[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"doc-seo-601856-105":3,"detail-sidebar-cat-0-en-105":80,"doc-detail-601856-en":130},{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":6},0,"ok",{"site_id":7,"language":8,"slug":9,"title":10,"keywords":11,"description":12,"schema_data":13,"social_meta":73,"head_meta":75,"extra_data":77,"updated_unix":79},105,"en","a-case-study-of-the-county-school-facility-tax-initiative-vol-4-spring-2017","A Case Study of the County School Facility Tax Initiative - Vol. 4 - Spring 2017","","A qualitative single-case study examines why the County School Facility Occupation Tax (CSFT) failed to pass on Election Day in Mary County, Illinois in 2011. Based on 86 interviews (face-to-face, phone, and email) and analysis of approximately 79 related documents, the study identifies five themes. Findings highlight factors such as insufficient collaboration among officials, unclear use of CSFT revenue, limited consideration of others’ perspectives, lack of input opportunities, and distrust in the process, informing guidance for clearer voter communication and engagement.",{"@graph":14,"@context":72},[15,34,55],{"@type":16,"itemListElement":17},"BreadcrumbList",[18,23,27,31],{"item":19,"name":20,"@type":21,"position":22},"https://docshare.wps.com","Home","ListItem",1,{"item":24,"name":25,"@type":21,"position":26},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/","Document",2,{"item":28,"name":29,"@type":21,"position":30},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/research-report/","Research & Report",3,{"item":32,"name":10,"@type":21,"position":33},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/a-case-study-of-the-county-school-facility-tax-initiative-vol-4-spring-2017/601856/",4,{"url":32,"name":10,"@type":35,"image":36,"author":41,"headline":10,"publisher":44,"fileFormat":47,"inLanguage":8,"description":12,"dateModified":48,"datePublished":49,"encodingFormat":47,"isAccessibleForFree":50,"interactionStatistic":51},"DigitalDocument",{"url":37,"@type":38,"width":39,"height":40},"https://docshare.wps.com/thumbnails/a-case-study-of-the-county-school-facility-tax-initiative-vol-4-spring-2017/601856.png","ImageObject",300,407,{"name":42,"@type":43},"ahduag","Person",{"url":19,"name":45,"@type":46},"DocShare","Organization","application/pdf","2026-10-19","2026-10-15",true,{"@type":52,"interactionType":53,"userInteractionCount":22},"InteractionCounter",{"@type":54},"ViewAction",{"@type":56,"mainEntity":57},"FAQPage",[58,64,68],{"name":59,"@type":60,"acceptedAnswer":61},"What is the County School Facility Occupation Tax (CSFT) and why was it created?","Question",{"text":62,"@type":63},"CSFT was enacted in Illinois in 2007 to provide supplemental funding for K-12 public school facilities. It allows one-cent sales tax revenue to be used for building, repairing, and related facility purposes.","Answer",{"name":65,"@type":60,"acceptedAnswer":66},"What does the study examine about CSFT in Mary County?",{"text":67,"@type":63},"The study investigates why CSFT failed to pass on Election Day in Mary County, Illinois in 2011. It focuses on voters’ reasons and process-related factors identified through interviews and document analysis.",{"name":69,"@type":60,"acceptedAnswer":70},"What primary themes explain why CSFT did not pass?",{"text":71,"@type":63},"Five themes emerge, including lack of collaboration among school officials and unclear CSFT revenue use. The study also finds issues such as insufficient consideration of others, no meaningful input opportunities, and distrust of the process.","https://schema.org",{"og:url":32,"og:type":74,"og:title":10,"og:site_name":45,"og:description":12},"article",{"robots":76,"canonical":32},"index,follow",{"doc_id":78,"site_id":7},601856,1792382905,{"code":4,"msg":81,"data":82},"success",[83,87,91,95,100,105,110,114,119,122,126],{"id":22,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":84,"show_sort_weight":85,"slug":86},"Story & Novel",90,"story-novel",{"id":26,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":88,"show_sort_weight":89,"slug":90},"Literature",80,"literature",{"id":33,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":92,"show_sort_weight":93,"slug":94},"Exam",70,"exam",{"id":96,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":97,"show_sort_weight":98,"slug":99},5,"Comic",60,"comic",{"id":101,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":102,"show_sort_weight":103,"slug":104},6,"Technology",50,"technology",{"id":106,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":107,"show_sort_weight":108,"slug":109},7,"Healthcare",40,"healthcare",{"id":111,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":29,"show_sort_weight":112,"slug":113},8,30,"research-report",{"id":115,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":116,"show_sort_weight":117,"slug":118},9,"Religion & Spirituality",20,"religion-spirituality",{"id":117,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":120,"show_sort_weight":117,"slug":121},"World Cup","world-cup",{"id":123,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":124,"show_sort_weight":123,"slug":125},10,"Lifestyle","lifestyle",{"id":127,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":128,"show_sort_weight":96,"slug":129},19,"General","general",{"code":4,"msg":81,"data":131},{"doc_id":78,"user_id":132,"nickname":42,"user_avatar":133,"doc_module":4,"category_id":111,"category_name":29,"doc_title":10,"doc_description":12,"doc_content":134,"file_id":135,"file_url":136,"file_type":137,"file_size":138,"view_count":22,"is_deleted":4,"is_public":22,"is_downloadable":22,"audit_status":22,"page_count":127,"language":139,"language_code":8,"site_id":7,"html_lang":8,"table_of_contents":140,"faqs":141,"seo_title":142,"seo_description":12,"update_tm":143,"read_time":144},3985747870414,"https://ap-avatar.wpscdn.com/davatar_9964176cb1d06d4a9deccf72a44ae3dc","A Case Study of the County School Facility Tax Initiative  \nin Mary County, Illinois  \nThis manuscript has been peer-reviewed, accepted, and endorsed by the National Council of Professors of Educational Administration (NCPEA) as a significant contribution to the scholarship and practice of school administration and K-12 education.  \nVince L. Hughes  \nAlison G. Reeves  \nSouthern Illinois University Edwardsville  \nLaurel Puchner  \nSouthern Illinois University Edwardsville  \nK-12 Illinois public school facilities need to be repaired and rebuilt. The County School Facility Occupation Tax (CSFT) was made law in 2007 in Illinois to help provide funding for Illinois public school facilities. This single case study, qualitative research, outlines findings from 86, face-to-face, phone and email interviews and approximately 79 documents analyzed related to the CSFT in initiative in Mary County, (a pseudonym) Illinois. Through interviewsand analyzed documents, five themes emerge related to why the CSFT did not pass on Election Day in Mary County in 2011. Themes ranged from lack of collaboration among school officials and use of the CSFT revenue unclear, to a lack of consideration of others, no opportunity for input and distrust of the process. With such a need for new and improved school facilities and the added burden of school funding being such a confusing and misunderstood topic, school leaders must find ways to effectively communicate with and encourage voters to pass school funding initiatives like the CSFT sales tax.  \nNCPEA Education Leadership Review of Doctoral Research, Vol. 4– Spring 2017 ISSN: 1532-0723 © 2017 National Council of Professors of Educational Administration.  \nThis manuscript may not be used commercially or edited. When quoting portions ofthis text, full attribution to  \nthe author/s is required.  \nIntroduction and Background  \nStatement of the Problem  \nThe school funding formula in Illinois is not adequate or equitable. The State Comptroller Office reported that public school operating expenditures per pupil in Illinois ranged from $4281.00 to $28,285 .00 (Illinois Comptroller Office web site February 2012) . Data provided were the most current at the time of the study. These figures alone provide us with a shocking mental image of the difference in the level of education children receive in Illinois public schools at either end of the per-pupil expenditure spectrum. With this in mind, why is it that school funding ideas such as the County School Facility Occupation Tax Law Public Act 095-1675 (CSFT) has been voted down more than thirty times by Illinois voters in certain counties since becoming law in 2007? What were the reasons voters in Mary County, Illinois,(a pseudonym) voted against the CSFT in 2011?  \nThe modern legal challenges (Reynolds, 2008) to school finance statutes, filed more than thirty five years ago in state and federal courts, provide stark evidence about the ways in which states' laws produced staggering discrepancies between rich and poor districts. According to the Illinois State Board of Education and the Illinois Capital Development Board, 618 school districts responding to the 2011 Capital Needs Assessment Survey, the estimated capital need is close to ten billion dollars (ISBE Capital Needs Assessment 2011) .  \nRecognizing inequities in funding and seeing a need to address the deterioration of public school facilities, Illinois legislators passed CSFT in October 2007. The intent of the law was to provide a supplemental source of funding for Illinois public school facilities. Once passed, the voters in individual counties must adopt the CSFT before the tax can be collected and funneled to schools. Although the law is much more descriptive, the one-cent sales tax collected can be used for building or repairing facilities, energy efficiency, safety, roofing, disabled accessibility, purchasing land and property tax relief. The CSFT cannot be used for operating or administrative purposes s","cbCail7TdPf2Igzp","https://ap.wps.com/l/cbCail7TdPf2Igzp","pdf",438515,"English","# Introduction and Background\n## Statement of the Problem\n## Theoretical Framework","[{\"question\":\"What is the County School Facility Occupation Tax (CSFT) and why was it created?\",\"answer\":\"CSFT was enacted in Illinois in 2007 to provide supplemental funding for K-12 public school facilities. It allows one-cent sales tax revenue to be used for building, repairing, and related facility purposes.\"},{\"question\":\"What does the study examine about CSFT in Mary County?\",\"answer\":\"The study investigates why CSFT failed to pass on Election Day in Mary County, Illinois in 2011. It focuses on voters’ reasons and process-related factors identified through interviews and document analysis.\"},{\"question\":\"What primary themes explain why CSFT did not pass?\",\"answer\":\"Five themes emerge, including lack of collaboration among school officials and unclear CSFT revenue use. The study also finds issues such as insufficient consideration of others, no meaningful input opportunities, and distrust of the process.\"}]","A Case Study of the County School Facility Tax Initiative - Vol. 4 - Spring 2017 | PDF",1792093558,48]