dialogue between those who'd like to tear up the district, tear up the schools, and those who are aware of the reality of what's going on." The District Superintendent plays a key role in the foundation. As the top administrator in the school district, not only does he meet with foundation staff, community leaders, and corporation executives, he approves funds to provide the district financial support necessary for collaborative projects. The school board approves the amount of the district's instructional budget but it does not address specific expenditures. The current Superintendent, according to the Executive Director, would like more decision making power over the allocation of foundation raised funds. LEF D employs six full-time staff members, including the executive director. In addition, three to four LEF staff members are funded, partially or wholly, by the school district. When asked about the propriety of school district employees working

PAGE 186

169 for the foundation, the Executive Director replied, "I don't know if the school board knows.... It's all arranged through the instructional division or whatever is appropriate. In its role as an independent third party catalyst for reform in the city school system, LEF D has attempted to implement the restructuring efforts recommended by the California Business Roundtable. The Roundtable advised that if reform is to occur, school systems must be decentralized and teachers empowered to better meet the needs of their students. Teacher empowerment is one of two primary focus areas chosen by LEF D to reform public education in the city. The empowerment consists of participation by teachers in collaborative projects which gives teachers an opportunity to make decisions, direct their own professional development, network with colleagues and enliven the profession. A second focus is the commitment to serve the broad range of ethnicity in the city as reflected in LEF D's philosophy statement which reads, "In a city whose people reflect the widest variety of backgrounds, [LEF D] operates from the conviction that cultural diversity is an asset to be treasured and preserved. [LEF D] programs respond to the needs of the schools' wide mix of people and cultures." The foundation's teacher-based programs seem to have facilitated professional development, networking, recognition, and decision making. Many student centered programs funded by

PAGE 187

170 the foundation are geared toward the large minority population and "at-risk" student population. Programs funded partially or wholly by LEF D fall into two main categories: Small Grants for Teachers and Collaborative Projects. Program funding decisions are made during the annual foundation board retreat. Prior to the retreat, the foundation staff gathers input from school district staff, studies visible community needs, and reviews programs that major foundations are seeking to fund which are appropriate for the school district. The purpose of LEF D is to supplement current or new efforts, not to replace any portion of state financing. Programs chosen for support reflect this concept. After the foundation makes its choices, funding sources are sought by the foundation board and staff. Program reports requested by the philanthropic foundations funding major collaborative projects are comprehensive and completed by the foundation staff. Most corporations do not request or receive written reports. The Small Grants for Teachers Program is evaluated by school and foundation staff. There is no formalized process for the foundation to report to the school board. Various foundation publications report income and program expenditures and are available to individual community members. With a paid professional staff, LEF D is able to pursue the support of major private foundations and corporations through active fund raising efforts and proposal writing. The

PAGE 188

1 71 collaboratives in the district are funded through this means. The Executive Director of LEF D noted that the major private foundations provided two-thirds of the annual funds raised. Other significant funding was provided by the city's business community. She noted that individual solicitation was the least productive method of fundraising and it was becoming increasingly difficult to raise unrestricted money. However, the effort continues. Foundation board members are requested to list 6 to 20 prospective contributors who are then contacted. Funds raised through this strategy account for less than 10% of total funds raised. LEF D has raised approximately $10,000,000 since 1984. Foundation funds raised in 1987-88 totaled $1,800,000 which averaged $3.00 per pupil Indirect costs associated with foundation fund raising approximated 10% of total funds raised. LEF D has no endowment fund. The Executive Director reports that district fund raising efforts do not affect foundation fund raising because these efforts are located at the school sites. The Small Grants for Teachers program was the first program LEF D offered to the school district. Since its beginning, $750,000 toward innovative projects has been awarded to over 2000 teachers in 474 district schools. Team grants are also awarded which enable teachers to provide an interdisciplinary approach to learning for students. Each team grant award is $400. The central purpose of the Small Grants to Teachers program is to enable classroom teachers and site leaders to

PAGE 189

172 improve educational opportunities to students in the classroom and to demonstrate to teachers the community's commitment to education. Small grants projects are evaluated in the first two years of their implementation. The Executive Director spoke enthusiastically about the value of the program, explaining, "What the small grants program does for teachers is remarkable. A principal's budget for the whole year, discretionary money, is $1800. We're talking about an elementary school that has between 1500 and 2000 students. Our small grants are $400 per teacher. That goes a long way. You know what it does in the classroom and it really relieves the school budget." In addition to the Small Grants for Teachers' program, LEF D funds, either wholly or partially, the following collaborative projects and initiatives: +PLUS+ (Professional Links with Urban Schools). Funded through the Ford Foundation, the goal of this program is to improve math education in inner-city schools. According to foundation litera,ture, 320 teachers in 22 senior high schools are working to improve student achievement by involving teachers in intensive staff development, emphasizing team building, departmental planning, modernization of the math curriculum, and creating networking opportunities for teachers with resources in business and industry. TARGET SCIENCE. This program provides training from community science experts for K-12 teachers. Over a four year period, city high schools, 24 junior high schools and 48

PAGE 190

173 elementary schools have participated In addition to staff development, programs are developed to encourage parental involvement and grants are awarded for special science projects. Humanitas. A teacher directed program, Humanitas aims to strengthen the humanities in the city's high schools through interdisciplinary, thematic writing instruction. In 25 high schools, teams of teachers coordinate instruction in English, art, history, social studies, and science or math. The program is conducted through collaboratives with local universities and cultural institutions. IISME (Industry Initiatives for Science and Math Education) This program provides an opportunity for professional growth to science, math, and computer science teachers during the summer through 9 week paid fellowships in local private industry and university laboratories. Televenture. Fifty-nine fellowships have been awarded. To help eliminate the isolation of the classroom teacher, this communications network provides teachers participating in the +PLUS+ and Target Science programs to communicate within the school district and with colleagues in universities and private industry. Thirty-three district schools are now participating; 120 schools are expected to join the program by 1992. Focus on Youth. The goal of this program is to prevent at-risk students from leaving school early. Community health and human service agencies work with the school to address the nonacademic needs of students. Foundation literature reports

PAGE 191

174 that at one high school, the overall dropout rate of 60 percent was reduced to 12.4 percent with Focus students. The Executive Director noted that the dropout rate was dramatically reduced in all participating schools and that grades also began to improve. Because of this program 's value, the area superintendent now ties participation in this program to employee evaluations and has asked for this program in all the schools. Focus on Youth is currently in 24 elementary, junior and senior high schools in the district. Model Technology Schools. Using a variety of modern technology, immigrant students are given the opportunity to improve language arts skills and become exposed to a wide range of subjects The project is in 2 elementary schools, 1 junior high and 1 senior high school. Academy of Finance. This program provides an opportunity for students to learn about the world's economic system through a serialized curriculum and internship program. Special training is also offered to teachers. There are 93 students currently in the programs. The Executive Director found it difficult to estimate the number or percentage of students and teachers directly or indirectly affected by foundation funded programs. She identified this as an area foundation staff was examining, stressing, however, that major programs funded by LEF D are not considered singular efforts and "from the beginning, the goal is to look at institutionalizing it [the program]."

PAGE 192

175 In terms of actual dollars, the impact of the loss of foundation funds would not be severe because the district budget exceeds 3 billion dollars If foundation funding were no longer available, the Executive Director predicted that collaboratives funded by LEF D would not disappear. She explained that the foundation will sponsor major program initiatives only if the school district proves its commitment to the program by sharing fiscal responsibilities, referring to the system as a "joint venture." In the program's beginning, LEF D assumes the major responsibility which lessens over the next several years. She explained, "When we are finished, the district staff know where all the resources are and the program isn't dropped from the district. We use grant monies to pay first two-thirds, then one half, and finally, one third of the salary. As a mechanism for private sector involvement, that gives us a buy-in I think, even as we turn some projects over to the school district, we continue, for a while, to pay a portion of salaries, not because they would be lost if we didn't, but because it is important." The Small Grants for Teachers program would most likely not continue without foundation support because it is entirely funded by the foundation The Executive Director stated that foundation funding for staff development has become even more crucial because severe budget cutbacks have taken place in the district. She noted, "We try to stay flexible to take advantage of opportunities. We never thought district budget reductions for staff development would be a foundation

PAGE 193

176 opportunity. But as it turns out, our sponsored Collaborative Programs focus on providing teachers with the necessary skills and networking to implement reform in the district's instructional program. Without the opportunities for teacher participation in the collaborative, there would be little, if any, staff development. This is what would be lost if foundation funding were to disappear." The Executive Director attributed the success of LEF D to several factors. The first was timing. LEF D was formed soon after the passage of SB 813 in 1983. SB 813 was a multi-faceted reform measure passed by the California Legislature to improve public K-12 education in the state. Second, she identified the support of the P.E.F. (Public Education Fund) with its organizational expertise and financial support as a major factor in the foundation's success A third factor she cited was the existence of a continuing_, knowledgeable, committed and carefully selected foundation board. Summary Discussion The case study interviews revealed important differences, extending beyond fundraising results, between LEFs A and 8 (which raised the most funds per ADA) and LEFs C and D (which raised the most total funds). There were basic philosophical differences in the interpretation of the mission of the local education foundation and the use of the funds raised LEFs A and 8 make raising enough money to restore or maintain educational

PAGE 194

177 programs considered essential to the district the highest priority. LEFs C and D, faced with the problem of meeting the needs of a much larger, diverse enrollment, make building a supportive constituency for the district's schools and financing pilot and collaborative programs to improve and reform education their highest priority. LEFs A and 8 The primary mission of LEFs A and 8 to raise funds for their respective school districts has remained constant from the beginning. Each LEF supports an elementary district in a small, wealthy community whose revenues were reduced. Foundation funds were utilized to supplement district funding in order to maintain or restore expenditure choices which were threatened or lost by the effect of equal funding laws, tax limitation measures and increased state control. Parents had become accustomed to the kind of comprehensive educational activities a wealthy community could provide and wanted to continue in much the same way. They felt no need to reform or change the educational program which had served them so well. LEFs A and 8 supported districts which shared an important characteristic which has enabled them to achieve their similar educational goals through a successful foundation; there was a consensus of purpose in each community. The leader groups of the foundation and the school district were well known, trusted, and in many instances, had alternately served as board members and

PAGE 195

178 foundation directors. There was frequent interaction between the district and the foundation and decisions regarding foundation funds were made or influenced by the respective boards. Both LEFs A and B have BRLs which exceed the Serrano band. Were it not also the case that the most recent Serrano decision (1984) declared that the state's school finance system was constitutional and "sufficient compliance had been achieved," ( Ed Source, 1990, p. 12). they would both have been considered in violation of equity laws. The Base Revenue Limit of each LEF district is important in its own way. The BRL of the district supported by LEF A was already well above the upper limit of the Serrano band before the addition of funds raised by the foundation. It is an excellent example of an apparent inequity which was allowed to remain and subsequently legitimized by the state's effort to "phase in" full implementation of the original Serrano decision Foundation funds merely added to the advantageous position it enjoyed. The district supported by LEF B is more important to this study. It is one of only three districts in the state whose fund raising successes enabled their BRL to exceed the upper limits of the Serrano Band As long as the legal enactments and judicial interpretations remain as decided in 1984, it need not fear court action. However, it and the other two that exceed the Serrano Band limits because of successful fund raising, serve as an example of the potential within the school foundation movement to unbalance fiscal equity.

PAGE 196

179 Small enrollment (fewer than 300 students), high success in fund raising (more than $500 per ADA) and community resolve to preserve educational quality were factors which led their respective superintendents to feel that each student and teacher benefitted from the efforts of the foundation. Class size has remained small, counselors and specialty teachers have been retained, enrichment programs have continued, but a new problem has been created. Both superintendents acknowledged a heavy dependency on the funds raised by their foundations to maintain existing district expenditure choices. Each felt that loss of these revenues would have a serious, detrimental effect on the educational program, and make them like other districts in the state. They believed many parents would abandon the district and enroll their children in private schools. LEFs C and D The mission of LEFs C and 0 has also remained constant since their formation. However, there the resemblance to LEFs A and B ended. Because the problems they faced as foundations supporting large, urban districts were vastly different from those encountered by most other schools in the state, they felt they must reform and improve the education they offered. To accomplish these goals, the foundation boards believed their first task was to create a visible, active constituency among parents, teachers, businessmen and civic leaders. They felt that without

PAGE 197

180 strong and persistent advocacy, changes would be short-lived and cosmetic. Efforts to begin viable and lasting reform were directed in two identifiable and reinforcing directions. One thrust was to establish and operate pilot programs which combined effective teaching methods and strategies with new or proven materials These programs were seen as a way to address the diverse learning needs of the students more comprehensively and effectively. They were planned to involve as many resources of the community as possible. Teachers networking with other teachers, university experts, and even business and civic leaders, were seen as the primary change agents in the process. These pilot programs were considered collaborative projects, conceived and developed by the foundations but requiring participation by the district in the form of funding and staff support. The second approach was to award competitive teacher mini-grants for the purpose of encouraging the use of new methods, materials and strategies in individual classroom. Application to the foundation was made each year by district teachers who proposed ways to improve curriculum and instruction in their own classrooms. There was tacit understanding that more of the same was not working so those proposals which sought to meet the needs of a changing student population were encouraged. A part of the program was the requirement to monitor, evaluate, and disseminate methods and results. It was felt that this was the best way to spread

PAGE 198

1 81 improvement throughout the district given the limited resources available. In both of these approaches, the classroom teacher was recognized as the key to reform. A concerted effort was made to acknowledge and recognize teachers who achieved their goals. In contrast to LEF districts A and B, individual teachers and student of LEF districts C and D did not have an opportunity to benefit directly from foundation fund raising. Class size remained large and expenditure choices supported by LEFs A and B remained limited or nonexistent in the large urban districts. Contributions from parents of districts C and D were not a factor in fund raising. Corporations, businesses, and nearby private foundations were the major sources of money. The funds that were raised were used to supplement rather than supplant district revenues. Professional fundraisers planned, organized, and implemented the fundraising effort and the foundation maintained a role which was independent from but cooperative with the district administration and board. With regard to the real or potential impact of LEFs C an D on fiscal equity, it was minimal. Loss of funds would likely mean complete abolition of the teacher mini-grant program but a large portion of the collaborative projects could be saved, if the district picked up the total cost. It is not likely that most students would be aware of or experience these losses. The group that would feel it most would be the foundation and district staffs, teachers, and community leaders who recognize the urgent

PAGE 199

182 need for change. The loss would not be felt so much in tangible ways. It would be a loss of aspirations, momentum, and initiative.

PAGE 200

CHAPTERV SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, IMPLICATIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS This chapter includes the summary, conclusions, and implications of the research, and recommendations for further study. Summary The major purpose of this research was to determine the effect of local education foundations upon fiscal and program equity in California's public schools. In addition, the study was to compile a general descriptive profile of these foundations and foundation districts and provide an in-depth examination of local education foundations defined as most successful. The population of the study included 113 local education foundations in California and the school district each supports. Four local education foundations defined as most successful were examined as the case study subjects. Thirty-one out of fifty randomly selected nonfoundation districts in California participated in the mail survey.

PAGE 201

184 The research consisted of a two phase design and was intended to generate descriptive, quantitative and qualitative data. The data were derived from foundation reports, fiscal and enrollment documents published by the California State Department of Education, the Curriculum Information Center School Directory (1988), thirty-one returned mail surveys, and information provided through personal interviews with representatives of the four case study subjects The quantitative data gathered were analyzed using "t" test and one way analysis of variance (ANOVA) procedures. The ANOVAs were followed by either a Fisher LSD or Scheffe post hoc comparison test. The major findings for this study are organized and presented by research question. The study included the following questions and their respective findings. 1. What is the effect of foundation funds on fiscal equity in selected districts in the State of California? a. The addition of foundation funds per ADA to the Base Revenue Limit (the fixed amount of general purpose revenue each school district receives from state and local property taxes) of teach of the 113 foundation districts studied enabled three districts (two elementary, one unified) to move beyond the upper limit of the Serrano Band. The Serrano Band equals the state average Base Revenue Limit, plus or minus $100, adjusted for inflation. The addition of foundation funds per ADA to the Base Revenue Limits of

PAGE 202

185 foundation districts enabled six districts (two elementary, four unified) to move from the category Below BRL Mean to the category, Above BRL Mean. Serrano Band category placement was found to have a significant effect on foundation fund raising per ADA in elementary and unified school districts. b. For each district type, average Base Revenue Limits were higher for foundation districts than for nonfoundation districts Foundation districts with Base Revenue Limits above the Serrano Band upper limit o r above the state average BRL raised significantly more funds than foundation districts with Base Revenue Limits below the state average. c. Statistical analyses indicated that the addition of foundation funds raised per ADA to the district Base Revenue Limit did make a significant difference in the 113 foundation districts studied and that foundations supporting elementary districts raised significantly more funds per ADA than foundations supporting high school or unified districts. 2. What is the effect of foundation funds on program equity, i.e. capacity, in selected districts in the State of California? A variety of expenditure choices (a proxy term for programs or activities supported by district resources in nonfoundation districts and LEF funds in foundation districts) offered by foundation districts were also offered by

PAGE 203

186 nonfoundation districts. The three expenditure choices not supported by district budgets in nonfoundation districts were endowment funds, teacher monetary awards, and student scholarships Student scholarships, however, were found to be present in some nonfoundation districts, but they were funded by community organizations. There was no evidence of endowment funds or teacher monetary awards in the nonfoundation districts examined. Expenditure choices supported by foundation funding were either used to supplement or supplant district funding, or both. 3. How do local education foundations earning $100 or more per student affect fiscal equity? In the 11 foundation districts supported by LEFs raising $1 00 or more per ADA, seven districts were found to be above the upper limit of the Serrano Band before the addition of foundation funds. The addition of considerable foundation funding increased, but did not create, the inequity which existed in these districts. Two of the 11 districts moved above the upper limit of the Serrano Band when foundation funds were added to their Base Revenue Limits. Foundation funding created fiscal inequity in these two districts. The remaining two districts moved from the category, Below BRL Mean, to the category, Above BRL Mean, with the addition of foundation funds.

PAGE 204

4. How do the most successful local education foundations affect fiscal and program equity in selected districts. The two LEFs raising the most funds per ADA had a considerable impact upon fiscal and program equity in the 187 district each supported. The BRL of the district supported by LEF A was beyond the upper limit of the Serrano Band before the addition of foundation funds, but foundation funds greatly increased the inequity already present. The fundraising success of LEF B created fiscal inequity because the addition of foundation funds enabled the district BRL to exceed the upper limit of the Serrano Band. Foundation funding allowed both districts to maintain programs existing before the implementation of Proposition 13 and equal funding laws. The fund raising success of these LEFs enabled the district each supported to enjoy a position of fiscal advantage when compared to the majority of districts in the state. This fiscal advantage allowed these districts to offer students additional educational opportunities. The fund raising successes of LEFs C and D, which raised the most total dollars, had no effect on fiscal equity. Each LEF supported a district with high enrollment whose BRL fell well within the Serrano Band. Foundation funding provided pilot programs which supplemented district efforts and were designed

PAGE 205

188 to improve existing district programs in order to better meet the needs of the districts' diverse student populations. 5. What programs (expenditure choices) are funded by local education foundations in California? The expenditure choices funded by local education foundations in California included Fine Arts Teacher Mini-Grants, Additional Capital Equipment, Student Scholarships, Stud_ent Field Trips/Camps, Computer Equipment, After School Enrichment, Capital Building Fund, Athletics, Library/Curricular Materials, and Salaries for Additional Staff Responsibilities. Nineteen local education foundations did not identify specific expenditure choices. Instead, they provided "wish-list" or unrestricted funding to the Board of Education. 6. How do the most successful local education foundations choose how to allocate or spend funds which are raised? Those foundations most successful in fund raising per ADA provided funding for expenditure choices identified and prioritized by the superintendent and the school board as necessary for the district to maintain small class size and programs offered by wealthy districts before the passage of Proposition 13 and the implementation of equal funding laws. Foundations most successful in total fund raising chose to support expenditure choices they identified as being able to supplement and improve the educational opportunities offered to

PAGE 206

189 a changing diverse student population. Input was sought from the community, parents, and school personnel but the foundation board maintained sole decision making authority over the selection of expenditure choices and the extent to which these choices would be supported by foundation funding 7. What are the characteristics of successful local foundations? Local education foundations raising $100 or more per ADA or total funds of $1 ,000,000 or more were defined as successful by this study. Of the 11 LEFs raising $100 or more per ADA, the majority were at least five years old, initiated by parents, operated solely by volunteer staffing and shared decision making authority with school board members and/or district personnel. The characteristics of the two local education foundations raising total funds of $1 ,000,000 ore more were very different from the 11 local education foundations raising $100 or more per ADA. The greatest total fundraising LEFs were initiated by community members who did not have children in the local schools, were operated by large, professional staffs, maintained sole decision making authority, and had foundation board membership exceeding 25 directors. 8. What are the characteristics of the school districts and communities where successful local education foundations are located?

PAGE 207

190 The characteristics of the 11 school districts supported by local education foundations raising $100 or more per ADA were very similar. The large majority of these high fundraising per ADA foundation districts were elementary, had enrollments of less than 1500 students, and were located in small, wealthy communities in the San Francisco Bay area. The two districts supported by the greatest total fund raising LEFs also had similar characteristics.. Both were unified school districts with large student enrollments, located in major cities, and supported by foundations likely to sponsor reform agendas in their respective districts. 9. What variations exist in foundation characteristics relating to revenues, initiation, longevity, board membership, staff, and decision making authority among the 113 active local education foundations studied? Foundation fund raising accomplishments varied greatly among the foundations studied. Funds raised per ADA ranged from a high of $547.00 to zero. Nearly half of the 113 foundations raised less than $5.00 per pupil in 1987-88. Only 11 earned in excess of $100 per pupil. Total funds raised by local education foundations ranged from zero dollars to $1,800,000. Half raised less than $25,000 annually and only three foundations raised in excess of $500,000 Other variations were found in the characteristics of the 113 local education foundations studied. The findings indicated

PAGE 208

1 91 that (1) the majority of local education foundations were established from 1982-84, although foundations were established as early as 1979 and still continue to be formed; (2) foundations were initiated by parents, superintendents, school boards and/or community members, but parents were the largest single group initiating foundations; (3) individual foundation board membership ranged from three to 42 directors with the majority of foundations having 15 or more board members; (4) the vast majority of LEFs were staffed solely by volunteers with the exception of foundations located in large cities which employed professional staffs; and (4) the decision making authority for the expenditure of foundation raised funds included the foundation board, school board, and/or joint committees. Over two-thirds of local education foundations, however, maintained sole decision making authority over foundation funds. 10. What variations exist in foundation district characteristics relating to ADA, community population, population density, wealth, location and district type among the 113 foundation districts studied? Foundations supported school districts with ADAs ranging from fewer than 100 students to more than 600,000 students. The majority of LEFs, however, were located in districts of fewer than 5000 students whose community exceeded 50,000 people. Communities where foundations were located varied from fewer than 20,000 residents to populations

PAGE 209

192 exceeding five million. The majority of communities included in the study had populations of fewer than 50,000 people. The population density of the communities studied ranged from high density, urban environments to sparsely populated, rural locales. The vast majority of local education foundations studied were located in districts considered to be of average wealth, with very few foundations located in districts identified as poor by the Federal Poverty Index. About one third of the districts supported by an LEF were identified as wealthy by either the Federal Poverty Index or by CCEF guidelines, or both. Local education foundations supported all district types, i.e., elementary, unified and high school. The largest number of foundations were found in unified districts, closely followed by elementary districts. Few high school districts were supported by foundations. 11. How do the most successful local education foundations affect the educational environment of students and school staff members in selected districts? The case study examination found that the fund raising successes of LEFs raising the greatest funds per ADA touched the lives of every student and staff member in the small, elementary district each supported. Class size remained considerably lower than the state average; full-time teaching specialists provided additional educational opportunities for students, abundant inservice/conference opportunities were available to school staff

PAGE 210

193 members; counselors were available for both student and parent needs; and, varied enrichment programs were available to students. Foundation funding enabled each district the advantages they enjoyed before Proposition 13 and the implementation of equalized funding laws The accomplishments of LEFs raising the greatest total funds did not impact every student or teacher in the large, urban school district each supported. Students in classes taught by teachers who had been awarded individual mini-grants could benefit by creative, more effective teaching strategies and renewed enthusiasm by their teachers. Students whose teachers and/or school participated in the collaborative projects sponsored by the foundation could be touched in the same manner. Foundation funding by these LEFs raising the greatest total funds provided nearly all of the opportunities available to teachers for improving their teaching skills, identifying additional resources, and implementing new programs to meet the changing needs of the diverse student populations. Because of severe district budget restrictions created by insufficient state funding, strcmg teacher union demands and increased poor, minority enrollment, each district had become increasingly less able to provide the impetus and support for educational improvement and reform. Both LEFs C and D, working with the human and fiscal resources available in a large city, have

PAGE 211

194 increasingly assumed the role as change agents for their city's public educational system. Conclusions Conclusions are drawn based on a review of the literature and on the analysis of the findings generated by this study which were related to equity and foundations. 1. Fiscal inequities in the California school finance system are the combined results of the method devised by the Legislature to determine individual district Base Revenue Limits, judicial interpretation of statutory law, and executive actions regarding the mandate of Serrano vs. Priest. In reality, substantial fiscal inequities do exist and will continue to do so unless the State Legislature devises new methods of providing fiscal equity to all the state's public school districts. 2. Local education foundations in California have little effect on fiscal equity as defined by the California Supreme Court in Serrano vs. Priest (1976). With the exception of three districts, foundation funds do not create fiscal inequity; they merely expand it. However, since the amount of money foundations raise per ADA was found to be significant, they have the potential for creating inequity in the future, particularly if the definition of fiscal equity were to change. For example, the upper and lower limits of the Serrano Band could be reduced, resulting in fewer districts being placed within the Band.

PAGE 212

195 Moreover, at present, some LEFs do directly affect the quality of the educational program available to students. 3. With the critical need for increased fiscal resources to meet the needs of the state's schools, coupled with the inability/unwillingness of the State to provide adequate resources in the current political climate, the State will not likely monitor the impact of foundation funding on equal funding laws. 4. The growth of the school foundation movement in California is, and will continue to be, directly related to California's school finance system. When the availability of fiscal resources are perceived as too little to maintain current expenditures by more school districts; more foundations will be initiated to replace lost district resources. To a lesser extent, foundations will be established to supplement or enrich educational opportunities offered by the district. 5. Most foundations successful in funds raised per ADA will continue their current fund raising accomplishments because of the support of affluent parents. The fund raising success of these foundations will continue to pose the greatest foundation threat to fiscal equity. 6. Funding provided by most successful foundations enables their respective districts to make expenditure choices which provides additional educational opportunities for students while .legally circumventing equal funding laws.

PAGE 213

196 7. Foundations supporting districts of average wealth will continue to have less funding success than those located in affluent communities. 8. Districts supported by foundations most successful in total funds raised posed no threat to fiscal equity, either now or in the foreseeable future because their very large student populations prohibit highly successful fund raising per ADA. Implications For everyone concerned about equity in California's public schools, one overriding issue is evident: systemic fiscal inequities still exist which are considerable. Efforts should be directed toward examination of the effect of accumulated laws, judicial pronouncements and economic conditions with a goal of creating a balance in the fiscal resources available to all schools. The issue of fiscal equity should not be examined by any branch of the state government without careful consideration of the impact of local education foundations and their potential for circumventing and undermining current equal funding laws, and upon laws developed and implemented in the future. Efforts to monitor the impact of local education foundations on California's public schools need to be made by the state on a continuing basis if true equity is to be achieved and maintained. The appropriate role of an education foundation needs to be determined when/if the question of equity is addressed by the

PAGE 214

197 state. At present, most successful foundations raise funds to replace lost funds and/or supplement district funding responsibilities, therefore permitting district budgets to provide better, more comprehensive educational opportunities for the students who reside within the district. Other foundations, located in communities of average wealth with less successful fund raising, supported expenditure choices which supplemented district funding efforts rather than supplanted district fiscal responsibilities. These foundations chose the specific expenditure choices they supported and minimal, if any, impact on fiscal equity seems to have occurred. 4. All nonfoundation districts concerned about the availability of revenues for educational purposes should consider establishing a local education foundation For optimal fund raising success, most foundations should consider organizing a foundation staff which consists of paid professionals or a combination of paid professionals and volunteers. In addition, all LEFs should seriously consider presenting their needs to private philanthropic foundations, corporations, and businesses as well as parents. Recommendations Many questions were raised in the process of obtaining and analyzing the data for this study. Some of the questions seem worthy of further investigation. Included are:

PAGE 215

198 1. The definition of fiscal equity used in this study may need to be modified in order to include a more comprehensive understanding of issues relating to school finance. More study of foundation districts whose Base Revenue Limits exceed the state averages before and after the addition of foundation raised funds might be beneficial. 2. To better define program equity in any study, additional data is necessary. All districts (foundation and nonfoundation) included in the study should identify the funding source, number of students participating, and total amount of funds supporting each expenditure choice. 3. The impact of foundation funds on fiscal and program equity needs continued study. In five years or more, replicate this study to determine the effect of local education foundations on fiscal and/or program equity. 4. The foundation funds raised and their subsequent impact on fiscal and program equity in the same districts defined as successful need to be closely examined over a period of years. A study of this type could help determine the long term impact of foundations upon their respective districts.

