- suBE eG EBaEGaseoeoas 6oouRommem om re { ’ 't, aN, a VOL. IV, Nos. 1 and 2 JANUARY and MARCH, 1926 z a Research Bulletin a OF THE u ‘ ¥ 4 Sea), San) Gi) Tae 1 16) ES) SOoggie National Education Association fe) we War ¥ ual, Mas PAA AAAI ek so Ws ’ - a? a 6)! Ss, V ac ¥ J£a ‘& 7 As YE ea y ay A sh =) & r Ps The Ability of the States to Support Education } 4 Ss W as THO oe “a, 4 PUBLISHED BY THE RESEARCH DIVISION OF THE NATIONAL EDUCATION ASSOCIATION 1201 SIXTEENTH STREET NORTHWEST, WASHINGTON, D. C. Ws ket | ia) Entered as second-class matter February 10, 1923, at the Post Office at Washington, D. C., under Act of August 24, 1912. Acceptance for mailing at special rate of postage provided for in Section 1103 Act of Octo- ber 3, 1917, authorized February 10, 1923, Pe Tatas tating siecle laiocloleiol sa at RA EREPED ERS KAKA CS COCs Cs Ch Cae Kate | Research Bulletin of the National Education Association Published five times each year in January, March, May, September and November by the Research Division of the National Education Association of the United States. The payment of the $5.00 membership fee of the National Education Association entitles one to receive the Research Bulletin, the Annual Volume of Addresses and Proceedings, and certain other publications of the National Education Association for one year. One dollar of each $5.00 membership fee is for a year’s subscription to the Research Bulletin. Single numbers may be purchased for 25 cents. (This issue, which is a double number, is 50 cents per copy.) Those entitled to receive the Research Bulletin regularly are asked to report at once any change of address, giving old as well as new address. Entered as second-class matter February 10, 1923, at the Post Office at Washington, D. C., under Act of August 24, 1912. Acceptance for mailing at special rate of postage provided for in Section 1103, Act of October 3, 1917, authorized February 10, 1923. Director of Research, John K. Norton. Assistant Director of Research, Margaret M. Alltucker. Executive and Editorial Offices - - 1201 Sixteenth Street N. W., Washington, D. C. Research Bulletins Issued to Date See opposite page for titles of Research Bulletins issued to date and for information as to their availability. How to Secure Additional Copies Additional copies of this issue of the Research Bulletin may be obtained at the following prices: Single copies of this issue 50c 2 to 9 copies—10% reduction 10 or more copies—25% reduction. Reprints of 1000 or more copies of this Research Bulletin may be obtained at specially reduced rates if ordered promptly at the time of its issuance. Subscriptions to Research Bulletins The Research Bulletin may be received regularly through a special subscription at $1.00 per year. Only those holding the $5.00 membership (see statement at top of this page) receive the Research Bulletin without such subscription. Many of the early issues of the Research Bulletin are already out of print. The special subscription at $1.00 per year offers an opportunity to maintain a complete file of future Research Bulletins. Reproduction of Material in Research Bulletins Tables, charts, and any other material appearing in Research Bulletins may be reproduced for the advancement of education. No authority other than this notice is needed previous to such reproduction. Electro-mat-slide service: The National Education Association maintains a special service to aid those reproducing material appearing in its publications. Send orders or requests for further information to the Division of Publications, National Education Association, 1201 Sixteenth Street, N. W., Washington, D. C. Research Bulletin OF THE National Education Association Title Page for VOLUME IV January to November, 1926 (For index see page 261) The Research Bulletin is issued by the Research Division, a part of the headquarters staff of the National Education Association This division was organized in February, 1922, for the purpose of conducting scientific studies of special interest to members of the teaching profession Bulletin One was issued by the Research Division in June, 1922, and Bulletin Two in November, 1922. The first issue of the Research Bulletin is Volume I, No. 1, January, 1923, entitled Facts on State Edu cational Needs. With Volume I, No. 1, the Research Bulletin became a regular publication, issued five times each year—January, March, May, September and November. The Research Bulletins composing Volumes I, II, III, and IV are listed on page 260, RESEARCH DIVISION THE NATIONAL EDUCATION ASSOCIATION OF THE UNITED STATES 1201 Sixteenth Street Northwest, Washington, D. C 1926 [259] PN se Research Bulletins Previously Issued Facts on the Cost of Public Education and What They Mean. Bulletin | June, 1922. 68 pp. (Out of print.) Facts for American Education Week. Bulletin 2, November, 1922. 40 pp Price per copy, 25 cents. Facts on State Educational Needs. Vol. 1, No. 1, January, 1923. 64 pp (Out of print.) Can the Nation Afford to Educate Its Children? Vol. 1, No. 2, March, 1923 72 pp. Price per copy, 25 cents. Teachers’ Salaries and Salary Trends in 1923. Vol. I, No. 3, May, 1923. 116 pp. Price per single copy, $1.00. Five Questions for American Education Week. Vol. I, No. 4, September, 1923. 56 pp. (Out of print.) Facts on the Public School Curriculum. Vol. I, No. 5, November, 1923. 48 pp. (Out of print.) Current Facts on City School Costs. Vol. Il, Nos. 1 and 2, January and March, 1924. 64 pp. (Out of print.) Teachers’ Retirement Allowances. Vol. II, No. 3, May, 1924. 32 pp. Price per copy, 25 cents. Facts on the Public School for American Education Week. Vol. Ul, No. 4, September, 1924. 40 pp. (Out of print.) The Problem of Teacher Tenure. Vol. Il, No. 5, November, 1924. 40 pp. Price per copy, 25 cents. Public School Salaries in 1924-1925. Vol. Ul, Nos. 1 and 2, January and March, 1925. 72 pp. Price per copy, 50 cents. Taking Stock of the Schools. Vol. Il, No. 3, May, 1925. 32 pp. (Out of print.) Keeping Pace With the Advancing Curriculum. Vol. Ill, Nos. 4 and 5, September and November, 1925. 96 pp. Price per copy, 50 cents. The Ability of the States to Support Education. Vol. TV, Nos. 1 and 2, January and March, 1926. 96 pp. Price per copy, 50 cents. Efficient Teaching and Retirement Legislation. Vol. IV, No. 3, May, 1926. 72 pp. Price per copy, 25 cents. A Handbook of Major Educational Issues. Vol. TV, No. 4, September, 1926. 72 pp. Price per copy, 25 cents. Major Issues in School Finance—Part I. Vol. IV, No. 5, November, 1926. 32 pp. Price per copy, 25 cents. [260] Fa Fa Fac Cas T ec Fiv Fac Cur Tea Fac The Pub Tak Kee Research Bulletins Previously Issued Facts on the Cost of Public Education and What They Mean. Bulletin 1, June, 1922. 68 pp. (Out of print.) Facts for American Education Week. Bulletin 2, November, 1922. 40 pp. Price per copy, 25 cents. Facts on State Educational Needs. Vol. I, No. 1, January, 1923. 64 pp. (Out of print.) Can the Nation Afford to Educate Its Children? Vol. 1, No. 2, March, 1923. 72 pp. Price per copy, 25 cents. Teachers’ Salaries and Salary Trends in 1923. Vol. 1, No. 3, May, 1923. 116 pp. Price per single copy, $1.00. Five Questions for American Education Week. Vol. I, No. 4, September, 1923. 56 pp. (Out of print.) Facts on the Public School Curriculum. Vol I, No. 5, November, 1923. 48 pp. (Out of print.) Current Facts on City School Costs. Vol. Il, Nos. 1 and 2, January and March, 1924. 64 pp. (Out of print.) Teachers’ Retirement Allowances. Vol. 11, No. 3, May, 1924. 32 pp. Price per copy, 25 cents. Facts on the Public School for American Education Week. Vol. Ul, No. 4, September, 1924. 40 pp. (Out of print.) The Problem of Teacher Tenure. Vol. Il, No. 5, November, 1924. 40 pp. Price per copy, 25 cents. Public School Salaries in 1924-1925. Vol. III, Nos. 1 and 2, January and March, 1925. 72 pp. Price per copy, 50 cents. Taking Stock of the Schools. Vol. Ill, No. 3, May, 1925. 32 pp. Price per copy, 25 cents. Keeping Pace With the Advancing Curriculum. Vol. Ill, Nos. 4 and 5, September and November, 1925. 96 pp. Price per copy, 50 cents. 0 EAD cand nyt FOREWORD ~ a HE National Education Association since its organization has led in the study of the question of the proper relation of the national government to educational development. Through the Association those who believe in public schools have clarified and put into action their thinking on this important problem. Among the phases of this whole issue which has received special attention in recent years is that revolving about the ques- tion of the desirable extent and proper method of applying fed- eral financial support to public education. This question is still unanswered. It should be answered on the basis of facts and sound reasoning. Consequently, the Association may well recognize as one of its permanent functions the encouragement of investigations which approach this question in an open-minded manner in a search for facts upon which to base thoughtful action. The Association is glad, therefore, to make this study available. Its contribution is the presentation and judicial interpretation of the most comprehensive data yet assembled as to the comparative ability of the states to meet their educational obligations. The investigation is an important contribution to scientific literature bearing upon this question. It should be of great service to students of school finance. Its value will be readily recognized by workers in this field. J. W. CrRaBrree, Secretary, National Education Association. tn ae eo Pie Cr ter | Weal Incom ( omp A Col Chapter I Vario! Child: Chapter I) Comp: Summ Chapter I’ Pe Econo! Econo! Econot Econor Perma Chapter V- Popula Densit! Cost 0! Chapter V] Appendix Bibliograph Index TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction—The Problem Chapter I—The Economic Resources of the States Compared Wealth As a Measure of Economic Power.... Income As a Measure of Economic Power.... Comparison of Wealth and Income as Measures of Economic Power A Combination of Wealth and Income as a Measure of Economic Power Chapter II—The Educational Obligations of the States Various Sections of Population as Measures of Educational Load Children Aged 6 to 13 as a Measure of Educational Obligation Chapter I1I—The Relative Ability of the States to Support Education Comparative Ability to Support Schools......... Summarized Statement of Differences in Ability to Support Schools Chapter I[V—Some Accompaniments of the Differences in Ability cation Permanency of These Differences.........0..see0000%: Economic Ability and Financial Support Given Education Economic Ability and Educational Efficiency..... Economic Ability and School Results........... Economic Ability and Effort Made to Support Education Permanency of Differences in Ability to Suppor Education Support I Chapter V—Some Unmeasured Factors Affecting th Ability of the States to Population and Ability to Support Schools.............. Density of Population and Ability to Support Schools Cost of Living and Ability to Support Schools Chapter VI—Summary and Conclusions Appendix Bibliography Index Table Table Table Table Table | ) Table ; Table 4 Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table t Table Table i Table | Table LIST OF TABLES Estimated Value of Tangible Wealth of the States, 1922........................ Estimated Average Annual Income of th States, 1919 to 1921 Inclusive......... Relation of Average Annual Total Income and Average Annual Current Income | sida aa lie Res Kha a: Don ae hee bORS + EU ATER bed oko sscves cesses CT re Pere oe Wealth, Income, and Index of Economic Resources for the Several States.......... Deviations Between State Ranks When Combining Average Annual Total Income with ais alas sd wehbe Seas PWR ES Orem Re Eee. s « Deviations Between State Ranks When Combining Average Annual! Current Income with en ee OE I cs salen. acc abe «GP SA MN s MARE EN ONSS5 oe vce seecces. Various sections of the Population of the States as Measures of Educational Load.. Effect on School Costs of Variations in Percentage of State Populations Aged 6 to 13 Relative Economic Ability of the States to Support Education........................ Correlations Among Various Units of Economic Power Per Child Ages 6 to 13 for the 4: ED SA Eneaaed on ede esa WRG WA deen aura Me ceeeeaeOsUWONO eel vey icc ecneciencccees. Wealth, Income and Index of Economic Resources per Child, Aged 6 to 13 inclusive of IES OR Ee ae ee Indications of Financial Support Accorded Education ...................6.0..00055. Indications of Financial Support Accorded Education in 1918...................... Indications of Financial Support Accorded Education in 1910.................6.45. Indications of Financial Support Accorded Education in 1910, 1918, and 1922....... Indications of Educational Status of the States ..............0. 0600 e eee eee cece Indications of Level of Educational Attainment in the States.....................-. Percentage of Wealth and Income Expended for Public Elementary and Secondary NEE, th den ocdevbderecsse case TE ke ER ae a 3. Sa ee Percent of Index of Economic Resources Expended for Public and Private Schools. . Percent of Wealth Expended for Public Elementary and Secondary Schools, 1880 to 1922 Wealth Per Child Ages 5 to 14 by States in 1880, 1900 and 1922................... ; States Compared as to Standard Ability to Support Education....................... Relative Ability of the States to Support Education ............. 000.0000 cece eee eee Comparative Ability of States to Support Education as Indicated by Various Methods a onc ic on MGA eeNGMMNEGKOASWAEMEES S600 sccccecccces Comparative Cost of Living in Certain Cities, 1918, 1920, and 1924............... ni nnn sons cee ne MAbs AR AMEbeehéncesscrccccsccss Percentage of Total Income and Current Income 1919 to 1921, Realized in Each o I Pee a ee on ene pO eee ee ee Total Annual Expenditures for Public Elementary and Secondary Schools......... . [ Viii J Chart Chart Chart Chart Chart Chart Chart Chart Chart Chart Chart Chart Chart Chart Chart Chart Chart J Chart X Chart Chart Chart Figure Figure '~ hart on hart hart ~ Chart Chart Chart Chart Chart Chart Chart Chart Chart Chart Chart Chart Figure Figure XI XII XIII XIV XV XVI XVII XVIII X1X XX XXI I II LIST OF CHARTS AND FIGURES Estimated Wealth of the States in 1922 ...... Percentage Average Yearly Current Income is of Average Yearly Total Income Average Annual Current Income of the States 1919 to 1921 Inclusive Correlation of Wealth and Annual Total Income by States Correlation of Wealth and Annual Current Income ' Percentage Average Yearly Income is of Wealth Economic Resources of the States... Percentage of Population Aged 6 to 13 by States 1920 Wealth Per Child by States........ States Comparison of Wealth Per Child Aged 6 to 13 of Twelve Reiki clei uie we cat caen ee Average Annual-Current Income Pe Child by States Index of Economic -Resources Per Child by States Financial Support Accorded Education in 1922 Effort Made to Support Public Education Effort Made to Support Education by Twelve Richest RA Ns bbs oa acai Wie ees 2 a and Comparison of Effort Made to Support Public Education by BGOG, S900, OGe 1942... 2... .dcr00 Wealth Per Child, Aged 5 to 14 in 1922 and 1880 Com Wealth Per Child, Aged 5 to 14 in 1922 and 1900 Compared pared Rich and Twelve Poorest Twelve Rich and Poor Wealth Per Child, Aged 5 to 14 in 1922 and 1880 Compared (States | Re re ore pear ee ee Permanency of Differences in Ability to Support Educ: ition Relative Ability of Rich and Poor States to Support Education Percentage of Total Population Aged 6 to 13 Inclusive by States Relative Ability of the States to Support Education ix I ast States in of Poor States, the Th ernmye cation gover fore t tinent into i reserv “for From cident sale o a lon educa ment functi of mi gation locate under In propel educa receiv The | lated have | gram throu; the o H. R. gress. vealed to be ability whose of inv educat Introduction—The Problem The question of the part the National Gov- ernment should play in the field of public edu- cation antedates the foundation of our present government. In the Ordinance of 1785, be- fore the adoption of the Constitution, the Con- tinental Congress led the central government into important connections with education by reserving lot number 16 of every township “for the maintenance of public schools.’ From the time of this action, which was in- cidental to the development of a policy for the sale of the public lands, there may be traced a long line of Congressional acts relating to education.?, At present, the federal govern- ment exercises many important educational functions including the annual appropriation of millions of dollars for educational investi- gations and for the support of public schools located throughout the states and territories under its jurisdiction.® In recent decades, the question of the proper relation of the federal government to education has been widely discussed and has received much consideration by Congress.‘ The discussions of this question have circu- lated about two proposals. have the national government develop a pro- gram of educational investigation and research through a Department of Education. This is the object of the education Bill (S. 291; H. R. 5000) now before the Sixty-ninth Con- gress. The recent Congressional Hearings re- vealed leaders in the field of public education to be rather generally agreed as to the desir- ability of creating a Department of Education whose primary function would be the conduct of investigations and researches in the field of education.® The first would The second proposal would substantially in- crease federal financial support to education within the states to achieve greater equality of educational opportunity. This proposal is not included in any bill now before Congress, although it has been a part of measures before former The made it clear that educational Congresses. recent hearings leaders were not unanimous as to the desirability of further federal support for education at this time.° Some educators feel that more facts than we now have are needed before we can wisely settle such questions as the extent and proper method of applying federal financial support and the within which to education, limits equalization of educational opportunity is practical.® The purpose of this investigation is to as semble and present in usable form data perti- nent to scientific inquiry as to the wisdom of extending the principle of federal aid for More specifically, it present statistical data needed in the study of education. aims to these questions: 1. What is the relative ability of the states of the Union to support education providing they tap their economic resources in an ideal manner? 2. What are some of the accompaniments of such differences as exist in the ability of the states to support education? 3. Are such differences as exist in the eco- nomic ability of the states to support educa tion temporary or relatively permanent? 4. What have to be scientif- ically measured in arriving at an exact state- ment of the comparative ability of the states factors will to support education ? 1 Laws of United States of America, 1789-1815, Vol. I, Chap. 32, p. 563-569 ? Reisner, Edward H. Nationalism ana 373 f., etc. * See the following references: | (a) Newcomer, Mabel. Financial Statistics (b) Treasu ry Department. Education since 1789. of Public Education in the millan Company, New York, 1924, p. 49 and 50. Digest of Appropriations, New York, The Macmillan Company, 1922, p. 338 f., United States, 1910-1920 The Mac- Year ending June 30, 1926. Washington Government Printing Office, 1925, p. 42 to 44 aud 246 to 249. * See bibliography, p. 82. 5 Joint Hearings before the Sixty-ninth Congress on the Education Bill (S. 291—H. R. 5000) ®*Mann, C. R. National Organization of Education. The Educational Record, Vol. V1, No. 2, April 1925, p. 56, {1] 4 The study will not deal with what might be termed the philosophical aspects of the ques- tion under consideration. ‘The merits of cen- tralized versus decentralized administration, the doctrine of states’ rights, and the relation of education and the Constitution have al- ABILITY TO SUPPORT EpucATION ready been amply dealt with by the writers referred to in the selected bibliography. Rather, the study will confine itself to the presentation of objective data in a form do. signed to make them most useful to students of education. CHAPTER I The Economic Resources of the States Compared The first object of this study is to give a quantitative answer to this question: What is the relative ability of the states of the union to support education providing they tap their economic resources in an ideal manner? Before this question can be answered it will be necessary to measure the economic re- sources of each state. Support for education in a community must always come out of its total supply of economic energy. In deter- mining the ability of a state to support edu- cation, it is first necessary to know the eco- nomic strength of the state. This chapter seeks to present the best com- parable data available as to the economic resources of the forty-eight states of the union. Im comparing the resources from which the various states may draw their sup- port for education, all factors will be elimi- nated from consideration but the one which has been called “economic strength and vigor.’ Such factors as the value placed upon educa- tion by the people of a state, their faith in the competency of their school officers, the size of the school district unit, the effectiveness of the machinery of taxation, and the responsive- ness of governmental organization to the wishes of the community, are of secondary consideration in this study. They refer more to factors influencing the use of economic re- sources than to their existence. In referring to a state’s ability to support education we shall have in mind its bare economic resources, not the factors that may influence its use of these resources in supporting education. The most commonly used indices of eco- nomic power are wealth and income. For- tunately estimates of the wealth and of the income of each of the states have recently 1The District of Columbia is omitted from consideration desirable * Strayer, George D. and Haig, Robert Murray, Financing of Edu to the District of Columbia made such omission seem the value of properties within the state.’ been completed by reliable agencies. These estimates will be proposed as two separate distinct nomic resources of the states. and indications of the relative eco- Wealth as a Measure of Economic Power The aggregate wealth of the states may be 1922 Federal This census estimates “. . . the obtained from the Census of Wealth. material wealth or value of tangible property located within the limits of continental United States "8 ‘The total of the nation is apportioned among the states so that wealth “the estimate for a given state measures, to such a degree of exactness as could be attained, 3 Wealth is proposed as a measure of eco- nomic a full realization of the difficulties encountered in taking the census of power with A degree of error is inevitable in the Never- wealth. final results of such an undertaking.* theless, the Bureau of the Census brings to bear upon this problem the experience of a capable group of economists and statisticians supported by the unequaled resources of the federal government for obtaining information. The results of their work have already been accepted by economists of standing as a basis for important investigations.’ It is believed sufficiently ac- that the census of wealth is curate to justify such conclusions as will be based upon it. though the substantial accuracy of Even the federal estimate of wealth is accepted, it may be objected that under modern economic conditions wealth has serious limitations as an index of tax-paying ability. The full force of this accepted fact holds only when indi- The wide discrepan- viduals are concerned. throughout s study. Certain characteristics peculiar % Estimated National Wealth Bureau of the Census, p. 1. ‘For a description of the methods employed in the census of wealth and a discussion of their proba’ le effect on the accuracy of final results one should refer to the “Foreword,” p. vii to xiii, and the “Introduction,” p. 1 to 20 of Estimated National Wealth, Bureau of the Census. * Willford I. King, in his Wealth and Income of the American People ates, p. 4, after the advent of the Twelfth Census (1900), ome can preceed to analyze the figures in very considerable detail with a comfortable feel ing of assurance that the results are approximately correct.” [3] 4 ABILITY To SUpporT EDUCATION cies between property ownership and ability to pay in the case of individuals tend to de- crease when as large a unit as a state is being considered. The Committee appointed by the National Tax Association to prepare a plan for a model system of state and local taxation, composed of an authoritative group of economists and taxation experts, accepted tangible Property as one of the bases of its model plan for raising revenue in a state." These considerations as well as evidence presented later seem to justify the use in a scientific investigation of the value of tangible property in a state as a measure of its economic power.? Furthermore, wealth is not the only measure of economic power proposed. An alternative is presented in the next section. Some might prefer a segment of the ag- gregate wealth of a state, such as the value of real estate and improvements, as a measure of its economic resources. This and other ‘The report is dated September, 1918, and is available in the printed volume . the Proceedings of the Association for 1919, p. 426-470. National Tax Association, 195 Broadway, estimate of the total wealth of each state by figures divisions of aggregate wealth which might aan have been used as a measure of economic only p power were considered and rejected because in so f the arguments for their use, rather than the nue is aggregate, were not convincing. The relative wealth economic power of the states indicated by the aggreg value of real estate and improvements is not howev significantly different in most cases from that 30 anc based on total wealth. An increase or a de- still r crease of fifteen percent or less in the value of Sovue | realty in the case of thirty-seven of the forty- ieheel eight states would bring them into exact agree- the 98 ment with the ratio of the value of realty to vin ia total wealth for the country as a whole.® na Aggregate wealth, with but one deduction, ; is therefore proposed as one measure of eco- pig ” nomic power. This deduction is federal prop- pa erty. The bulk of the value of federal prop- rae erty such as the public domain, mineral re- peri sources and forest reserves, included in the New $36,8' the Bureau of the Census, is subtracted in the ahead Incor ew York City, N. Y. Students of taxation differ, however, as to whether property as a source of tax revenue should include all tangible property or merely real estate. ‘ Inc 2 See discussion, pp. 12 to 17. *See Table A, p. 72. In proposing wealth as a measure of economic power, it is not meant to suggest that the gen- measu eral property tax is a desirable instrument for the raising of public revenue. incom : 1919, sued | TABLE 1.—ESTIMATED VALUE OF TANGIBLE WEALTH OF THE STATES, 1922 bt (Expressed in thousands of dollars) mates States Wealth States Wealth 1 2 3 4 — follov $310,042,785 EE TO Par er Te ec eee $2,079,123 5,302,454 2,913,467 455,959 If « , 220,290 1,351,745 ined 2,587,642 11,743,251 va 14,677,855 774,781 incom 3,126,464 36,871,432 5,281, 4,520,052 were 617,217 2,463,653 those ’ ,489 , ’ tae eae 22,171,960 28,718,937 8,812,871 1,918,098 1In 10,494,918 2,381,674 act pr 6,234,560 2,909, 538 percen 3,556,843 4,217,940 three | 3,393,690 9,803,548 oras 1,998,845 1,457 , 536 Recent 3,936,717 839, 691 the St 12,878,793 4,762,633 2 Se 11,382,054 4,978, 164 Le 8’800; 804 4,648,599 * Thi 2,175,530 7,860,407 Pe 9,973,901 679 ,663 roauie at hese figures based on Table 4, column 2, p. 21, Estimated National a, Bureau of the Census. They exclude 6 Tb oun Sond tatel ead teaun the-cstneanees tor g ep pT ay gh ee wy = as sella federal Government and all property located in the District of Columbua, See T A, Appendix p. 72, for details as to deductions. ECONOMIC sures given in Table 1. controlled by the national government and only potentially an economic part of a state ‘in so far as its availability as a source of reve- nue is concerned. In most states this form of wealth constitutes a negligible portion of the aggregate.” In some of the western however, such as Wyoming and Nevada where Federal property is states, 30 and 16 percent respectively of wealth value this The value of still remains under federal jurisdiction, form of wealth is significant. federal property is, therefore, subtracted from the aggregate wealth of each state as estimated by the Bureau of the Census. the resulting estimate of wealth for each of the states which will be used in future calcula- Table 1 gives tions as one measure of their comparative eco- nomic power. Chart I reveals in graphic form the wide the amount of wealth located in different states. New York has tangible wealth valued at $36,871,432,000, while Nevada at $455,959,000. variations existing in has wealth valued Income as a Measure of Economic Power Income is proposed as a second and distinct measure of economic power. Estimates of the income of the forty-eight states for three years, 1919, 1920, and 1921, have recentiy sued by a private agency, the National Bureau of Economic Research.’ mates that a second index of the comparative economic power of the states will be based. The meaning of income is explained in the following quotation: been is- It is upon these esti- If every individual kept an accurate set of pri- vate accounts and thereby arrived at his net money income for the year, and if all these net incomes were added together, the resulting totals would be those which this report attempts to approximate.‘ RESOURCES OF Ji STATES This or any brief statement is inadequate to a complete understanding of the term. Such an understanding can be approached by study- ing the methods employed in arriving at the } estimates of income. It is without the scope of this investigation, however, to describe these methods detail. ‘They are fully presented in the references cited in the bibliography It will suffice here to point out that indi- vidual income is composed of two parts: (1) Current income, made up of wages or salaries, interest, dividends, rents, business profits and the like, (2) total income, current income and consisting of plus gains or losses in the value of property owned.° Economists are not in complete agreement as to the merits of these two concepts of in For that and total and many of the calculations in which income come. reason the figures for both current income will be presented, is one the results both for We will have in the probable greater accuracy factor will show current and total income. mind, however, of the figures for current income as well as the opinion of some economists that it is preter- able to total income as a measure of general economic status.