If taxes are higher in one town than in another it does not necessarily mean that residents of the low-tax town are better off; they may have had to pay high property prices to live in the more desirable low-tax town. It is incorrect to believe that property wealth differences are the only reason for spending disparities across towns. A more important cause appears to be income differences. Even if tax-prices were equalized across towns, wide differences in incomes would perpetuate differences in school spending. The Connecticut state tax reform program is tailored to lower the tax-price (or property tax rate) of education in income-poor towns. Under the present formula, state aid is in effect a lump-sum grant. Low-income towns may merely use this grant to support education and use the funds previously supporting the schools for other purposes, thus not increasing per pupil spending at all. What is really at issue with school finance reform is not differences in the price of education across towns but differences in incomes and the resulting abilities to pay. The total evidence here suggests that school finance reform now under way in Connecticut will not have the desired effect on per pupil spending. (Author/JM)