Chapter 2 of the Education Consolidation and Improvement Act (ECIA) reduced and redistributed federal aid to education, moving funds from targeted areas of need to all areas regardless of need. States were unable to make up for significant losses in aid sustained by local districts. (TE)

Although schooling in Australia has been traditionally the responsibility of the states, increased specific grant funding, based on fiscal performance equalization, has led to a more active role for the Australian federal government in influencing education outcomes. A possible consequence is a loss in diversity of the educational system.(TE)

Chapter 1 of the Education Consolidation and Improvement Act of 1981, like its predecessor, Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1985, provides federal funding for compensatory education programs. Throughout its twenty years of existence, the program has been subject to contradictory claims about its purpose and its…

This comparative analysis updates the effects on school finance of the Delaware Legislature's passage of a new equalization law in 1984. The formula for allocation of equalization funds was modified by increasing the level of state support and by requiring greater local tax effort for districts to qualify for the funds. Analysis focuses on four…

This paper describes the Canadian systems for resource reallocation and how these systems affect public education. It identifies three tests for the adequacy of educational support and its distribution: (1) Do elite private schools provide significantly better education than public schools? (2) Does poverty at the personal, community, or…

This paper evaluates the equity dimensions of a grant-in-aid system based on the Resource Cost Model (RCM), as proposed by the Illinois State Board of Education. The first section is an independent evaluation of the conceptual and legal aspects of the RCM, focusing on both the weaknesses and the strengths of the model. In the second section, an…