4) F, F 7 ‘4 4 7 - VOL. V, NO. 1 JANUARY, 1927 Research Bulletin OF THE MGB DGSGEGGGGG600009656000G0000R National Education Association M7 4 (yay sD we Kg "ted “wr A “ Ge) Gy) 6). Ae ’ Sp) Soa) G5) (6) CG). BEBO BGGaaaTEaaaaaaaaaanGaas Major Issues in School Finance Part II (Part I of this study appeared as the November, 1926 issue of the Research Bulletin) School Costs and Economic Resources of the States State Advance Toward Sound School Finance Programs Essentials of a Sound Plan of State Taxation HOOGHGOHOHHOHHGHOHHHHHHHoOoOoSHSaGoS PUBLISHED BY TIIE RESEARCH DIVISION OF THE NATIONAL EDUCATION ASSOCIATION 1201 SIXTEENTH STREET NORTHWEST, WASHINGTON, D. C. 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. Be FLAAIAAIAIAIAIAI AIL FLT} Baaaaa ‘ Ne. ==. SISTA TSS STP SSS TTS roy sir sok 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. President, Francis G. Bair Secretary, J. W. Crastret The payment of the $5.00 membership fee of the National Education Association entitles one to receive the Research Bulletin, the Journal, the Annual Volume of Ad- dresses and Proceedings, and certain other publications of the National Education Asso- ciation for one year. One dollar of each $5.00 membership fee is for a year’s subscription to the Research Bulletin. The Research Bulletin may be subscribed for separately at a subscription price of $1.00 per year. Single copies may be purchased for 25 cents, and in quantities at a reduced rate. 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 yerpnt-qnes matter February 10, 1923, at the Post Office at Washington, D. C., under Act of Augwst.24,,1912. Acceptance for mailing at special rate of postage provided for in Section 1103, Act of Gctober 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 Recently Issued See page 5 for titles of recently issued Research Bulletins 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, postpaid if remittance accompanies order: Single copies of this issue 25c 2 to 9 copies—10% reduction 10 to 99 copies—25% reduction. 100 or more copies—33 1/3% reduction. Orders for Research Bulletins not accompanied by remittance are subject to trans- portation charges. Make checks payable to National Education Association. 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 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. 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. For further information on this subject or others affecting the work of the Research Division, address the Division of Research, National Education Association, 1201 Sixteenth Street N. W., Washington, D. C. Aarts 44 Research Bulletin OF THE National Education Association VOLUME V January to November, 1927 (For index see page 347 The Research Bulletin is issued by the Resear National Education Association. This of the headquarters staff of the division was created in February, 1922, for the r f conducting scientific studies of special interest to members of the teaching profession Bulletin One was issued by the Research Division June, 1922, and Bulletin Two in November, 19 The Ty, 1923, eT vf the Research Edu first number Bulletin is Volume I, No. 1, Janua titled Facts on State cational Needs. With Volume I, No. 1, the regular publication, issued five times each year September and November. The Research Bulletins composing Volumes I, II, III, IV, and V, are listed on the next page rcarch Bulletin lar uary, M ire h, May, became a RESEARCH DIVISION THE NATIONAL EDUCATION ASSOCIATION OF THE UNITED STATES 1201 Sixteenth Street Northwest, Washington, 1g2i7 D.C 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. (Out of print.) Teachers’ Salaries and Salary Trends in 1923. Vol. 1, No. 3, May, 1923. 116 pp. Price per 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. Il, No. 3, May, 1924. 32 pp. (Out of print) 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 gy of the Schools. Vol. Ul, No. 3, May, 1925. 32 pp. (Out of print. Keeping Pace with the Advancing Curriculum. Vol III, Nos. 4 and 5, Sep- tember and November, 1925. 96 pp. Price per copy, 50 cents. The A bility of the States to Support Education. Vol. 1V, Nos. 1 and 2, Jan- uary and March, 1926. 96 pp. Price per copy, 50 cents. E ficient Teaching and Retirement Legislation. Vol. TV, 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. TV, No. 5, November, 1926. 32 pp. Price per copy, 25 cents. Major Issues in School Finance—Part Il. Vol. V, No. 1, January, 1927. 64 pp. Price per copy, 25 cents. Salaries in City School Systems, 1926-1927. Vol. V, No. 2, March, 1927. 64 pp. Price per copy, 25 cents. The Scheduling of Teachers’ Salaries. Vol. V, No. 3, May, 1927. 64 pp. Price per copy, 25 cents. The Advance of the American School System. Vol. V, No. 4, September, 1927. 32 pp. Price per copy, 25 cents. School Records and Reports. Vol. V, No. 5, November, 1927. 132 pp. Price per copy, 50 cents. Th TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGI Recent Issues of the Research Bulletin 5 iid oe os ak ete Rn ee eg 6 School Costs and Economic Resources of the Various States 7 The Situation in Individual States... 7 Relative Value of Various Measures of Economic Power... 7 Cautions Concerning Comparison of Effort Made to Support Schools 8 State School Costs and Wealth and Income...... ; 9 State School Costs and Accumulated Savings Deposits................. 14 State School Costs and Payments for Life Insurance 17 State School Costs and Payments for Building Construction 17 School Costs and Tax Collections................... (axdeerenes cues 20 School Costs and Expenditures for Cer-ain Luxuries..............0005: 20 Ratio of School Costs to Economic Power...............000ceeeecues 24 Some Conclusions for All States........ a ee re 9 State Advance Toward Sound School Finan:e Programs 30) Weak Spots in State Systems of School Finance......... 30 Removing the Weak Spots in the State Systems of School Support 37 The Essentials of a Sound Plan of State and Local Taxation 42 Cautions and Warnings.....................5. 43 Revenue Raised by Various Forms of Taxation .................-00e00: 43 ] Revenue Various Taxes Would Raise Compared with State Contributions to School Support KO 6 OOO ee OO 6 Oo 64 0 TeCEL ET Sree Te , reuse te CORO SO G4 WO Roll Call by States as to Plans Affecting State School Finance Legislation....... Recent Studies and Articles Bearing Upon Problems of State School Finance, . [3] LIST OF TABLES Amount of School Expenditures and Wealth and Income by States in 1924 (Table 1 Percentage of the Economic Resources of the States Devoted to School Support (Table 2) Relation of Total Amount in Savings Accounts to Expenditures for Schools by States in 1924 NY EI ee gd Relation of Payments for Life Insurance Premiums in the States to Expenditures for Schools in 1924 (Table 4) Dealt Ghee the wks wets ; Relation of Amount Expended for Building Construction in the States to Expenditures for Schools _e. By & : eee eee 3 : ee) Pere Pon Hh Relation of Taxes Collected in the States to Expenditures for Schools in 1924 (Table ¢ Relation of Amount er for Certain Luxuries in the States to Expenditures for Schools in 1924 (Table 7) be bicencn eas Re «Ore Economic Ability and Effort Being Made to Support Schools by States in 1924 (Table 8 Value of Tangible Property and State Taxation (Table 9) Personal Net Income and Federal and State Taxation (Table 10) Amount Which Would Be Paid by Individuals with Varying Incomes Under Tax Rates One-Half Those of Federal Normal Tax Schedule of 1924 (Table 11) Corporation Net Income and Federal and State Taxation (Table 12) Amount Spent for Tobacco and Revenue Which Would Be Raised by a State Tobacco lax (‘Table 1 Value of Mineral Resources and Revenue Yielded by Three Percent Tax (Table 14 Revenue Various Forms of Taxes Would Yield and State Contributions to School Support in 1924 Ce ED anne cus sdedhawnes LIST OF CHARTS PAC Ratio of Expenditures for All Schools to Value of Accumulated Tangible Wealth in 1924 by States CU yk al ee a es ho ns s wciwmigei kage deme baie baaw anes Percentage of Income Expended for Schools of All Types, Public and Private, in 1924 by States BD whoo x Cea meR RANT orbits Fick oo 00000 e verensdebeseewiveneses oie Tere ase Ratio of Expenditures for All Schools to Accumulated Savings Deposits in 1924 by States (Chart | Ee ee gen en ee ee Pee eee eee eT ery Ce er TT? ee eee Ratio of Expenditures for All Schools to Total Taxes Paid in 1924 by States (Chart = Ratio of Expenditures for All Schools to State and Local Taxes Paid in 1924 by States (Chart V). Ratio of Expenditures for All Schools to Expenditures for Certain Luxuries in 1924 by States (Chart WEE aos datas 4g ARR PEE Ree NAR Sa hs v0 + 4 40nd t ARERR En OEP wea SS ee Typical Differences in Ability of Local Communities to Support Schools (Chart VII)........... Typical Differences of Local Communities in Ability to Support Schools and in State Aid Received CO = Ry eee rer Pees re eee ere ere AGES 10 46 47 48 49 nN Recent Issues of the Research Bulletin Keeping Pace with the Advancing Curriculum. Vol. 111, Nos. + and 5, September and November, 1925. 96 pp. Price per copy, 50 cents. in concise and readable form the outcome of recent research and practice i Presents bearing: upon the problems of curriculum reconstruction. Has been widely used as handbook by course of study committees and by college classes in the field of the cur riculum. Includes selected bibliographies on general and special curricular problems charts, illustrations, and index for Volume III of Research Bulletin. The A bility of the States to Support Education. Vol. 1V, Nos. 1 and 2, January and March, 1926. 96 pp. Price per copy, 50 cents. Presents the most comprehensive data yet made available as to the comparative ability of the various states to pay for their schools. Also compares the states as to effort being made to support the schools. Widely quoted in educational periodicals and in recent surveys of state school finance. Much of data presented in graphic form; selected and annotated bibliography. Efficient Teaching and Retirement Legislation. Vol. 1V, No. 3, May, 1926. 72 pp Price per copy, 25 cents. Includes the 1926 Report of the Committee of One Hundred on Retirement Allow ances of the National Education Association, E. Ruth Pyrtle, Chairman, and othe: material arranged in convenient form for those studying the problem of the retirement and pensioning of teachers. Selected and annotated bibliography. A Handbook of Major Educational Issues. Vol. 1V, No. 4+, September, 1926. 72 py Price per copy, 25 cents. Presents material for the use of lay and professional groups in studying problems affecting the conduct of public schools. Selected references on many major school issues are listed for those desiring additional information. Major Issues in School Finance—Part 1. Vol. IV, No. 5, November, 1926. Price per copy, 25 cents. Presents data bearing upon two questions: (1) Are school costs larger than the economic resources of the nation justify? and (2) Can present expenditures for educa tion be justified under a policy of economy and efficiency in public expenditures? Much of data presented in graphic form. Contains index to Volume IV. ee FOREWORD Forty state legislatures convene in 1927. School finance will be one of the major questions faced by practically all of these deliberative bodies. No question is of greater significance to the general welfare. ‘The legislature of a state can make or break its schools by the wisdom it exercises in shaping laws affecting the support of education. In this time of confusion and false counsel concerning school costs, there is need for clear thinking in the drafting of school finance legislation. Nothing can be a greater aid to such thinking than the scientific, but untechnical presentation of facts such as those which have appeared in the last two issues of the Research Bulletin under the title, Major Issues in School Finance. A study of these facts calls for optimism. The problems of school finance are difficult but not insuperable. It is encouraging to know that the economic resources of most states are more than adequate to justify present school expenditures. The securing of increased school revenue, in the states in which educational progress waits upon better financial support, is not a problem of a lack of economic resources. It is rather one of finding and being willing to put into effect the methods of taxation which will divert from the abundant supply of economic power already in existence a share appropriate to the importance of education in a modern civilized commonwealth. ‘The two Research Bulletins published under the title, Major Issues in School Finance, are recommended to those dealing with the financial problems of the public schools. These Bulletins contain data which have a direct bearing on most of the larger questions arising in the course of enacting sound school finance legislation. Public-spirited citizens, school officials, officers of education associations, and chairmen of teacher committees on legislation should select from these Bulletins the facts which concern their state. These should be brought to the attention of state legislators by every legitimate means. Few things can do more to advance school finance legislation in the right direction. Few things can do more to bring us to the day when educational opportunity will be guaranteed all children. J. W. Crastree, Secretary, National Education Association. Ji T Ilo | s ho pr Wwe ee School Costs and Economic Resources of the Various States The evidence presented in the Novembe: 1926 Research Bulletin shows there is noth ing in the recent history of the nation’s eco nomic development or in its present economic position to indicate school costs are large: than is economically justifiable. The nation’s resources are so great it can easily provide for present, or even greater expenditures for the schools if their efficiency requires. These conclusions are true for the nation as a whole. How far are they true for the in- diyidual states? Can each of the forty-eight states afford to support its schools on the pres ent basis? Can further increases in the cost of education be safely voted if school efficiency demands? The Situation in Individual States As a basis for answering these questions, this section presents figures for the states com- paring their school expenditures with a num- ber of indications of economic power. The indications of economic power, for which data are presented for each state, are as follows: 1. Total accumulated tangible wealth 2. Average yearly current income 3. Total amount accumulated in savings accounts 4+. Payments for life insurance 5. Yearly expenditure for building con- struction 6. Total taxes collected—federal, state and local 7. State and local taxes collected 8. Estimated expenditures for several arti- cles in the luxury class. A comparison of each of the above items in a particular state with its current school ex- penditures offers a basis for answering the following questions : 1. Is the amount of support accorded the schools in my state greater than its economic power justifies ? 