School finance reform has reflected, over the last 10 years, the changing relationship between education and state government. Emerging from the case histories presented here is the conclusion that, gradually, the barriers separating education policymakers from general government have been lowered. At the same time, the fragmentation among education interest groups has increased. While the process of school finance reform has varied among the states, a number of common elements characterize reform in six states discussed here (Maine, Florida, New Mexico, California, Missouri, and South Carolina). First, reform occurred when compromises were made within study commissions prior to legislative consideration. (Oregon, where such compromises were not made, offers this publication's sole example of the failure of reform.) Second, the involvement of governors and key legislators was necessary. Although the role of traditional education groups was relatively low, new interests, including taxpayers, minority groups, cities, and nationally recognized organizations, played an important role. The availability of state funds, judicial pressure, and long periods of planning time were all important. The reform process did not change significantly throughout the 1970s in spite of emerging issues like declining enrollment and accountability. (Author/JM)