° For these reasons when it seems desirable to use but one form of income in a calculation involving income, current in come will be preferred. The difficulties that stand in the way of a wholly accurate estimate of income are com- in the parable to those encountered census of wealth. Consequently, a degree of error in the final estimates must be assumed. ‘The character of the executive and advisory staff of the Bureau of Economic Research is such, however, as to justify belief that such error 1In the case of states affected by the federal mineral royalty act of 1920, this statement needs some modification. Th act provides that states in which three states: Wyoming, California and Montana. or a sum representing approximately 20 Recent Federal Grant to Public Schools,’ the State Department of Wyoming, 1922-2 2See Table A, column 6, p. 72. * Leven, Maurice, Income in the United States. *Ibid., p. 20. the form of money. dividual’s income. Ibid., p. 28. ®Ibid., p. 43. “. reliable.” for many purposes, estimates are situated federal lands containing n¢ percentum of the royalties realized for the lease of these lands. The income Wyoming received nearly ercent of the state’s school costs. See, School Board Journal, 4, Cheyenne, Wyoming, pp. National It should be added that these private accounts would have Income such as that realized by the farmer in the form of food consumed received by the owner of a house would have to be given metallic mineral deposits are to receive a from thia source is negligible except in a million dollars from this fund in 1921 Fletcher Harper Swift, “The Most December, 1922, p. 45 f., and Biennial Report of 76 and 82, 1925. to include more than income realized in on the farm, or housing considered in arriving at each in- 3ureau of Economic Research, a money v alue and current income may be considered as superior and more CHART I beer ge fe re po i¢ T¢ ESTIMATED WEALTH OF THE STATES IN 1922 : | nate j es | NY $36, 871,492,000 | Pa. 28,718 .937,000 \ com Ill. — 22,171.960,000 se Ohio 18 AS8,563,000 + Cali? 14,677,655,000 i Mass. 12.878,793,000 — N.J. 11,94@,281,000 om ——tHich. 11.382, 054,000 pele low& 10,484,918;000 sto) Mo. 2 .973.901,000 wort. Texas 9,803,546,000 Ind. 8,812 AT ,000 Che Minn 8,530,864,006 me q Wis. % ,860,407,00Q & Kans 6, 284,860,000 for the Nebr —-§ 302, 484,000 states V Conn 5 ,281,.849,000 state th . Wash 4,978,164,000 tional e Va. 4,262,633, 000 data ne W.Va. 4,648,699,000 ording NCar 4,620,083,000 a NER es | i ain Okla. %,986,341,000 It col Md. 3 ,.956,UT,000 nationa Ga 3 , 887, 4€9,00Q the ine {| +9 3,566, 843,000 states, | . “ 3 ,39%,699000 lices, 2 Ore 3,206,783, 000 ndividi ‘ Colo. 3,126 AB4,000 comes ¢ . Ala. 2.913 , 467,000 wes S. Dak. 2.909,888,000 Phis Ark 2,587, 642,000 attectil N Dak. 2.4@3,a88000 which ' Fla. 2,48 1,235,000 justifie z S. Car. 2 381 ,O%4,000 small 1 Miss. 2,175,890,000 hi Mont, 2,079, 123,000 eee Me. 1 998,845,000 — RL. 1,918,088, 000 Tat Utah 1 AS7,526,000 come, Idaho 1,387, 166,000 tor ea N.H 1,381, M5000 of this Ariz. — 1,220,980000 wah Ub. 839, €91,000 a N Mex. {14,781,000 Chart Wyo. @79,665000 for th Dela. G17, 217,000 Nev. 465,262,000 Mascarch Dursiwn : Aatonal Exucation Association | Read chart thus: In 1922 the value of the tangible wealth of New York. was %6, 871.432,000; similarly read data for other states [6] Economic Resou hac been reduced to a minimum.' One may dge for himself in this matter by consulting the reports of this Bureau. Here it is sufficient to quote the Bureau’s estimate as to the accuracy of the aggregate figures on income for the country as a whole: 4 comparison of the estimated errors in current income with the similar figures for total income shows how much the current income estimates out- class in accuracy those figures on the fotal income. The former estimates for all industries is believed to be less than five percent and perhaps not more than one to two percent The latter esti- mate may possibly contain an error as large as in error. thirteen percent and an error as large as seven percent is not at all unlikely.’ The estimated accuracy of the figures on in come quoted above refer to aggregate income for the nation. ‘The incomes of the various states were not arrived at by applying to each state the methods used in arriving at the na- tional estimate. Neither the resources nor the data necessary for this were available. Ac- cordingly the method described below was adopted 4 It consists of first apportioning separately the national totals of the various component parts of the income of the American people to the several states, in accordance with carefully computed in- dices, and then combining the estimates for the individual items into totals representing the in- comes of the people in each state.* This method doubtless introduces errors affecting individual states. The care with which the method was employed, however, justifies the belief that these errors are too small to substantially modify such conclusions as this study will present based upon the in- come estimates of the various states. Table 2 represents the average annual in- come, 1919 to 1921, both total and current, for each of the forty-eight states. Column 4 of this table shows the percentage that current income is of total income in each state.* Chart II graphically depicts this relationship for the various states. ‘Leven, Maurice, Income in the United States. National Ibid., p. 36. *Ibid., p. 41. *“Total” is here used in a special sense. f income which is added to current income, lus and gains on inventories accruing to individuals” ve less than current income. ases is greater than 100 in Table 2, column 4. ‘Leven, Maurice, Income in the United States, p. Total income 136. to determine total show This accounts for the fact that the percentag: RCES OF STATES / In the majority of the States it appears to make little difference in the proportion of the nation’s income allotted to a state whether the basis of the allotment is total or current income. For the nation, average annual cur- rent income is 91.56 percent of average an nual total income. The indices of column 5 of Table 2 allow us to say tor thirty-five states that an increase or a decrease in the average current income of six percent or less would bring them into perfect agreement with the ratio of current to total income for the coun- try as a whole, that is, 91.56 percent. It is without the scope of this study to at tempt a complete economic interpretation of why current income is not 91.56 percent of total income in all states, and why in a few cases there is a wide divergence above or be low this ratio. Here it will suffice to point out that among the factors that might cause the ratio of current to total income to deviate considerably in a particular state in any one year are: 1. An come, which in common parlance would be unusually high or low current in designated “good” or “hard” times. 2. Economic conditions which result in an unusually high or low or even a_ negative figure under the heading designated “surplus and gains on inventories,” the economic con- cept which expressed in dollars is added to (or subtracted from) current income to give total income. 3. Combinations of these two factors. Such factors probably entered to disturb the ratio of current to total income in several states. For example, “The effect of the 1921 depression was apparently not felt in all sec- tions of the country with the same degree of severity. The West North Central States seem to have been hit hardest, while the Pacific, New England, and Middle Atlantic States came through with comparatively small don a ia il -~ p losses.” A study of Table B, page 74, will 3ureau of Economic Research, 1925, p. 2 is not always than current income When the part income, is negative quantity, i. e., when the “sur a loss in any state for a given year, total income will that current is of total income in a f 8 ABILity To SupporT EDUCATION reveal what appears to be unusual variations in certain states from the general situation in the country as it concerns income in 1921. This is, of course, a part of the larger ques- mal years? tion which may legitimately be raised concer ing Table 2, namely: Are the averages for total and current income based upon no giver TALBE 2.—ESTIMATED AVERAGE ANNUAL INCOME OF THE STATES, 1919 TO 1921 INCLUSIvpr (Expressed in thousands of dollars) Percentage that Index of percent- Average annual | Average annual - percent States current income is of | age of current to total income (a) | current income (b) total income (c) il tesome (é 1 2 8 4 6 a ee ee ree $73,806,095 $67,577,131 91.56 100.00 Ns nna canes sa eneaeseeiee ens se 763,989 723,445 94.69 103.4: nc kas ns 66h in taen ee enenak abo 267,472 229, 209 85.69 93. 5¢ PR cecnced chose enseeaageke saa 564,827 4 99.93 109. CE, o.acecnkaea vipat ne anme eden 3,852,951 3,342,206 86.74 94. ss oss cocks Recs ieensoubaaeane 739,143 666 , 577 90.18 98. RD ck wink deenial en edanieen 1,153,131 1,066,910 92.52 101 Par ere 162,829 154,622 94.96 103 Ds +> cont cSpewkhcehnnes aks dake 480 ,604 414,802 86.31 94 Cd. 66 sae b00nes ec tabbed ses ke te 969,017 986 ,943 101.85 111 sd a4 ekencdeee bee aknhede eK 299 ,992 252,320 84.11 91 NS Giga hacia ne aan &ha bea eo 5,663,234 5,215,501 92.09 100. NGS <'n:6.b ah eh 6a Rae ebm ween eee 1,772,039 9 ,432 95.00 103. Ey £6..5604 48 b00O86 0S 666488408054 1,431,942 1,333,796 93.15 101 hah des oe trhebhecebek ale eee™ 1,133,749 1,019,107 89.89 98 Kentucky 926,281 944,486 101.97 lll i 817,869 762,253 93.20 101. 505 , 402 460,451 91.11 99. 1,108,291 1,025,902 92.57 101. 3,699,901 3,392,513 91.69 100. + 2,829,970 2,586,001 91.38 | 99. 1,624,161 1,354,051 83.37 91 501,456 495,946 98.90 108 2,050,831 1,941,856 94.69 103 279,737 336,162 120.17 131 834,902 707 ,77: 84.77 92 eh ioe teukéGke eed bees e ed 9 68 65,165 > 107.40 117. 314,169 288 , 256 91.75 100. : 2,813,431 2,529,034 89.89 98. 72,880 166,466 96.29 105. ll, , 989 10,240,721 91.18 99. 961,034 906 , 437 94.32 103. 325, 222' 289,417 88.99 97. 4,245,504 3,972,361 93.57 102. 1,115,906 998,170 89.45 97. 200 566, 241 86.29 94. 6,981,556 6,353,675 91.01 99. 549,378 503, 91.73 100. . 559, 102.38 111.8: Ds: ah scthwagtecauanckanee ds 420,570 333,206 79.23 86. Tennessee.......... nesekéS Ga sepeabae 869,341 830,603 95.54 104. ED, 9000.6 6 OR SRS E0666 0 wen Es HERE DES 2,726,171, 2,429,753 89.13 97. is ks Sobhus shed bs CEshewsvedank os 268 , 486. 247,598 92.22 100. sbekebe che vdedvsceecededes ct 224,540 201,940 89.93 98. PE 2. obi. dieeeevaanecdenthene 1,026,856, 948 ,905 92.41 100. RRs 60 0560 0ae Reedenynned oees 1,148,818 1,009,317 87.86 95. NEE 0 , 6 Chars binds te eenneea 796 , 571 729,527 91.58 100. SG 6 vENS 62.0 5 806 eGsecdaueenses 1,760,653 1,572,949 89.34 97. een ae ere 152,882° 168,877 110.46 120. a) Average annual total income is obtained by averaging the figures of columns 2-4 of Table B, p. 74. nS Average annual current income is obtained by averaging the figures of columns 18-15 of Table B, p. 74 : ; (c) Perceitage that current income is of total income is pp tee Re) Dd ah (d) Index of of current income to total income is the result of each in col. 4 by 91.56, which the ne the United States 100; for Alabama 103.42, etc. This means that if the average annual current of Alabama were decreased 3.42 (103.42 minus 100) percent, there would be oe agreement between the ratios of current to total income for Alabama and for the United States as a whole, which is 91.56 percent. The same would be truc for Arizona, providing Arizona's average current income were increased 6.41 percent (100 minus 93.59). CHART II | PERCENTAGE AVERAGE YEARLY CURRENT INCOME IS OF AVERAGE YEARLY 7OZAZ INCOME ren ~91. STATES Mont. Wyo. | Nev | S Car. Ky. Ga. Ack. Miss N.Mex. Tenn. Ind. Dela. Ala. Mo. N.Car Ohio La. lowa Mdb. Conn. Va. Utah [Ll N.H. R.1. Maes W.Va. Mich N.Y Me. Pa. Colo. Vb. Kans. N.J. Okla. Wis. Texas N. Dak Wash. Calif? Fla. Ore. Ariz. Nebr. Idaho Minn. S. Dak. 0) ar 120. 110. LO? 102 102. 101 99 98. 96. 95.5 95.0 94.9 94% IAN IAS 93.6 93.2 93.1 92.6 92.5 82.4 92.2 92.1 91.8 91.7 O17 216 OLA 91.2 91.1 91.0 90.2 89.9 89.92 89.9 89.5 89.3 89.1 89.0 &.E 86.7 863 86.3 85.7 84:8 BAI 834 % %O.B% ROOOOALaALD SV SL ST ST VL Sk Sk SE ok SE SL Se ak BS A ad ad SR a ag as HN He de wW YY Bd Bd aN QV de ag ag BY FMW HA HN ST PQ aL SX SL a aoe SX AAA AAA OM‘ ' - - Atseatah Dison ANational fducatioa Gasocaton er Read chart thus: The average yearly cc. percent, of ite average yearly fotie/ income. Similarly 7 : eré income of Montana, is 120.2 read, data for other states [9] el ail ee See 10 AsiLity To Support EpUCATION This question is answered as follows by the economists of the National Bureau of Eco- nomic Research: No year is a normal year for all industries, and, consequently conditions obtaining in any one year can hardly be accepted as being fully descriptive of the position of any state with respect to income. A picture of normal conditions may only be had through a study of the data for a series of years. As only three years,—1919, 1920, and 1921,—are considered in this volume, it is necessary that the data presented be considered in the light of the conditions existing in each of the three years . . . We see that for the country as a whole, the period presents almost a complete economic cycle with the peak the latter part of 1919 and the beginning of 1920, and the trough at the end of 1920 and the beginning of 1921." Since these three years embrace almost a complete economic cycle there is some justifi- cation for accepting them as representative of what data for a longer period would show. If figures were available for a longer period it is probable, however, that the relative posi- tion of some states would be considerably modified since the effect of the 1921 depres- sion was not felt in all sections with the same degree of severity. A comparison of Cali- fornia and South Dakota as to the percentage of the aggregate income for the three-year period realized in each of the years, as given in Table B, page 74, strikingly supports this statement. The following data from this table shows how differently these two states fared in this three-year period: Percentage of income in States three-year 1919 to 1921 in: SE 36.26 34.13 eee 44.74 32.25 23.01 United States........ ott oom 36. 30.70 In columns 9 to 11 of Table B are given the figures as to “surpluses and gains on in- ventories” used in distinguishing between cur- rent and total income. Some states are cred- ited with a positive income increment under 1 Leven, Maurice, Income in the United States. this item, when total income is concerped whereas others are credited with a loss. With the aid of Table B, therefore ne can modify, as he wishes conclusions conc: ))- ing a state, based upon income figures, h: in mind unusual cyclic economic factors ¢)), may have affected that state’s incomes in ‘hy years under consideration. It is probable ¢!); when income data for the states are available over a considerable period that it will be neces. sary to modify considerably, for some states, the indications of the data for the three. period, 1919 to 1921. In considering the distribution of the three years’ income among the _ individual years, 1919, 1920, and 1921, it might be argued concerning the West North Central States, for example, that the income figures for 1921 are typical and that those for 1919 anc 1920 are unusually high. ‘This supposition ap- pears questionable when it is realized that the per capita income in South Dakota, for ex- ample, is lower for 1921 than is the per capita income for the Southern States. Such reliable economic data as exist indicate that this is an unusual situation. A comparison of per capita wealth, for example, which reasonably corresponds with per capita income, fails to support this supposition.’ Providing the cautions suggested in the preceding paragraphs are observed, it is felt that income offers a measure of the economic resources of a state of considerable merit. The National Bureau of Economic Research states: Income is surely a good, if not the best, indica- tion of economic welfare, and to know the income and the distribution of income in a given section of the country is to be able to judge the approxi- mate position in the scale of living of the bulk of its inhabitants.’ Table 2 gives the estimates of average yearly income, for each of the states, which will be used in future calculations as one o! the measures of their comparative economic power. Chart III graphically depicts these -estimates for current income. National Bureau of Economic Research, 1925. p. 47. 2 See Table 8, p. 28, Estimated National Wealth, Bureau of Census. % Leven, Maurice, Income in the United States, National Bureau of Economic Research, 1925. p. 43. paras (“7 Ariz. 92.9,209,000 Vt. 201 ,940,000 Wo. 168,872,000 N. Mex. 166 AGG 000 L e| Le 154,E22,000 Nev, 69,987,000 ines Pt ee ats ise atone i —= Read chart thus: New York, has AN average annual accrent income of $ 10,240,721.000 Similarly read data fbr other states. CHART III AVERAGE ANNUAL CURRENT INCOME of’the STATES 1919 to 1921 INCLUSIVE NY. #10,240,721,0 z pry 75,000 . 5 ,215,501,000 Oo. 3,872,361,000 g 3,392,513,000 f 3 , 342,206,000 a 2.,586,001,000 Nw 2 529,034,000 Texas 2, 409: 753,000 Mo 1 ,841,858,000 Ina 1 ,G83,432,000 Wis 1 .672,949,000 7 finn. 1,38+4.051.000 Owe 1 333.786, 000 Conn. 1,066,810,000 Na 1,025 ,202,000 Kans. 1,019,107,000 Wash 1,009,317 ,0OOO Okla. 998,170,000 oa 986, 948,000 Va. 946,905,000 INV’ 944 ABE, OOO N.Car 906,487,000 Tenr §30,6CQQ000 A %2.2E3,000 )\ 72.9 ,82% 000 723,446,000 66E6,57T,000 66,241,000 564,426,000 859.083,000 503,842,000 495,248,000 Me. ABO AGBI,000 Fla. 414,802,000 Mont. 33, 162,000 S.Dak. 833,20€000 N.Dak. 289,417,000 NH. 288,256,000 Idaho 282,390,000 Utah 247,598000 [11] Se = a a ne eS rt = — tte cet ~~ ed eb « ree Ah i: at A 12 ABILITY TO SUPPORT EDUCATION Comparison of Wealth and Income as Measures of Economic Power Wealth and income have been suggested as separate indices of the economic power of the states. The question at once suggests itself: What agreement is there between these two indices? Table 3 offers evidence of agreement be- tween the economic power of a state as indi- cated by wealth and by income. Consider- ing total income and wealth, the index num- bers of column 7, allow us to say for twenty- four of the forty-eight states that an increase or a decrease of 10 per cent or less in the amount of estimated total income would bring them into perfect agreement with the ratio of total income to wealth for the coun- try as a whole, that is, 23.9 percent. The data of column 8 allow similiar study of the relation of current income to wealth. Charts IV and V reveal in graphic form the degree of correlation which exists in the several states between wealth, and current and total income respectively. One glance at these charts reveals a posi- tive correlation between the wealth of the states and their current and total incomes. The product moment method of correlation gives these coefficients: Wealth with current income .984; wealth with total income .984. It is without the scope of this study to dis- cuss in detail the factors that must be con- sidered in studying the relationship of income to wealth in the different states. A few of the more important considerations should be mentioned, however. It should be realized that whereas wealth and income are proposed as measures of the same thing, they might both be valid and yet not correlate perfectly. This point may be made clear by an illustra- tion. One individual might own a tract of virgin timber land valued at $100,000. From this he might be receiving no income what- ever. Another man might own no property, but enjoy an income from his salary of $4,000. One of these men owns large property, but has no income, the other enjoys a substantial income but owns no property. Yet there is 1A brief but illuminati reference: King, Willford I. Income and some agreement in their economic resources. for the man who owned the timber |and might sell it for $100,000, and invest ¢hjs sum in four percent bonds in which case he would have an income of $4,000—+he same as the salaried man. ‘This is, of course. an extreme case, advanced only to illumine the fact that even though we might expect some correlation between the figures on wealth and income given for the states in the preced- ing sections, they would not necessarily agree exactly. We would, however, expect some agree- ment. In a unit as large as a state the dis- crepancies between wealth and income that are frequent when individuals are concerned tend to be leveled out. In so far as the economic law operates, that the value of real estate is a reflection of its income yielding possibilities, we would expect close agreement between aggregate wealth and income. ‘This .same law works to some extent in determin- ing the value of all forms of property. Conse- quently, whereas some disagreement between the two indices of economic power, wealth and income, might occur without inferring a lack of reliability on the part of either or both, wide discrepancies between the two, if unexplained, might raise a serious question as to the accuracy of the estimates upon which they are based. One other factor must also be considered in comparing the wealth and income credited to a state. Whereas the wealth of a state concerns property located within that state, without reference to the residence of the owners of this property, the income of a state is a summation of the incomes of the people living within that state without reference to where those incomes arise. Wealth is credited to the state according to the principle of situs or location, income according to the principle of domicile or residence. As the National Bureau of Economic Ke- search points out, incomes from wages, sala- ries and small business enterprises are usually earned in the same state as that in which the individual lives. Therefore, such income discussion of the meaning of the terms income and wealth will be found in the following Wealth. The American Economic Review, September, 1925. pp. 457-474. tends | connec hand, TABLE — United Alabar Arizon: Arkans Califor Colora Connec Delaws Florida Georgit Idaho. Illinois Indians Iowa.. Kansas Kentuc Louisia Maine. Maryla Massac _Michig: Minnes Mississi Missou Montar Nebras! New Y« North (¢ North I Ohio... Oklahor Oregon. Vermon Virginia Washing West Vi Wiscons Wyomin : Economic RESOURCES OF STATES 13 3 S, rends to fall within the same state as wealth . - - income from invested capital, the place , ° e of production of the income is like ot to cor- connected with this income. On the other on of the income is likely not to cor . respond with that where the recipients reside - hand, in the case of: The bulk of industry, with the exception of agri- : TABLE 3.—RELATION OF AVERAGE ANNUAL TOTAL INCOME AND AVERAGE ANNUAL CUR- RENT INCOME TO WEALTH [ (Wealth and income expressed in thousands of dollars) ¢ j h | Average Average Percent Percent Index of Index of | annual annual | that that — percent |. | | ; total | current | average average | that that States | Wealth(a) | income income | total current we pee e 1919 to 1919 to | income is income is | ; tota current 1921 1921 of wealth of wealth gp force pr yoomage 4 (b) (c) (d) (e) | of wealth | of wealth o> ee ea | = = j , (f) \g 1 2 $s 4 | 5 6 7 8 i United States........| $310,042,785 |$73,806,095 [$67,577,131 | 23.9 21.8 100.0 100.0 d Alabama......+-+++>+: 2,913,467 723,445 26.2 24.8 109.6 113.8 ArizOna......0+6% ’ 1,220,290 | 229 , 209 21.9 18.8 91.6 | 86.2 e Arkansas.......-- ‘ 2,587 ,642 564,426 21.8 21.8 91.2 100.0 California.......++-- 14,677,855 3,342,206 26.3 22.8 110.0 104.6 il Colorado......+++++> 3,126,464 666 ,577 23.6 21.3 98.7 97.7 ig 3 Connecticut.......-.- 5,281,849 1,153,131 1,066,910 21.8 20.2 91.2 92.7 er 617,217 162,829 154,622 26.4 25.1 110.5 115.1 it Florida. ...0.secceee: 2,431,235 480,604 414,802 19.8 | 17.1 82.8 78.4 ; Georgi&.....sseeeee- 3,867,489 969,017 986,943 25.1 | 25.5 105.0 117.0 IS § BABDG. . co ccvesevccers 1,387, 166 299 , 992 252,320 21.6 | 18.2 90.4 83.5 . | i- et ee eedee 62,171,960 | 5,663,234 | 5,215,501 25.5 | 23.5 106.7 | 107.8 >. Indiana. .....-+++++- 8,812,871 1,772,039 1,683,432 20.1 19.1 84.1 87 .6 Oe ore res 10,494,918 1,431,942 1,333,796 13.6 | 12.7 56.9 8.3 n MORONS... ..cccccese 6,234,560 | 1,133,749 1,019,107 18.2 16.3 76.2 74.8 Kentucky .......+.-- 3,556,843 926,281 944,486 26.0 26.6 108.8 122.0 | . | Louisiana........-6+. 3,393 ,690 817 , 869 762,253 24.1 | 22.5 100.8 103.2 2g SIs 5 d0 440 500 1,998,845 505,402 460,451 25.3 | 23.0 105.9 | 105.5 Maryland..........- 3,936,716 1,108,291 1,025,902 28.2 | 26.1 118.0 | 119.7 r ie Massachusetts....... 12,878,793 |- 3,699,901 3,392,513 28.7 26.3 120.1 120.6 f Michigan............ 11,382,054} 2,829,970.) 2,586,001 = 24.9 22.7 104.2 | 104.1 y | n Minnesota..........- 8,530,864 1,624,161 1,354,051 | 19.0 \ 15.9 79.5 72.9 i Mississippi........-. 2,175,531 501,456 495 946 23.0 22.8 96.2 104.6 h Missouri........... 9,973,901 2,050,831 1,941,856 20.6 19.5 86.2 | 89.5 : Montana.......-..+- 2,079,123 279,737 ° 336, 162 13.5 16.2 56.5 74.3 Nebraska. .......000: 5,302,454 834,902 707,772 15.7 13.3 65.7 | 61.0 dk Nevada. ......+++++- 455,959 65,165 69 , 987 14.3 15.4 59.8 70.6 New Hampshire...... 1,351,745 314,169 288 , 256 23.2 21.3 97.1 97.7 d New MILK 6 n 6000.06 11,743,251 2,813,431 2,529,034 24.0 21.5 100.4 98.6 New Mexico......... 774,781 172,880 166,466 | 22.3 21.5 93.3 98. fe > ree 36,871,432 | 11,230,989 | 10,240,721 | 30.5 27.8 27.6 | 27.5 as | j e, North Carolina....... 4,520,052 961,034 906 ,437 | 21.3 20.1 89.1 | 2.2 “ North Dakota....... 2,463,653 325,222 289,417 | 13.2 11.7 55.2 53.7 Gia se vos 0dstecee 18,458,563 | 4,245,504 | 3,972,361 | 23.0 21.5 96.2 98.6 e Oklahoma........... 3,986,341 1,115,906 998,170 28.0 25.0 117.2 | 114.7 | Ge nn Ke sceccve. 3,206,783 656 , 200 566,241 | 20.5 7.7 85.8 81.2 . Pennsylvania........ 28,718,937 6,981,556 6,353,675 24.3 22.1 101.7 101.4 0 Rhode Island........ 1,918,098 549,378 503,949 | 28.6 26.3 119.7 120.6 ; South Carolina....... 2,381,674 546,053 559,053 | 22.9 23.5 95.8 107.8 1S South Dakota........ 2,909,538 420, 570 333,206 | +.5 11.5 60.7 52.8 OS 46 bs 606-008 4,217,940 869 , 341 830 ,603 20.6 19.7 86.2 90.4 le DO endukessee > 9,803,548 | 2,726,171 | 2,429,753 | 27.8 24.8 116.3 | 113.8 le Utah....scevcceseses 1,457 , 536 268 , 486 247 ,598 18.4 17.0 7.0 78.0 Vermont Se beh ay wees 839 , 691 224,540 201,940 26.7 24.1 111.7 | 110.6 Virginia. ........++: 4,762,633 | 1,026,856 948,905 21.6 19.9 90.4 91.3 » Washington.......... 4,978,164 | 1,148,818 | 1,009,317 | 23.1 20.3 96.7 93.1 West Virginia bibs eee 4,648,599 796,571 527 | 17.1 15.7 71.5 72.0 1 Wisconsin........... 7,860,407 1,760,653 1,572,949 22.4 20.0 93.7 91.7 y WES cevescnces 679 ,663 152, 882 | 168,877 22.5 24.8 94.1 113.8 } | (a) These figures are taken from columns 2 and 4 of Table 1 le (b) and (c) These data are taken from columns 2 and 3 of-Table 2. (d) Figures in column 5 are derived by dividing the figures in column 3 by those in column 2. (e) Figures in column 6 are derived by dividing the figures in column 4 by those in column 3 at (f) Rw figures result from dividing every figure in column 5 by 23.9, which makes the index number for the United ates ).0. ng U a | Rag figures result from dividing every figure in column 6 by 21.8, which makes the index number for the 4 : ni States 100.0. il enatl & 8 3 : a 6 4 a \\o 6 wo 7) 7 ? 7 ” = - aa +) Se POP SS * [— _ zs ; - . -) -—- ——— 3 -—- s Bly | |_| HE : E 5 | | As Z +—| sii Poor t | s |? R= : : il : ii 5 4 ; % } 3 = : i i z i | 3: ’ | r EH ul “ “Ta, : ij TTT Tet et tT ee ee eee et = A i SHBTIOM JO SUCHIN JO Sparpuny{ uy ewoou] Te}OL yruUY wWerasy El ———— [14] CHART V 10 a ee a aia = = O4 } ‘4 oN 4 & * a Q - wo & eC Pm 2) —t~ = oo + + + ~— = 2 ' ‘= 6 60 | | | | i i | i i ; | a iy | 5 56 t 4 o) | = 3 = 52 st 1 4 + # « _ E 46 } 4 } } } } 9 | Y | = ad + + + + + + + + 101.7 ili 22.8 104.6 24.1 100.8 issi 22.8 104.6 24.0 100.4 22.7 104.1 22.5 103.2 22.1 101.4 21.8 100.0 23.6 98.7 23.2 97.1 23.1 96.7 23.0 a 96.2 21.5 98.6 23.0 96.2 21.5 98.6 22.9 95.8 21.5 98.6 22.5 94.1 21.3 97.7 22.4 93.7 21.3 97.7 22.3 93.3 20.3 93.1 21.9 91.6 20.2 92.7 21.8 91.2 20.1 92.2 21.8 91.2 20.0 91.7 21.6 90.4 19.9 91.3 21.6 90.4 19.7 90.4 21.3 89.1 19.5 89.5 20.6 86.2 19.1 87.6 20.6 86.2 18.8 86.2 20.5 85.8 18.2 83.5 20.1 84.1 ae.7 81.2 ne | | O88 a | OR 84 77.0 16.3 74.8 18.2 76.2 16.2 74.3 17.1 71.5 15.9 72.9 15.7 65.7 15.7 72.0 14.5 60.7 15.4 70.6 14.3 59.8 13.3 61.0 13.6 56.9 12.7 58.3 SES a 13.5 56.5 11.7 53.7 North Dakota......... 13.2 55.2 11.5 52.8 ae enguree in this table represent a rearrangement of some of the data given in Table 3. Read table thus: The average annual total income of New York is 30.5 nt of its wealth. If the yf ee annual totalincome to wealth in the United States is given the value 00, then this for New York State is 127.6. the average annua! total income of New York was 27.6 percent less than is actually the then the ratio of income to wealth in this state for other states as to ratios of total and of Pship m and d in lowa in Ill incom next t In intere It rural is bel: states the r. high. statem Ho for th by the by the the e bear u or by be co Data tion h tion m Ac estimat seems | reason: value a A Cor a Fron come resourc some cc not resi of the t tion pr tion inv constitu wealth, on real principl ing to and ine of a sta proposal 1 Leven, * Straye: of the fac sot ee ene ee ee Illinois reside in Iowa. Evidently to trace the me of such land among the states would be ext to impossible." In the light of these considerations it is interesting to study Table 4. It is predominately in the agricultural and rural states that the ratio of income to wealth is below the average; whereas, the industrial states are conspicuous among those in which the ratio of income to wealth is relatively high. Chart VI graphically verifies this statement. How much the ratios of income to wealth for the states, given in Table 4, are affected by the nature of their economic organization, by the effect of periodic, cyclical changes in the economic situation, particularly as they bear upon different states with unequal force, or by other unmeasured influences, can only be conjectured from facts available. Data that have some bearing on this ques- tion have been presented. ‘Their interpreta- tion must be left to the individual. A comparison of the wealth and income estimates for the various states, however, seems to justify increased confidence as to the reasonable accuracy of both, and as to their value as indications of economic power. now A Combination of Wealth and Income as a Measure of Economic Power From a consideration of wealth and _ in- come as independent measures of economic resources, the question arises as to whether some combination of the two measures would not result in a more reliable index than either of the two alone. The Model Plan of Taxa- tion proposed by the National Tax Associa- tion involves the taxation of real estate, which constitutes more than half of aggregate wealth, as well as an income tax. The tax on realty would be levied according to the principle of situs and the income tax accord- ing to domicile. A combination of wealth and income as a measure of economic power of a state would be in accordance with these proposals. 