PAGE 216

199 BIBLIOGRAPHY Abbott, G. (1983). Foundations: A closer look. Thrust, 13, 45-47. Allen, T. & Hughs, S. (1982). Fund raising: How it's working for California School Districts. Thrust 12, 28-31. Andrews, D. L. (1983). The use of foundations as a financial support for public schools in California. (Doctoral dissertation, University of Southern California, 1983). Dissertation Abstracts International, 2968c. Armstrong, Ken. (1989, May 21 ). School fund puzzle may go awry. The Times-Advocate, B1-B2. Bergholz, D. (1987). Is there life after PEF? Perforum. (Available from the Public Education Fund Network, 500 Grant Street, Suite 4444, Pittsburgh, PA.) Bergholz, D. (1982). The Allegheny Education Fund Proceedings of the School Foundation Movement Conference. San Francisco, CA. Borg, W. R. & Gall, M. D. (1983). Educational research. New York: Longman, Inc. California Educational Code Service. (January, 1988). U.S.A. Publishing Company. San Pablo, CA. California State Department of Education. 1987-88 annual K-12 data by county, level, district name. Sacramento: February, 1989. California State Department of Education. 1987-88 annual data by base revenue limit per ADA. Sacramento: February, 1989. Calvin, A. D. & Keen, P. (1982). Community foundations for public schools. Phi Delta Kappan, 64 126-127.

PAGE 217

200 Chaffe, J (1979) California State Department of Education. California schools beyond Serrano A report on Assembly Bill 65 of 1977. Sacramento: 1979. C.'!. C.'s School Directory (1988) (Available from Market Data Retrieval, Inc., 16 Progress Drive, Shelton, CT. 06484). Clay, K., Hughs, K.S., Seely, J., & Thayer, A. (1985). Public School Foundations: Their Organization and Operations. Monograph of Educational Research Service Cohen, E. (1980) $$$$$ for our schools. Thrust, 10, 23-25. Conrad Hilton Foundation. (1986). Balancing quality and equity, toward a grant making program in pre-collegiate public education. Los Angeles, CA: Author. Cramer, J. (1983). Foundations can add polish to your image and cash to the coffer. American School Board Journal, 170, 62-65. Crossley, J P. (1987) From Serrano to Excellence: Education for a purpose, X Menlo Park, CA: California Coalition for Fair School Finance. Ed Source. California's K-12 school finance system. Menlo Park, CA: 1990. Ed Source. School spending: the dilemma of control. Menlo Park, CA: June 1990. Ed Source. School finance 1989-90. Menlo Park, CA: October 1989. Ed Source. California's K-12 school finance system X/. Menlo Park, CA: 1987. Ed Source. State finance X. Menlo Park, CA: 1987.

PAGE 218

201 Ed Source. The lottery and California's schools. Menlo Park, CA: 1985. Ed Source A glossary of school finance terms. Menlo Park CA: 1984. Ed Source. Serrano 1983. Menlo Park, CA: May, 1983. Fisher, J. (1986, Winter). The growth of heartlessness: The need for studies on philanthropy. Educational Record, 25-29. Foundations aid alternative high school. (1983, January). NASSP Newsleader, 7. Freeman, M. (1983). Our education foundation raised $40,000 in sixteen months. Executive Educator, 5, 27-28. Fuhrman, S. (1980) School finance reform in the 1980's Educational Leadership, 38, 122-124. Goldfinger, P. M. (1985). Reforms, Revenues, and Revenue Limits. Sacramento, CA: School Services of California, Inc. Gooddate, J. G. (1982). The fine art of interviewing. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc. Goodlad, J I. (1984). A place called school. New York: McGraw Hill Book Company. Griffith, J. W. (1983). Setting up a foundation pays off. Vocational Education, 58(3), 32-33. Guthrie, J. & Kirst, M., (Eds.) (1985). Conditions of education in California, 1985. Berkeley: University of California, Policy Analysis for California Education

PAGE 219

202 Hagman, D. C. (1972). The Serrano equalization principle: Its Impact on city planning, land values and use (Report No. M2177) Los Angeles, CA: Institute of Government and Public Affairs. Havighurst, R. J. (1981 ). Foundations and public education in the twentieth century. New York: Rockefeller University. Internal Revenue Service. Tax information for private foundation and foundation managers. (Department of the Treasury Publication No. 578). Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1986. Kirst, M. & Guthrie, J., (Eds.) 1988. Conditions of education in California, 1988. Berkeley: University of California, Policy Analyses for California Education. Kirst, M. & Somers, S. (1981 ). California education interest groups collective action as a logical response to Proposition 13. Education and Urban Society, 13, 30-32. Knox, D. (1986, December 15). Foundations fill gaps in school funding. Rocky Mountain News, 7. Kommers, D. (1982). From the inside out: Portrait of a school foundation. San Francisco: The San Francisco Education Fund. Kotler, J. & Wallace, D. (Eds.). (1984). Ways to find private sector funding for schools. Arlington, VA: Education Funding Research Council. Levin, D. (1979, November). Dallas' nonprofit foundation founders. The American School Board Journal, 11, 39-40. Levin, D. (1979, November) The idea of school foundations flourishes. The American School Board Journal, 11, 40, 49.

PAGE 220

Likens, J. D. (1985). Financing quality education in southern California (Project No. 28). Claremont, CA: Southern California Research Council. 203 Lobe, S. (1985). Private financial support for public education K-12. Redwood City, CA: San Mateo County Office of Education. Los Angeles Educational Partnership. (1990, Spring). Partnership papers. Los Angeles, CA. Mason, M. (1982) Becoming a school foundation. Proceedings of the School Education Foundation Movement Conference, (p. 18). San Francisco, CA. McMillen, A. (1988, June 29). Giving U.S.A. Chronicle of Higher Education, A 1, 22. Meade, E. (1982). A foundation goes to school. New York: The Ford Foundation. Meade, E., Jr. (1980). Philanthropy and public schools: One foundation's evolving perspective. New York: Ford Foundation. National Data Book. (1988). Available from the Foundation Center, New York, New York. Neill, George. (1983). The local education foundation: A new way to raise money for schools. (NASSP Special Report). Reston, VA: National Association of Secondary School Principals. Nesbit, W. B. (1985). A study to identify the characteristics of successful education foundations which serve public schools in America. (Doctoral dissertation, University of South Carolina, 1985). Dissertation Abstracts International, 46106A.

PAGE 221

Odden, A. & Dougherty. (1984). School finance reform in the states: 1984. (Report No. F83-1). Denver, CO: Education Commission of the States. 204 Pincus, J. The Serrano case: Policy for education or for public finance? Phi Delta Kappan, November, 1977, 59(3), 173179. Policy Analysis for California Education (PACE). (1988). Enrollment growth and fiscal limits threaten school improvements. Press release. (Available from PACE, School of Education, University of California, Berkeley, CA. Powell, F. (1986, December). Help meet school needs: Establish an alumni foundation. NASSP Bulletin, 70, Prop 71 fails (1988, June 7). Times Advocate, 1. Proposition 98 passage monumental victory. (1988, November 21 ). Edcal, 1. Read, P., (Ed.). (1986). Foundation fundamentals. New York: The Foundation Center. Reusswig, J. (1983. May/June). Public school foundation: Boon or bane? Thrust, 39-42. School Foundation Movement Flourishes. (1983, Winter). State Education Leader, 1-2. Shoemaker, J. (1983, November). The emerging role of education foundations in financing education. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the California Educational Research Association, Los Angeles, CA. Smith, C. (1985, September/October). Private help for public schools. Foundation News, 42-48. Task forces wrestle with accountability model. (1989, February 27). Edcal, 1

PAGE 222

205 Thayer, A. (1983). Letter sent to all California public school superintendents and community college presidents. (Available from Association of California School Administrators, 1575 Old Bayshore Highway, Burlingame, CA). Thayer, A. (1984) Results of study of foundations. (Available from Association of California School Administrators, 1575 Old Bayshore Highway, Burlingame, CA). The Directory. (1989). (Available from California Consortium of Education Foundations, 1834 Frobisher Way, San Jose, CA 95124). The Directory. (1988). (Available from California Consortium of Education Foundations, 1834 Frobisher Way, San Jose, CA 95124). The Public Education Fund. Five years. Pittsburgh, PA: 1988. The Public Education Fund. The first two years: The public education fund 1983-85. Pittsburgh, PA: 1985. Timpane, M. (1984). Business has rediscovered the public schools. Phi Delta Kappan, 65, 398-392.

PAGE 223

APPENDIX A EXPENDITURE CHOICES OF 96 LEFS WHICH RAISED FUNDS IN 1987-88 206

PAGE 224

207 Expenditure Choices of 96 LEFs Which Raised Funds in 1987-88 Dist A B c D E F G H I J K L M N 0 p Q R s T u 2 X 3 X 4 X 5 X X 6 X 7 X X X 8 X 9 X X 1 0 X 1 1 X 1 2 X X 1 3 X 1 4 X 1 6 X 1 8 X X X 20 X X 21 X 23 X X 24 X X 25 X 26 X X 27 X X 28 X X X X 29 X 30 X 32 X 33 X X X 34 X X 35 X 36 X X X 37 X X 38 X X 42 X X X 43 X X 44 X X X 46 X 49 X 50 X 51 X 52 X 53 X 54 X X X 55 X 56 X X X X 57 X Table (continued)

PAGE 225

208 Dist A B c D E F G H I J K L M N 0 p Q R s T u 58 X X 59 X 60 X X X X 61 X 62 X 63 X X X 64 X X 65 X X X 66 X 67 X X 68 X 70 X X X 71 X 72 X 73 X X 74 X 76 X X 77 X X 79 X 80 X X X X 81 X X X 82 X 83 X 84 X X X X 85 X 86 X X 87 X 88 X 89 X X X X 90 X X X 93 X 94 X 95 X X X X X 96 X X 98 X X 99 X X X 100 X X X X X 1 01 X X 102 X X X X X 103 X 104 X 105 X 106 X X X 107 X 108 X 109 X X X X X 11 0 X 1 1 1 X 11 2 X X 113 X

PAGE 226

KEY: A. Fine Arts B. Teacher Mini Grants C. Additional Capital Equipment D. Student Scholarships E Student Field Trips/Camps F. Computer Equipment G Teacher Monetary Awards H After School Enrichment I. Capital Building Fund J. Athletics K. Endowment Fund L. Library Materials 209 M Salaries for Additional Staff Responsibilities N. Book Fair Q High School P. Drug Prevention Q Drop Out Prevention R Public Relations S. Teacher lnservice T. Unrestricted Funds T School Board/Wish List from School Board U. Band Uniforms

PAGE 227

210 LOCAL EDUCATION FOUNDATIONS (N-21) PROVIDING WISH LIST OR UNRESTRICTED FUNDING TO SCHOOL DISTRICTS

PAGE 228

211 DISTRICT ADA TFF FFADA 6 4792 650000 135.64 8 10962 30000 2.74 14 22299 24000 1 12 16 1967 300 .15 21 2034 72000 35.40 46 681 50000 88.11 47 3108 250000 80 44 49 122 9860 80.82 51 620 65000 103.17 52 8259 20000 2.42 55 2829 108000 38.18 57 1 911 96000 53.23 61 1374 13500 98.25 62 345 13900 40.29 72 13658 10000 .73 78 8267 0 0 79 2008 100000 49.80 85 294 148000 503.40 97 24012 0 0 98 1194 9259 7 75 1 1 1 296 161000 543.92 KEY: ADA Average Daily Attendance TFF Total Foundation Funds Raised FFADA Foundation Funds Raised Per ADA

PAGE 229

212 APPENDIX B MAIL SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE

PAGE 230

213 Below are thirteen programs most often funded by local foundations in foundation districts. Please mark an X to the left of those programs which your district provides through district or supplementary funds. Identifying the funding source(s) is optional but would be helpful. (Typical sources are district budget, parent organizations, community contributions, etc.) 1. __ Fine arts programs 2. __ Mini-grants to teachers 3. __ Additional capital (Equipment purchase) 4. __ Student scholarships 5. __ Student field trips/camps 6. __ Computer equipment 7. __ Monetary awards to outstanding teachers 8. __ After-school enrichment programs 9. __ Capital building fund 1 o. Athletics 11. Endowment funds for specialized purposes 12. Salaries for additional staff responsibilities 13. Additional library/ curricular materials Name and Position FUNDING SOURCE (Optional) District Check here if you would like a summary of the study findings. Thank you.

PAGE 231

APPENDIXC SEMI-STRUCTURED INTERVIEW GUIDE 214

PAGE 232

215 Semi-Structured Interview Guide 1 DEVELOPMENT OF THE FOUNDATION 1.1. In what year was the foundation organized? 1 .2 Who initiated the formation of the foundation? 1 .3 What was the primary mission of the foundation when first organized? Why? 1 .4 Has the mission of the foundation changed during its years of existence? Why? 1 .5 Did your foundation receive seed money to begin? From what source? --------------1 .6 How was your foundation chosen for seed money? 2. ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE OF THE FOUNDATION 2.1 How would you describe the trust level between the foundation and the district?

PAGE 233

216 2.2 What is the decision making relationship between the district and the foundation regarding expenditures of foundation raised funds? Why was this type of relationship chosen? 2.3 What role does the superintendent and the school board play in your foundation. Has their role changed over the years of the foundation? 2.4 How are members of the foundation board chosen? 2.5 Are members expected to be contributors to the foundation? 2.6 How many members are on the board? Why? How many school district employees serve on the foundation board? If so, please identify.------------2.7 Are there parents on the foundation board? If so, what percentage of them have children in district schools?

PAGE 234

2.8 How is your foundation chairperson or executive director chosen? 3. OPERATION OF THE FOUNDATION 217 3.1 Please describe the role the foundation plays in the school district. 3.2 Has there been conflict at any time between the foundation and the school district as to the role of the foundation? Please explain. 3.3 Does your foundation employ paid staff? Why? If yes, iri what positions? 3.4 How are programs chosen for foundation funding? 3.5 How are foundation funded programs evaluated? 3.6 What information or reports do donors receive on how their money is spent? 3.7 How is this information communicated?

PAGE 235

4. FOUNDATION FUND RAISING 4.1 What is the total amount of funds raised since the foundation began? 218 4.2 What is the total amount of funds raised in 1987-88. 4.3 What is the actual or estimated cost per dollar raised? 4.4 How are fund raising goals set? 4.5 What was the most successful fund raising activity? Why? -------------------------------------4.7 What was the least successful fund raising activity? Why? -------------------------------------4.8 Does your foundation have an endowment fund? If so, what is done with the earnings?

PAGE 236

4.9 Does your district allow other district fundraising efforts? 219 Why? ------------------------------------4.10 How are district spending patterns affected by foundation fundraising? 5. FOUNDATION FUNDED PROGRAMS 5.1 Which programs in your district are supported by foundation funds? To what extent?------------------5.2 Why were these programs chosen? 5.3 How many (number/percentage) students and/or teachers in the district benefit from each individual program funded by the foundation? 5.4 If foundation funds were no longer available, what would happen to each of these programs?

PAGE 237

220 6. FOUNDATION SUCCESSES AND BENEFITS : 6.1 Describe three factors that have made your foundation successful. Which do you consider the most important? 6.2 What are the most important benefits provided by your foundation? 6.3 Without foundation funds, what would be the effect in your district budget?

PAGE 238

APPENDIXD LETIERS 221

PAGE 239

222 LETTER TO THE SUPERINTENDENTS OF NONFOUNDATION DISTRICTS ASKING THEIR PARTICIPATION IN MAIL SURVEY

PAGE 240

Heading was personalized for each superintendent. 223 I am seeking your participation in a doctoral study of the effect of local education foundations upon district budgets and programs in selected schools in the State of California. Through a random selection process,your district is one of fifty nonfoundation districts in California selected to be surveyed. The enclosed survey was designed to be brief and not take more than a few minutes of your time to complete. Needless to say, the data you can provide is very important to me and I hope you will participate. I will be happy to send you a summary of the findings if you so desire. Thank you for your cooperation. Sincerely, Judith Waite Adams Principal Definitions: Local Education Foundation Refers to the tax-exempt, nonprofit corporation which is formed for the purpose of raising money for schools. Nonfoundation District A public school district without a local education foundation.

PAGE 241

LETIER TO SELECTED CASE STUDY REPRESENTATIVES ASKING THEIR PARTICIPATION IN THE STUDY 224

PAGE 242

ESCONDIDO UNION SCHOOL DISTRICT 225 ---------------------------------------------------------980 NORTH ASH STREET, ESCONDIDO, CALIFORNIA 92027 (619) 745-700( Principal's Office SCHOOL 432-2470 .pril 20, 1990 am writing to seek your participation in my doctoral study of the 1ffect of education foundations upon selected districts in California. sing a case study approach, the main focus of my dissertation is to the impact highly successful educational foundations have upon he lives of students, teachers and administrators in four selected .istricts. Your district was chosen because it is among the ones most uccessful in fundraising. o gather the information I need, I am asking you to grant me an inter iew which will last about thirty minutes. If you agree to participate, would like to tape record the interview and would make available to ou an exact copy of the recording and transcription. I have pilot ested this interview with Dr. Harry Weinberg, superintendent, Valley enter School District in Valley Center, California. Your identity nd the identity of your district will be held in the strictest conidence in the analysis and summary of the findings. lease give my request your most careful consideration. I believe hat with your cooperation, I can make a valuable contribution to the rowing, but as yet sparse, literature about education foundations. As n elementary principal in a non-foundation district as well as a memer of the California Consortium of Education Foundations, I am eager to earn more about the benefits a successful foundation can bring to a chool as well as to the district. will be contacting you shortly by telephone to hear your decision. If this request should be handled by someone other than yourself, ill you please forward this letter to the appropriate person). My pctoral advisor, Dr. Russell Meyers from the University of Colorado, ill be happy to verify this study prior to the interview if you wish.

PAGE 243

226 FOLLOW UP LETIER TO CASE STUDY REPRESENTATIVES

PAGE 244

227 .pril 27, 1990 lear Ms. 'his letter will confirm our appointment for May 7 at 3:00 a.m. 'lease know how appreciative I am of your willingness to be interviewed ecause I realize how valuable time is to you. look forward to meeting you very soon. incerely, udith Adams rincipal A/lb

PAGE 245

228 THANK YOU LETIER TO CASE STUDY REPRESENTATIVES

PAGE 246

229 May 14, 1990 Dear Ms. rhank you so much for all the time you spent with me during our interview on Monday, May 7. Your assistance has been invaluable. r will send you a copy of the written transcription of the tape once it is completed. 3incerely, rudith Adams l?rincipal TA/lb

PAGE 247

230 APPENDIX E MAIL SURVEY PARTICIPANTS AND SURVEY RESPONSE SUMMARY

PAGE 248

231 MAIL SURVEY PARTICIPANTS

PAGE 249

Escondido Union School District Escondido, CA. Central Union High School District El Centro, CA DiGiorgia Elementary School District Arvin, CA Point Arena Joint School District Point Arena, CA Sanger Unified School District Sanger, CA Wasco Union High School District Wasco, CA Ready Spring Unified School District Penn Valley, CA Chico Unified School District Chico, CA ABC Unified School District Artesia, CA 90701 Planeda Elementary School District Planeda, CA Hanford Joint Union High School District Hanford, CA Temecula Union Elementary School District Temecula, CA Red Bluff Union Elementary School District Red Bluff, CA 232

PAGE 250

Westwood Unified School District Westwood, CA Rosedale Union School District Bakersfield, CA Charter Oak Unified School District Covina, CA Rancho Santa Fe Elementary School District Rancho Santa Fe, CA Ojai Unified School District Ojai, CA Empire Union School District Empire, CA Roseland Elementary School District Santa Rosa, CA Whitmore Elementary School District Whitmore, CA Scotia Union Elementary School District Scotia, CA Kneeland Elementary School District Kneeland, CA Rosemead School District Rosemead, CA Edison Elementary School District Bakersfield, CA Yreka Union Elementary School District Yreka, CA 233

PAGE 251

Poway Unified School District Poway, CA Ontario Montclair Elementary School District Ontario, CA Rialto Unified School District Rialto, CA Campbell Union School District Campbell, CA Rio Linda Union Elementary School District Rio Linda, CA 234

PAGE 252

235 EXPENDITURE CHOICES OF NONFOUNDATION DISTRICTS SURVEYED

PAGE 253

236 Dist A 8 c D E F G H I J K L M 1 N X X X X X X X X X 2N X X X X X X X 3N X X X X X X X 4N X X X X X X X X X X SN X X X X X X X X X X 6N X X X X X X 7N X X X X X X X X X X 8N X X X X X X X X 9N X X X X X X X X 10N X X X 11 N X X X X X X 12N X X X X X X X 13N X X X X X X X 14N X X X 15N X X X X X X X X 16N X X X X X X X X 17N X X X X X X X X 18N X X X X X X X X 19N X X X X X X X X 20N X X X X X X X 21N X X X X X X X X X 22N X X X X X X X X 23N X X X X X X X X X X 24N X X X X X X X X X X X 25N X X X X X X X X 26N X X X X 27N X X X X X X X X 28N X X X X X X X X 29N X X X 30N X X X X X X 31N X X X X X X KEY: A. Fine Arts H After School Enrichment B. Teacher Mini Grants I. Capital Building Fund C. Additional Capital Equipment J. Athletics D. Student Scholarships K. Endowment Fund E Student Field Trips/Camps L. Library Materials F. Computer Equipment M Salaries for Additional G Teacher Monetary Awards Staff Responsibilities

PAGE 254

237 APPENDIX F DATA SUMMARY TABLES

PAGE 255

238 FISCAL DATA RELATED TO 113 FOUNDATION DISTRICTS STUDIED

PAGE 256

239 District District A.D.A. Total Fnd Fnd BRL BRLand Total Total Type Funds Funds Fnd District Dist Rev Raised Per Funds Revenue and FF Pupil PP PP PP $ $ $ $ $ $ 1 u 11844 0 0 2639 2639.00 3262 3262.00 2 H 2078 1500 .72 3083 3083.72 4004 4004.72 3 u 7547 107399 14.23 2749 2763.23 3353 3366.23 4 u 2341 3500 1.56 2457 2458.50 3062 3063.50 5 u 7967 50000 6.28 3101 3107.28 4855 4861.28 6 u 4792 650000 135.64 3581 3716.64 5387 5522.64 7 u 4633 17000 3 67 2648 2651.67 3341 3344.67 8 u 10962 30000 2.74 2688 2690.74 3542 3544.74 9 E 1538 17000 11.05 2788 2799.05 4411 4422.05 1 0 u 2856 12000 4.20 2742 2746.20 3410 3414.20 11 E 14399 5000 .38 2464 2464.38 3190 3190.38 12 E 122 400 3.28 2498 2501.28 3706 3709.28 13 E 320 2500 7 .81 2454 2461.81 2941 2948. 81 14 u 22299 25000 1 .12 2645 2646.12 3264 3265.12 1 5 u 5683 0 0 2717 2717.00 3611 3611.00 1 6 u 1967 300 15 2836 2836.15 3808 3808.15 1 7 u 5393 0 0 2889 2889.00 3562 3562.00 18 u 249 15000 60.24 2459 2519.24 3029 3089.24 1 9 u 17697 125 0 2656 2656.00 3629 3629.00 20 E 169 25000 147.92 2482 2629.92 3093 3240.92 21 u 2034 72000 35.40 2668 2703.40 3874 3909.40 22 E 623 0 0 3071 3071.00 4341 4341.00 23 u 6521 22000 3.37 2640 2643.37 3137 3140.37 24 u 4466 60000 13.43 2997 3010.43 4103 4116.43 25 E 10828 40000 3.69 2610 2613.69 3817 3820.69 26 u 4217 27409 6.50 2645 2651.50 3459 3465.50 27 E 1620 5300 3 .27 2459 2462.27 3268 3271.27 28 E 1680 350000 208.33 2654 2862.33 3703 3911.33 29 u 113284 30000 .26 2647 2647.26 4055 4055.26 30 u 3098 20000 6 .46 2702 2708.46 3402 3408.46 31 E 250 0 0 2641 2641.00 3288 3288.00 32 u 2288 60000 26.22 2836 2862.22 4011 4037.22 33 u 8614 8500 .99 2644 2644.99 3639 3639.99 34 H 624 15000 24.04 3085 3109.04 4946 4970.04 35 u 14289 34000 2.38 2638 2640.38 4024 4026.28 36 E 6016 65000 10.80 2478 2488.80 3682 2488.80 37 H 8042 47000 5.84 3186 3191.84 4403 4408.84 Table (continued)

PAGE 257

240 District District A.D.A. Total Fnd Fnd BRL BRLand Total Total Type Funds Funds Fnd District Dist Rev Raised Per Funds Revenue and FF Pupil pp pp pp $ $ $ $ $ $ 38 u 60527 50000 .83 2654 2654.83 3700 3700.83 39 H 12629 0 0 3070 3070.00 3999 3999.00 40 u 8138 0 0 2655 2655.00 3744 3744.00 41 H 18615 0 0 3110 3110.00 4171 4171.00 42 u 18480 50000 2. 71 2675 2677.71 3325 3327.71 43 E 1009 411000 407.33 2763 3170.33 4158 4565.33 44 u 19516 45000 2.31 2667 2669.31 3793 3795.31 45 E 335 0 0 2459 2459.00 3621 3621.00 46 E 681 60000 88.11 3230 3318. 11 4183 4271.11 47 u 3108 250000 80.44 2885 2965.44 4208 4288.44 48 E 3930 0 0 2468 2468.00 3585 3585.00 49 E 122 9860 80.82 2620 2700.82 4596 4676.82 50 u 9377 6000 .64 2646 2646.64 3252 3252.64 51 E 620 65000 1 03.1 7 3728 3831.17 4810 4913.17 52 E 8259 20000 2.42 2368 2368.42 3546 3548.42 53 E 571 60000 105.08 2477 2690.05 3145 3250.08 54 u 6004 15000 2.50 3013 3105.50 4324 4326.50 55 E 2829 108000 38.18 2602 3640.18 3259 3297.18 56 u 574837 1800000 3 .13 2645 2648.13 4174 4177.13 57 E 1 911 96000 50.23 2753 2803.23 3657 3707.23 58 E 2172 75000 34.53 2773 2807.53 3743 3771.53 59 u 49077 450800 9.17 2667 2676.19 4021 4030.19 60 u 3229 25000 7.74 2918 2925.74 3876 3883.74 61 E 1374 13500 98.25 3374 3472.25 4145 4243.25 62 E 345 13900 40.29 2460 2500.29 3427 3467.23 63 E 1575 167000 106.03 2805 2911.03 3987 4093.03 64 E 1457 100000 68.63 2587 2655.63 3194 3262.63 65 H 2875 45000 15.65 3391 3406.65 4745 4760.65 66 E 2360 12000 5.08 2580 2585.08 3837 3842.08 67 u 11637 60000 5.16 2647 2652.16 3511 3516.16 68 E 5650 8000 1.42 2462 2463.42 3326 3327.42 69 u 6806 0 0 2696 2696.00 3587 3587.00 70 u 11360 60000 5.28 2646 2651.28 3357 3362.28 71 u 15857 50000 3.15 2934 2937.15 4279 4282.15 72 u 13658 10000 .73 2639 2639.73 3698 2639.73 73 E 11342 2546 .22 3076 3076.22 3758 3758.22 74 u 2465 45000 19.26 2653 2672.26 3681 3699.26 75 u 12673 0 0 2645 2645.00 3515 3515.00 76 u 7632 52000 6.81 3550 3556.81 4988 4994.81 77 u 9856 323000 32.77 2803 2835.77 3567 3599.77 78 E 8267 0 0 2474 2474.00 2582 2582.00 Table (continued)