2. How does the effort being made to sup port education in my state, as indicated by the percentage of its economic power going to education, compare with that made in other states? Relative Value of Various Measures of Economic Power Of the various measures of economic power those as to wealth and income are the most reliable. In fact these measures of economic power are so much greater in value than the others presented that the question might be raised whether this study would not have been improved if the figures as to savings life construction, accounts, insurance payments, building taxes, and luxury expenditures had been omitted altogether. ‘This would be the case were the figures as to the items other than wealth and income offered as a scientific basis for accurately comparing the states as to the economic effort their school expendi- involve. These figures are not tures pre- sented primarily as a basis for comparing the economic effort made by the various states to support their schools although they may be of some value in this connection. The figures as to savings accounts, payments for life insurance, taxes, and luxury expendi- tures are of greatest value as indications of the economic ability of each state to meet its pres- itself states. ent school expenditures considered by and without to the other The ot costs to wealth and current income are the best indica- of its economic ability to meet these Further light may be shed upon a reference ratio school accumulated tions costs. state’s ability to meet school expenditures by comparing these expenditures with the other measures of economic power presented. [hese other measures are indications of the amount of economic power that a state is allowing to a few important interests having to do with current production and consumption and the increase of capital. In studying the figures given for these items one should carefully dis- tinguish between those that represent annual current income and_ those allotments from which represent accumulation over a period of years. For example, the amount given as to the savings deposits of a state represent an accumulation of as to building costs represent the amount ex- several years while figures pended during one year. [7] It is significant that the total accumulated savings deposits of the states are approximately nine times as great as are annual school ex- penditures. This means that the citizens in the majority of our states could in any year, if they so desired, meet all school costs by withdrawing a minor fraction of the amount on deposit in their savings accounts. In New Mexico, the state in which savings accounts seem to be least popular, yearly school costs are but two-thirds as much as is deposited in the savings accounts of this state. In some states in which the maintenance of savings accounts is a more general practice, such as Rhode Island, annual school costs are less than five percent as much as total savings deposits. The fact that payments for life insurance are nearly as great as for all forms of schools is suggestive in a study of the relationship of school costs to economic power. It is also a significant fact that the states expend over twice as much each year for building construction as for all school costs. There are but three states in the union, North Dakota, South Dakota and Nevada, in which more is being expended for schools than for building construction. In a considerable num- ber of the states three times as much is being expended for building construction as for schools of all types. In considering the relationship of school costs to a state’s economic power it is also of some value to know how school expendi- tures compare with expenditures for other governmental purposes. Yearly school costs in the United States constitute less than one- third the amount collected through all forms of taxation. In every state in the union except North Dakota the amount collected annually in taxes is at least twice as much as is ex- pended for schools. In several states yearly school costs constitute less than one-fourth as much as is collected in taxes. In thirty of our states, school expenditures are one-half or less than one-half the amount collected in state and local taxes alone. Every state in the union is spending con- siderably more for certain articles in the lux- ury class, namely, soft drinks and ice cream, theaters, candy, chewing gum, tobacco, jewelry, perfumes, and cosmetics, than it is for all forms of schools—public and private, elementary, [8] secondary, and higher. In thirty-two stat more than twice as much is being expend for these luxuries than for education. “The are several states spending three times as m for the luxuries named as for- all types schools. In studying the subsequent tabulatior therefore, it should be realized that the re tionship of school costs to wealth and incom the most reliable basis for determining the e nomic burden which school costs represent any particular state. If proper cautions a observed, further light may be obtained « this question, however, by comparing sch costs with the amount of «& onomic power p! vided for the support of a number of oth important state interests. Cautions Concerning Comparison of Effort Made to Support Schools The following tabulations are arrangé so they may be used to compare the econom effort being made by different states to su; port their schools. By effort made to support schools is meant the percentage of econom power devoted to school maintenanc: Whereas this definition has some value, limitations should be realized. Most peopl will agree that it is much easier for a fami to expend a given percent of its income f the education of its children if it has a year! income of ten thousand dollars than if it has an income of one thousand dollars a year. Thi principle has some application to units such as a state. It is probably true that it require less effort in terms of sacrifice and self-denia for California, with a high per capita incom« to expend 4.82 percent of its income fo: schools than for Mississippi, with a low pe: capita income, to expend 2.52 percent of it income for the same purpose. In a given yea: the higher above the level of subsistence state is, the easier it is to allot a given pei centage of its income for school support. This fact should be kept in mind in case on: desires to use the subsequent tabulations t compare the states as to the effort being mad: to support education. It would be best to con fine such comparisons to states with approxi mately equal ability to support schools. Othe: wise the factor mentioned above may enter t Unit n it norn cipal tially this othe: Si state item: ing t insul mine othe: ance amo' by t stat nde “he nu 10Ns such an extent as partly to invalidate the com parisons.’ The ratio of school costs to wealth and cur rent income is by far the best basis tor com paring the states as to the effort made to sup port education. One should confine his atten tion to these figures if he wishes to base his conclusions on data that are of most scientifi value. The ratio of school costs to savings deposits payments for life insurance, expenditures fo1 building construction, amounts collected in taxes, and expenditures for luxuries should be used with great caution as a basis for compat ing the effort of the states to support educa tion. This is For example, the ratio of school costs to sa\ necessary for several reasons. ings deposits is very much higher in some states than one would expect after studying the ratio of school costs to wealth and income. This fact is particularly true of the sparsely settled states. In these states it is probable that banks with well organized plans for en- couraging the building up of savings accounts are relatively inaccessible. “Therefore, in these states much of the money which under differ ent conditions would be deposited in savings accounts is diverted to other forms of invest- ment. Yearly school expenditures in New Mexico are 66 percent as much as accumulated sav- ings deposits. The the United States as a whole is 11.19. This is not an indication that New Mexico is making ab- similar percent in normal expenditures for schools. It is prin- cipally due to the fact that there is a substan- tially smaller sum in the savings accounts of this state than one would expect considering other measures of its economic power. Similar special conditions exist in other states tending to reduce the validity of the items under discussion, as a basis for compar- ing the economic power of the states. The life insurance payments of a state are partly deter- mined by its economic power and partly by other factors, such as the vigor of its insur- ance companies in selling their services. The amount of building construction is influenced by the rate of population growth as well as ability ' Facts are given in a recent study as to the i John K. N . - : data on this point, see the following reference National Education Association, Washington, D. C 192: ther factors, not discussed here, wl have an importa made to support schools of the by the amount of income. lhe amount of taxes collected in a state may be determined as much by the methods of taxation used as by the amount of resources possessed. Expendi tures for luxuries are influenced by fashions and amount of advertising as well as by wealt! possessed. In short, the various indications ot economic power presented in the followin tabulations, with the exception of wealth and fractional indications of ¢ income are ability, not measures of total economic al ry [These fractional indications of economi power may be strongly influenced in a state by connected with its total Wealth two reliable ind factors but remotely economik and income, on the othe: a state's total economic power, strength. hand, are ations of The warnings suggested in the foregoing paragraphs, as well as similar cautions that cannot be given space in a study of this type must be kept in mind if misinterpretations of the subsequent tabulations are to be avoided If caution the data these tables will be found of value in answe1 is observed given in ing the questions before us: 1. Is the schools in my amount of accorded thx state support greater than its economi power justifies ? 2. How does the effort being made to sup port education in my state, as indicated by the percentage of its economic power going to edu cation, compare with that made in other states ? State School Costs and Wealth and Income Table 1 gives data for each of the states as to school expenditures and economic resources as indicated by the amount of wealth and cur rent income. Figures in this table make it possible to calculate the percentage of each state’s total economic power devoted to school support. Such calculations are given in Table 2. Figures in this table present data as to the ratio of the school costs of each state to Table 2 shows, for ex- pub its wealth and income. ample, that the sum expended in 1924 fo: lic elementary and secondary schools in Ala bama was .48 of one percent of the value of its tangible wealth. The similar figure for the na states to support schools For a detailed pre t t rton The 1 f f the States to upport if ; This reference Is gives more detailed nsiderat t t be iring wupor npli ited concepts Ahilit 1 effort [9] tion as a whole was .58 percent. pended for Alabama for higher education was .13 of one percent of the value of its tangible The sum ex- wealth. United States was .12 percent. schools in Alabama constitutes a sum whic! The corresponding hgure tor The cost of TABLE 1—AMOUNT OF SCHOOL EXPENDITURES AND WEALTH AND INCO) BY STATES IN 1924 | Ohio. Oklahoma... .. States 1 | United States Public > 1 818,743,017, Alabama. . Arizona. . Arkansas... . California Colorado Connecticut Delaware Dist. of Col. Florida Georgia Idaho.... Illinois. Indiana owa. Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine —_ Maryland... Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri. . Montana.. Nebraska Nevada... New Hampshire New New New York.... ersey... fexico. North Carolina North Dakota | Oregon....... Pennsylvania. . Rhode Island. . South Carolina. South Dakota.. er Vermont...... Virginia....... Washington. .. West Virginia. Wisconsin..... Wyoming... Expended in 1923-24 for elementary and secondary schools Private 3 | $130, 957, 988|$1 , 949, 701 , 905 14, 386, 394) 458,353 7,975. 366) 235\724 9' 440.786 78.575 124, 240,978) 4,046,601 22,960 , 826) 24,996,771) 3,203,492 6,578, 364 12,398, 902| 17,278, 365) 8,972,918 115,374,775 51,169,383 48,173,955) 35, 286,038 17,159, 794 19, 364,061 10,127,901 20,411,063 70,103, 192 82, 858, 435] 55,392,199 9/833. 452 45,960, 407 10, 750,093 26,772,818 2,111,709 5, 830, 389 78,921,680 4,757,151 242,638,343 30, 980 ,022 16, 706, 696 123, 764,639 32,649,784 16,392,026 149, 667,197 8,606,771 12,825,341 15,570,870 16, 832,091 55, 687,875 9,349, 516 4,026,555 20,271,269 27,362,702 22,453,950 44,331,449 5,835,164 301 , 203 4,675,200) 65,478) 1,029, 330) 278,013 272,011 117,862 15,845,917 2,737,022) 2,697,735 1,663,166 484,545 1,100,047} 1, 309, 580| 1,859, 603) 12,716,021 10,070,669 4,190,656 130,958 2,317,956 301 , 203 1,715,550 5,238 1,846, 508 4,321,614 275,012 13,933,930 798, 844 314,299 9,507,550 183, 341 1,060, 760 14,143,463 1,925,082 222,629 340,491 523, 832 733,365 248 , 820 419,066 432,161 1,951,274 432,161 6,521,708 117, 862 j Interpretation of table: The institutions which might be ter mercial business colleges; etc. would be less than five percent. Al : Data as to expenditures are not available. Receipts are probably in aporgamate agreement with what expenditures would show if data were available. Total / 14,844,747 8,211,090] 9,519, 361) 128,287,579 23, 262,029} | 29,671,971) 3. 268, 970) 7, 607 , 694} 12,676,915 17,550,376 9,090, 780 131,220,692 53,906, 405 50,871,690 36,949, 204 17,644, 339 $386,371, 20, 464,108 11,437,481 22,270, 666 82,819,213 92,929,104 59 582,855 9,964,410 48,278, 363 11,051, 296 28,488, 368 2,116,947 7,676,897 83,243,294 5,032,163 256,572,273 31,778, 866 17,020,995 133,272,189 32,833,125 17,452,786 163,810, 660 10,531,853 13,047,970 15,911, 361 17,355,923 56,421, 240 9,598 , 336 4,445,621 20,703 , 430 29,313,976 22,886,111 50,853,157 5,953,026 | 1923-24 oo | ceipts of uni- versities, col- leges and teacher training institutions an 113 3,998,151 1,332,669 2,022,880 20,340,521 4,044,530 8,139,411) 463,757 2,544,793 1,700,470 5,268,086 1,620,661 25,032,269 9,640,262 14,408,378 7,183,649 4,538, 849 5,108,704 2,212,657 7,890, 643 26,108,471 15,436,017 13,598,873 2,853,701 10,294,638 2,154,717 5,147,069 504,110 2,663,930 5, 507 ,036 837,293 40,080 , 693 9,613,364 3,200,620 19,987,134 5,122,110 4,539,185 3,214,793 5,703,012 14,791,966 1,748,827 1,514, 381 9,457,451 4,592,951 3,939,063 11,822,955 801 ,032 Total school costs 1923-24 6 18, 842, 898) 9,543,759) 11,542,241) 148, 628,100} 27, 306, 559| 3 8 38 wea INwNe “Iw “II 11, 732,72 10,152,48 14,377,385 22,818,462 — 10,711,441 156,252,961 63, 546, 667 65, 280,068 44,132,853 »”? 25,572,812 30,161, 309 108,927,684 108 , 365,121) 73,181,72 12,818,11 58,573,00 13,206,013 1 8 1 1 33,635,437 2,621,057 10, 340, 827 88" 750° 330) 5, 869, 456 296, 652 , 966 41,392,230 20,221,615 153,259,323 37,955,235 21,576,024 191,001,299 12,862,357 17,587,155 19,126,154 33,906,927 26,825,174 62,676,112 6,754,058 Value of tangible in wealth, 1922 thousands $2 , 336,073 ,018/$314.718 3,002 1,314 599. , 15,031 3,229 n 286 625 697 >, 440 896 1,533. »9' 929 8,829, 10,511, 6, 264 582 ~wnnNeaw 980 11,404, 918) 8,547 Sue , 409 c 981 2,223 5,320, 541, 374 11,794 851 Nh OO ww nen c+ 842 891 + yew hen sSA~IN ? 7 6 « < 416, 006, 990, 035, 543, , 467, 18,489, 993, , 419, + 833, ,924, 404, ,925, , 228,28 , 850, sae. , 040) , 570) 6, x Estimated yearly in come, 1924 in thouands 830/$66, 000 , 000 043 91) 617} 734) 412) | 445 765 270) 491! 759 941 794| 726) 682 058 391 860 531} 730 839 861} 690] 189 | 075 716 135 189 836 262) 405 ‘919 , 081) 239) 719, 231, 567, 3,082, 200 640, 151 429, 396, 1,009, 250, 5,009, 1,669, 1,353, 1,023, 917, 745, 442, 990, 3, 247,21 580, 1,333.7 508, 2 1,874, 330, 719, 66, , 200 2,415, 165, 277 9, 603, 904, 303, 3,966, 1,023, 547, 6,131, 475 587, 356 798 2,389, 244 191 930 950 712 1,531, 165 41 Oo 60K Of 1,042 , 800 SO OO O01 ROL ROK 400 SO OO OO 404 aU ae Oot 4100 000 400 000 60 000 OO 21K 601 600 000 800 400 200 400 400 60K 200 200 400 600 400 800 200 000 res given as to cost of education omit, because of lack of data, expenditures of certain schools, for example, certain institutions for the deaf, blind, and feeble-minded; com- ’ a The value of, tangible wealth is from t not include value of ships of the U. S. Navy, and a few other items not distributed b United States in 1924 was estimated on the basis of the best data available. of the union on the basis of the average of the total national income found in the several states in the years 1919 and 1920 as estimated by the National Bureau of Economic Research. Sources of data: Bureau of Education. é y states. — This total is distributed among the states It is probable that if these expenditures were added to the figures given here, the increase Also note that data of column 5 are receipts not actual expenditures for higher schools e Federal Census of Wealth. The total given does The total income in the Columns 2-6 inclusive are based upon data found in the publications of, or furnished by, the U. S [10] E ECONOMIC RESOURCES OF THE STATES DEVOTED TO SCHOOL stupporr In TABLE 2—PERCENTAGE OF TH inc t 6 33° 8a 23a" BRR 4 3& Rage a] e Y zu 6t 7? sy ve CB ; ew BA" Ss 39R° 838 ov ? SI , er il 6 ? s 60"? «er * 69 F) 2 vi aor u* 06" $ ’ ” es ue og° st°s o . —. sy ‘ ass ww z 60 , woskuy yeu, > ey ve"s t 7" ex ~ wrersetA : “ Tr°s uw et ow .upmze, a7 tt soe * tr t wee tt at o6°s uu st° us* evre . ” al os" st o eoseeue w we ws*s 06° o9* rr ¢ —— - st 66°2 d Ly i eT $° errr. re $ hd ” mu? ow iv zt ad Pres: o a ¢ tt ~ 99 60° . eyes, fe me, 9 8 ve" ¢ Yeu t st wore y y ‘ . ¥ . 4 tz , 99° "3 8 es e > ¢ te S 6 ¢ Z . e z 9 T 2 60° ore ey aos 2° 4 90° 49 ’ ” ¢ 6° : et e ” ” = 94° og 60° é& , ts 69°8 zu" 4 S io" c 6s° t? ey " s st y 1 i J ° ° se vt ov) "Ss o@ gt°s ve" 2 Pn £ 8 go*e oe* 90r2 4" ort ts" os xe 60° os* 62*2 es tt os* st t ers 87° o9°2 9° T is* ¢ *« ww ev ae* 29° st° er 04° vs ou* tr M be oes oe _ > ¥ t e es* 9° z* tt* os* : ? 