1 Leven, Maurice. * Strayer and Haig. f the factors involved in a similar problem. EcoNoMic RESOURCES OF STATES 17 The data given in Table 5 were used in an attempt to arrive at a combination of wealth and income as an index of economic power. The difficulties tempt circulate the weight to be assigned to income as com- encountered in such an at about the determination of pared with wealth. The factors involved are so complicated and the data bearing upon the point are so meager that it was out of the question to attempt a wholly scientific de- termination of this weight.? The data of Table 5 reveal, however, that it makes little difference in determining the rank of a state in economic resources whether as much as one-third or as little as twentieth of wealth is combined with income. The deviations between the ranks obtained by one- combining income with various percentages of wealth are given in Tables 6 and 7. If data were available to determine the desirable percentages of wealth to come in obtaining valid comparable measures of the states’ economic power, it is likely that combine with in- these percentages would fall somewhere be- tween one-third and one-twentieth. It was, therefore, arbitrarily decided to use the fol- lowing formula as a basis for combining wealth and income in an index of economic power: Index of economic resources equals income plus one-tenth the value of wealth. This assigns to a dollar of wealth one-tenth the value of a dollar of income. ‘Thus a state with twenty billions of wealth and one billion of income would be rated as having the same economic power as a state with ten billions of wealth and two billions of income. This index is presented with a full realiza- tion of the inadequacy from a strictly scientific point of view of the evidence that can be pre- sented in its behalf. Nevertheless, it is be- lieved that it is more significant as a measure of the relative economic power of the states than is wealth or income alone, or measure that can now be proposed. VII the economic resources of the depicted, using the any other In chart states are graphically suggested Income in the United States, pp. 40 and 41. : The Financing of Education in the State of New Y« rk. See pp. 171 or a statement y CHART VI PERCENTAGE AVERAGE YEARLY INCOME IS 0F WEALTH Percent total income Fercent current income is of wealth is of wealth U.S. veRaks ' AGS U.S NN. h'OR-SA ore Ny Mass. V&A BIS Mas R.I. LSA PARE RQ. Md. bI-MbA VIEA Md Okla. VI.WerA vAsWol4 Okla Texas vaa-WA OETA Texas ) Vt. are, VERSA Ve. Dela. Sa ak Av Dela Calif? stein ds VISA Calif Ala. Po RKA voy Ky. Wek 4 PAWS Ky. a LL. A854 YAR@5i4 ILL 29) Me PIRSA 07) Me 0 Ga. ‘REA brb-A-5.1 Ga Ss Mich Vz Mb4 Phew. 4 Mic Oo 4 Pa. wr %S4 diab) Pa a & La. CF RL" VARA La % c N.J, Wao EIEZ Nu a we Calo. ae PARELA Colo a. 7 N.H. vr BOW VASA N.u 5 ‘- Wash. VENTA Was! = § Ohio ames. Ohio O & Miss. wom Miss. 3 ¢ S.Car VRIES S.Cac b, = Wyo. VESTA Wyo 0 fF 1S. reNeL- Wis. Mf N. Max. SEF N.Mex mf Aciz. E54 Ariz A x Coan eR SA Conn é ~ Ark. aks Ark A Ve. Te Sz Va. Zz Idaho HWS Idaho . N Car. V/A N.Ca. = Tenn. oeme 4 Tenn a Mo. HERS 5 Mo O Oregon eee Orexon Z Ind re Lae “oe a” Fla. aes Fla = Mian. AA Minn “ Utah waless Utah < Kans. MRCS. Kans x WU Ua 04-61 WU Va " Nebr. ree a) Nebe A S. Dak rewn-i1 S.Dak Ney EG Nev. . [woa, bUNE lowa a Mont. SCF kA Mont < N. Dak. ene N. Dak . Aescarch Duxnsion ANetional EXioatioa Qsesowatiot Read chart thus: in New York the averag yearly totad income 18 30.8 percent, of ite wealth; the avecage yearly tawereat income for the same state if I7.8 percent. Similarly read data for other states : [18] sep a ” a. ad c= ul Gear? ce ven 4 4tW-eu0 ©; 7 ETO aeat? «we opens © Jo eapouy eqs Buyppe fq pouteiqe e2e >» Gam JO sommdis Tt ®lqug @osjy Geren ese ¢ = 2 zZ @1aty Serj Gare eve 7 2 ou rie (t —— —z - ———_—__—_—— _—— — ———— —~—+ ise*e i 2b! ooe*s , ” ste" eez > oer Gas coe" 629 ay 6e6* aus" t =: ci9*coi*2z 1 ¢ rea’ ze0*s ot | 06.*oec*s sov*ove"s su0esis 429° 624 92 00" 6za z iri oz" 9z4" st wl ore*z 66g" ove"+ Sjursay, 100g 1 ' at 524 *46e*t at al gos *e0e"z vot ee’? wo pFus yew } oz) 2e6*992*t 6t 1 coe’ st9"z ece*z"* wrerPata > | ze oor ” ” vy ar’ sos 169" 6ee paomies § 2) ctr z zw a | teetse oes" se" t wea 4 6 eve oiz*s t 6 ‘ ozo" r66"S “goes 4 sUxe! £09*oce sz % gz | oe | tas*sas*s Ove* LIZ" Tes" 698 woes ous; 902 * eee ac oe | eT 3 } gt?" 06g" ees *606*z oss‘ Ooze wioreg nor om" 699 ze | oct os9 zs oz" Pe. a ce +6" ser"! o90° 95 BT LOreD WINE 66° S09 ex | cee‘ ove ee eet ih " | >e. "eer" eie*6ys pews: epouy S.9° eoc"® } = | Sos*ate’e | ose" eae"s : | | @ | Ses*eoe*or oon * tes* eyuws [feuue ) i } | o¢ | ses*ore or | ese’ o£ os zt" sze*t ooz* et} czz*stc’t et ors’ sIs*t 6t t seo" tee'z 906° ~~ > | zev'est’s O' 9 , > esc’ s6c*o vog*Stz"t os | sor’ em es | oe | « ove’ oni’ t ree*srr Tore ice’ 906 t go0*.e1"T 12 z vz Gtz*299*2 +00" jose 340 ZL *Ovz T t Zel* ste’ st T t 9" ¢ *tue* 9¢ “20, meg >" 9? ? esc" o¢ “hy Pal Ovi tee TeL* PL OOTrer ae, po*6zs° é 994° 4 te0*zet's ra ere*ezi’9 tSz" ova Tt te? *cte* Sesser meg *eez oF or voc * 6re ° eto‘ ves oF tg." PL ov*t 691° esp qed sey “6 8 ey t94" Ott e ige*9st e TSt*stz 696" Sor 99 Wpes ey Zee*s0e ez zz avi’ ooe"t if ese’ see" 61 sec" z09*2 ver" z0e"s wre esce, z91* oes 6e | 6c 199 6c 01346 ez1"620°2 uw) wor vse" 196" T ot | ot ot sor"guc*s 106" £26°6 | yanosstn 76" S69 ve | zez*ot9 Ss st eeo*ozz*t ors*sit*z | padyeeyestr 190" ese" T gt wo." 0g0°s I gt ze." .99"t wee*ors’s oseurt, too* ‘2 6 c10°66e"s ) ees’ ere’s | 9e0'zer*t ou * 6262 wet In eIs*z6e"¢ ? “*cre*> 9 zee" 766*s e6.*e.0e*2 106 *669°s L2eenNQoOusSw | 206° $z0° 6 4z1*sor*t Z zz ors*ore*z ste" 906" Tez*@ort't poettovp Is? 09? 3< F £ af veo" tat*t | gre" e66"t zor" gos ec) ey eoz*zou é a2 az 660° 696°T | 069’ e6e"s 69e".t¢ Sees syne 92 see*ttt'z | sve'oss*e tez* 926 fxonguey | st | oee*ttz’s | o9s*eee*s 6u* eet’! evscvy | 1 | @ez*ors*> Sts*ver"OT §8=| zee tert wacy | zt c99*sou"? lee*zte*e 6e0*Z44*T Suet pay £ Lee" ego" st 096° tz 1°22 vez" e99"s | Sou TTY t | tee*zv 266 662 ouepr | | @ oet*ege*z | LT0* 696 eT82005 | % | 910*t62*T 09 ‘oe? wpra0ctg | 49 | 899" eoe 4Tz*.t9 6ze* 791 e2uer lec 10S" 60z"z | 9t | ave*ete’z eve'tez*s =| tet*est*t anops;eumo, | j | | | 9ee*eog*t 2 | 662° te2*1 ver*ozi*e | et*ece Opes jos | | zzs*ee.'9 i § 69S*o0."e 998° 229° ST 1e6" zoe" MesosyTep | sse*zeo*t te | vec*cze’T zoe" .es*z | 2ze*eos eeewmiy oss* tts en | Sez*eu9 06z*ozz*t | gavage wuor}.y zes* ore" 6z | SPt*ses*t 29e*ct6*z | 696*so. wrearty Tet 2i5°.95 te BOC be SL To OTe Ort Werery yorren | ia 27 TY Cr T t 4 7 i Ter-erer | bei3 | | i woouy yuea fuwy yitees =| rey) UaTeee xy) 0 Ua T eee {@) zz6t -sno Tonuue 3° O2/T i |e g/t 30 6/1 wi Tees @zoout serwig a entd IZ6T-6161 @HOCUy TeI01 Tena avezesy | Tesos (wm 1 -- Be _etuses —_ (SIe]]Op jo spuesnoy} ur posseidxq) SALVLS IVARAES AHL AOA SADANOSAA DINONOOA AO XAANI ANV ‘AWOONI ‘HLIVAM—S AIAVL ed Pam Ny YAR eam 9 OE ALE a TMI ERA comet aah, A OO = _ [19] ; ee eee CHART VII Penna. Ill. Ohio Calif Mass. Mich. N.J. Texas Mo. Ind. lowa Vis. Minn. Kans. Conn. Wash. Va. fob. Okla. Ca. N Car. Ky. Tenn. Nebr. W.Va. La. Ala. Colo. Ore. Ark. S.Car. Miss. RI. Me. Fla. S.Dak. Mont. N Dak. N.H. Utah Idaho Ariz. Vb. Wyo. Del. Nev. N.Y. #13 ,927,8e4000 N. Mex. ECONOMIC RESOURCES of the STATES (As indicated by index of economic resources ~ ns hy a current income plus one-tenth tangible ~) 9 ,225,6€9,000 T AB2,697,000 5,818,217 000 4 ,808,982,000 4,680,2392,000 3,%24,206,000 3,°W3,269, 000 3,410,107,000 2,239,248,000 2,564,719 ,000 2,383,288.000 2,368,890,000 2,207, 13% OOO 1,642,663,000 1,596,096, 000 1,507%,133,000 1 425,188,000 1 A19,874000 1,396,80¢,.000 1,373,682, 000 1,368,A42,000 1,300,1%O,000 1,269,397,000 1,238,01T,000 1,194,38T,000 1,101,622,000 1,014 792,000 ,OT9,223,000 686,919,000 ,823,190,000 +t9,220,000 %713 AQAOCO 696,758,000 660,336,000 697,228,000 624,160,000 544,074,000 635,782,000 ABZ ABLOOO 393,352,000 391,037,000 351,239,000 285.208,000 PAB B44,000 236,646, 000 216,344,000 115 ,B834000 Ascacch Diusion ANatonal S&lucation Qesh Read chart thus: The index of economic resources (average annual current, income 1919 to 1921 ae one-tenth the value of’ tangible wealth for New York was #13, 927,864, . Similarly ‘read data fdr other ‘ [20] TABL: Devi in | Mec Mid TAB) Dev Mi: hav ISCONOMIC RESOURCES OF STATES mula with wealth and current income for economic powe h of the states. Before we can Che three indications of economic resources, the comparative Ith, income, and a combination of the port education, two, described in the preceding paragraphs made of the siz suggested as bases for comparing the _ tions of the vari TABLE 6.—DEVIATIONS BETWEEN STATE RANKS WHEN COMBINING AVERAGE TOTAL INCOME WITH VARIOUS PERCENTAGES OF WEALTH of the states mploy them bility of the ANNUAI | Total average Total average Total average Total average Total average Total average Deviati |} annualincome | annual income annual income annual income annual income annua mie ovis — plus 14 of wealth ; plus '4 of wealth | plus ‘4 of wealth | plus '4 of wealth | plus 44 of wealth |plus » of wealt! im cam |} and plus 4¢ of | and plus !{o of and plus ‘49 of and plus 9 of and A léo of and plus { | wealth wealth wealth wealth wealth wealth 1 2 83 a 0 35 ») of . l 8 | 10 ’ ! 2 ? | 4 { 3 4 7 4 l 5 2 6 Median. . 0 0 0 ( 0 0 Middle 50% 0-1 0-1 02 0-1 0-1 Read Table 6 as follows: When the ranks of the give Tal have the same rank in both columns, the ranks of 8 stat ire changed 1 y \ dtl TABLE 7.—DEVIATIONS BETWEEN STATE RANKS WHEN COMBINING AVERAGE ANNUAL CURRENT INCOME WITH VARIOUS PERCENTAGES OF WEALTH | Average annual Deviations | in rank div Our Wh oO Median Middle 50% Read Table 7 a have the same rank in both columns, the ranks _ wealth current income plus '¢ of wealth and plus 1¢ of follows: Average annual current income plus \4 of wealth Average annual Average current income plus of wealth | plus '¢ and plus 4{9 of | and plus 145 of | and plus wealth | wealth wealth | 8 25 «V) 1 11 3 rf SS 3 5 ] l l l 0 l 0 0-1 02 0-1 When the rank of the states venine nni4 f 11 states are anged 1 | annual current income of wealth Lf of Average annual current income plus 44 of wealth (plus 4 and plus 44 alth and plus '4»o of wealth f Averagt current Wwe » OF we annua ncome altl of yr ic Ser -— TI teen | as ar. faced popul total sugge formé finan state popul the te measu ceptio accept Th ceptal load f to eac load « some which forma Varic In showit tions | measu These popula varies shows cludes popula age gi of Al: is sign lation ticular tional | 1 As tl factor. 2 Se RE a St ee one ce ee ae CHAPTER II The Educational Obligations of the States The number of children aged six to thir teen years inclusive is suggested in this chapter is a measure of the size of the educational task Some other division of the population might have been used. Indeed, the total population of each state might have been suggested. This that formal educational facilities involving public faced by a state. presumes, however, financial outlay are to be maintained by a state for all or at least a large part of the population of all ages. In such a situation the total population might be accepted as a load. Such a con- measure of educational ception of education is, however, not as yet uccepted in general practice. [herefore, total population would be ac- ceptable as an indication of the educational load faced by each state only if it apportioned to each state a part of the total educational load of the nation similar to one based upon some less extensive part of the population, which it is generally agreed should be given formal educational training. Various Sections of Population as Meas- ures of Educational Load In Table 8 have showing the effect of selecting various: sec- tions of the population of the states as a measure of the educational load to be borne. These data reveal that the percentage of the population found in a particular age group varies widely in different states. Column 10 shows that the age group six to thirteen in- cludes than thirteen the population of California, whereas the same been assembled the data less percent of age group includes over twenty-one percent of Alabama’s population. Such a variation is significant in deciding between total popu- lation and the population found in a par- ticular age group as an indication of educa- tional load to be provided for. Its significance 1 As this study was being prepared an investigation by Clark appeare This study is discussed at greater length in Chapter V, see reference tactor, * See Table D, p. 76 is more fully revealed in column 13 of ‘Table 3. If the educational load credited to \la bama on the basis of the total population found given the value 100, the edu this the in Alabama is cational load basis of the percentage of the children found credited to state on in the six to thirteen age group is represented by the value 126. California’s educational load if given a value 100 on the basis of gen ereal population drops to 76 on the basis ot children six to thirteen. In short, the proportion of the nation’s edu- cational load credited to Alabama increases 26 percent, when age group six to thirteen is substituted for general population as a measure of educational load, while California’s decreases 24 percent. ‘The significance of these facts can be more fully realized by consulting the figures in columns 2 and 3 of ‘Table 8. Although Alabama’s total population is 2,348,174 as compared with California’s 3,426,861, Alabama has 494,701 but children six to thirteen as compared with California's 434,444. Chart VIII graphically depicts the varia- tions of the states as to the percentage of population aged six to thirteen. In South Carolina 21.7 percent of the population is of these ages, while in California the percent is 12.7. The map on page 26 shows that wide variations in the ratio of child to adult population is a sectional as well as a state problem. Up to the has been given to the importance of varying present time too little attention percentages of children in the population of different decided states. Some states have advantages over others in providing educa- tional opportunities because they have rela tively few children. For example, California expended $93,534,315 for 1922.? public schools in If the ratio of the population aged D thes sloacl coanizes t : this 3] D® NOM LTZAZO4GOZUAR DEY SYK AEM GMYH PUL FOBZAHRSAOVZAUASHVYV FS HGS Pe Six UL | FETA OC THOR BO UY. “ET=9 PEPE UOZPTT YD Jo sequmu uO poseg Beye (OUL SULTE ZO’gTT) 2e70ee) queczed gz 8} SUBQETY 03 PerTpeED POT [WLOFSTOL PO OUR FHUR SUMMA FFG +958 “OTST MANGETY 403 'QOT Se3e35 pessun 643 40; ean}Z xepu) ouy sexes YOTYR YtaMmTOO 3eyR JO PROG OUI 3B ZL°9T OUI 4G OL KH DIOS UE GATT; YORS Sulpyare JO STHSes sys Ome *eTME-0 40) CI MTC JO SeoTpUT ous (DP) *@ATSNTOTE ET-9 JO Sly 3 ET POPMTOUS S| GUEGHTY ZO UOTZeTMMOC [e303 ouR ZO Weosed LO*TZ FOUR SUBOW BORGUTY 409;8 wLO*IZy SUS “SATSUTOUT O-Z SUMMTSS Jo e204} UO PEseq OU SEMTCS S8EN) Jo semdy (¢) “Sa; SOTOU] G4 SUMO UT SOOT; Pwed ATZETIUTS *Z EMTOO US SOMITZ Oy, UO POOwE S| PU MGETY UT] sepssed seqegs 4uSte-L3403 ouy JO UOT IUTRdEd [e303 OUR GO wOSced Eg*z BUY) SUBEZ g GENTOO Uy eUNGETY 4eEze 2"Z. Gy | 4) *ensuep oy, JO uwerng ‘moT3NTRdOg jo # SUOD TRAEPeg BIMOEZMOZ ON} BO Pere] O27 gg SUMTOS TT eEeG (F) es°60 8°06 29° ot*ee 96°T2 ze*st at*o ut*o Lt°o sto * Pm teo*es c69° 2 oc*or 200° 961 Sayaka o2°66 £4" L6 Te* 26 gt°te zee’ az*ot oz az ev? os*2 —y97" Ooze te2"ec9 ez ez Lo0*2es*2 ayeuoos TA Te" Ut Terri ou*eTt 66° 66°92 to*6t gs°T 9S°T es*t *t 4 oo*zts 060° 06¢ act’ ouz Tou*e99"T TrUpIzt A 220m 4s°90 40°99 ot°29 era 68°02 sg°ot at°t zt ater 62°T he 222° 69¢ ove’ ce? e99° 441 tz9* 998*T 2239u suece oe*cTt se*att TUSTl ou" oe 6c° Lz @0°6T os*z os*2 os*2z 612 ewer eze aer* aro gTS* OPP ast’ 6on*e erasat oss 29°06 69°66 15°82 “62 so*st te*0 Teo or*o se*o ap 906°TOT tev’ se eg6*ze oze* zor ROMO A te*2tt sgrett 6° dTT eer ts*zz @2°6T wo e*o 6r*0 soo 90° 6CT vt*2z ouc* oe 960° 6% wean Te°stt avert Ta*ott 90°98 ba*az ete et’s ets go"s evr ove"seo"t 906*v62"°T ez9°dGe eez*co9*s eure, ee*stt oorett 6T* STI oe*9e os 92°61 as"2 as*z 2 zz*2 jores.*6¥0 Qt0*0Ss s9z* ose ee’ sce*z oss cune: Ts*90T "POT 0901 ot*se 2vse ea" at "0 wo "0 09°0 O84 OT? age 962° TST 229° 21 uve" #9 wtoMeC WnoG ve" oat 2g" uz) T9* 621 ez*on 96°08 ao°tz so*z 90°2 wre oert ow’ uu 29n* Tze ize" 998 veu*cos"t (PBpTareo wanog T6*06 69°68 62°60 Fee zertz 26° 9T 2s°0 zo 1s*0 Ce) wore zt coe* tet ozz*06 160" 909 Parts? opoml on" U6 96°96 99°86 usr es*e2 os*ot wre T1"e ete ez"0 Tee’ seo"? Ove*zg0°? 6e9* ere" ato*oze"s eyaeatfeaues arse £.°98 92°49 2S" 42 go°tz 6s°9T so $9°0 $9°0 "0 SOCNCT tame et6* vor caz*oTt 6oc*eee wadei9 G2°6Tt z9°gtt 8°02 tree 62° 82 9t*0z ore tez wz c6°t GLE" OSL med 968°C9C 196°08 cez*ezo*2 wROVETAO 69°18 90°48 os*L2 acraz etrtz e°oT Te*» te*s Te"? uer 040" 9eg*T ete*9tz*t oc.*swe ver*esu’s oruD To*stt 6y°stt 9s°6Tt e0°9r eo"ee 66°61 t*0 z*0 £2°0 19°90 —- ove tet zos*6zt 218" 99 e1omeC WOR wrezt 2e°z at 00° G2 cu°ec se°6s 06°08 oo*s z0°s vores ere wet 6oT* eon vue ves eet*egc*2 PUTTareD Tsoy ov°98 va"s9 99°96 3° te*oz 6y" ot ss*9 ws"e so"8 S406 ves" ote*s wu wr'2 96°909°T szz* cee" ot 540; 00K Te°2tt oveztt 64°STt oe ez*uz °6T Le) €e°0 oro *e°0 ‘J cre’ ot ote’ 86 4ic*69 oor ose OOTzer roy Te*ts TS*t6 90°86 os*92 T2*ez Te*st Guz us*2 oe*2 0o°s 428° 906~ £64°0048 692" 269 oos*est*e fesse non eros sz°ce ez°se gto 69°02 Sz°oT oe"0 9°0 "0 zo 6et' ozt us9° ts set'eo seo'ere estyedumy 107 e0°R, ov"be Gt*he oz°ts 20°eT 06°z% $0°0 90°0 90"0 is 40°O PH ese*at 696°CT one's son ce epee 6S° Tot Tr*00t 96°00 eo*tr were e9°9T Sz°t se*t wT e2*t ter*etws™ we cte coe*etz zes* 962" wqeesceg oe" es as" ores gt*6c le°r2 6z°9T sro oro ts"0 zs°0 ee 106" 6ST eco" eet Gove 698° @%S oa a on" as 00°36 06*t6 99°0r serez se*st et*e etre wre ez*e ets*evo*t | pe t6e 069 6e9 geo" r0¥*s + 62° 92T Tto*set e.ezt 99°60 reror cortz st*t Card we ou*T 906°604 ~~] eve*ere 065° 9ue eto" O62"T Mette) e2°66 ors 29°96 et°te v9"ez wH Szzz ere 6t°2 “se*2? emer e "Teer 9 tus" cee Get" ac’? noemtT) 4 44°68 st*69 an°06 gt" et °T2 Ttr°st ere ete st°e ore one" 220" oon" e6e zav*ves zte*eor"s a8 UOTE 2°98 29°se yr98 tr°az 64°02 sort ots ot" ate osre eon" H10°T wee 008 vor uss ose zo0%e Sr 2,0enUOwSSTR 00° 96 £2°96 ores oto we*2z ost ze te*t et ee*t jeanne re"* te eet‘ ore Teo" ere’ t part Lin e5°06 00° 2°90 oF'es ort oe* eT 29° 99°0 $e*0 e4"0 eet’s ote’? T ten" ett vto* eon our 06* Tt avr att ee" att oe" uF 19"62 te*6t core s0°% D2 tt oze*tue yee*nt> ors 998 60c*e6c"T waeyeynoq S6°OTt £4" 501 es°Ort oe" te ve"98 ovat oor 2 vere oz —ti6* ove zu cro Tes" oro*ote*s Sone 9e*00T 0°56 91°66 verte Tt*ez es*9T oa*t 69°T wrt eo" 092° 699 eoc* oz oee*csz asz*69u*t sosuey 96°96 Tr°96 ot°e6 J°08 we cz us* ot 6t°2 ute etrz er*z weu*cerrrnn"™) «osc 889 coz*vue Tz0* 909" mor ores 26°16 St*ts es*6z te*zz vert 2 es? "2 euz 290° 99 ore* os? uso osc*ors*2 meray vers 68°06 as°te to*sc 90°22 Te*st os o9"°s vores st"9 zoy*eoe*t tes" orp*t ore’ 766 osz*ser's SsOUITIT 06*sot 46°90T 4680 zoe zerce zest evo ro evo two ~ 29 ert 990° TTT ons*en o9e*ten ouwrt |, 09*zzt oo* Tet 9o°Szt oo 99°52 99°02 us*e ore ores sarz stt’t 996°S¢8 $9z* 969 zee*cee*s UPwep 66°90T os" 90 68° 40T 9o°es oe*cz voret e6"0 66°0 66°0 26°0 way ove’ ere veo" Put 049° 896 wrrsets Tz°06 0°98 92°98 ore as*tz verot 6t°o 616 6t*o =Tz°0 - etr'es aad ceo*ss sootezz exenetog 69°98 "08 as°0s 9" ut wri Tr*st st°t at 6t't tert 4 ‘cor ose*o6t zv9* 902 tes*oer’t ses y300mROD st*¥6 te"e6 on°%6 9°62 sez oe*et wo wero 9°0 6e"0 ors ak? ae 66° etz oon’ ort 629° 506 overetoD oerce zerve verse v9°sz 9t°et e9°zt ove oe we ore “sito ote*ez9 wr rer tee" ore eTusostTeD as*7at Ts*tat corer sree 662 vs*02 yore vores 208 oot wos st9* 919 ase" eer vor*7se°T evvuwasy Te*96 O° 16 st" Tot scr or veree te*9t ts*o te"0 z*0 no p= 69" Tot 66°94 ver'oc zor’ ver euortay v6°c8Tt 6y°ezt zo°92t ee°er “rez w*tz uz eur2 te" ez"z Lt6* zt 608" rn Tou" 69 vet’ one’2 wwrarty —— wort oroor Ca) SI A ek TE57 ak a EL a kL res SORT PORTE | ot Lid et bad bid er eee Oe a i wes ea, As 22 gt % ot sud st 9 see nt oi ae Ss =? 22 at os et | eatentony eayento zz st % Ot oasas qove eress ee = f(g) Sues 2 = At OF OT {P) (Sotsetndod tws0s 30 @Pesuected uo sntd ¢t 03 9 wane e189 e@e enti Uy eapent hai Tuy wre at we entra eayentouy Zt eeTerT ort ct t*) peseg peot TeuoTyeonpe eTenbe got) *ednosd fT 03 9 ee it 9 ante St % 9 sate wysetmod gt % 9 sate 01 9 ate 9 ent BoysetTadod @e yue2035}p uy punoy aoyseTmiad jo aie : (>) soe woysetadod aopseTaod wopsetad od T3209 50 Bora etndog wotseradog woraeTadeg Tea0n seme <7aeosed BO Pere PROT TeUOTIeONPe Zo se pm! Goysetndal Te30a 39 @eyueoseg 30 m0 204 30 ques 202 30 3u90 207 yum 202 peo’ y Teuoneonpy jO Soinseoy se $3383§ 94} jo uoyeindog oy} jo SU0T}I9§ snoleA—sg 2qeL < oT Se ———— CHART VIII PERCENTAGE 9% POPULATION AGED SIX « THIRTEEN BY STATES 1920 UNITED ].g 79% ee eS FE eee. | STATES | °° ° ELL LLL | S.Car. 21.67% | Ala. 21.07% Miss. 21.03% N.Car. 20.90% Ga. 20.66% Ack. 20.54% Okla. 2016% N. Dak. 19.99% La. 19.T1% N. Mex. 19.36% Tenn. 1926% Utah 19 22% Texas 19.18% Va. 19.08% W.Va. 19.01% Ky. 1848% Idaho 18.22% Fla. 18.047 S.Dak 1%.73% Ariz. 16.91% Nebr. 16887 Kans. 16.58% Pa. 1650% Mont. 16.29% Wis. 16.27% Minn. 1616% Mo. 16.85% Wyo. 16.82% Colo. 15.80% N.J. 15.61 2 Me. 15.80% Iowa 15.57 % IlL. 15.31% Ind. 15.24% Conn. 15.11% Mich. 15.11% Ut. 15.03 % R.1. 14.93 % Dela. 14842 Me. 14.80 % Ohio 468% Ore. 459% Wash. MST? NW. 14.492 Mass. 14.47% N.H. 4O57 Nev. 12.90% Cali 12.68% esearch 4 Read chart thus: In South Carolina 21.67 _ of” the population is aged, | Six to thirteen inclusive; similarly read data tor other states [25] 26 ABILITY TG SupPORT EDUCATION six to thirteen had been as large in California to $7,727,678. ‘Table 9 gives data as as in South Carolina, and if California had effect upon the cost of education in the expended the same amount for the education of assuming varying percentages of chil - of each child as it did for those it actually the population, and expenditures pe had, California’s school bill would have been equivalent to those actually made in not $93,534,315 but $158,532,737. Similarly Total population, therefore, was 1 , New York would have spent not $183,- as a measure of the educational load 421,841 but $273,763,942. Or if instead of borne. But why select the age group taking the ratio of children six to thirteen in thirteen? It might be argued that South Carolina as a reference point, we take seventeen would be better since it would the average ratio of the country as a whole, the secondary as well as the elementary California’s school bill would have been in- ages, and the high school is more and creased in 1922 from $93,534,315 to $123,- coming to be an accepted part of all stat: 331,112 and New York’s from $183,421,841 cational systems. One might go still { to $211,656,867. and give double weight to those aged fo On the other hand, if South Carolina had _ to seventeen, since high school educatio: had as small a percentage of children as Cali- erally involves an expenditure per pu; fornia its school bill, assuming equivalent proximately double that expended fo: provision per child, would have been not mentary education.’ ey $9,567,519 but $5,595,040, while Alabama’s The indices of columns 13 to 15 of 1] Ronee ) would have been reduced from $12,827,945 8 show, however, that the distribution of se ' Swift, Fletcher Harper. A Biennial Survey of Public School Finance in the United States, 1920-1922 pee 1923, No. 47, issued by the U. S. Bureau of Education, 1923, p. 5. M ssa FIGURE I wed ——, Missia Misso PERCENTAGE 9 TOTAL POPULATION AGED 6 7013 INCLUSIVE BY STATES Mont , it R d New J New \ ss " New 1 é : be 3 119.99 a ; . 3) \ 4 ' North ag x j North . ; : hio te Vd //p >. Iklah q lg : rego! : VL) Penns} : ss NSS N38 woe < South 4 : rennet: \ u \ LY! fe tS ay “a : cs V ie , . JMU ICR Utah. %. 19 3 le Ww ashi 247) Wino Wy - ft Ome?1 1) 20.7) EN ‘, .. Gaya aa pen LEGEND: Wy tar A oye [_] Less THAN 14.99% 60 = FRom 15% T016.49% Zs Ay T2. GB From 16% % 70 19% ZG Re . val ME Over 19.1% —— &* obtain head chart thus; In California 12.7 per Gent of the population is comrised within the ages six to chirteens in Sout: Carolina 21.7 per cent of the ulation is aged eix to thirteen inclusive, Similarly read the ficures for the other states. In the United States as « whole, 16.72 per cent of tho pation is inoluded in the ages siz to thi rid ihe EFFECT ON SCHOOL COSTS OF VARIATIONS IN PERCENTAGE OF STATI POPULATIONS AGED 6 TO 13. Hypothetical cost of public elementar a Se : ondary schools in 1922 if percentag f i] Index of relat onshif Actual cost of tion, aged 6 to 13 had been the sa is tha 3, 4, and 5 to colun public elemen- found in 2 equals 1.00 States tary and sec- ondary schools in 1922 Column 3 | Column 4 ({ South Carolina California Uni States to to column 2 column 2 j / United States $1 ,574,948,776 $2,045,388,021 $1,193,143,012 $1,574,948,77¢ 1.30 76 1.00 Alabama 12,827,945 13,224 , 68¢ 727 ,678 I 1.03 i hone 7,065,189 9,057.9 312,172 6,98 1.28 Arkansas 8,828,859 9,29 6 149,91 . 1.08 é California 93,534,315 8,53 7 13, 534,31 1.69 ( ( rado 19, 366,016 ( 8. 7R9 192 8] , - Connecticut 21,341,789 0,488,270 134 ( 1.4 { elaware 2,465,708 3.626.041 17.44 17 fe Florida 9,768,506 769 , 284 6,879 ( { 1.20 ( ria 13,505,702 4,216,528 8,28 07 l ) ( Idaho 9,556 , 267 11,376 ~ 6.636.297 , ) ; Illinois 103,201,265 14 353,894 N 10.30 Q 1 4] Re Indiana 63,358,907 oe 12,724 19 ORO ( 1.43 lowa 49,514,571 68,770,238 + 10 S64 1 Q . Kansas 34,319,377 14 70,619 ¢ 7 Qs ( 1.30 Kentucky 14,149,189 16,646, 1 », 691,225 ) 1.18 ‘ Louisiana 18,079,754 10,614, 5465 13 0 i 1.10 6 Maine 12,156,307 7,065,204 v a. 1.47 Maryland 14,719, 27: 20 443,435 1,966, 889 15,776,284 1.39 Massachusetts 57 , 332,711 85,57 10 291, 852 6 1.49 x f Michigan 72,739,880 103,91 14 61,125,950 80,49] Sl f 1.43 S4 Minnesota 52,210,972 69,614,629 $1,111,002 54,020,664 1.33 79 Mississippi 9,390,413 9,680,838 », 656,875 7,4¢ 744 \ 1.03 60 ~ Missouri 40,986 ,065 56,145,295 32 788. R52 43 44.946 | 1.37 RO) Montana. . 13,976,623 18,635,497 10,919,237 14,34 07 «| 1.33 78 Nebraska 30 , 687 ,770 39,343,205 073,511 30,39 160 1.28 ; Nevada 1,673,249 2,788,748 1,640,440 2,168, 82¢ 1.67 98 ] ) New Hampshire 1,883 ,2 7,398,853 4,360,038 79Q 488 1.52 8 1.17 New Jersey 88.842. 261 52.005, 226 68 RN 1.39 81 1.07 New Mexico 5,800,757 }, 374,297 1,458, ¢ i 1.12 f RE New York 73 , 763,942 160 , 896 , 352 211,656,867 | 1.49 838 I North Carolina 22,999, 149 13,381,323 17 , 6 4 1.04 61 ( North Dakota 16,761,932 9.760.112 12,898,107 1.09 6 j Ohio és 171,424,991 100,490,512 132,766,508 1.47 Sf { Oklahoma 32,773,502 19,169,407 25,279,387 1.08 f ‘ Oregon 20,343,258 11,852,159 15,619,967 1.49 87 Pennsylvania 144,036,941 84,206,212 110,932,38 1.32 77 { Rhode Island 10,341,614 6,047,215 7,991,616 | 1.45 85 South Carolina 9,567,519 5,595,040 7,381,7 1.00 s r South Dakota 18,965,978 11,108,644 14, 666 1.22 71 04 Tennessee 17 ,029 ,039 9,970,951 13,157,258 1.12 66 S Texas 52,452,075 58,934,916 34,736,474 15,7 800 1.12 66 Ss Utah 9,959,777 11,190,761 6,552,485 8, 664,44 1.12 66 87 Vermont 4,129,358 5,984,577 3,470,049 4,593,701 1.45 4 l Virginia 21,212,606 24,105,234 14,141,737 18,589,61 1.14 67 Washington 29 ,633 ,324 44,228,842 25,768,108 34 ,006 , 569 1.49 87 West Virginia 18,616,312 21,154,900 12,410,875 16,373, 186 1.14 67 Wisconsin 40,146,691 53,528,921 31,364,602 41,256,491 l , i8 ] Wyoming 5,067, 272 6,941,468 4.053.818 302 l 7 RO) 1 ( Read table thus: Alabama expended $12,827,945 (col. 2) for public elementary and secondar chools 1922. If the percentage of the population aged 6 to 13 had been the same in Alabama as South Carolina, and if eacl d had cost as much to educate as was expended in 1922, the cost would have been $13,224,686 (col. 3), or 103 percent Yi of what was expended; if the percentage of population aged 6 to 13 had been the same in Alabama as in Califort the cost would have been $7,727,678 (col. 4) or 60 percent (« 7) of what was expended; if the percentage of populat aged 6 to 13 had been the same in Alabama as in the United States as a whole tl would have been $10,179,293 (« 5) o7 79 percent (col. 8) of what was expended Sources of data: Column 2 from table D, column 6, page 76. Colum: 1 by dividing the figures ir 1 of table 8 by the figure for South Carolina and dividing col. 2 of Table 9 by the ts Column 4 is obtained by d ling the figures in col. 10 of Table 8 by the figures for California and dividing « Table 9 by the results. Colur obtained by dividing the figures in col. 2 of Table 9 by the figures in col. 13 of 8. Column 6 is obtained by d f figures in col. 3 by those in col. 2 Column 7 is obtained by dividing the f t by those in « ( cbtained by dividing the figures in col r 9° 5 by those in cx ewe es 28 ABILITy TO SupporT EpucaATION total educational burden among the states is practically the same whether six to thirteen, six to seventeen, or six to seventeen with those fourteen to seventeen given double weight, is used as the basis of calculation. Children Aged Six to Thirteen as a Meas- ure of Educational Obligation The number of children six to thirteen years of age was, therefore, selected as a basis for determining the relative size of the educa- tional obligations of the states. It gives prac- tically the same result as other measures of school population, and in addition refers to an age period which it is generally accepted should be spent in school. The use of the number of children as a measure of the educational burden of a state has certain practical advantages. It is ap- proved by tradition and ‘is also readily com- prehended by those lacking technical training. It is clearly recognized, however, that the use of the crude number of children in a com- munity as a measure of its educational load wiil probably soon give way to more scientific measures. Investigations already completed 1See Chapter V for citations to these investigations. or now under way indicate that the vari of the states in other factors, such as cd: of population, will have to be considered fore a completely scientific measure of the cational burden of a community can be n The admittedly crude measure of ed tional load proposed in this chapter is acce; for two reasons. First, data are not avai! as yet, so that such factors as density of p: lation can be properly weighted in arri at more scientific measures of the educati: loads of the states. Were such data availa an additional investigation of considera magnitude would be necessary in order evaluate them properly. Second, the mo: scientific measures of educational burde: which will be developed in the future, wil probably accept as starting points such meas ures as the number of children in the popula tion. Therefore, a more adequate presentation of facts as to the number of children in the vari ous states, along with the data of Chapter | as to the economic resources of the states should be of value to those who in the future will study the comparative ability of the states to support education. the a\ tenth Ip | six to measu states. ability necess resour Com} Tal variou power thirtee gested of the suppor of uni of edu The reveal a state what : The cl the ra Table Cha to the eight s Nevad aged . presente: ents ol n analy: st fre Same CHAPTER III The Relative Ability of the States to Support Education In Chapter I the following measures of the economic power of the states were suggested: 1. Value of tangible wealth 2. Average annual total income 3. Average annual current income 4. Index of economic resources, made up of the average annual total income plus one-tenth the value of wealth 5. Index of economic resources, made up of the average annual current income plus one- tenth the value of wealth In Chapter II the number of children aged six to thirteen inclusive was suggested as a measure of the educational obligation of the states. To arrive at estimates of the relative ability of the states to support education it is necessary to compare each state’s economic resources with its educational obligations. Comparative Ability to Support Schools Table 10 gives the result of dividing the measures of each power by its number of children aged six to thirteen. ‘The figures of this table are sug- gested as indications of the comparative ability of the states to support schools. Ability to support schools is thus defined as the number various state’s economic of units of economic power behind each unit of educational work to be performed. The figures in column 7 to 11 of Table 10 reveal considerable agreement in the ranks of a state in ability to support schools, no matter what measure of its economic power is used. The coefficients of correlation calculated from the ranks of columns 7 to 11 are given in Table 11.2 Chart IX presents data in graphic form as to the wealth per child for each of the forty- eight states. The extremes are represented by Nevada, with $45,664 of wealth per child $5,777 of wealth per child, or a ratio of ap proximately eight to one. Chart X pares the twelve states that have the most com- wealth per child with the twelve states with the least wealth per child. These charts are one indication of the comparative ability of the states to support schools. Chart XI as to the average annual current income of presents data in graphic form the states per child. ‘The extremes are repre- sented by California, with $7,693 per child aged six to thirteen, and Mississippi, with $1,317 child, or a ratio of mately six to one. ‘This chart offers indication of the comparative ability of the per approxi- anot her state to support schools. Chart XII graphically third measure of the relative ability of the states presents a to support education, that derived from the index of economic resources—average annual current income plus one-tenth the value of wealth. ‘The extremes according to this index are Nevada, with $11,576 of economic power per child, and Mississippi, with $1,895 of eco- nomic power per child, or a ratio of approxi- mately six to one. The data of Table 10 are rearranged and Column 2 further interpreted in Table 12. of this table that California $33,785 of wealth per child aged six to thir- indicates has teen as compared with $17,618 in the United $17 618 is given the value 1.00 and each state’s wealth States. In column 7 this figure per child is expressed as a ratio of this figure. For example, California has $33,785 of wealth per child which is 1.92 times as much wealth per child as is found on the average in the United States. $5,777 of wealth per child, has one-third, or Similarly, Mississippi, with aged six to thirteen, and Mississippi with .33 times, as much wealth per child as is ‘It was believed that the various correlation formule were of less va! 1 indicating the significance of the data presented in this study, than the techniques that have been used. Therefore, although some data to the coefh cients of correlation between some of the variables are presented, they deserve less consideration tl ‘ value in analyzing data of a different type often justifies. The rank method of « lating the coefficients of ition is st frequently used because of its simplicity and because a tryout of sever cases showed that it g ibstantially he same result as the product moment. [29] 30 ABILity TO Support EpucaTIon ; ; . . . | found in the country as a whole. Using the column 7, by .63 the corresponding s | y . / M4 % figures of column 7 one may compare the after New Mexico. i . ° . , 9 - } number of units of wealth per child in each In columns 7 to 11 of Table 12, da state with the number found in the United ae for each state as yf m5 = ol oO nomic power per child indica by the i States as a whole. Also, any state may be ee PORES per ¢ | _— ted ; , : various measures of economic ability. “These ' conveniently compared with any other state. ; N York. { les 22 @1 may readily be compared. For example, ( : - Im . . “1 3 — eee, oe times aS fornia has 1.92 times as much ability to much wealth per child as New Mexico—ob- é ; | c P ? port schools as the country as a whole if the tained by dividing 1.39, after New York in value of tangible wealth is accepted ; | : TABLE 10.