PAGE 258

241 District District A.D.A. Total Fnd Fnd BRL BRLand Total Total Type Funds Funds Fnd District Dist Rev Raised Per Funds Revenue and FF Pupil PP pp pp $ $ $ $ $ $ 79 u 2008 100000 49.80 3026 3075.80 3992 4041.80 80 E 999 16000 16.02 2458 2474.02 2897 2913.02 81 u 14008 36000 2 .57 2641 2643.57 3208 3210.57 82 E 6948 2500 .36 2490 2490.36 3336 3336.36 83 u 27545 15000 .54 2671 2671 .54 3843 3843. 54 84 u 4706 21000 4.46 2654 2658.46 3461 3465.46 85 E 294 148000 503.40 2727 3230.40 4811 5314.40 86 E 1403 50000 35.64 2640 2675.64 3645 3680. 64 87 u 22790 21000 .92 2675 2675. 92 3222 3222.92 88 E 1784 20000 11 .21 2683 2694.21 3459 3470.21 89 u 60696 1300000 21.42 2707 2728.42 4168 4189.42 90 u 2695 350000 129.87 2770 2899.87 3422 3551 .87 91 u 14811 0 0 2646 2646.00 3189 3189.00 92 u 11954 0 0 2840 2840.00 3913 3913.00 93 u 9273 60000 6.47 2960 2966.47 4173 4179.47 94 E 1784 70000 39.24 2945 2984.24 3459 3498.24 95 E 339 19981 59.94 2777 2836. 94 5994 6053. 94 96 u 2218 100000 45.09 3371 3416.09 3945 4020.09 97 u 24012 0 0 2661 2661 .00 2745 3745.00 98 E 1194 9259 7.75 2457 2464.75 2886 2893.75 99 E 1333 30000 22.51 2541 2563.51 4388 4410.51 100 u 3398 120000 35.31 2656 2691.31 3219 3254.31 1 01 E 3411 5000 1.47 2482 2483.47 3414 3414.47 102 u 1297 80000 61.68 2786 2847.68 3383 3444.00 103 E 2035 5200 2.56 2459 2461.56 3913 3915.56 104 u 29241 10000 .34 2644 2644.34 3948 3948.34 105 H 24558 303000 12.34 3067 3079.34 4333 4345.34 106 E 838 150000 180.00 3199 3379.00 5067 5246.00 107 E 841 6515 7 .75 2460 2467.75 3076 3083.75 108 u 14655 14466 .99 2643 2643.99 3370 3370. 90 109 u 18399 71142 3.87 2642 2645.87 3401 3404.87 11 0 E 676 35000 51.78 2455 2506.78 3493 3544.76 111 E 296 161000 543.92 3255 3798.92 4091 4634.92 112 E 1819 9862 5.42 2471 2476.42 3222 3227.42 11 3 E 5542 10000 1.80 2642 2643.80 3261 3262.80 Key: ADA Average Daily Attendance FF Foundation Funds BRL Base Revenue Limit PP Per Pupil Total District Revenue = BRL plus Categorical funding (Foundation Funds not included)

PAGE 259

DATA RELATED TO FOUNDATION AND FOUNDATION DISTRICT CHARACTERISTICS 242

PAGE 260

Fd .Dist. Info bs A.D.A. Pop. Po W CCE W P Loc TFF 243 PPFF Date F. F Dir. Sta Dec --------------------------------------------------------------------11844 2078 7547 2341 7967 4792 4633 10962 1538 2856 14399 1?? 320 22299 5683 1967 5393 249 17697 169 2034 623 6521 4466 10828 4217 1620 1680 113284 3098 250 2288 8614 624 14289 6016 8024 60527 12629 8138 18615 18480 1009 19516 33500 681 3108 2930 122 9377 170876 25000 70000 18000 103328 33000 32000 84625 26173 7282 86000 1200 1500 100000 55000 12000 53000 39000 70000 1300 19800 20000 31000 40000 34015 27000 8000 16824 879538 25000 3000 4707 63852 17000 27558 55080 175000 308000 200000 43000 375000 94167 10451 100000 2000 11768 20153 38000 26906 550(H) A 3 E 4 B 2 c 3 A 3 c 1 c 2 B 3 c 3 E 3 c 3 E 3 [I 2 A 2 c 3 D 4 c 3 c 3 B 3 B 3 [I 2 B 1 c 4 c 2 c 2 c 3 E 2 D 1 A 3 c 3 E 3 E 2 B 3 D 3 c 3 B 3 A 3 A 3 A 3 c 3 A 3 B 3 [I 1 B 2 E 4 [1 1 D 1 c 3 c 2 B 3 A 3 A 2 A 3 A 1 A 2 R 3 R 3 A 3 A 2 A 2 A 3 A 2 A 1 A 3 A 3 A 2 R 2 A 2 A 2 0 1500 107399 3500 50000 650000 17000 30000 17000 12000 5000 400 2500 2500Q 0 300 0 15000 125 R 3 25000 R 3 72000 A 2 0 A 2 22000 A 3 60000 A 2 40000 A 3 27409 A 2 5300 F: 2 350000 A 3 30000 A 1 20000 A 2 0 A 2 60000 A 2 8500 A 2 15000 A 2 34000 A 3 65000 A 2 47000 A 2 50000 A 3 0 A 2 ,.0 A 3 .. 0 A 2 50000 R 1 411000 R 3 45000 A 1 0 A 2 60000 R 3 250000 A 2 0 R 2 9660 A 3 6000 0 .72 14.23 1.50 6.28 135.64 3.67 2.74 11.05 4.20 .38 3.28 7.81 1.12 0 .15 0 60.24 0 147.92 35.40 0 3.37 13.43 3.69 6.50 3.27 208.33 .26 6.46 0 26.22 .99 24.04 2.38 10.80 5.84 .83 0 0 0 2.71 407.33 2.31 0 88.11 80.44 0 80.82 .64 1986 1988 1981 1985 1983 1977 1981 1982 1981 1983 1986 1986 1988 1982 1982 1981 1982 1982 1987 1988 1981 1984 1983 1981 1985 1982 1986 1979 1982 1986 1984 1980 1982 1985 1983 1982 1982 1984 1982 1982 1984 1983 1980 1981 1983 1979 1978 1982 1983 1984 1 2 2 5 5 2 3 1 2 4 r: 1 4 2 5 3 1 1 6 .,. .... 2 4 2 4 1 2 2 4 3 6 5 .,. ._I 4 5 5 .,. ._I 5 1 2 .,. .... 5 2 5 2 2 5 4 2 .,. .... 14 5 30 7 14 42 7 7 12 4 16 4 9 15 10 8 12 11 17 11 14 12 21 30 9 10 10 26 16 9 11 25 25 7 17 26 21 15 6 4 10 17 30 25 13 15 32 14 10 17 v v v v v p v v v p v v v p v v v v F v F v v p v v v v v v v v v v v p v p v v p p F p v v v v v v 1 1 3 1 1 2 3 2 2 1 3 1 2 1 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 4 1 4

PAGE 261

Fd.[list.Info :: bs ype A.D.A. Pop. Po CCE W P Loc TFF 244 PPFF Date : F. F Dir. Sta Dec --------------------------------------------------------------------620 8259 571 6004 2829 574837 1911 2172 49077 3229 1374 345 1575 14. 57 2875 2360 11637 5650 6806 11360 15857 13658 11342 2465 12673 7632 9856 8267 2008 999 14008 6948 27545 4706 294 1403 22790 1784 60696 2695 14811 11954 9273 1784 331 2218 24012 1194 1333 3398 7797 17060 7000 25975 25769 7000000 26906 35000 339337 27000 26369 3500 12967 15014 25769 60000 88000 48772 36000 49000 62556 106000 122(100 15755 14900 55000 22500 105611 10498 25000 65000 60000 200000 22000 2400 12053 65000 24710 678974 13412 36380 180000 130000 29261 900(! 18000 91788 6000 14000 23000 E 1 [I 3 c 2 c 3 c 1 A 3 c 2 c 2 A 4 [I 3 c 2 E 3 [I 2 [I 1 c 2 B 3 B 3 c 4 B 3 B 3 B 2 B 4 B 3 D 4 [I 2 B 2 [I 1 A 4 [I 1 c 3 c 3 B 3 A 4 [I 3 D 2 D 2 B 2 D 2 A 3 [I 1 B 3 B 3 A 2 c 1 E 1 [I 2 B 3 E 4 [I 3 D 3 R A R R R A R R p A R A A R A A A p A A A A A A A R R A R A A A A A R R R R A R A R A A R A A A A A 2 2 2 3 2 3 2 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 2 3 3 3 2 3 2 2 3 2 2 3 2 2 3 2 3 3 3 2 3 3 2 3 3 65000 20000 60000 15000 108000 1800000 96000 75000 450800 25000 13500 13900 16700 100000 45000 12000 60000 8000 0 60000 50000 10000 2546 45000 0 52000 323000 0 100000 1600(1 36000 2500 15000 21000 148000 50000 21000 20000 1300000 350000 (I 0 60000 17000 19981 100000 0 9259 30000 120000 103 .17 2.42 105.08 2.50 38.18 3.13 50.23 34.53 9.17 7.74 98.25 40.29 106.03 68.63 15.65 5.08 5.16 1.42 () 5.28 3.15 73 ..,.., -19.26 0 6.81 32.77 0 49.80 16.02 2.57 .36 .54 4.46 503.40 35.64 .92 11.24 21.42 129.87 0 0 6.47 39.24 59.94 49.09 (I 7.75 22.51 35.31 1984 1981 1983 1983 1982 1984 1982 1983 1973 1984 1982 1983 1982 1982 1981 1984 1983 1983 1985 1981 1981 1982 1982 1982 1986 1987 1980 1982 1975 1981 1987 1983 1983 1983 1979 1980 1983 1982 1979 1979 1982 1984 1984 1982 1984 1981 1982 1984 1984 1980 4 4 4 2 r 4 3 2 1 2 2 r 2 4 r 4 4 1 1 1 2 2 6 5 2 2 2 3 5 2 4 3 1 2 2 5 4 4 4 4 5 2 5 4 2 2 2 4 2 15 v 2 21 v 1 19 v 1 10 24 30 15 15 35 16 21 15 v p F p v F v v v 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 4 27 F v v v 22 14 13 4 2 1 2 29 15 3 21 15 3 24 19 9 22 22 15 15 12 14 10 21 9 17 12 8 24 25 15 23 15 10 9 20 13 10 22 v 1 v 1 v 1 v p v v v v 1 1 1 1 1 1 v 1 F 1 v 1 v 3 v 4 v 1 0 1 v 1 v 1 v 1 p 3 v 1 v 3 F 1 v 2 v 4 v 1 v 1 v 2 v 1 p 2 v 1 v 1 v 4 p 1

PAGE 262

245 Fd .Dist. Info "'t: bs Type A.D.A. Pop. Po W CCE W P Loc TFF PPFF Date F. F Dir. Sta Dec ----------------------------------------------------------------------E u E u H E E u u E E E E 3411 1297 2035 29241 24558 838 841 14655 18399 676 296 1819 5542 Fd Type ADA Pop Po WCCE WP Loc TFF PPFF Date F FDir Sta Dec 69717 B 3 A 2 5000 1.47 4898 E 3 A 3 80000 61.68 23382 D 4 A 3 2.56 150000 A 4 288000 A 3 9000 E 1 60000 E 4 89000 B 3 65000 c 4 5000 E 2 5291 E 1 50000 c 3 30000 [I 4 Foundation District Type A 2 10000 A 3 303415 A 2 150000 R 2 6515 A 3 14466 A 2 71142 R '"' 35000 "'R 2 161000 R .., 9862 A 2 10000 Average Daily Attendance Population Population Density .34 12.36 180.00 7.75 .99 3.87 51.78 543.92 5.42 t.ao District Wealth (CCEF Guidelines) District Wealth (Federal Poverty Index) Location Total Foundation Funds Raised Foundation Funds Raised per ADA Date of Foundation Formations Foundation Initiators Number of Foundation Directors Staffing Decision Making Authority 1985 4 21 F' r 1 1982 4 16 v 1 1983 6 10 v 1 1985 1 15 v 1 1987 1 8 v 1 1982 C' .... 10 v 1 1985 2 5 v 1 1987 C" 12 F 1 1983 1 7 v 1 1984 2 16 v 1 1979 C' .... 12 p 4 1984 2 8 v 1 1982 6 25 v 4

PAGE 263

APPENDIXG REPORTS PUBLISHED BY THE CALIFORNIA STATE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 246

PAGE 264

1987-88 ANNUAL K-12 DATA BY COUNTY, LEVEL, DISTRICT NAME 247

PAGE 265

2/23/89 248 1987-88 ANNUAL K-12 DATA BY COUNTY, LEVEL, DISTRICT NAME L co DISTRICT NAME 01 1 MOUNTAIN HOUSE ELEM. MURRAY ELEM. PLEASANTON JOINT ELEM. CO 07 SUNOL GLEN ELEM. 2 AMADOR VALLEY JT UN HIGH CO 4 ALAMEDA CITY UNIF. ALBANY CITY UNIF. BERKELEY CITY UNIF. CASTRO VALLEY UNIF. EMERY UNIF. FREMONT UNIF. HAYWARD UNIF. LIVERMORE VALLEY JT UNIF. CO NEW HAVEN UNIF. NEWARK UNIF. OAKLAND CITY UNIF. PIEDMONT CITY UNIF. SAN LEANDRO UNIF. SAN LORENZO UNIF. COUNTY TOTAL 02 4 ALPINE COUNTY UNIF. 03 4 AMADOR COUNTY UNIF. 04 1 BANGOR UNION ELEM. FEATHER FALLS UNION ELEM. GOLDEN FEATHER UNION ELEM. GRIDLEY UNION ELEM. MANZANITA ELEM. OROVILLE CITY ELEM. PALERMO UNION ELEM PIONEER UNION ELEM THERMALITO UNION ELEM. 2 GRIDLEY UNION HIGH OROVILLE UNION HIGH 4 BIGGS UNIF. CHICO UNIF. DURHAM UNIF. PARADISE UNIF. COUNTY TOTAL CODE 61218 61226 61283 61325 0 61135 61119 61127 61143 61150 61168 61176 61192 61200 61242 61234 61259 61275 61291 61309 61333 73981 61382 61440 61457 61465 61499 61507 61523 73379 61549 61473 61515 61408 61424 61432 61531 REVENUE LIMIT ADA 39 3,473 4,252 170 4,308 8,619 2,488 8,326 5,253 507 25,877 17,593 10,181 11,411 6,729 49,347 2,019 5,967 7,643 174,202 BASE REV.LIM PER ADA 2,972.16 2,625.51 2,532.79 3,708.30 3,078.02 2,644.38 2,888.49 3,101.24 2,888.84 4,011.19 2,650.80 2,675.34 2,659.31 2,646.15 2,695.50 2,667.44 3,025.71 2,815.03 2,717.18 142 3,105.30 3,820 2,659.84 101 2,452.40 69 2,984.62 261 3,460.97 1,279 2,470.56 163 2,458.34 2,720 2,455.84 1,035 2,455.84 141 2,449.21' 1,120 2,455.66 602 3,087.26 2,130 3,079.32 657 2,804.19 10,362 2,652.53 948 2,804.96 4,189 2,645.19 25,777 Source: Local Assistance Bureau, California State Department of Education, Sacramento, CA.

PAGE 266

249 23/89 1987-88 ANNUAL K-12 DATA BY COUNTY, LEVEL, DISTRICT NAME L REVENUE BASE DISTRICT LIMIT REV.LIM co NAME CODE ADA PER ADA 05 1 MARK TWAIN UNION ELEM. 61572 423 2,457.46 VALLECITO UNION ELEM. 61580 1 1087 2,470.75 2 BRET HARTE UNION HIGH 61556 701 3,724.09 4 CALAVERAS UNIF. 61564 2,924 2,641.83 COUNTY TOTAL 51 135 06 4 COLUSA UNIF. 61598 1 1350 2 '821. 46 MAXWELL UNIF. 61606 359 2,866.48 PIERCE JT. UNIF. co 57 61614 928 2,781.02 WILLIAMS UNIF. 61622 588 2,850.63 COUNTY TOTAL 3,225 07 1 BRENTWOOD UNION ELEM. 61655 1 '620' 2,459.22 BYRON UNION ELEM. 61663 498 2,517.52 CANYON ELEM. 61671 36 3,020.31 KNIGHTSEN ELEM. 61705 243 3,496.68 LAFAYETTE ELEM. 61713 2,478 2,574.52 MORAGA ELEM. 61747 1 1455 2,586.79 OAKLEY UNION ELEM. 61762 11820 2,457.10 ORINDA UNION ELEM. 61770 1, 687 2,654.33 WALNUT CREEK ELEM. 61812 2,511 .2,727.12 2 ACALANES UNION HIGH 61630 51 102 3,153.09 LIBERTY UNION HIGH 61721 1 513 3,074.74 4 ANTIOCH UNIF. 61648 11,166 2,640.70 JOHN SWETT UNIF. 61697 1, 989 2,835.88 MARTINEZ UNIF. .61739 3,507 2,918.42 MT. DIABLO UNIF. 61754 31,411 2,688.62 PITTSBURG UNIF. 61788 7,529 2,680.57 RICHMOND UNIF. 61796 27,723 2,671.02 SAN RAMON VALLEY UNIF. 61804 14,852 2,646.36 COUNTY TOTAL 117,140 08 4 DEL NORTE COUNTY UNIF. 61820 3,682 2,645.63 09 1 BUCKEYE UNION ELEM. 61838 2,098 2,467.44 CAMINO UNION ELEM. 61846 541 2,460.21 GOLD OAK UNION ELEM. 61879 793 2,456.63 GOLD TRAIL UNION ELEM. 61887 564 2,460.27 INDIAN DIGGINGS ELEM. 61895 26 3,511.27 LATROBE ELEM. 61911 109 2,990.13 MOTHER LODE UNION ELEM. 61929 1 '548 2,457.07 PIONEER UNION ELEM. 61945 557 2,465.31 PLACERVILLE UNION ELEM. 61952 1 t 321 2,458.08

PAGE 267

250 23/89 1987-88 ANNUAL K-12 DATA BY COUNTY, LEVEL, DISTRICT NAME L REVENUE BASE DISTRICT LIMIT REV.LIM co NAME CODE ADA PER ADA 09 1 POLLOCK PINES ELEM. 61960 963 2,456.87 RESCUE UNION ELEM. 61978 1 '5 71 2,457.63 SILVER FORK ELEM. 61986 21 3,102.10 2 EL DORADO UNION HIGH 61853 4,042 3,071.78 4 BLACK OAK MINE UNIFIED 73783 1 ,683 2,784.86 LAKE TAHOE UNIF. 61903 4,360 2,640.32 COUNTY TOTAL 20 1 197 10 1 ALVINA ELEM. 61994 130 2,659.39 AMERICAN UNION ELEM: 62000 377 2,457.78 AUBERRY UNION ELEM. 62018 466 2,483.49 BIG CREEK ELEM. 62026 94 3,588.44 BURREL UNION ELEM. 62042 140 2,528.51 CANTUA ELEM. 62059 304 2,495.29 CARUTHERS UNION ELEM. 62067 666 2,479.13 CHAWANAKEE ELEM. 62091 15 4,841.79 CLAY JOINT ELEM. CO 54 62109 128 3,002.69 FRIANT UNION ELEM. 62182 55 2,985.25 HELM ELEM. 62190 58 3,171.63 KINGSBURG JT. UNION ELEM. cos 62240 1 '426 2,458.93 MENDOTA UNION ELEM. 62315 1,524 2,475.07 MONROE ELEM. 62323 149 2,583.83 ORANGE CENTER ELEM. 62331 272 2,576.18 ORO LOMA ELEM. 62349 189 2,530.31 PACIFIC UNION ELEM. 62356 391 2,445.48 PINE RIDGE ELEM. 62372 126 3,752.43 RAISIN CITY ELEM. 62380 298 2,475.12 RIVERDALE JT. UNION ELEM. co 62398 631 2,471.97 SAN JOAQUIN ELEM. 62422 605 2,477.39 SIERRA UNION ELEM. 62448 495 2,824.63 TRANQUILLITY ELEM. 62497 228 2,455.64 WASHINGTON COLONY ELEM. 62513 395 2,491.82 WEST FRESNO ELEM. 62174 538 2,528.14 WEST PARK ELEM. 62539 301 2,456.56 WESTSIDE ELEM. 62547 384 2,454.41 2 CARUTHERS UNION HIGH 62075 563 3,136.51 KINGSBURG JT. UN. HIGH COS 16 62257 778 3,080.82 RIVERDALE JT. UNION HIGH CO 1 62406 547 3,090.25 SIERRA JT. UNION HIGH CO 20 62455 866 3,248.80 TRANQUILLITY UNION HIGH 62505 1 '073 3,081.34 WASHINGTON UNION HIGH 62521 973 3,105.45 4 CENTRAL UNIFIED 73965 4,001 2,731.40 CLOVIS UNIF. 62117 18,339 2,656.38 COALINGA/HURON aT. UNIF. CO2 62125 3,085 2,.51 FIREBAUGH-LAS DELTAS JT UNIF. 73809 1, 736 2,802.72 FOWLER UNIF. 62158 1 '623 2,800.83 FRESNO CITY UNIF. 62166 61 1 366 2,654.12

PAGE 268

23/89 1987-88 ANNUAL K-12 DATA 251 BY COUNTY, LEVEL, DISTRICT NAME L REVENUE BASE DISTRICT LIMIT REV.LIM co NAME CODE ADA PER ADA 10 4 KERMAN UNIF. 73999 2,928 2,731.11 KINGS CANYON JT. UNIF. CO 54 62265 6 ,382 2,678.18 LATON JT. UNIFIED co 16 62281 696 2,819.44 PARLIER UNIF. 62364 2,085 2,693.51 SANGER UNIF. 62414 6,411 2,653.05 SELMA UNIF. 62430 4,743 2,661.31 COUNTY TOTAL 128,580 1 1 1 CAPAY JOINT UNION ELEM. CO 52 62554 138 2,446.96 HAMILTON UNION ELEM. 62570 429 2 454.19 LAKE ELEM. 62596 114 2,508.51 ORLAND JOINT UNION ELEM. CO 5 62612 1. 330 2,457.54 PLAZA ELEM. 62638 127 2,513.76 2 HAMILTON UNION HIGH 62588 204 3,900.94 ORLAND JOINT UNION HIGH CO 52 62620 579 3,070.54 4 PRINCETON JOINT UNIF. CO 06 62646 229 3,348.03 STONY CREEK JOINT UNIF CO 06 62653 159 3' 063. 12 WILLOWS UNIF. 62661 1 '596 2,724.57 COUNTY TOTAL 4,905 12 1 ARCATA ELEM. 62679 950 2,468.72 BIG LAGOON UNION ELEM. 62695 78 3,807.46 BLUE LAKE UNION ELEM. 62703 296 2,475.21 BRIDGEVILLE ELEM. 62729 117 2,930.64 CUDDEBACK .UNION ELEM. 62737 118 2,950 .97 CUTTEN ELEM. 62745 5 1 1 2,457.97 EUREKA CITY ELEM 62752 2,778 2,457.64 FERNDALE ELEM. 62778 381 2,457 .72 FIELDBROOK ELEM. 62794 182 2,457.85 FORTUNA UNION ELEM. 62802 682 2,457.45 FRESHWATER ELEM. 62828 311 2,458.62 GARFIELD ELEM. 62836 38 2,987.90 GREEN POINT ELEM. 62851 18 3,249.51 HYDESVILLE ELEM. 62885 194 2,456.62 JACOBY CREEK ELEM. 62893 348 2,459.25 KNEELAND ELEM. 62919 32 2,959.89 LOLETA UNION ELEM. 62927 162 2,454.31 MAPLE CREEK ELEM. 62935 21 3,231.72 MATTOLE UNION ELEM 62943 99 2,984.27 MCKINLEYVILLE UNION ELEM. 62950 1,342 2,456.82 ORICK ELEM. 62968 79 2,989.01 PACIFIC UNION ELEM. 62976 552 2,458.40 PENINSULA UNION ELEM. 62984 104 2,957.25 RIO DELL ELEM. 63008 407 2,455.98 ROHNERVILLE ELEM. 63016 471 2,455.11 SCOTIA UNION ELEM. 63024 227 2,453.96

PAGE 269

252 23/89 1987-88 ANNUAL K-12 DATA BY COUNTY, LEVEL, DISTRICT NAME L REVENUE BASE DISTRICT LIMIT REV.LIM co NAME CODE ADA PER ADA 12 1 SOUTH BAY UNION ELEM. 63032 595 2,456.23 TRINIDAD UNION ELEM. 63057 239 2,481.03 2 EUREKA CITY HIGH 62760 3,014 3 1 111 85 FERNDALE UNION HIGH 62786 154 3,430.71 FORTUNA UNION HIGH 62810 924 3,075.21 NORTHERN HUMBOLDT UNION HIGH 62687 1 '520 3,105.87 4 KLAMATH-TRINITY JT. UNIF. CO 62901 1,188 2,780.57 SOUTHERN HUMBOLDT JT. UNIF. c 63040 1,435 2,779.20 COUNTY TOTAL 19,567 13 1 BRAWLEY ELEM. 63073 3,336 2,458.77 EL CENTRO ELEM. 63123 5. 122 2,458.76 HEBER ELEM. 63131 514 2,456.24 MAGNOLIA UNION ELEM. 63172 83 2,959.14 MCCABE UNION ELEM. 63180 366 2,458.42 MEADOWS UNION ELEM. 63198 470 2,458.56 MULBERRY ELEM. 63206 73 3,328.76 SEELEY UNION ELEM. 63222 439 2,457.35 WESTMORLAND UNION ELEM. 63230 418 2,457.57 2 BRAWLEY UNION HIGH 63081 1, 501 3,082.95 CENTRAL UNION HIGH 63115 2,596 3,070.13 4 CALEXICO UNIF. 63099 6' 135 2,640.64 CALIPATRIA UNIF. 63107 1,188 2,802.79 HOLTVILLE UNIF. 63149 1,730 2,639.84 IMPERIAL UNIFIED 63164 1,268 2,789.84 SAN PASQUAL VALLEY UNIF. 63214 2,807.40 COUNTY TOTAL 25,907 14 1 BISHOP UNION ELEM. 63255 1,399 2,457.27 ROUND VALLEY JOINT ELEM. co 63305 130 2,454.94 2 BISHOP JOINT UNION HIGH co 2 63263 659 3,085.01 4 BIG PINE UNIF. 63248 346 2,957.23 DEATH VALLEY UNIF. 63271 127 3,703.17 LONE PINE UNIF. 63289 440 3,346.52 OWENS VALLEY UNIF. 63297 140 4,574.81 COUNTY TOTAL 3,241 15 1 ARVIN UNION ELEM. 63313 1 '667 2,485. 16 BAKERSFIELD CITY ELEM. 63321 20,733 2,476.00 BEARDSLEY ELEM. 63339 1,691 2,462.96 BELRIDGE ELEM. 63347 71 3,843.67 BLAKE ELEM. 63354 13 4,905.21 BUENA VISTA ELEM. 63362 34 4,318.28 BUTTONWILLOW UNION ELEM. 63370 403 2,486.95 CALIENTE UNION ELEM. 63388 95 2,971.83

PAGE 270

'23/89 253 1987-88 ANNUAL K-12 DATA BY COUNTY, LEVEL, DISTRICT NAME L co DISTRICT NAME CODE 15 1 DELANO UNION ELEM. 63404 DI GIORGIO 63420 EDISON ELEM. 63438 EL TEJON UNION ELEM. 63453 ELK HILLS ELEM. 63446 FAIRFAX ELEM. 63461 FRUITVALE ELEM. 63479 GENERAL SHAFTER ELEM. 63487 GREENFIELD UNION ELEM. 63503 KERNVILLE UNION ELEM. 63545 LAKESIDE UNION ELEM. 63552 LAMONT ELEM. 63560 LERDO ELEM. 63578 LINNS VALLEY-POSO FLAT UNION 63586 LOST HILLS UNION ELEM. 63594 MAPLE ELEM. 63610 MCKITTRICK ELEM. 63651 MIDWAY ELEM. 63669 NORRIS ELEM. 63693 PANAMA UNION ELEM. 63701 POND UNION ELEM. 63719 RICHLAND ELEM. 63735 RIO BRAVO-GREELEY UNION ELEM. 73544 ROSEDALE UNION ELEM. 63750 SEMITROPIC ELEM. 63768 SOUTH FORK UNION ELEM. 63784 STANDARD ELEM. 63792 TAFT CITY ELEM. 63800 VINELAND ELEM. 63834 WASCO UNION ELEM. 63842 2 DELANO JOINT UNION HIGH CO 54 63412 KERN COUNTY UNION HIGH 63529 TAFT UNION HIGH 63818 WASCO UNION HIGH 63859 4 MARICOPA UNIF. 63628 MCFARLAND UNIFIED 73908 MOJAVE UNIF. 63677 MUROC JT. UNIFIED CO. 36 63685 SIERRA SANDS JT. UNIF. COS 14 73742 SOUTHERN KERN UNIF. 63776 TEHACHAPI UNIF. 63826 COUNTY TOTAL 16 1 ARMONA UNION ELEM. 63875 CENTRAL UNION ELEM. 63883 DELTA VIEW JT UNION ELEM. CO 63909 HANFORD ELEM. 63917 REVENUE LIMIT ADA BASE REV. LIM PER ADA 3,675 2,472.05 138 3,190.43 610 2,479.70 936 2,483.33 104 5,213.19 1,070 2,463 .10 801 2,809.78 87 2,630.18 4,023 2,490.46 950 2,460.97-233 3,294.68 1,944 2,457.85 56 2,717.52 98 2,998 .09 348 2,902.05 131 2,592.80 48 7,515.42 176 3,542.33 1,209 2,457.58 8,326 2,474.35 117 2,673.52 2,025 2,471.57 453 2,654.00 1,467 2,458.83 129 2,591.75 279 2,495.97 2,056 2,459.16 2,082 2,521.47 662 2,456.46 2,269 2,486.30 2,144 3,089.96 18,524 3,373.57 863 4,049.05 788 3,873.39 478 3,164.36 2,061 2,929.43 1,607 3,102.00 2,946 2,646.07 6,034 2,654.29 1,427 2,803.93 3,098 2,643.91 101,179 932 2,464.12 1,790 2,458 .35 94 2, 451.32 3,977 2,461.36

