ABSTRACT
In 1979, with voter enactment of Proposition 131, California created a state school finance system. In spite of the disruptions caused by the measure’s fiscal restrictions, many-particularly advocates of school finance equalization reform-hailed the move toward full state assumption of school finance as a move toward greater equity. Certainly, the measure accelerated implementation of the California Supreme Court’s Serrano2
mandate to equalize spending among the state’s 1043 school districts to within $100 of one another. California voters accomplished, albeit unwittingly, what the legislature, at best, could have accomplished only over a prolonged period.3 (Elmore & McLaughlin 1982)
The allure of a centralized, state school finance system is the promise of a more equitable school finance scheme. Issues that are difficult to address in locally fragmented and diverse funding systems can be addressed, hypothetically at least, more rationally in centralized, state-funded systems. The textbook version of an ideal school finance system is one that balances horizontal and vertical equity interests. Such state school funding plans reduce overall fiscal disparities among the majority of students, while attending to the special learning needs of others. This policy ideal should be more easily attainable when funding is centralized.