—RELATIVE ECONOMIC ABILITY OF THE STATES TO SUPPORT EDUCATION : mE a 7 H Averace Average Inaex of Index of Rank Rank Rank Rank ; { Wealth annual annual @conomic economic based based on | based on based on} > per child total income current resources resources on total current index of ez of j pvates ages 6 to 15 per child income (average (averuge wealth income income economic} ecop ! ! inolusive (a)/ ages 6 to 13 per child | total income | current iucbme| per child] per child| per child Semis en i f \ inedusive (b)} ages 6 to 13] plus 1/10 plus 1/10 (Col. 2) | (Col. 3) | (Col. 4) | per child! per ; i inclusive (oc) wealth) of wealth) (col. y (Col. . child (a) r child (e) _ 4 2 . 4 5 6 « 7 8 9 es TT aledam 5,889.35 1,544.54 1,462.39 2,233.28 2 mm 4? “6 47 4? | 47 arizona 21,600 »35 4,734.52 4,057.23 6,894.56 ecnnt ce 17 19 19 16 i ' arkansas 7,190.55 1,569.54 1,568.43 2,266.60 2,287.48 “ 45 45 45 ae California 33,785.38 8,868.69 7,693.07 12,247.23 11,071.60 2 i 2 - ‘ Colorado 21,059.30 4,978.74 4,409.94 7,064.66 6,595.87 21 13 1? 15 15 Comnect tout 25,315.37 5,526.84 5,113.59 6,058.36 7,645.13 6 10 9 ° Delaware 18,655.49 4,921.54 4,673.48 6,787.09 6,539.04 26 16 13 18 1 Florida 15,917.12 2,751.12 2,374.45 4,142.63 3,766.16 ™s 35 37 36 36 Georgia 6,464.51 1,629.72 1,649.68 2,266.16 2,296.13 “6 “ 44 44 . Idaho 17,630.48 3,812.61 3,206.92 5,575.86 4,969.97 29 268 30 2 , IM tnots 22,332.08 5,704.13 5,259.17 7,937.34 7,486.37 13 9 7 10 - Indiana 29,757.39 3,967.87 5,759.49 5,942.22 5,742.80 24 24 22 27 a Jowa 28,046 .06 3,026.64 3,564.34 6,631.25 6,368.97 4 26 26 20 6 Kanses 21,249.64 5,054,2% 7,473.49 5,989.19 5,596.45 20 2s 268 25 a r Kentucky 7,964.43 2,074,123 2,114,866 2,870.56 2,911.32 43 41 41 41 ae j ; Louis jana 9,572.88 2,306.79 2,149.93 3,263.98 3,107.12 40 40 40 40 40 ; Maine 17,582.00 4,445.56 4,050.16 6,203.76 5,808.37 20 20 20 24 -” Maryland 17,407.70 4,900.73 4,536.42 6,641.50 6,277.29 2 17 16 19 19 Massachusetts 23,102.38 6,637 .00 6,085.60 8,947.24 6,395.83 12 3 “4 4 7 Michigan 20,527.73 .- 5,103.90 4,663.90 7,156.67 6,716.67 2am, Ue 4 13 — 4 Minnesota 22,129.42 4,221.24 3,510.80 6,423.16 5,722.62 4 22 ° = | rr : Mississippi 5,776.92 1,331.57 1,316.96 | 1,909.26 1,094.63 4e 48 48 -— i) « q our i 18,480.80 3,800.08 3,598.10 5,648.10 5,446.17 27 29 25 2 | 4 { hontans 23,254.07 3,128.73 3,789.82 5,454.14 6,085.23 pe n 23 = | 4 Webraska 24,233.92 3,825.77 3,234.75 6,230.16 5,568.14 3 27 29 3 Kevada 45 664.40 6,526.29 7,009.22 11,092.73 11,575.66 2 . L 2 . Mew liampshire | 21,415.78 4,976.93 4,566.43 7,116.32 6,707.82 18 4 15 16 14 Kew Jersey 25,851.63 5,709.56, 5,882.60 6,092.72 7,515.56 2» 8 8 be — New kexico 21,203.67 2,877.62 2,385.69 3,587.97 3,496.05 36 cd %6 38 ao New York 24,499.66 7,462.63 6,804.63 9,912.62 9,254.62 8 2 : 5 . North Csrclina} 8,449.11 1,796.42 1,694.36 2,641.32 2,599.27 42 43 43 45 = j Worth Dakota 19,053.48 2,515.21 2,238.50 4,420.56 4,143.65 25 m” 38 Sd . Onto 21,824.93 5,019.77 4,696.82 7,202.27 6,879.51 16 12 2 ll a : Oklahoma 9,747.48 2,728.64 2,440.75 3,703.38 3,415.49 ) % 36 sd : Oregon 28,062.47 5,742.39 4,955.16 6,548.63 7,761.40 3 ? il 5 Peunsylvania 19,961.66 4,952.72 4,416.29 6,848.91 6,412.48 23 18 18 17 - Whode Island 21,260.23 “6,009.32 5,885.78 8,215.34 7,711.80 19 5 5 ’ South Carolina | 6,520.23 1,496.75 1,532.38 2,149.57 2,185.20 48 4? 46 46 “ ‘ South Dakota 25,777.32 3,726.08 2,952.07 $,303.81 5,5°9,80 5 30 mn 22 27 Tennessee 9,367.68 1,930.75 1,044.70 2,067.50 2,701.46 41 42 ar “2 . Pexas 10,958.30 3,047 ,28 2,715.95 4,143.12 3,822.78 7 33 33 35 = Uten 16,875.49 3,108 66 2,066.71 4,796.11 4,554.27 se 32 5st bad ms z Vermon: 15,855.79 4,239.96 3,023.21 5,825.54 5,398.79 ™ an 21 on : i Virginia 10,011.49 2,331.03 2,154,08 3,412,168 3,235.22 3 39 39 ” ; : Washington 25,194.47 5,011.86 5,106.12 8,330.30 7,626.57 7 8 10 s 7 ; West Virginia | 16,710.96 2,863.54 2,622.53 | 4,534.63 4,293.62 38 “ Mu 38 - 4 Wisconsin 18,354.37 4,111.20 3,672.90 5,946.63 5,508.33 28 23 24 26 se } Wyoming 22,099.27 4,970.96 5,491.04 7,180.88 7,700.96 1s 15 6 12 4 z . } (a) Wealth per child dqes 6 to 13 inclusive Je obtained by dividing wealth ss givon in Table 5, colwm 3, by number of children as given in } o See a veer | annu 0 % ve fivenin po ely Fa P aad ohild ot 13 is obtained by dividing total 1 ae given in cclwm 2 of Table 5 by of childre verage aruaal current income neome Wer Of children given ia pal poy he Mag is obtained by dividing average current i as given 15 colim 12 of Table 5 by nun- y (a) — figure is obtained by dividing the figures of colum 8 of Table 5 by mumber of children given in column 3 of Table %. (e) is Cigure is obtained by dividing the figures of colum 17 of Table 5 by number of children given im colum 3 of Table 8. CT RR i FI 0 ne stv a Mle ats Nia gS a a aM nt ae ey Ree Sie! oa es Diane CHART IX — Nevada California Oregon Iowa South Dakota Connectiout WVastington New York Nebraska New Jerse 'y Montana Massachusetts IUunoc Minnesota yom is Ohio Artvwona New Nampshire Rhode Island Kansas Colorado fichigtur Pennsyi retetvet Induana North Dakota Delaware Mcssourt Wisconsur idaho Maine Maryland Utah West Diggin, Vermont Florida New Mexico Texas Uingina Oklahoma Cowsiana = lermessee a North Carolina Kontue key Arkansas South Carolina Geongia CGlabama, Mississipp¢ Pio oSd J BAA La Stead rrr bineee wie Bernt. worm vACT ES anys Biko mirers Bvt won me Pelee! Petey se PISter) = wens B(l-Fe = Ne S-Xiae@ =P [eae mre me mere bhi dhl LS J mr ee tats SSCA rere =-rcre Sewiee «rye ae es was warse acer CEise) ereE Brees WEALTH PER CHILD 5x STATES [31] CHART X COMPARISON OF WEALTH Per CHILD AGED 6 13 OF TWELVE RICH AND TWELVE Poor, States UNITED STATESE:: BIZ GIO} ey Nevada ae Sod Texas WO SER ifornia, Keivic's Virginia, WIG BTTANS 265 Cd Oklahoma. RSIS lowa. 22.5 O46) Louisiana, NEERING South Dekote, BIZ577 Tennessee KW SZ Connecticut, Wisk jis) North Carolina, KEATS Washi [os 144 Keni WN ZOSANS New York, O25s00) Arkansas WT _ZIOIN Nebraska. UZ? SouthCarolinaNNG 324) Nev Jersey V>CI-%Y, Georgia. Nodes) Montana, VAPolz2 Alabama, Noetzisie: Massachusetts FEIZZIOZ . Missi ippi StoNaran MB Twelve Rich States Twelve Poor States UT GREATEST WeaLry Pex PME OO ~ - iy \J Fn eer ee sores KY SATIN Research Dicision CHILD MNatkioaal €iwaation AES Read chart thus: Nevada, one of the 12 states with the t wealth per child: has $45.6 Ay wealth per child aged 6@tol3. Texas one oP the 12 states with the least, wealth per child. haé $10,958 of tangible wealth pe? child. aged 6tol3. Similarly read. data fe Ll other pairs of sta! [32] CHART XI | AVERAGE ANNUAL CURRENT INCOME == CHILD ® STATES ; | California ross . Nevada ares New York Sa ‘ Massachusetts meres ; Rhode Istand mn ; Wyong’: eee : IUinois - Swlrr New Fersey entre ia Connectiout nice | 3 Washuigton Cee Oregon rane i Ohio - wre Ceclawarce aries Michigan \4 ace ; New Hampetice eRe ; Maryland ae we Colorado Cte) i Fennsywvania stm ; Arizona reve 4 Maine Coss 4 Cermont KAS ; Indiana Ce Montana Cr j Wisconsin mR yee | Ss Missouri Cras | loner sar | : Minnesota, Cre) | Kansas oa Nebraska Cz) { Idaho ror ; South Dakota, rom j ; Utak mnt yaa | Texas oo, 5 West Viggiaca ass) : Oklahoma re New Mexico wre Florida _nKs7 @ North Dakota me! 9 Vicgiaia rer) Louisiana Es ; Kentucky Cus ;. Tennessee merc me North Carolina, “Tar Geonzia “Taro Orkansas ine South Carolina, mn Krm Qtabama were Mcssissippi hsonsean hence Diviaic ational Saucati [33] al OI ee Ce Rill CHART XII INDEX ¥ ECONOMIC RESOURCES = CHILD ty STATES Nevada California New York Massachusetts Oregon Rhode [sland Vyomuyy Conaectiout Vashiugton New Jersey [Uinois Ohio Michigan ..“? New Hampshire Colorado Delaware Fennsyluama lowa Maryland Acizona Montana Maine Indiana Kansas Nebraska South Dakota Wisconsin Missouct Vermont Idaho Utah West Uigzinia North Dakota. Texas Florida New Mexwo Oklahoma Vigguata Couisiana Kentucky Tennessee North Carolina Georgia Orckansas South Carolina QLabama Mississippi Peres | meiner’ eae | ee =~. .« amas e aaee =o )-8 =e 8 ame Lt abe | Gra 8 ae vere Ye ae | mtr enter = .sce Lee aveee =a reese acre) --2 PO | aewchs =F. 8 om. h1-t-8 ae. Aries =e) 2 roche =r 8 ar Fores =_—rrrs ares agroarce rica mcm 1 eee | =r: = ares La fl = sm Pniie == rss m_rrni-s = = =m —- se ser leh LAGOON > Aanonal Laan [34] RELATIVE ABILITY TO measure of economic power. Total indicates that California has 2.11 much ability to support schools as the rest of the nation. The corresponding figures for current income and the two indices of eco- nomic resources are: 2.00, 2.06, and 1.98— columns 9 to ‘i. In column 12 of Table the five preceding columns These averages are the basis of the rank order in which the states of the table are arranged. The values of this column are offered as an answer to the question: What is the relative ability of the states to support education pro- viding they tap their economic resources in an ideal manner ? These values are plotted on a map of the United States in Figure 2. In this map the number of units of economic power per child on the average in the nation is given the value 1.00. The comparable figure for Mississippi is .33, which means that Mississippi has one- third as much economic power per child as is found in the nation as a whole. California, on the other hand, has 2.01 times as much economic power behind each child as is found in the nation as a whole. After dividing the figure given on the map for California, 2.01, by that for Mississippi, .33, one may say that California has 6.09 times as much economic income times as 12 the values in are averaged. Support EpucaTION power per child as Mississippi Other states may be compared using the same method. Summarized Statement of Differences in Ability to Support Schools These statements as to the comparative economic ability of the states to meet based their educational obligations may be upon Table 12: If wealth is accepted as a measure of eco- nomic ability the richest state of the forty- eight is 7.9 times as able to meet its educa- tional obligations as the poorest state. If average annual total income is accepted as a measure of economic ability the richest state of the forty-eight is 6.66 times as able to the poorest state. meet its educational obligations as If average annual current income is ac- cepted as a measure of economic ability the richest state of the forty-eight is 5.84 times as able to meet its educational obligations as the poorest state. If the index of economic resources made up of a combination of wealth and fotal income is accepted as a measure of economic ability the richest state of the forty-eight is 6.42 times as able to meet its educational obligations as the poorest state. If the index of economic resources made up TABLE 11.—CORRELATIONS AMONG VARIOUS UNITS OF ECONOMIC POWER PER CHILD AGES 6-13 FOR THE 48 STATES Average total income _ Average current income Total income and 1/10 wealth _ Current income and 1/10 wealth Coefficients calculated from the ranks of columns 7 to 11 of Table 10, e rank me 1925, p New York, Fundamentals of Statistics, The Macmillan Co., Total Average income and current | 1/10 income weat h Average total income Wealth 970 . 976 981 thod: see Thurstone, I L., The 224 ee ne ee 36 ABILITy To Support EpUCATION of a combination of wealth and current in- come is accepted as a measure of economic ability the richest state of the forty-eight is 6.11 times as able to meet its educational ob- ligations as the poorest state. If one wishes to consider the states in groups, these statements may be based upon the data of Table 12: If wealth is accepted as a measure of eco- nomic ability the twelve richest states of the forty-eight, on the average, are 3.00 time able to meet their educational obligatio: the twelve poorest states. If average annual fotal income is accepte as a measure of economic ability the tw: richest states of the forty-eight, on the ave; age, are 3.41 times as able to meet their edy cational obligations as the twelve poores states. If average annual current income is ac- as d edu ve state : lt t TABLE 12.-WEALTH, INCOME AND INDEX OF ECONOMIC RESOURCES PER CHILD, AGED 6 TO 13 INCLUSIVE OF THE STATES Index of Index of Unite of Average | Average e@oonom! co economic Units of | Units of amwual | Unite of | Units of anncal annual resources resources wealth anual current] economic | economic Average States Wealth per |total in-/| current (total in- (current per total in-| income | resources/ resources Cols. 7- child (e) |come per income come plus income plus | child (b)| come per per per per f child | per child) 1/10 wealth)! 1/10 wealth)| (Col. 2) ohila child child chila per child per child (Gol. 3)| (Col, 4)/ col. 5) | (cola 6) | 1 2 8 lo ub } Waited States | CRCRERE TORTS CRT a Californis 33,765.36 | 6,868.69 | 7,695.06] 12,267.23 11,071.60 1.92 2.1 2.00 2.06 1.98 201 Nevada 46,664.40 | 6,526.28 | 7,009.21| 11,092.73 | 11,576.66 2.59 1.56 1.83 1.86 207 1.98 Sew York 24,499.88 | 7,462.65 | 6,804.63) 9,912.62 9,254.62 1.39 1.78 1.77 1.66 1.65 1.66 Massschusetts | 23,102.38 | 6,637.00 | 6,005.60] 6,947.26 | 6,395.85 | 1.31 1.58 ame | 1-80 4 ae Oregon 26,062.47 | 5,742.38 | 4,958.16) 6,548.63 7,761.40 1.59 1.37 1.29 1A 1-8 ae Washington 25,184.47 | 6,611.65 | 6,106.12) 6,330.30 1.43 1.99 1.33 240 1.36 +" Rhode Island 21,260.23 | 6,069 5,586.76; 6,215.34 7,711.80 1.21 1.45 146 1.38 1.38 end Connect icut 25,326.57 | 6,626.04 | 5,113.59} 8,058.36 7,645.13 1.44 1.32 1.38 1.38 1.36 . ew Jersey 23,051.63 | 6,709.55 | 6,132.39] 6,092.71 7,515.56 1.35 1.36 1.34 1.36 1.34 we Illinois 22,332.06 |"6,704.13 | 5,255.17] 7,937.34 7,486.37 1.27 1.36 1.37 2608 1.56 ae ing 22,099.27 | 4,970.96 | 5,491.04) 7,180.86 7,700.96 1.28 1.19 1.43 1.21 1.37 - Ohio 21,024.95 | 5,019.77 | 4,696.62/ 7,202.27 6,879.31 1.24 1.20 5 BE 1.22 LARS 1-22 First Quartile | 24,329.96 | 6,429.40 | 5,083.65] 6,062.40 | 8,206.05 1.38 1.53 1 a8 1.40 —_ Michigan 20,527.73 | 5,103.90 | 4,663.90] 7,156.67 6,716.67 1.1? 1.22 1.21 1.20 1.20 1.20 New Hampehire 21,413.78 | 4,976.93 | 4,566.43) 7,116.32 6,707.62 1.22 1.19 1.19 1.20 1.30 1.20 Colorado 21,059.30 | 4,978.73 | 4,489.94) 7,084.66 6,595.87 1.20 1.19 1.17 1.19 1.18 1,19 Delaware 16,665.49 | 4,921.53 | 4.673.48| 6,787.09 6,539.04 1.06 1.17 1.22 1.14 1.17 1,15 Pennsylvanis 19,961.08 | 4,852.72 | 4,414.29) 6,648.91 6.412.48 1.13’ 1.16 1.15 1.15 1.4 1.15 Arisons 21,600.35 | 4,734.52 | 4,057.23] 6,894.55 6,217.28 1.23 1.13 1.06 1.16 1.11 1.14 lowe 260,046.06 | 3,626.64 | 3,564.36} 6,631.25 6,368.97 1.59 m7 33 1.13 1.4 1.4 Maryland 17,407.70 | 4,900.75 | 4,536.42) 6,641.50 6,277.19 +99 1.17 1.18 1.12 1.12 1.12 /) Minnesota 22,119.42 | 4,211.24 | 3,510.66) 6,423.18 5,722.62 1.26 1.00 <> 1.08 1.08 1.05 Maine 17,562.00 | 4,445.56 | 4,050.16) 6,205.76 5,806.37 1.0 1.06 106 1.04 1.0 1.06 Nebrasca 24,233.92 | 5,615.77 | 3,234.74] 6,239.16 5,568.14 1.58 a rm 1.06 ” 1.03 South Dakota 25,777.32 | 3,726.08 | 2,952.07] 6,303.61 5,529.80 1.46 ad 77 1.06 ” 108 Second Quartile} 21,362.38 | 4,622.05 | 4,156.54] 6,758.28 6,294.78 1.81 1.10 1.08 1.3 1.12 1.13 Indiana 19,733.39 | 3,967.67 | 3,769.46] 5,941.21 5,742.80 1.12 x] 98 1.00 4.03 12 Mon tana 23,254.07 | 3,128.75 | 3,759.62) 5,454.14 6,065.23 1.32 76 2 92 1.09 1.01 Kansas 21,249.64 | 3,664.23 | 3,473.49] 5,989.19 5,598.45 1.22 92 90 101 1.00 1.01 Wisconsin 18,354.37 | 4,111.19 | 3,672.90] 6,946.63 5,508.33 1.06 8 6 1.00 98 99 Vermont 15,655.79 | 4,239.96 | 3,613.21) 5,825.54 5,396.79 290 102 9 98 296 97 Missour! 16,480.80 | 3,800.01 | 3,596.09) 5,648.10 5,446.17 1.05 91 194 96 97 +96 17,630.48 | 3,612.81 | 3,206.91] 6,575.86 4,969.97 1.00 91 B4 94 69 2 |e 16,675.49 | 3,106.66 | 2,866.71| 4,796.11 4,554.27 +96 7% 75 5) +81 61 West Virginis 36,710.93 | 2,665.54 | 2,622.53| 4,534.63 4,293.62 +95 68 68 276 “77 #7 North Daxote 19,053.48 | 2,615.21 | 2,238.60) 4,429.56 4,143.65 1.08 60 58 ™% ™ 275 Teme 10,958.30 | 3,047.28 | 2,715.95) 4,143.12 3,811.78 62 .73 nn 270 68 69 Florida 15;917.11 | 2,752.12 | 2,374.45) 4,142.83 3,766.16 79 66 62 <7 67 69 Third Quartile | 16,606.45 | 3,470.23 | 3,183.96| 5,130.86 4,644.60 -% 83 83 86 +86 6 Oklahoma 9,747.48 | 2,728.63 | 2,440.75| 3,703.38 3,415.49 55 65 64 62 fl 261 New Mexico 11,103.67 | 2,477.61 | 2,585.69| 3,587.97 3,496.05 8 59 62 “0 62 o61 Virginia 20,011.48 | 2,331.03 | 2,154.08) 3,412.18 3,235.22 6 56 86 oT 58 68 Loutstana 9,571.08 | 2,306.79 | 2,149.95| 3,263.98 3,107.12 54 55 56 ‘os 55 255 Kentucky 7,964.43 | 2,074.11 | 2,214.88] 2,870.56 2,911.32 45 a) 56 “8 2 50 9,367.68 | 1,950.73 | 1,844.70] 2,867.60 2,781.46 +58 “6 48 “8 250 9 Sorth Carolina | 6,449.11 / 3,796.41 | 1,694.36] 2,661.52 2,539.27 +48 43 8h “ 45 “5 Georgia 6,464.61 | 1,629.71 | 1,669.68) 2,265.16 2,296.13 37 a) “a ‘2 Al ao arkansas 7,190.55 | 1,569.54 | 1,568.43/ 2,268.60 2,287.48 41 37 Al se al “ South Carolina | 6,628.23 / 1,496.74 | 1,633.58| 2,149.57 2,185.20 +37 6 40 ‘ss 39 0 ry 6,009.35 | 1,544.34 | 1,468.39/ 2,133.28 2,051.32 33 37 38 3 37 6 Mississippi 6,776.92 | 1,351.57 | 1,516.94) 1,909.26 1,894.63 33 ma Boy 32 oe ad Fourth Quartile; 1,967.56) 1,864.66} 1,815.74) 2,683.60 2,612.50 +45 “8 “7 a “a? aad . (a) The data of colums 2 to 6 of this table are the same as given in Table 10, columms 2 to 6. They are rearranged in accordance with the ranking indicated by colum 12 of this table. . . (>) Im calums 7 to 11, the wealth per child in the United States is taken ee unity "1". and the figures in colum 7 are obtained by —— every figure in colum & by $17,626.56, the wealth per child in the United States: & similar procedure ®s osed in colums 6 to (eo) Colum 12 is obtained by averaging colums 7 to 11. ’ | | | } | py with iN Serene ee ewoce Ew eS Sa ae S PSCSeusehesen & sss = RELATIVE ABILITY TO cepted as a measure of economic ability the twelve richest states of the forty-eight, on the average, are 3.23 times as able to meet their educational obligations as the twelve poorest states. If the index of economic resources made up of a combination of wealth and total income is accepted as a measure of economic ability the twelve richest states of the forty-eight, on Support EDUCATION the average, are 3.30 times as able to meet their educational obligations as the twelve poorest states. If the index of economic resources made up of a combination of wealth and current in- come is accepted as a measure of economic ability the twelve richest states of the forty- eight, on the average, are 3.17 times as able to meet their educational obligations as the twelve poorest states. FIGURE II RELATIVE ABILITY of #e STATES TO Support EDUCATION LEGEND: [_] First Quaentie SECOND QUARTILE Z Treo Quarrice : MB FovetH Quarrice ~ a MATZ) Ws Vateoaal Fuca tis an to Support Epucarion =1.00 pA “ea of California to support education is 6.09 tines as great as Mississipoi. with the mation and with each other. Read @art thes; If the mmber of mits of economic power per child aged 6 to 14 in the United States as a whole is given the value 1.0, then the mumber’ wl @cenomie power behind eech child tn Kiesiseipoi ie «35; in Celifornia it is 2.01. 41 pad + ° - - (Muotient obtained by dividing 2.01 by .33). Similarly comare other states Similarly read date for other states. The ab A a I la i A A CHAPTER IV Some Accompaniments of the Differences in Ability to Support Educa- tion and the Permanency of These Differences The preceding chapters have revealed dif- ferences in the economic ability of the states to support schools. What significance, if any, does the existence of these differences have for education ? Chis chapter upon this question. if there are any educational situation in a state and the eco- present data bearing It will seek to discover will relationships between the nomic ability of that state to support schools. It will also present data bearing upon the permanency of existing differences in ability to support education. Economic Ability and Financial Support Given Education What relationship exists between the eco- nomic ability of the states to support educa- tion and the financial provision made for edu- cation? Table 13 presents data pertinent to the consideration of this question. This table gives, for 1922, four indications of the finan- cial support accorded education by each of the states. These are as follows: 1. Total amount expended per school age 2. Average annual salary of teachers 3. Non-salary costs per pupil in average daily attendance 4. Average value of school property per pupil enrolled. It is believed that these four factors taken together offer a reasonable basis for compar- ing the financial support accorded education in the different states. There seems to be a considerable agreement between the ability to support education and the support actually accorded. One might interpret these data as supporting the follow- ing conclusion of a recent investigation: child of What a state can spend for education depends upon many factors—the first and foremost is the ‘ Strayer, George D., and Haig, Robert Murray. * Morrison, Henry C. The Financing of Education The Financing of Public Schools in the State state’s economic strength and vigor, since a rich state is able to support more of everything than a poor and decadent one.’ A conclusion from a study of conditions within a single state is similar: The districts having the high valuations per unit of load pay the high salaries, spend more per pupil, give the longest school year, and employ teachers who possess the highest qualifications.’ According to the data of Table 13, the states with the larger number of units of eco- nomic power per unit of educational load pro- vide the larger amounts of educational sup- port per child of school age, pay their teachers the higher salaries, provide greater support per pupil in average daily attendance for non- salary costs, and maintain more substantial school plants per pupil enrolled. Referring to the indices of columns 10 to 13 of Table 13 made: these statements may be The twelve richest states taken as a group provide 3.4 times as much educational sup- child of (Obtained by twelve 1.41 port per school age as the poorest states. dividing by .41.) The twelve richest states pay their teachers salaries 2.4 times as high as the twelve poorest states. The twelve richest states provide for non- salary costs 3.6 times as much per pupil in average daily attendance as the twelve poorest states. The twelve richest states provide a school plant worth 3.5 times as much per pupil en- rolled as the twelve poorest states. Chart XIII summarizes the data as to the relation of ability to support schools and the accorded. Considering the support actually states in groups of twelve, there is a regular in the State of New York. p. 127. of Illinois. p. 56. [39] ° . ocea © ermitz esous (3) *oTaeL © yo 2 wm UO Posec ere seats sseuy (oe) *uoT COMPA Jo _e Tt edud ‘>t © ‘s wr Ls WALZ oLem sous segs (p) *PzEI *sequeced TYWHitay PION [OCUSS UNSTAaay OF TMUNTUONS "ZT OTGEL *@ IMTOO mot; EXE, etem a COMES COONS (0) Os . a z ) Stam Seandyz esens (q) €l soquecec “TVHFOY B (OOUOE UEOTIaRy OF LUSHOTUMNS *7] STIS ‘uT MHMIOo woIZ UsKs, Siem sesrd}) eceus (*) . Mandl oA Be ~ evading sk. Bane Bis sso. & és* | us T Ps Prat 269 zu*ze ettasent yaanog 6a" st ee° 62 “u uv Dd ba (f) « oe°9 ev ve°sT Tady sey sen tw 93° 23° 6s ” ev Pid w a go*ot 209 event Seeqrly os* + os* of tad ay ” ” “wv vere Les tot Tuy [OreO genes a ev’ ev oz” wn cad & “uv cy as ec. et’ st sesumys ua et’ ev 9° ” ” uy or acs te. 1) 80" Ht ets2000 ge sv 99° w sv wv 2a tw “vv os" oT as9 te*9z WUT TOL0D UWo" os" ew ss* = v 2 sy 2 of 62°zt ove to* tz SessouveL & ” 2 * t! ” ow sy zg "6 Ore c6*6t fg00 weg os° 6° eu ss cy & os ov 89 eorsz 906 66" 62 wuey syn07 w 99° os "= oP “a bed « 09 S0°G2 969 90°08 eyoTsstA “” 26° té* v5 “ az sz zw ) ores 9s0T aw OOtne aon sa° 6a* ge* se* se oe « ss 06 86°08 yee =, °9? wUOTP TAO 9° oo ee* oot et wee oeot ve"99 eTtszenh paras o° n° ose 2° cy 4 “ oe % 9°62 rs) tor" wise os° ” ou° so us ey is we eh Tee ve zeo8 sux0s eet 0°t ee wT ad ae J we ot eit uty 696 eo"bL *07ed YIs0R a” eg eu % ct ov *« oe 06 usrzz a6 96°08 WUT A yer. wat ert wort eert 6t at " tw sot rw oz ovr on wean svt ort wort art oe 7 o 6t est orm utt 6ores owepl oo*t ™ ce 9" uz e " 62 ot e2°or SOT ou 29 Jano 98TH ve° ou u* 60° oe ee * 92 uz evez we Sor aw quowsed o°t so*t 60°Tt sort 8 2 at sz sat vO eee Te“ UTsuDOSTA 4o*t ott 06° cert vz st n ut ot 90°99 SPOT awe susuey vert art 66° sot 2 3 tz , tzz wes estt co°26 erei0t oat o6*t e0°T 6s" at 2 st 4 69 Ome 29et eo Le wae} PUT ett sort 96° ett sot cere ozTl ze"e9 etazmt pacer ont t9°T te* 9s°T st * ze . zt gore 16 ve" se wom "INOS oa"t os*t ee 6st wt st “2 9 ot aves zr pe exseaqes| wo " a ze w ve we 6 rr? oe. eure wt ist %* ost ) . on rr at evs — tt— i sosemin| SP 9 % zort 84 n te et * ze vo* 6z Tétt st’ov paettorr | ert ts*t oe" owt .] st es It ast az°ts we ce" ze von oe°t a*t wt set 6 , 3 st (3) set v2" 69 esst— 92° wuos}s7 go" oe" 4o°T se sz ez st oe zy ore wrt 08" % ey ues lf suuez 6° su° vort +e" zs n it Is (5) 2ot “gore gtat “o oseany ad so°t se*t 96° we % vt a at @t 90° 25 attt 4S*64 opesotoo oe se* ue eer 6 — % ez az 6zt “4% gtot we est usdeey a91 wet tert go*t wt et s wt st aot ze"on 6z2t To 6s wT QOTT wrt oert es*t wrt set se" 29 17 OerLs OTriz0nb seat oo sart ert eo°t ez 9 ot 6 wt az"99 eset oe" ou oe°t avt oe" art st 4 e s sat e"99 9001 a Supe: eet wrt wt a ot oz ’ .4 oat iw Riad oor" SyOuyTIE wrt oT wr svt e ot ry w zt 61°09 oL9T L0°6L feszer sey sort 1 az*t stt tt vw r ” ost oo" 649T erz9 yROys0¢uuDD wt sll Tet ae sz 62 . ez tst vor wrt error P@EIST epour zs*t wT az’t wrt zt bad 1 3 eat oe*o8 Gert zw wootrr ure srt +" sort zt za sz 6t o ost terse ostt aerze m0 620 wrt oe ert wet . cz > ez 802 ze Pad tres ieemzoes rey wt vet wr wet 9 6 t ot oet ied otet ee"sn 2401 sen svt ts*t svt ost t z tt z wz vores ™*L eo" sot wpesen wt 6o"2 srt tera 4 t 2 t vET ms evet oe uzi# STAID ITIED = ee ar — = a : ; . ae en! Tey Ty Ta) “Tey cat (z *t09) zz6T Z26T St oom 2261 SaDete (e) (P) zzet a com (@) zeet {*) (gs *teo) (® *te9) (e *t09) zz6t “TET PeTtos pues Strep sen ure Zz6T “last peTTosue —punsse ftpup Bios jasedns pre zzet Bt 1 fya0d Bet z236t Ite ae trdnd sere cy * sTedyouyad ee toouos 3b tiénd sod @esees ut td “stedjoutad eBe [cous Toouse sys00 Laetes Soetes 20i ems ae fyaedoid trend sed *essuoee, PITS zed pe Sy20cosd —nd s08 seyze *s20cteey 3° PLIUO sores enres erase aoe 50 mepel uae -Tyredze Toouss 30 seyszeres uy yo Lutes -puedxe jm.oue yoouss zo Tes Suypnto 30 Lavtes 40 pepuedze “8 30 Sepa daey wey Tees entes avs “PUTOES 3800 Teun ore Tes6; Gt arwy eurea eiezesy “=e 7800 Te20s Teunre gitzesy yumass [W205 7° Zeper 30 xepur -~- Uy xeey Tes08 ay are eee G5 20eE (uoneonpe yoddns 0} Ajpiqe 1194} 0} Zurpsiozce paZueise sa}0}¢) NOILVONGA GACAODDV LHOddNS TVIONVNIA AO SNOILVSIGNI—€!I ATAYL ee ne ee ee oo Sl ee ase : . = = : a 2 eS Se iia page se SRE mer — CHART XIII FINANCIAL SUPPORT ACCORDED EDUCATION IN 1922 (mount Expended per Child of Sehool Age | Teachers’ Average Salary | 692 200 400 Do as oa 1000 woo hoo 1800 Qy Non~Salary Q: Gosts per Ghild Q, Attending, Q, r DOLLARS = sd ” Q; Average Value Q School Property ~* per Child Q, (tfending, Q, a eae | a a | es os %@& sc 40 #6 € TFT 8 8 * "0 '% GO wo i “0 ito DOLLARS After the states have been ranked from 1+to04S as to ability to support education : Q,= Average fdr 12 states ranked 1 to 12 YQ.= Average for'f2 states ranked 13to24 Q," Average for 12 states ranked 25036 Q,- Average for 12 states ranked 37 to 48 Aeseareh Dison Aatotal Education 28s! [41] 42 ABILITY TO SuPPORT EDUCATION increase in all items of school support with 1910. Tables 14 and 15 present data fo: increasing ability to pay. and 1910 comparable to those already Are these facts true only of the present, for 1922. The data of these tables ' post-war period, or have they been true of toward the same conclusion as those for other decades? Data comparable to those of This agreement may be conveniently st | #& TAE Table 13 are not available earlier than by consulting the indices of Table 16, a TABLE 14.