PAGE 271

(23/89 254 1987-88 ANNUAL K-12 DATA BY COUNTY, LEVEL, DISTRICT NAME L co DISTRICT NAME 16 1 ISLAND UNION ELEM. KINGS RIVER-HARDWICK UNION KIT CARSON UNION ELEM. LAKESIDE UNION ELEM. LEMOORE UNION ELEM. PIONEER UNION ELEM. 2 HANFORD JT. UNION HIGH CO LEMOORE UNION HIGH 4 CORCORAN JT. UNIFIED CO 54 REEF-SUNSET UNIFIED COUNTY TOTAL 17 1 LUCERNE ELEM. UPPER LAKE UNION ELEM. 2 UPPER LAKE UNION HIGH 4 KELSEYVILLE UNIF. KONOCTI UNIF. LAKEPORT UNIF. MIDDLETOWN UNIF. COUNTY TOTAL 18 1 JANESVILLE UNION. ELEM. JOHNSTONVILLE ELEM. RAVENDALE ELEM. RICHMOND ELEM. SHAFFER UNION ELEM. SUSANVILLE ELEM. 2 LASSEN UNION HIGH CODE 63933 EL 63941 63958 63966 63974 63990 54 63925 63982 63891 73932 64048 64063 64071 64014 64022 64030 64055 64105 64113 64162 64170 4 BIG VALLEY JOINT UNIF. CO 25 FORT SAGE UNIFIED .64188 64196 64139 64089 75036 64204 WESTWOOD UNIF. COUNTY TOTAL 19 1 ALHAMBRA CITY ELEM CASTAIC UNION ELEM. EAST WHITTIER CITY ELEM. EASTSIDE UNION ELEM. EL MONTE ELEM. GARVEY ELEM. GORMAN ELEM. HAWTHORNE ELEM. HERMOSA BEACH CITY ELEM. HUGHES-ELIZABETH LAKES UNION KEPPEL UNION ELEM. LANCASTER ELEM. 64220 64345 64485 64477 64501 64550 64584 64592 64600 64626 64642 64667 REVENUE LIMIT ADA 225 255 404 408 1, 906 325 2,249 1,376 2,547 1, 673 18,161 BASE REV.LIM PER ADA 2,454.74 2,464.80 2,459.12 2,477.60 2,484.53 2,457.21 3,085.15 3,081.37 2,646.37 2,768.36 234 2,460.59 539' 2' 459. 29 293 3,413.73 1,619 2,795.95 2,634 2,667.32 1,402 2,786.57 1,124 2,852.20 7,845 435 231 31 154 377 1,190 955 391 521 492 4,777 2,400.56 2,453.21 3,264.46 2,420.63 2,386.28 21461 82 3,074.73 2,689.31 3,270.63 2,820.49 10,321 2,475.42 1,016 2,760.84 6,636 2,465.65 986 2,464.19 10,691 2,465.73 7,402 2,463.14 66 3,518.71 5,527 2,459.50 653 3,038.30 353 2,968.63 2,107 2,482.59 8,552 2,458.95

PAGE 272

255 '89 1987-88 ANNUAL K-12 DATA BY COUNTY, LEVEL, DISTRICT NAME L REVENUE BASE DISTRICT LIMIT REV.LIM co NAME CODE ADA PER ADA 1 9 1 LAWNDALE ELEM. 64691 41154 2,458.71 LENNOX ELEM. 64709 4,830 2,460.95 LITTLE LAKE CITY ELEM. 64717 4,020 2,460.28 LOS NIETOS ELEM. 64758 1 1958 2,475.62 LOWELL JOINT ELEM. CO 30 64766 2,335 2,500.11 MANHATTAN BEACH CITY ELEM. 64782 2,207 2,773.14 MOUNTAIN VIEW ELEM. 64816 81 177 2,462.22 NEWHALL ELEM. 64832 3,703 2,475.72 PALMDALE ELEM. 64857 8,376 2,489.98 REDONDO BEACH CITY ELEM. 64915 3,764 2,468.79 ROSEMEAD ELEM. 64931 2,767 21461 56 SAN GABRIEL ELEM. 64956 31 181 2,466.46 SAUGUS UNION ELEM. 64998 4,757 2,458.45 SOLEDAD-AGUA DULCE UNION ELEM 65003 1,077 2,471.01 SOUTH WHITTIER ELEM. 65037 3,417 2,481.93 SULPHUR SPRINGS UNION ELEM. 65045 2,766 2,457.54 VALLE LINDO ELEM. 65078 1 1046 2,473.02 WESTSIDE UNION ELEM. 65102 2,656 2,464.39 WHITTIER CITY ELEM. 65110 5,714 2,468.53 WILSONA ELEM. 65151 1 1575 41370.12 WISEBURN ELEM. 65169 1 1 193 3,023.88 2 ALHAMBRA CITY HIGH 64238 91809 3, 092. 18 ANTELOPE VALLEY UNION HIGH 64246 71961 3,086.32 CENTINELA VALLEY UNION HIGH 64352 5, 811 3,080.84 EL MONTE UNION HIGH 64519 81482 3,090.02 SOUTH BAY UNION HIGH 65011 4,409 3,352.58 WHITTIER UNION HIGH 65128 91267 3,280.10 WM. S. HART UNION HIGH 65136 9,203 3,058.51 4 ABC UNIF. 64212 21,611 2,691.01 ARCADIA UNIF. 64261 7,600 2,749.23 AZUSA UNIF. 64279 9,893 2,644.02 BALDWIN PARK UNIF. 64287 14,731 2,639.07 BASSETT UNIF. 64295 4,982 2,669.96 BELLFLOWER UNIF. 64303 9, 177 2,646.43 BEVERLY HILLS UNIF. 64311 4,840 3, 580 84 BONITA UNIF. 64329 9,435 2,645.57 BURBANK UNIF. 64337 1 1 1 9 1 2,688.45 CHARTER OAK UNIF. 64378 5,675 2,644.05 CLAREMONT UNIF. 64394 5,824 2,737.57 COMPTON UNIFIED 73437 26,241 2,642.34 COVINA-VALLEY UNIF. 64436 11,272 2,683.75 CULVER CITY UNIF. 64444 4,600 2,996.76 DOWNEY UNIF. 64451 131734 2,647.95 DUARTE UNIF. 64469 41350 2,645.16' EL RANCHO UNIF. 64527 10,295 2,641.97 EL SEGUNDO UNIF. 64535 1 1892 31319.28 GLENDALE UNIF. 64568 21 1 135 2,648.27 GLENDORA UNIF. 64576 5,774 2,650.74

PAGE 273

256 3/89 1987-88 ANNUAL K-12 DATA BY COUNTY, LEVEL, DISTRICT NAME L REVENUE BASE DISTRICT LIMIT REV.LIM co NAME CODE ADA PER ADA 19 4 HACIENDA-LA PUENTE UNIFIED 73445 23,435 2,652.81 INGLEWOOD UNIF. 64634 15,295 2,641.99 LA CANADA UNIF. 64659 3 1 113 2,885.65 LAS VIRGENES UNIF. 64683 8,545 2,717.02 LONG BEACH UNIF. 64725 64,491 2,645.25 LOS ANGELES UNIFIED 64733 574,217 2,645.65 LYNWOOD UNIF. 64774 13 J 136 2,639.88 MONROVIA UNIF. 64790 5,223 2,697-.24 MONTEBELLO UNIF. 64808 32,264 2,638.14 NORWALK-LA MIRADA CITY UNIF. 64840 18,402 2,653.65 PALOS VERDES PENINSULA UNIF. 64865 1 0. 152 2,803.50 PARAMOUNT UNIF. 64873 11 '763 2,638.78 PASADENA CITY UNIF. 64881 21 J 763 2,674.58 POMONA UNIF. 64907 24,058 2,641.04 ROWLAND UNIFIED 73452 19,057 2,640.40 SAN MARINO UNIF. 64964 2,736 2,769.70 SANTA MONICA-MALIBU UNIFIED 64980 9,358 2,960.25 SOUTH PASADENA UNIF. 65029 3,423 2,650.32 TEMPLE CITY UNIF. 65052 4,292 2,646.09 TORRANCE UNIF. 65060 19,406 2,729.90 WALNUT VALLEY UNIFIED 73460 10,731 2,646.76 WEST COVINA UNIF. 65094 8,081 2,646.39 COUNTY TOTAL 1 ,290,118 20 1 ALVIEW-DAIRYLAND UNION ELEM. 65177 293 2,469.04 BASS LAKE ELEM. 65185 109 2' 989. 12 CHOWCHILLA ELEM. 65193 1 ,248 2,500.09 COARSEGOLD UNION ELEM. 65219 587 2,489.99 NORTH FORK UNION ELEM. 65250 412 2,460.38 OAKHURST UNION ELEM. 65268 679 2,457.01 RAYMOND-KNOWLES UNION fLEM. 65276 73 2' 991.86 SPRING VA.LLEY ELEM. 65284 320 2,488.02 WASUMA UNION ELEM. 65292 289 2,558.27 2 CHOWCHILLA UNION HIGH 65201 704 3,152.69 YOSEMITE UNION HIGH 73734 780 3,071.19 4 MADERA UNIF. 65243 12' 188 2,638.00 COUNTY TOTAL 17,682 21 1 .BOLINAS-STINSON UNION ELEM. 65300 205 2,462.98 DIXIE ELEM. 65318 1 '223 3,147.35 KENTFIELD ELEM. 65334 692 3,229.70 LAGUNA JOINT ELEM. co 49 65342 24 3,068.02 LAGUNITAS ELEM. 65359 322 2,550.63 LARKSPUR ELEM. 65367 639 3' 071.44 LINCOLN ELEM. 65375 12 3,703.29 MILL VALLEY ELEM. 65391 1 1606 2,814.95

PAGE 274

257 3/89 1987-88 ANNUAL K-12 DATA BY COUNTY, LEVEL, DISTRICT NAME L REVENUE BASE DISTRICT LIMIT REV.LIM co NAME CODE ADA PER ADA 21 NICASIO ELEM. 65409 46 2,987.78 REED UNION ELEM. 65425 841 3,198.54 ROSS ELEM. 65433 296 2,726.71 ROSS VALLEY UNION ELEM. 75002 1 1431 3,025.85 SAN RAFAEL CITY ELEM 65458 2,526 2,782.54 SAUSALITO ELEM. 65474 381 3,370.84 UNION JOINT ELEM. CO 49 65516 23 3,969.21 2 SAN RAFAEL CITY HIGH 65466 21 169 3,329.09 TAMALPAIS UNION HIGH 65482 3,759 3,375.67 4 NOVATO UNIF. 65417 7,853 2,644.74 SHORELINE JOINT UNIF. co 49 73361 771 2,787.10 COUNTY TOTAL 24,819 22 4 MARIPOSA COUNTY UNIF. 65532 21 152 2,656.65 23 1 ARENA UNION ELEM. 65557 295 2,474.42 MANCHESTER UNION ELEM. 65573 51 3,224.52 2 POINT ARENA JT. UN. HIGH CO 4 65599 174 3,870.68 4 ANDERSON VALLEY UNIF. 65540 478 2,902.69 FORT BRAGG UNIF. 65565 2,387 2,638.26 LAYTONVILLE UNIF. 73916 541 2,795.90 MENDOCINO UNIF. 65581 939 2,866.07 POTTER VALLEY COMMUNITY UNIF. 73866 447 2,812.21 ROUND VALLEY UNIF. 65607 441 2,793.85 UKIAH UNIF. 65615 5,808 2,637.68 WILLITS UNIF. 65623 2,292 2,756.53 COUNTY TOTAL 13,853 24 1 ATWATER ELEM. 65631 3,957 2,458.32 BALLICO-CRESSEY ELEM. 65649 321 2,499.88 DELHI ELEM. 65656 880 2,464.37 DOS PALOS JT. UN. ELEM. co 10 65664 1 ,442 2,478.54 EL NIDO ELEM. 65680 150 2 '525. 13 LE GRAND UNION ELEM. 65722 313 2 '456. 19 LIVINGSTON UNION ELEM. 65748 1 '613 2,474.00 MCSWAIN UNION ELEM. 65763 536 2,455.99 MERCED CITY ELEM. 65771 9,432 2 '458. 16 MERCED RIVER UNION ELEM 73726 279 2' 453. 16 PLAINSBURG UNION ELEM. 65813 88 2,988.48 PLANADA ELEM. 65821 650 2,458.85 SNELLING-MERCED FALLS UNION E 65839 96 3,018.36 WEAVER UNION ELEM. 65862 993 2,456.89 WINTON ELEM. 65870 1' 154 2,464.29 2 DOS PALOS JT. UN. HIGH COS 10 65672 843 31 106 41

PAGE 275

3/89 258 1987-88 ANNUAL K-12 DATA BY COUNTY, LEVEL, DISTRICT NAME L co DISTRICT NAME 24 2 LE GRAND UNION HIGH MERCED UNION HIGH 4 GUSTINE UNIFIED HILMAR UNIF. LOS BANOS UNIF. COUNTY TOTAL CODE 65730 65789 73619 65698 65755 25 4 MODOC JOINT UNIFIED CO 18 73585 SURPRISE VALLEY JT. UNIF. CO 65896 TULELAKE BASIN JT. UNIF. CO 4 73593 COUNTY TOTAL 26 4 EASTERN SIERRA UNIFIED MAMMOTH UNIFIED COUNTY TOTAL 27 1 ALISAL UNION ELEM. BRADLEY UNION ELEM. CHUALAR UNION ELEM. GONZALES UNION ELEM. GRAVES ELEM. GREENFIELD UNION ELEM. KING CITY UNION ELEM. LAGUNITA ELEM. MISSION UNION ELEM. PACIFIC ELEM. SALINAS CITY ELEM. SAN ANTONIO UNION ELEM. SAN ARDO UNION ELEM. SAN LUCAS UNION ELEM. SANTA RITA UNION ELEM. SOLEDAD UNION ELEM. SPRECKELS UNION ELEM. WASHINGTON UNION ELEM. 2 GONZALES UNION HIGH KING CITY JT. UNION HIGH CO SALINAS UNION HIGH 4 CARMEL UNIF. MONTEREY PENINSULA UNIF. NORTH MONTEREY CO. UNIFIED PACIFIC GROVE UNIF. COUNTY TOTAL 28 1 HOWELL MOUNTAIN ELEM. 73668 73692 65961 65979 65995 66001 66027 66035 66050 66076 66084 66126 66142 66167 66175 66183 66191 66209 66225 66233 66019 3 66068 66159 65987 66092 73825 66134 66258 REVENUE LIMIT ADA BASE REV.LIM PER ADA 425 3,047.48 6,967 3,064.70 1,069 2, 785.18 1,681 2, 781.90 3,314 2,657.49 36,203 1,081 2, 796.75 247 2,803.54 515 2,792.54 1,843 622 2,886.74 702 2,882.07 1,324 4. 120 27 407 969 53 1. 513 1,602 33 72 36 7,229 214 152 140 1,652 1. 576 476 679 1, 058 1. 035 7,822 2' 174 13,858 4,893 ?.452 54,242 2,458.02 21891 o 58 2,462.28 2,459.07 2,987.48 2,471.65 2,457.99 2,985.94 2,984.40 2,984.92 2,461. 90 2,455.45 2,632.14 2,601.29 2,457.73 2,460.36 2,455.51 2,454.86 3,113.19 3,082.27 3,061.05 2,835.83 2,638.26 2,641.43 2,652.97 155 2,541.97

PAGE 276

23/89 259 1987-88 ANNUAL K-12 DATA BY COUNTY, LEVEL, DISTRICT NAME L co DISTRICT NAME 28 1 POPE VALLEY UNION ELEM. 4 CALISTOGA JOINT UNIF. CO 49 NAPA VALLEY UNIF. ST. HELENA UNIF. COUNTY TOTAL 29 1 CHICAGO PARK ELEM. CLEAR CREEK ELEM. GRASS VALLEY ELEM. NEVADA CITY ELEM. PLEASANT RIDGE UNION ELEM. PLEASANT VALLEY ELEM. READY SPRINGS UNION ELEM. TWIN RIDGES ELEM. UNION HILL ELEM. CODE 66282 66241 66266 66290 66316 66324 66332 66340 66373 66381 66399 66415 66407 2 NEVADA JT. UNION HIGH CO. 58 66357 COUNTY TOTAL 30 1 ANAHEIM CITY ELEM. BUENA PARK ELEM. CENTRALIA ELEM. CYPRESS ELEM. FOUNTAIN VALLEY ELEM. FULLERTON ELEM. HUNTINGTON BEACH CITY ELEM LA HABRA CITY ELEM. MAGNOLIA ELEM. OCEAN VIEW ELEM. SAVANNA ELEM. WESTMINSTER ELEM. YORBA LINDA ELEM. 2 ANAHEIM UNION HIGH FULLERTON UNION HIGH CO 19 HUNTINGTON BEACH UNION HIGH 4 BREA-OLINDA UNIF. CAPISTRANO UNIF. GARDEN GROVE UNIF. IRVINE UNIFIED LAGUNA BEACH UNIF. LOS ALAMITOS UNIFIED NEWPORT-MESA UNIF. ORANGE UNIF. PLACENTIA UNIF. SADDLEBACK VALLEY UNIF. SANTA. ANA UNIFIED TUSTIN UNIFIED 66423 66456 66472 66480 66498 66506 66530 .66563 66589 66613 66696 66746 66753 66431 66514 66548 66449 66464 66522 73650 66555 73924 66597 66621 66647 73635 66670 73643 REVENUE LIMIT ADA BASE REV.LIM PER ADA 47 2,999.07 729 2,823.57 11,936 2,646.93 1,342 2,786.61 14,209 147 118 2,047 1,503 1 '842 609 406 343' 389 3' 150 10,554 2,458.41 2,945.22 2,468.11 2,460.61 2,458.86 2,505.46 2,463.08 4,817.72 2,458.13 3' 061.46 12,758 2,459.94 3,816 2,488.01 4' 185 2' 591. 95 3,441 2,745.05 6,162 2,478.17 9,872 2,475.83 5,283 2,466.67 4,326 2,460.02 4,342 2,459.75 8,514 2 455.14 1,764 2,498.58 7,365 2,457.70 1,819 2,471.30 21,802 3,062.02 11,363 3,070.41 16,998 3,091.17 4 1 430 2 1 648 36 21,642 2,644.92 35,982 2,645.83 19,422 2,666.51 2,219 2,776.66 5,896 3,103.24 16,027 2,934.24 24,323 2,666.90 17,365 2,647.48 22,345 2,674.68 36,650 2,641.87 9,963 2,701.45

PAGE 277

260 3/89 1987-88 ANNUAL K-12 DATA BY COUNTY, LEVEL, DISTRICT NAME L REVENUE BASE DISTRICT LIMIT REV. LIM co NAME CODE ADA PER ADA COUNTY TOTAL 340,074 31 1 ACKERMAN ELEM. 66761 270 2,457.16 ALTA-DUTCH FLAT UNION ELEM. 66779 174 2 613.18 AUBURN UNION ELEM. 66787 2,364 2,456.99 COLFAX ELEM. 66795 398 2,453.36 DRY CREEK JOINT ELEM. CO 34 66803 329 2,465.47 EMIGRANT GAP ELEM. 66811 15 4,181.93 EUREKA UNION ELEM. 66829 1 '435 2,458.22 FORESTHILL UNION ELEM. 66837 562 2,457.35 LOOMIS UNION ELEM. 66845 1 '386 2,457.01 NEWCASTLE ELEM. 66852 277 2,454.08 OPHIR ELEM. 66860 182 2,457.91 PENRYN ELEM. 66878 314 2,464.59 PLACER HILLS UNION ELEM. 66886 1 '234 2,470.46 ROSEVILLE CITY ELEM. 66910 4' 112 2,462.41 2 PLACER UNION HIGH 66894 3,575 3,070.26 ROSEVILLE JT. UNION HIGH CO 3 66928 3,422 3,075.84 4 ROCKLIN UNIFIED 75085 1,991 2,948.60 TAHOE-TRUCKEE JT. UNIF. COS 9 66944 3' 155 2,701.53 WESTERN PLACER UNIF. 66951 2,579 2,641.33 COUNTY TOTAL 27,774 32 4 PLUMAS UNIF. 66969 3,497 2,643.53 33 1 LAKE ELSINORE UNION ELEM. 67066 4,868 2,468.07 MENIFEE UNION ELEM. 67116 967 2,567.51 MURRIETA ELEM. 67140 623 2, 761.47 NUVIEW UNION ELEM. 67157 654 2,458.29 PERRIS ELEM. 67199 1 '975 2,474.07 ROMOLAND ELEM. 67231 611 2,458.26 TEMECULA UNION ELEM. 67256 2,395 2,598.94 VAL VERDE ELEM. 67272 1 '874 2,467.91 2 ELSINORE UNION HIGH 67074 4,029 3' 120.09 PERRIS UNION HIGH 67207 3,606 3,055.23 4 ALVORD UNIF. 66977 12,021 2,639.59 BANNING UNIF. 66985 4,038 2,650.53 BEAUMONT UNIF. 66993 2,795 2,641. 78 COACHELLA VALLEY JT. UNIF. co 73676 7,993 2,642.74 CORONA-NORCO UNIF. 67033 17,769 2,642.70 DESERT CENTER UNIF. 67041 79 2,977.23 DESERT SANDS UNIF 67058 12,772 2,644.61 HEMET UNIF. 67082 10,336 2,642.26 JURUPA JT. UNIF. CO 36 67090 12,875 2,642.88

PAGE 278

261 23/89 1987-88 ANNUAL K-12 DATA BY COUNTY, LEVEL, DISTRICT NAME L REVENUE BASE DISTRICT LIMIT REV.LIM co NAME CODE ADA PER ADA 33 4 MORENO VALLEY UNIF. 67124 20,251 2,645.84 PALM SPRINGS UNIF. 67173 11, 07 4 2,717.81 PALO VERDE UNIF. 67181 3,612 2,657.93 RIVERSIDE UNIF. 67215 26,920 2,645.34 SAN JACINTO UNIF. 67249 2,821 2,643.62 COUNTY TOTAL 166,958 34 1 ARCOHE UNION ELEM. 67280 388 2,467.38 DEL PASO HEIGHTS ELEM. 67306 1 '393 2,467.89 ELVERTA JT. ELEM CO 31 67322 400 2,456.49 GALT JT. UN ELEM CO 39 67348 1,604 2,468.72 NATOMAS UNION ELEM. 67389 1, 691 3,036.14 NORTH SACRAMENTO ELEM. 67397 4,669 2,487.22 RIO LINDA UNION ELEM. 67405 8,631 2,470.31 ROBLA ELEM. 67421 1,425 2,480.72 2 GALT JT. UN. HIGH CO 39 67355 1, 092 3,079.76 GRANT JT. UN HIGH CO 31 67363 10,110 3,052.92 4 CENTER JOINT UNIF. CO 31 73973 3,044 2,643.72 ELK GROVE UNIF. 67314 19,401 2,645.74 FOLSOM-CORDOVA UNIF. 67330 11,061 2,647.20 RIVER DELTA JT UNIF. COS 48-5 67413 2,014 2,880.73 SACRAMENTO CITY UNIF. 67439 45,203 2,655.94 SAN JUAN UNIF. 67447 45,849 2,654.37 COUNTY TOTAL 157,975 35 1 BITTERWATER-TULLY UNION ELEM. 67454 31 2,978.05 CIENEGA UNION ELEM. 67462 27 3,017.48 HOLLISTER ELEM. 67470 3,618 2,462.99 JEFFERSON ELEM. 67488 10 3,623.44 NORTH COUNTY JT. UN. ELEM. co 67504 486 2,463.26 PANOCHE ELEM. 67520 17 3,094.46 SAN JUAN UNION ELEM 67546 554 2,481.04 SOUTHSIDE ELEM. 67553 83 2,987.36 TRES PINOS UNION ELEM. 67561 66 2,973.57 WILLOW GROVE UNION ELEM. 67579 28 2,980.13 2 SAN BENITO JT. UN. HIGH CO 43 67538 1,729 3,088.04 COUNTY TOTAL 6,649 36 1 ADELANTO ELEM. 67587 1 '843 2,459.56 ALTA LOMA ELEM. 67595 6' 175 2,458.86 CENTRAL ELEM. 67645 3,788 2,458.77 CUCAMONGA ELEM. 67694 1 '71 0 2,504.67 ETIWANDA ELEM. 67702 1,315 2,558.49 HELENDALE ELEM. 67736 300 2,706.72 MOUNT BALDY JT. ELEM. co. 19 67793 96 2,926.70

PAGE 279

262 3/89 1987-88 ANNUAL K-12 DATA BY COUNTY, LEVEL, DISTRICT NAME L REVENUE BASE DISTRICT LIMIT REV.LIM co NAME CODE ADA PER ADA 36 MOUNTAIN VIEW ELEM. 67785 1,713 2,579.80 ONTARIO-MONTCLAIR ELEM. 67819 18,103 2,467.84 ORO GRANDE ELEM. 67827 135 2,812.74 VICTOR ELEM. 67918 3,691 2,457.71 2 CHAFFEY JT. UNION HIGH CO. 19 67652 11,365 3,084.96 VICTOR VALLEY UNION HIGH 67934 3,668 3,060.85 4 APPLE VALLEY UNIFIED 75077 8,300 2,856.07 BAKER VALLEY UNIFIED 73858 191 3,440.25 BARSTOW UNIF. 67611 6,462 2,649 59 BEAR VALLEY UNIF. 67637 2,501 2,643.07 CHINO UNIF. 67678 18,931 2,642.78 COLTON JOINT UNIF. co 33 67686 13,082 2,644.01 FONTANA UNIF. 67710 19,349 2,641.03 HESPERIA UNIFIED 75044 9' 179 2,805.08 LUCERNE VALLEY UNIFIED 75051 649 2,854.25 MORONGO UNIF. 67777 8,254 2,637.04 NEEDLES UNIFIED 67801 1,385 2,782.90 REDLANDS UNIF. 67843 13,383 2' 641.47 RIALTO UNIF. 67850 15,843 2,639.70 RIM OF THE WORLD UNIF. 67868 4,774 2,653.51 SAN BERNARDINO CITY UNIF. 67876 34' 123 2,642.40 SILVER VALLEY UNIFIED 73890 2,009 2,845.95 SNOWLINE JOINT UNIF. COL 19 73957 2,989 2,899.84 TRONA JOINT UNIF. CO 14 67892 764 2,787.33 UPLAND UNIFIED 75069 9,670 2, 781.71 YUCAIPA JOINT UNIF. CO 33 67959 5,338 2,642.04 COUNTY TOTAL 231,078 37 1 ALPINE UNION ELEM. 67967 1 '360 2,463.99 BONSALL UNION ELEM. 67975 902 2' 457. 19 CAJON VALLEY UNION ELEM. 67991 1"4,437 2,463.85 CARDIFF ELEM. 68007 754 2,459.34 CHULA VISTA CITY ELEM. 68023 15,426 2,460.20 DEHESA ELEM. 68049 128 2,916.24 DEL MAR UNION ELEM. 68056 792 2,795.34 ENCINITAS UNION ELEM. 68080 4,305 21471 02 ESCONDIDO UNION ELEM. 68098 11,744 2,485.60 FALLBROOK UNION ELEM. 68114 4,651 2,460.17 JAMUL-DULZURA UNION ELEM. 68155 855 2, 461.87 JULIAN UNION ELEM. 68163 423 2,459.73 LA MESA-SPRING VALLEY CITY EL 68197 11 '981 2,462.74 LAKESIDE UNION ELEM. 68189 4,208 2,458.57 LEMON GROVE ELEM. 68205 3,451 2,469.58 NATIONAL ELEM. 68221 5,641 2,461.82 PAUMA ELEM. 68288 345 2,581.49 RANCHO SANTA FE ELEM. 68312 470 2,584.63 SAN PASQUAL UNION ELEM. 68353 213 2,515.22

PAGE 280

. 3/89 1987-88 ANNUAL K-12 DATA 263 BY COUNTY, LEVEL, DISTRICT NAME L REVENUE BASE DISTRICT LIMIT REV.LIM co NAME CODE ADA PER ADA 37 1 SAN YSIDRO ELEM. 68379 3,435 2,459.83 SANTEE ELEM. 68361 7 466 2,465.36 SOLANA BEACH ELEM. 68387 1 '328 2,540.96 SOUTH BAY UNION ELEM. 68395 8,226 2,460.79 SPENCER VALLEY ELEM. 68403 38 2,989.40 VALLECITOS ELEM. 68437 151 2,478.20 VALLEY CENTER UNION ELEM. 68445 1, 759 2,465.80 WARNER UNION ELEM. 68460 200 2,506.22 2 ESCONDIDO UNION HIGH 68106 5,547 3, 081.89 FALLBROOK UNION HIGH 68122 2 033 3,082.44 GROSSMONT UNION HIGH 68130 19,528 3,109.81 JULIAN UNION HIGH 68171 206 3,449.98 SAN DIEGUITO UNION HIGH 68346 6,667 3,065.65 SWEETWATER UNION HIGH 68411 25,301 3,066.96 4 BORREGO SPRINGS UNIF. 67983 347 3,694.02 CARLSBAD UNIFIED 73551 5,692 2,716.67 CORONADO CITY UNIF. 68031 2,047 2,667.62 MOUNTAIN EMPIRE UNIF. 68213 1,645 2,792.34 OCEANSIDE UNIFIED 73569 13,817 2,638.98 POWAY CITY UNIF. 68296 20, 184 2,647.54 RAMONA UNIF. 68304 4,846 2,648.95 SAN DIEGO UNIFIED 68338 114,322 2,646.55 SAN MARCOS UNIFIED 73791 6,801 2' 642. 19 VISTA CITY UNIF. 68452 13,979 2' 641.94 COUNTY TOTAL 347,651 38 4 SAN FRANCISCO UNIFIED 68478 63,696 2,706.95 39 1 BANTA ELEM. 68486 221 2,461.78 DELTA ISLAND UNION ELEM. 73478 203 2,581.31 HOLT UNION ELEM. 68536 88 2,985.87 JEFFERSON ELEM. 68544 353 2,808.41 LAMMERSVILLE ELEM. 68551 287 2,510.87 NEW HOPE ELEM. 68619 201 2, 480. 12 NEW JERUSALEM ELEM. 68627 169 2, 460. 12 OAK VIEW UNION ELEM. 68635 265 2,481.20 TRACY ELEM. 68684 4,231 2,482.81 2 TRACY JOINT UNION HIGH C0.01 68692 2, 103 3,073.71 4 ESCALON UNIF. 68502 2, 100 2,643.12 LINCOLN UNIF. 68569 7,898 2, 651.22 LINDEN UNIF. 68577 1, 805 2, 664. 17 LODI UNIF. 68585 20,785 2,644.73 MANTECA UNIF. 68593 11 1 680 2,647.87 RIPON UNIF. 68650 1, 811 2,780.67 STOCKTON CITY UNIF. 68676 29,571 2,643.60