3 : 22 a 4 & - > oa a: 3% * = e oa t 4 ” 335 maa 2 4 2 a 9 o * aay . >N 7+ ey ” 6» £0°2 T is T ere a él 29°2 $*s es? T 6 i 2 sTOO\WOS r 2 Lavpucces o _ e 408 183) ewe e sees ma JO 9800 wn ae Cae rite OUBIOO LE, ae eee Ty ean ll i lila CHART I eens i RATIO o EXPENDITURES = ALL SCHOOLS VALUE OF ly ACCUMULATED TANGIBLE WEALTH IN 1924 »* STATES UNITED STATES KI 2242 REET Alabama marti Arizona mvt Arkansas -_" om California or) Colorado ==> a8 Corunecticut ten! Delaware =_."el- District af Columbia -- . = Florida See | Geo r La |p ho | Idaho ary.c:. = [LLinous ea Induana, wk lowa Te Owe Kansas rc, s Kentucky == 54 Louisiana Pv / Maine -'--_ Maryland eae , Massachusetts art. f M1 ichugeace =~ sm r Minnesota Bas | , PLLUSSLSSLPpL - - : Pluissouri Soe! r Montana arate : Nebraska <5 | , Nevada ee : New Hampsture a dee! } ‘ New Jecsey 5 7 New Mexico ==> f New York atom ! North Carolina os we North Dakota ==>. Onio =. Oklahoma oe Oregon ar-i+a Pennsylvama oor | Rhode Island | sie! South Caroli ves South Dakota =! Tennessee =r)-- . Texas wes . Utah Darks : Vermont we me Vi Cay ma =m Washir nr = Pennsylvarua =r Rhode Island eis | South Carolina rs a South Dakota mwas Tennessee Ts Bos Texas ar.) Utah = 3.) Vermont: ree Virgima Washington West Vifeinia yo- Wisconsin S| Wyomuney KESCALCL DAn8iol., NATOal €AMK Ferce s derived from estimates based. on figures of National Bureau of Economic Research tor inc and figures as to the ast of schools from the U.S. Bureau of Education Read. chart thue The percentage of income expended. for schools of’ all types, public and pri im. 1924, was 2.62 percent in Alabama. Similarly read data for other states PERCENTAGE «INCOME EXPENDED » SCHOOLS | OF ALL TYPES. PUBLIC® PRIVATE IN 1924 » STATES CS ee 22 .63 of one percent of the value of its tangible wealth. The corresponding percent for the United States was .74 percent. These latter percentages will be found graphically pre- sented in Chart I. Alabama in 1924 expended 2.00 percent of its income for public elementary and second- ary schools; .56 percent of its income for higher education and 2.62 percent of its in- come for schools of all types, both public and private. ‘The corresponding figures for the United States as a whole were 2.76 percent, 59 percent and 3.54 percent. Charts | and II graphically presents the ratio of school costs to wealth and to income for each of the states and the nation as a whole. School costs in Alabama arid in every other state in the union constitute a sum which is but a minor fraction of the amount of wealth and income possessed. Using the indices of columns 14 to 19 of Table 2, these statements may be made con- cerning Alabama: If the ratio of the tangible wealth of the United States to the cost of its public elementary and secondary schools in 1924 (column 14) is given the value 1.00, then the similar ratio for Alabama has the value .83. Similarly considering the data in column 17, if the percent of the income of the United States devoted to public elemen- tary and secondary school support is given the value 1.00, then the corresponding value for Alabama is .72. This figure may be inter- preted as indicating Alabama is devoting 72 percent as much of its economic power, as indicated by annual current income, to school support as is the country as a whole. One might go still further and state Alabama is making 72 percent as much effort to support its public elementary and secondary schools, considering its income, as is the country as a whole. One should qualify his acceptance of the latter statement, however, in the light of the cautions given on page 8. Charts similar to I and II could be drafted, using the data in Table 2, to show the ratio of expenditures for public elementary and secondary schools, and for higher education to wealth and to current income. Such a series of charts would graphically reveal, for each state, the ratio of expenditures for various types ef schools to total economic power and [14] would also make possible visual comparis of the states as to the effort made to supp various types of schools. “Uhese charts wor furnish a reliable basis for answering the t questions being considered in this section. State School Costs and Accumulated Savings Deposits > ‘There was a total of $20,873,562,000 the savings accounts of the people of United States in 1924. According to Table 3 the expenditures f schools in 1924 were 11.19 percent of t! amount in the nation’s savings deposits. }\ every $11.19 expended for school costs the: was $100 lying at interest in the nation’s sa ings accounts. Similar facts are given for ea state in Chart III. In every state in the uni the amounts accumulated in savings account is larger than the yearly expenditure for pu lic schools. There is not a state in the uni in which school expenditures have prevent: the accumulation of substantial savings counts. In most states accumulated saving deposits are several times as large as annu school expenditures. The ratio of school costs to deposits in sa ings accounts differ widely among states. V« mont and Rhode Island for example expen for schools a sum that is less than five pe: cent as much as the accumulated savings d: posits in these states. In New Mexico, on t! other hand, school costs are two-thirds as mu as savings deposits. ‘These differences are di to influences affecting the two variables co: cerned. Some states are more generous tha: others in their provision for educatio: Sparsely settled states such as New Mexi find it necessary to expend more per pupil f a given type of education than thickly settled states such as Rhode Island or Connecticut This is due principally to the fact that th number of pupils per teacher is often nece sarily smaller in sparsely than in thickly popu lated states. The other variable, amount in savings deposits, is affected by factors, such as those discussed on page 9 which tend to re duce the amount in the savings accounts certain states to a figure lower than one wou! expect considering the total economic resource in these states. ia si CHART III "RATIO * EXPENDITURES ror ALL SCHOOLS © ACCUMULATED SAVINGS DEPOSITS «1924>.STATES INITED STATESKY IL ISeKS9 L Alabama Arizona Arkansas California Cc orado Connecticut Delaware Distr ict of Col 1 LUTO 1a r ‘lor 1aa . "€ < ts Ya LOAano [ilinors LrLrouana lowa +p 6a6 entucky pe. alin - Lrle Maryland Massachusetts 15 O49 Mic higan Minnésota flississippl Missouci Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hamps shire [5 a5a New Jersey B=Fewhe New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohto Oklahoma Oregon Penney lvama ERG Rhe ode Island. EESa South Carolina HIDES SouthDakota HOBZaa Tennessee 15.28) Texas C1resA Utah 119.55) \ e rmont 1.0% Virginia Pit 483) Washington BAA West Vi reirua PETCSSS Wisconsin 4 2 Wyoming: er. ben reasearch D Vational Education Aesh Read chart thus: _ Alabama the expen ditures for schools of all types, both publi anc private, in 1924, was 21.47 % as muchas accumulated. savings depos ite. Sim ;Assax read data for other states Based on figures of the American. Bankers of Education IiTON and or the U o I [15] TABLE 3—RELATION OF TOTAL AMOUNT IN SAVINGS ACCOUNTS TO EXPE) DITURES FOR SCHOOLS BY STATES IN 1924 Index Rank of states amount 1 pen yo based on that cost o Percentage Percentage Total amount in — | _ napa that cost of | States savings accounts | ™¢Mtary and | higher edu- | ai) schocls Public 1924 | Secondary | cation is of | ic of total in elemen schools is of | total in sav- A % total in sav- | ines accounts savings Col.|; Col.| Col.| tary and : & accounts 3 4 5 | second ings accounts | ary schools I ; ; | 6 8 United States $20 , 873 562 000 8.71 1.85 11.19 1.00 Alabama 87,773,000 16.39 1 56 1.47 16 10 17 1.88 Arizona 24,490,000 | 32.57 5.44 38.97 5 7 6 3.74 Arkansa 53,456,000 17.66 ‘78 21.59 13 | 17 | 16 03 California 1,420, 548,000 8.75 1.43 10,46 37 | 40 | 37 1.00 Colorad 118,445,000 19.39 3.41 23.05 | 11 21 12 3 Connecticut 637 , 368,060 | 3.92 1.28 5.93 45 43 44 45 Delaware 47,175,000 | 6.79 o8 7.91 41 | 44 | 42 78 Dist Cc 71,781,000 9.24 3.58 14.26 36 | 20 31 1.06 Florida 102,729,0C0 12.07 1.66 14.00 27 | 38 | 33 1.39 Georgia 98 459,000 17.55 §.35 23.18 14 8 11 ? O01 Idah« 24,206,000 | 37.07 6.70 44.25 4 4 4 4.26 Illinois 1,182,970,000 9.75 2.12 13.21 34 35 34 1.1 Indiana 242,477,000 21.10 3.98 26.21 10 | 15 | 10 ».42 lowa 676, 282,000 7.12 ?.13 9.65 40 34 | 39 } Kansa 110,080,000 32.05 6.53 40.09 6 6 5 3.68 Kentucky 169, 143,000 10.15 > 68 13.12 32 | 29 36 ee Louisiana 118,189,000 16.38 4.32 1.64 17 | 13 | 15 1.88 Maine 257, 506,000 3.93 86 5.30 44 | 47 | 47 | i Maryland 342,977,000 5.95 » 30 8.79 42 | 33 | 41 68 Massachusetts 1, 931,933,000 3 63 1.35 5 64 | 46 | 42 | 46 } Michigan 826,092 ,000 10.03 1.87 13.12 33 | 36 | 35 1.15 Minnesota 506 ,033 ,000 10.95 2.69 14.46 30 8 30 1.26 Mississipp? . 75,087,000 13.10 3.80 17.07 6 | 16 | 23 1.50 Missour 345,221,000 13.31 2.98 16.97 24 26 25 1.53 Montana 49,110,000 21.89 4.39 26.89 9 | 12 9 » 51 Nebraska... 197,742,000 13.54 2.60 17.01 | 22 31 24 1.55 Nevada | 15,870,000 | 13.31 3.18 16.52 } 25 23 26 1.53 New Hampshire 182,877,000 3.19 1.46 5.65 47 39 | 5 37 New Jersey 908 , 806 , 000 8.68 61 9.77 38 | 49 | 38 1.00 New Mexico 8,847,000 §3.77 9 46 66.34 1 2 1 6.1 New York 4, 535,600,000 | 5.35 &8 6.54 43 | 46 | 43 61 North Carolina. 136,253,000 | 22.74 7.06 30.38 ei 3 7 61 North Dakota.. .| 87,817,000 | 19.02 3.64 23.03 12} 19} 13 2.18 Ohio 1,081 ,624,000 11.44 1.85 14.17 28 | 37 32 1.31 Oklahoma 78,391,000 41.65 6.53 48.42 2 5 2 4.78 Oregon 98 , 298,000 16.68 4.19 1.95 15 14 | 14 1.9 Pennsylvania. . 2,008, 885,000 | 7.45 1.35 9 51 | 39 41 | 40 86 Rhode Island. . 283 , 499 000 3.04 82 4.54 48 | 48 | 48 35 South C arolina 94,945,000 | 13.51 4.78 18.52 23 | 9] 20 1.55 South Dakota. 101, 837,000 15.29 3.16 18.78 19 | 24 | 19 1.76 Tennessee. . 150, 861,000 11.16 3.78 15.28 | 29 | 18 27 | 1.28 Texas. 149, 208,000 | 37.32 9 91 47.73 Daal 1 3 4.28 Utah 58,040,000 16.11 3.01 19.55 |} 18 | 25] 18] 1.85 Vermont 164, 287,000 2.45 9? 3.63 | 49 | 45 | 49 8 Virginia. 208,329,000 | 9.73 4.54 14.48 35 il 29 o.3 Washington 197 , 449,000 13.86 2.33 17.17 21 32 | 22 1.59 West Virginia 149, 324,000 15.04 ? 64 17.96 20 | 30} 21 1.73 Wisconsin 431,603,000 10.27 2.74 14.52 1 27 28 1.18 Wyoming 24.0/ 3.30 27.86 Fig 8 | 2.76 24,240,000 | tures for public elementary and secondary schools in Alabama in 1924 was 16.39 percent of this amount. gives Alabama a rank of 16, see column 6 on this item. : and secondary schools was 8.71 percent of the amount in savings accounts. in column 9, then the percentage for Alabama (16.39) has the value 1.88. other states. Sources of data: Column 2 from Savings Deposits and Dzepositors, Bankers Association, New York, and sources cited at foot of Table 1 If this last percentage is given Similarly interpret data of othe 1912 through 1924, compile Read table thus: In 1924 there was a total of 87,773,000 in savings accounts in the state of Alabama. of percentage of nN savings accoun to cost of Higher All educa- I tion pees 10 1 1.00 1.00 > 46 K » O4 3 48 » 04 1.9 1.84 > .( 69 53 1.94 1 90 1 » 89 » 0 3.62 3.9 1.15 1.18 » 15 » 2 . os R¢ 3.53 3.58 1.45 ef. » 34 1.9 16 4 1.24 73 5( 1.01 1.1 1.45 1.29 > OS 1.5 1.61 Swe » 37 ». 40 1.41 . ey. 1.48 79 50 33 8 5.11 ».9 48 58 3.82 2.71 1.97 2.06 1.00 ye 3.53 4. 33 » 26 1.96 ie) 8 44 41 » 58 1.66 1.71 1.68 » O04 a a 5.36 4.27 1.63 nue 50 $2 » 45 1.29 1.26 1.53 1.43 1.6 1.48 1.30 1.78 | 2.49 The expendi This percentag« In the nation as a whole the expenditures for public elementary the value 1.00,as r columns and for American ~d by [16] [he ment cent insu we h Flor less who simi for | amo i i i i eh li Nite ok 3 ry School Costs and Payments for Life Insurance Investments in life insurance and_ those made in public education are two of the most important forms of insurance a civilized na- tion can maintain. ‘They protect the future of the individual and of the nation and are im- portant factors in creating new capital. It is interesting, therefore, to compare in Table 4 the ratio for payments of life insurance to school costs in the United States as a whole with that found in the various states. Table 4 shows that $2,082,815,282 was paid for the maintenance of life insurance policies in the United States in 1924. In the same vear public elementary and secondary schools cost $1,818,743,917 or 87.32 percent as much. The cent of the payments for life insurance premi The cost of all schools was 112.16 per- cost of higher education was 18.55 per- ums. cent of the payments for life insurance premi ums. Similar tacts are given for each of the states in Table 4. This table shows that every state in the union at present is making substantial investments in life insurance. It is interesting to compare the facts for a single state with those just given for the coun- try as a whole. ‘Take Florida for example. The expenditures of this state for public ele- mentary and secondary schools is 85.28 per- cent as much as it yearly pays in life insurance premiums. The similar percentage for the country as a whole is 87.32. Florida is spending slightly less for its public schools than one would expect considering its pay- ments for life insurance. Among the states of the union it ranks 29th in this regard— see column 6. The index number in column 9 indicates that Florida is spending 98 per- cent as much for public schools per given ex- penditure for life insurance as is the nation as a whole. As far as its payments for life insurance is an indication of economic power, we have evidence that the effort being made by Florida to support its public schools is slightly less than that being made in the country as a whole. Using the data in Table 4 one may similarly study the ratio of the expenditures for higher education, and for all schools to the amount paid for life insurance. ‘Are We on a New Plane of Construction Demand?” Engineering News-Record, School Costs and Payments for Building Construction Money invested in building construction ts another important form of national savings since practically all buildings constructed con tinue to exist for a considerable period of years In recent years the United States has expended times as much for new approximately three types ot school support. | buildings as for all The ability of the nation to sums for the erection of new buildings is fur arge find such ther evidence of its increasing economi strength. It has been suggested that we have reached a new plane of construction demand “and that the higher level represented in the last three years is more or less permanent.’ In short, building is taking place not only in response to population growth but in response to demands for better homes, better ofhce buildings, and better equipped factories. Table 5 shows that the United States in 1924 expended $5,273,007,610 for buildings Probably an additional billion was expended for con for which contracts were awarded. struction for which no contracts were awarded. According to Table 5, for $44.30 ex pended for school support, $100 was expended every for building construction. In all but three states in the union the sum annually expended for new buildings is larger than that expended for the support of all types of schools. Chart 1V graphically presents the ratio of school support to payments for building con- struction in each of the states. The percent- age varies in different states. In Illinois, for for example, school expenditures were 41.93 percent as much as was expended for build- Among the states in the union it ranks thirty-third in this Table 5. The index figure in column 11 in- dicates that Illinois is expending 95 percent ings. regard—see column 6, as much for all schools per given amount of building construction, as is the nation as a whole. As far as the amount expended for building construction is an indication of eco nomic power, we have evidence that the effort now being made by Illinois to support schools is but 95 percent of the average for the coun try as a whole. The value of the amount expended for building construction as an indication of eco August 27, 1925, p [17] TABLE 4—RELATION OF PAYMENTS FOR LIFE INSURANCE PREMIUMS IN T! STATES TO EXPENDITURES FOR SCHOOLS IN 1924 mT States United States Alabama Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware. Dist. of Columbia Florida Georgia Idaho Illinois Indiana lowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana aine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada... New Hampshire New Jersey. New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Oklahoma Oregon. . Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina. . South Dakota. . Tennessee Texas... Utah. . Vermont Virginia W. ashington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming Payments for premiums | | } | } | in 1924 | life insurance | | $2,082,815,282 26,796,758 | 3,279, 13,954, 88,371, 838 16,610, 290 663 36,785, | 5,631,014 | 13,153,673 , 538,920 39, 584,619 349 739 015 893 4,224, 3,957, , 563, 998, 42.746, 898 846 091 056 233 27,423, , 890, 12,620, 34,689, 2,997, ,020, 784 37 ,690, 198 .579,055 70,012,156 . 215,496 , 658 , 320 6.795. 33,254, 2 ‘O75. 6.948. 29°511. 24,192, ‘010, 2.354. 