—INDICATIONS OF FINANCIAL SUPPORT ACCORDED EDUCATION IN 101s (States arranged according to their ability to support education) ] : a "ay Average | Total cost , Rank in Rank in Total annual | excluding | Rank in | average | total cost | Index of | Index of | Ind amount | salary of | salaries | _ ‘otal annual | excluding | total ex- | teachers’ ni expended | teachers, | per pupil | ®mount | salary of | salaries | penditure | average Sa States per child | principals | in average | ©xPended | teachers, | per pupil | per child | salary in | cost of school | and super-| daily at- | Per child | principals in average | ‘jn 1918 1918 1918 ; 1948 = ) visors in | tendance | f —, and super- = at- | (col. 2) (col. 3) col. 4 - (a ; j}agein visors in endance | ’ § 1918 (b) | in 1918 (c) 1918 in 1918 U1 a ———E ——— . ; 1 2 3 4 6 6 7 8 8 N United States...| $27.54 $645 TD ARE? ERR SPR 1.00 | 1.00 1 ¥ ’ California......| $56.26 | $1,057 $30.88 2 1 16 2.04 1.64 t a Nevada....... 42.62 887 28.11 7 6 20 1.55 1.38 : ; New York......| 33.48 1,044 19.38 23 2 30 1.21 1.62 a ; Massachusetts 36.34 858 26.11 19 7 24 1.32 1.33 ; Oregon...... .-| 38.62 702 23.47 18 16 28 1.40 1.09 | il Washington 41.96 950 31.65 9 4 12 1.52 1.47 | u Rhode Island. . 27.45 802 26.15 29 9 23 1.00 1.24 | 1 Connecticut 36.16 792 25.43 20 10 25 1.31 1.23 | 1 New Jersey... .. 40.92 911 35.52 as J 7 1.48 1.41 | 1 Illinois... .. . . 33.13 804 24.80 24 8 26 1.20 a Wyoming..... 51.01 596 27.00 4 3s | 2 1.85 92 | 1 ” j essa ws 40.51 752 30.76 15 12 17 ie N . | 4 i First Quartile...} 37.58 898 eee oe Pre 1.36 1.39 | 1 D ie Michigan.......} 41.67 663 32.92 10 19 10 1.51 1.03 | ! : ’ ’ New Hampshire 31.69 548 27.05 26 29 21 1.15 85 l i 54 Colorado....... 41.00 756 31.25 11 11 13 1.49 1.17 1.4 vi a Delaware...... 16.32 561 11.28 38 28 37 .59 .87 +} Pennsylvania...| 31.71 702 31.19 25 15 14 1.15 1.09 1.4 x a*4 Arizona... ... -| $8.01 960 36.13 3 3 6 1.92 1.49 I N Ts ce ces 50.23 578 39.62 5 26 3 1.82 90 P Maryland... .. 16.47 709 11.78 37 14 36 60 1.10 ' Minnesota... .. 39. 36 651 34.19 16 21 8 1.43 1.01 l S eee 24.75 449 15.82 | 32 37 34 .90 .70 Nebraska......| 40.87 584 $3.38 | 13 25 11 1.48 91 1.4 South Dakota... 34:78 496 36.90 21 32 5 1.26 oF l M Second Quartile.| 35.75 644 P'S Sees. Bete) Were” 1.30 1.00 1.4 ~ Indiana....... 38.68 617 29.35 17 22 18 1.40 96 . ; Montana....... 88.93 689 57.62 1 17 1 3.22 La ji 32 I. Kansas........| 34.51 525 28.71 22 31 19 1.25 81 ' Wisconsin. .... . 25.18 528 24.57 31 30 27 91 82 1 % Vermont....... 29.75 467 23.04 28 34 29 1.08 .72 l N Missouri... .. . 25.43 653 18.57 30 20 31 92 1.01 : r Idaho......... 42.51 685 34.08 8 18 9 1.54 1.06 | 1 F RR 40.66 733 31.05 14 13 15 1.47 1.14 1.4 West Virginia...| 16.79 418 10.29 36 38 38 61 65 ‘7 1 North Dakota. 44.43 589 45.19 6 24 2 1.61 91 2 , 7 Teeppegqaes 17.03 487 13.23 35 33 35 62 7 0 Ps sccanns 17.34 397 16.73 34 39 33 .63 .62 N \ Third Quartile..| 27.43 553 O86. 1......... cee ee. 1.00 .86 1. ' Oklahoma...... 19.42 455 18.19 33 36 32 70 71 : , New Mexico....| 30.56 563 39.08 27 27 4 1.11 87 1.7 N Virginia.......:| 12.24 385 9.06 39 43 39 44 eo | : G ‘ Louisiana. ..... 10.20 465 8.71 42 35 42 37 72 i 4 Kentucky ...... 11.81 390 8.94 40 40 40 43 60 | i g Tennessee......| 11.05 370 7.16 41 44 43 40 57 , North Carolina... 8.26 300 4.66 45 48 45 30 47 vi Bier Georgia....... 8.12 388 3.59 46 41 47 29 60 Arkansas... .... 8.87 387 3.78 44 42 46 32 60 | South Carolina. 8.96 315 8.81 43 46 41 32 49 ‘ 3 Alabama...... 7.98 345 5.08 47 | 45 44 29 53 Mississippi 6.55 | 311 1.20 48 7 48 24 48 Fourth Quartile 10.64 | 379 7.43 | ee on ofsee Siveme Ws Pepe eT .39 59 (a) Calculated from data of Biennial Survey of Education, 1916-18, U. 8. Bureau of Education, Vol. 3, p. 196, Table 56. Col. 6. and p. 143, Table 20, Col. 3. s ‘ (b) Calculated from data of Biennial Survey of Education, 1916-18, U. S. Bureau of Education, Vol > Lo 3, p. 194, Table 55, Col. 3, p. 162, Table 38, Col. 12, and p. 160, Table 37, Cols. 11 and 15. 1 ; (c) Calculated from data of Biennial Surrey of Education, 1916-18, U. S. Bureau of Education, Vol. ; 3, p. 196, Table 56, Col. 6, p. 194, Table 55, Col. 3, and p. 151, Table 27, Col. 8. ? ‘ - : : -siieienatia ied oe dex 101 Alar Sts 918 ol. 4 ACCOMPANIMENTS AND PERMANENCY OF DIFFERENCES 43 bled from the latter columns of Tables 13, year 1922, may be repeated for 1918 with but 14, and 15. slight changes in the stated ratios, as follows: The statements made on page 39, for the The twelve richest states taken as a group TABLE 15.—INDICATIONS OF FINANCIAL SUPPORT ACCORDED EDUCATION IN 1910 (States arranged according to their ability to support education) Average | Total cost! Rank in Rank in | Total annual excluding total average Rank in Index of | Index of Index of amount | salary of | salaries amount annual total cost | total ex- | teachers non sin | pg teachers, | per pupil | expended — of | excluding | penditure | average salary States per principals inaverage| per child) teachers, | salaries per child | salary in | costs in ms yy | and super-) daily at- | of school ——. per pupil in 1910 1910 1910 visors in | tendance age in sup in 1910 col. 2) col, 3 col. 4 | 1910 (@) | 1010 (b) | in 1910 (c 1910 visors in | 1910 1 | 2 3 , 6 8 9 United States $16.98 $484 $13.39 1.00 1.00 1.00 California $33.72 $917 $27.1 1 4 1.99 1.89 0 Nevada 35. 51 470 52. 60 2 21 1 2.09 17 ) New York | 25.09 813 13.55 11 3 1.48 1. 68 1.01 Massachusetts 27.68 757 19, 22 4 12 1.63 1.56 1.44 Oregon 27.39 | 516 22 66 6 17 9 1.61 1.07 1.69 Washington 40.66 692 35.45 l 6 2 2.39 1.43 2.65 Rhode Island 20.63 | 608 17.01 9 9 17 1.21 1.26 1.27 Connecticut 21.35 561 16.90 18 12 18 1. 26 1.16 1.26 New Jersey. | 37.33 731 25.39 7 5 ; 1.61 1.51 1.90 [ilinois ; } 24.15 588 21.50 1 11 10 1.42 1.21 1.61 Wyoming 25.77 439 18.46 10 24 14 1.52 91 1.38 Ohio a 23.71 524 16.81 15 15 19 1.40 1.08 1.26 First Quartile. . 27.75 635 19.41 1.63 1.31 1.4 Michigan. 19.24 479 13.47 7 20 f 1.13 99 1.01 New Hampshire.| 17.79 328 13.09 8 35 7 1.05 68 Os Colorado.......| 27.03 | 642 17.43 9 8 16 1.59 1.33 1.30 Delaware nin 11.28 414 8.57 34 27 $4 67 86 64 Pennsylvania. . .| 21.14 | 554 20.30 20 13 11 1.24 1.14 1 Pee 20.40 | 817 15.20 24 2 0) 1.20 1.69 1.14 “Serer | 20.14 | 302 12.30 25 38 29 1.19 62 92 Maryland......| 10.49 515 6.52 25 18 38 62 1.06 499 Minnesota... . 22.49 | 486 18.24 17 19 15 1.32 | 1.00 1. 3¢ Pee 17.04 244 10.42 29 5 30 1.00 51 Nebraska... ... 20.77 | 411 15.13 21 28 21 1.22 R5 oa South Dakota. 22.59 329 22.84 16 34 7 1.33 68 1.71 Second Quartile 19.20 460 16.30 1.13 95 1.22 Indiana........| 21.71 13.99 19 16 2 1.28 1.08 1.04 Montana 31.40 28 . 60 4 7 1.85 1.33 ».14 Kansas | 19.54 13.87 26 25 24 1.15 SY 1.04 Wisconsin......| 15.57 12.70 30 22 8 92 4 5 Vermont 20.55 | 14.26 23 43 22 1.21 5 1.06 Missouri. ...... | 18.45 | 10.08 31 23 79 91 ? Idaho oa | 18.56 14 i4 13 1.41 1.13 l U Utah ie. 25.08 23.83 12 10 6 1.48 1,22 1.78 West Virginia...| 11.57 6.61 33 36 7 68 6 19 North Dakota. .| 27.19 ¢ 22.72 8 32 8 1.60 70 1.70 ys 9.09 6.99 38 30 6 54 79 2 Florida } 9.36 6.39 36 41 9 5) 7 i8 Third Quartile. | 19.03 | 435 | 11.72 1.12 90 SS ! | | Oklahoma..... 12.99 408 10.32 $2 9 l id S4 7 New Mexico... 9.27 | 348 7.48 37 31 i) 72 yt Virginia 6.77 268 6.19 41 42 10 40 55 16 Louisiana | 7.90 415 9.01 10 oF 33 47 86 67 Kentucky ...... | 7.98 337 6.04 39 33 41 47 70 45 Tennessee. .....| 6.32 | 292 3.83 42 9 $2 37 60 20 North Carolina. .| 4.40 200 2.39 46 18 4 26 41 18 Georgia....... | 5.32 250 3.64 44 44 { 31 ; 27 Arkansas.......| 5.99 | 284 1.88 13 40 17 35 0 14 South Carolina. . | 3.72 212 1.95 48 46 1 22 14 15 Alabama...... 4.25 | 314 59 17 37 18 25 65 04 Mississippi. . . . 4.46 210 2.26 15 47 / 26 13 17 Fourth Quartile. | 6.61 295 4.28 39 61 32 (a) Calculated from figures of Commissioner of Education Report, 1911, Vol. 2, p. 704,°Col. 7, and p. 690, Col. 8. (b) Calculated from figures of Commissioner of Education Report, 1911, Vol. 2, p. 704, Col. 3, and p. 689, Col. 4. (c) Calculated from figures of Commissioner of Education Report, 1911, Vol. 2, p. 704, Col. 7 and 3, and p. 695, Col. 6. 44 ABILITY TO SUPPORT EDUACTION provided 3.5 times as much educational sup- average daily attendance as the twelve p: port per child as the twelve poorest states. states. The twelve richest states paid their teachers As far as data are available it appears salaries 2.4 times as high as the twelve poorest both since and previous to the World \\ states. the richer states afforded their schools n The twelve richest states provided for non- more adequate financial support than salary costs 3.5 times as much per pupil in poorer states. TABLE 16.—INDICATIONS OF FINANCIAL SUPPORT ACCORDED EDUCATION 1910, 1918, 1922 (a) (States arranged according to their ability to support education) | Indices of total expendi- Indices of teachers’ Indices of non-sala tures per child average salaries costs States “ - l l 1910 1918 1910 1918 1922 ; 1918 . United States California _— — ee Washington... Rhode Island Connecticut . New Jersey....... Illinois. . Wyoming Ohio ee et et et et Llane ee ieee ed | tt tt tt ee COD | Fo ee et tt tt et fet et ttt = - ~ _ ~ i — _ First Quartile........ Michigan New -_ ~ — ——— " _ -— Delaware Pennsylvania Arizona = —- Maryland Minnesota Oklahoma.......... New Mexico Virginia 41 (a) The data in this table are taken from Tables 13, 14, and 15. ACCOMPANIMENTS AND PERMANENCY OF DIFFERENCES 45 Economic Ability and Educational Efficiency What relationship exists between the eco- nomic ability of a state to support education and the general educational efficiency of the state? Table 17 presents data pertinent to the consideration of this question. state figures are presented as follows: 1. The average number of days schools were kept open in 1922 2. Average number of days attended by each child enrolled in 1922 3. Percent of attendance in high school in 1922. 4. Percent of teachers normal graduates around 1922 5. Average number of years of school life on a basis of a 180-day year. It is realized that it is impossible to meas- ure exactly many of the values that are of major significance in determining the efficiency of a state school system, if educational eff- ciency is to be considered in its broadest aspects. It is conceivable that a state school system with poor attendance and untrained teachers might render a greater social service than one with good attendance and trained For each teachers. Few would deny, however, other things be- ing equal, that a state school system in which there is regularity of attendance over a rea- sonable period each year and in which trained teachers are found in the classrooms, is better equipped to render the service expected than is one in which these things are absent. In- sofar as these factors contribute toward an effective school system, the indications of edu- cational status given in Table 17 may be accepted as a measure of the school efficiency of the different states. Table 17, as it stands, indicates greater school efficiency in the rich states than in the Considering figures for each of the quartiles these statements may be made: The twelve richest states, taken as a group, keep their schools open 39 days more each year than the twelve poorest states. In the twelve richest states each child en- rolled annually attends school 45 days more, poor. than those enrolled in the twelve poorest states. In the twelve richest states, 16 percent of on the average, the children are enrolled in high school; in the twelve poorest states, 7 The children in the twelve richest states have a school life nearly twice as long, on the average, as in the twelve poorest states. percent. The percentage of teachers who are normal graduates in the twelve richest states is 72 per- cent; in the twelve poorest states, 26 per- cent. There is a regular increase towards greater efficiency in each quartile as one progresses from the poorer to the richer groups. Economic Ability and School Results What relationship exists between the eco- nomic ability of the states to support educa- tion and the general level of educational attain- ment of the people of the states? In attempt- ing to measure the general level of educa- tional attainment of the people we at once encounter philosophical considerations, and concepts as yet This recognized in presenting the data in ‘Table 18. The figures of this table compare the states in these characteristics: 1. Percentage of white, native-born popula- tion classified as illiterate, in the 1920 Census 2. Percent that circulation of ten popular unmeasured. fact is magazines of wide circulation is of population 3. Percent that 13 standard magazines of opinion is of population. The final objective of education must be far beyond the ability to read and write and the Nevertheless it is difficult to conceive of a people reaching a high state of desire to read. educational attainment which in con- siderable degree was unable to read and write and which failed to use that ability to keep with the larger movements of We may look the data presented in Table 18 therefore as having to do with first essentials rather than final objectives in progressing high standard of educational This point is further emphasized when it is realized any in touch civilization. upon towards a attainment. that the 1920 federal census warns us that il- literacy figures should be interpreted as “‘rep- a ae = NE ON. OF ; : TABLE 17.—INDICATIONS OF SCHOOL EFFICIENCY IN THE STATES (States arranged according to ability to support education) States 1 United States... California... . Nevada... New York...... Massachusetts. ... Oregon. . ; Washington Rhode Island... Connecticut... . New Jersey... . Illinois Wyoming..... Ohio First Quartile Michigan Re ae New Hampshire Colorado Delaware. . Pennsylvania... Arizona Iowa.... Maryland Minnesota. ..... Maine I oie nS ea kee eae South Dakota............ Second Quartile . Indiana ee . 4 “rs e North Dakota............ Gin Saas eunadees aa es dcnsuitvse ase Third Quartile GI. . cc cciccceduaen New Mexico............. | re RS 0 Ee Tennessee . FN OR Mississippi Fourth Quartile. ......... Average number of days schools were kept open 1922 ~ ~ = ne - ~ : Pewee. RrOooCeSuwnNownror & © maancoacanas @ cuwmwouweisO" © Average | | | Average | number | Percent | Percent | number of —e, P | te) . - | awed attende attend- | teach- jof school by each | ance in ers life on _— nook child high | normal | basis 2 > 3 enrolled | school | gradu- of a in 1922 | in 1922 ates 180-day year (b) (c) (d) (f) 4 st a eT? 8 130.6 12.3 | 46 7 ee ere 126.0 27.1 93 7.42 11 32 137.1 17.3 65 7.64 24 24 154.1 14.0 82 8.59 4 4 149.2 16.4 8S 9.08 i) 11 147.0 18.4 79 8.56 26 13 140.3 18.1 50 7.86 13 19 162.7 11.0 87 7.96 1 1 152.1 13.4 90 6.84 5 6 156.0 11.1 80 8.81 3 2 153.0 13.1 41 8.36 7 5 130.4 12.0 (e) 7.08 29 31 149.8 16.2 42 7.87 15 10 146.5 15.7 72 | Me Ra Serer 155.6 13.4 25 | 7.79 2 3 147.3 14.4 48 8.51 19 12 123.2, 16.2 56 6.89 16 33 137.5 11.8 44 7.42 8 23 151.9 11.4 67 7.95 10 7 131.0 11.4 89 4.94 22 30 143.5 26.0 | 30 8.68 12 15 143.3 8.6 46 7.00 6 16 142.5 13.5 56 7.45 23. 17, 150.3 17.2 40 8.78 17 8 140.1 15.2 35 7.66 19 20 136.3 12.5 34 6.80 27 26 141.8 14.3 48 © ES Seppe

j | power Percent | Percent MT'. | of index | of index 7 atun af | Satee cf y | Percent | %f ec0- | of eco- | Index of | Index of | Index of aobenes am sea ated as | Percent > pan of aver- a —" — — — of of Average line + of age total) *8© ¥F~ | sources | sources | wealth | average | average | _°°°- eco" of , & tO : | wealth |< rent : |} nomic nomic indices States | ex- | imcome | income (total |(current | in 1922 total current | “ ‘e- ee i. . ended wort ex- cosenee | overage, oe income | income | sources | sources | columns ° P | pended | income | income | pended ex- ex- - | Se on of in 1922 | ? pended | | @X- ex- 7-11 10on of | in 1922 | ? 1922 plusi/10\plus 1/10} (Col. 2) | pended | pended ded Red | - wealth) | wealth) || (b) | (Col. 3) | (Col. 4) | PEBGeS | Pendec among | ex- ex- | (Col. 5) | (Col. 6 bin pended | pended | | I in 1922 | in 1922 | — — —_——— \ - res 1 | @ 3 4 5 6 | 7 8 9 10 11 12 United States 51 2.13 2.33 1.50 1.60 | 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.000 e pe - at Cee! meen i | ‘alifornia ; 64 2.43 2.80 1.76 1.94 § 1.25 1.14 1.20 1.17 1.21 1.194 OUTCEeS Nevada 37 | 2.57 2.39 1.51 1.45 73 1.21 1.03 1.01 91 9758 } , New York | 50 | 1.63 1.79 1.23 1.32 98 77 77 82 83 S34 1 the Massachusetts 45 | 1.55 | 1.69 1.15 1.22 RS 73 73 77 76 74 ——. Oregon 43 2.08 2.41 1.40 1.54 | 84 98 1.03 93 06 948 ation, Washington 60 2.58 2.94 1.80 1.97 1.18 1.21 1.26 1.20 1.23 1. 21¢ lak Rhode Island 37 1.30 1.42 96 1.03 73 61 61 64 64 646 akota ‘onnecticut 40 1.85 2.00 1.27 1.34 78 87 86 85 S4 840 | New Jersey 54 2.27 2.53 1.60 1.73 | 1.06 1.07 1.09 1.07 1.08 1.074 in the Illinois... 17 1.82 1.98 1.31 1.39 | .92 85 85 | 87 87 872 times Wyoming 75 3.31 3.00 2.29 2.14 | 1.47 1. 5 1.29 | 1.53 1.34 1.438 Ohio 63 2.75 2.93 1.91 2.00 1.24 1.20 1.26 hme 1.25 1.262 rect ‘elas First Quartile 52 1.98 2.17 1.43 1.53 | 1.02 93 93 95 " 958 treme Michigan | 64 2.57 2.81 1.83 1.95 1.25 1.21 1.21 1.22 1.22 1.222 edu- New Hampshire 36 1.55 1.69 1.09 1.15 71 73 73 73 72 724 2 Colorado 62 2.62 2.91 1.84 1.95 1.22 1.23 1.25 1.23 1.24 1.234 lomi Delaware... . | .40 1.51 1.59 1.10 1.14 | 78 71 68 73 71 22 Pennsylvania | 38 1.57 1.72 we 1.19 | 75 74 74 74 74 742 eS as Arizona 58 2.64 3.08 1.81 2.01 1.14 1.24 1.38 | 1.2) 1.26 1.234 lowa . | 47 3.46 3.71 2.00 2.08 92 1.62 1.59 1.33 1.30 1.352 Maryland 37 | 1.338 | 1.43 98 1.04 73 62 61 65 6 652 Minnesota 61 3.2 | 3.86 2.11 2.37 1.20 1.51 1.66 1.41 1.48 1.452 velve Maine 41 | 1.64 | 1.80 eS 1.25 | 80 97 77 (| 78 78 780 Nebraska 58 3.68 | 4.34 2.25 2.48 1.14 1.73 1.86 | 1.49 1.55 1.554 hart. South Dakota... 53 3.70 | 4.67 2.19 2.49 | 1.04 1.74 2.00 1.46 56 1. 560 om Second Quartile 19 2.25 2.50 1.54 1.65 | 96 1. Of 1.07 1.03 1.03 1.030 nded Indiana 72 3.58 3.76 2.39 2.47 | 1.41 1.68 1.61 1.59 1.54 1. 566 Cl Montana... | 67 5.00 1.16 2.87 2.57 | 1.31 2.35 1.79 1.91 1.61 1.794 T the Kansas ‘ | 55 3.03 3.37 | 1.95 2.09 #f 1.08 1.42 1.45 1.30 1.31 1.312 : Wisconsin 51 2.28 2.55 1.58 1.70 1.00 1.07 1.09 1.05 1.06 1.054 P age, ; Vermont 49 1.84 2.04 1.34 1.44 06 86 SN 89 00 R98 } Missouri. . . 41 2.00 2.11 1.34 1.39 | 80 04 91 8Y 87 882 the Idaho Giwiait 69 3.19 3.79 2.18 2.44 1.35 1.50 1.63 1.45 1.53 1.492 _ Utah ‘ 68 3.71 4.02 2.40 2.53 | 1.33 1.74 Lae of 3. 1.58 1. 504 MK West Virginia 40 2.34 2.55 1.48 1.56 | 78 1.10 1.09 | 99 8 O86 that North Dakota 63 | 4.74 5.33 2.70 2.88 | 1.23 2.23 2.29 | 1.80 1.80 1.870 vinat Texas ‘ 54 | 1.92 2.16 1.42 1.54 | 1.06 90 93 05 o6 960 ord Florida 40 2.03 2.35 1.35 1.48 | 78 95 1.01 90 93 014 19 Third Quartile 5A 2.58 2.81 1.75 1.85 } 1.06 1.21 1.21 1.17 1.16 1.162 | i the Oklahoma | 76 2.73 3.05 2.01 2.18 | 1.49 1.28 1.31 1.34 1.36 1 ( ; New Mexico. . 67 | 2.99 3.10 2.06 2.12 1.31 1.40 1.33 1.37 1.33 1.348 Ort Virginia..... 45 2.07 2.24 1.41 1.49 | SS 9 96 94 03 936 | ; Louisiana, . 48 2.01 2.16 1.42 1.49 04 04 93 95 03 938 irth ; Kentucky...... 40 1.53 1.50 1.10 1.09 | 78 72 64 7 68 v1 : Tennessee 36 1.74 1.82 i. a 71 82 78 78 76 77 ‘Ing } North Carolina. . 49 2.30 2.44 1.56 1.63 96 1.08 1.05 1.04 1.02 1 O3¢ . , Georgia...... 356 1.39 1.37 1.00 98 69 65 59 =| 67 61 642 the Arkansas..... 34. | 1.56 1.56 1.07 1.07 67 7: 67 71 67 690 South Carolina 40 | 1.75 1.71 1.22 1.20 78 R2 73 81 75 778 Ips, Alabama.... 44 1.68 1.77 1.22 1. 26 86 79 76 8] 79 802 : ‘ Mississippi : 43 1.87 1.89 1.31 1.32 &4 88 81 87 83 846) ind | Fourth Quartile .46 | 1.94 2.01 1.36 1.40 | 90 91 86 91 88 892 Mic | (a) The percentages of this table are based upon the data as to wealth, income and indices of economic resources of Table Ae upon the expenditures for public elementary schools of Bulletin 1924, No. 31, U. 8. Bureau of Education, p. 32-33 ‘able 25. (b) The indices of column 7, are obtained as follows: Each percent of column 2 is divided by .51, (the perceytage of wealth of 1922, expended for education in 1922 in the country as a whole). This gives the value of 1.00 in colunTW7 for the country as a whole and corresponding values of more or less than 1.00 for each state according to whether the state expends more or less than .51 % of its wealth for education. Thus a state expending 1.02 percent_(2 x .51%) of its wealth would be rated 2.00 in column 7 and a state spending .255 percent (14 of .51%) of its wealth fof? ducation would be rated .50, The indices of columns 8 to 11 are similarly derived from the percentages of columns 3 to 6 , [49] eee ee a CHART XIV United States California Nevada New York Massachusttts Oregon WVastiagton Rirode Island Connectiout New Jersey IUinote Wyoming” Oh Ve) Michigan New Hampshire Colorado Delaware Arizona Pennsylvania Towa Mary land Minnesota, Nebraska South Dakota Mame Montana Indiana Kansas Uisconsiar ermont Missourt Idaho Utah West Viggioua, North Dakota, Tex ag Plorida Oklahoma New Mexico Uiekaia Coutisiana Kentucky (Tennessee North Carolina Georgia Arkansas South Carolina - Qtabama, Mississippt .\ _ LS | L LAS Loe CL | L LS 4 | _ £27 | LL.03S J L hte | S&<«s L bess | exACz Sxele} L L9S Ssi-m _ LSS | sara L2H i | LLi | 32.06 | ora xr 246 | L248 | L Le 12. % 274 L209 | L 1. £0 J Sets L dso | 244 | S48 | LSS | = s:/-2 ae.<2 | Lae L 2h S48 | Lae | 1.45 . LoS ] a Sa-'s =.) -s at va L120 | L b.26 | S*>m ded for Elementary and ing to Ability to Support Editcatior ong uals LAK ANetional Edxucat an ¢ Frrort MADE © Support PUBLIC EDUCATION Der Cent of Index of Economic Resources Ex Secondary Schools in Bee ~States Arranged A AAAAAAAAA AAA AAS i [50] ACCOMPANIMENTS \s far as the data of Table 19 indicate, re do not exist differences in effort made support education between the rich and the poor states, comparable to the differences these states in other school characteristics pl The rich states as a class appear to expend approxi- eviously revealed in this chapter. mately the same percent of their economic power for schools as the poor states. The statements just preceding wholly upon data as to public school support. It was thought that parochial and private school enrolment might be responsible for the fact that wealthy states such as New York and Rhode Island seem to devote smaller per- are based AND PERMANENCY OF DIFFERENCES 51 centages of their economic resources to educa tion than the average for the twelve poorest Table 20, prepared with this factor in mind. It re- states of the union. below, was veals that, according to the best data avail able, the factor of parochial and private school attendance is of sufficient significance in some states to justify special consideration. For example, in Rhode Island 20.28 percent of the total elementary and secondary school en- rolment is in private or parochial schools, whereas but 2.11 percent of total enrolment is found in these schools in the twelve poorest states. TABLE 20.—PERCENT OF INDEX OF ECONOMIC RESOURCES EXPENDED FOR PUBLIC AND PRIVATE SCHOOLS i Enrolment in elementary and second- Estimated | 3 ary schools, 1921-1922 Percent Percent of percent of | { ites . aasastil . that public index of index of 4 States | | school economic economic : | Private enrolment resources resources Public and Total is of total for public for public schools parochial enrolment schools and private | schools schools : 1 2 8 4 é 6 | United States 23,169,686 | 1,569,029 24,765,715 93.56 1.60 1.71 oss annie iniseesaalliiciinnaeipellyiiialticcaneenanliaited iaaianiaiieesion , | I'welve states with highest ability to | | : support education: | | } NS Cec 5 ice a 0.8 was 838,723 | 41,666 | 880 , 389 95.27 1.94 » 04 Nevada........ 14,406 | 355 14,761 97 .60 1.45 1.49 | New York ’ é ae 1,823,130 | 120,491 | 1,943,621 93.80 1.32 1.41 j Massachusetts.. . 698,268 | 139,154 837 , 422 83.38 1.22 1.46 Oregon......... 164,460 | 12,209 | 176,669 93.09 154 1.65 | Washington.... ‘ 301,800 17 ,453 319,253 94.53 1.97 2.05 e Rhode Island. . 7 ee : 101,643 25,853 127 ,496 79.72 1.03 1.29 | Connecticut . 283,759 | 57,437 | 341,196 83.17 1.34 1.61 |» New Jersey... | 628,689 | 41,873 | 670,562 93.76 1.73 1.85 | & Illinois . : | 1,249,208 | 195,552 | 1,444,760 | 86.46 1.39 1.61 Wyoming..... 47,988 | 1,183 | 49,171 | 97.60 2.14 2.19 Ohio 1,120,293 | 88,345 | 1,208,638 | 92.69 2.00 2.16 First Quartile........ 606 ,031 61,798 | 667 ,828 90.75 1.53 1.69 Twelve states with lowest ability to | | } q support education: ] | eb ee cea Kees 637 , 299 2,620 639,919 99.59 2.18 2.19 New Mexico. . 80,929 | 4,267 85.196 94.99 2 12 2 293 yds 5g a.0.s 000s 546,035 12,529 558 , 564 97.76 1.49 | 1.52 Louisiana...... 390,324 | 4,430 | 394,754 O8 S88 1.48 1.50 ss wane deve 581,313 | 15,460 | 596.773 97.41 1.09 1.12 Se 642,126 23,202 665,328 | 96.51 1.21 1.25 North Carolina............ 753,698 23,441 | 777.139 | 96.98 1.63 1.68 Ly Ee ! 730 ,873 | 13,400 | 744,273 | 98.20 Gs 1.00 Arkansas. . -? 509,351 | 2,122 | 511,473 99.59 1.07 1.07 South Carolina 479,309 | 9,100 | 488,409 | 98.14 1.20 1.22 Alabama..... 592,610 | 21,023 613,633 96 . 57 1.26 1.30 Mississippi 560,833 | 8,740 569,573 98.47 1.32 1.34 Fourth Quartile................... | §42,058 | 11,695 | 553,753 | 97.89 1.40 1.43 i ne es Se ri Read table thus: Of the 880,389 (Column 4) children enrolled in California schools, 838,723 (Column 2), or 95.27 ® percent (Column 5), are enrolled in public schools; 41,666 (Column 3) are enrolled in private schools. The percent of the index of economic resources expended for public schools in California is 1.94 percent (Column 6). This last figure repre- ; sents expenditures for public schools only, or expenditures for but 95.27 percent of total enrolment.’ This figure (1.94) has to be increased to 2.04 if it is to be indicative of costs for both public and private schools. This is based on the assumption 5 that the cost per pupil enrolled in public schools and in private and parochial schools are the same. Similarly read data | i for other states. Columns 2, 3, and 4 from Statistics of State School Systems, 1921-1922, U.S. Bureau of Education Bulletin, 1924, No. 31. Column 5 is obtained by dividing column 2 by column 4. al 7 Column 6 from Table 19, column 6 : | Column 7 is obtained by dividing figures in column 6 by those of column 5, and multiplying the result by 100 eS ee — weet OR et CHART XV EFrForRT MADE TO Support EDUCATION BY TWELVE RICHES? AND TWELVE POOREST STATES ~ 1922 (COMPARISON oF PERCENT OF INDEX OF ECONOMIC Resources EXPENDED FOR. PuBLIC & PrivATE SCHOOLS) “j PT TY is Li Seat (eMC ATR SRA URE te? § be hy Ds & ger estth Teak tateaset sed Fi SES AES EE ee eS 4! TT nest) Wocheg tees ey PRA TING Er Ck a a ee nak = > err Uap PPR ocks Py SR ht 3 oe Be at Fos Satay PRP CSE RD Srey UNITED STATES Wyomi New on RAL 2c ZEA Ohio Oklahoma RY LAZg2Z4NSSSYERUERDLI’ODDAAAAMA\VRP_PEEQqERERKgSKK’KX&KK¥ SS SSS Washington NorthCaroling RQ SSA RRnnhw~~spSVssssss39535‘ ob Pe oee 1,684.72 5,514.59 9,759.70 37 28 36 47 1.06 . aaa 1,741.38 2,388.72 8,907.89 36 40 37 .49 . 46 i 8ins 5 6 hs cede ee 1,517.20 2,256.56 7,722.47 40 41 40 .42 43 ES ow occ ceacaes 2,030.50 2,600.69 6,410.77 34 39 43 .57 50 | IE: vc ctdeviceces 1,657.58 1,881.29 7,512.60 38 42 41 .46 . 36 North Carolina.......... 1,229.43 1,367.55 6,735.53 43 46 42 .34 . 26 ES wadcaduddwnns 1,417.83 1,582.71 5,211.77 41 45 46 .40 .30 RE I a 1,264.66 1,707.30 5,777.45 42 43 44 . 85 .33 South Carolina........... 1,163.50 1,317.54 5,240.83 45 48 45 .33 .25 Alabama................ 1,218.18 1,596.04 4,860.48 | 44 | 44 | 47 34 31 SI 6 kk es wees reece 1,092.35 1,324.44 4,616.45 46 47 48 31 .25 Fourth Quartile.......... 1,470.69 1,937.17 Gee > Laycds Bedcactdeias. 41 .37 i (a) The data of columns 2 to 4 are obtained by dividing the total wealth of each state as reported for 1880, 1900, a 1922 in Estimated National Wealth, 1922, Bureau of the Census, p. 25-27, by the total number of children 5 to 14, as! ported by the Bureau of the Census for these years. Ages 5 to 14 were used instead of 6 to 13, since data for the lat’ ages were not available for the years concerned. Wealth as a basis of calculation includes federally owned wealth, as making possible its tion for the yeats concerned were not available. s (b) The indices of columns 8 to 10 were obtained by the method described in footnote (b) of Table 19. (ec) Dakota Territory. (d) Includes Indian Territory. MI lth D 1922 1 00 l I ] lf 1.4 1.21 1.42 1.3 1° ue l ] ) 1 ® 1.23 1.23 1.06 1.13 1.3! 1.58 9 1.24 * 09 l 1. 4t ] 11 1.40 }. 21 1.03 1) 1.04 1.10 1.00 04 1.08 62 94 oY 63 54 45 4 ), a as ré latter ; dat ——$-— — 2 AMEN sane 8 ey De heer + een pitowet meyrggie CHART XVII —_—— WEALTH ver CHILD. AGED 5~14,, IN 19220741900 COMPARED Wealth perChild, Aged 5~14,1n 109¢ | c Wealth per Child, Aged 5~14.in 1900 | Nev. EZEEEIS Nov | Calif. Calif. | Wyo. LS5.46) ] Wyo | Oreg. [24.064 ] Ored lowa Ez: lowa Wash. L 20.859 ] Wash 5. Dak. [20.747 ] §.Dak Conn. [20-256 ] Conn Mont. [19.957] Mont. N.Y. L19-757 | Ny. Y. Neb. [19.510] Neb. Y.J. LI5.2035 N.J Mass. LIS. 728 J Mass (riz. LIS.625 | Qriz. Ill. Ill. Mirnr. i774] Minn. Colo. LIZ5 25] Golo. W.U. L 17405 _ | fY. Kl Ohio 17.490 | Ohio Kans. 17,182 | Kans. Q.1. EAC QR. Mich. [6.415 | -_~ Mich . Pa. [96:0 96] Pa. Ind. C5735) Ind Idaho 15.673 | Idaho N.Dak. [15.375] N.Dak. Del, 75.5350 | De! Mo. Li4 820 | Mo Vis. Vis Utah Utah Maine Maine Md. Md U.Va. WV. Va Vt. Vt. (Fla. Fla N. Mex. N.Mex. Va. Va. Tex. “Tex. Okla. Okla La. Ca. Tenn. Tenn. N.C. 1.368 N.C. Ky. K Y. (rk. a rk : 6.2, 1,318 8.0. Ga. 1.583 Ga. a la. 1,596 Qla. x. —_ Pn 7 -nereny 1.384 Miss. it oad dae at ioe Bestaee erate, bad: 43.446 of tangible wealth per child. aged Sto l4 inclusive [57] sree Ptr gienn — CHART XVIII WEALTH re CHILD, AGED 5~14, IN 19220741880 COMPARED Wealth per Ghild, Q ded 5~14, In 1922 “Nev. Calif . Vyo. Oreg. lowa Wash. 8. Dak. Conn . “Mont. N.Y. Nebr. NJ. Maas. ariz. {tl. Minn. Colo. N.H. Ohio Kang. @.1. Mich. Pa. Ind. Idaho N. Dak. Del. Mo. Vis. Utah Maine Md. U.Va. Vt. Fla. WV. Mex. Va. Tex. Okla. Ca. ‘Tenn. N.C. Ry. ark. 8.C. Ga. Qta. Miss. [27,060 | [£5.46 1 | [ 24.064} [22.471 | [80.747 | [20.256 | (19.957 | | 19.757.) 1 19.510 _] L19205 | 118.722 | 58.625 | 17-921 J 17.734 | SA542 LJL.493 | L 17.490} 57.592) LI7,168) 16.418 | 16.040) 16. 755) 1B.6 73] ey [15.130 | L 14 BRO} 14.644 | L {4.208 | 14.507 | 14.075 | Ae i$. 159 | PIL ZO9 | 19.760 | [A208 | (8.813) Abds | bai vA awl} WETS 411) 6.7721 347) agra wry wr 1 $ 45.446 | Wealth per Child, Aged 5~14, In 1860 [#16.679} Ne ass Cx 117.308 | V ccc) Mey [4-206] Ic VU *x S44 1S. 386] Cor [7.158 J M 990 N " [5.439] Net [5.194] N.. Ma [6.453] adr [4.253] Ill [4.159 | Mit Golc Vk [4-257] Ohi [£.997) Kat [7-462] Q [4.262] Mix [4.902 | Pa [5.595] Ind [4.680] Ida of W.