PAGE 281

264 1987-88 ANNUAL K-12 DATA BY COUNTY, LEVEL, DISTRICT NAME L co DISTRICT NAME COUNTY TOTAL CODE 40 1 CAMBRIA UNION ELEM. 68718 CAYUCOS ELEM. 68726 PASO ROBLES UNION ELEM. 68767 PHILLIPS ELEM. 68783 PLEASANT VALLEY JT. UN. ELEM. 68791 SAN MIGUEL JT. UN. ELEM. CO2 68825 2 COAST JOINT UNION HIGH CO 27 68734 PASO ROBLES JT. UNION HIGH CO 68775 4 ATASCADERO UNIF. 68700 LUCIA MAR UNIF. 68759 SAN LUIS COASTAL UNIF. 68809 SHANDON JT. UNIF. CO 27 68833 TEMPLETON UNIF. 68841 COUNTY TOTAL 41 1 BAYSHORE ELEM. BELMONT ELEM. BRISBANE ELEM. BURLINGAME ELEM. HILLSBOROUGH CITY ELEM. JEFFERSON ELEM. LAGUNA SALADA UNION ELEM. LAS LOMITAS. ELEM. MENLO PARK CITY ELEM. MILLBRAE ELEM. PORTOLA VALLEY ELEM. RAVENSWOOD CITY ELEM. REDWOOD C!TY ELEM. SAN BRUNO PARK ELEM. SAN CARLOS ELEM. SAN MATEO CITY ELEM. WOODSIDE ELEM. 2 JEFFERSON UNION HIGH SAN MATEO UNION HIGH SEQUOIA UNION HIGH 4 CABRILLO UNIF. LA HONDA-PESCADERO UNIF. SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO UNIF. COUNTY TOTAL 42 1 BALLARD ELEM. BLOCHMAN UNION ELEM. BONITA ELEM. 68858 68866 68874 68882 68908 68916 68932 68957 .68965 68973 68981 68999 69005 69013 69021 69039 69088 68924 69047 69062 68890 68940 69070 69104 69112 69120 REVENUE LIMIT ADA 83,771 BASE REV.LIM PER ADA 507 2,477.54 274 2,503.02 3,020 2,465.63 36 31078.59 42 21989.78 301 2,525.81 304 31451.46 11188 31079.49 41865 21654.94 71825 21650.14 71199 21832.12 271 21926.06 825 21799.95 26,657 441 2' 498. 12 1 1 818 2 1 644 o 14 448 21871.10 1,549 21787.58 11038 21763.05 61347 21534.41 31993 21468.02 631 31727.74 1,384 3,377.21 1,811 3,007.02 561 3,073.66 3,324 2,464.71 7,032 2,489.99 2,422 21771.81 1,800 2,682.97 8,514 2,634.20 295 3' 254. 56 5,158 3,246.60 81828 3,394.27 6,482 31482.85 2,901 21742.46 385 3 1 061. 98 9,570 21779.77 76,732 60 41846.04 128 2,599 .43 63 21970.62

PAGE 282

265 1987-88 ANNUAL K-12 DATA BY COUNTY, LEVEL, DISTRICT NAME L REVENUE BASE DISTRICT LIMIT REV.LIM co NAME CODE ADA PER ADA 42 1 BUELLTON UNION ELEM. 69138 425 2,463.96 CASMALIA ELEM. 69153 25 3,118.23 COLD SPRING ELEM. 69161 186 2' 481.92 COLLEGE ELEM. 69179 598 2,456.68 GOLETA UNION ELEM. 69195 3,491 2,748.71 GUADALUPE UNION ELEM. 69203 899 2,465.51 HOPE ELEM. 69211 831 2,674.72 LOS ALAMOS ELEM. 69237 151. 2,464.85 LOS OLIVOS ELEM. 69245 254 2,458.23 MONTECITO UNION ELEM. 69252 334 3,055.47 ORCUTT UNION ELEM. 69260 3,384 2,465.45 SANTA BARBARA CITY ELEM 69278 4,412 2,596.18 SANTA MARIA CITY JT. ELEM. co 69302 7,006 2,462.74 SOLVANG ELEM. 69336 491 2,475.57 VISTA DEL MAR UNION ELEM. 69344 60 3 1 199 o 4 7 2 SANTA BARBARA CITY HIGH 69286 8' 171 3,084.67 SANTA MARIA JT. UN. HIGH COS 69310 3,910 3,095.36 SANTA YNEZ VALLEY UNION HIGH 69328 877 3,102.50 4 CARPINTERIA UNIF. 69146 2,410 2,643.50 CUYAMA JOINT UNIFIED COS 40-5 75010 263 3,589.94 LOMPOC UNIF. 69229 9' 194 2,642.80 COUNTY TOTAL 47,623 43 1 ALUM ROCK UNION ELEM. 69369 15,485 2,461.37 BERRYESSA UNION ELEM. 69377 8,358 2,510.25 CAMBRIAN ELEM. 69385 2,239 2,547.79 CAMPBELL UNION ELEM. 69393 5,955 2,595.69 CUPERTINO UNION ELEM. 69419 10,839 2,609.72 EVERGREEN ELEM. 69435 8,552 2,479.46 FRANKLIN-MCKINLEY ELEM. 69450 9,073 2,476.35 LAKESIDE JT. ELEM. CO 44 69492 121 2,620.12 LOMA PRIETA JT. UN. ELEM. co 69500 576 2,477.20 LOS ALTOS ELEM. 69518 2,836 2,601.72 LOS GATOS UNION ELEM. 69526 1 '918 2,753.03 LUTHER BURBANK ELEM. 69542 330 2,467.30 MONTEBELLO ELEM. 69567 r 36 3,065.92 MORELAND ELEM. 69575 3,297 2,670.62 MOUNT PLEASANT ELEM. 69617 2,484 2,490.44 MOUNTAIN VIEW ELEM. 69591 2,375 2,656.10 OAK GROVE ELEM. 69625 11 '961 2,475.76 ORCHARD ELEM. 69633 333 3,536.36 SARATOGA UN. ELEM. 69682 1 '532 2,944.58 SUNNYVALE ELEM. 69690 5,418 2,826.50 UNION ELEM. 69708 4,393 2,674.09 WHISMAN ELEM. 69724 1 '877 2,458.88 2 CAMPBELL UNION HIGH 69401 7,695 3,096.33 EAST SIDE UNION HIGH 69427 22,358 3,076.50

PAGE 283

23/89 266 1987-88 ANNUAL K-12 DATA BY COUNTY, LEVEL, DISTRICT NAME L co DISTRICT NAME CODE 43 2 FREMONT UN. HIGH 69468 LOS GATOS-SARATOGA JT UN HIGH 69534 MOUNTAIN VIEW-LOS ALTOS UNION 69609 4 GILROY UNIF. 69484 MILPITAS UNIFIED 73387 MORGAN HILL UNIF. 69583 PALO ALTO CITY UNIF. 69641 SAN JOSE CITY UNIF. 69666 SANTA CLARA UNIF. 69674 COUNTY TOTAL 44 1 BONNY DOON UNION ELEM. 69732 HAPPY VALLEY ELEM. 69757 LIVE OAK ELEM. 69765 MOUNTAIN ELEM. 69773 PACIFIC ELEM. 69781 SANTA CRUZ CITY ELEM 69815 SCOTTS VALLEY UNION ELEM. 69831 SOQUEL UNION ELEM. 69849 2 SANTA CRUZ CITY HIGH 69823 4 PAJARO VALLEY UNIF. COS 27-35 69799 SAN LORENZO VALLEY UNIF. 69807 COUNTY TOTAL 45 1 BASS ELEM.. 69864 BELLA VISTA ELEM. 69872 BLACK BUTTE UNION ELEM. 69880 BUCKEYE ELEM. 69898 CANYON UNION ELEM. 69906 CASCADE UNION ELEM. 69914 CASTLE ROCK UNION ELEM. 69922 COLUMBIA ELEM. 69948 COTTONWOOD UNION ELEM. 69955 ENTERPRISE ELEM. 69971 FRENCH GULCH-WHISKEYTOWN UNIO 69997 GRANT ELEM. 70003 HAPPY VALLEY UNION ELEM. 70011 IGO-ONO-PLATINA UNION ELEM. 70029 INDIAN SPRINGS ELEM. 70037 JUNCTION ELEM. 70045 MILLVILLE ELEM. 70052 MOUNTAIN UNION 73700 NORTH COW CREEK ELEM. 70078 OAK RUN ELEM. 70086 PACHECO UNION ELEM. 70094 REDDING ELEM. 70110 REVENUE LIMIT ADA BASE REV.LIM PER ADA 8,713 3,186.34 3,235 3,099.75 3,091 3,391.05 8,095 2,654.28 8,140 2,655.08 8,390 2,644.24 7,890 3,549.67 28,837 2,719.61 12,985 2,730.51 219,417 221 2,533.77 142 2,458.55 1,572 2,467.97 158 2,478.95 71 3,136.49 3,273 2,477.36 1,290 2,500.87 2,057 2,497.02 5,732 3,072.19 14,649 2,646.52 3,935 2,642.16 33 1 100 219 2,459.08 398 2,463.89 450 2,459.83 776 2,471.83 126 2,527.22 1,753 2,467.35 54 2,989.90 362 2,447.15 953 2,455.76 2,828 2,460.46 59 2,986.43 334 2,453.87 763 2,473.27 142 2,450.59 56 4,813.56 470 2,470.81 130 2' 619. 16 185 2,628.19 227 2' 457. 12 83 2,951.50 730 2,461. 70 3,024 2,468.11

PAGE 284

267 3/89 1987-88 ANNUAL K-12 DATA BY COUNTY, LEVEL, DISTRICT NAME L REVENUE BASE DISTRICT LIMIT REV.LIM co NAME CODE ADA PER ADA 45 1 SHASTA LAKE UNION ELEM. 70151 1, 452 2,461.06 SHASTA UNION ELEM. 70128 242 2,476.12 WHITMORE ELEM. 70169 103 2,930.41 2 ANDERSON UNION HIGH 69856 1 '900 3,081.73 SHASTA UNION HIGH 70136 5' 128 3,070.69 4 FALL RIVER JT. UNIF. cos 18-2 69989 1 1 791 2,642.28 COUNTY TOTAL 24,738 46 4 SIERRA-PLUMAS JT. UNIF. co 32 70177 701 2,784.02 47 1 BIG SPRINGS UNION ELEM. 70185 161 2,460.57 BOGUS ELEM. 70193 29 3, 182.73 BUTTEVILLE UNION ELEM. 70201 104 2,988.41 DELPHIC ELEM. 70227 34 3,107.13 DUNSMUIR ELEM. 70243 401 2,454.39 tTNA UNION ELEM. 70268 372 2,4.56.45 FALL CREEK ELEM. 70284 3,797.03 FORKS OF SALMON ELEM 70292 44 2' 981.51 FORT JONES UNION ELEM. 70300 147 2,448.94 GAZELLE UNION ELEM. 70318 57 2,985.83 GRENADA ELEM. 70326 154 2,514.59 HAPPY CAMP UNION ELEM. 70334 260 2' 455.73 HORNBROOK ELEM. 70359 94 3,009.51 JUNCTION ELEM. 70367 46 3,050.75 KLAMATH RIVER UNION ELEM. 70375 59 21941 o 69 LITTLE SHASTA ELEM. 70383 17 3,005.86 MC CLOUD UNION ELEM. 70409 255 2,458.92 MONTAGUE ELEM. 70417 348 2,459.27 MOUNT SHASTA UNION ELEM. 70425 909 2,458.97 QUARTZ VALLEY ELEM. 70433 56 3,052.69 SAWYERS BAR ELEM. 70441 30 3,520.05 SEIAD ELEM. 70458 75 2,890.72 WEED UNION ELEM. 70482 539 2,454.97 WILLOW CREEK ELEM. 70490 34 3,935.82 YREKA UNION ELEM. 70508 1 1 3 1 2,463.72 2 DUNSMUIR JT. UN. HIGH CO 45 70250 170 3,437.86 ETNA UNION HIGH 70276 421 3,071.40 SISKIYOU UNION HIGH 70466 852 3' 091 59 YREKA UNION HIGH 70516 871 3,077.29 4 BUTTE VALLEY UNIFIED 73684 412 2,783.63 COUNTY TOTAL 8,082 48 4 BENICIA UNIFIED 70524 3,750 2,724.19 DIXON UNIF. 70532 2,694 2,643.20

PAGE 285

268 1987-88 ANNUAL K-12 DATA BY COUNTY, LEVEL, DISTRICT NAME L REVENUE BASE DISTRICT LIMIT REV.LIM co NAME CODE ADA PER ADA 48 4 FAIRFIELD-SUISUN VALL JT UNIF 70540 16,793 2,640.57 TRAVIS UNIF. 70565 3,208 2,638.21 VACAVILLE UNIF. 70573 10,369 2,647.80 VALLEJO CITY UNIF. 70581 16,119 2,641.19 COUNTY TOTAL 52,933 49 1 ALEXANDER VALLEY UNION ELEM. 70599 106 2. 964 .. 18 BELLEVUE UNION ELEM. 70615 1, 144 2,457.45 BENNETT VALLEY UNION ELEM. 70623 985 2,464.40 CINNABAR ELEM. 70649 249 2,458.58 DUNHAM ELEM. 70672 100 2,626.73 FORESTVILLE UNION ELEM. 70680 710 2,460.36 FORT ROSS ELEM. 70698 78 2,986.67 GRAVENSTEIN UNION ELEM. 70714 780 2. 456. 19 GUERNEVILLE ELEM. 70722 579 2,457.13 HARMONY UNION ELEM. 70730 536 2,456.97 HEALDSBURG UNION ELEM. 70748 1. 230 2,461.50 HORICON ELEM. 70763 98 3,826.46 KENWOOD ELEM. 70789 172 2,499.39 LIBERTY ELEM. 70797 137 2,465.61 MARK WEST UNION ELEM. 70805 757 2,470.51 MONTE RIO UNION ELEM. 70813 205 2,543.01 MONTGOMERY ELEM. 70821 120 2,520.44 OAK GROVE UNION ELEM. 70839 419 2,472.01 OLD ADOBE UNION ELEM. 70847 1, 894 2,475.57 PETALUMA CITY ELEM 70854 2,269 2. 47.3. 16 PINER-OLIVET UNION ELEM. 70870 1, 004 2,458.45 RESERVATION ELEM. 70888 10 3,774.01 RINCON VALLEY UNION ELEM. 70896 2,699 2,460.99 ROSELAND ELEM. 70904 871 2,457.91 SANTA ROSA CITY ELEM 70912 4,439 2,460.91 SEBASTOPOL UNION ELEM. 70938 1 t 209 2,457.60 TWIN HILLS UNION ELEM. 70961 848 21460.49 TWO ROCK UNION ELEM. 70979 144 21358.53 WAUGH ELEM. 70995 38 31210.63 WEST SlOE UNION ELEM. 71001 116 3 1 011 o 89 WILMAR UNION ELEM. 71019 217 21523.36 WINDSOR UNION ELEM. 71027 1 1047 2,457.83 WRIGHT ELEM. 71035 11053 2,464.96 2 ANALY UNION HIGH 70607 21 158 31083.22 HEALDSBURG UNION HIGH 70755 1 1516 3,075.56 PETALUMA CITY JT. UN. HIGH CO 70862 31981 3,061.74 SANTA ROSA CITY HIGH 70920 9,432 31065.69 4 CLOVERDALE UNIF. 70656 1,262 2. 806. 17 COTATI-ROHNERT PARK UNIFIED 73882 6,617 2,640.19 GEYSERVILLE UNIF. 70706 347 3,058.86 SONOMA VALLEY UNIF. 70953 4, 147 2,679.55

PAGE 286

269 1987-88 ANNUAL K-12 DATA BY COUNTY, LEVEL, DISTRICT NAME L co DISTRICT NAME COUNTY TOTAL CODE 50 1 CHATOM UNION ELEM. 71050 EMPIRE UNION ELEM. 71076 GRATTON ELEM. 71084 HART-RANSOM UNION ELEM. 71092 HICKMAN ELEM. 71100 HUGHSON UNION ELEM. 71118 KEYES UNION ELEM. 71134 KNIGHTS FERRY ELEM. 71142 LA GRANGE ELEM. 71159 MODESTO CITY ELEM 71167 OAKDALE UNION ELEM. 71183 PARADISE ELEM. 71209 RIVERBANK ELEM. 71225 ROBERTS FERRY UNION ELEM. 71233 SALIDA UNION ELEM. 71266 SHILOH ELEM. 71274 STANISLAUS UNION ELEM. 71282 SYLVAN UNION ELEM. 71290 TURLOCK JT. ELEM. CO 24 71308 VALLEY HOME JOINT ELEM. CO 39 71324 WATERFORD ELEM. 71332 2 HUGHSON UNION HIGH 71126 MODESTO CITY HIGH 71175 OAKDALE JOINT UNION HIGH CO 3 71191 TURLOCK JOINT UNION HIGH CO 2.71316 4 CERES UNIF. 71043 DENAIR UNIF. 71068 NEWMAN-CROWS LANDING UNIFIED 73601 PATTERSON JT. UNIF. CO 43 71217 COUNTY TOTAL 51 1 BRITTAN ELEM. BROWNS ELEM. FRANKLIN ELEM. MARCUM-ILLINOIS ELEM. MERIDIAN ELEM. NUESTRO ELEM. 71357 71365 71381 71407 71415 PLEASANT GROVE JT. ELEM. WINSHIP ELEM. 71423 co 3 71431 71456 2 EAST NICOLAUS JT. UN. SUTTER UNION HIGH 4 LIVE OAK UNIF. YUBA CITY UNIF. COUNTY TOTAL HIGH CO 71373 71449 71399 71464 REVENUE LIMIT ADA 55,723 BASE REV.LIM PER ADA 691 2,461. 79 2,848 2,458.36 84 2, 981.02 364 2,623.18 202 2,458.54 965 2,457.00 506 2,463.91 76 2,970.48 16 2,971.79 14,573 2,463.86 2,398 2,456.88 17 4 2 t 529, 19 1,453 2,458.69 77 2,973.94 1,189 2,456.47 122 2,913.96 2,963 2,469.87 5,186 2,465.58 5,679 2,461.82 143 2,458.49 742 2,457.27 611 3,062.51 9,566 3,074.10 1,895 3,075.42 2,507 3,081.50 5,648 2,639.60 1 ,147 2,785.43 1,206 2,801.80 2,293 2,639.96 65,324 509 2,474.72 130 2,488.33 271 2,454.03 125 2,457.28 64 2,979.00 65 2,977.38 157 2,589.13 31 4,130.34 200 3,443.39 397 3,123.75 1,222 2,782.42 7,790 2,649.44 10,961

PAGE 287

270 : 3/89 1987-88 ANNUAL K-12 DATA BY COUNTY, LEVEL, DISTRICT NAME L REVENUE BASE DISTRICT LIMIT REV.LIM co NAME CODE ADA PER ADA 52 ANTELOPE ELEM. 71472 461 2,495.65 BEND ELEM. 71480 74 2,984.38 CORNING UNION ELEM. 71498 1, 392 2,464.80 ELKINS ELEM. 71514 31 2,927.94 EVERGREEN UNION ELEM. 71522 620 2,484.80 FLOURNOY UNION ELEM. 71530 12 2,983.21 GERBER UNION ELEM. 71548 379 2,455.59 KIRKWOOD ELEM. 71555 31 2,889.74 LASSEN VIEW UNION ELEM. 71563 309 2,455.90 MANTON JOINT UNION ELEM. co 4 71589 95 2,948.43 MINERAL ELEM. 71605 21 3,593.83 PLUM VALLEY ELEM. 71613 36 3,033.30 RED BLUFF UNION ELEM. 71621 2, 137 2,456.16 REEDS CREEK ELEM. 71647 115 2,568.74 RICHFIELD ELEM. 71654 115 2,986.93 2 CORNING UNION HIGH 71506 631 3,108.74 RED BLUFF UNION HIGH 71639 1 '590 3,090.07 4 LOS MOLINOS UNIF. 71571 558 2,808.90 COUNTY TOTAL 8,607 53 1 BURNT RANCH ELEM. 71662 107 2,987.93 COFFEE CREEK ELEM. 71670 28 2,991.89 COX BAR ELEM. 71688 36 2,986.42 DOUGLAS CITY ELEM. 71696 146 2,553.88 JUNCTION CITY ELEM. 71738 88 2,987.61 LEWISTON ELEM. 71746 155 2,447.20 TRINITY CENTER ELEM. 71761 27 2,983.89 WEAVERVILLE ELEM. 71787 488 2,447.36 2 TRINITY UN10N HIGH 71779 436 3,076.47 4 MOUNTAIN VALLEY UNIFIED 75028 680 3,362.57 SOUTHERN TRINITY JT. co 73833 207 2,780.26 COUNTY TOTAL 2,398 54 1 ALLENSWORTH ELEM. 71795 45 3,534.52 ALTA VISTA ELEM. 71811 393 2,455.26 BUENA VISTA ELEM. 71829 122 2,463.76 .BURTON ELEM. 71837 1,452 2,459.42 CITRUS SOUTH TULE ELEM. 71845 27 3,036.89 COLUMBINE ELEM. 71852 152 2,457.23 DINUBA UNION ELEM 71878 2,508 2,468.94 DUCOR UNION ELEM. 71894 201 2,456.63 EARLIMART ELEM. 71902 1,440 2,483.84 EXETER UNION ELEM. 71910 1 '409 2,472.53 FARMERSVILLE ELEM. 71936 1,303 2,469.23 HOPE ELEM. 71944 71 2,936.11 HOT SPRINGS ELEM. 71951 52 3,491.07

PAGE 288

271 1987-88 ANNUAL K-12 DATA BY COUNTY, LEVEL, DISTRICT NAME L co DISTRICT NAME CODE 54 1 KINGS RIVER UNION ELEM. 71969 71985 LIBERTY ELEM. MONSON-SULTANA JT. UN. OAK VALLEY UNION ELEM. OUTSIDE CREEK ELEM. PALO VERDE UNION ELEM. PIXLEY UNION ELEM. PLEASANT VIEW ELEM. PORTERVILLE CITY ELEM. RICHGROVE ELEM. ELEM C 72009 72017 72025 72033 72041 72058 72066 72082 ROCKFORD ELEM. SAUCELITO ELEM. SEQUOIA UNION ELEM. SPRINGVILLE UNION ELEM. STONE CORRAL ELEM. STRATHMORE UNION ELEM. SUNDALE UNION ELEM. SUNNYSIDE UNION ELEM. TERRA BELLA UNION ELEM. THREE RIVERS UNION ELEM. TIPTON ELEM. TRAVER JT. ELEM CO. 16 TULARE CITY ELEM. WAUKENA JT. UNION ELEM. WOODLAKE UNION ELEM. WOODVILLE ELEM. 72090 72108 72116 72132 72140 72157 72173 72181 72199 72207 72215 72223 72231 co 16 72264 72272 72298 co 10 71886 71928 72074 72165 2 DINUBA JOINT UNION HIGH EXETER UNION HIGH PORTERVILLE UNION HIGH STRATHMORE UNION HIGH TULARE JT. UNION HIGH CO WOODLAKE UNION HIGH 16 72249 72280 71803 UNIF. CO 10 71860 71993 72256 4 ALPAUGH UNIF. CUTLER-OROSI JT. LINDSAY UNIF. VISALIA UNIF COUNTY TOTAL 55 1 BELLEVIEW ELEM. BIG OAK FLAT-GROVELAND UNION CHINESE CAMP ELEM. COLUMBIA UNION ELEM. CURTIS CREEK ELEM. JAMESTOWN ELEM. SONORA ELEM. SOULSBYVILLE ELEM. SUMMERVILLE ELEM. 72306 72314 72330 72348 72355 72363 72371 72397 72405 REVENUE LIMIT ADA BASE REV.LIM PER ADA 481 2,466.39 206 2,499.50 326 2,505.56 242 2,457.75 132 2,460.10 394 2,466.60 719 2,463.55 363 2,464.09 5,404 2,463.03 433 2,470.99 218 2,449.39 77 2,984.91 276 2,471.65 332 2,458.46 133 2,853.29 625 2,454.32 393 2,455.27 436 2,454.67 651 2,465.76 217 2,482.32 415 2,455.77 273 2,458.06 5,556 2,470.55 225 2,458.40 1,323 2,467.28 643 2,459.70 995 3,083.31 1,051 3,080.97 3,370 3,071.22 393 3,158.17 3,236 3,085.90 638 3,083.98 200 3,082.14 3,064 2,640.68 2,541 2,646.02 18,481 2,652.05 63,637 I. 226 2 '49 1 55 364 2,455.29 28 2,979.25 567 2,453.85 928 2,455.94 445 2,452.58 731 2,457.48 569 2,455.19 500 2,460.03

PAGE 289

272 1987-88 ANNUAL K-12 DATA BY COUNTY, LEVEL, DISTRICT NAME L REVENUE LIMIT co DISTRICT NAME CODE ADA BASE REV.LIM PER ADA 55 1 TWAIN HARTE-LONG BARN UNION E 72421 2 SONORA UNION HIGH 72389 SUMMERVILLE UNION HIGH 72413 COUNTY TOTAL 56 1 BRIGGS ELEM. HUENEME ELEM. MESA UNION ELEM. MUPU ELEM. OCEAN VIEW ELEM. OXNARD ELEM. PLEASANT VALLEY ELEM. RIO ELEM. SANTA CLARA ELEM. SANTA PAULA ELEM. SOMIS UNION ELEM. 2 OXNARD UNION HIGH SANTA PAULA UNION HIGH 4 CONEJO VALLEY UNIFIED FILLMORE UNIF. MOORPARK UNIF. OAK PARK UNIFIED OJAI UNIF. SIMI VALLEY UNIF. VENTURA UNIF. COUNTY TOTAL 57 4 DAVIS JT. UNIF. CO 48 ESPARTO UNIF. WASHINGTON UNIF. WINTERS JT. UNIF. COS 28-48 WOODLAND JT. UNIF. CO 51 COUNTY TOTAL 58 1 CAMPTONVILLE ELEM. PLUMAS ELEM. WHEATLAND ELEM. 2 WHEATLAND UNION HIGH 4 MARYSVIlLE JOINT UNIF. CO 04 COUNTY TOTAL STATE TOTAL 72447 72462 72470 72504 72512 72538 72553 72561 72579 72587 72611 72546 72595 73759 72454 73940 73874 72520 72603 72652 72678 72686 72694 72702 72710 72728 72744 72751 72769 72736 622 2,458.03 1,454 3,077.31 622 3,079.18 7,056 302 2,474.63 6,947 2,459.83 345 2,459.77 111 2,751.87 2,192 2,460.20 11,365 2,462.99 5,843 2,458.91 2,318 2,459.97 29 21981 44 3,272 2,459.04 301 2,460.18 10,995 3,076.33 1,234 3,074.52 18,217 2,646.46 3,341 2,639.77 3,908 2,703.17 1,152 21788.32 3,289 21642.83 181669 2,644.62 15,155 2,642.67 108,985 51447 2,679.29 656 2,800.55 4 1 452 2 1 661. 50 1,246 21830.96 71373 21654.00 19,174 135 2,498.15 39 2,918.32 11580 21439.43 494 31087.89 81777 21643.20 11 1 025 4,4061477 1 '023