695 | 250 | 552 | Percentage relationship of payments for life insur- ance to costs of Public elemen- tary and second- ary schools 87 32 Higher educa- | tion | 14.92 38.36 ~ ne a NNN ee axe < — VUnnaD . nn w —_ weNmwnh POD & cS x Es 34.02 | All | schools 102 140.15 136.27 157 286.87 | Read table thus: Ranks of states based on | i Index of percentage rela tionship of payments f: life insurance to cost Cotuenn | Column | Column | tary and 3 4 — wn Public elemen- — ary | schools | 8 | 9 1.00 46 61 ? ) oa 41 7 14 1.61 15 1.58 33 78 48 65 45 57 36 98 49 50 6 » 43 39 72 5 1.18 10 1.49 32 95 42 72 22 Bad 30 92 38 67 31 78 13 1.48 8 1.68 26 1.06 40 75 7 1.98 11 1.60 17 1.50 24 84 29 1.15 5 2.36 43 74 23 1.16 1 3.24 28 1.09 9 1.91 18 1.3 35 89 44 60 27 | 1.01 4 2.62 47 5 12 1.52 16 | 1.54 37 73 34 79 20 1.30 21 1.31 19 1.27 3 | 2.84 penditures for public elementary and secondary schools in 1924 was 53.69 percent of this amount In the nation as a whole, expenditures for public elementary and If this last percentage is given th¢ Similarly interpret data tor othe: gives Alabama a rank of 45 in this item, see column 6. secondary schools was 87.32 percent of the amount id in life insurance premiums. value 1.00 as in column 9, then the precentage for Alabama (53.69) has the value .61. columns and other states. Sources of data: and sources cited at the foot of Table 1 Higher educa- tion 10 80 2.19 ue wn wn ~ a > woe In 1924, there was $26,796,758 paid as life insurance premiums in the state of Alabama. All scho me me Gy me 2) md pee pee bet — Ex This percentag: Column 2 from the Life Insurance Yearbook for 1925, Spectator Company, New York, page 436 [18] Ala! ” obit = apt thi TABLE 5—RELATION OF AMOUNT EXPENDED FOR BUILDING CONSTRUCTION IN THE STATES TO EXPENDITURES FOR SCHOOLS IN 1924 Percent relationship of value Rank of states Index of percentage relation of building construction to based on ship of value of building con Estimated cost of struction to cost of volume of build- ing construction States for which con- Public > Se Cer ——— Al! Col Col Col Pe... a ane All in 1924 and sec- educa schools | U™M | umn | umn | og second-| educa FF corte ondary tion 3 4 5 : | tion schools ary schools 1 , ? 4 s 0 § 0 ] Il United States...| $5,273,007, 610 34.49 7.33 44.30 1.00 1.00 1 00 Alabama | 50,093,572 28.72 7.98 37.62 37 9 9 83 1 ( 8 A na 19, 351,938 41.21 6.89 19 32 18 35 119 4 1 it \ as 55,735,690 16.94 3.63 0.71 48 { 18 49 0 { rnia 316, 696, 837 | 39 23 6.42 16.9 2? 38 g 1 14 RR 1 O¢ ( ad 38, 703,876 59 32 10.45 70.55 7 1 s . v2 1 43 1 59 Connecticut 108 096, 656 | »3.12 7.53 34.98 | 45 32 12 6 1 03 ) Delaware 12,813,409 25.00 3.62 9 13 43 18 16 72 19 66 t. of Col 54,786,549 12.01 1.64 18.53 49 44 49 35 63 { la | 45,822,436 7 .06 3.71 31.38 39 16 43 78 1 I gia 94,175,916 18.35 5.59 4.23 $7 42 $ 53 6 Idal 19,351,938 46.37 8.37 55.35 15 19 1.34 1.14 | Illino1 372,643,448 30. 96 6.72 1.93 35 36 33 90 9? 9 Indiana 144,849,519 35.33 6.66 3.87 29 ; 32 1.02 91 99 lowa 101,874,507 47.29 14.14 64.08 13 12 1.37 1 93 1 45 Kansas 56,579,372 62.37 12.70 78.00 5 8 4 1.81 1 1. 7¢ Kentucky 39,811,207 43.10 | 11.40 55.72 17 14 18 1.25 1 6 1 Louisiana 51,833,665 37.36 9. 86 19 34 »7 18 4 1.08 1.35 11 Maine 18,719,177 54.10 11.82 72.92 x 12 ] 1.5 1.61 6 Maryland 77,513,212 26.33 10.18 38.91 41 1 6 16 1.39 ata. Massachusetts. 207 , 598,310 33.77 12.58 52.47 32 9 0) O88 1.72 18 Michigan 264,230,411 31.36 5.84 41.01 34 41 34 91 80 93 Minnesota 110,047,669 50.33 12.36 66.50 9 10 11 1.46 1.69 1.50 Mississippi 27,999,670 35.12 10.19 45.78 30 16 9 1.02 1.39 1.03 Missour1 114,055,155 40.30 9.03 51.35 20 5 rt 1.17 :.29 1.16 Montana 22 , 832,123 47.08 9.44 57.84 14 mI 16 1.37 1.29 1.31 Ne breaks | 56,368,451 47.50 9.13 59.67 12 4 14 1.38 1.25 1.3 Nevadz | 2,003,743 105.39 25.16 |130.81 3 ) 3 3.06 ; » 9 New ; Hampahire 14, 869, 881 39 21 17.91 69.54 23 $ 9 1.14 » 44 1 New Jersey... . .} 229,955,862 34.32 2.39 38.59 31 49 3 1.00 33 s New Mexico 9,755,064 48.77 8.58 60.17 11 6 13 1.41 Ry 1. 36 New York 753,512,787 | 32.20 ge 32 39. 37 33 43 35 93 73 R9 North Carolina. 61,905,109 50.04 15.53 66.86 | 10 5 10 1.45 P.12 1 51 North Dakota.. . | 6, 380,339 261.85 50.16 |316.94 1 1 7.59 6.84 15 Ohio ¢ eae 437,554,171 28.29 4.57 35.03 38 5 41 82 62 9 Oklahoma 86, 424, 595 37.78 5.93 | 43.92 26 40 31 1 10 81 99 Oregon 42,605,901 | 38.47 9 68 50.64 24 19 22 1.i2 1.32 1.14 Pennsylvania... .| 389,886,183 | 38.39 6.97° | 48.99 25 34 26 1.11 95 1.11 Rhode Island... .| 28,157,861 | 30.57 | 8.28 45.68 36 28 30 89 1.13 1.03 South Carolina. 47,457,069 | 27.03 9.56 37.06 40 20 40 78 1.30 x4 South Dakota. ..| 12,866,139 121.02 4.99 (148.65 2 3 2 3.51 3.41 3. 36 | Tennessee 75 ,087 628 22.42 7.60 30.71 46 31 +4 65 1.04 69 Texas 238,076,294 23.39 6.21 9.91 44 39 45 68 85 68 Utah 15,238,992 | 61.35 | 11.48 | 74.46 6 13 6 1.78 1.57 1.68 Vermont 10,124,175 39.77 14.96 58.87 21 6 15 1.15 ? 04 1.335 Virginia 79, 780, 605 25.41 11.85 37.80 42 11 38 74 1.62 85 Washington 59,637,716 45.88 7.70 56.85 16 10 1 1.33 1.05 1.28 West Virginia. 55,050,199 40.79 7.16 48.73 19 33 »7 1.18 98 1.10 Wisconsin 125,339, 391 35. 37 9 43 50.01 28 9 3 1 03 1 29 113 Wyoming 8,753,193 66 . 66 9.15 | 77.16 4 23 5 1.93 1.25 1.74 : Read table thus: In 1924 the value of contracts let for building construction in Alabama is estimated at $50,093,577 Expenditures for public elementary and secondary schools in Alabama in 1924 was 28.72 percent of thisamount. This per centage gives Alabama a rank of 37 in this item, see column 6. In the nation as a whole, expenditures for public ele- mentary and secondary schools was 34.49 percent of the value of building contracts. If this last percentage is given the value 1.00 as in column 9, then the percentage for Alabama (28.72) has the value .83. Similarly interpret data for other columns and other states. Sources of data: The figure for building construction in the United States as a whole iven in column 2, $5,273,007,- 610, is based upon data given on page 259 of the 1924 Commerce Yearbook of the U Sosestmnant of Commerce. It includes only building construction for which contracts were let. Approximately $1, Gon, 000,000 probably was expended for - building construction for which no contracts were let. The total given in this table for the United States, as to the value of construction contracts, was distributed among the states by using the estimate of the percent of the total vo ume of construction, in each state, of the ripen soe Bureau of Economic Research in Income in the Various States page 70 This estimate is based upon a study of the volume of construction in the states for the three years 1919-1921 [19] ee power doubtless varies in different states. A state would expend less for buildings if its population were static than if its popu- lation were growing rapidly. In a rapidly growing population building construction must provide for the increasing number of inhabit- ants and for replacement, both because of de- terioration and changes in the character of buildings demanded. In a static population only the latter factor affects building construc- tion. ‘This and other considerations should be held in mind in interpreting the data of this table. nomic School Costs .and Tax Collections Total governmental expenditures in the United States in 1924 were $10,252,000,000. Data are not available whereby this expendi- ture can be distributed by states. Figures are available, however, as to the amount of taxes— federal, state, and local—collected in each of the states. Tax collections in 1924 were some- what less than governmental expenditures. Various governmental units have certain revenues other than those collected in the form of taxes. For example, there is a con- siderable income from permanent state funds, loans, fines, gifts, earnings of enterprises operated by governmental agencies, etc. Tax collections in 1924 were approximately 78.44 percent of all public expenditures. This per- cent is not exactly applicable in all states since they vary as to the proportion of revenue receipts realized from tax sources. These facts should be held in mind in interpreting the figures of Chart IV and of Table 6. In 1924 our federal, state, and local govern- ments collected $8,041,288,000 in taxes. Of this sum $4,812,053,000 was collected by the state and local governments.. Table 6 shows that expenditures for public elementary and secondary schools was 22.62 percent as much as was collected in taxes by the federal, state, and local governments, and 37.8 percent of the taxes collected by state and local un For every $100 collected in taxes in 19 $22.62 was expended for public element and secondary schools. For every $100 lected by the state and local government $37 was expended for public elementary and ondary schools. Similar data are given Table 6 for each of the states. In Massachusetts, for example, $17.80 expended for public elementary and second schools in 1924 for every $100 collected taxes, as compared with $22.62 in the cour as a whole. Massachusetts ranks 44th am the states of the union in this regard- column 10. The index figure in column indicates that Massachusetts is spending 79 percent as much for its schools, per gi amount collected in taxes, as in the nation a whole. In the same state for every $1 collected in taxes by the state and local uni $30.02 is expended for public elementary secondary schools as compared with $37.80 the country as a whole. 45th among the states of the union in this gard—see column 11. The index number column 17 shows that Massachusetts is spen ing but 79 percent as much for public eleme: Massachusetts rank tary and secondary schools, per given amoun: collected in state and local taxes, as is the n tion as a whole. As far as the amount whi a state contributes in taxes towards the supp: of public enterprises is an indication of « nomic power, we have evidence that the effort now being made in Massachusetts to supp: its schools is smaller than that being made | the country as a whole and by a large maj ity of the states of the union. School Costs and Expenditures for Certain Luxuries The Treasury Department of the Unit States issued estimates for 1924 as to th amount expended for certain articles in th 1See Cost of Government in the United States, National Industrial Conference Board, Chapter IV. 2 As explained above, these figures should not be interpreted as a percentage of all governmental expenditures w! go for school support. In 1924 public elementary and secondary school costs were 17.74 percent of all government expenditures, higher education costs were 3.77 percent of all government expenditures, and all school costs were 22.79 px Public elementary and secondary school costs were 26.03 percent of all st cent of total governmental expnditures. and local expenditures, higher education costs were 5.53 percent of state and local governmental expenditures, and school costs were 33.43 recent of state and local governmental expenditures. In short, the percentages given columns 4 and following of Table 11, both for the country as a whole and for the individual states, should not interpreted as indicating the percentage of all public expenditures which go for school support. The percentages giv: however, are probably a reasonably reliable indication of the relative standing of the states as to the ratios of scl to total public expenditures. This conclusion is valid for states in which the percentages of total revenue receipts realized from tax rever and non-tax revenue are in reasonable agreement with the typical situation in the country. In some states, such Idaho, Nevada, New Mexico, North Dakota, and Wyoming, and probably some other states, where such agreeme does not exist, especial caution is needed in interpreting the data of Table 6 and of Chart IV. [20] +—— 36 pue @3835 TT Foose pee savjusuete otra zo UU ool & ) a ;a= + "0 an 2 Le ms . “ onl es oy auele a 20; om a re ~ tat] - it a é wz 66°95 «a 90° ; 36° S? 92 one « zt te ra &2 oe° Ts > e , te «2 ooo*ses*ze 000° 996" st | C00* ERs" ert 000° 649° 9ee 000° 999" zz 900° LOR" Ls toons 000°990" or 4 ———E 000° cgo* ste" % *otz*st 000" goT* > 900° $20* 2 000° ore" 4 000" 049" 08 new 000° Lze*Sée 000° O16" 66 000" z96°zs o00* 290° e6 000° 909* Té 000° 426° ETT 000° 484° 9ST 00° 029" 90g 000° 290° S49 000" vz¥" 6z 000 762°96 000°T90°Fs ono" 949" ee 000° 26T*Tz 000° T¢z*STT ooo* teé*ca 000* gez* tho’ By se7035 pesran : oY wo 8) eengoEs sey poet sre on On wut stNoT Sp001007 susuvy enol erst pal SToUTTItl ouFpl eT 1007 wrod go *38TC Satine exe) TBOCT pure e3845 sexe) TOL Toyyerpe Te TU @F yue04eg terol vz6Tt 4 30 BT STOUT Faepucces pus 4280p. aueto OFT gnd JO 3809 9Nu SreQuecteg sexvy PUY 0385 puw juss *Te2spez) POPS ICO sexuy TeROL PZET BE (TeOOT 803038 PO ly Siete kad NI STOOHOS YOd SAANLIGNAdXA OL SALVLS AHL NI GALOATIOO SAXVL AO NOILVTAA—9 AITAVL CHART IV | RATIO OF EXPENDITURES FOR, ALL SCHOOLS TO TOTAL TAXES PAID IN 1924 BY STATES . Ye W [_<_-i WANANARARBARARARBARAALARRAAS | MAW I. OF =k WANANAARRRRRR RN UNITED STATES Alabama or ars Arizona Eek:csa Arkansas PPR California Krncr ta Colorado ‘GHS"t4 Connectiout Kiwecs Delaware TTZ.olLe | District £ Columbia Dierks Florida TS a1] Ceonsia A On| Idaho i's eba [ilino.s esr To | {nduana, ST OS a lowa. E3MzatA Kaneas R/c feb Kentucky SIS) louisiana WHE T-FA Maiune lsMri=¥A Marvland 20, 15%) Massachuse bHA=-¥A tt ichusé Sy SS Mi isota, Pao oe) t Lississippi leN!=54 Missouri 55. OO = Montana, eicHaleke Nebraska eoetsfeba Nevada PeshesebA New Hampskure PRIS New Jersey APSA New Mexico Ff.Mai=k4 New York. sy Ome) North. Carolina hyaetsya North Dakota. (aa 254 ORLO fcicweleb4 Oklahoma Kise Oregon Krome Pennséylvana BREESE S77 Rhode Island PE RJ5-54 South Carolina. oor ts | South Dakota Pa r5A Tennessee bIsNcesA Texas eF.=3 G4 Utah Fale Mr/skci Vermont eset ed Viceuua Kk fex-'ai Washington Fenaccia Vest Virgina i. fos tair® Wisconsin 05-364 Wyomungs Et heaket esearch Diunsiot,, Natiohal Laucanona AEs | | Read. chart thus:In Alabama the expenditures for schools of’ all types both public and. private, in 1994, was 26.87% of the total taxes paid Similacly read. data for other states. Based on cos or the US. Bureau of Education and. of the National industrial Conference Board. CHART V _ RATIO oF EXPENDITURES FOR ALL SCHOOLS TO STATE AND LOCAL TAXES PAID IN 1924 ®« STATES UNITED STATES KY 48.557 KG nn SSeS Alabama wscfve tA Arizona B=tFfeks Arkansas cXArete California BsF-"ehA Coloraclo TBS. Oss) Connecticut, f= MelsEA Delaware KichirAd District. “Columbia TOD .4 2s) Florida Pe rao) Ceorgia Erk Idaho (2°7,. blo) lilinois LSet Lnduana Ctra lowa 156.292 Kansas Foe tA Kentuckas Lena Loussiana ewes Maine | Beles Maryland BS. oa) Massachusetts a6 Ona] Michigar. E eA! Minnesota eisMs)sh4 PiSSLSSippL H2MI25A Missouri FseRs" tA Montana BES] Nebraska TBS ii) Nevada in" t4 New Hampsture isms CA New Jersey PaO New Mexico TSS. Obs! New York ora North.Cacolina see 304 North Dakota TST. WO & Ohio ot a] Oklahoma CIE 2] Oregon esHcer4 Pennsy lvania SS Soe Rhodelsiand aos Sia] South Caroling @sKricka South Dakota oe Tennessee at IS Texas ar SOF) Utah Ets letA Vermont Ee Wert Virermnia SS OO) WU ngton ov ebA West Vitara Evaeva Wisconsin | ed SO Fl Wyoming’ Ws3@%e's4 2 ~ wel 7? — J ba eres 7 Jha FtBSCQl CL DUS OL, NALGLRAL Jeldfaaiive) Read chart thus: ln Alab ame a the expenditures for schools of’ all types both public and private, 1924, was 53.74 % ot’ all state and local taxes paid. Similacly re ad data for other states Based. on figiuces of the U.S. Bureaw of? Education and Industrial Conferenx “e. Boaccd. J 4 he Natonal luxury class, namely, soft drinks, ice cream, theaters, candy, chewing gum, tobacco, jewelry, perfumes, and cosmetics. Table 7 shows that $5,522,000,000 was expended for these luxuries in 1924. Figures of column 2 of Table 7 represent an attempt to estimate roughly the proportion of this amount expended in each of the states of the union. In the nation as a whole the expendi- ture for schools in 1924 was 42.30 percent of the sums expended for these luxuries. That is, for every $42.30 expended for schools of all types there was $100 expended for the luxuries listed. There is not a single state in the union in which expenditures for luxuries are not considerably larger than those for all schools. In California, for example, school costs are but 44.27 percent as much as is expended for certain luxuries. California ranks 28th in this regard—see column 8. The index figure in column 11 indicates that California is spending 105 percent as much for schools, per given ex- penditure for luxuries, as is the nation as a whole. Or one might interpret these figures to mean that California places school support as compared with expenditures for luxuries five percent higher in the scale of human values than does the nation taken as a whole. As far as the amount expended for the luxuries listed is an indication of economic power, we have evidence that the effort now being made by California to support schools is slightly greater than in the nation as a whole. Ratio of School Costs to Economic Power It is not so much the amount which is spent for any purpose, public or private, which should command the attention, but the pur- pose for which it is spent and the wisdom with which it is spent. Some things we could do without, whether they cost little or much. Other things, and education is surely among them; we must have whatever the cost. This principle should be considered along with two facts revealed by the foregoing tables: first, in every state in the Union school costs require a minor fraction of the total economic power, and second, every state is alloting to several other interests, at least some of which are less importance to the general welfare th education, portions of its economic pow larger than that going for school supp This evidence points to the conclusion that n a state in the Union is expending more for schools than its economic resources justify. Comparison of Effort to Support Schoo! In Table 8 are assembled the indices of t! ratio of total school costs to the various ind cations of economic power for which data ; given in this section. ‘The figures in t! table are taken from columns 16 and 19 « Table 7 and from the last column of Tab 3, 4, 5, and 7, and columns 20 and 21 Table 6. In Table 8 the states are arrang in the order of their ability to support edu tion, as determined by a recent investigatio: rather than alphabetically as in the precedi: tables.? Table 8 may be interpreted as follows: |! the ratio of tangible wealth to school costs the United States as a whole is given t value 1.00, then the same ratio in Californ is 1.34, in Nevada .65, in New York 1.08 etc.