deral government adopts a strategy of providing funds which are not tied to specific purposes, these students currently receiving additional benefit would likely suffer. This is the type of vertical equity the authors anticipate being affected by changes in government strategy.
Berne and Stiefel also note that tax limitations imposed in several states have limited the ability of local school districts to increase property tax revenues. This affects wealth-related equal opportunity. Wealth-related equal opportunity is tied directly to the ability of a given school district to raise money for its own program. School districts which are composed of relatively wealthy landowners are more likely to be able to raise funds, and thus children in that school district can receive an unequal level of equity relative to children in poorer school districts (3).
Over all, the authors seek to provide answers, or at least insight, into the following four questions: for whom should school finance be equitable? what resources should be distributed? what principles should be used to determine whether distribution is equitable? what quantitative measures should be used to assess the degree of equity (4-5)? Each of these questions builds on the previous one. For example, it is necessary to determine the groups for which school finance should be equitable before it is possible to determine what resources should be distributed, and it is necessary to know which resources are under consideration before being able to determine whether or not their distribution is equitable.
The authors find that the first question, regarding for whom equity is sought, generally has two answers: the children who receive educational services and taxpayers. Some taxpayers receive educational services for their children; all taxpayers pay for educational services. Some taxpayers fund educational services that their own children do not receive (those parents wh...