PAGE 290

1987-88 ANNUAL K-12 DATA BY BASE REVENUE LIMIT PER ADA 273

PAGE 291

1987-88 ANNUAL K-12 DATA BY BASE REVENUE LIMIT PER ADA 274

PAGE 292

275 3/89 1987-88 ANNUAL K-12 DATA BY BASE REVENUE LIMIT PER ADA L REVENUE BASE DISTRICT LIMIT REV.LIM co NAME CODE ADA PER ADA 15 1 MCKITTRICK ELEM. 63651 48 7,515.42 15 1 ELK HILLS ELEM. 63446 104 5,213.19 15 1 BLAKE ELEM. 63354 13 4,905.21 42 1 BALLARD ELEM. 69104 60 4,846.04 10 1 CHAWANAKEE ELEM. 62091 154,841. 79 29 1 TWIN RIDGES ELEM. 66415 343 4,817.72 45 1 INDIAN SPRINGS ELEM. 70037 5B 4,813.56 14 4 OWENS VALLEY UNIF. 63297 140 4,574 .81 19 1 WILSONA ELEM. 65151 1 '575 4' 370. 12 15 1 BUENA VISTA ELEM. 63362 3"4 4,318.28 31 1 EMIGRANT GAP ELEM. 66811 15 4,181.93 51 1 WINSHIP ELEM. 71456 3t 4,130.34 15 2 TAFT UNION HIGH 63818 863 4,049.05 01 4 EMERY UNIF. 61168 507 4,011.19 21 1 UNION JOINT ELEM. CO 49 65516 23 3,969.21 47 1 WILLOW CREEK ELEM. 70490 34 3,935.82 11 2 HAMILTON UNION HIGH 62588 204 3,900.94 15 2 WASCO UNION HIGH 63859 788 3,873.39 23 2 POINT ARENA JT. UN. HIGH CO 4 65599 174 3,870.68 15 1 BELRIDGE ELEM. 63347 71 3,843.67 49 1 HORICON ELEM. 70763 98 3,826.46 12 1 BIG LAGOON UNION ELEM. 62695 78 3,807.46 47 1 FALL CREEK ELEM. 70284 3,797.03 49 1 RESERVATION ELEM. 70888 10 3,774.01 10 1 PINE RIDGE ELEM. 62372 126 3,752.43 41 1 LAS LOMITAS ELEM. 68957 631 3,727.74 05 2 BRET HARTE UNION HIGH 61556 701 3,724.09 0 1 1 SUNOL GLEN ELEM. 61325 170 3,708.30 21 1 LINCOLN ELEM. 65375 12 3,703.29 14 4 DEATH VALLEY UNIF. 63271 127 3, 703.17 37 4 BORREGO SPRINGS UNIF. 67983 347 3,694.02 35 1 JEFFERSON ELEM. 67488 10 3,623.44 52 1 MINERAL ELEM. 71605 21 3,593.83 42 4 CUYAMA JOINT UNIFIED COS 40-5 75010 263 3,589.94 10 1 BIG CREEK ELEM. 62026 94 3,588.44

PAGE 293

3/89 276 1987-88 ANNUAL K-12 DATA BY BASE REVENUE LIMIT PER ADA L co DISTRICT NAME 19 4 BEVERLY HILLS UNIF. 43 4 PALO ALTO CITY UNIF. 15 1 MIDWAY ELEM. 43 1 ORCHARD ELEM. 54 1 ALLENSWORTH ELEM. 47 1 SAWYERS BAR ELEM. 19 1 GORMAN ELEM. 09 1 INDIAN DIGGINGS ELEM. 07 1 KNIGHTSEN ELEM. 54 1 HOT SPRINGS ELEM. 41 2 SEQUOIA UNION HIGH 04 1 GOLDEN FEATHER UNION ELEM. CODE 64311 69641 63669 69633 71795 70441 64584 61895 61705 71951 69062 61457 40 2 COAST JOINT UNION HIGH CO 27 68734 37 2 JULIAN UNION HIGH 68171 51 2 EAST NICOLAUS JT. UN. HIGH CO 71373 36 4 BAKER VALLEY UNIFIED 73858 47 2 DUNSMUIR JT. UN. HIGH CO 45 70250 12 2 FERNDALE UNION HIGH 62786 17 2 UPPER LAKE UNION HIGH 64071 41 2 SAN MATEO UNION HIGH 69047 43 2 MOUNTAIN VIEW-LOS ALTOS UNION 69609 41 1 MENLO PARK CITY ELEM. 68965 21 2 TAMALPAIS UNION HIGH 65482 15 2 KERN COUNTY UNION HIGH 63529 21 1 SAUSALITO ELEM. 65474 53 4 MOUNTAIN VALLEY UNIFIED 75028 19 2 SOUTH BAY UNION HIGH 65011 11 4 PRINCETON JOINT UNIF. CO 06 62646 14 4 LONE PINE UNIF. 63289 21 2 SAN RAFAEL CITY HIGH 65466 13 1 MULBERRY ELEM. 63206 19 4 EL SEGUNDO UNIF. 64535 REVENUE LIMIT ADA BASE REV.LIM PER ADA 4,840 3,580.84 7,890 3,549.67 176 3,542.33 333 3,536 .36 45 3,534.52 30 3,520.05 66 3,518.71 26 3,511.27 243 3,496.68 52 3 491.07 6,482 3,482.85 261 3' 460.97 304 3,451.46 206 3,449.98 200 3,443.39 191 3,440.25 170 3,437.86 154 3,430.71 293 3,413.73 8,828 3,394.27 3' 091 3' 391 05 1,384 3,377.21 3,759 3,375.67 18,524 3,373.57 381 3,370.84 680 3,362.57 4,409 3,352.58 229 3,348.03 440 3,346.52 2,169 3,329.09 73 3,328.76 1,892 3,319.28

PAGE 294

23/89 277 1987-88 ANNUAL K-12 DATA BY BASE REVENUE LIMIT PER ADA L co DISTRICT NAME 15 1 LAKESIDE UNION ELEM. 19 2 WHITTIER UNION HIGH 18 4 FORT SAGE UNIFIED 18 1 RAVENDALE ELEM. 41 1 WOODSIDE ELEM. 12 1 GREEN POINT ELEM. 10 2 SIERRA JT. UNION HIGH CO 20 41 2 JEFFERSON UNION HIGH 12 1 MAPLE CREEK ELEM. 21 1 KENTFIELD ELEM. 23 1 MANCHESTER UNION ELEM. 49 1 WAUGH ELEM. 42 1 VISTA DEL MAR UNION ELEM. 21 1 REED UNION ELEM. 15 1 DI GIORGIO 43 2 FREMONT UN. HIGH 47 1 BOGUS ELEM. 10 1 HELM ELEM. 15 4 MARICOPA UNIF. 54 2 STRATHMORE UNION HIGH 07 2 ACALANES UNION HIGH 20 2 CHOWCHILLA UNION HIGH 21 1 DIXIE ELEM. 10 2 CARUTHERS UNION HIGH 44 1 PACIFIC ELEM. 51 2 SUTTER UNION HIGH 33 2 ELSINORE UNION HIGH 42 1 CASMALIA ELEM. 27 2 GONZALES UNION HIGH 12 2 EUREKA CITY HIGH 37 2 GROSSMONT UNION HIGH 52 2 CORNING UNION HIGH CODE 63552 65128 75036 64162 69088 6285162455 68924 62935 65334 65573 70995 69344 65425 63420 69468 70193 62190 63628 72165 61630 65201 65318 62075 69781 71449 67074 69153 66019 62760 68130 71506 REVENUE LIMIT ADA BASE REV.LIM PER ADA 233 31294.68 91267 31280.10 521 31270.63 31 31264.46 295 31254.56 18 31249.51 866 31248.80 51158 31246.60 21 31231.72 692 31229.70 51 31224 52 38 31210.63 60 31199.47 841 3 1 198 o 54 138 31190.43 81713 31186.34 29 31182.73 58 31171.63 478 31164.36 393 31158.17 51102 31153.09 704 31 152.69 11223 31147.35 563 31136.51 71 31136.49 397 31123.75 41029 31120.09 25 31118.23 11058 31113.19 3 1 0 14 3 1 111 o 85 191528 31109.81 631 31108.74

PAGE 295

1/89 278 1987-88 ANNUAL K-12 DATA BY BASE REVENUE LIMIT PER ADA L co DISTRICT NAME 47 1 DELPHIC ELEM. CODE 70227 24 2 DOS PALOS JT. UN. HIGH COS 10 65672 12 2 NORTHERN HUMBOLDT UNION HIGH 62687 10 2 WASHINGTON UNION HIGH 62521 02 4 ALPINE COUNTY UNIF. 30 4 LOS ALAMITOS UNIFIED 61333 73924 42 2 SANTA YNEZ VALLEY UNION HIGH 69328 09 1 SILVER FORK ELEM. 15 4 MOJAVE UNIF. 01 4 BERKELEY CITY UNIF. 61986 63677 61143 43 2 LOS GATOS-SARATOGA JT UN HIGH 69534 43 2 CAMPBELL UNION HIGH 69401 42 2 SANTA MARIA JT. UN. HIGH COS 69310 35 1 PANOCHE ELEM. 67520 19 2 ALHAMBRA CITY HIGH 64238 47 2 SISKIYOU UNION HIGH 70466 30 2 HUNTINGTON BEACH UNION HIGH 66548 10 2 RIVERDALE JT. UNION HIGH CO 1 62406 52 2 RED BLUFF UNION HIGH 71639 19 2 EL MONTE UNION HIGH 64519 15 2 DELANO JOINT UNION HIGH CO 54 63412 35 2 SAN BENITO JT. UN. HIGH CO 43 67538 58 2 WHEATLAND UNION HIGH 72769 04 2 GRIDLEY UNION HIGH 61473 19 2 ANTELOPE VALLEY UNION HIGH 64246 54 2 TULARE JT. UNION HIGH CO 16 72249 16 2 HANFORD JT. UNION HIGH CO 54 63925 14 2 BISHOP JOINT UNION HIGH CO 2 63263 36 2 CHAFFEY JT. UNION HIGH CO. 19 67652 42 2 SANTA BARBARA CITY HIGH 69286 54 2 WOODLAKE UNION HIGH 72280 54 2 DINUBA JOINT UNION HIGH CO 10 71886 49 2 ANALY UNION HIGH 70607 13 2 BRAWLEY UNION HIGH 63081 37 2 FALLBROOK UNION HIGH 68122 27 2 KING CITY JT. UNION HIGH CO 3 66068 54 4 ALPAUGH UNIF. 71803 REVENUE LIMIT ADA BASE REV.LIM PER ADA 34 3,107.13 843 3,106.41 1,520 3,105.87 973 3,105.45 142 3,105.30 5,896 3,103.24 877 3' 102. 50 21 3' 102. 10 1,607 3, 102.00 8' 326 3' 101.24 3,235 3,099.75 7,695 3,096.33 3,910 3,095.36 17 3,094.46 9,809 852 16,998 547 1 '590 8,482 2' 144 1 '729 494 602 7,961 3,236 2,249 659 11,365 8' 171 638 995 2' 158 1 '50 1 2,033 1 '035 3,092.18 3,091.59 3' 091. 17 3,090.25 3,090.07 3,090.02 3,089.96 3,088.04 3,087.89 3,087.26 3,086.32 3,085.90 3,085.15 3,085.01 3' 084.96 3,084.67 3,083.98 3,083.31 3,083.22 3,082.95 3,082.44 3,082.27 200 3,082.14

PAGE 296

: 3/89 279 1987-88 ANNUAL K-12 DATA BY BASE REVENUE LIMIT PER ADA L co DISTRICT NAME CODE 37 2 ESCONDIDO UNION HIGH 68106 45 2 ANDERSON UNION HIGH 69856 50 2 TURLOCK JOINT UNION HIGH CO 2 71316 16 2 LEMOORE UNION HIGH 63982 10 2 TRANQUILLITY UNION HIGH 62505 54 2 EXETER UNION HIGH 71928 19 2 CENTINELA VALLEY UNION HIGH 64352 10 2 KINGSBURG JT. UN. HIGH COS 16 62257 34 2 GALT JT. UN. HIGH CO 39. 67355 40 2 PASO ROBLES JT. UNION HIGH CO 68775 04 2 OROVILLE UNION HIGH 61515 55 2 SUMMERVILLE UNION HIGH 72413 40 PHILLIPS ELEM. AMADOR VALLEY JT UN HIGH SONORA UNION HIGH YREKA UNION HIGH EAST SIDE UNION HIGH TRINITY UNION HIGH OXNARD UNION HIGH 68783 co 0 61135 72389 70516 69427 71779 01 2 55 2 47 2 43 2 53 2 56 2 31 2 49. 2 50 2 12 2 07 2 18 2 56 2 50 2 39 2 72546 3 66928 70755 ROSEVILLE JT. UNION HIGH CO HEALDSBURG UNION HIGH OAKDALE JOINT UNION HIGH FORTUNA UNION HIGH co 3 71191 62810 61721 64139 72595 LIBERTY UNION HIGH LASSEN UNION HIGH SANTA PAULA UNION HIGH MODESTO CITY HIGH TRACY JOINT UNION HIGH CO 01 41 1 PORTOLA VALLEY ELEM. 44 2 SANTA CRUZ CITY HIGH 09 2 EL DORADO UNION HIGH 21 1 LARKSPUR ELEM. 71175 68692 68981 69823 61853 65367 47 2 ETNA UNION HIGH 70276 54 2 PORTERVILLE UNION HIGH 72074 20 2 YOSEMITE UNION HIGH 73734 45 2 SHASTA UNION HIGH 70136 11 2 ORLAND JOINT UNION HIGH CO 52 62620 30 2 FULLERTON UNION HIGH CO 19 66514 31 2 PLACER UNION HIGH 66894 13 2 CENTRAL UNION HIGH 63115 21 1 LAGUNA JOINT ELEM. CO 49 65342 REVENUE LIMIT ADA BASE REV.LIM PER ADA 5,547 3,081.89 1,900 3,081. 73 2,507 3,081.50 1,376 3,081.37 1,073 3,081.34 1,051 3,080.97 5,811 3,080.84 778 3,080.82 1,092 3,079.76 1,188 3,079.49 2,130 3,079.32 622 3,079.18 36 3,078.59 4,308 1 '454 871 22,358 436 10,995 3,422 1 '516 1, 895 924 1 513 955 1 '234 9,566 2, 103 3,078.02 3,077.31 3,077.29 3,076.50 3,076.47 3,076.33 3,075.84 3,075.56 3,075.42 3,075.21 3,074.74 3,074.73 3,074.52 3,074.10 3,073.71 561 3,073.66 5,732 3,072.19 4,042 3,071.78 639 3,071.44 421 3,071.40 3,370 3,071.22 780 3,071.19 5,128 3,070.69 579 3,070.54 11,363 3,070 .41 3,575 3,070.26 2,596 3,070.13 24 3,068.02

PAGE 297

3/89 280 1987-88 ANNUAL K-12 DATA BY BASE REVENUE LIMIT PER ADA L co DISTRICT NAME 37 2 SWEETWATER UNION HIGH 43 1 MONTEBELLO ELEM. 49 2 SANTA ROSA CITY HIGH 37 2 SAN DIEGUITO UNION HIGH 24 2 MERCED UNION HIGH CODE 68411 69567 70920 68346 65789 11 4 STONY CREEK JOINT UNIF CO 06 62653 50 2 HUGHSON UNION HIGH 30 2 ANAHEIM UNION HIGH 41 4 LA HONDA-PESCADERO UNIF. 71126 66431 68940 49 2 PETALUMA CITY JT. UN. HIGH CO 70862 29 2 NEVADA JT. UNION HIGH CO. 58 66357 27 2 SALINAS UNION HIGH 66159 36 2 VICTOR VALLEY UNION HIGH 67934 49 4 GEYSERVILLE UNIF. 19 2 WM. S. HART UNION HIGH 42 MONTECITO UNION ELEM. 33 2 PERRIS UNION HIGH 34 2 GRANT JT. UN HIGH CO 31 47 1 QUARTZ VALLEY ELEM. 47 1 JUNCTION ELEM; 24 2 LE GRAND UNION HIGH 19 1 HERMOSA BEACH CITY ELEM. 54 1 CITRUS SOUTH TULE ELEM. 34 1 NATOMAS UNION ELEM. 52 1 PLUM VALLEY ELEM. 21 1 ROSS VALLEY UNION ELEM. 01 4 PIEDMONT CITY UNIF. 19 1 WISEBURN ELEM. 07 1 CANYON ELEM. 24 1 SNELLING-MERCED FALLS UNION E 35 1 CIENEGA UNION ELEM. 49 1 WEST SIDE UNION ELEM. 70706 65136 69252 67207 67363 70433 70367 65730 64600 71845 67389 71613 75002 61275 65169 61671 65839 67462 71001 REVENUE LIMIT ADA BASE REV.LIM PER ADA 25,301 3,066.96 36 3,065.92. 9,432 3,065.69 6,667 3,065.65 6,967 3,064.70 159 3,063.12 6 11 3' 062. 51 21,802 3,062.02. 385 3,061.98 3,981 3,061.74 3' 150 3' 061 46 7,822 3,061.05 3,668 3,060.85 347 3,058.86. 9,203 3,058.51 334 3,055.47 3,606 3,055.23 10,110 3,052.92 56 3,052.69 46 3,050.75 425 3,047.48 653 3,038.30 27 3,036.89 1 '691 3' 036. 14 36 3,033.30 1,431 3,025.85 2,019 3,025.71 1 1 193 36 96 27 116 3,023.88 3,020.31 3,018.36 3,017.48 3,011.89

PAGE 298

1/89 281 1987-88 ANNUAL K-12 DATA BY BASE REVENUE LIMIT PER ADA L co DISTRICT NAME 47 1 HORNBROOK ELEM. 41 1 MILLBRAE ELEM. 47 1 LITTLE SHASTA ELEM. 10 1 CLAY JOINT ELEM. CO 54 28 1 POPE VALLEY UNION ELEM. 15 1 LINNS VALLEY-POSO FLAT UNION 19 4 CULVER CITY UNIF. CODE 70359 68973 70383 62109 66282 63586 64444 53 1 COFFEE CREEK ELEM. 71670 20 1 RAYMOND-KNOWLES UNION ELEM. 65276 09 1 LATROBE ELEM. 61911 45 1 CASTLE ROCK UNION ELEM. 69922 40 1 PLEASANT VALLEY JT. UN. ELEM. 68791 37 1 SPENCER VALLEY ELEM. 68403 20 1 BASS LAKE ELEM. 65185 12 1 ORICK ELEM. 62968 24 1 PlAINSBURG UNION ELEM. 65813 47 1 BUTTEVILLE UNION ELEM. 70201 53 1 BURNT RANCH ELEM. 71662 12 1 GARFIELD ELEM. 62836 21 1 NICASIO ELEM. 65409 53 1 JUNCTION CITY ELEM. 71738 27 1 GRAVES ELEM. 66027 35 1 SOUTHSIDE ELEM. 67553 52 1 RICHFIELD ELEM. 71654 49 1 FORT ROSS ELEM. 70698 45 1 FRENCH GULCH-WHISKEYTOWN UNIO 69997 53 1 COX BAR ELEM. 71888 27 1 LAGUNITA ELEM. 66076 39 1 HOLT UNION ELEM. 68536 47 1 GAZELLE UNION ELEM. 70318 10 1 FRIANT UNION ELEM. 62182 27 1 PACIFIC ELEM. 66126 54 1 SAUCELITO ELEM. 72108 04 1 FEATHER FALLS UNION ELEM. 61440 27 1 MISSION UNION ELEM. 66084 52 1 BEND ELEM. 71480 12 1 MATTOLE UNION.ELEM 62943 53 1 TRINITY CENTER ELEM. 71761 52 1 FLOURNOY UNION ELEM. 71530 47 1 FORKS OF SALMON ECEM 70292 56 1 SANTA CLARA ELEM. 72579 50 1 GRATTON ELEM. 71084 35 1 WILLOW GROVE UNION ELEM. 67579 55 1 CHINESE CAMP ELEM. 72330 51 1 MERIDIAN ELEM. 71415 35 1 BITTERWATER-TULLY UNION ELEM. 67454 REVENUE LIMIT ADA BASE REV.LIM PER ADA 94 31009.51 1 1 811 3 1 007, 02 17 31005.86 128 31002.69 47 21999.07 98 21998.09 4,600 28 21991.89 73 21991.86 109 2,990.13 54 21989.90 42 2,989.78 38 2,989.40 1 09 2 t 989, 12 79 21989.01 88 2,988.48 104 2,988.41 107 2,987.93 38 2,987.90 46 2,987.78 88 2,987.61 53 2,987.48 83 21.987.36 115 21986.93 78 2,986.67 59. 2,986.43 36 21986.42 33 21985.94 88 21985.87 57 21985.83 55 2,985.25 36 2,984.92 77 21984.91 69 21984.62 72 21984.40 74 2,984.38 99 2,984.27 27 21983.89 12 21983.21 44 2,981.51 29 21981,44 84 21981,02 28 21980.13 28 2,979.25 64 21979.00 31 2,978.05

PAGE 299

282 1987-88 ANNUAL K-12 DATA BY BASE REVENUE LIMIT PER ADA L co DISTRICT NAME 51 1 NUESTRO ELEM. 33 4 DESERT CENTER UNIF. 50 1 ROBERTS FERRY UNION ELEM. 35 1 TRES PINOS UNION ELEM. 01 1 MOUNTAIN HOUSE ELEM. 15 1 CALIENTE UNION ELEM. 50 1 LA GRANGE ELEM. 42 1 BONITA ELEM. 50 1 KNIGHTS FERRY ELEM. 19 1 HUGHES-ELIZABETH LAKES UNION 49 1 ALEXANDER VALLEY UNION ELEM. 19 4 SANTA MONICA-MALIBU UNIFIED 12 1 KNEELAND ELEM. 13 1 MAGNOLIA UNION ELEM. 12 1 PENINSULA UNION ELEM. 14 4 BIG PINE UNIF. 45 1 OAK RUN ELEM. 12 1 CUDDEBACK UNION ELEM. 31 4 ROCKLIN UNIFIED 52 1 29 1 43 1 47 1 54 1 MANTON JOINT UNION ELEM. CO CLEAR CREEK ELEM. SARATOGA UN. ELEM. KLAMATH RIVER UNION ELEM. HOPE ELEM. 30 4 NEWPORT-MESA UNIF. 12 1 BRIDGEVILLE ELEM. 45 1 WHITMORE ELEM. 15 4 MCFARLAND UNIFIED CODE 71423 67041 71233 67561 61218 63388 71159 69120 71142 64626 70599 64980 62919 63172 62984 63248 70086 62737 75085 4 71589 66324 69682 70375 71944 66597 62729 70169 73908 52 1 ELKINS ELEM. 71514 ,36 1 MOUNT BALDY ELEM. CO. 19 67793 40. 4 JT . UNIF. CO 27 07 4 MARTINEZ UN1F. -58 1 PLUMAS ELEM. 37 1 DEHESA ELEM. 68833 61739 72744 68049 REVENUE LIMIT ADA BASE REV.LIM PER ADA 65 2,977.38 79 2,977.23 77 66 39 95 16 63 76 353 106 2,973.94 2,973.57 2,972.16 2,971.83 2,971.79 2,970.62 2,970.48 2,968.63 2,964.18 9,358 2,960.25 32 2,959.89 83 2,959.14 104 2,957.25 346 2,957.23 83 2,951.50 118 2,950.97 1 991 2, 948.60 95 118 1,532 59 71 2,948.43 2,945.22 2,944.58 2, 941.69 2,936.11 16,027 2,934.24 117 2,930.64 103 2,930.41 2,061 2,929.43 31 2,927.94 96 2,926.70 271 2,926.06 3,507 2,918.42 39 2,918.32 128 2,916.24

PAGE 300

23/89 283 1987-88 ANNUAL K-12 DATA BY BASE REVENUE LIMIT PER ADA L co DISTRICT NAME 50 1 SHILOH ELEM. 23 4 ANDERSON VALLEY UNIF. 15 1 LOST HILLS UNION ELEM. 36 4 SNOWLINE JOINT UNIF. COL 19 27 1 BRADLEY UNION ELEM. 47 1 SEIAD ELEM. 52 1 KIRKWOOD ELEM. 01 4 CASTRO VALLEY UNIF. 01 4 ALBANY CITY UNIF. 26 4 EASTERN SIERRA UNIFIED 19 4 LA CANADA UNIF. 26 4 MAMMOTH UNIFIED 34 4 RIVER DELTA JT UNIF. COS 48-5 41 1 BRISBANE ELEM. 06 4 MAXWELL UNIF. 23 4 MENDOCINO UNIF. 36 4 APPLE VALLEY UNIFIED 36 4 LUCERNE VALLEY UNIFIED 54 1 STONE CORRAL ELEM. 17 4 MIDDLETOWN UNIF. 06 4 WILLIAMS UNIF. 36 4 SILVER VALLEY UNIFIED 07 4 JOHN SWETT UNIF. 27 4 CARMEL UNIF. 40 4 SAN LUIS COASTAL UNIF. 57 4 WINTERS JT. UNIF. COS 28-48 43 1 SUNNYVALE ELEM. 10 1 SIERRA UNION ELEM. 28 4 CALISTOGA JOINT UNIF. CO 49 06 4 COLUSA UNIF. 18 4 WESTWOOD UNIF. 10 4 LATON JT. UNIFIED CO 16 01 4 SAN LEANDRO UNIF. 21 1 MILL VALLEY ELEM. 36 1 ORO GRANDE ELEM. CODE 71274 65540 63594 73957 65979 70458 71555 61150 61127 73668 64659 73692 67413 68874 61606 65581 75077 75051 72140 64055 61622 73890 61697 65987 68809 72702 69690 62448 66241 61598 64204 62281 61291 65391 67827 REVENUE LIMIT ADA BASE REV.LIM PER ADA 122 2,913.96 478 2,902.69 348 2,902.05 2,989 2,899.84 27 2,891.58 75 2,890.72 31 2,889.74 5,253 2,488 622 3' 113 702 2,014 2,888.84 2,888.49 2,886.74 2,885.65 2,882.07 2,880.73 448 2,871.10 359 2,866.48 939 2,866.07 8,300 2,856.07 649 2,854.25 133 2,853.29 1,124 2,852.20 588 2,850.63 2,009 2,845.95 1,989 2,835.88 2,174 2,835.83 7 1 99 2' 832. 12 1,246 2,830.96 5,418 2,826.50 495 2,824.63 729 2,823.57 1 '350 2' 821 46 492 2,820.49 696 2,819.44 5,967 2,815.03 1,606 2,814.95 135 2,812.74

PAGE 301

23/89 284 1987-88 ANNUAL K-12 DATA BY BASE REVENUE LIMIT PER ADA L co DISTRICT NAME CODE 23 4 POTTER VALLEY COMMUNITY UNIF. 73866 15 1 FRUITVALE ELEM. 52 4 LOS MOLINOS UNIF. 39 1 JEFFERSON ELEM. 13 4 SAN PASQUAL VALLEY UNIF. 49 4 CLOVERDALE UNIF. 36 4 HESPERIA UNIFIED 04 4 DURHAM UNIF. 04 4 BIGGS UNIF. 15 4 SOUTHERN KERN UNIF. 25 4 SURPRISE VALLEY JT. UNIF. CO 19 4 PALOS VERDES PENINSULA UNIF. 13 4 CALIPATRIA UNIF. 10 4 FIREBAUGH-LAS DELTAS JT UNIF. 50 4 NEWMAN-CROWS LANDING UNIFIED 10 4 FOWLER UNIF. 57 4 ESPARTO UNIF. 40 4 TEMPLETON UNIF. 25. 4 MODOC JOINT UNIFIED CO 18 17 4 KELSEYVILLE UNIF . 23 4 LAYTONVILLE UNIF. 37 1 DEL MAR UNION ELEM. 23 4 ROUND VALLEY UNIF. 63479 71571 68544 63214 70656 75044 61432 61408 63776 65896 64865 63107 73809 73601 62158 72686 68841 73585 64014 73916 68056 65607 25 4 TULELAKE BASIN JT. UNIF. 37 4 MOUNTAIN EMPIRE UNIF. 13 4 IMPERIAL UNIFIED 56 4 OAK PARK UNIFIED co 4 73593 68213 63164 73874 41 1 BURLINGAME ELEM. 68882 36 4 TRONA JOINT UNIF. CO 14 21 4 SHORELINE JOINT UNIF. CO 49 28 4 ST. HELENA UNIF. 67892 73361 66290 17 4 LAKEPORT UNIF. 50 4 DENAIR UNIF. 24 4 GUSTINE UNIFIED 09 4 BLACK OAK MINE UNIFIED 46 4 SIERRA-PLUMAS JT. UNIF. 47 4 BUTTE VALLEY UNIFIED 36 4 NEEDLES UNIFIED 21 1 SAN RAFAEL CITY ELEM 64030 71068 73619 73783 co 32 70177 73684 67801 65458 REVENUE BASE LIMIT REV.LIM ADA PER ADA 447 2,812.21 801 2,809.78 558 2,808.90 353 2,808.41 668 2,807.40 1,262 2,806.17 9, 179 2,805.08 948 2,804.96 657 2,804.19 1,427 2,803.93 247 2,803.54 10,152 2,803.50 1,188 2,802.79 1,736 2,802.72 1,206 2,801.80 1,623 2,800.83 656 2,800.55 825 2,799.95 1,081 2,796.75 1,619 2,795.95 541 2,795.90 792 2,795.34 441 2,793.85 515 2,792.54 1,645 2,792.34 1. 268 2,789.84 1,152 2,788.32 1,549 2 787.58 764 2,787.33 771 2, 787.10 1,342 2,786.61 1,402 2,786.57 1,147 2,785.43 1,069 2,785.18 1,683 2,784.86 701. 2,784.02 412 2,783.63 1,385 2,782.90 2,526 2,782.54