—see column 2. If the ratio of school cost to current income in the United States is give: the value 1.00, then the same ratio in Cal fornia is 1.36, in Nevada 1.12, and in New York .87, etc.—see column 3. If the rati: of school costs to the amount in the accumu lated savings deposits in the United States given the value 1.00, the same ratio in Calli fornia is 1.36, in Nevada 1.12, and in New York .58. Table 8 gives for each state the ratio of total school costs to a number of measures o! economic power. In this table when the index numbers for a state are more than 1.00, we have some indication that this state devotes a higher percentage of its economic power for the support of schools than does the country as a whole, or that this state compared with other states rates the value of education higher in the scale of human values than does the nation as a whole. When the indices following a state are below 1.00, the opposite appears to be the case. In studying the data of this. tabl« } 1 See the following reference: John K. Norton, The Ability of the States to Support Education, National Educat Association, Washington, D. C., 1926. [24] ———— THE STATES TO EXPENDITURES FOR SCHOOLS IN 1924 TABLE 7—RELATION OF AMOUNT EXPENDED FOR CERTAIN LUXURIES IN Percent- Rank of states Index of percent relation age that based on per ship of luxury costs and cost of Percent- Pesncies cents of costs of public age that elemen- cost of pote Estimated ex tary and higher tl ect msi . ; penditures for second im. Public States certain luxuries ary tion is of is of elemen by states schools expendi expendi Col Col Col tary and Higher ll ’ - tures for educa is of ex tures for 3 4 5 second schools certain tion pendi- c rtain 1 a ary tures for | luxuries | ‘U7UTES schools certain luxuries 1 4 ; 4 5 § v l / United States $5 , 522,000,000 32.94 7.00 42 30 1.00 1.00 1.00 Alabama 46, 384, 800 31.02 8 62 40.62 34 4 34 94 1.23 96 A cteons 16,013,800 49 80 R 3) 59 60 g 6 9 1.51 1.19 41 \ ' 4S 35.893 .000 6.30 5 64 32.16 44 4 4 80 RI ¢ ia 335,737,600 37.01 6.06 44.27 39 8 2 S 1.05 ado 49 698 000 46.20 8.14 54.94 11 28 12 1.40 1.16 1.30 ( ecticut 87,247,600 8.65 9.33 43.34 38 15 31 8 1.33 1.0 Delaware 9,939 , 600 32.23 4.67 37.55 8 16 39 OR ( 89 Dist. of Columbia 43,071,600 15.27 5. 91 23.57 19 41 19 16 84 S¢ Florida 39, 206, 200 31.62 +.34 36.67 33 t 41 9 ¢ 5 Georgia 64, 607 , 400 26.74 8.1 35.32 43 45 81 1 i 83 Idaho... 17,670,400 50.78 91 60.62 5 17 ‘ 1.51 1 31 43 Illinois. . 466 609 , 000 24.73 5.36 33.49 / 4 46 75 Indiana 133,632,400 38.29 - | 47.55 18 3 2 1.16 1.03 lowa 121,484,000 39 65 11.86 53.74 1 \ 14 120 1.6 Kansas 71,786,000 49.15 10 01 61.48 10 il 7 1 49 14 Kentucky 61,294, 200 8.00 41 36.19 10 31 42 ~ 1 06 Re Louisiana 56,876,600 34.05 8 O8 44.96 ) 19 ) 103 1 28 _, Maine 31,475,400 32.18 03 43.37 9 34 10 OR 109 1.03 Maryland 76,203,600 26.78 10.35 390 58 j 10 3 R1 1.48 4 Massachusett 170,025, 800 25.96 9 6 40.34 4 13 35 ) 1 38 217,014,600 38.18 i 11 49 93 »”) 33 18 1.16 1 f ‘ 112,648, 800 49 1 12.0 64.96 6 } 1 49 i / 9 266,600 33.60 9 75 43 80 6 1? 9 10 4 162 ,346, 800 8 31 6.34 16 O08 39 38 13 a6 24, 296, 800 44.24 8.8 54.35 | 1 13 1 34 a aska 64.055 00 41 80 2 O4 5? 51 1 ) 1 | 1 1 } evada 5 52? 000 38 24 9 13 47.4 l 18 ; l ( l New Ha yshire 19,879.200 9 33 1 10 52.0 5 1 ) | New Jersey ; 181,673,800 43.44 3 03 i8 8S i4 49 0) i w Mexice 9, 387,400 50.68 8.92 62.52 6 0) 6 1.54 1 48 vy York 938 800 5.86 8] 31.62 4¢ +8 +8 ) ¢ North Carolina , 600 54.43 16.90 72.78 { 1 ) 1.6 41 1 North Dakota 22, , 200 73.79 14.14 89 32 1 3 1 4 0 il Ohi ‘ os 331,320,000 37.36 6.03 16.26 40 5 1.13 Re 1.09 Oklahoma... 58,533,200 55.78 - 64.84 3 5 1. 69 i 1.53 51,354,600 31.92 8.03 42.01 31 30 33 9 1.1 54 495 323,400 30.22 5.49 38 56 36 43 38 9? ~ 91 35,893,000 23.98 6.49 35 84 48 37 44 ; 93 » 33,684, 200 38 08 13.48 §2.21 1 4 16 1.16 1.93 I ; 28,162,200 55.29 11.42 67.91 ; 9 3 1.68 1.63 1.61 61,846, 400 27.22 9.22 37.28 41 16 40 83 1.3 88 168,421,000 33.06 | 8.78 | 42.28 2 22 32 1.00 1.2 1.00 20,431,400 45.76 8.56 55.54 12 5 11 | 1.39 1 1.31 12, 700, 600 31.70 11.92 46.93 32 7 24 | 96 1.70 1.11 66, 264,000 30.59 14.27 45.52 35 2 26 93 2.04 1.08 Washington 85,591,000 31.97 5.37 39.62 30 44 36 97 94 West Virginia 56,324,400 39.87 6.99 47.63 16 35 21 1.21 1.00 1.13 Wisconsin 125,901 , 600 35.21 9.39 49.78 24 14 19 1.07 1.34 1.18 Wyoming 11,596,200 50.32 6.91 58.24 7 36 10 1.53 99 1.38 Read table thus: In 1924, Alabama expended $46,384,800 ertain articles in the luxury cla na t drinks and ice cream, theatres, candy, chewing gu tobacco, je f mes and cosmetics. Thi 31.0 percent of the amount expended for public eleme y secondary s This percentage gives Alabar ‘ 6 ot 34 in this item, see column 6. In the nation as a ole, expenditures for public elementary and se i was 32.94 percent of the expenditures for certain luxuries If this last percentage is given the value 1.00 a then the percentage for Alabama (31.02) has th I Similarly interpret data for other columns and ot Sources of data: The figure given for the *S 2,000,000, is an estimate of the U. S Department as to the amount expended in the Unit: certain articles. The total national ex for these articles was distributed among the states on the basis of an average of the percentages of the nat of the following items found in each state: Value of tangible wealth, average annual current >, taxe i connection with admission to theatres, and taxes paid in connection wit purchase of jewelry ir for each state should be looked upon as approximations rather than exact estimate The fact that the taxe on luxuries are in many cases paid at the place of manufacture, rather than at the place of pur ase, make t to estimate exactly the amount expended in each state for each item in the luxury list given a ‘ CHART VI RATIO oF EXPENDITURES »°» ALL SCHOOLS ~- EXPEND- ITURES *°* CERTAIN LUXURIES * 1924 BY STATES UNITED STATESKQY 42 ZO ZR SS Alabama @eX--5A4 Arizona TES, 50 2] Arkansas 32.16 % | California CtWeta Colorado | 54 O44, | Connecticut Ceri Delaware KYA=1-3a District. of Columb BX NoveA Florida K7-Navea Georgra Kish Idaho 160.927 | Illinois Kcic Pe 734 Induana EC WA-1-¥A lowa Kee 5A Kansas ELA =, Kentucky KR Lousiana 44 96S) Maine Les | Maryland KefoRaI=5a Massachusetts Beker tA Michigan Ee eRohsA Minnesota (64,967 tississippi LiN-’esA Missourl 3G, Oe Montana PCE MK io54 Nebraska Bo Sls Nevada EVR zh New Hampshire ME Gaz New Jersev a SS > New Mexico (=P aE4 New York P27 oe] North Carolina, (RCS 2 ao North Dakota AS, Soe Oho RTaRel=bA Oklahoma. Oregon Pennsyvivama Rhode Island, isW" 54 South. Carolina Fs, South Dakota ay Ole) Tennessee Pe ore Texas TSS ae Utah __ teat Vermont. Tes Virainia IS es a\Y ashungton oD), ee West Vingirua FWAs%sA WILSCONG6LIL Ches-54 Wyomuns; BS 247 esearch Daision, Natiwonal £fducatian QAssocvatiu Read chart thus: In Alabama the expenditure for schools of all types, both public anc a inte ey 40.62% as muchasthe ex dtuses For a LUX ULCLES + es so ice cream, theaters, candy, », jewelry chases. ~~ and cos metics. nS Gum, J 4 Based on. figures of the U.S. Buceaw of Education and U.S. Treasucy Department [26] _ ee, baat one should have in mind the discussion earlier less _ effor in this section which concluded that it requires state to TABLE 8—ECONOMIC ABILITY AND EFFORT SCHOOLS BY STATES IN Indices of the percentage relationship of all school costs to various measures of economic piven state than percentage BEING MADE 1924 TO + SUPPORT + + e power } Index of Index of | Index of Aver- | Percentage Index of Index of Ind f Index of percent percentage Index of P ~ -” relation- percent percent — > percent that school relation- | percent of rh ship of ac- | that school) that school oe oats " that schoo! costs are States | ship of | current in- of a. cumulated | costs are | costs are | ‘ =a costs are of expen- wealth come for ae savings | of life in- | of building “a ry of state ditures jandschool, schools | 4 and 3| ‘eposits surance construc- ene and local for cer- } costs and school | payments tion aan taxes tain luxu- costs ries 1 | 2 3 4 5 } 6 § 7) 10 United States . 1.00 1.00 | 1.00 1.00 1.00 1 00 1.00 1.00 1.00 California. : 1.24 1.36 1.35 93 150 1 0 1.18 1.09 1.05 Nevada. . | 65 1.12 £9 1.48 1.45 » 95 1.21 90 1.12 New York | 1.08 87 98 58 0) 20 76 91 7 Massachusetts 1.14 95 1.05 50 94 1.18 95 96 95 Oregon. . | 8&5 1.11 98 1.96 1 41 1.14 1.06 5 99 Washington 89 1.01 95 1.53 1.25 1.28 1.11 95 94 Rhode Island 91 77 84 +1 0 1.03 R5 oF &5 Connecticut. . 97 1 03 1.00 53 9? 79 1.09 1.07 1.02 New Jersey 1.01 1.04 1.03 87 1.01 g 94 85 1.15 Illinois 95 88 9? 1.18 16 05 93 09 79 Wyoming 93 1.16 1.05 » 49 » 56 1.74 1.54 1.27 1.38 Ohio 1.12 1.09 1.11 1.27 1.05 9 1.14 1.09 1.09 Michigan 1.28 1.19 1.24 Bs 1.51 9% 97 OR 1.18 New Hampshire. 1.01 1.05 1 03 50 1.16 Bi 1.11 93 1.23 Colorado 1.15 1.21 1 18 » 06 1.47 1.59 1.27 1.13 1.30 Delaware. 81 69 75 71 9 66 61 75 R9 Pen sylvania 8&9 88 89 85 R8 1.11 1.00 1.14 91 Arizona 99 1.17 1.08 3.48 2.59 1.11 1.41 1.14 1.41 lowa 84 1.36 1.10 86 1.57 1.45 1.43 1.16 Maryland 1.03 R86 95 79 78 8 1.04 1.11 94 Minnesota 1.16 1.55 1.36 1.29 1.73 1.50 1.26 1.03 1.54 Maine 92 87 90 47 96 1.65 89 84 1.03 Nebraska 85 1.32 1.09 1.52 1.5 1.35 1 44 1.20 1.24 South Dakota 88 :.32 1.20 1.68 2.51 3.36 1.47 1.08 1.61 Indiana ; 97 1.08 03 ». 34 1.14 99 1.07 91 1.12 Montana.... &0 1.1 97 ». 40 1.89 ot 1.15 90 1.28 Kansas 95 1.22 1.09 3.58 92 1.76 27 1.10 1.45 Wisconsin. . ‘ 1.08 1.16 1.12 1.39 1.40 1.13 1.0! 88 1.18 Vermont... 96 88 92 32 84 1.33 99 91 1.41 Missouri. . 80 88 84 1.52 75 1.16 1.00 1.04 85 daho...... 95 1.21 1.08 3.95 2.26 1.25 1.25 98 1.43 Utah..... ; 1.00 1.31 1.16 1.75 1 46 1 68 1.16 95 131 West Virginia... .| 77 1.06 92 1 61 1.?1 1.19 1.04 97 1.13 North Dakota...| 1.11 1.88 1.45 2.06 3.05 15 1.82 1.38 2.11 Texas | 97 4 9? 4.27 1.51 68 1.00 92 00 Florida 80 1.03 92 1.25 88 71 67 59 87 Oklahoma... 1.28 1.05 1.12 4.33 1.73 99 1.14 1.0) 1.53 New Mexic .... 93 1.0! 97 5.93 P23 1.36 1.33 1.20 1.48 Virginia..... : 84 92 88 1.29 91 85 1.06 1.15 1.08 Louisiana... .. 1.01 97 99 1.93 1.21 1.11 95 92 1.06 Kentucky..... 84 68 76 1.17 72 1.26 83 92 86 Tennessee...... 74 82 78 1.37 62 69 &7 91 KM North Carolina. .| 1.23 1.29 1.26 71 1.21 1.51 1.30 1.39 1.72 Georgia...... , 80 64 72 2.07 51 55 83 99 83 Arkansas...... 59 j 58 1.93 74 17 77 90 76 South Caroline.. _| 99 84 9? 1.66 1.07 4 98 1.02 1.23 Alabama... . 85 74 8) 1.92 63 85 92 1.11 96 Mississippi... . . . | 80 7i 76 1.53 1 08 03 70 66 1.04 Read table as follows: If the ratio of school expenditures to wealth in the United States as a whole is given the value of 1.00, then the similar ratio for California will have the value of 1.34. (Column If the percent of current income going to school support in the United States is given the value of 1.00, then the similar percentage for California will have the value 1.36 (Col. 3.) Similarly read data for other ns and states. Sources of data: Col. 2 is taken from Table 2, Col. 16; Col. 3 from Table 2, Col. 19: Col. 4 f: abl Col. 11; Col. 5, Table 4, Col. 11; Col. 6, Table 5, Col. 11; Col. 7, Table 6, Col. 20; Col. 8, Table Col, 21; Col. 9, Table 7, Col. 11. Interpretation of data: ‘The states are arranged in the order of their ability to support schools as ated in the following study: John K. Norton, The Ability of the States to Support Education. National Education Association, Washington, D. C., 1926 If the index figures of a state are above 1.00 it appears to be devoting a relatively large percentage of its economic power to school support; if below 1.00, a relatively small percent of its economic power t school support. In studying this table have in mind the cautions suggested on pp. 8-9 [27] nomic power to school support. He should also recall the discussion on pages 8-9, point- ing out that the ratios of school costs to wealth and to income as measures of the effort made to support education are of much greater scien- tific value than the ratio of school costs to the various other fractional items of state eco- nomic power. In studying the index numbers for individual states it should be held in mind that those in columns 2 and 3 are probably of greater value than those of any other column. These are averaged in column 4. California, the state in the union which has the greatest ability to support schools, probably finds it easier to meet its present school costs than do many of the poorer states in which the ratio of school costs to economic ability is below the average for the nation. Some states have but one-sixth as much economic power per child to be educated as has California.’ The people of California can afford more of everything than those of less favored states. The people of this state can allot a relatively large percentage of their total income to school support without encroaching upon proper provision for the elemental necessities of life. In addition they can deposit large sums in their savings accounts, carry generous life insurance policies, expend relatively large amounts for building construction, support public enter- prises, and make lavish expenditures for lux- uries. ‘The situation in the poor states is dif- ferent. After the people in such states have provided for the elemental necessities of life, they have little left to deposit in savings ac- counts, to expend for luxuries, or even for school support. This fact should be held clearly in mind in studying the data of Table 8. , It is interesting to compare the indices of Table 8 for different states. There are some states such as North Dakota which all along the line seem to be devoting well above the average amount of their economic power to education. ‘The opposite is true of such states as Delaware and Rhode Island; the index numbers following these states, being less than 1.00, generally indicate they are devoting something below the average percentage of their economic power for school support. The fact that some states devote more than an average percentage of their econon power to school expense in itself is no indi tion that school support in these states generous or even sufficient to provide reaso: ably adequate school facilities. It is true t! some states make more generous provision school support than do others. They wai their children to have nothing less than fi: rate school facilities. When such an attitu: exists in a state it tends to increase the s of the indices given for that state in Table This factor is not the one principally c cerned, however, in the case of a numb of the states which seem to be making mo: than an average effort to support educatio: The fact that in some states the indices Table 8 are consistently above 1.00 may the result not of a policy of generous suppo: for schools but of any or all of the followir conditions : 1. The state may be relatively poor. As consequence even a small expenditure pe child in attendance consumes more than average percentage of the economic power po sessed. 2. The state may be sparsely Consequently many schools with a small nun ber of pupils per teacher must be maintained Such schools are relatively costly to mainta per pupil educated. Such states must expen considerably more per child to provide educa tional facilities comparable to those a smaller expenditure will obtain in thickly populated states. 3. Some states are rich in children. Th percent of their populations included within the ages 6 to 13 is almost twice as great in some states as in others. States that are ric! in children will find it necessary to make relatively large expenditures for education their children are to be given a fair educa tional opportunity. 