‘ "D« 2.147 Mx [3.5471 Vi [2.920] Ut [3.955] Mai 5.747] Md over) Miva [4459] Ut ss) p.685) NN (WZ) Va 2] oer Ok 577] Ca. i) BR Gas Fa i ae 2.03] Ky. fees rk 464) &.C ee Ga. ca dla ioC(‘éWMi i's *® Dakota Territory Aeeearch Du Nesonal Mucokon « enn CHART XIX -—— WEALTH PER CumpAGED 5-14. IN 1922 & 1880 COMPARED (SrAtes EAstT of THE Missrssippr~) “Wealth pee child aged 5~I4,in 1922, conn, HEB N.Y. BCACIS N.J, TLS LS | Mass, (Clemen tL. Tress N.u. (eae Ohio [Ea g.l. 1 16S | Mich jiMGsdbe) Ow. ie, O40) Ind. (eee Cela. TEES wis. Pace Me Te ToT, Md. BU ezk3 wa. Wee Vt. B12 259) Fla. (lle Va. | OG | vo BAYA Tenn. eckseebie N.Cac. (TERE Kw, Sarr. S.cer, CEZED Ca ERI Ala BAe Miss. Ba Slo Wealth pee child. aged, 5 -l41n 1680 Conn. N.Y. N. J, Mass. ILL. N.U. Ohio Tenn N Car. Ky. §.Cac. Ga. Miss. Ceseareh Di 2 National, Eduaatiotr Css in 1922, had #20,256 of wealth pee child, *3,286 of wealth pee child, aged. Stold in 1860. Similacly read) cata Be other sta » Stol4 and [59] 60 ABILITY TO SUPPORT EDUCATION child generally were similarly favored in 1900 and 1880. The correlation coefficients of the ranks of columns 5 to 7 of this table are as follows: 1800 with 1922=81.0; 1880 with 1900=90.9; 1900 with 1922=89.1. Charts XVII to XIX graphically compare the position of each state as to wealth per child in the three years considered. Chart XIX is especially significant since it includes only states east of the Mississippi whose economic development was well ad- vanced by 1880. As stated above, an answer to the question now being considered cannot be based upon figures as to income per child, since the neces- sary data are lacking. It is of interest to men- tion, however, that although the economists of the National Bureau of Economic Research 1 Levert. Maurice. Income in the United States. p. 46. offer no final answer as to the perma: a state’s economic position, they do n observation that is apropos in connect a discussion of the factors that detern economic position of the states: The relative positions lin the income ; the northern states, when compared with the south, is an example of the advantag: by the former states which will probab! It is reasonable to believe that for many come, the average normal income of the living in New York, for instance, will bs than that of the people living in Alabama Such facts as are available would seen dicate that the position of a state with to its economic ability to support educ relatively permanent, at least over pe: long as forty-two years. CHART XX f Rich States 1900 * ’ Rich States Poor States 1922 ~ PERMANENCY # DIFFERENCES #*ABILITY® SUPPORT EDUCATION | (Comparison of number of unite of wealth per 1922 in the teeke richest: and the twelve poorest § child, in 1880, 1900 and in 1922) Aessacch Duxcéion Netiotal Education Gash Read chart thus 3.76 units of? wealth per child Ia in L922 had one unit In 1880 the twelve states most able to supp ,in 1860 the twelve states least able to s of wealth per child. Similarly interpret data for 1900 and 122. —— ort education in 1922 | rt educat nency of lake ne on with nine the scale] of those of se gained Y persist. years to ie people ; greater m to in- | respect cation is Tiods as CHAPTER V Some Unmeasured Factors Affecting the Ability of the States to Support Education In Chapter III the relative economic ability of the states to support education was arrived at by determining the number of units of economic power behind each child, aged six to thirteen. The definition of ability to support education as the number of units of economic power per child to be educated in- volves certain assumptions that need further examination. Already sufficient work has been done to show that the influence of other factors than those considered in such a definition will have to be measured if an exact method of estimat- ing the ability of a state to support education is to be developed. This chapter will list some of these factors. It will be possible to do little more than mention most of them. The definition of ability to support schools as the number of units of economic power per child assumes that the economic demands of education take first rank, and that they are to be satisfied before other demands receive attention, in short, that the full economic power of a state or such part of it as is needed is available for the support of education. This assumption needs further examination. Education is but one of a number of services which compete for a share of the economic power of a state. Food, shelter, clothing, and other essentials of life must be provided for out of a state’s resources. In any consid- eration of a state’s ability to support educa- tion one must not only consider the amount of its economic power, but also the availability of that economic power for school support. Among the factors that probably influence such availability may be mentioned the num- ber and character of the population. * See references cited later in this chapter. *See the following references: Strayer, George D. and Haig, Robert Murray. Macmillan Company, New York, 1923. p. 144 ff. Morrison, Henry C. he Macmillan Company, New York, 1924. p. 148 ff. The Effect of Population Upon Ability to Support Education, Vol. II, No. 1, Bulletin of the State of Illinois, * Clark, Harold F. Population and Ability to Support Schools Chapter III revealed that children con- stitute a significantly larger percentage of the population in some states than in others. In the past, in estimating ability to pay for edu- cation, it has usually been assumed that this factor was taken care of by dividing economic resources by number of children rather than by total population. This assumption, that the ability to support schools and the number of children in a com- munity vary in a direct ratio, is challenged by Clark, in a recently published study, who takes the position that the relationship is nearer to the following: that beginning with a reasonable num- ber of children, doubling that number reduces to one fourth the amount of education that can be supplied for each child. That this is an under rather than an over-statement of the conditions should be clear from the fact that only the first of the list of causes given above is necessary to pro- duce that result.’ The list of causes referred to in the quota- tion includes the following, the first of which it is contended is sufficient to justify the ac- ceptance of the relationship suggested : 1. That the additional children have to be fed and clothed. 2. That a larger percentage of children makes a larger percentage of non-producing people. 3. That a larger percentage of children makes a smaller percentage of people in the most productive ages.* Clark develops a formula by which the effect of the suggested law may be applied to a community in measuring its ability to sup- The Financing of Education in the State of New York, The The Financing of Public Schools im the School of Education, Indiana University, Bloomington, Indiana, 1925. p. 20. ‘Ibid. p. 19 [61] 62 ABILITY TO SUPPORT EDUCATION port education. This formula, with some community reduces to one fourth its support in previous investigation, accepts the pay for educating each child. I: ratio of two adults to one child as the “‘stand- per capita wealth, per capita income ard ratio” of adults to children in a stable other acceptable measure of econom population, and each community is compared per capita, such as those suggested to or measured by this ratio as a reference thesis,. may be employed along point. The formula used is =, in which x is formula to determine ability to the ratio of number of adults to each child. schools. This means that one obtains the proper meas- The application of this formula to ure of the effect of the two variables, number states is made in Table 23. The most of adults and number of children in a commu-_ icant figures of Table 23 are those in nity, by squaring the ratio of adults to chil- 6 and 7. They indicate that if th dren and dividing by +. If a community has of the United States as a whole to the “standard” ratio of adults to children, education is represented by the va namely, two adults to one child, the formula then Alabama has an ability represer is employed as follows: <, or 4 or 1.00 that is, the value, .21, California, 3.41 and the ratio of adults to children which is 2. 1-51. California’s ability to suppo: squared, or 4 divided by 4, which gives the tion is 3.41 times as great as the Unite value. 1.00. This value in turn is multiplied as a whole; Alabama’s ability is but by the community’s per capita wealth to ob- cent as great as that of the country as tain the “standard ability” to support educa- Also by dividing the index number of tion. If a community has not two but one 7 for California by that given for A adult to each child, then the formula yields it appears that California’s ability is | the value, .25, as follows: the ratio of adults as great as that of Alabama. Has th to children is 1, which is squared to obtain 1, any claim for acceptance? which is divided by 4 and yields the value The acceptance depends upon the in question—.25. This in turn is multiplied of the formula upon which its calcul by per capita wealth. based. This investigation makes no In short, the formula seeks to correct per that the formula is sound. In the abs: capita wealth, as a measure of ability to sup- complete data, which Clark’s study do: port schools, by taking account of varying give, it at best must be looked upon " percentages of children that populations with hypothesis. It is felt, however, that similar per capita wealth may have. The chances, either that the formula leads a correction made is based upon the assumption imately to the truth, or that it represents an n that doubling the number of children in a under- rather than an over-statement e TABLE 23.—STATES COMPARED AS TO STANDARD ABILITY TO SUPPORT EDUCATION Ratio of a2 several st signif- cr lumns support ue 1,00, nted by Illinois t educa- d States 21 1 whole. column Jabama, 6 times s figure validity ation is » claim ence of oes not nas a at the APprox- ents an of the TION dex of lity to jpport hools is .95 nulti- umn v he le, ity ol UNMEASURED Factors AFFECTING ABILITY 63 weight that should be given to the influence on ability to support education of varying per- centages of children in a community, are sufh- ciently good to justify giving it consideration. It is believed to be one of the most suggestive methods that can be used for interstate com- parisons, which has been devised to weight the obviously important influence of an in- creasing percentage of children in a commu- nity upon ability to supply a given grade of education. ‘This is the justification for the space that is given to it here. If a better method is derived and reported with adequate supporting data, the formula described here will have to give way.’ The formula seems to lead nearer the truth than do past attempts made to measure the influence of differing percentages of children in a population upon ability to support educa- tion. ‘This statement is based upon inspection of data such as those in Table 24, rather than upon a comprehensive and scientific evalua- tion, such as will be necessary before any final conclusions can be drawn. The calculations of Table 24 are similar to those of Table 23, except that the formula is applied to each of the measures of economic power, developed in Chapter II, as well as to per capita wealth. Column 7 of Table 24 corresponds to column 4 of Table 23. The figures of column 7, Table 24, are multi- plied by each of the per capita measures of column 8 to 12 to obtain the data in columns 13 to 17 for each of these measures of eco- nomic power. The data of the latter columns of Table 24 are similar to those given for per capita wealth in columns 6 and 7 of Table 23. Table 24 shows that Alabama, with slightly less than one adult per child (column 5), and with $308 per capita income (column 10), has according to the indices of column 15 but one fifteenth as much ability to support schools as California, with slightly more than ‘It is not feasible to produce such supporting data and arguments for his formula as Clark advances two adults for each child and a per capita in- come of $975. Does this ratio of fifteen to one appear to be a better indication of the relative ability of these two states to support education than the five to one ratio for the same states given in Table 12, which results from comparing the number of units of in- come behind each child six to thirteen? Thinking toward the answer to this ques tion may be facilitated by considering an in- dividual family. Suppose that one family is composed of two adults and one child while another has two adults and two children. And suppose, further, that the first family con- sisting of a man and his wife and one child enjoys a total income of approximately $3000 a year—California has a per capita income of $975 a year, see Table 24, and that the second family consisting of a man and wife and two children enjoys a yearly income of approxi mately $1200—Alabama has a per capita in- come of $308, see Table 24. Insofar as the economic ability of the two families is con- cerned, is the first family five times or fifteen times better able to provide its children a given amount of education than the second family? This answer this question. volve the weighing of a series of economic in- fluences which interlock with great complex- ity. The illustration in the preceding para- graph is offered as an aid to the thinking which must precede more detailed study and arrival at final conclusions, rather than as a defense of either of the methods used in ar- riving at the two ratios representing the com- parative ability of California and Alabama to support education.?. It should also be rec- ognized that certain factors begin to enter when many families of varying sizes and con- ditions are thrown together im a state that do not appear in considering a hypothetical average family such as that just assumed. dissertation does not attempt to To do so would in- These may be found in the study as cited. Also consult Clark's study, pages 4 to 8, for a review of previous attempts to measure the effect of population on ability to support schools. *It is recognized that the methods used in arriving at the five to one and the fifteen to one ratios are not comparable for a number of reasons. inclusive and in the other it is one to twenty inclusive. For example, in one case the number of children in a state is those aged six to It is not the methods, however, that we are interested in thirteen comparing in this chapter but rather the final product, that is, the relative ability of the states to support education. One method indicates that California is five times as able to support education as Alabama; the other indicates that the ratio is fifteen to one. to the truth is what students of education are secking. It is a comparison of the results yielded by two methods, than two methods, that is made here. Any method, either of those described in this study or others, which yields a result closest rather = - a . esses —_ —— 1 — . a - wo 3 #03886 pertan ews fq fteatgoedsax ,1 pom * “St ‘Ot ‘ct om semrSts O1 Fatptatp fq peures of8 22 Due “tz ‘og ‘at *ot suet 9 *. = : ; ‘ «ipes .? ot %¢ eum, priétdtiate fe per W390 ore gr pus ‘ot ‘61 ‘ot “et SHMTOD *St@ei STu2 50 Z MMTCO Zo SemmIT3 Aq Tearscedses .t pre *g “zt *g *¢ emmros *@ ST@¥5 Jo Jemstz on; Setpietp fq perre ome ZI pie ‘tr ‘or “s ai 34 ae ah cen IP ¢ ~ tt gains Ba an an ©) “¢ mmtoo fe Toe Surptarp fq peutwsge et g mmICD *oz6T 205 ensued “S$ *0 WH peseg ow» pm “¢ *z amToo TSAOTTOS GF portergc ere eTQN: om JO BAED 1 . = 9 “mToo fq pep “TP 9 wmETOO #: , GenToo perwnbs ¢ aunTfoo s; 9 @enTos ¢ “=™T0° ° = “WOTSeRoeTp Sure eve 000 tres ome 5 e319) om 30 Sctewes ar zo CoTiwrvtdxe 20; pre epdyoutad S173 JO "OTeeNCeTD seuiang 404g “stooqos 12zodine 03 AGtTIGe 831 UI2T.03 ow 03 Seorpes *f;;urmmme oT oF O12 T pate *“US2PTT US zo ePeyoeosed 2 Poitqnop req eTdyoul 2" ern 30 eores“eooe me = perwq erases /T ——- i ae ae ——— | Tet os*t tt Ost ez*t | ust ta" ore Ot*zo9 ty 09 og*9Te 46°2S9T zw etzt cit | Os" e9e 9" 984 AU" 9608 vee" vit £99" 94 Z0P* ET Buymae to*t oo*t to*t “6 Oot | go°t Oz" Oce cr ror $e* vez 90° tze av°eret Sz° 968 Pi te" 469 26° 099 Ov* 9962 90g" zs" t S0P* sot’ 490° zee"2 UT sas ty co es° cs* “” “” 99° ev ore Ie" tw oS" eT et*zs 92" 699 00° 9Te e TY" 66? ae" ves 26°Sits og" eve age * tte Tou*con*r | wrurdary seg Tée*t eer | cert vert] zert | es* 66°08 90° 999 Trees et*sts 92° 0.92 96° OTTT “ett | saree ze" 999 Ss" 69% ec. tez6*z | lt 262°259 20S bes Tz9* o¢e* 1 Oo ut yee, sv cw | * 7 t ” St*get ee" sz"ezt CET ve*ets atrate S6°0s9 | Sé*oty oor av" 2902 oe | (teett | corr w0* Poe t Stt*2or't set*ean*z SaEsAty te*t | T2*t zz*t wert] geet | eter Tte*6t¢ v2" 099 2° oR 94° 400 99° F261 oe"tte "gue | 00*SL9 eT" 189 6s*290z ” Oo9s*2 ost 999" 9% 998" cet ez’ 2ge nose, oo ss | fg os | ose =| se se*oez aed 94° OFT Ts* TST O4*SL8 62"918 ii*Te6 | 96°089 wr 169 ee*ever az’ 6090°T ort ize" are | ts" oz see em win oe | ge 09" te [sss low | sovzte os" oez ortet | ssrest | sooo oz* ten veresa | Sortas bn —. esi tat s22°onv's Sts*zez*z ezz*eo9ty ovre. ° ° . ° ° . , ° ° x eo" e6.*ztz*t @6*ezt*t coe‘ uee* eos soumey * *" x om | ce | ec ost St ost so*sot | ve*zot Te*ezs ou" oRe az°rog «=| ez" o0F 9e° tus &t* 90a 62 wT't z se oe" oe ™ | ze [ett] erese cz*te tereet oz" tee @a*eEST 99" 006 6e*attt | 9e7s ta*099 te ogy * weet ort see*eve toa‘ tez ive" eee now mrog ‘v or’ et: oz | ote | et: ese ve"t9 4L°69 oe" es re? eres 4c°oe =| So*zee teers So°OT9T er oecu* o° os9" ue ts4*c06 %2*ceo*t PxT Tor wanog cert set] cot] aut] zur fev) te-zoe Sorove =| zereog | uveecs | gercret | terete Se-szet | oevsee torooe | aereete | te | geeeee a ‘ec one ece see vee le ot*t ott ort OTT | atet | eter Sz" Lee 60° tes wee or" ous 26° LecT 86° LG0T O6"ezTT | Co" ez. vs" 008 ov'eeze wo 6928°T “Tt er te0*s 926° 0890's Lt0* 022" Ppura [hema 96°t 26° 66°C | Gat] OBL | tz-z |] oMoze OC* O16 oo" L2z¢ orrts Sz" ever Or eet 6e°omeT | terete "use ev°Ceon eu* te6"2 tert Ott" ten tzv* ez 695 “te. 2a ” ° 6c° out “0° ‘Te’ Lr 69°Szt oT rc6 42° 929 z9°ee0 te". 94°20 99° 900 oz* toes’ 66 oro tae %96'crr 248° v9 P40: Wi4oq ev ov @ eo 4 Om ow Se TIT 9 n iu . a a . . oe Pebaall baba sd oi = ve" ver | ce | oz St" 90T Sort vero Tt"se Sz" ec ze" oes ot" 299 or" wee Se" sus 98° 9941 oz cote 06 Sts" 02" 968" oxC"T Szt*egs*z WAtOreD y340,; le" ws S22 | cee | ostz | geet oz*z96 06° 6ToT 2T* 004 se"L9. 42° ozs zt* test oP" 9e91 60° 996 ve" t@Ol | ee*osar uw veze"z oort 9te* z0g*9 99S" oze*c 422° sec‘ ot 440), meg ev ” Cd ” co ~ SS" 6eT SS*veT or" 6zt se’ ert 20° 209 96°949 9a* 969 96° \9P 94" 649 ¥0*ostz oe Szotrt sort tsa'ret WT cet oss* ose 9° we°t as"t | Ss°t | eset | eset | egreop Sz" 0ze oe°99% =| Pt*905 | Oo*tztz ev°catt eareeet | uc* toe ovetss | go°tzes as° towz*z ts*t cee’ see*t 9to*ace*t 006*sst*g 99°t 99°T o9rt Sot | Sort | corr wrote 09° 092 26" Lee 6e* les 90° eezz 99°" 996 et’ Ptor 4s" 099 90° 604 44° 0S06 Sa 6266°2 S4°t wz" oe 490° z91 £80’ crs zs" as*s tre | Ses | catz | to" | ga zest %e° 9TST 65° v6 98° 268 ce*cre9 61°C6eT Ge" OLeT | PI" R06 Se" t¥e tv" 0685 ort wve"* sore s06*ts 69t" sz 200" 22 o°t 6° torn |] tee [eer | seer] ogeozs "Se zz" ove s*tez 04*66LT 66° 996 So*sgot | 96°95 20°99 | Sz" 060P wv vere't ze*t vee" ore 290° o9¢ tut" 962° 1 om go*t st*r s6* Zot | ae facet | osrcop sc"ay otooe =| zereve | 90°9G01 Sz" 166 cvose =| wets ver 60s | ee*sece sy 0096" ov't Seo" oe Lzt*ozz 698" 995 ttt zt rt go°t | sort | tzt es*cer 99° Los sv ets mise te* over or"soe 49°S68 av" Ou avrz09 | oraz | ge toze*z ort 809* ve0*s tee" o00*t 990° bo9*> + 60 . . . ta Tz oe" 2° og* t° 99" té 92" 26 ares Tote9 W612 avo *St Lop 46° 942 so°osz | 96*¥tzt ez o206" oe ase" 228 zIs* ote eT9* 062*t x wort tort] got] oe | ee | set | gceece vi" Ley osrssz | astete | goMecor 09" 926 "eet | St%ate — | —— EP icon » si tet*eus*t | tez*g00'r G2’ u9e*z a . *> . | ° . + at at at e°t | ec*t | cert ze" 80g @* 129 49° 90% Le eS" 66. tz*stor Te* Te0t 76° 904 wie | 22°20 es | votsrz ze°T wou! tiz*z 926" z09"T ZT9* e99"c wea TuOT ser “ert oe" 6o°z | go°z | curt 9" 098 Te" 906 rots oc*ze9 Lt ovez v6" PTzT Sa*vezt | c9° O80 S¥°096 oles ee ad “vt Sas* eov"z 6he* Ope Tt oo0*zse*e Pri esrycwsery zz*t sz*t zz*t éz*t | sz*t | govt os" zs er" 699 St ze verzte So" 9991 Sz" 66 90° 980 orate aS" v9. te" Staz "“ 609T"2 wt 006" 098 O42" L099 Tes" eve T Pret Arey at zt art wert | oer | azer 4° 299 OT 909 69°Sec ec*werr Seratet Oo" 6S@ Se" ote 89" 669 90" 8S9 29° 2098 : wee'z art Ptead eze*zez Plo*es, 6c* ow «* ow je | ec te" at 9T*Oet eo ett cc*ezt we" 92g zs*zt9 wens ze*see Su*ese 96" 990T ee" Szorrt sort sce" ete Sze*oue 606" 964° ore; etnoT o° ~*~ “ 7 oc st*zur Se*e9t 20° Gzt Sorat ee" 0Le To* ees errors te" 06e 6z"tae 20° teet = 9662"T ort S4S*L92"t Wi izt't oro’ ote’ 2 Axonaaey zo°t torr 20° 76° ce z7°t “wore Oe" 908 24° 042 et*tae oz* 999T ec*eze etces to" ous te" one ee°ezec ” 69e"T at soy 'ta0*t ett*ons ae2* e94't evscwy za*t zerr yy ett | oot | see | tart | eveges 40° 199 sovvez | eerste | sevrtez | oertes Ceres | serees wees | usvoney | go vers | wt Svelszv’t | ece*sze tz0*son*z ett oz*t tt oUt | tret | teer ie*ots z2°9¢ ve ocr eL°998 writ Te"$49 ov" 906 aves Te*909 TY 400 6s ez vert O66 SLL°t ous* oot*t cet‘ ore*z Srerput 6s" ort es*t ] cert | corn | reer | coezee 90° 622 corres vere 62° te0r 60° 99TT St°Stzt | tz*908 ve*eue Te* otve or G7Or2 osrt ez" orete 20° Tees 0e7*oos*o Stomrrrr %* %* eu° 6° | see | cee Te*9te os" oor server =| at*eee te*eert 9"S06 Se*stot | sz*vec ys°9e9 | So-ztze ox wee*t ort uee*eez 062° 26T oe" Tre sz* Se* cae az* | ve | cz | treet 89° LOT 6c" 9L x erro =| ze"OK corece | ver ecet sz* stze* se Seer ete’t | gzz*vee't zee’ oee*z *192099 19° oe 29° $s es* | oc St°esz e°cez a" 79T 62" te*eze se°96* | ee-otsz * gee" wt tos*ees oe" Tey OLY o96 wiaew ert ovr Mt] get | ome | czet | gets os" ero "62 9E"900T | oE°tes ator. OL" 2922 29 6rer"z es*t 664° ORT 29999 c00*ezz ed es°t es°t ast | sort | cort | user | soetee os" ets * ooo Geretet | ert 22" cee or szer 6 otee*2 wrt t99* 909 495" ts tes‘ oue*t 390} :98mmED m ‘ wert sort vert | cert | vert | cert | otecus So*ste eT’ 068 es*6ttt | ov" 604 Soe. =| we*czee %" woet*2 ov't See" 9os Oot’ auc 629" 6c Opesotog eg"s as*s 99°S | as’s | aere | tere 06" STS} 4e°s.9t =| 2e*egot 99° 29ST | O*seé Pe°eCTt | oteesze go" verre wore tts" o0c*z tee*oot't t9e*sz¥'e ra40z; TSO oa oe" Sz* sz" ez" 9 Sa*2tt Te*ztt wes co*oue et zee Si* ez 62° 991 ve° vove* oer 609" S98 Z1e* 998 voz* zea" eesuexay out oo" wort ee" wort | tret $6" og 06" Led cz* tez T9*S9Tt 26°Se9 tP*008 6.° 199" te vere" t ez°t WOE * BET eee’ oer 29 oor waor ay se" sa" ez ve | Bee tz or" 66 ac*sot 98" 04 ovrey 60° auc St" See ve ORE sz $z00° Se" 6e9*oRt*t 6c4* 902" bet ove'z weeery ds St Se SMSE SERS mY Z Be"etty Twrstey |e Lad CTO ** Sc-e°T = 5 Laat 33 EE arr ee au < “Tr Tt 3 z 7Y Ens cas bas aitend = a . LJ ee ee [@aoou, | @ooeu E00", emo} 005, $aeiins | TRt0; ques Te303 TR303 B2-81 | Seosnoses Baornos 14 Surpntowy Pespazory ep ony Pepe rou; pou; mou; Moz 4g PItyeo eum 1 oF Orde | > rmONo od oul quooury! SiTeeq seorno ses Seomoces 306.snD Te0y wre Seorroees Seo.mose. Veim Tew. Peprarp perr be Wouve of 2020 Dre oa 5° Beper | so groper) yee Te 2 Tar wee OTmouNDe Tenors Term OTECmOee Symom0Ce Terme Tene Tiree, | pezenbs OF34E =leitoPe zo lz say 02-0 sety Trios omens Spenser tt erat, zo Feput | 30 xeput| a@escay | adsicay | 3° xepty 3° _xeper eSesesy | aezest onsey gms Borswenpe yoddns o: fat toe esepress 30 zepay Ze POLWSTECY FT tre Lar an ted owe Jay Jo Otaey — uoHeonpy| joddng 03 S93EIS 24) JO Ayiqy PAPI —pZ F192], CHART XXI —— RELATIVE Abmuy @ Ricu & Poor Stares » Support EDUCATION (Comparison of results of two methods of determining comparative ability to support schools. Ability of United States - 1.00 by both methods.) fe) 1.00 2.00 300 4.00 L 1 l = 2 respectively 22 ine | eels 1.00 United States 1'do : . 9.01 California 3.59 RSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS SS SSNS SSE SSS 1.98 Nevada 3.53 P 1.68 New York 2.21 FSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS SSNS SSNS 149 M assachusetts 1 OF SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS SSS SSS SS SSS SST 1; Oregon 1,06 ISSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS SSS SSS SSS SS SOS SSNS 3 138 Washington LDL ESSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSNSS SSS SSNS SSNS SST an 1.3% Rhode Isla G5 Feessess SSS SET NAAN] Hew Jersey Illinois Wyom Ing” 122 Ohio 54 BSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS SSSSSSSS SSS noo Oklahoma New Mexico Virginia —— == —s ove yore + 16, aud 17 respectively by the United States figure of the colum 4 Ability according to data of chapter Ill Rxyy Ability: indicated. by Clabkis formula one Se She Gna Ss are obtained by dividing the figures in colums 153, 14, 15 Read chart thus: Twelve rich and twelve poor states are compared as to ability to support education, acoarding to two methods of determining ability. The ability of the United States as « whole according to both methods is given the value 1.00. If adil- ity to support education is defined as the mumber of mits of economic power per child (Chapter III), California has ©.01 times as mich ability es the coutry as a rhole. If ability to support edmcation is determined br usiz assumes that doubling tle percentage of children in a cammmity reduces to one-fourth its ability times ag moh ability as the country as a whole. Mississippi has .73 as mich ability to support ec a whole by the first method of calculating ability, amd .21 by the second. California has 6.09 (2.01 divided by .33) times the ability of tississipni to supnort eduoation according to the first method: California hes 17.0 (3.59 divided by .21) times the ability of Alabama accoriing to the recond method. Similarly interpret and compare data for other stater. The figures given for each state are from Table 12, colum 12, pare 36, and Table 24, colum 25, page 64. WVeeeme 6% 5 77 Vee fe — l [65] 66 AsiLity To Support EpucATION Density of Population and Ability to Support Schools Density of population is another influence bearing upon ability to support schools which to date has been given relatively little atten- tion. Those familiar with factors affecting the cost of education will readily agree that density of population plays some influence upon the cost of offering a given educational opportunity. It costs more to give a child in Nevada, living miles from other children, a given amount of schooling than a child living in the thickly settled sections of New York Mort has dealt with this prob- lem as it is encountered in a single state and some of the principles and methods laid down in his study can be used in interstate studies.’ No attempt is made in this dissertation, however, to estimate accurately the difference in the cost of education per child in a state like Nevada, with less than one person per square mile, and in a state like Rhode Island, with 566 people per square mile. To apply Mort’s technique to the situation in the forty- eight states would require the assembling of much data not readily available and a study of considerable length in itself. Some attention may be given, however, to another investigation, by Staffelbach, which at- tempts roughly to measure the influence of density of population in a state on school costs. This study among other things seeks to deter- mine: or Illinois. 1. The point on the scaie of population densities at which density ceases to be a factor conducing to higher unit costs of education. 2. What increases in unit costs occur as popula- tion densities decrease.’ The calculations of this investigation were based upon density of population data for whole states, since adequate figures f tions of states were unavailable. This culty is met by assuming that “where the of sparseness of population was present large porticn of a state, it would be re! in the average unit cost of the entire st In order to take proper account of th: that educational standards vary in diff states, the percentage of literacy of the ( for 1920 was employed as a basis for gr states which maintained approximately educational standards.* Staffelbach’s findings, which are pres as “estimates” and as indicative rathe: conclusive, are that: 1. Unit costs in education remain unaffect: changes in population densities in states ha twenty-four or more people per square mil 2. In states having six or less people per s mile, school costs are approxi thirty-three percent by while in states having from six to twenty people per square mile school costs are increas proximately five percent by low population d: increased low population d: In Table 25 are given figures showin; effect of applying Staffelbach’s findings indices of the relative ability of the st to support schvols developed in Chapter: and to those resulting from an applicati Clark’s formula to the various measures economic power. ‘This table seems to s! that increased costs due to sparsity of pop tion is an important factor in increasing burden of the educational load in seven stat Nevada, Wyoming, Arizona, Montana, Ida Utah, and New Mexico. It acts as a mino: factor in increasing costs in ten other stat The density of population in the remaining thirty-one states appears to have passed point on the scale of population densities 1 Mort, Paul R. The Measurement of Educational Need, Teachers College, Columbia University, New York 1924. See particularly pages 82 and 83. * Staffelbach, Elmer H. Opportunities o lished dissertation completed at Stanford University, the Federal Government in the Support of Public Education. U * The validity of certain objections that may be raised against the use of the methods just described are recog by Staffelbach in his study. ever. presentation of their findings that seems desirable here. He believes the methods he employed to be the best that his facilities permitted, The value of either Staffelbach’s or Clark’s study should not be determined on the basis of the very m« * Mort, in the study cited, concludes that in New York State in elementary schools having two or more teachers cost per pupil is directly proportional to the number of pupils attending in districts having an average daily atten of 142 and over, and that a similar direct relationship is obtained in high schools with an average daily attendance and above. 1925, Albany, New York, p. 198 f, For a discussion of Mort’s findings as applied to a of the Special Joint Committee on Taxation and Retrenchment, ractical situation, see: State of New York, / islative Document (1925), No. 97, February for ‘is diff- le eftect in inv eflected fate.” he tact ifferent Census ‘ouping equal esented r than cted by having le.* square imately lensity, ty-four sed ap- lensity. iz the to the states r Ill on of es of show ypula- g the tates, daho, ninor tates. ining | the es at City, Jnpub- gnized how- aeager s, the dance f 518 teport y 15, ~Seettou SO ie ne tA MR Ma i och eile. satpro UNMEASURED Factors AFFECTING ABILITY 67 which density ceases to be a factor conducing The modifications in Table 25 of the pre- to higher unit costs of education.” viously presented data as to the relative abil- 1How much these conclusions will be modified, when data are available as to population densities for small geo graphic sections, rather than the average figure for whole states, can only be conjectured. TABLE 25.—COMPARATIVE ABILITY OF STATES TO SUPPORT EDUCATION AS INDICATED BY VARIOUS METHODS OF DETERMINING ABILITY Relative ability of the states to support education as indicated by : Per cent of |__ -" me ome Population | school costs | | States oo due to Units of | , | Column 4 | Column 5 = sparsity of economic | Clark’s corrected | correcte d . population power per formula for sparsity | for sparsity child aged (standard of popula- | of popula- 6-13 ability) | tion tion 1 2 3 , 5 | 6 So ivcsdisbastceenss 35.4 0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 | eee alewss Ge ean 22.0 5 | 2.01 3.59 1.91 3. 41 ET err Co eee ere 7 33 | 1.98 3.52 1.33 | 2 36 New York......... eekiinwetstb 217.9 0 1.65 2.21 1.65 2.21 DOR 5 died cnceveccecie ~ 479.2 0 1.49 1.97 | 1.49 1.97 oe eae serait 8.2 5 1.42 1.96 | 1.35 1.86 Washington...... teistdieadt Relcth: dpe apse, a 20.3 5 1.38 1.91 | 1.31 1.81 Rhode Island.. . ot chads cn ied } 566.4 0 | 1.37 1.63 1.37 1.63 Connecticut. ..... ; i geatenia re 286.4 0 } 1.36 1.58 1.36 1.58 New Jersey........ corn 420.0 0 1.35 1.56 | 1.35 | 1.56 ed os hee were poo 115.7 0 1.33 1.59 1.33 1.59 . Sean Pace aces 2.0 33 1.29 | 1.41 86 4 | ee ree bas 141.4 0 1.22 1.54 | 1.22 1.54 ES BUG Wigs be 4's 00s ecw. ces 63.8 0 1.20 1.37 1.20 1.37 re ere 49.1 0 1.20 1.66 1.20 1. 66 ea pv eal ae a ee 9.1 5 1.19 | 1.34 1.13 1. 