PAGE 302

23/89 285 1987-88 ANNUAL K-12 DATA BY BASE REVENUE LIMIT PER ADA L co DISTRICT NAME CODE 51 4 LIVE OAK UNIF. 71399 24 4 HILMAR UNIF. 65698 36 4 UPLAND UNIFIED 75069 06 4 PIERCE JT. UNIF. CO 57 61614 39 4 RIPON UNIF. 68650 12 4 KLAMATH-TRINITY JT. UNIF. CO 62901 53 4 SOUTHERN TRINITY JT. UNIF. CO 73833 41 4 SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO UNIF. 69070 12 4 SOUTHERN HUMBOLDT JT. UNIF. C 63040 30 4 LAGUNA BEACH UNIF. 66555 19 1 MANHATTAN BEACH CITY ELEM. 41 1 SAN BRUNO PARK ELEM. 19 4 SAN MARINO UNIF. 16 4 REEF-SUNSET UNIFIED 41 1 HILLSBOROUGH CITY ELEM. 33 1 MURRIETA ELEM. 19 1 CASTAIC UNION ELEM. 23 4 WILLITS UNIF. 43 1 LOS GATOS UNION ELEM. 56 1 MUPU ELEM. 19 4 ARCADIA UNIF. 42 1 GOLETA UNION ELEM. 30 1 CYPRESS ELEM. 41 4 CABRILLO UNIF. 19 4 CLAREMONT UNIF. 10 4 CENTRAL UNIFIED 10 4 KERMAN UNIF. 43 4 SANTA CLARA UNIF. 19 4 TORRANCE UNIF. 07 1 WALNUT CREEK ELEM. 21 1 ROSS ELEM. 11 4 WILLOWS UNIF. 48 4 BENICIA UNIFIED 43 4 SAN JOSE CITY UNIF. 33 4 PALM SPRINGS UNIF. 15 1 LERDO ELEM. 64782 69013 64964 73932 68908 67140 64345 65623 69526 72504 64261 69195 66480 68890 64394 73965 73999 69674 65060 61812 65433 62661 70524 69666 67173 63578 REVENUE LIMIT ADA BASE REV.LIM PER ADA 1,222 2,782.42 1,681 2, 781.90 9,670 2,781.71 928 2,781.02 1,811 2,780.67 1,188 2,780.57 207 2,780.26 9,570 2,779.77 1,435 2,779.20 2,219 2,776.66 2,207 2,773.14 2,422 2,771.81 2,736 2,769.70 1,673 2,768.36 1,038 2,763.05 623 2,761.47 1,016 2,760.84 2,292 2,756.53 1,918 2,753.03 111 2,751.87 7,600 2,749.23 3 '491 2' 7 48. 71 3,441 2,745.05 2,901 2,742.46 5,824 2,737.57 4,001 2,731.40 2,928 2,731.11 12,985 2,730.51 19,406 2,729.90 2,511 2,727.12 296 2,726.71 1,596 2,724.57 3,750 2,724.19 28,837 2,719.61 11,074 2,717.81 56 2,717.52

PAGE 303

286 1987-88 ANNUAL K-12 DATA BY BASE REVENUE LIMIT PER ADA L co DISTRICT NAME 01 4 SAN LORENZO UNIF. 19 4 LAS VIRGENES UNIF. 37 4 CARLSBAD UNIFIED 38 4 SAN FRANCISCO UNIFIED 36 1 HELENDALE ELEM. 56 4 MOORPARK UNIF. CODE 61309 64683 73551 68478 67736 73940 31 4 TAHOE-TRUCKEE JT. UNIF. 30 4 TUSTIN UNIFIED cos 9 66944 19 4 MONROVIA UNIF. 01 4 NEWARK UNIF. 10 4 PARLIER UNIF. 19 4 ABC UNIF. 73643 64790 61234 62364 64212 18 4 BIG VALLEY JOINT 07 4 MT. DIABLO UNIF. 19 4 BURBANK UNIF. UNIF. CO 25 64089 61754 19 4 COVINA-VALLEY UNIF. 41 1 SAN CARLOS ELEM. 07 4 PITTSBURG UNIF. 49 4 SONOMA VALLEY UNIF. 57 4 DAVIS JT. UNIF. CO 48 10 4 KINGS CANYON JT. UNIF. CO 54 01 4 HAYWARD UNIF. 42 1 HOPE ELEM. 30 4 SADDLEBACK VALLEY UNIF. 19 4 PASADENA CITY UNIF. 43 1 UNION ELEM. 15 1 POND UNION ELEM. 07 4 RICHMOND UNIF. 43 1 MORELAND ELEM. 19 4 BASSETT UNIF. 37 4 CORONADO CITY UNIF. 01 4 OAKLAND CITY UNIF. 17 4 KONOCTI UNIF. 30 4 ORANGE UNIF. 30 4 IRVINE UNIFIED 39 4 LINDEN UNIF. 57 4 WASHINGTON UNIF. 64337 64436 69021 61788 70953 72678 62265 61192 69211 73635 64881 69708 63719 61796 69575 64295 68031 61259 64022 66621 73650 68577 72694 REVENUE LIMIT ADA BASE REV.LIM PER ADA 71643 2,717.18 8,545 2,717.02 51692 2,716.67 631696 2,706.95 300 21706.72 31908 21703.17 31155 21701.53 91963 21701.45 51223 21697.24 61729 21695.50 2,085 2,693.51 211611 21691.01 391 21689.31 31 1 411 2 1 688 o 62 11 1 191 2 1 688 o 45 111272 21683.75 11800 21682.97 7,529 21680.57 4,147 21679.55 5,447 21679.29 61382 21678.18 171593 21675.34 831 21674.72 221345 2,674.68 21,763 21674.58 4,393 21674.09 117 21673.52 271723 21671.02 3,297 21670.62 41982 21669.96 2,047 21667.62 49,347 21667.44 21634 21667.32 24,323 21666.90 19,422 21666.51 1 1 805 21664 17 41452 21661.50

PAGE 304

3/89 287 1987-88 ANNUAL K-12 DATA BY BASE REVENUE LIMIT PER ADA L co DISTRICT NAME CODE 10 4 SELMA UNIF. 62430 03 4 AMADOR COUNTY UNIF. 73981 10 4 COALINGA/HURON JT. UNIF. CO2 62125 10 1 ALVINA ELEM. 01 4 LIVERMORE VALLEY JT UNIF. CO 33 4 PALO VERDE UNIF. 24 4 LOS BANOS UNIF. 22 4 MARIPOSA COUNTY UNIF. 10 4 CLOVIS UNIF. 43 1 MOUNTAIN VIEW ELEM. 34 4 SACRAMENTO CITY UNIF. 43 4 MILPITAS UNIFIED 40 4 ATASCADERO UNIF. 34 4 SAN JUAN UNIF. 07 1 ORINDA UNION ELEM. 61994 61200 67181 65755 65532 62117 69591 67439 73387 68700 67447 61770 15 4 SIERRA SANDS JT. UNIF. COS 14 73742 43 4 GILROY UNIF. 69484 10 4 FRESNO CITY UNIF. 62166 15 1 RIO BRAVO-GREELEY UNION ELEM. 73544 57 4 WOODLAND JT. UNIF. CO 51 19 4 NORWALK-LA MIRADA CITY UNIF. 36 4 RIM OF THE WORLD UNIF. 10 4 SANGER UNIF. 27 4 PACIFIC GROVE UNIF. 19 4 PUENTE UNIFIED 04 4 CHICO UNIF. 54 4 VISALIA UNIF 39 4 LINCOLN UNIF. 01 4 FREMONT UNIF. 19 4 GLENDORA UNIF. 33 4 BANNING UNIF. 19 4 SOUTH PASADENA UNIF. 40 4 LUCIA MAR UNIF. 36 4 BARSTOW UNIF. 51 4 YUBA CITY UNIF. 37 4 RAMONA UNIF. 30 4 BREA-OLINDA UNIF. 19 4 GLENDALE UNIF. 19 4 DOWNEY UNIF. 39 4 MANTECA UNIF. 72710 64840 67868 62414 66134 73445 61424 72256 68569 61176 64576 66985 65029 68759 67611 71464 68304 66449 64568 64451 68593 REVENUE LIMIT ADA BASE REV.LIM PER ADA 4,743 2,661.31 3,820 2,659.84 3,085 2,659.51 130 21659.39 10,181 3,612 3,314 21 152 18,339 21659.31 21657.93 21651.49 21656.65 2,656.38 2,375 2,656.10 451203 21655.94 81140 21655.08 4,865 21654.94 451849 21654.37 1,687 21654.33 6,034 2,654.29 8,095 21654.28 61 1 366 21654 o 12 453 2,654.00 7,373 18,402 4,774 6,411 2,452 23,435 10,362 18,481 7,898 25,877 5,774 4,038 3,423 7,825 6,462 7,790 4,846 41430 21, 135 13,734 11 t 680 2,654.00 2,653.65 2,653.51 2,653.05 2,652.97 2,652.81 2,652.53 2,652.05 2,651.22 2,650.80 2,650.74 2,650.53 2,650.32 2,650.14 2,649.59 2,649.44 2,648.95 2,648.36 2,648.27 2,647.95 2,647.87

PAGE 305

23/89 288 1987-88 ANNUAL K-12 DATA BY BASE REVENUE LIMIT PER ADA L co DISTRICT NAME 48 4 VACAVILLE UNIF. 37 4 POWAY CITY UNIF. 30 4 PLACENTIA UNIF. 34 4 FOLSOM-CORDOVA UNIF. 28 4 NAPA VALLEY UNIF. 19 4 WALNUT VALLEY UNIFIED 37 4 SAN DIEGO UNIFIED 44 4 PAJARO VALLEY UNIF. COS 27-35 56 4 CONEJO VALLEY UNIFIED 19 4 BELLFLOWER UNIF. 19 4 WEST COVINA UNIF. 16 4 CORCORAN JT. UNIFIED CO 54 07 4 SAN RAMON VALLEY UNIF. 01 4 NEW HAVEN UNIF. 19 4 TEMPLE CITY UNIF. 15 4 MUROC JT. UNIFIED CO. 36 54 4 LINDSAY UNIF. 33 4 MORENO VALLEY UNIF. 30 4 GARDEN GROVE UNIF. 34 4 ELK GROVE UNIF. 19 4 LOS ANGELES UNIFIED 08 4 DEL NORTE COUNTY UNIF. 19 4 BONITA UNIF. 33 4 RIVERSIDE UNIF. 19 4 LONG BEACH UNIF. 04 4 PARADISE UNIF. 19 4 DUARTE UNIF. 30 4 CAPISTRANO UNIF. 21 4 NOVATO UNIF. 39 4 LODI UNIF. 56 4 SIMI VALLEY UNIF. 33 4 DESERT SANDS UNIF 01 4 ALAMEDA CITY UNIF. 43 4 MORGAN HILL UNIF. 41 1 BELMONT ELEM. 19 4 CHARTER OAK UNIF. 19 4 AZUSA UNIF. 36 4 COLTON JOINT UNIF. CO 33 15 4 TEHACHAPI UNIF. 34 4 CENTER JOINT UNIF. CO 31 33 4 SAN JACINTO UNIF. 39 4 STOCKTON CITY UNIF. 32 4 PLUMAS UNIF. 42 4 CARPINTERIA UNIF. 48 4 DIXON UNIF. 58 4 MARYSVILLE JOINT UNIF. CO 04 .CODE 70573 68296 66647 67330 66266 73460 68338 69799 73759 64303 65094 63891 61804 61242 65052 63685 71993 67124 66522 67314 64733 61820 64329 67215 64725 61531 64469 66464 65417 68585 72603 67058 61119 69583 68866 64378 64279 67686 63826 73973 67249 68676 66969 69146 70532 72736 REVENUE LIMIT ADA BASE REV.LIM PER ADA 10,369 2,647.80 20,184 2,647.54 17,365 2,647.48 11, 061 2 1 64 7 o 20 11,936 2,646.93 10,731 2,646.76 114,322 2,646.55 14,649 2,646.52 18,217 2,646.46 9,177 2,646.43 8,081 2,646.39 2,547 2,646.37 14,852 2,646.36 11 411 2. 646. 15 4,292 2,646.09 2,946 2,646.07 2,541 2,646.02 20,251 2,645.84 35,982 2,645.83 19,401 2,645.74 574,217 2,645.65 3,682 2,645.63 9,435 2,645.57 26,920 2,645.34 64,491 2,645.25 4. 189 2. 645. 19 4,350 2,645.16 21,642 2,644.92 7,853 2,644.74 20,785 2,644.73 18,669 2,644.62 12,772 2,644.61 8,619 2,644.38 8,390 2,644.24 1 818 2. 644. 14 5,675 2,644.05 9,893 2,644.02 13,082 2,644.01 3,098 2,643.91 3,044 2,643.72 2,821 2,643.62 29,571 2,643.60 3,497 2,643.53 2,410 2,643.50 2,694 2,643.20 8,777 2,643.20

PAGE 306

3/89 289 1987-88 ANNUAL K-12 DATA BY BASE REVENUE LIMIT PER ADA L co DISTRICT NAME 39 4 ESCALON UNIF. 36 4 BEAR VALLEY UNIF. 33 4 JURUPA JT. UNIF. CO 36 56 4 OJAI UNIF. 42 4 LOMPOC UNIF. 36 4 CHINO UNIF. CODE 68502 67637 67090 72520 69229 67678 33 4 COACHELLA VALLEY JT. UNIF. 33 4 CORONA-NORCO UNIF. co 73676 67033 72652 67876 73437 56 4 VENTURA UNIF. 36 4 SAN BERNARDINO CITY UNIF. 19 4 COMPTON UNIFIED 45 4 FALL RIVER JT. UNIF. COS 33 4 HEMET UNIF. 37 4 SAN MARCOS UNIFIED 44 4 SAN LORENZO VALLEY UNIF. 36 4 YUCAIPA JOINT UNIF. CO 33 19 4 INGLEWOOD UNIF. 19 4 El RANCHO UNIF. 37 4 VISTA CITY UNIF. 30 4 SANTA ANA UNIFIED 05 4 CALAVERAS UNIF. 33 4 BEAUMONT UNIF. 36 4 REDLANDS UNIF. 18-2 69989 67082 73791 69807 67959 64634 64527 68452 66670 61564 66993 27 4 NORTH MONTEREY CO. UNIFIED 31 4 WESTERN PLACER UNIF. 67843 73825 66951 48 4 VALLEJO CITY UNIF. 19 4 POMONA UNIF. 36 4 FONTANA UNIF. 07 4 ANTIOCH UNIF. 54 4 CUTLER-OROSI JT. UNIF. CO 10 13 4 CALEXICO UNIF. 48 4 FAIRFIELD-SUISUN VALL JT UNIF 19 4 ROWLAND UNIFIED 09 4 LAKE TAHOE UNIF. 49 4 COTATI-ROHNERT PARK UNIFIED 50 4 PATTERSON JT. UNIF. CO 43 19 4 LYNWOOD UNIF. 13 4 HOLTVILLE UNIF. 56 4 FILLMORE UNIF. 36 4 RIALTO UNIF. 50 4 CERES UNIF. 33 4 ALVORD UNIF. 19 4 BALDWIN PARK UNIF. 37 4 OCEANSIDE UNIFIED 19 4 PARAMOUNT UNIF. 23 4 FORT BRAGG UNIF. 27 4 MONTEREY PENINSULA UNIF. 48 4 TRAVIS UNIF. 70581 64907 67710 61648 71860 63099 70540 73452 61903 73882 71217 64774 63149 72454 67850 71043 66977 64287 73569 64873 65565 66092 70565 REVENUE LIMIT ADA BASE REV.LIM PER ADA 2,100 2,643.12 2,501 2,643.07 12,875 2,642.88 3,289 2,642.83 9,194 2,642.80 18,931 2,642.-78 7,993 2,642.74 17,769 2,642.70 15,155 2,642.67 34,123 2,642.40 26,241 2,642.34 1,791 2,642.28 10,336 2,642.26 6 '80 1 2' 642. 19 3,935. 2,642.16 5,338 2,642.04 15,295 2,641.99 10,295 2,641.97 13,979 2,641.94 36,650 2,641.87 2' 924 2' 641 83 2,795 2,641.78 13,383 2,641.47 4,893 2,641.43 2,579 2,641.33 16,119 2,641.19 24,058 2,641.04 19,349 2,641.03 11,166 2,640.70 3,064 2,640.68 6,135 2,640.64 16,793 2,640.57 19,057 2,640.40 4,360 2,640.32 6,617 2,640.19 2,293 2,639.96 13,136 2,639.88 1,730 2,639.84 3,341 2,639.77 15,843 2,639.70 5,648 2 639.60 12,021 2,639.59 14,731 2,639.07 13,817 2,638.98 11,763 2,638.78 2,387 2,638.26 13,858 2,638.26 3,208 2,638.21

PAGE 307

3/89 1987-88 ANNUAL K-12 DATA 290 BY BASE REVENUE LIMIT PER ADA L co DISTRICT NAME 19 4 MONTEBELLO UNIF. 20 4 MADERA UNIF. 23 4 UKIAH UNIF. 36 4 MORONGO UNIF. 41 1 27 1 15 1 45 1 49 1 01 1 50 1 43 1 45 1 31 1 43 1 43 1 27 1 42 1 33 1 42 1 43 1 15 1 30 1 15 1 51 1 07 1 37 1 10 1 37 1 39 1 36 1 1 0 1 07 1 52 1 33 1 36 1 20 1 53 1 21 1 43 1 49 1 28 1 37 1 41 1 44 1 01 1 1 0 1 SAN MATEO CITY ELEM. SAN ARDO UNION ELEM. GENERAL SHAFTER ELEM. MOUNTAIN UNION DUNHAM ELEM. MURRAY ELEM. HART-RANSOM UNION ELEM. LAKESIDE uT. ELEM. CO 44 MILLVILLE ELEM. ALTA-DUTCH FLAT UNION ELEM. CUPERTINO UNION ELEM. LOS ALTOS ELEM. SAN LUCAS UNION ELEM. BLOCHMAN UNION. ELEM. TEMECULA UNION ELEM. SANTA BARBARA CITY ELEM CAMPBELL UNION ELEM. MAPLE ELEM. CENTRALIA ELEM. SEMITROPIC ELEM. PLEASANT GROVE JT. ELEM. CO MORAGA ELEM. RANCHO SANTA FE ELEM. MONROE ELEM. PAUMA ELEM. DELTA ISLAND UNION ELEM. MOUNTAIN VIEW ELEM. ORANGE CENTER ELEM. LAFAYETTE ELEM. REEDS CREEK ELEM. MENIFEE UNION ELEM. ETIWANDA ELEM. WASUMA UNION ELEM. DOUGLAS CITY ELEM. LAGUNITAS ELEM. CAMBRIAN ELEM. MONTE RIO UNION ELEM. HOWELL MOUNTAIN ELEM. SOLANA BEACH ELEM. JEFFERSON ELEM. BONNY DOON UNION ELEM. PLEASANTON JOINT ELEM. CO 07 ORO LOMA ELEM. CODE 64808 65243 65615 67777 69039 66175 63487 73700 70672 61226 71092 69492 70052 66779 69419 69518 66183 69112 67256 69278 69393 63610 66472 63768 3 71431 61747 68312 62323 68288 73478 67785 62331 61713 71647 67116 67702 65292 71696 65359 69385 70813 66258 68387 68916 69732 61283 62349 REVENUE LIMIT ADA BASE REV.LIM PER ADA 32,264 2,638.14 12,188 2,638.00 5,808 2,637.68 8,254 2,637.04 8,514 2,634.20 152 2,632.14 87 2 t 630 o 18 185 2,628.19 100 2,626.73 3,473 2,625.51 364 2,623.18 121" 2,620.12 130 2,619.16 174 2,613.18 10,839 2,609.72 2,836 2,601.72 140 2,601.29 128 2,599.43 2,395 2,598.94 4,412 2,596.18 5,955 2,595.69 131 2,592.80 4 1 185 2 1 591 o 95 129 2,591.75 157 2,589.13 1,455 2,586.79 470 2,584.63 149 2,583.83 345 2,581.49 203 2,581.31 1,713 2,579.80 272 2,576.18 2,478 2,574.52 115 2,568.74 967 2,567.51 1,315 2,558.49 289 2,558.27 146 2,553.88 322 2,550.63 2,239 2,547.79 205 2,543.01 155 2,541.97 1,328 2,540.96 6,347 2,534.41 221 2,533.77 4,252 2,532.79 189 2,530.31

PAGE 308

189 L co 50 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 45 1 40 1 24 1 49 1 15 1 49 1 07 1 37 1 47 1 1 1 1 39 1 43 1 1 1 1 37 1 54 1 29 1 36 1 40 1 44 1 19 1 20 1 24 1 54 1 49 1 30 1 58 1 41 1 44 1 15 1 52 1 10 1 10 1 55 1 1 5 1 43 1 -20 1 41 1 19 1 51 1 20 1 30 1 34 1 1 5 1 15 1 37 1 1987-88 ANNUAL K-12 DATA BY BASE REVENUE LIMIT PER ADA DISTRICT NAME PARADISE ELEM. BURREL UNION ELEM. WEST FRESNO ELEM. CANYON UNION ELEM. SAN MIGUEL JT. UN. ELEM. EL NIDO ELEM. WILMAR UNION ELEM. TAFT CITY ELEM. MONTGOMERY ELEM. BYRON UNION ELEM. SAN PASQUAL UNION ELEM. GRENADA ELEM. PLAZA ELEM. LAMMERSVILLE ELEM. BERRYESSA UNION ELEM. LAKE ELEM. CODE 71209 62042 62174 69906 co 2 68825 65680 71019 63800 70821 61663 68353 70326 62638 68551 69377 625-96 68460 WARNER UNION ELEM. MONSON-SULTANA JT. UN. PLEASANT VALLEY ELEM. CUCAMONGA ELEM. CAYUCOS ELEM. ELEM C 72009 66381 67694 68726 69831 64766 65193 SCOTTS VALLEY UNION ELEM. LOWELL JOINT ELEM. CO 30 CHOWCHILLA ELEM. BALLICO-CRESSEY ELEM. LIBERTY ELEM. KENWOOD ELEM. SAVANNA ELEM. CAMPTONVILLE ELEM. BAYSHORE ELEM. SOQUEL UNION ELEM. SOUTH FORK UNION ELEM. -ANTELOPE ELEM. CANTUA ELEM. WASHINGTON COLONY ELEM. BELLEVIEW ELEM. GREENFIELD UNION ELEM. MOUNT PLEASANT ELEM. COARSEGOLD UNION ELEM. REDWOOD CITY ELEM. PALMDALE ELEM. BROWNS ELEM. SPRING VALLEY ELEM. BUENA PARK ELEM. NORTH SACRAMENTO ELEM. BUTTONWILLOW UNION ELEM. WASCO UNION ELEM. ESCONDIDO UNION ELEM. 65649 71985 70789 66696 72728 68858 69849 63784 71472 62059 62513 72306 63503 69617 65219 69005 64857 71365 65284 66456 67397 63370 63842 68098 REVENUE LIMIT ADA 174 140 538 126 301 150 217 2,082 120 498 213 154 127 287 8,358 114 200 326 609 1 710 274 1,290 2,335 1, 248 321 206 172 1,764 135 441 2,057 279 461 304 395 226 4,023 2,484 587 7,032 8,376 130 320 3,816 4,669 403 2,269 11 '7 44 291 BASE REV.LIM PER ADA 2,529.19 2,528.51 2, 528. 14 2,527.22 2,525.81 2,525.13 2,523.36 2,521.47 2,520.44 2,517.52 2,515.22 2,514.59 2,513.76 2,510.87 2,510.25 2,508.51 2,506.22 2,505.56 2,505.46 2,504.67 2,503.02 2,500.87 2,500.11 2,500.09 2,499.88 2,499.50 2,499.39 2,498.58 2,498.15 2,498.12 2,497.02 2,495.97 2,495.65 2,495.29 2,491.82 2,491.55 2,490.46 2,490.44 2,489.99 2,489.99 2,489.98 2,488.33 2,488.02 2,488.01 2,487.22 2,486.95 2,486.30 2,485.60

PAGE 309

292 : /89 1987-88 ANNUAL K-12 DATA BY BASE REVENUE LIMIT PER ADA L REVENUE BASE DISTRICT LIMIT REV.LIM co NAME CODE ADA PER ADA 15 1 ARVIN UNION ELEM. 63313 1 1667 2. 485. 16 52 1 EVERGREEN UNION ELEM. 71522 620 2,484.80 16 1 LEMOORE UNION ELEM. 63974 1. 906 2,484.53 54 1 EARLIMART ELEM. 71902 1. 440 2,483.84 10 1 AUBERRY UNION ELEM. 62018 466 2,483.49 15 1 EL TEJON UNION ELEM. 63453 936 2,483.33 39 1 TRACY ELEM. 68684 4,231 2,482.81 19 1 KEPPEL UNION ELEM. 64642 2. 107 2,482.59 54 1 THREE RIVERS UNION ELEM. 72207 217 2,482.32 19 1 SOUTH WHITTIER ELEM. 65037 31417 2,481.93 42 1 COLD SPRING ELEM. 69161 186 2,481.92 39 1 OAK VIEW UNION ELEM. 68635 265 2,481.20 35 1 SAN JUAN UNION ELEM 67546 554 2,481.04 12 1 TRINIDAD UNION ELEM. 63057 239 2,481.03 34 1 ROBLA ELEM. 67421 1 1425 21480.72 39 1 NEW HOPE ELEM. 68619 201 21480 o 12 15 1 EDISON ELEM. 63438 610 2,479.70 43 1 EVERGREEN ELEM. 69435 81552 21479.46 10 1 CARUTHERS UNION ELEM. 62067 666 2,479.13 44 1 MOUNTAIN ELEM. 69773 158 2,478 .95 24 1 DOS PALOS JT. UN. ELEM. co 10 65664 1 '442 2,478.54 37 1 VALLECITOS ELEM. 68437 151 2,478.20 30 1 FOUNTAIN VALLEY ELEM. 66498 6' 162 2,478.17 16 1 LAKESIDE UNION ELEM. 63966 408 21477.60 40 1 CAMBRIA UNION ELEM. 68718 507 2,477.54 10 1 SAN JOAQUIN ELEM. 62422 605 2,477.39 44 1 SANTA CRUZ CITY ELEM 69815 3 1273 2,477.36 43 1 LOMA PRIETA JT. UN. ELEM. co 69500 576 21477.20 43 1 FRANKLIN-MCKINLEY ELEM. 69450 9,073 2,476.35 45 1 SHASTA UNION ELEM. 70128 242 2,476.12 15 1 BAKERSFIELD CITY ELEM. 63321 20,733 21476.00 30 1 FULLERTON ELEM. 66506 9,872 21475.83 43 1 OAK GROVE ELEM. 69625 11 '961 2,475.76 19 1 NEWHALL ELEM. 64832 31703 2,475.72 19 1 LOS NIETOS ELEM. 64758 1,958 2,475.62 42 1 SOLVANG ELEM. 69336 491 2,475.57 49 1 OLD ADOBE UNION ELEM. 70847 1. 894 2,475.57 19 1 ALHAMBRA CITY ELEM 64220 10,321 2,475.42 12 1 BLUE LAKE UNION ELEM. 62703 296 2,475.21 10 1 RAISIN CITY ELEM. 62380 298 2,475.12 10 1 MENDOTA UNION ELEM. 62315 1,524 2,475.07 51 1 BRITTAN ELEM. 71357 509 2,474.72 56 1 BRIGGS ELEM. 72447 302 2,474.63 23 1 ARENA UNION ELEM. 65557 295 2,474.42 15 1 PANAMA UNION ELEM. 63701 8,326 2,474.35 33 1 PERRIS ELEM. 67199 1. 975 2,474.07 24 1 LIVINGSTON UNION ELEM. 65748 1 613 2,474.00 45 1 HAPPY VALLEY UNION ELEM. 70011 763 2,473.27