4. Some states cling to outworn but ex pensive forms of school organization. ‘They are unwilling to follow the lead of the more progressive states by consolidating many of their smaller school districts. As a con sequence an unnecessarily large number of ex pensive one and two teacher schools continu: to exist, even though good roads and othe: prerequisites to consolidation are available. populated 1 See Chapter III, The Relative Ability of the States to Support Education, of the following reference for the ba of this statement: John K. Norton, The Ability of the States to Support Education, National Education Associat Washington, D. C., 1926, p. 29-37. [28] ——— ee det Miah Peart } These considerations make it clear that the rates will necessarily differ in the percentage devoted to school Support. Special conditions in every state must be met. (+ their income In some states as little as two or three percent of the current income may be sufficient for the maintenance of first rate schools. In other states a much higher percentage of the in- come must be allotted to education if their children are to be provided with reasonable educational facilities. “The amount of taxable wealth per child, density of population, per- centage of population included in the school ages, and the degree of willingness to adopt eficient forms of school organization—all of these fuence in determining the economic effort that a state will find it necessary to make in orde factors exercise an important in- to maintain a modern school system. Some states that are already making more than an average effort to support their schools must make a still greater effort if they are to bring their school systems up to even the av- erage level of efficiency. Conditions in other states are such that it is possible to maintain first rate school systems with less than average effort. In short, the indices of Table 8 are neither indications of the efficiency of state school systems nor of the adequacy of the financial support they are receiving. If used with cau- tion and with due observance of the warnings stated in this section, they may be taken as a basis for comparing the states as to the eco- nomic effort their school expenditures at pres ent require. Some Conclusions For All States This section has presented figures for each state bearing upon its economic ability to meet its school expenditures. These figures make it possible to state certain conclusions: 1. In every state in the union a minor frac- tion of its economic power is devoted to school support. 2. In every state in the union several im- portant interests are allotted portions of its economic power larger than that going to school support. 3. There is not a state in the union in which school expenditures are greater than they should be unless one rates the Importance of education very low in the scale of values. Some states appear to be making conside1 effort to However, even in the states mak ably greater support their schools than others ing the greatest effort to support education little to justify the that conciusion more there is present school costs are than can be borne by these commonwealths, providing they value education highly and are willing to use modern methods for tapping the sources of school revenue. Every state in the union can substantially increase the percentage of its economic power devoted to education, if school efhiicien: vy seems it will be nomic effort appropriate to the importance of to demand, before making an eco education. ettort to support schools will be necessary if the edu In many states a considerably preate! cational product hoped for is to be obtained School support in many states is still deplor ably inadequate for the maintenance of school systems of the type our civilization demands. Whether all sufhicient to support a first rate school system states have economic resources cannot be answered from data presented in this study. The figures of this study do justify the statement, however, that there is not a state that economic power at its command to allow sub- in the union does not have sufficient stantial increases in its present provision for school support. No state in the union, in which school progress is being hindered by the lack of adequate financial support, need hesi Sufficient eco- state to tate to increase that support. nomic power is possessed by every justify some increase. The problem in many states is not one of waiting for an increase in economic resources. It is rather a problem of finding and being willing to put into effect the methods of taxa tion which will divert from the abundant sup ply of economic power already in existence, a share appropriate to the importance of educa- tion in a modern civilized commonwealth [29] A number of state school surveys have recently been completed. ‘They all emphasize the vital relationship which exists between methods of financing the schools and educa- tional efficiency. A sound state plan for financing education in itself may not guar- antee a first rate school system, but without such a plan a first rate system is impossible. Many states have taken or are taking steps to place their systems of school finance on a solid foundation. Progress is being made in two directions. First, there has been advance ing more adequate financial support for the schools. This road to progress is open to every state. The preceding section presents facts which indicate that not a state in the union is economically unable to increase school expenditures if educational efficiency demands. Whether all states can afford the expense involved in lifting their school systems to the minimum level of efficiency desirable in a democracy is an open question. It is true the states vary widely in their ability to sup- port schools. Some states will have to levy school taxes at rates five and six times as high as other states to provide a given amount of support per child to be educated.‘ But this condition should not obscure the fact that even the poorest states have sufficient economic resources to justify some increases over pres- ent school costs, if education is accepted as a matter of major interest to the general welfare. In many states, the securing of adequate support is less a problem of insufficient eco- nomic resources, than one of securing the en- actment of measures evenly and justly distri- buting the burden of school support—which will require every dollar of economic power within the state to bear its just share of the cost of educating its children. Second, there has been progress toward making better use of the state school money in secur- State Advance Toward Sound School Finance Programs already available. Advance in this dir requires no increase in school expendit It can be achieved as soon as a state is ing to adopt the form of school organiz and the methods of distributing its state s money approved by investigation and ex; ence. No state whose road to educational pro, is barred by an ineffective system for finan its schools need hesitate longer. The ba: , can be removed whether it involves the propriations of larger sums for school sup; the better use of the revenue now avail or both. A number of states in recent years conducted studies to reveal the weak spot , their plans for financing the schools.? ‘] is much to be learned from these invest tions by states whose plans for financing « cation need revision. The next section point out some of the conclusions of ¢! investigations which are of major significa Weak Spots in State Systems of Scho Finance 1. T’00 large a part of the cost of the sch has been paid for by the local community too little has been contributed by the st Under modern economic organization no s' can expect to offer all children a fair edi tional opportunity if it places the burd of school support wholly or principally u; the small local community. In every st some local districts are so rich that they « support first rate schools on a relatively tax rate. Others have so little taxable p: ; erty that a tax rate equivalent to confiscat fails to provide acceptable school facilities. Chart VII shows some of the differences ability to support schools found in cert: states.* This chart shows, for example, th: Alabama has counties in which the wealth p: ‘ 1See the following reference: John K. Norton, The Ability of the States to Support Education, National Ed tion Association, Washington, D, C., p. 71. 2 See bibliography beginning on page 56 for citations to recently completed investigations dealing with state s finance. * The extremes in some of these cases have to do with districts using different ratios between assessed and | wealth. able as to true wealth for all districts. richer and the poorer districts. There is little reason to believe, however, that the differences revealed would be reduced if data were a In the investigations, some of which are concerned in chart VII, in which ; data have been available, the effect of having true rather than assessed wealth per child has been to change the « in the rank of the districts in wealth per child, rather than reducing the differences in wealth per child between [30] CHART VII TYPICAL DIFFERENCES » ABILITY ° LOCAL COMMUNITIES ~SUPPORT SCHOOLS Wealtt. Per Chud Rich Communi Wealth Rr Child , ae Commun y « ; waar | Alabama Arizona California Mi Color ado if nd an a ' lowa lew «J New Jersey $316 New York. i North Caroling : Ohio . Vest Vigginia SAl | L Fescatch Division , National CUuCaAHOR. ASS Sources of Data: Alls. State Board of Education, Some Facts Relating to Elementary and High School Education in Alabama p. 3 ‘ | Ariz., Tupper, Survey of the Arizona Public School System, p. M1. Calif., Swit, Studies in Public School Finance, The West, p. 132 Colo., Sowers, Financing Public Education in Colorado. p. @ Ind., General Education Board, Public Education in Indiana. p. 190 lowa, Educational Finance Inquiry Commission, The Financing of Education in lowa. p. 143 | La., Louisiana State Teachers Association, Inequalities in Educational Opportunities in Lowisiana, p. 33 N. J., Report of Commission to Investigate the Subject of the Distribution of State School Moneys, March 16, 1923, Table 16. po 66-81. N. Y., Mort, State Support for Public Schools. pp. 18-19 | N. C., Morrison, Equalization of the Financial Burden Amon the Counties of North Carolina pp. 42.4 Ohio, Report of Ohio Institute, 1926, pp. 24a-24w | W. Va., Cavins, The Financing of Education in West Virginia, p. & [31] cational opportunities. The Public School Sy Ut of Arkansas, U. 8. Bureau of Education. Par are p. 88. gg California :—Equality in educational opport t a will never be secured until . the state pri ure support and directs those factors upon which « f Ex child enroled is as much as $3610.00 while others have as little of $827.00. The differ- ences between rich and poor communities in states in which the taxing unit is smaller than the county is frequently far greater than this. Differences in ability to support schools similar ity depends and which may therefore be t y2¢ to those indicated in the chart are typical. the minimum essentials of SEES epper Ww Investigations in a number of states show °° satin manger Serpe. wmer es Panic § ? f opel . inance. The West. p. 144. that the ratios of the wealth per child in rich Georgia:—Even a cursory consideration saa and in poor local communities are probably inequalities in the ability of the various co. | not less than: to support schools ... shows the utter futili n . expecting any system which derives its rey an Pore ~ ne from county sources ever to produce equalit 72 os ¥ ts Citeein educational funds and consequently equalit ' 50.2 en 6 is Citeendn educational opportunity. Gordon G. Sing 18.3 to 3 ie Gesaate ring om gorge for the Support of Edu hs - . - im Georgia. ° ° le “4 ~ ‘. owned Illinois:—The evils of the district system P ond ao & ta tee the hopelessness of endeavoring to equalize ed 14.0 to 1 in Kentucky tional opportunity and school burdens, as lor x oh.8 @ 6 tn Geen the district is maintained as the chief and domi : oA to & tn Diieens source of school revenue, have been pointed - 98.5 ao 4. fn Mineman by every authority on the organization and £6 te § te Meh Cacciinn port of public schools for the last one hun ¥ 25.8 to 1 in Ohio years. Swift and others. Studies in Public § am $2 to 1 in Oregon Finance. The Middle West. p. 80. ae 27.3 to 1 ie Okleheme Iowa:—A great obstacle to the proper dey _ $8 op 2 ie Geach Withee ment of the educational program in Iowa is used 79 tm § tn. “Senmeeme great proportion of the burden of school he <9 ue 4 in Tene port borne by the locality. Russell and ot ‘T 6.7 to 1 ia Utah The Financing of Education In Towa. p. le oie 17.4 to 1 in West Virginia.’ New Jersey:—After 50 years of support by ,; taxation, we find ourselves in an educational s ne So long as a state places the major burden tion marked by economic and educational ineg oul of school support upon small local units such _ ties. . . . It would seem that the time has ar exis as the district, township, town, parish or when we should undertake to ascertain wheth« nm | not a thorough-going modification, perhaps, in a complete reversal of our traditional policic school support may not be necessary. May not solution of our financial difficulties lie ing the burden in such a manner as to make major portion of its weight rest upon the St eee: rather than upon the local communities? ( I mission to Investigate the Subject of the Distr county, some children will be denied the op- portunity to obtain a common school educa- tion of the quality acceptable in a democracy such as ours.” This conclusion is arrived at by many investigations in state school finance. The quotations given below are from such in s!| pal investigations : tion of State School Moneys. Report of Mar true Arizona:— Equality of educational opportunity 10, 1923. p. 43. : a ft with just equalization of financial burdens . . . can Oklahoma:~ The essence of democracy is equ met ity of opportunity. . the district system not or : ae only be secured through magnifying the state and county as taxing units and diminishing the im- fails to provide such equality but makes any coil portance of the district. Ralph C. Tupper. A Sur- proach to equality impossible. Public Education igs vey of the Arizona Public School System. p. 82. Oklahoma. U. S. Bureau of Education. p. 49 —— Arkansas:— However much Arkansas may im- Oregon :—Owing to our archaic districting ing the raising of a large portion of our school fund and the wide variations among these districts 4 otal tax-paying ability, in the weaker the burden prove her educational situation inequalities will nevertheless continue as long as the local units ... are depended upon for the major por- tion of school revenues. Neither the county nor educational support is crushing in weight. Hom any other local unit which might be devised can P. Rainey. A Study of School Finance in Oreg equalize school revenues, school burdens, and edu- p. 64. nue —_ — ot 1 1 Definite citations to studies on which these ratios are based may be obtained by addressing the Researc! inc vision of the National Education Association. ?The adoption of the county and similar large local units for local taxation purposes in many a decided step toward advance, but not a complete solution of this problem. states wou [32] et eae Utah:—School burdens borne by some districts sre comparatively light, while other districts stagger under the weight of heavy taxation, and vet are unable to produce funds to provide the bare necessities in educational facilities. i Education In Utah, U. 8. Bureau of Education 1926, p 478. Wisconsin:—Because of the small valuation of Survey manv of the counties and of districts, it becomes ebvious that without some form of state support inv of the districts of the state would be unable local tax alone, to support a system of educa tion adequate to the needs of the commonwealth John Callahan, State Superintendent. Educational Opportunity in Wusconsin. p. 3 Equalizing This evidence suggests as one of the axioms of school finance: No state has ever been ible, at the same time, to make school sup- port a matter wholly of local concern and to provide all children a fair opportunity to ob tain a common school education. >. The methods of taxation used in obtain ing state school revenues are antiquated, inade juate and unjust. Most of the part of school costs paid by the state is obtained through state tax on property. The same tax is also used by the local communities to obtain their school revenue. The general property tax as a sole or prin cipal source of state revenue is universally condemned. ‘This tax is an inheritance from our early history, when most of the wealth A tax levied on property in such a situation bore with rea- existed in the form of property. sonable equality on the total economic re- The amount of tax a man paid had a just relationship to his ability to sources of a state. pay and to the benefits he received from: the services maintained at public expense. In modern times these things are no longer true. ‘Tangible property today represents but Com- mercial concerns conduct enterprises yielding a fraction of a state’s economic power. profits into the hundreds of thousands in plants valued at but a few hundred dollars. Bil- lions each year are realized from income pay- ing securities. Large salaries are earned by those who own no property. Property values each year represent a smaller percentage of the nation’s total economic power. At the same time, the need