ERIC Identifier: ED319583 Publication Date: 1990-03-00
Author: Hunter, James - Howley, Craig B. Source: ERIC
Clearinghouse on Rural Education and Small Schools Charleston WV.
Capital Outlay: A Critical Concern in Rural Education. ERIC
Although many other industrialized countries rely on national schemes for
funding public schools, the United States has traditionally relied on the spirit
of local initiative (Counts, 1930). This tradition is perhaps nowhere more
evident than in provisions for the construction and maintenance of school
buildings (Education Writers Association, 1989).
State and federal funding sources have, in many states, provided substantial
aid for operating expenses--teachers' salaries, transportation, and aid for
programs that provide instructional services for students with special needs.
These funding sources, however, have historically provided less assistance for
school construction (Deavers & Brown, 1985; Thompson, Stewart, Honeyman,
& Wood, 1989). This Digest addresses possible solutions to the emerging
problem of capital outlay financing, with special attention to facilities in
FACILITY NEEDS IN THE CONTEXT OF RURAL ECONOMICS
not all rural areas are poor, many rural districts must operate on some of the
lowest revenue bases in the country. In general, studies have shown that rural
economies specialize in natural resource extraction (for example, farming,
mining, logging) or routine (as opposed to "high-tech") manufacturing (Bender et
al., 1985). Incomes produced by such an economic base tend to be comparatively
low (Deavers & Brown, 1985; McGranahan, 1987). Since income levels determine
the local ability to pay taxes, proposals to raise property taxes to meet the
capital outlay needs of rural school districts are often unsuccessful.
In addition, during the last decade local budgets for education have felt the
effect of increased demands for new or expanded services, demands that strain
local capacity to provide the desired services (Brizius, Foster, & Patton,
1988). Meeting these demands, in turn, affects the capacity of local education
agencies to maintain existing buildings or construct new ones (Thompson et al.,
1989). Nationwide, existing school buildings are deteriorating faster than they
can be replaced, remodeled, or even adequately maintained (Education Writers
Historically inadequate (and allegedly inequitable) financial resources in
rural districts make concern over the financing of capital outlay (capital funds
for maintaining, remodeling, or constructing school facilities) just as acute as
it is in many inner-city school districts (Thompson et al., 1989). In
persistently poor rural areas (see Bender et al., 1985, pp. 12-15), in fact, the
condition of facilities may be worse than it is elsewhere.
REFORM, EQUITY, AND THE CONDITION OF SCHOOL FACILITIES
recent years state-mandated reforms have placed additional requirements for the
provision of educational services on LEAs. Increases in state aid accompanied
the reforms in many states, but could not cover all costs, especially in
impoverished rural areas (Brizius et al., 1988). Wealthy districts were able to
raise additional funds locally, but rural districts have been less successful.
Many impoverished rural districts, in fact, may now be devoting larger
proportions of their budgets to operating expenses in order to implement
state-mandated reforms (Brizius et al., 1988).
In the fray over which reforms to implement in earnest in rural districts,
and how to manage them, the issue of facilities was of minor concern. As a
result, disparities between the quality of facilities in LEAs within the various
states have widened (Thompson et al., 1989).
The principles of wealth neutrality that inform modern school finance
decisions have helped equalize the distribution of available resources for
operating expenses, to different degrees in the various states. The same
observation cannot be made with respect to capital outlay financing. The local
property tax still strongly influences the quality of school buildings in many
ADEQUACY AND EQUITY
For the past 20 years, U.S. court
decisions have been guided by the interrelated premises of adequacy and equity
when ruling on public school finance matters. These concepts will almost
certainly be used in legal evaluations of the issue of capital outlay.
Adequacy is the availability of resources sufficient to carry out mandated
educational goals, whereas equity refers to the just distribution of available
resources (which, in themselves, may or may not be adequate). Thompson and
colleagues (1989) maintain that the issue of equity is moot if available
resources are inadequate to carry out mandated educational goals. That is,
adequacy is a prior condition for the achievement of educational equity.
This principle requires that resources must exist at a minimum level before
the issue of what is equitable can be determined. The achievement of equity is
unlikely, in this view, if the various funding sources do not first provide
resources sufficient, in general, to serve the needs of children in all the
state's districts. The achievement of adequacy may be difficult, but the
conditions of its evaluation are often specified in state laws and regulations.
Equity is a comparatively more subjective goal than adequacy. Evaluating its
achievement entails selection of a suitable frame of reference (Berne &
Stiefel, 1984; Thompson et al., 1989). Moreover, as Alexander (1982) implies,
this frame of reference may well be a matter of debate among those who dispense
funds (federal, state, and local governments) and those who receive them (state
and local education agencies).
ACHIEVING ADEQUACY AND EQUITY IN CAPITAL OUTLAY
Despite chronic concerns about how LEAs have funded their
facilities, equity reform for many years was felt to apply only to operating
expenses (Thompson et al., 1989). In 1979, however, the West Virginia State
Supreme Court ruled on the inadequacy of local property wealth to serve as the
basis for funding school buildings. The ruling also cited the integral role
facilities play in providing a good education (Pauley v. Kelly, 1979).