PAGE 310

293 '89 1987-88 ANNUAL K-12 DATA BY BASE REVENUE LIMIT PER ADA L REVENUE BASE DISTRICT LIMIT REV.LIM co NAME CODE ADA PER ADA 49 1 PETALUMA CITY ELEM 70854 2,269 2,473.16 19 1 VALLE LINDO ELEM. 65078 1 '046 2,473.02 54 1 EXETER UNION 71910 1 '409 2,472.53 15 1 DELANO UNION ELEM. 63404 3,675 2,472.05 49 1 OAK GROVE UNION ELEM. 70839 419 2,472.01 10 1 RIVERDALE JT. UNION ELEM. co 62398 631 2,471.97 45 1 BUCKEYE ELEM. 69898 776 2,471.83 54 1 SEQUOIA UNION ELEM. 72116 276 2,471.65 27 1 GREENFIELD UNION ELEM. 66035 1 '513 2,471:65 15 1 RICHLAND ELEM. 63735 2,025 2,471.57 30 1 YORBA LINDA ELEM. 66753 1 '819 2,471.30 37 1 ENCINITAS UNION ELEM. 68080 4,305 2,471.02 19 1 SOLEDAD-AGUA DULCE UNION ELEM 65003 1, 077 2,471.01 54 1 RICHGROVE ELEM. 72082 433 2,470.99 45 1 JUNCTION ELEM. 70045 470 2,470.81 05 1 VALLECITO UNION ELEM. 61580 1 '087 2,470.75 04 1 GRIDLEY UNION ELEM. 61465 1 '279 2,470.56 54 1 TULARE CITY ELEM. 72231 5,556 2,470.55 49 1 MARK WEST UNION ELEM. 70805 757 2,470.51 31 1 PLACER HILLS UNION ELEM. 66886 1 '234 2,470;46 34 1 RIO LINDA UNION ELEM. 67405 8,631 2,470.31 50 1 STANISLAUS UNION ELEM. 71282 2,963 2,469.87 37 1 LEMON GROVE ELEM. 68205 3,451 2,469.58 54 1 FARMERSVILLE ELEM. 71936 1 '303 2,469.23 20 1 ALVIEW-DAIRYLAND UNION ELEM. 65177 293 2,469.04 54 1 DINUBA UNION ELEM 71878 2,508 2,468.94 19 1 REDONDO BEACH CITY ELEM. 64915 3,764 2,468.79 12 1 ARCATA ELEM. 62679 950 2,468.72 34 1 GALT JT. UN ELEM CO 39 67348 1 '604 2,468.72 19 1 WHITTIER CITY ELEM. 65110 5,714 2,468.53 29 1 GRASS VALLEY ELEM. 66332 2,047 2,468.11 45 1 REDDING ELEM. 70110 3,024 2,468 .11 33 1 LAKE ELSINORE UNION ELEM. 67066 4,868 2,468.07 41 1 LAGUNA SALADA UNION ELEM. 68932 3,993 2,468.02 44 1 LIVE OAK ELEM. 69765 1,572 2,467.97 33 1 VAL VERDE ELEM. 67272 1 '874 2,467.91 34 1 DEL PASO HEIGHTS ELEM. 67306 1",393 2,467.89 36 1 ONTARIO-MONTCLAIR ELEM. 67819 18 1 103 2,467.84 09 1 BUCKEYE UNION ELEM. 61838 2,098 2,467.44 34 1 ARCOHE UNION ELEM. 67280 388 2,467.38 45 1 CASCADE UNION ELEM. 69914 1,753 2,467.35 43 1 LUTHER BURBANK ELEM. 69542 330 2,467.30 54 1 WOODLAKE UNION ELEM. 72272 1 '323 2,467.28 30 1 HUNTINGTON BEACH CITY ELEM 66530 5,283 2,466.67 54 1 PALO VERDE UNION ELEM. 72033 394 2,466.60 19 1 SAN GABRIEL ELEM. 64956 3. 181 2,466.46 54 1 KINGS RIVER UNION ELEM. 71969 481 2,466.39 37 1 VALLEY CENTER UNION ELEM. 68445 1. 759 2,465.80

PAGE 311

23/89 294 1987-88 ANNUAL K-12 DATA BY BASE REVENUE LIMIT PER ADA L co DISTRICT NAME CODE 54 1 TERRA BELLA UNION ELEM. 72199 19 1 EL MONTE ELEM. 64501 19 1 EAST WHITTIER CITY ELEM. 64485 40 1 PASO ROBLES UNION ELEM. 68767 49 1 LIBERTY ELEM. 70797 50 1 SYLVAN UNION ELEM. 71290 42 1 GUADALUPE UNION ELEM. 69203 31 1 DRY CREEK JOINT ELEM. CO 34 66803 42 1 ORCUTT UNION ELEM. 69260 37 1 SANTEE ELEM. 68361 09 1 PIONEER UNION ELEM. 61945 49 1 WRIGHT ELEM. 71035 42 1 LOS ALAMOS ELEM. 69237 16 1 KINGS RIVER-HARDWICK UNION EL 63941 52 1 CORNING UNION ELEM. 71498 41 1 RAVENSWOOD CITY ELEM. 68999 31 1 PENRYN ELEM. 66878 49 1 BENNETT VALLEY UNION ELEM. 70623 19 1 WESTSIDE UNION ELEM. 65102 24 1 DELHI ELEM. 65656 24 1 WINTON ELEM. 65870 19 1 EASTSIDE UNION ELEM. 64477 16. 1 ARMONA UNION ELEM. 63875 54 1 PLEASANT VIEW ELEM. 72058 37 1 ALPINE UNION ELEM. 67967 42 1 BUELLTON UNION ELEM. 69138 50 1 KEYES UNION .ELEM. 71134 45 1 BELLA VISTA ELEM. 69872 50 1 MODESTO CITY ELEM 71167 37 1 CAJON VALLEY UNION ELEM. 67991 54 1 BUENA VISTA ELEM. 71829 47 1 YREKA UNION ELEM. 70508 54 1 PIXLEY UNION ELEM. 72041 35 1 NORTH COUNTY JT. UN. ELEM. CO 67504 19 1 GARVEY ELEM. 64550 15 1 FAIRFAX ELEM. 63461 29 1 READY SPRINGS UNION ELEM. 66399 54 1 PORTERVILLE CITY ELEM. 72066 35 1 HOLLISTER ELEM. 67470 56 1 OXNARD ELEM. 72538 21 1 BOLINAS-STINSON UNION ELEM. 65300 15 1 BEARDSLEY ELEM. 63339 42 1 SANTA MARIA CITY JT. ELEM. CO 69302 37 1 LA MESA-SPRING VALLEY CITY EL 68197 31 1 ROSEVILLE CITY ELEM. 66910 27 1 CHUALAR UNION ELEM. 65995 19 1 MOUNTAIN VIEW ELEM. 64816 27 1 SALINAS CITY ELEM. 66142 REVENUE LIMIT ADA BASE REV.LIM PER ADA 651 2, 465. 76 10,691 2,465.73 6,636 2,465.65 3,020 2,465.63 137 2,465.61 5,186 2,465.58 899 21465.51 329 2,465.47 31384 2,465.45 7,466 2,465.36 557 21465.31 11053 2,464.96 151 2, 464. 85 255 21464.80 1, 392 2, 464.80 3,324 2,464.71 314 2,464.59 985 2,464.40 2,656 2,464.39 880 2,464.37 1,154 21464.29 986 2, 464. 19 932 2,464.12 363 2,464.09 1,360 2,463.99 425 2,463.96 506 2,463.91 398 2,463.89 14,573 2,463.86 14,437 21463.85 122 2,463.76 1,131 2,463. 72 719 2,463.55 486 2,463.26 7,402 2,463.14 1,070 2,463.10 406 2,463.08 5,404 2,463.03 3,618 2,462.99 11,365 2,462.99 205 2,462.98 1 1 691 2 1 462 o 96 7,006 2,462.74 11 1 981 2 1 462 7 4 4,112 2,462.41 407 2,462.28 8,177 2,462.22 7,229 2,461.90

PAGE 312

295 1987-88 ANNUAL K-12 DATA BY BASE REVENUE LIMIT PER ADA L REVENUE BASE DISTRICT LIMIT REV.LIM co NAME CODE ADA PER ADA 37 1 JAMUL-DULZURA UNION ELEM. 68155 855 2,461.87 18 1 SUSANVILLE ELEM. 64196 1,190 2 '461. 82 37 1 NATIONAL ELEM. 68221 5,641 2' 461.82 50 1 TURLOCK JT. ELEM. CO 24 71308 5,679 2 '461. 82 50 1 CHATOM UNION ELEM. 71050 691 2,461. 79 39 1 BANTA ELEM. 68486 221 2,461. 78 45 1 PACHECO UNION ELEM. 70094 730 2,461. 70 19 1 ROSEMEAD ELEM. 64931 2,767 2,461.56 49 1 HEALDSBURG UNION ELEM. 70748 1 '230 2,461.50 43 1 ALUM ROCK-UNION ELEM. 69369 15,485 2,461.37 16 1 HANFORD ELEM. 63917 3,977 2 '461. 36 45 1 SHASTA LAKE UNION ELEM. 70151 1 '452 2' 461.06 49 1 RINCON VALLEY UNION ELEM. 70896 2,699 2,460.99 15 1 KERNVILLE UNION ELEM. 63545 950 2,460.97 19 1 LENNOX ELEM. 64709 4,830 2,460.95 49 1 SANTA ROSA CITY ELEM 70912 4,439 2,460.91 37 1 SOUTH BAY UNION ELEM. 68395 8,226 2,460.79 29 1 NEVADA CITY ELEM. 66340 1,503 2,460.61 17 1 LUCERNE ELEM. 64048 234 2,460.59 47 1 BIG SPRINGS UNION ELEM. 70185 161 2,460.57 49 1 TWIN HILLS UNION ELEM. 70961 848 2,460.49 45 1 ENTERPRISE ELEM. 69971 2,828 2,460.46 20 1 NORTH FORK UNION ELEM. 65250 412 2,460.38 49 1 FORESTVILLE UNION ELEM. 70680 710 2,460.36 27 1 SOLEDAD UNION ELEM. 66209 1 '576 2,460.36 19 1 LITTLE LAKE CITY ELEM. 64717 4,020 2,460.28 09 1 GOLD TRAIL UNION ELEM. 61887 564 2,460.27 09 1 CAMINO UNION ELEM. 61846 541 2,460.21 56 1 OCEAN VIEW ELEM. 72512 2' 192 2,460.20 37 1 CHULA VISTA CITY ELEM. 68023 15,426 2,460.20 56 1 SOMIS UNION ELEM. 72611 301 2,460.18 37 1 FALLBROOK UNION ELEM. 68114 4,651 2,460.17 39 1 NEW JERUSALEM ELEM. 68627 169 2 '460. 12 54 1 OUTSIDE CREEK ELEM. 72025 132 2,460.10 55 1 SUMMERVILLE ELEM. 72405 500 2,460.03 30 1 LA HABRA CITY ELEM. 66563 4,326 2,460.02 56 1 RIO ELEM. 72561 2,318 2,459.97 30 1 ANAHEIM CITY ELEM. 66423 12,758 2,459.94 45 1 BLACK BUTTE UNION ELEM. 69880 450 2,459.83 37 1 SAN YSIDRO ELEM. 68379 3,435 2,459.83 56 1 HUENEME ELEM. 72462 6,947 2,459.83 56 1 MESA UNION ELEM. 72470 345 2,459.77 30 1 MAGNOLIA ELEM. 66589 4,342 2,459.75 37 1 JULIAN UNION ELEM. 68163 423 2,459.73 54 1 WOODVILLE ELEM. 72298 643 2,459.70 36 1 ADELANTO ELEM. 67587 1 1843 2,459.56 19 1 HAWTHORNE ELEM. 64592 5,527 2,459.50 54 1 BURTON ELEM. 71837 1,452 2,459.42

PAGE 313

296 3/89 1987-88 ANNUAL K-12 DATA BY BASE REVENUE LIMIT PER ADA L REVENUE BASE DISTRICT LIMIT REV.LIM co NAME CODE ADA PER ADA 37 1 CARDIFF ELEM. 68007 754 2,459.34 17 1 UPPER LAKE UNION ELEM. 64063 539 2,459.29 47 1 MONTAGUE ELEM. 70417 348 2,459.27 12 1 JACOBY CREEK ELEM. 62893 348 2,459.25 07 1 BRENTWOOD UNION ELEM. 61655 1,620 2,459.22 15 1 STANDARD ELEM. 63792 2,056 2' 459. 16 16 1 KIT CARSON UNION ELEM. 63958 404 2 1 459, 12 45 1 BASS ELEM. 69864 219 2,459.08 27 1 GONZALES UNION ELEM. 66001 969 2,459.07 56 1 SANTA PAULA ELEM. 72587 3_,272 2,459.04 47 1 MOUNT SHASTA UNION ELEM. 70425 909 2,458.97 19 1 LANCASTER ELEM. 64667 8,552 2,458.95 10 1 KINGSBURG JT. UNION ELEM. cos 62240 1,426 2,458.93 47 1 MC CLOUD UNION ELEM. 70409 255 2,458.92 56 1 PLEASANT VALLEY ELEM. 72553 5,843 2,458.91 43 1 WHISMAN ELEM. 69724 1,877 2,458.88 29 1 PLEASANT RIDGE UNION ELEM. 66373 1 '842 2,458.86 36 1 ALTA LOMA ELEM. 67595 6, 175 2,458.86 24 1 PLANADA ELEM. 65821 650 2,458.85 15 1 ROSEDALE UNION ELEM. 63750 1,467 2,458.83 13 1 BRAWLEY ELEM. 63073 3,336 2,458.77 36 1 CENTRAL ELEM. 67645 3,788 2,458.77 13 1 EL CENTRO ELEM. 63123 5, 122 2,458.76 19 1 LAWNDALE ELEM. 64691 4, 154 2,458.71 50 1 RIVERBANK ELEM. 71225 1, 453 2,458.69 "12 1 FRESHWATER ELEM. 62828 311 2,458.62 49 1 CINNABAR ELEM. 70649 249 2,458.58 37 1 LAKESIDE UNION ELEM. 68189 4,208 2,458.57 13 1 MEADOWS UNION ELEM. 63198 470 2,458.56 44 1 HAPPY VALLEY ELEM. 69757 142 2,458.55 50 1 HICKMAN ELEM. 71100 202 2,458.54 50 1 VALLEY HOME JOINT ELEM. co 39 71324 143 2,458.49 54 1 SPRINGVILLE UNION ELEM. 72132 332 2,458.46 49 1 PINER-OLIVET UNION ELEM. 70870 1 '004 2,458.45 19 1 SAUGUS UNION ELEM. 64998 4,757 2,458.45 13 1 MCCABE UNION ELEM. 63180 366 2,458.42 29 1 CHICAGO PARK ELEM. 66316 147 .2,458.41 54 1 WAUKENA JT. UNION ELEM. co 16 72264 225 2,458.40 12 1 PACIFIC UNION ELEM. 62976 552 2,458.40 50 1 EMPIRE UNION ELEM. 71076 2,848 2,458.36 16 1 CENTRAL UNION ELEM. 63883 1,790 2,458.35 04 1 MANZANITA ELEM. 61499 163 2,458.34 24 1 ATWATER ELEM. 65631 3,957 2,458.32 33 1 NUVIEW UNION ELEM. 67157 654 2,458.29 33 1 ROMOLAND ELEM. 67231 611 2,458.26 42 1 LOS OLIVOS ELEM. 69245 254 2,458.23 31 1 EUREKA UNION ELEM. 66829 1 '435 2,458.22 24 1 MERCED CITY ELEM. 65771 9,432 21458, 16

PAGE 314

297 89 ANNUAL K-12 DATA BY BASE REVENUE LIMIT PER ADA L REVENUE BASE DISTRICT LIMIT REV.LIM co NAME CODE ADA PER ADA 29 1 UNION HILL ELEM. 66407 389 2,458.13 09 1 PLACERVILLE UNION ELEM. 61952 1,321 2,458.08 54 1 TRAVER JT. ELEM CO. 16 72223 273 2,458.06 55 1 TWAIN HARTE-LONG BARN UNION E 72421 622 2,458.03 27 1 ALISAL UNION ELEM. 65961 4, 120 2,458.02 27 1 KING CITY UNION ELEM. 66050 1 '602 2,457.99 12 1 CUTTEN ELEM. 62745 511 2,457.97 31 1 OPHIR ELEM. 66860 182 2,457.91 49 1 ROSELAND ELEM. 70904 871 2,457.91 12 1 FIELDBROOK ELEM. 62794 182 2,457.85 15 1 LAMONT ELEM. 63560 1,944 2,457.85 49 1 WINDSOR UNION ELEM. 71027 1 '047 2,457.83 10 1 AMERICAN UNION ELEM. 62000 377 2,457.78 54 1 OAK VALLEY UNION ELEM. 72017 242 2,457.75 27 1 SANTA RITA UNION ELEM. 661.91 1 '652 2,457.73 12 1 FERNDALE ELEM. 62778 381 2,457.72 36 1 VICTOR ELEM. 61918 3,691 2,457.71 30 1 WESTMINSTER ELEM. 66746 7,365 2,457.70 12 1 EUREKA CITY ELEM 62752 2,778 2,457.64 09 1 RESCUE UNION ELEM. 61978 1 '571 2,457.63 49 1 SEBASTOPOL UNION ELEM. 70938 1,209 2,457.60 15 1 NORRIS ELEM. 63693 1, 209 2,457.58 13 1 WESTMORLAND UNION ELEM. 63230 418 2,457.57 11 1 ORLAND JOINT UNION ELEM. CO 5 62612 1,330 2,457.54 19 1 SULPHUR SPRINGS UNION ELEM. 65045 2,766 2,457.54 55 1 SONORA ELEM. 72371 731 2,457.48 05 1 MARK TWAIN UNION ELEM. 61572 423 2,457.46 12 1 FORTUNA UNION ELEM. 62802 682 2,457.45 49 1 BELLEVUE UNION ELEM. 70615 1,144 2,457.45 13 1 SEELEY UNION ELEM. 63222 439 2,457.35 31 1 FORESTHILL UNION ELEM. 66837 562 2,457.35 51 1 MARCUM-ILLINOIS ELEM. 71407 125 2,457.28 50 1 WATERFORD ELEM. 71332 742 2,457.27 14 1 BISHOP UNION ELEM. 63255 1 '399 2,457.27 54 1 COLUMBINE ELEM. 71852 152 2,457.23 16 1 PIONEER UNION ELEM. 63990 325 2,457.21 37 1 BONSALL UNION ELEM. 67975 902 2,457.19 31 1 ACKERMAN ELEM. 66761 270 2' 457. 16 49 1 GUERNEVILLE ELEM. 70722 579 2,457.13 45 1 NORTH COW CREEK ELEM. 70078 227 2,457.12 07 1 OAKLEY UNION ELEM. 61762 1 '820 2,457.10 09 1 MOTHER LODE UNION ELEM. 61929 1 '548 2,457.07 20 1 OAKHURST UNION ELEM. 65268 679 2,457.01 31 1 LOOMIS UNION ELEM. 66845 1 '386 2,457.01 50 1 HUGHSON UNION ELEM. 71118 965 2,457.00 31 1 AUBURN UNION ELEM. 66787 2,364 2,456.99 49 1 HARMONY UNION ELEM. 70730 536 2,456.97 24 1 WEAVER UNION ELEM. 65862 993 2,456.89

PAGE 315

3/89 298 1987-88 ANNUAL K-12 DATA "BY BASE REVENUE LIMIT PER ADA L co DISTRICT NAME 50 1 OAKDALE UNION ELEM. 09 1 POLLOCK PINES ELEM. 12 1 MCKINLEYVILLE UNION ELEM. 42 1 COLLEGE ELEM. 54 1 DUCOR UNION ELEM. 09 1 GOLD OAK UNION ELEM. 12 1 HYDESVILLE ELEM. 10 1 WEST PARK ELEM. 34 1 ELVERTA JT. ELEM CO 31 50 1 SALIDA UNION ELEM. 15 1 VINELAND ELEM. 47 1 ETNA UNION ELEM. 13 1 HEBER ELEM. 12 1 SOUTH BAY UNION ELEM. 24 1 LE GRAND UNION ELEM. 49 1 GRAVENSTEIN UNION ELEM. 52 1 RED BLUFF UNION ELEM. 24 1 MCSWAIN UNION ELEM. 12 1 RIO DELL ELEM. 55 1 CURTIS CREEK ELEM. 52 1 LASSEN VIEW UNION ELEM. 04 1 PALERMO UNION ELEM 04 1 OROVILLE CITY ELEM. 54 1 TIPTON ELEM. 45 1 COTTONWOOD UNION ELEM. 47 1 HAPPY CAMP UNION ELEM. 04 1 THERMALITO UNION ELEM. 10 1 TRANQUILLITY ELEM. 52 1 GERBER UNION ELEM. 27 1 SPRECKELS UNION ELEM. 27 1 SAN ANTONIO UNION ELEM. 55 1 BIG OAK FLAT-GROVELAND UNION 54 1 SUNDALE UNION ELEM. 54 1 ALTA VISTA ELEM. 55 1 SOULSBYVILLE ELEM. 30 1 OCEAN VIEW ELEM. 12 1 ROHNERVILLE ELEM. 47 1 WEED UNION ELEM. 14 1 ROUND VALLEY JOINT ELEM. CO 27 1 WASHINGTON UNION ELEM. 16 1 ISLAND UNION ELEM. 54 1 SUNNYSIDE UNION ELEM. 10 1 WESTSIDE ELEM. 47 1 DUNSMUIR ELEM. 54 1 STRATHMORE UNION ELEM. 12 1 LOLETA UNION ELEM. 11 1 HAMILTON UNION ELEM. 31 1 NEWCASTLE ELEM. CODE 71183 61960 62950 69179 71894 61879 62885 62539 67322 71266 63834 70268 63131 63032 65722 70714 71621 65763 63008 72355 71563 61523 61507 72215 69955 70334 61549 62497 71548 66225 66167 72314 72173 71811 72397 66613 63016 70482 63305 66233 63933 72181 62547 70243 72157 62927 62570 66852 REVENUE LIMIT ADA BASE REV.LIM PER ADA 2,398 2,456.88 963 2,456.87 1,342 2,456.82 598 2,456.68 201 2,456.63 793 2,456.63 194 2,456.62 301 2,456.56 400 2,456.49 1 189 2' 456. 4 7 662 2,456.46 372 2,456.45 514 2,456.24 595 2,456.23 313 2,456.19 780 2,456.19 2. 137 2' 456. 16 536 2,455.99 407 2,455.98 928 2,455.94 309 2,455.90 1,035 2,455.84 2,720 2,455.84 415 2,455.77 953 2,455.76 260 2,455.73 1,120 2,455.66 228 2,455.64 379 2,455.59 476 2,455.51 214 2,455.45 364 2,455.29 393 2,455.27 393 2,455.26 569 2,455.19 8,514 2,455.14 471 2,455.11 539 2,454.97 130 2,454.94 679 2,454.86 225 2,454.74 436 2,454.67 384 2,454.41 401 2,454.39 625 2,454.32 162 2,454.31 429 2,454.19 277 2,454.08

PAGE 316

'23/89 L co 51 1 12 1 45 1 55 1 31 1 18 1 24 1 55 1 04 1 16 1 45 1 54 1 04 1 47 1 53 1 53 1 45 1 1 1 1 10 1 58 1 18 1 18 1 18 1 49 1 Source : 299 1987-88 ANNUAL K-12 DATA BY BASE REVENUE LIMIT PER ADA REVENUE BASE DISTRICT LIMIT REV.LIM NAME CODE ADA PER ADA FRANKLIN ELEM. 71381 271 2,454.03 SCOTIA UNION ELEM. 63024 227 2,453.96 GRANT ELEM. 70003 334 2,453.87 COLUMBIA UNION ELEM. 72348 567 2,453.85 COLFAX ELEM. 66795 398 2,453.36 JOHNSTONVILLE ELEM. 64113 231 2,453.21 MERCED RIVER UNION ELEM 73726 279 2,453.16 JAMESTOWN ELEM. 72363 445 2,45.2. 58 BANGOR UNION ELEM. 61382 101 2,452.40 DELTA VIEW JT UNION ELEM. CO 63909 94 2,451. 32 IGO-ONO-PLATINA UNION ELEM. 70029 142 2,450. 5 9 ROCKFORD ELEM. 72090 218 2,449.39 PIONEER UNION ELEM 73379 141 2,449.21 FORT JONES UNION ELEM. 70300 147 2,448.94 WEAVERVILLE ELEM. 71787 488. 2,447.36 LEWISTON ELEM. 71746 155 2,447.20 COLUMBIA ELEM. 69948 362 2,447.15 CAPAY JOINT UNION ELEM. co 52 62554 138 2,446.96 PACIFIC UNION ELEM. 62356 391 2,445.48 WHEATLAND ELEM. 72751 1,580 2,439.43 RICHMOND ELEM. 64170 154 2,420.63 JANESVILLE. UNION ELEM. 64105 435 2,400.56 SHAFFER UNION ELEM. 64188 377 2,386.28 TWO ROCK UNION ELEM. 70979 144 2,358.53 STATE TOTAL 4,406,477 1, 023 Local Assistance Bureau, California State Department of Education, Sacramento, CA.

PAGE 317

THE EFFECT OF COMMUNITY SIZE ON FOUNDATION FUNDS RAISED PER ADA (N-113) 300

PAGE 318

Source Among Within Total p < .01 Fisher's LSD Group Mean 1 ( -28) 88.1457 df SS MS 2 104049.07 52025.54 11 0 703404.43 112 807453.51 5394.59 Null Hypothesis = Rejected 2 (N-63) 21.2732 3 (N-22) 10.5445 F 8.14 301

PAGE 319

THE EFFECT OF YEARS ON FOUNDATION FUNDS RAISED PER ADA (N-113) 302

PAGE 320

Source Among Within Total p < .01 Fisher's LSD Group Mean 1 (-28) 88.1457 df SS MS 2 104049.07 52025.54 11 0 703404.43 112 807453.51 5394.59 Null Hypothesis = Rejected 2 (N-63) 21.2732 3 (N-22) 10.5445 F 8.14 303

PAGE 321

THE EFFECT OF DISTRICT WEALTH ON FOUNDATION FUNDS RAISED PER ADA (N-113) 304

PAGE 322

305 The Effect of District Wealth on Foundatron Funds Raised per ADA (N-113) Source Among Within Total p < .01 Fisher's LSD Group Mean df SS MS 3 214135.25 71378.42 1 09 592280.94 112 806416.19 5484.08 Null Hypothesis = Rejected 1 (N-16) 2 (N-26) 3 (N-55) 135.2106 48.5612 10 .0724 F 13.02 4 (N-15) 3 .7760 Fisher's LSD Test found that Group 1, the most wealthy districts, significantly different from Groups 2, 3, and 4 Group 2 (districts with above average wealth) was significantly different from Group 3 (districts of average wealth)

PAGE 323

306 APPENDIX I CHARACTERISTICS OF FOUNDATIONS DISTRICTS SUPPORTED BY SUCCESSFUL LOCAL EDUCATION FOUNDATIONS

PAGE 324

307 Characteristics of Foundation Districts Supported by Successful Local Education Foundations District Type A.DA Community County Wealth Population Determined by Federal Poverty Guidelines 6 (E) u 4792 33000 Los Angeles R 20 (F) E 169 1988 Santa R Barbara 43 (H) u 1109 16481 San Mateo R 51 (J) E 630 7797 San Mateo R 53 (J) E 571 7000 Santa Clara R 56 (D) u 574,937 7,000,000 Los Angeles A 63 (K) E 1575 12967 Marin A 28 (G) E 1680 16824 Contra Costa R 85 (B) E 294 2400 Marin R 89 (C) u 60696 678,974 San A Francisco 90 (L) u 2695 13,413 Los Angeles R 106 (M) E 838 9000 Marin A 111 (A) E 296 5291 San Mateo A

PAGE 325

308 APPENDIXJ PLACEMENT OF CASE STUDY PARTICIPANTS IN THE GENERAL DESCRIPTIVE CHARACTERISTICS PROFILES OF THE 113 FOUNDATIONS AND FOUNDATION DISTRICTS STUDIED.

PAGE 326

FOUNDATION DISTRICT ENROLLMENT (W/LEFS A,B,C,D) 0 ... Q) D E = z 50 40 30 20 10 0 1-999 5,000-24,999 50,000-99,999 1,000-4,999 25,000-49,999 100,000 + Enrollment 309 FOUNDATION DISTRICT POPULATION DENSITY (W/LEFS A,B,C,D) (Using CCEF Directory Coding System) 40 30 (,) -.:::: (I) E 20 0 ... g E = z 10 0 A 8 C D E Population Code

PAGE 327

, c .2 cu '0 c = 0 "0 ... D e = z c ..2 cu '0 c = 0 "0 ... D E = z 310 TOTAL FUNDS RAISED BY FOUNDATION {W/LEFS A,B,C,D) 40 30 20 10 0 25,000-99,999 500,000-999,999 5,000-24,999 100,000-499,999 1,000,000 + Funding Level (In Dollars) FOUNDATION DATE OF ESTABLISHMENT {WITH LEFS A,B,C,D) 30 20 10 0 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 Year of Establlahment

PAGE 328

FOUNDATION FORMATION INITIATION (W/LEFS A,B,C,D) 40 0 ICI Cl) 30 0 .r:::. (,) w 20 E I.L .. 10 Cl) J:l E ;:::, z 0 nt Superintendent NUMBER OF FOUNDATION DIRECTORS (W/LEFS A,B,C,D) Cll c .E 30 'E 20 ;:::, 0 I.L 0 10 J:l E :s z 0 1 5 6. 1 0 1 1 1 4 1 5. 2 0 21 2 6 27 + Number of Directors 311

PAGE 329

FOUNDATION STAFFING INFORMATION (W/LEFS A,B,C,D) 0 c ..2 QS 'C c :::J 0 LL. 0 Cl) .tl E :::J z 100 80 60 40 20 0 Full Time Part Time Staffing Level Volunteer 312 D CISION MAKING AUTHORITY FOR FOUNDATION FUNDS (W/LEFS A,B,C,o: 0 c ..2 60 QS 'C c :::J 0 LL. 40 0 Cl> .tl E 20 :I z Decision Making Authority