for public reve nues has increased. This is particularly true of the schools wherein the last thirty years the increase in elementary school attendance has Edwin R. A. Seligman, Essays in Taxation Macmillan times, and in high thirty as rapid as the growth in general population. been approximately two schools has been approximately times, Each year the property tax is a less adequate source of revenue for the schools or for any other form of public service, supported by a state. The following ‘quotation is representative of the view points of experts in the field of taxation: Under modern economic conditions, property and especially personal property, is no longer a satis Wealth in modern times is derived to a continuallly factory index of tax-paying ability larger extent from relations, from opportunities, and from all manner of exertion more or less indirectly, or Huge official salaries and large professional incomes are a com not at all, connected with property. mon occurrence today and would go entirely free under a property tax.! This is the conclusion of every authoritative study of state school finance completed in recent years. The following quotations are illustrative: Arkansas:—Possession of real and_ personal property is no longer the truest index of ability and obligation to support public institutions. Sawift and Goldthorpe. Studies in Public School Finance. The South. p. 33. California:—Authorities on taxation are pra tically unanimous in their denunciation of general property taxes as sources of revenue, especially state revenue. Studies in Pul The West p. 148. Colorado:— Colorado still clings to the old gen as sources of School Finance eral property tax with the result that the burden of taxation rests largely upon farm lands, town and city real estate, and general property, whil millions of dollars of intangible property are not reached. Individuals securing incomes from sal aries investments go Don ¢ School Education in professional earnings, and untaxed in Colorado Publi practically Sowers Financing Colorado p. 11. Illinois :—Whichever search for a way one turns in the principle under which educational opportunity and the burden of school support can be equalized, and the impoverishment of the sources of the revenue can be checked, he always encounters the property tax as the insuperable ob stacle. that the in accord with the modern economic organization It is impossible to escape the conclusion levelopment of a system of taxation more of society is a condition precedent to the improve education f Pub ment of financial support for popular in Illinois. Henry C. Morrison.’ Financing ¢ lic Schools in the State of Illinois. p. 80 New Jersey:-—The question of school taxation has been prominently brought to the fore by the Company, New York City, 1921, p. 649 [33] incredible burden of taxation that has been placed on real estate and personal property. This burden on farms and real estate and the personal property that goes with it has reached such an alarming amount that it is felt that some other sources of revenue must be sought in order that there may be an equitable distribution of this great burden. Commsision to Investigate the Sub- ject of the Distribution of State School Moneys, etc. Report of March 16, 1923. p. 7. Oregon:—If Oregon must have increased rev- enues for schools it must also reform its taxing system. The system of taxation on real property is filled with inequalities and unfairness. A large part of the wealth of the state is contributing nothing to the support of education. Homer P. Rainey. The Study of Public School Finance in Oregon. p. 131. Tennessee:— The fundamental defect in system .. . consists in the fact that we are raising entirely too large a percent of our state revenues under the general property tax. The development of the resources of the country, the growth of corporate wealth, the tremendous increase in the percent of total income arising from commercial and financial activities make it necessary to draw on these new sources of wealth, otherwise with the constant increase of the tax burden, property as such, will soon be burdened beyond the power of endurance. 1921-22 Report of State Tax Com- missioner. Quoted in Studies in Public School Finance. The South. p. 194. Utah:— There are many individuals in Utah who do not own property and therefore are not contributing in a direct way to the support of government. The income of these individuals in- dicates more ability to pay than many of the heavily taxed farmers. Box Elder Teachers’ Asso- ciation Journal. March, 1926. p. 20. Washington:—TIhe general property tax is uni- versally condemned by every economist and tax expert of note as violating the principle of taxa- tion according to ability. The legal ownership of property is a very poor measure of ability to pay taxes. O. C. Pratt. Washington Education Journal. December, 1925. p. 113. our This evidence suggests the conclusion that those states who continue to cling to the uni- versally condemned general property tax as a principal source of state revenue will find it increasingly difficult to keep pace with the edu- cational progress of their sister states. 3. The money contributed by the state for the support of education is distributed to local communities by methods which frequently in- crease rather than decrease the disparity in the ability of these communities to finance their schools. In many of the states substan- tial sums are contributed yearly by the government for the support of schools in communities. In distributing these fun: the local communities the state should to enable every local community to proy reasonable common school education f children without resorting to an excessi\ ’ rate. ‘This object is accomplished if p: methods are used in distributing the money.’ In most of the states, however, such met do not govern the distribution of the school fund. Most of the plans for distr y ing state school money have come down fr. former generation, when conditions were ferent and when the science of school fi: had barely begun to evolve. The det of these plans are indicated by excerpts | recent investigations: Alabama:—The basis of apportionment at ent employed, that of school population, is o1 the most ineffective. Studies in Public Scho: nance. The South. p. 128. Arizona:—The present plan of equalizatio: the basis of school attendance is a big ady over the preceding plan based on school ce but equalization of burden has not been se when maximum effort on the part of one c secures minimum support whereas another c secures maximum support through minimum et! Ralph C. Tupper. A Survey of the Public § System of Arizona. p. 88. Arkansas:—Of all bases employed in United States today in apportioning school mo: the state school census basis is one of the ineffective, unfair, unscientific and _ disast: Swift and Goldthorpe. Studies in Public S. Finance. The South. p. 18. Colorado:—The present method of apportioning the income from the public school fund is ineq able and unsatisfactory. The distribution is m on the basis of the number of children 6 to years of age. The plan totally disregards ferences in assessed valuation or efforts mad« secure good schools; and furthermore, the cost schools does not depend upon the number of c! dren who live in a district but upon the num! who attend school. Don C. Sowers. Finan: Public School Education in Colorado. p. 10. Delaware:—The practice of basing the st apportionment on the number of teachers has « i ercised an unfortunate influence on educatio: progress. Formerly it tended to multiply the nu ber of districts. Now it proves a bar to sch consolidation. On other accounts also, this meth of distributing the state fund is objectionable | 1 Space does not permit discussion in this Bulletin of the relative merits of the “large fund'’ and “small { methods of the state contribution to the support of schools. studies cited to the bibliography. This topic is dealt with in reference No. 51 and in ot [34] gf” CHART vill TE pic. AL DIFFERENCES OF LOCAL COMMUNITIES i» ABILITY te SUPPORT SCHOOLS andin STATE AID RECEIVED Taxable Vealth Per Child State Aid Received. Per Child F Shh Pulaski Cocunty N¥4.25 Ms SS Toso) Boone County NYFS.05 ww WY WY Colc oraclo SSS eee | Distc ict N°IS EP OYQQAQAAA J) Distcict NES AFFST I WOR dr New York (Old Plan) ee Feece Mi District A WW ¥Seb KW VV GG Oklahoma Richest District NESS WW WG | | | | | | Ticcoy Distict D NFEEWG | | 3 | | | Poorest, District KQQ's, 90 , eo ~~ 1. CUrLLO aia alaiieainis a a oe {#355 Medina County BS A RN SMA 90©@“°»° j Mahoning County} 4 state Aid South Dakota. See NASR 2 2 RRR SSS SSS Ss Campbell County \ Bescatih Lvrwston Aational Education aseh Read Charts Thus: In Arkanses the wealth per child of Pulaski County is $3151, that of Boone County is $922; yet Pulaski County received $ 25 per child from the state and Boone County $3.09 per child. Read data similarly for other states. Data for each state to be considered separately. Inter-state comparisons should not be made Sources of Data: Ark., Swift, Studies in Public School Finance, The South, Table 3, p.7 | Colo., Sowers, The Financing of Public School Education in Colorado, p. 49 N. Y., Swift, Studies in Public School Finance, The East. p. 153 Okla. U.S. Bureau of Education, Public Education in Oklahoma, p. 5A Ohio, Report of Ohio Institute, 1926, Table 16, p. 37 I-s S. Dek., Swift and Troxel, Studies in Public School Finance. The Middle W est, Pig. 7, p. 273 [35] it disregards the number of pupils to be instructed and all differences in the financial ability of the different districts. General Education Board. Pub- lic Education in Delaware. p. 75. Georgia:—The School census method of appor- tionment, although one of the most commonly em- ployed im the United States, is no longer defended even by those states that employ it. The cost to a community does not depend upon the number of children in the school census but upon those who are in school, ... Under the present method of distribution equality of opportunity not only does not but cannot exist even though the poorer coun- ties levy taxes far heavier than those levied by the wealthier. Gordon G. Singleton. State Res ponsi- bility for the Support of Education in Georgia. p. 6. Indiana :—S3o long as the method of apportioning the larger part of all state school funds disregards differences in the cost of good schools in cities, towns and rural districts, and differences in finan- cial ability of communities to contribute to the support of their schools, the kind of education a child gets in Indiana will depend altogether too much on where he lives. Rich districts will con- tinue to have good schools and poor districts will continue to have poor schools, although in pro- portion to their wealth the rich districts actually do less than the poor districts for public educa- tion. General Education Board. Public Education in Indiana. p. 182. Kentucky:—A method of distributing state school funds that thus ignores differences in finan- cial resources, ignores differences in the grade and quality of the schools, although there is equal willingness on the part of the people to make sacrifices for them, and ignores the state’s respon- sibility to provide equal educational opportunities of a satisfactory standard for all the children of the community ought not to be longer tolerated. General Education Board. Public Education in Kentucky. pp. 139-141. New York:—It is of interest that the gross un- fairness of the teacher basis for distributing state aid has been so often overlooked. The differences in treatment for poor districts that tend to have few teachers and wealthy districts that tend to have many are greater than the differences caused by the different sizes of classes between the sparsely settled territory—which is not always poor—and the thickly settled territory—which likewise is not always rich. Paul R. Mort. State Support for Public Schools. p. 69. North Carolina:—Although the present equal- izing law provides the largest equalizing fund and the most satisfactory method of apportioning the state has ever had, it still falls far short of achiev- ing complete equalization of the burden. Fred Wilson Morrison. Equalization of the Financial Burden Among the Counties of North Carolina. pp. 29-30, and 45. Ohio:—Many county districts which are well to do if considered as a whole, nevertheless contain districts which receive state aid. This is attrib- utable to a combination of causes; to a districting system which allows great inequalities of fi ability to support schools to develop amor local districts; to the failure of the 2.65 mill tax to offset this condition effectively; and willingness of the state to bolster up the det cies of the local districts in such county dis: Ohio Institute. Report to Educational Comm p. 37-8. Oklahoma :—Whereas in theory Oklahoma to the districts the same amount of state a each school child, as a matter of fact there equality whatever in the amounts the district ceive for the children they are actually edu U. S. Bureau of Education. Public Educat Oklahoma. p. 53. Oregon:—The result of school support is gross inequalities in the dis: tion of the educational burden. Homer P. Ra A Study of Public School Finance p. 77. South Dakota:—In accordance with the « tutional provision, the income from the perm school fund is apportioned to the schools of state in proportion to the school population plan helps to insure to all pupils the opport to attend school, but makes no attempt to eq these opportunities. Swift and others. Stud Public School Finance. The Middle West. p Tennessee :—While the method of appor: ment is a great improvement over the school « method, and several other methods employ: many of our states, it does not take account o! relative ability of the various counties, thei spective tax rates, the length of school term the number and qualifications of teachers. § and Goldthorpe. Studies in Public School Fina The South. p. 195. Texas:—This method of distribution of funds overlooks an important element in a gram of equalization of educational opport viz, the differences in wealth of different com: ities. Texas Educational Survey. p. 82. Virginia:—To distribute state funds for s: purposes on the basis of school population is i! cal and unfair, in that there is no fixed relat ship between the amount of money which the < may send to a division and the clearly establis needs of that division. Virginia Education ( mission. Virginia Public Schools. p. 22. Wisconsin:—Since our present common sc! fund is distributed on the basis of the numbe: children between the ages of four and twenty ing in a community, and since it is evident Oregon’s syste: in O; there is no relation between the number of child to be educated and the wealth of a community different basis for the distribution of state sc! funds should be adopted. Wisconsin Rural S. Survey. June, 1926. p. 37. This evidence, coming from such a varie! of unprejudiced sources, clearly indicates need, on the part of most of the states, giving serious study to their methods of [36] — SHOT stems prec ire iously oe whe reby if six al nstructis Free India‘ assembl rm sy shall be Irticle aling 23 Illino thoro ereb) ‘ i f ] yi the portion of school support con- The mere fact that a rin’ the state. j ture appropriates substantial sums for ted by % support of local schools is no guarantee its duty It should The state should adopt methods for the local units which promise to achieve the is performed. go istribution of these sums to ‘or objective sought—the provision of an ptable common school education to all ldren of every district without the neces- ® ty. on the part of any district, of resorting —— rae : ; ‘ tax rates which, compared with those gen- ily in force throughout the state, are unduls rdensome. Removing the Weak Spots in the State Systems of School Support Shortcomings characteristic of most state systems of school support are pointed out in the preceding section. Until these shortcom- es are remedied educational advance will be seriously delayed. How may these shortcom- ings be remedied? What steps must a state take to establish a sound state program for financing its schools? ‘These questions are dealt with in the succeeding paragraphs. 