Rulings such as this imply the need to secure funds from outside the LEA. The
principal mechanisms available to redistribute available resources in the
pursuit of equity are based on three considerations:
1. Poor districts should receive outside funds, on the theory that residency
should not deprive students of equal access to educational resources.
2. Ratios set for per-pupil funding should be adjusted upward in poor
districts, if necessary, to counteract the effects of revenue imbalance.
3. Tax schedules should ensure that taxpayers residing in impoverished areas
will not bear a disproportionately heavy tax load.
Thompson and colleagues (1989) maintain that continued reliance on local
property wealth will jeopardize the degree to which rural LEAs can finance the
capital outlays desperately needed to improve school facilities. According to
these observers, 28 states have instituted true grant-in-aid programs, while the
remaining 22 have left individual districts to their own devices. Current forms
of state assistance fall into six categories (see Thompson et al., 1989, pp.
10-19 for detailed descriptions), ranging from full state funding--under which
the state funds all capital outlay costs--to state or local building
authorities, which often seek to involve private enterprise.
ENSURING LOCAL CONTROL
Disadvantages common to all these
methods involve loss of local control, and strong partnerships between state
education agencies and LEAs are vital to countering these disadvantages
(Thompson et al., 1989). To implement such partnerships, Thompson and colleagues
(1989, pp. 84-86) recommend that: (1) funds be provided for both existing and
new debt service; (2) funds be provided to meet special needs (for example,
sparsity, growth, and emergencies); (3) such special needs be given priority;
(4) orderly planning by state and local partnerships drive the funding of new
projects; and (5) states consider establishing several types of funds to assist
LEAs in meeting their capital outlay needs.
WHAT MIGHT THE FUTURE HOLD?
Many school buildings have
already fallen into disrepair, and many new ones are needed (Education Writers
Association, 1989). Equally clear is the fact that courts are beginning to link
capital outlay financing to the established legal premises of adequacy and
equity. Moreover, many analysts believe that, in the 22 states that provide no
funding assistance of any sort for facility expenditures, adequacy is lacking.
It follows, then, that equity in these states is also a substantial problem.
Policymakers, in particular, are advised to take note of these trends by
Thompson and colleagues (1989, p. 1): "Recent litigation suggests...that capital
outlay is an issue that will be addressed in the courts if it is not effectively
addressed by state policy." Observers believe that impoverished school
districts, both urban and rural, can benefit from legal criteria that move
toward neutralizing the effect of local property wealth in the comparatively
neglected domain of capital outlay financing. As state-level concern becomes
more evident in the states, the fortunes of rural school districts could
Alexander, K. (1982). Concepts of equity. In W.
McMahon & T. Geske (Eds.), Financing education. Urbana, IL: University of
Bender, L., Green, B., Hady, T., Kuehn, J., Nelson, M., Perkinson, L., &
Ross, P. (1985). The diverse social and economic structure of nonmetropolitan
America (Rural Development Research Report Number 49, United States Department
of Agriculture, Economic Research Service). Washington, DC: United States
Government Printing Office. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 262 939)
Berne, R., & Stiefel, L. (1984). The measurement of equity in school
finance: Conceptual, methodological, and empirical dimensions. Baltimore, MD:
Johns Hopkins University Press.
Brizius, J., Foster, S., & Patton, H. (1988). Education reform in rural
Appalachia, 1982-1987. Washington, DC: Appalachian Regional Commission. (ERIC
Document Reproduction Service No. ED 303 287)
Counts, G. (1930). The American road to culture: A social interpretation of
education in the United States. New York: John Day. (Facsimile reprint edition
published by Arno Press-New York Times, 1971)
Deavers, K., & Brown, D. (1985). The maintenance gap: Deferred repair and
renovation in the nation's elementary and secondary schools. New York and
Washington, DC: The Council of Great City Schools.
Education Writers Association. (1989). Wolves at the schoolhouse door: An
investigation of the condition of public school buildings. Washington, DC:
Education Writers Association.
McGranahan, D. (1987). The role of rural workers in the national economy. In
D. Brown and K. Deavers (Eds.), Rural economic development in the 1980s (ERS
Staff Report No. AGES870724) (chapter 2). Washington, DC: Economic Research
Service, U. S. Department of Agriculture.
Pauley v. Kelly. 255 S.E. 2d 859, (W. Va. 1979); later changed to Pauley v.
Bailey, 324 S.E. 2d 128, (1982); Pauley v. Gainer, 353 S.E. 2d 318.
Thompson, D., Stewart, G., Honeyman, D., & Wood, R. (1989). Achievement
of equity in capital outlay financing: A policy analysis for the states.
Charleston, WV: ERIC Clearinghouse on Rural and Small Schools.
Prepared by James Hunter, free-lance journalist, Atlanta, GA, and Craig
Howley, ERIC/CRESS, Charleston, WV.
This Digest is based primarily on the ERIC/CRESS monograph by Thompson and
colleagues (1989), referenced above.
Please note that this site is privately owned and is in no way related
to any Federal agency or ERIC unit. Further, this site is using a
privately owned and located server. This is NOT a government sponsored
or government sanctioned site. ERIC is a Service Mark of the U.S. Government.
This site exists to provide the text of the public domain ERIC Documents
previously produced by ERIC. No new content will ever appear here
that would in any way challenge the ERIC Service Mark of the U.S. Government.