27 Delaware.......... ples apes 113.5 0 115 =| 1 38 1.15 1.38 Pennsylvania... .. pes ak arsa's 194.5 | 0 1.15 1.16 1.15 1.16 SE ae ae 2.9 | 33 1.14 1.02 76 6s ed owes ka deve deen 43.2 | 0 1.14 1.22 | 1.14 1.22 aie icini «nse aermsin ones 145.8 0 1.12 1.22 1.12 1.22 Se eee 29.5 0 1.05. | 1.04- | 1.05 1.04 0 Eee 25.7 0 1.04 1.32 1.04 1.32 Nebraska... .. Sek awiss 16.9 5 1.03 | 1.00 98 95 a, bso uenteokek Boston, Mass. Portland, C reg. . Seattle, Wash Chicago, Il Cincinnati Cleveland . Ohio (Aver. ye. ran J mt Die OWco comm WEN on tocn AaNwOworwneOe a © Average Q! Detroit, Mich........ Denver, Colo........ ee Pittsburgh. . Scranton Pennsylvania (Aver.) Baltimore, Minseapolia Minn..... Portland, Maine........ beane Does ~Ic » wu cwnDnoo w Read table thus: Buffalo, ete. able based on Table 2, p. 29, Indices of comparative cost of | living for families in States and cities | December, 1918 1920 1924 100.00 | 100.00 United States Indianapolis, Ind. 92 94.0 ansas City Os | 94. 4 St. Louis. . 1 4 | 96 98 | ) | - December, June, | Missouri (Aver.) 97 . 55 96 Houston, Texas - 98 99. : Jacksonville, Fla Bm: & 108. § Average Q! ...-| 98.3 | 99.3 | 98.9 Norfolk... .. 116.4 | 113.2 Richmond ; 93 | o4.! Virginia (Aver.) | 104 | 103 New Orleans, La 87 . 93.: Memphis, Tenn...... } 106 109 Atlanta 95.: 04.% | Savannah , ; 2.3 98 Georgia (Aver.) it), 96 pepinetam 9 .¢ 107 Mobile 98 Alabama (Aver.) 5.35 102 Average Q‘ 2 100 In 1918 it cost $92.10 in Los Angeles to purchase certain articles which cost $100.90 in San Franciseo, $101.80 in Similarly read data for other cities and for other years. pared, that is, the indices for 1918 for one city may be compared with those of another for the same year one city in 1918 should not be compared with those for the same city or another city for 1920 or 1924 The Cost of Living in the United States, National Industrial Conference Board 1 equals average for certain cities in states of first quartile as to ability to support schools equals average for certain cities in states of second quartile as to ability to support schools equals average for certain cities in states of third quartile as to ability to support schools equals average for certain cities in states of fourth quartile as to ability to support schools Only the indices for the same year should be com Those given for The first object of this study is to give a quantitative answer to the question: What is the relative ability of the states of the union to support education providing they tap their economic resources in an ideal man- ner? ‘To answer this question it is necessary to measure the economic power and the size of the educational obligation of each state. Several measures of each state’s economic power are presented. These are based upon the value of tangible wealth and the amount of average annual income of the states. The number of children aged six to thirteen is suggested as a measure of the size of the edu- cational obligation faced by each state. The ability of a state to support education is obtained by dividing the various measures of a state’s economic power by its number of children aged six to thirteen. Ability to sup- port schools is thus defined as the number of units of economic power behind each unit of educational work to be performed. The data presented indicate that the richest state of the forty-eight is approximately six times as able to meet its educational obliga- tions as the poorest state. Considered as groups, the twelve richest states of the forty- eight are three times as able to meet their edu-. cational obligations as the twelve poorest, States. This question is also raised by the investi- gation: What are some of the accompani- ments of such differences as exist in the ability of the states to support education? Data are presented which point toward these conclu- sions : 1. The rich states afford their schools much more adequate financial support than the poor states. 2. The school systems in the rich states generally appear to be more efficiently or- ganized than those in the poor states. 3. The general level of educational attain- ment of the people in the rich states is signifi- cantly higher than that of the people in the pocr states. On the other hand, when we define effort _make it necessary to change the principal co: CHAPTER VI Summary and Conclusions made to support education as the perc of economic power annually allotted for maintenance, it appears that there is relationship between the ability possessed the effort made by a state to support e tion. In a given period different state to allot similar percentages of their econ resources for school support whether possess a relatively large or small num! units of economic power behind each chi be educated. This tentative conclusi based on data for 1922. Such data available on the same for pr periods point to the validity of this hypot Are the differences that exist in the al of the states to support education temp or rélatively permanent? Figures bearin; this point seem to indicate that existing dif ferences in ability to support education are | peculiar to this decade and that simila: ferences will probably be found in the fut There is also some evidence that a state’s c parative position, with respect to its abilit support education, is relatively permanent the majority of cases it has shown no tende: to fluctuate widely since 1880. The investigation recognizes that the de! tion of ability to support education as the nun ber of units of economic power behind ea child to be educated open to criticisn Some factors, which the investigation makes no attempt to measure, probably exercise cor i siderable influence in determining the abili' of a state to support education. Among th recognized and discussed in this investigat are: 1. The effect of varying percentages children in a population 2. The influence of density of population 3. The influence of differences in the c of living. The data available as to the influence these factors in determining the ability of t! states to support schools are inconclusive. 5 ,far as existing data indicate, the exact mea “urement of these factors will probably n point is [70] rcentage ir school is little sed and ‘ educa- ‘es tend -onomic r they nber of hild to sion is as are revious othesis, ability porary ing on 1g dif- ire not ur dif- future. $ com- lity to it. In dency Jefini- num- each icism. nakes . con- bility those ation Ss of on cost e of the So leas- not con- Nagin te . A LE I BRR Nt . _ — élusion of this investigation, namely, that there are significant differences between the states in ability to support education. It is probable that the data of this study under- rather than over-estimate the magnitude of these differ- ences. It seems safe to conclude, therefore, that some states must bear tax rates five and six times as great as other states to provide a given school opportunity for their children. The twelve states least able to support education, considered as a group, will find it necessary to maintain tax rates three times as high as the twelve richest states to raise a given sum for the education of each child. It is possible that this will eventually be done by the poor states. ‘There is little evi- dence at present, however, to justify the hope. There is more evidence to point toward the conclusion that the poor states will not devote any higher percentage of their economic power to education than the rich states. If this hypothesis is valid then we may expect the existing wide differences among the states in the provision made for financial support to continue. If in addition, we accept the tentative con- clusion that differences in ability to support education comparable to those now in ex- istence are a relatively permanent condition, then we may conclude that certain sections will, over extended periods, provide school facilities distinctly inferior to those found in other sections. At least, this will be true inso- far as financial support determines the char- acter of school facilities. x - SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 71 These facts may be given various interpre- tations. Some will contend that education is so important to national advancement that it is dangerous to disregard a situation that promises to provide children in some sections with school opportunities much inferior to those provided in other sections. ‘Those who take this view are likely to maintain that it is neither just nor wise to accept a situation re- quiring some sections to levy taxes at rates from two to six times as high as other sec- tions, in order to provide the minimum pro- gram of educational opportunity essential in a democracy. Others will oppose this viewpoint. They will contend that it is possible for every state to levy taxes that will provide enough educa- tion for all. ‘The fact that this may require much higher tax rates in some states than in others will not disturb them. They will maintain that any attempt, through federal aid, to equalize the burden of providing an ac- ceptable minimum program of school opportu- nity, will tend to perpetuate indefensible eco- nomic situations existing in the poorer states. This investigation neither accepts nor re- jects these viewpoints. It is satisfied to present certain facts and to limit their interpretation to conclusions that all may accept. The principal conclusion drawn from the facts presented is this: The states differ widely in their economic ability to support educa- tion—some states must levy taxes at rates frgm two to six times as high as others to provide a given amount of financial support for each child to be educated. APPENDIX TABLE A.—WEALTH BY STATES (Expressed in thousands of dollars) } Federal property (b) Percent Aggregate Real estate Per- — A. .... ; wealth and im- | centage | edera : | provements | that real States Aggregate Public Other | property onetusive | "chutes | estate wealth domaia federal | | is of a of federal | : ’ Total &- property | of federal | is of ag forestsand| property | gregate property gregate mineral ] wealth | wealth (a) lands (c) (d) | (e) (f) (g) (i) 1 2 3 4 6 | 6 7 | 8 9 United States. .|$313,0 021, 560 $1,515, 162 $1, 463, 613) |$2, 978, 775 .95|/$310, 042, — 55.53 ——- ———___——_—_ | SS — _ a Alabama........ 3, "3,002,043 621 87 ,955} 88, 576 2.95) 2,913,467) 1,331 ,296] 45.6 i 1.314, 291 74,262 19,739) 94,001 7.15 1,220,290 721,593) 59.1 Arkansas........ 2,599,617 9,248 2,727) 11,975 .46 2' 587.642 . 169° 182) 56.78 California....... 15,031,734) 275,742 78,137| 353,879 2.35) 14,677,855) 8,006, 343] 545s Colorado........ 3,229,412 81,655 21,293 102,948 3.19 2,126,464 1,655 408) 52.9: Connecticut. .... Ss OF eee 4,596) 4,596 .09 5,281,849 3,019,887) 57.17 Delaware........ cnc cc cess é, 548| 8,548 1.37 617,217 319,827; 51.82 _ ae 2,440,491 3,443 5, 813} 9,256 . 38 2,431,235 1,542,457] 63.44 Georgia......... 3,896,759 1,936 27 , 334! 29,270 .75 3, 867 ,489 1,925,466 49.79 aa 1,533,941 124,596 22,179) 146,775 9.57 1,387,166 751,400 54.17 Illinois... ... wae _ e Fee | 60, 834) 60,834 .27| 22,171,960) 12,507,892 56.41 PS de no i008 J. *s} ae waa 16 , 855} 16,855 .19 8,812,871) 4,637,934 52.63 ~~ Seen ERED 16,764, 16,764 16] 10,494,918} 7, 156,787| 68.19 RS «one hae 6,264,058 4 29 , 494) 29 ,498 47 6, 234, 560) 3,766,976 60.42 Kentucky....... = 3 ee 25, 548| 25,548 .71) 3,556, 843] 1,839,391 51.7] Louisiana....... 3,416,860 11 a i li sol 23,170 .68 3,393, 690) 1,508,065 44.44 Maine answer 2,006 , 531 379 word 7,686 . 38 1,998,845 5} 1,012,260} 50.64 Maryland....... FS 54,014 54,014 1.35 3,936,716 1,914,275 48.63 : | Massachusetts... 12,980,839)...... ot i 102, 046) 102,046 .79 12/878,793 7,054,064 54.77 | Michigan........ 11,404,861 394 22,413 22,807 .20; 11,382,054 5,767,672 50.67 | Minnesota. ..... 8,547,918 7,564 9,490 17,054 . 20)= 8,530, 864 5,187,154) { 60.80 Mississippi. .... . 2,177,690 24 2,135 2,159 .10 2,175,531 1,136,800 52.25 Missouri........ 9,981 ,409)........ ; 7,508 7,508 .08 9,973,901; 5,788,798) 58.04 Montana...... : 2,223,189 126 , 590 17 ,476 144,066 6.48 2,079, 123! 1,079, 869) 51.94 Nebraska....... 5,320,075 1,067 16,554 17,621 . 33 5,302, 454) eee 66.25 | | Nevada... ‘ 541,716 78,216 7,541 85,757 15.83 351.7451 169,712) 37 . 22 New Hampshire 1,374,135 4,790 17,600} 22,390 1.63 1,351,745 642, 578) 47.54 New Jersey......| 11,704,180).......... 50,938 50,938 .43) 11,743, 251| 5,799,629} 49.39) §& | New Mexico... .. 851,836 63,165 13, 890} 77,055 9.05 774,781 363,717 46.94 . | New York....... _ 5 SF er 163, 830) 163, 830 44, 36,871 "432| 20,594,004 55.85 | North Carolina. 4,543,110 3,833 19,225 23,058 51 4,520,052 2,348,307 51.9 North Dakota. .. 2,467,772 401 3,718 4,119 17 2,463 ,653 1,621, 844) 65.83 _ SNS 18,489, 552)........ 30,989) 30,989 17} 18,458,563] 10,145,308} 54.96 | Oklahoma. Saad 3,993,524 919 6 , 264) 7,183 18 3,986,341 2,065, 772) 51.82 | Oregon osbute 3,419,459 201,987 10, _ 212,676 6.22 3,206,783 1,876,835 | 58.53 Pennsylvania... . 28,833,745 1,122 113, 686| 114,808 .40| 28,718,937 14,799,315 51.53 Rhode Island 1,024,326]...... , 6 , 228) 6,223 . 32 1,918,098 906,191 47.24 South Carolina 2,404,845 224) 22,947) 23,171 96) 2,381,674 1,166,773 48.99 88 South Dakota 2,925,968 9,737) 6,693 16,430 56 2,909,538 2,056, 188] 70.67 Tennessee....... 4,228,251 2,541) 7,770) 10,311 24 4,217,940) 2,489 , 067) 59.01 | Texas... m- f er 47 , 340) 47,340 48) 9,803,548 5,915,266 60.34 Utah vere 1,535,477 70, 256 7,685) 77,941 5.08) 1,457 , 536 717,106 $9 . 20 | Vermont | FS ae 2,349 2,349 . 28) 839 ,691 393,021 46.81 Virginia... .. | 4,891,570 3, 120 125,817) 128 , 937) 2.64) 4,762,633 2,643,436 55.50 | Washington } 5,122,405 91,176 53 ,065) 144,241) 2 82} 4,978,164 3,113,058!) 62.53 | West Virginia....| 4,677,919) 751) 28 , 569 29 , 320} 63} 4,648,599 3,221,373 69. 30 | Wisconsin... ~ 7,856,081 6) 5,668 5,674) 07! 7,890,407 4,291,689 53.49 Wy oming | 976 , 239 275,382 21,194 296,576; 30.38 679 ,663 293,170 43.13 See p. 73 for footnotes. , [72] a © Index uj} OF Teal | @State | to ag » | Bregate | ealth | 3) 100.00 9] 82.98 3} 106.48 8} 102.2 5 8 24 BD} «95.35 102 97 101 | 122 1 108 | "93 S 91 37 98 109 04 104.52 93 119; | | te 03 “0 “J APPENDIX A OMB Foren FOOTNOTES FOR TABLE A (a) These figures of aggregate wealth are based on Table 4, column 2, p. 21, Estimated National Wealth, Bureau of the Census. They exclude from the grand total $1,445,992,000, value of ships be longing to the United States Navy, $360,885,000 value of privately owned water-supply systems, and $4,278,155,000, value of gold and silver coin and bullion, not distributed by states. They also exclude all wealth designated District of Columbia. (b) These figures are copied from unpublished records made available in the office of the Bureau of the Census, Wash- ington, D.C. (c) These figures show valuation of Federal property as follows: Public Domain (Land Office), Department of the Interior; Government Lands in National Forests, Department of Agriculture; Bureau of Mines, Department of Interior. They exclude valuation designated District of Columbia. (d) These figures are taken from unpublished records stating valuation of Federal property. They consist of valua- tion enumerated: Real property of the Department of Agriculture exclusive of National Forests; Military Posts exclusive of Ordnance Offices, War iewdetenens: Shore Stations, Industrial Yards, Navy Department; Outlay for buildings under control of Treasury Department; Chief of Engineers, U. 8S. Army, War Department; Ordnance Office, War Department; Reclamation Service, Department of the Interior. They also exclude valuation designated District of Columbia. (e) The grand total of all Federal property is $3,691,986,812 as compared with the $2,978,775 given here. The prop- y excluded consists of the following items, each of which taken separately range below twenty million dollars in value: Post Office Department Air Mail Service; U. 8. Coast and Geodetic Survey; United States Housing C orporation; latean of Fisheries; Inland and Coastwise Waterways Service; Coast Guard (Bi 1ildings and Lands); Bureau of Standards; Naval Radio and Miscellaneous Naval Stations; Smithsonian Institute; Bureau of Immigration; Indian Affairs (exclusive of Irri- gation), Indian Service (Irrigation). They also exclude four items of valuation which taken se parately range from thirty- eight to fifty-eight million dollars in value; U. 8. Veterans’ Bureau; Naval Air Service, and Investments in Plants of Navy Contractors; Air Service (War Department); Bureau of Lighthouses. Shore Stations, non-industrial yards and stations, Navy Department, vaiued at around one hundred forty million dollars, are also exicuded. All valuations designated District of Columbia are not included in these figures. It was impossible to obtain the value of these properties, distributed by states, hence they are not included in the figures of column 5. (f) These percentages are obtained b by dividing the figures in column 5 by those in column 2. (g) These figures are obtained by de 2 Estimated National Wealth, erty ucting column 5 from column 2 of this table. (h) Figures of Real Estate and Improvements are based on Table 4, column 3, p. 21, Bureau of the Census. From the figures given in the preceding reference, figures of column 5 were deducted (i) These percentages are obtained by dividing the figures in column 8 by those in column 7. (j) These indices are obtained by dividing every figure in column 9 by 55.53. This gives an index figure of 100 in a state where the ratio of real estate to aggregate wealth is 55.53, or the same as the country as a whole. The 82.28 of Ala- bama’may be interpreted as follows: An increase of 17.72 (100 minus 88.28) in the value of real estate would bring the state in agreement with the country as a whole with respect to ratio of real estate to total wealth. A similar result will be ob- tained for Arizona by decreasing the value of real estafe 6.48 percent (195.48 minus 109). Similarly interpret indi es for other states. . ted ® Koy agen - x aie eR Te IY a ” namie ne a ee x > 6°9 9° pe6° zor*oe 9T0°02- ve*o> | T2°9e | oerez | 99% ees 69T* PET Tés* 9ST *40T Puynol °os £ ‘? ** ogo" zea*Tt | e9t*oes*t gtt*eo¢ 126° 6e> eo°Se | 6e"4e | eo*zz | O96" tez*s gos*9ze°T jsee*oes’t | eee*ore*T | wyemoos tr Te*Os |10°6F | e9°0 |Tes*eeT*z zcu* ese re*ts9 =|: « tet’ toz 9ov* eee Tt'se | 4o°9E |zerer | ztu*eec’z 86 | zee" 908 [tos* 198 626°009 | Staysata seer e*ze s2g*#ro"t | 9cc°e6s § | gos*eTe Teo" tee 6t*ee | te*te | oe-oe | een*snere | cor*etetr Teo‘ seo"t | veT* HoT wossatys ey "ve ees*9to*tT | get*sze | sge*cez | 464°? verse |6e°ve | 49°62 | e9s* 080" aze*tso*t jeze*zo*t | St6* ets eyaras tA "Is 926° S22 T9*eeT | 662°49 } Sez*ou ee*ee | Tt*se | 90°97 | 6t9*ez9 | 69o*°t9z zi’ ocz | gug*Gat quomie 4 ec toz* e9z zs*tS2 | 999° 29 vrese |9z79c |octaz | ese soe | oee* c6z 966° 162 }ete*6tz | wean zg°9 “ee wo’zo9°2 | z6* ese’? 957° 699 9TS* 99s a*ce |eetee |eerer jetc*ect*s | esz*ogu’e jezt*oes’z | sec*ze9°2 | eure a *s CT eve vtz* ott £20° set ba"9E |ee"ee | 9c°6z | ZO" GO9"s 994° eS6 jees* cee 169°SS GosecuEes o.°% *eee Tee* t60°z92 sor* sz- 66°ST | GE"ee | 99°S> | SOL*T9z*T aez* T0z jose*cey zzt*oe ey0ReC TINS * ad ¢os* 692°089 | too*é6e- ver" zT- Ta*se |69°0 | Oe*ee | OST’ ego*T | cee" soe 609° 669 goe*res | PUtTOrWD wnoc f \@L°98 ez" u Loe*soe ee2* OFT or9* az ery | Té*sez | T9°4z | SET’ ese’ | teo*eee T90* 09% £86 °9Sr PeVTST epom 9° us jes" te ot*zzt® eeo*so0’9 | teo'eee’t | sus*toc’2 | 6s*6e |6z°z0 |zt*ez | L99* REO? goz*tez*s jszt*es.’s | uc*ose’s eyaeat femmes | j Ta*O€ |46" ve jee “te beutose't |$29*tzo zzo*ves §=«_ | 9u6*z0¢ 918° 692 | eeatsst Tee | 6s° or leoves 669° 996*T ely" 1u9 099° 004 995° 06S wadeio $0" 42 |ST* ce |Te*se 999°608 y° ZIT | vop*zz0°T eoz* ese | e¢9* est 26°82 | 4e°Se | Te°Se | 6TL* zee*e 602° 896 oos*ooz*t = jor9*ezt*t woOURTAO v9" 92 \s0°ee jez*er atc*2te*¢ | zcz*eects | ete*996*¢ 6z>°6T9 | Tz6*ope*t woe | et°ze |zerte | ztS*oez*2Tt err*eso*® jicee*cso’s | 6c’ se6*s orgo 69"Sz |96°R¢ |Sc°6E poz’ ase | Ste’ tez | 229° ¢oe | ete*ere gtr’ LOT | cectzs Ten’ ent- sorez |ze*ze |eoree | c99*oue 869° cuz oe9* 19 zee’ ove Biomed WisoH us*ez|ez*oe et°or Tte*6ta’e = 2u6 "94 =| eGT*eGs =| TAT* 986 Téa" e9T zse*voz = |get* es - ‘9ue*2- worse }TE*TES | Goree | zoT*eee*2 vee" 106 £26 °6T6 soe" Te6 SaTTare Mson | | | | To*ee jce*or Wwat*ezz*oe |jozutzpt*ot | ste*900tt | oro’ eus*s } sos*ous*2 | ucetsco*s |cot*zce*t- | exp tee- e6"ev | vores |evez | 496° 269" eS 490*z08"eT |Goc*eee*’s | Too’ Tez*s JO, Roy 45°08 |ez°se per’ 66 | 449° 2ST vet’ozt =| oS*OLT ave" 6t uso*or \to2*oe OPT Te Te*9e [Puree | G6°ee | THO" OTS ote*eet o26* 002 209° 62T oot rem neq Gu" Te 6S" 98 \eo"Te FoT*zes*s | esc*tte*z |o90'sze’2 | se9°6se*z o6T*s98 te0'266 §=— tec*9Tt- | ocv*zz~ zow | Ts*te | at°ez | 6z*ove’e gee*cor’s jess*sco*z |[6ez*sue*z heezor nog PO°Te PT“ 94°98 | te9*euz egT* tee | 086°69z ore’ se ete* ott |eoe*6z- tez*6- is*ty | 96°08 | 29° ez | LOS*Zb6 96° 6eo 08" 162 692092 er yusdeen ace e9°0e |96°Se 6s6°602 | ote" 9 org'Se | 460°O4 | eo’ et- vere jeve*e 621° 92- Tz*4e | Of*Od | 6Y°zz | 969"S6T ova’zs oe.*es e96*ee epeaeg } | | Sheer icatee|versc Iste*ezt*2 | oor*zeg ver*uce, § | tes*soe = | ose’ ter Zee" wet eso oe 099° 06T ©0°6z | 8z"Te | 69°6e | G0L*b09"z 240° tz zos*ees Te0* S66 wrsesqent 66°62 |69°S¢ |zs"ve |zeR*e00"T =| See* zor Ore* use 29T* eve £12°69T- 6st’ cz 6ue* tz- 480° tat~ O8"es | OT*OD | OT*T2 | Otz*ece ves" oze Tes*9ee Got’ act ere qmOT 86°08 |ca*ge |6z*ce jsa*sze*s | tvo*goe*t |ose'teo*z |oottece’t | oz6*oze 296° eze jere" oe sec’ er 69°0 | eb°ee | Ge*Oe | CER zGT*S poo*set*z jeos*att*z | Tez*o0s*T tanos sth TS*92 |6o°2e |oO*TS jece*zeR*T «| aae* ber e6c* eer 990° OTS ezo*9T 629° 22T ere’ tet ze2* oe ie*ee | ov°ez | ez*zp | e9e*bOs"T 796°9TS »~ [990° 298 ere’ seo Wdy ™" lama) 89°62 |ve*Ge |o6"¥e ST’ Z90"D | seoPeee't | zes*ger*t | soe*oze*t | ‘ezc*ote ete’ sec jea9* eee | tye" 68 e9°ze | ce*oe | 66*0s | cep’ cue"? tee*zes*t |soz*asa’t | 90*ots*t eI 08em TN x | } | Te" ez | 4e°e |eG°ze oo" ess" ee6*ozz*z |uce*sootc |eoztezste | sos*tes 6r0*cos jeve* ve | ge0* ott- zz*se |ee*oe | se*ez | et6*cen*o zed*oss*z joos*zeo*e |oet*sov*z wad tuO Tr —_ L*Te 09° ze |ez*or jovs*zzt*Ot [scte*zezz*e | tee*eTe*s z9t* 226 Tot’ tse*t [tzt*eoe- ete*sGa- ve"2> | 2z"oe | 9s" 4z | 204660" TT gt6*ee9*s jote*esc*e [910° sco*e SI .een~oeTrry 46°08 | 48°98 |9T° ze |G04* LL0°¢ eez*ecs To* eT T | oot’ zez eee’ bér |trt*ett- 6c’ er- "oO? | cL*or | caer | cze*eee*s lozo*eec’t |zou’tzo"t joso*ess } puetisen 60° 2 |6¥" 9c |zP° Te jege* Tee*T Tez* ove To* sos | *Se* ect vze"ZLt ore*’te- | oFs*o- e9°OR | zT*TS | Oz*ez | Loz*9TS*T | $S0°9T9 zus*zur oes" 2ze | ouyen 92°08 |eo°se jotT*ee logz* 9ez*2 206° 169 2et*sts one" 99T 992° toz viz’ za- veu* ue or'oe | ez*or | eevee | 909*een'z e9T* ese e16*zee ozs* .t8 | ereys {not 89° 0¢ |ee"ar |p Pree |ecy* ece*® | 90z* 699 £T9*9TO*T | 969° 16 | 9to*ec- ore’ eer Te9°zut= | gez*eTt- Ta*6e | ec*or | 26°62 | ve" ees’z ers*cot*t | zve*ere ece* tee | fyonquey £°92 |6T°9E |pe*ce joze*uso*e = [os T* L988 ces’9ot’t jzec*eeo*t | aze*ove Tep* 99T jzez*6ze | 924° TST 6c*or | ez*z | Getz | ve* TOR tz9*sso*t jcce*se’t | tcc’ tes sverey 2G" ez |OO*¥E PREC [LEE TOO*® ze*zot’t jeze*oss*t jtoc*ecs*t | ere*séz ore" ee- ot.*es | O9t°ouz veer [coves | ger | oze*cez*s sze*eso*t jeco*ste*t | t9e*ete*t mol 91°62 |eG* ae | Te*se |S6z°0S0°S Tro*zev*t | zee*see*t |zzo*zes*t | eze*coz Tez" 6oz iez0* ze- | 9z9°9s 6e°ee | Tree | osee | att*ote*s | we*tzet eco*ete*t | ove*oes*t wretpay cris Gece lzt*ee |sos*one*st |9u0*ste*® | 6es*oes*s jeze*zet*s | ooz*cer’s 604*z99°t ‘isza*szt- | eu’ C6t- ca°ee | te*te | ge*se |coz*aps*ot ‘sez*ecc*s jeve*ore’s | evo’ ses*® Syourttr Sz ec OF 68" Ge j096*9G4 o76*etz | Tee* 907 |e69* tez | ary’ ert 962° 19 (STO°oe voz* 0s vere | o°9e | 4e°on | 416" 6609 Lentees 6ee*tte 169° tz owerT 1z*42|6e°9e ogres j6ze*o%6*z | tec*coe += | guc*tzo*t jzee*set*t | gus*ea- e6s*att = joza*ost- | sc9*oe~ 94°TS | 96°62 | 6z*eE | 290° 106°2 6st’ ez6 999° 048 sez*ett*t eyds009 PO" TS |6S°GE |4a°ze icop*eee’t joss*ese = | Gee zB ore* Lov e0r* 16T se9° 9ST ¢20°69 | Ssz*@z- Lt°ee | 09°98 |eeree jcte*tye*t | eze*oss e06* TTS 413° 6ue wptzota 24°82) @2*e |00° ec | L99* COP tor*eet | 020° 6ST wo'tat | 6t9* 2 | os2*69 |oaz* 42~ | 29c* 2t- GP"te | 46°92 | Os" Te | 9e0" ene cov*zoz ovz* Tet igz* yt eseee tod ST"Of|Et*eE|e9"TS |6ze*o0r*s | tee*e96 i evetzze*t [sot*eto*t | s99*esz zee" sar S69°TeT- | v96"9E- z9° Td | Go°OE | OF-ez | zEr*ECR*C coz*ser*t [evc*ovo’t | tet’ sus oy IOERNDD verte|sercc| ester |tes*ess*t j6osteze =| @zu*eta vee*ego =| 69° atz £99" set ovt*sot =: coo* t8- Zac | 60°9E | 66°S2 | Gzd* LIZ*2 zut*sz9 ete* ate eee" ous opesotoo Ct*ee| 92° 9 |T9*EZ LTO 9ZO*OT |szz*zze*e |ett*ere*e |eez*egs’2 | seztzrs’t jese*zer*t jsoc*esz | ore*ere- cy"2> | v6°ce | eorez | zoe*ecs*tt jj eés*eos*s [ere*eze’s | ove*ors’2 STELIOS TTED £0°9z| T° HS | ZS" Us |64z* C69" T ago" bar ore’ ces seztecs =| coz*T 940" 4s ece*st- =| wEe* LS ue*2r | 2e°ee | Tr°ve | zee" e69"T *6°Tos =| 465° 999 T96* 446 evewensy | 86°42) 90° 46 9T°9E |629° L99 Te* 261 tee" 092 eve" vez soc* ott ers" 29 999" % eos 4u*Te | Sz*ee | e6*62 | OTE’ z08 ezs* eez 260° 908 96s" Ope waot sy [ee @4°HE | 40°C |GEe* O“T*Z z0s* 29 | ace" se see*zee | seo*tet 929" aot oee*or- eec*oT- oe°ve | TS*TS | 9e°se | O86" TéEr*z 820° Toe | zoo" ven ere*ooe werty 24° OC Pe" 9E| 96° 2E | 26e° TEL” 2OR* | 976" Ges 2 OLS BLS Ce TTT See" oes ats | tae bev Ie | b29 SEL 1 -e POL ORT To" is | OP et | OL Ge | soe GIy tem | LV bal Cor, Seaeas pes ten [ot jet Tat r | st | * a wee 5 € 3 i , ¢ ? t | % | 7 ae 13) sel tzst__|_ozert 6t6t | (9) Teet-stet|_ test owt 6t6t uy got _Latat | (3) r2et—ster| _ test oz6t 6t6t pan ap | exc ast 9) eeyio3qeaqy wo eutieliigiesiie| vesane | (®} @moeuy queso wo suyed 20 caved pan cosunlang Twos meses re 3esR8y (®) moony Tex0s 3° ee ytecse.; owsecidy | seentding 30 @equeneg (Ssiu]jop JO spuvsnoyg} ul pessouixq) , S4VaA AAAHL ASAHL AO HOVA NI GAZIITVAA ‘Iz6I OL 6161 ANOONI LNAXAND AGNV AWOONI IVLOL 40 ADVINADAAd— sd ATAVL » beurics, ly APPENDIX TABLE C.—ESTIMATED NATIONAL WEALTH BY STATES (a (Expressed in thousands of dollars Estimated value of tangible property in States - ~ a 1880 1890 1900 1912 | 1922 1 2 8 4 5 6 = - SS - ——— } United States | $43,422,000 | $64, 693 ,494 | $87 , 588 ,567 $184,435, 608 $313,021 ,560 Alabama... ae 428 ,000 622.774 | 774,682 2,015,430 | 3,002,043 Arizona 41,000 188,881 | 263,015 | 456,726 | : Arkansas 286 ,000 455,147 604,218 | 1,721,900 2 California 1,343,000 2,533,734 3,218,573 | 8,536,485 | 15,031,734 Culcwatio 240,000 | 1,145,712 | 938,171 | 2,315,310 | 3,229,412 Connecticut. . . 779,000 835,120 1 2,369,723 | 5,286,445 Delaware...... 136 ,000 175,679 | 304,918 625,765 Florida 120,000 389,489 | 936 , 885 2,440,491 Georgia 606,000 | 852,409 2,163,033 | 3,896,759 itahkes 29,000 | 207 , 897 578,999 1,533,941 [llinois. . . 3,210,000 | 5,066,752 6,976,476 | 15,500,164 | 22,232,794 Indiana 1,681,000 | 2,095,177 2,606,493 | 5,358,951 8,829,726 own A ‘ : 1,721,000 2,287,348 3,367,869 | 7,708,967 10,511,682 Kansas | 760,000 1,799,343 1,938,000 | 4,580, 202 6, 264,058 Kentucky 902,000 1,172,232 1,365,131 2,277,004 | 3,582,391 | Louisiana..... Wiis ethan ain 382,000 495,302 1,989,813 3,416,860 Maine. . aid Ox | 511,000 489,134 1,017,739 2,006, 531 Maryland os ; 837 ,000 1,085,473 2,235,483 3,990,730 Massachusetts 2,623,000 | 2,803 ,645 | 6,381,142 12,980,839 Michigan 1,580,000 | 2,095,016 | 5,297,419 11,404,861 Minnesota............ 792,000 | 1,691,852 | 5,432,278 & 547,918 Mississippi. . . =m 354,000 454,243 1,234,571 2,177,690 Missouri Pee 1,562,000 2,397,903 5,727,948 9,981,409 Montana..... - aan 40 ,000 453,135 1,132,758 2,223,189 Nebraska... .. ive wes 385,000 1,275,686 1,626,203 | 3,720,813 5,320,075 Nevada ocala oa 156,000 180,324 190 ,627 453,858 541,716 New Hampshire..... 363 ,000 325,129 72,146 657 , 904 1,374,135 New Jerpey........... } 1,305,000 1,445,285 2,733 6,011,310 11,794,189 New Mexico... 49,000 231.460 268,285 | 495,118 851,836 New York...... | 6,308,000 8,576,702 12,505,330 25,664,002 37 ,035 , 262 North Carolina... ; 461,000 584,149 681,982 | 1,685,408 4,543,110 North Dakota... . (b) 118,090 337 ,007 542,381 | 2,112,939 | 2,467 ,772 ep Se ‘ ee 3,238,090 3,951,382 5,019,004 | 9,123,301 | 18,489,552 Oklahoma ie ners : Pe RE (ce) 208,050 811,580 3,117,546 | 3,993,524 Gi wadawes.ce i . 154,000 590 , 396 632,880 2,057 ,439 3,419,459 | Pennsylvania 4,942,000 6,190,747 9,315,140 16,225,953 28,833,745 Rhode Island d 409,000 | 504,162 710,565 986,596 | 1,924,326 South Carolina...... 322,000 | 400,911 485,678 1,261,048 2,404,845 South Dakota....... Bese ee ae 425,141 §52 , 73% 1,327,215 2,925,968 Tennessee. ........ 705,000 887 , 956 956 ,672 1,883,698 | 4,228,251 ey id 825,000 2,105,577 2,322,152 6,379,592 | 9,850,888 * aaa 114,000 | 349,411 412,656 796 , 300 1,535,477 Se 302,000 265, 567 | 329,917 504,818 842,040 Virginia.......... ae aa 707 ,000 862,318 | 1,102,310 2,402,412 | 4,891,570 Washington....... . 62,000 | 760,699 | 781,599 3,183,058 | 5,122,405 | ! | West Virginia....... ae acute 350,000 | 438,955 | 659,653 2,427 ,930 4,677,919 i re ae 1,139,000 1,833,309 | 2,405,354 4,327,770 | 7,866 ,081 | eS ae 54,000 | 169,774 | 281,432 355,732 976 ,239 (a) These data are taken from Estimated National Wealth, 1922, Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, Table 7, p. 25-27. (b) North and South Dakota combined. (c) Includes Indian Territory. A > 76 TABLE D.—TOTAL ABILITY TO SUPPORT EDUCATION SCHOOLS (a) ANNUAL EXPENDITURES FOR PUBLIC ELEMENTARY AND SECON States 1 United States Alabama Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware Florida Georgia Idaho. ... Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana... . Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan... . Minnesota... Mississippi Missouri Montana dn Nebraska... .. Nevada New Hampshire. _ New Jersey... New Mexico... New York..... North Carolina. North Dakota. Pennsylvania. Rhode Island... South Carolina. . South Dakota. . Tennessee... ... Virginia IN. 5. « anh nun Guide West Virginia. . . Wisconsin. ..... Wyoming....... $78,656,120 $138, 600,938 500 , 000 61,172 287 ,056 2,864,571 395,227 1,408,375 207 , 281 114,895 471,029 38,411 7,014,092 4,491,850 4,484,043 1,818,337 1,069,030 411,858 1,067 ,991 1,544,367 4,983,900 2,775,917 1,328,429 830,705 3,675,364 78,730 1,108,617 220,245 565,339 1,873,465 28,973 10, 296,977 376 ,062 245 ,000(b) 7,166 ,963 307 ,031 7, 369 ,682 526,112 324,629 b (b) 744,180 1,030 ,000(c) 132,194 446,217 946, 109 112,615 707 ,553 2,177,023 28,504 890,000 181,914 1,016,776 5,187,162 1,681,379 2,157 ,014(c) 275,000 516,533 1,190,354 169 ,020 11,645,126 5,245,218 6,382,953 4,972,967 2,140,678 817,110 1,327,553 1,910,663 8,286 ,062 5, 349, 366 4,187,310 1,109,575 5,434,262 364 ,084 3,376,332 161,481 844 , 333 3,340, 190(c) 5,000 17,543,880 714,900 626 ,949 10,602,238 805,979 12,928,422 884 , 966 450 , 936 1,199,630 1,526,241 3,178,300 394,685 711,072 1,604,509 958,111 1,198,493 3,801,212 225, 000(c) Expenditures in 923 ,464 299 ,730 1,369,810 6,909,351 2,793,648 3,189,249 453,670 765,777 1,980,016 400 ,043 17,757,145 8,182,526 8,496,522 4,622,364 3,037,908 1,135,125 1,712,795 2,803 ,032 13,826,243 7,297,691 5,630,013 1,385,112 7,816,050 923,310 4,403,222 224 ,622 1,052,202 6,608 ,692 343,429 33,421,491 950,317 1,526,090 13,335,221 686 ,095 1,594,420 21,476,995 1,548,675 894 ,004 1,605 ,623 1,751,047 4,465,255 253,551 nx oof 42, 2,404,6 2,380, 4,109, 6¢ 5,537, 14,497,75 3,626,6 1,815,2 5,262, 10, 526 , 9: 5,030, § 11,763, 997, ,280 (|$1,5 ,418 | se (| , 3856 | 40 | | | | , 858, 7,603 , 0% 6,095, “J > 13 30 ,¢ a» bo (a) These data were furnished by the U 3. Bureau of Education. (b) North and South Dakota combined. (c) Approxi:nate. ~ A Selected and Annotated Bibliography The following should be looked upon as a selected rather than a comprehensive bibli- ography. In its preparation the object has been to select, from a large number of avail- able references, and briefly annotate, a limited number of those of most value to students working in the field of this investigation. When several references dealing with the same topic have been available, the one cover- ing it most adequately has been included. Those who wish more extensive bibliographies may refer to those cited. References marked with an asterisk (*) have been particularly helpful in the develop- ment of this study. Their particular contri- bution is noted in the text or in the footnotes. Books 1. *Ayres, Leonarp P. An Index for State School Systems. Department of Education, Russell Sage Foundation, New York City. 1920. 