NASSP Bulletin

In the standards-based education reforms of today, an important question is how much it will cost for all—or almost all—students to reach state-deter mined proficiency levels ? School finance adequacy seeks to determine that cost. Four models have been developed to estimate the costs of adequacy. Two of them—the professional judgment and the evidence-based models—are designed to specifically link educational strategies that will enable students to meet performance standards with an estimate of the costs of those strate gies. Principals will face growing pressure to implement the models as described by these studies in the future, suggesting they participate in the development of adequacy analyses in their states and school districts.

Education improves an individual's and a community's standard of living. In a time when education funding is insufficient for schools to meet high quality standards, principals are in a unique position to influence their community to fully support state and local school budgets. By using data to show education's positive influence on human capital as seen in income, employability, safety, and community lifestyle, as well as how education decreases other social service costs, principals can make a persuasive argu ment for school funding.

Traditionally, local school districts have shouldered the burden of funding school infrastructure in the name of local control, relying upon local prop erty tax revenues and the willingness of local voters to approve bond issues. Given vast disparities in school districts' property wealth, gross inequities in school facilities will remain without new state or federal funding. With emerg ing research establishing the critical role of the physical environment of schools in student success, adequate and equitable funding of infrastructure takes on new urgency.

Special education enrollments, and consequently overall costs, continue to rise with no apparent relief in sight. To clarify the fiscal challenges con fronting local special education administrators today, this article provides background on how special education is funded in the United States and dis cusses trends in special education enrollments and spending and their impli cations for school leaders. It also offers strategies that local leaders might consider to better meet the needs of students with disabilities in the current environment of fiscal restraint and increased accountability.

This study was designed to determine the flexibility that selected principals preferred when implementing financial site-based decision making in their schools. To complete the research, the fund categories representing areas of educational functions and service in the school system chart of accounts were evaluated. The findings indicated that principals have a strong desire to gain control over the funds they feel will help them improve instruction. The principals in the study did not show a desire to revamp the finance process, but desired to have more flexibility in the use of funds associated with instructional programs. Further, the principals revealed they could make significant changes in their educational programs without increas ing the amount of funds in the budget.