72 p. Develops an index number to be used by state school systems in measur- ing progress from year to year and in comparing the educational situation in different states. Ten items enter into the composition of the index num- ber, five of which have to do with financial outlay for schools. ‘The study has been widely used. 2. *Bactey, WittiamM C. AND KgirTH, Joun A. H. The Nation and The Schools. The Macmillan Company, New York, 1920. 364 p. A collection of facts and arguments designed to show that the national gov- ernment has certain educational func- tions which it should discharze. Ad- vocates the extension of federal support for education and the establishment of a Department of Education. 3. BLACKMAR, Frank W. The History of Federal and State Aid to Higher Edu- cation in the United States. Bureau of Education, Circular of Information, {77] No. 1, 1890. (Whole number 161.) Government Printing Office, Washing- ton, D. C., 1890. 342 p. Traces development of idea of na- tional aid for education as a logical out- growth of colonial educational policies and a established in the earliest days of the republic, as evi- federal land grants, the establishment of the Bureau of Educa- tion, etc. Quotes opinions of Wash- ington and other early principle denced by American statesmen. 4. *CrarK, Harotp F. The Effect of Pop- ulation upon the Ability to Support Education. School of Education Bul- letin. University of Indiana. Septem- ber, 1925. Bloomington, 29 p. Emphasizes importance of ratio of child to adult population as a factor in determining ability of a community to support education. Develops formula, the use of which it is contended, in con- nection with figures for per capita wealth, provides a more adequate meas- ure of ability to support education than has hitherto been available. 5. *Cuppertey, E. P. National Govern- and Education. In Monroe's Cyclopedia of Education. Macmillan Company. 1913. New York. An authoritative sketch of our na- tional educational policy as it has de- ment veloped from the early land ordinances of 1785 and 1787, through the later land grants for common schools and the land-grants colleges, to the still more recent grants of money for edu- cation. Notes certain bills which have been introduced in Congress providing for further money grants. Published in 1913, therefore makes no mention of the Smith-Lever, Smith-Hughes, and other acts and proposals of recent years. 78 Asitiry To Support EDUCATION 6. GERMANN, GeorGE B. National Legis- lation Concerning Education. Bureau of Publications, Teachers’ College, Co- lumbia University. 1899. New York. 149 p. In two parts. Part I contains his- tory of growth of national legislative policy in behalf of education, beginning with the pre-constitutional ordinances of 1785 and 1787, and extending through the various land grants for com- mon schools and for colleges, includ- ing the Morrill Acts of 1862 and 1890. Part II deals with the effect of na- tional educational legislation in each of the six public-land states east of the Mississippi River, which were ad- mitted to the union prior to 1820. 7. *Haic, Ropert Murray AND STRAYER, Georce D. The Financing of Educa- tion in the State of New York. ‘The Macmillan Company, New York, 1923. 205 p. One of the volumes of the Educa- tional Finance Inquiry Commission. Assembles comprehensive data bearing upon school finance in the state of New York and develops new techniques for use in analyzing these data designed to serve as models for workers in the field of school finance. 8. Jupson, Harry Pratr. “Federal Con- trol of Education” in Our Federal Re- public. Chapter VIII, pp. 212-257. Macmillan, 1925. New York. 277 p. Traces history of national aid for education including the early land ordi- nances and attempts to establish a na- tional university, the gradual growth of our system of federal land grants, and the development therefrom of policy of national money grants for education. Argues that education at public cost is “wholly a matter for the states” and that money subsidies as pro- vided for in the Smith-Hughes and Smith-Lever Acts are unconstitutional. 9. Kanpet, I. L. Federal Aid for Voca- tional Education. A Report to the Carnegie Foundation for the Advance- ment of Teaching. Bulletin N Ten. The Carnegie Foundat the Advancement of Teaching. York City. 1917. 127 p. Deals with evolution of po federal aid to state education scribes legislative procedure which this policy was developed quires as to the original intent Congress in enacting first M Act. Concludes bill was intend marily to aid the farmers rathe to be a part of a serious edu program. 10. Kerrn, Joun A. H. anv Bac ey LIAM C. The Nation and the S The Macmillan Company. New York. 364 p. See ref number 2. 11. *Kinc, WiLtForp IspeLt. The J/ and Income of the People United States. The Macmillan | pany, New York, 1922. 278 p. Presents estimates as to the supply and distribution of wealt income in the nation. Brings tog: and coordinates results of a num studies. Probably the best study the recent investigations of the tional Bureau of Economic Resea _ \ 12. KNaAuTH, OswaLp W. Distributi Income by States in 1919. Ha Brace and Company, New York, 19 30 p. The first attempt to measure the tribution of national income by st Data for 1919, only. 13. *Leven, Maurice. Income in United States. National Bureau Economic Research, New York. 1° 306 p. Presents detailed analysis of in in the various states for 1919 to 19 develops technique for computati income estimates by states. ‘The reliable publication in this parti field to date. 14. MacponaLp, Austin F. Federal § sidies to the States. A Study in An Nun er Wa chools. 1920, erence eneral h and vether ber of until Na- r¢ h. on of court, 192? e dis- tates. the come 921: in of most cular Sul - neri- Se ee a ME UIING 5. MaHoney, Rospert H. . "Mort, Paut R. BIBLIOGRAPHY can Administration, World Printing Company, Philadelphia, 1923. 122 p. An investigation of the American federal subsidy system. Concludes that no coherent principles have been fol- lowed in the past in the development of this legislation. Suggests principles that should guide Congress in the enactment of future subsidy legislation. Looks upon subsidies to state govern- ments as an essential part of American federal administration. The Federal Government and Education. A dis- sertation submitted to the Faculty of Philosophy of the Catholic University of America, Washington, D. C., in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. 80 p. A study of the evolution of national interest in education and an examina- tion, as to the effects on the welfare of the American school, of the recent trends in federal educational tion. legisla- 6. *MircHett, Westey C. AND OTHERS. Income in the United States. Vol. I. Harcourt, Brace and Company, New York. 152 p. A brief and popularized presenta- tion of the data presented in the more detailed volume cited as reference 17. . MircuHett, Westey C. AND OTHERS. Income in the United States. Its Amount and Distribution 1909-1919. Volume II. Detailed Report. Na- tional Bureau of Economic Research. New York, 1922. 440 p. The most comprehensive estimate of the total annual income of the people of the United States, made to date. Presents in detail the methods used in ascertaining this total. The Measurement of Educational Need. ted- the with nt to rable. func- vern- ation luca- letin, 9?? t the the dis- » de- gov- A Jans, New and reat vith ) of di- tem ities ’ Ul p- ~* natin t BIBLIOGRAPHY An unpublished dissertation com- pleted at Stanford University dealing with the methods whereby the federal government might advance education. Articles in Periodicals 33, Aaron, Marcus. “Equal Partners and Equal Contributions.” School and So- ciety. 14: 627-632. December 31, 1921. Calls attention to evils and inade- quacies of our systems of taxing local real estate for support of schools and urges advantages of income tax over property tax. Concludes that because of differences in wealth among states and sections of states, cooperation of states and nation in the support of edu- cation is necessary, if equality of educa- tional opportunity is to be secured. 34. Capen, SAMUEL P. “Arguments against the Smith-Towner Bill.” Educational Review 54: 285. November, 1920. Raises objections to Federal Depart- ment of Education, as proposed in the Smith-Towner Bill, but advocates De- partment of Education and Science to unify government educational activi- ties and furnish facts, impartial judg- ments, and dynamic ideas. Disapproval of federal subsidies to education ex- pressed on grounds that they discourage enterprise in states, and are unneces- sary. 35. Doucias, Paut H. “The Development of a System of Federal Grants-in-Aid.” I and II. Political Science Quarterly. Vol. XX XV, pp. 265-271, June, 1920, and pp. 522-544, December, 1920. Two articles dealing with the de- velopment of our national policy of fed- eral grants on a dollar-for-dollar basis, as typified by the Smith-Lever Act, the Good Roads Act of 1916, the Smith- Hughes Act, and the Chamberlain- Kahn Act. 36. Douctas, Paut H. “Federal Aid for Education.” Educational Review 64: 41-61, June, 1922. 37. Firzpatrick, E. A. 81 Discusses Towner-Sterling Bill with emphasis on provision calling for ap- portionment of federal appropriations to the states on “‘pupil-teacher basis.”’ Answers objections to bill, and cites its advantages. Figures quoted to prove education is a matter of national con- cern. “Federalization and State Educational Bankruptcy.” Educational Review. Vol. 63: 395- 401. May, 1922. Assumes that federal control would result from passage of “‘Towner-Sterling Bill. Denies state educational depart- ments have exhausted means of bring- ing about educational improvements. 38. JoURNAL, NATIONAL EpucaTion As- SOCIATION. State versus [Federal Con- trol. Editorial N. E. A. Journal, Vol. XII, p. 333, June, 1923. Cites clauses in the TTowner-Sterling bill providing against federal control and insuring continuance of state -con- trol of schools. 39. Jupp, CuHarvtes H. “Desirable Amend- ments of the Smith-Towner Bill.” Elementary School Journal. Vol. 20, p. 610-617. Discusses Smith-Towner Bill and especially provision for distributing ap- propriations on a “pupil-teacher basis.” Believes that money thus distributed will not go where most needed. 40. Jupp, Cuartes H. “Federal Standards of Educational Administration.” £le- mentary School Journal. 32: 414-25. February, 1922. ‘Federal Participa- tion in Education.” Elementary School Journal 22: 494-504. March, 1922. Two articles presenting a symposium of views of foremost educators on sub- ject of relation of national government to education. Many phases of ques- tion discussed, but beyond general agreement that measures of nation-wide scope must be adopted to remedy exist- ing defects in educational systems, no consensus of opinion revealed. 82 41. Kintvey, D. 42. *PHILLIPs, ABILITY TO SUPPORT EDUCATION “The Relation of State and Nation in Educational Policy.” School and Society 14: p. 589-600. December 24, 1921. See reference No. 30, p. 80. Frank M. “Educational Ranking of States by Two Methods.” American School Board Journal, Vol. LXIX, No. 6, p. 47-49, December, 1924. Presents data for ranking the states on the number of educational items. Compares the effect of different methods of ranking, including that used by Ayres in reference No. 1. 43. Srrayer, Georce D. “National Leader- 44. Tucker, R. S. 45. Wuire, CHarves P. ship and National Support for Educa- tion”. School and Society, 11: 674- 81. June 5, 1920. Supports Smith-Towner bill. Points out need of national leadership, but be- lieves national leadership ineffective without national support. Says coun- try’s need can only be satisfied by fed- eral Department of Education with sec- retary in President’s cabinet. “Financial Argument for Federal Aid to Education: A Criticism.” American Economic Re- view, 13: 34-47, March, 1923. Attacks financial argument for fed- eral aid to education on ground that poorer states are not in need of aid. Quotes figures to show that most of these states are devoting too small a proportion of wealth to education. “The Trend in Federal Expenditures.” Annals of Academy of Political and Social Sciences, 113: 1-8, May, 1924. An analysis of trend of government per capita costs during pre-war period 1910-1916, and since 1921. Divides government costs into. expenditures for primary governmental functions; de- velopmental functions, such as_ re- search, education, and development; public works; war costs; pensions and rehabilitations; and special war activi- ties. varying value. tracing attitudes of various groups towa extension of the policy of federal supp education. 46. Document. Congressional Hearings The material found in these hearing They offer source mate: Extract from Docume) 463. House of Representatives Congress, 2nd Session. 47. Hearing. Hearing before the Com on Education and Labor United Senate Sixty-fifth Congress Third sion on 8. 4987. A bill to create partment of Education, to appro; money for the conduct of said d ment, to appropriate money for f cooperation with the states in the couragement and support of educa and for other purposes. 1918. Government Washington, 1919. Decembe: 144 p. 48. Hearings. Joint Hearing before the Cor mittee on Education and Labor, | gress of the United States, Sixty-s Congress, First Session, on S. 1017 To create a Department of Educat to authorize appropriations for the co: duct of said department, to autho: appropriations of money to encou: the states in the promotion and sup; of education, and for other purpos H. R. 7. To create a Department Education, to authorize appropriat for the conduct of said department authorize appropriation of money to courage the states in the promotion support of education, and for other pu: Printing Offic poses. Government Washington, 1919. 162 p. 49. Hearings. Extract from Joint Heari before the Committee on Educa Congress of the United States Si seventh Congress First Session on 1607 and H. R. 5837. Bills to est Printing Office lish a Department of Public Welfare and for other purposes. Wednesd May 18, 1921. Government Print Office, 1921. 135 p. Cee ee eee st wa ‘d Ses- a De- priate lepart- ‘ederal he en- cation, ber 5, Office, Com- Con- )-sixth 1017, ‘ation, e con- horize urage ipport poses. nt of ations nt, to to en- n and r pur- )flice, rings ‘ation yixty- yn S. »stab- lfare, sday, nting BIBLIOGRAPHY 83 50. Hearings. Extracts from Hearings be- fore the Joint Committee on the Reor- ganization of the Administrative Branch of the Government Congress of the United States Sixty-eighth Con- gress First Session on S. J. Res. 282 Sixty-seventh Congress. A resolution to amend the resolution of December 29, 1920, entitled “Joint Resolution to create A Joint Committee on The Re- organization of The Administrative Branch of the Government,” January 25, 26, and 29, 1924. Government Printing Office, Washington, 1924. 629 p. 51. Hearings. Hearings before the Com- mittee on Education and Labor United States Senate, Sixty-eighth Congress, First Session, on S. 1337. A bill to create a Department of Education, to authorize appropriations for the con- duct of said department, to authorize the appropriation of money to en- courage the states in the promotion and support of education, and for other purposes. Government Printing Office, Washington, 1924. 402 p. 52. Hearings. Hearings before the Com- mittee on Education House of Repre- sentatives, Sixty-eighth Congress, First Session, on H. R. 3923. A bill to create a Department of Education, to authorize appropriations for the con- duct of said department, to authorize the appropriation of money to encour- age the states in the promotion and sup- port of education, and for other pur- poses. Government Printing Office, Washington, 1924. 763 p. 53. Hearings. Hearings before the Joint Committee on the Reorganization of the Administrative Branch of the Gov- ernment Congress of the United States, Sixty-eighth Congress, First Session, on S. J. Res. 282. Sixty-seventh Con- gress. A resolution to amend the reso- lution of December 29, 1920, entitled “Joint Resolution to create A Joint Committee on The Reorganization of The Administrative Branch of the Government.” January 7 to 31, 1924. Government Printing Office, Washing- ton, 1924. 786 p. 54. Hearing. Joint Hearings on Proposed Department of Education before Com mittees on Education of the Senate and House of the 69th Congress, February, 1926. Government Printing Office, Washington, 1926. United States Government Documents 55. Brain, Hon. W. H. National Aid to Education. Proceedings, Department of Superintendence, 1889. pp. 297- 300. U.S. Bureau of Education, Cir- cular of Information, No. 2, 1889. Deals with effects of Civil War on public education and advocates national aid for adequate educational support. 56. *BuREAU OF THE CENSUS. Department of Commerce, Washington. Wealth, Public Debts and Taxation: 1922 Assessed Valuation and Tax Levies. Government Printing Office, Wash- ington, 1924. 150 p. Compiled as part of Decennial Re- port on Wealth, Public Debt and ‘Tax- ation. Presents basic data on total and per capita property valuations and total and per capita tax levies by geo- graphic divisions and by states. Wealth, Public Debt and Taxation. 1922. Estimated Na- tional Wealth. Government Printing Office, 1924. 150 p. Compiled as part of Decennial Re- port on Wealth, Public Debt, and ‘Tax- ation. Presents basic data on estimated aggregate wealth of nation. 58. *Swirt, FLercuer H. A Biennial Sur- vey of Public School Finance in the United States 1920-1922. Bulletin, 1923, No. 47. United States Bureau of Education. Deals with educational developments since the World War. ent trends in federal, state and local Discusses pres- public school finance. 59. 60. ———. Federal Aid to Public Schools. Bulletin, 1922. Government Printing Office. 1923. 47 p. A review of the development of fed- eral policies in dealing with problem of public education, including land grants, per centum grants, loans, royal- ties, and conditional and cooperative money grants. State Policies in Public School Finance. U. S. Bureau of Education. Bulletin, 1922. No. 6. 54 p. Presents in concise form significant conclusions of more extensive studies by author in field of school finance. 61. Unirep States BurgEAvu oF EpucarTIoNn. 62. CHAMBER OF Statistics of State School Systems 1921- 1922. Prepared in the Division of Sta- tistics of the Bureau of Education under the direction of Frank M. Phillips, chief of the Division. (Ad- vance sheets from the Biennial Survey of Education in the United States, 1920-1922.) Bulletin, 1924. No. 31. Government Printing Office, Washing- ton. 42 p. Contains basic statistics of state pub- lic school systems with regard to en- rolment, expenditures, salaries, length of sessions, etc. Miscellaneous CoMMERCE OF THE Unitep States. Majority Report of Special Committee on Education. November 20, 1922. Washington. 110 p. Argues against extension of national participation in education. Sets forth dangers of federal control. Urges im- provement of present state systems. 63. Draper, ANDREW S. The General Gov- ernment and Popular Education. Pro- ceedings. National Education Associa- tion, 1896. pp. 201-208. Urges that educational interests of the country need more support, man- agement and leadership from a central authority. Advocates creation of a De- partment of Education. 64. NATIONAL 65. 66. 67. 68. ALEXANDER, CARTER. ABiLiry TO Support EDUCATION ASSOCIA1 EDUCATION Facts on State Educational Needs. search Bulletin, Vol. 1, no. 1. J ary, 1923. Washington. 58 p. Deals with existing educational ditions in the states. Furnishes in venient form data on questions aris in connection with educational leg tion. A Na ti Program for Education, Federal propriations for the Preparation Public School Teachers. Commission on the National Prog: in Education. Commission Series N 3. 1918. Washington. Calls attention to lack of adequately, trained teachers and urges need of fed eral funds to remedy deficiencies teacher-training institutions. A Nation l Issued Program for Education. A Statement Issued by the National Education Ass ciation Commission on the Emerge in Education and the Program for R. adjustment During and After the Hla Commission Series No. 1. 1918 Washington. 27 p. Provides basis for program to be fol lowed by nation in educational emer gency arising as result of World Wa: Deals with existing educational ficiencies and urges federal aid and creation of a Department of Educa tion. The Towner Sterling Bill. Legislative Commission Series No. 3. January, 1923. Was! ington. 76 p. An analysis of the provisions of the Bill; a discussion of the principles and policies involved ; and a presentation facts and figures relating to the subject Bibliographies Bibliography Educational Finance. Reviewed Presented by The Educational Finance Inquiry Commission under the auspices of the The American Council on Edu cation, Washington, D. C. Vol. IV. ial. | con | Con- rising S gisla- ‘onal A p- n of 1 by gram No. ately fed- S in onal ment 4 ss0- ency Re- Var. 918. fol- ner- Var. de- the uca- ner- sion ash- the and | of erage re BI The Macmillan Company, New York, 1924. 257 p. See “Aid and Apportionment,” p. 7 to 26. 69. BeMAN, LAMAR T. The Towner-Ster- ling Bill. (U.S. Department of Edu- cation.) The Reference Shelf. Re- prints of Selected Articles, Briefs, Bibliographies, Debates, Study Out- lines of Timely Topics. Vol. I. No. 5. The H. W. Wilson Company, New York City, 1922. 102 p. See “Bibliography,” p. 8-17. 70. MAnHoney, Ropert H. The Federal Government and Education. A Dis- sertation submitted to the Faculty of Philosophy of the Catholic University of America. Washington, D. C. 1922. See “Bibliography,” p. 76-79. BIBLIOGRAPHY 85 NORDBERG Fed States 71. Orrietp, Matruias eral Land Grants to the with Special Reference to Minnesota. Stud- ies in the Social Number Bulletin of the University of Minne sota, Minneapolis, March, 1915. See “Bibliography,” p. 256-265. The Monographs of Sciences DARRELL H. Bureau of Service 72. SMITH, Education. of the United States Government. In- Government Research, 1923. Appendix 6. stitute for Washington, D. C. See “Bibliography,” p. 142-154. 73. Wess, SIDNEY. Grants in Aid: A Criti cism and a _ Proposal. Longmans, Green and Co., London and New York, 1920. See “Bibliography,” p. 121-140. INDEX Ability te support education: and Clark’s formula, 61, 62, 64, 65 and cost of living, 68, 69 and density of population, 67 and effort, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 54 and school efficiency, 45, 46 and support given education, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 71 definition of, 29, 61, 70 differences in ability of states summarized, 35 factors affecting, 61, 66, 69 in 1880 and 1922, 58, 59 in 1900 and 1922, 57 measures of, 29 of states, 29, 30, 36, 37, 64, 65, 67 permanency of differences in, 55, 60, 70, 71 rank of states, 29, 30 also see: School support Appendix: 72 Bibliography: 77 Children: affect of varying percentages on ability, 61 number aged 6 to 13, 24 number by states, 24, 64 percentage of population aged 6 to 13, etc., 25, 26 also see: Population Conclusions: 70 Congressional hearings on education, 1, 82 Cost of education: see School support Current income: see Income Density of population: see Population Department of education and research, 1 Differences in ability to support schools: see Abil- ity to support education Economic ability to support education: see Ability to support education Economic power: and effort to support education, 48, 54 as indicated by index of economic resources, 20 competition for share of, 61 factors influencing use, 3 income as an index of, 3, 5, 11, 12 of states compared, 3, 20 real estate as a measure of, 4 wealth and income as measures of, 12, 17 wealth as an index of, 3, 4, 6, 12 also see: Income, Wealth, Index of economic re- sources Economic resources: see Economic power Educational attainment: and ability to support schools, 45 higher in rich states, 48 of states, 47 Educational efficiency: and ability to support schools, 45 indications of, 45, 46 of states, 46 superiority of rich states, 45 Educational obligations: age groups as measures of, 23, 24, 25, ae effect on school costs, 23, 26, of states, 23, 24, 25, 26 population as a measure, 23, 24 Effort to support schools: ability, 48, 49, 50, 54 and private and parochial schools, 51, 52 definition of, 48 in rich and poor states, 48, 49, 52, 54 also see: Ability to support education Federal: see National Federal aid for education: 1, 71 bibliographies, 84, 85 Income: accuracy of estimates of, 5, 7, 17 and wealth, 12, 14, 15 as measure of economic power, average, 8, 10, 11 current, 5, 7, 8, 11, 13 cyclic factors influencing, 7, 10 earned, 12 from investments, 13 in agricultural and industrial states, 17 meaning of, 5 method of estimating by states, 7 of states, 11, 19, 74 percent of to education, 49, 53 per child, 29, 30, 33, 36 ratio of current to total, 7, 8, 9 ratio of wealth to income, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18 total, 5, 7, 8, 13 also see: Wealth, Economic power Index of economic power: formula for, 17 of states, 19 percent to education, 49, 53 per child by states, 34, 36 also see: Economic power National Bureau of Economic Research: 5, 12 accuracy of income estimates of, 5, 7 quoted on permanency of a state’s economic posi- tion, 60 88 ABILITY TO SuppoRT EDUCATION | National government: and public education, 1, 71 and school support, 1, 71 property of, 4, 5, 72 National Tax Association: model plan for taxation, 4, 17 Ordinance of 1785: 1 Parochial schools: effect on measurement of effort, 51, 52 estimated cost, 51 Population: and ability to support education, 61 as measure of educational load, 23, 24, 26 by states, 64 density and ability to support schools, 28, 66, 67 effect of varying percentages of children, 26, 27 ratio of adults to children, 64 also see: Educational obligations Private schools: effect of measurement of effort, 51, 52 estimated cost, 51 Rank of states according to: ability to support education, 36 deviations in rank, 21 economic resources (average annual current in- come plus 1/10 of wealth), 20 economic resources per child, 30, 34 expenditure per child of school age, 1922, 1918, and 1910, 40, 42, 43 expenditure (non-salary) per pupil in average daily attendance, 1922, 1918, and 1910, 40, 42, 43 high school attendance, percentage of total in 1922, 46 income, current, 11 income, current per child, 30, 33 income (average current 1919-1921) plus 1/3, 1/5, 1/10, and 1/20 of wealth, 19 income (average annual total 1919-1921) plus 1/3, 1/5, 1/10, and 1/20 of wealth, 19 income, ratio of current to total, 9 income, ratio of current to wealth, 16 School: see Educational income, ratio of total to wealth, 16, 18 ’ income, total per child, 30 i length of school term in 1922, 46 magazine circulation, 47 percentage of population, age 6-13, 25 salaries, average annual paid teachers 1918, and 1910, 40, 42, 43 school attendance, average number of pupil enrolled in 1922, 46 school property, average value per | rolled in 1922, 40 teachers, percentage normal graduates wealth (tangible estimated) in 1922, 6 wealth per child in 1922, 30, 31, 57, 58 | years of school life per pupil, averag: 46 School support: 41 and ability, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44 comparative ability of ‘states to support } 4 3, 29, 30, 64 indications of support given by states 41, 42, 43, 44 | school expenditures by states 1880 to 1922 also see: Federal aid, Ability to support tion, Effort to support schools Summary and conclusions: 70 Total income: see Income Wealth: accuracy of census of, 3, 17 and income, 12, 13, 14, 15 and tax-paying ability, 3 census of, 3 in agricultural and industrial states, 17 of states, 3, 4, 5, 6, 19, 72, 75 per capita, 10 percent of to education, 49, 53 per child, 29, 30, 31, 32, 36, 55, 56, 57, 58 per child in rich and poor states, 32, 5¢ 58, 59 ratio of wealth to income, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18 also see: Income, Economic power 5 ers in 197 of days I er * Pupil ep. S, 46 8 ge number, Tt schools, 2¢ 8, 39, 40, 922, 76 rt educa- co 56, 57, | ely Ws a ee ¥ hn ee Se I =2eet Do You Wish to Clarify Your Thinking Concerning the Curriculum Revision Movement? The following publications trace the major trends of curriculum progress and point the way to carefully selected material for further study. Invaluable to course of study committees and professional study groups. Keeping Pace with the Advancing Curriculum Research Bulletin—Volume III, Nos. 4 and 5 CONTENTS I. Why the Curriculum Commands National Attention II. Educational Theories Affecting Curriculum Building III. Decisions Preliminary to the Launching of a Local Program IV. Contributions of Research to Curriculum Building V. Looking Backward at the Curriculum VI. Books on Curricular Problems Which Have Been Tried and Found Helpful VII. Bases for Evaluating Courses of Study VIII. New Courses of Study for Old Price per copy, 50c Reduction when ordered in quantity Send orders to Research Division Research in Constructing the Elementary School Curriculum Third Yearbook of the Department of Superintendence National Education Association 1925 CONTENTS Part One—Need of Revision Part Two—Variations in Curricula Part Three—Curricula Problems and Their Scientific Solution Part Four—Addenda First printing exhausted; reprint ready soon Price per copy, $2.00 Send orders to Department of Superintendence The Nation at Work on the Public School Curriculum Fourth Yearbook of the Department of Superintendence National Education Association 1926 CONTENTS Part One—Facing the Problem of Curriculum Revision Part Two—Organizing the Teaching Profession for Curriculum Revision Part Three—Reports of National Subject Committees Part Four—Addenda Price per copy, $2.00 Send orders to Department of Superintendence ORDER NOW National Education Association 1201 Sixteenth Street, N. W., Washington, D. C. ese MAINTAIN the moral and 4 spiritual fibre of our people, to Bey sustain the skill required to use the tools which great discoveries in science have given us, to hold our national ideals, we must not fail in the support and constant improvement of our school system. From generation to generation we hand on our vast material equipment, our knowledge of how to run it, and our stock of intellectual and spiritual ideas. If we were to suppress our educational system for a single genera- tion the equipment would decay, the most of our people would die of starvation, and intellectually and spiritually we should slip back four thousand years in human progress. We could recover the loss of any other big business in a few years—but not this one. And unless our educational system keeps pace with the growth of our material equip- ment we will slip also.”—Herbert Hoover at the Department of Superintendence, Na- tional Education Association, February, 1926. 4 a s ae eerie msHoonosoogoogs ial SSgSoggoans CSTR YS STS ik Sok al Sal Sook Suk Su oi Su Sok Sukuk UK Uk UK uk uk uk uk ai sa --4