1. The state through its legislature must hold itself responsible for seeing that all chil- dren are offered a good common school educa tion. ‘The constitution of most of the states ind a long line of legal decisions has estab- lished education as a responsibility of the state government. The following quotations from state constitutions and codes are illustra- tive. Arkansas :—The shall maintain a general, suitable and efficient system of free schools, state ever whereby all persons in the state between the ages of six and twenty-one years may receive gratuitous Section 7484, Digest of Laws Relating to Free Schools in the State of Arkansas. p. 5. Indiana:—It shall be the duty of the general assembly to provide by law for a general and uni- ‘ rorm instruction, of common schools, wherein tuition shall be without charge and equally open to all. Irticle VII, Section 1 page 27, Laws of Indiana Relating to the Public School System, Indianapolis, 1923 >. system Illinois:—The general assembly shall provide 1 thorough and efficient system whereby all children of this state may receive a good common school education. Article VIII, Sec- n 1, Constitution of the State of Illinois. of free schools Maryland :—The General Assen i lish throughout the state a th gh and et system of free public schools. Art Vul, Sect 1, Maryland Pul § Laws, 1922 New Jersey :—The legislature shall prov the maintenance at support of a thorough an ethcient system of free public schools for struction of all the children in this state betwee the ages of five and eighteen years. Extracts f1 State Constitution, Section VII, New Jersey S Laws, 1921. p. 6 Washington :— It is the paramount duty of the state to make ample provision tor the education of all children residing within its borders Irticle IX, Section 1, Code of Public Instruction, 1923 p. 23 It is clearly, therefore, the duty of the state legislature either to provide adequate schoo) facilities for all children or to see that the local communities can and do make = such provisions. Until a state is w illing to accept this funda mental principle not only in theory but in the practical form of definite legislative acts it will make little progress toward establish ing a sound system of state finance. The of antagonistic to the policy of leaving the de acceptance this principle is not tailed control of the schools in the hands of the local community. State legis'!atures have generally delegated detailed school control to This is wise procedure the de the that the local communities. when the communities can and do meet When local district faults, however, it is clearly the duty of of the to are provided whereby all may receive a good common school education responsibility. the state see law making body facilities children If a state is to guarantee educational op- portunity to all children it must define what is meant by educational opportunity. It must clearly state the minimum essentials in the way of school facilities which it will accept in any local district. Unless this is done it will find itself placing the stamp of approval upon school districts inadequately equipped to offer a reasonable educational opportunity even to a fraction of the children living within their boundaries. States will differ in their state ments of the minimum educational offering to be guaranteed all children. Nostate can ex pect to insure a satisfactory educational op portunity to all its children, however, until it has enacted measures providing that: 1. Every school district shall keep its school in session for a term of reasonable length—for example, not less than 170 days. 2. Every school district shall set up ma- chinery to guarantee regular attend- ance throughout the full term on the part of all children. 3. No district shall employ a teacher who has not at least the amount of ability, training and character that is implied by two years successful attendance at a first rate normal school or teachers college following high school gradua- tion. 4. Every district shall make a reasonable effort to raise from its own resources the sum per pupil in attendance which experience has revealed is essential for the maintenance of a school of ac- ceptable efficiency. ‘The enactment of such measures by a state legislature does not reduce the authority of local communities to maintain good schools. It merely prevents the maintenance of poor schools, or no schools at all. This is noth- ing more than the practical fulfillment of the frequently stated constitutional and legal man- date that “the general assembly shall provide a thorough and efficient system of free schools whereby all children of this state may receive a good common school education.” It is not enough, however, that the state should pass measures which if put into practice in all dis- tricts will guarantee an educational oppor- tunity to all children. It must make it finan- cially possible for every district of the state to put these measures into effect. This brings us to the next point. 2. The state must pay a substantial part of the cost of school support. The state must provide for an adequate fund to be used in aiding local communities in paying for school support. This provision is fundamental. There is no alternative. Experience has shown that it is futile for a state to define the minimum facilities which every school system is to provide, unless it at the same time considers the cost of these facili- ties and the ability of the districts to meet the cost. Studies of state school finance have unani- mously recognized the establishment stantial state school fund as the ke any attempt to provide for the equ of educational opportunity. The fi some of these studies are given be! Alabama:—One of the most obvious the direction of providing adequate reven be the creation of a genuinely product common school fund. are illustrious examples of states which at of vain endeavor to establish an effectiy of schools without a large permanent fu: and controlled by the state, finally rea impossibility of doing this and created su Fletcher Harper Swift. Studies in Pui Finance. The South. p. 125. Arkansas:—One of the first things w kansas must do is to see that commun provided with sufficient funds to guarar cational facilities to every child. The Pu/ System of Arkansas. Part Il. U. S. B Education Bulletin 1923-No- 11. p. 9. Arizona:—Opinion is unanimous that ¢! share should be a liberal one wherever , equalities in wealth exist between counties C. Tupper. A Survey of the Arizona Pub System. p. 90. California:—Place upon the state the bility of furnishing funds to provide eve with enough money to pay a minimum every teacher for an entire school year of length ... and furthermore place upon | the responsibility of providing the material. related to instruction and the moneys nec: guarantee the scientific supervision of ever) and existing educational inequalities will idly evened out. Fletcher Harper Swift. in Public School Finance. Colorado:—Students of educational fina: agreed that the best way in which to equa isting inequalities in wealth is for the contribute large sums for the support o! schools. Don C. Sowers. Financing Pub cation in Colorado. p. 52. Illinois :— That Illinois does need a rath: state school fund ought to be generally ai Supporting education ... even largely up Massachusetts and The West. p. 144 basis of local ability must for our children | sarily mean outstanding inequalities in educa opportunity. School Revenues in Illinois. State Teachers Association, /. 11. Kentucky:— As a matter of principle th: must be regarded as responsible for maint throughout the commonwealth, a system of schools of a satisfactory standard. . . . Kent marked by extreme variations in both pop and wealth. Therefore if public schools satisfactory standard are to be open to a children of the commonwealth, Kentucky mu:' a relatively large state school fund. Genera cation Board. Public Education in Kentu 144. [38] p. Ohio:: lard: the ind ial assistance ns of I ional January Wisc« come for taxation. et fron 1 redist va asst f the c § al § {ssoctat Phe: oO! edu investig but on yuaran : of its ¢ share 0 se tion to vhich ommt the ne It is i subs ; the sc j opport ts mo that t Distri : » —— — > a) | ouisiana:—If inequalities of educational op- among the white school systems of the hes are to be decreased, provision must be a considerable state school fund to be yt equalization of the burden of school sup- State Teachers Association. Inequalities in tional Opportunity in Louisiana. p. 76. Massachusetts:—As interesting to the student <-hool finance as Massachusetts century-long istency in refusing to allow the state anything than a negligible part in providing school is Massachusetts’ recent modification of this policy and frank recognition that the state t furnish a much larger share than it has done in the past. Fletcher Harper Swift. Studies in Public School Finance. The East. p. 2. New Jersey:—A broader and more liberal state financial policy is imperatively needed to comply nity ; enues with our constitutional requirement to retain the lignity, self-respect and civic pride of our state. Commission to Investigate the Subject of the Dis- tribution of State School Moneys, February 22, 1922. p. 6. Ohio:— Since the state has set up minimum standards which every community is expected to meet, the state should, beyond a certain point of financial sacrifice by the community, give financial assistance. Ward G. Reeder. Proposed Modifica tions of the State-Aid Law for Ohio Schools. Edu- cational Research Bulletin of Ohio State University. January 20, 1926. p. 37. Wisconsin:—More than 80 percent of the in- come for public education is derived by direct local taxation. Better educational opportunity and re- lief from excessive school taxes can come only by a redistribution of percentages of taxes coming from various sources. The state should step in and assume a large share (probably 30 percent) of the cost of public education. Wisconsin Rural School Survey. Bulletin of the Wisconsin Teachers {ssoctation, June, 1926. p. 37. These quotations are based upon long years of educational experience and much careful investigation in recent years. They point to but one conclusion. No state can expect to guarantee a fair educational opportunity to all of its children if it fails to assume a substantial share of the burden of school support. 3. The state must distribute its contribu- tion toward the support of schools in a way which makes it possible for every local community to maintain good schools without the necessity of levying an excessive local tax. It is not enough that a state shall assume a substantial share of the cost of paying for the schools. It may still fail to guarantee opportunity to all children unless it distributes its money to the local districts in such a way that the “oil is applied where the squeak is.” Districts which are too poor to provide rea- sonable school facilities, without resort to con fiscatory tax rates, must be allotted large: amounts per child from the state fund than to afford first rate schools on a relatively low tax rate. Most of the states of the union will need radically to revise their methods of distribut- ing the proportion of con tributed by the state before they will be able districts which are able school support to guarantee all children an equal opportunity to obtain an education. This has been recog nized by one state after another in recent years as the following quotations testify: Arizona:—State aid should take into account ability and performance of counties. This is an accepted principle of school finance. Ralph ( Tupper. A Survey of the Public School Finance System of Arizona. p. 88. Arkansas:—Provide a to be apportioned among those counties which levy state equalization fund a county school tax equal at least to the state aver age county school tax, but are unable to produce thereby for every child of school age resident in the county a quota equal to the average quota pe: child divided from proceeds of such county taxes Fletcher Harper Swift, Studies in Public School Finance. The South. p. 35. California:—Revise the present method of a; portioning state funds in such a manner as to rec ognize variations among local school units receiy ing the same, as to length of school year, assessed child in average daily attendance valuation per and qualifications of school officers employed Fletcher Harper Swift. Studies in Public Schoo Finance. The West. p. 152. Colorado:—The present plan should be aban doned and a new plan adopted which would pro vide for the distribution of funds on the basis of number of teachers employed, the aggregate days of attendance, and the amount of wealth back of each child. Don C. Sowers. Financing Publi Education in Colorado. p. 10. Indiana:— The distribution of state school funds on the basis of local needs, provided the community has first done its part, tends to equalize both finan cial sacrifice and educational opportunity. It is sound alike in principle and in practice, and should control the use of larger and larger proportions of state school funds. General Education Board, Pub lic Education in Indiana. p. 182. Iowa:—What is needed is the wider application of the principle already established in the legis- lative grant to the mining camp schools. . . . Here the state of lowa already gives special aid to dis tricts that are so poor that their need is quite apparent. Educational Finance Inquiry Commis sion. The Financing of Education in lowa, p. 164. Maryland:—The Maryland law .. . provides for supplementing a local tax of $6.70 on each thousand dollars property by any amount necessary in addition to all forms of state assessable [39] aid to support the minimum program. ... In de- termining the state aid teachers are not counted in excess of one for each forty children in average daily attendance. Paul R. Mort. State Support for Public Schools. p. 42. Minnesota:—A scientific method of apportion- ing state school moneys takes into consideration at least three factors: (1) the comparative ability of the receiving units to provide school revenues, commonly measured by wealth per school child or the wealth per teacher employed; (2) the effort measured by the rate of the local school tax; and (3) educational projects and standards maintained. Fletcher Harper Swift and Francis Kelly del Plaine. Studies in Public School Finance. The Middle West. p. 180. New York:—Both measures... unit of edu- cational need and unit of tax paying ability... are needed to determine the state aid for a com- munity under any equalization plan. . . . The procedure proposed for obtaining an index of edu- cational need, ... accepts the teacher or pupil measures, . . . and introduces corrections to make them more accurately proportional to the cost of any minimum program. The corrected measure may be expressed in two forms, the weighted pupil or the typical teacher ....%In order that the burden of supporting the minimum program may be made to fall upon the people in all communi- ties according to their ability to pay taxes,... the state must determine the amount of state aid to which the community is entitled by using the true value of property in the community. It then requires the locality to raise whatever tax is neces- sary to provide the other needed funds. Paul R. Mort. State Support for Public Schools. pp. 14-20. North Carolina:—The “small fund” method re- quires that each unit of the state . . . shall make a certain perscribed effort toward supporting its own schedule by levying taxes for that purpose at a fixed minimum rate. If a local unit has made the required effort and yet lacks sufficient funds to carry out the minimum program, the state thus apportions to it a fund sufficient to enable it to carry out the minimum program. In the case of some counties this apportionment is a smal! amount per pupil or per teacher. In other counties it is a relatively large amount. In every case the amount is determined by the need of the local unit after it has made the required effort to carry out its own program. Fred Wilson Morrison. Equal- izing the Financial Burden Among the Counties of North Carolina. p. 8. Ohio:—Among the recommendations of the re- port cited below is: Provision for the current finan- cial support of a state minimal standard by a man- datory irreducible tax uniform throughout the county district; such tax to be supplemented by state aid to counties whose ability to support their schools is below the state average, as measured by the true tax valuation per child to be educated. Counties receiving state aid should be required to levy such rate as they would if they had ability (valuation per child) equal to the state 1926 Report of Ohio Institute to Education cil of Ohio State Teachers Association. p Oklahoma:—If a state is to equaliz burdens she must in her method of distribu: take into consideration not only the nu teachers employed but she must take into « ation both differences in ability to provid revenues as measured by wealth per child ferences in effort as measured by the rat local tax. U.S. Bureau of Education. Pu! cation in Oklahoma. p. 53. Utah:—As long as Utah, provides no | offsetting the inequalities which exist and ways exist among her school districts, so |, school revenues, school burdens, and edu opportunities continue to vary widely from to district. The state and the state alone is of remedying the situation. Survey of Fd in Utah, U. S. Bureau of Education, 192 455. From this evidence, it may be stated established principle of school finance t! To guarantee all children a_ rea opportunity to obtain an education, must adopt methods for distributi: money which it contributes to local support which makes it possible fo: local community to maintain good without resorting to an excessive local tax. 4. A state must adopt a modern met! securing state revenue, including that u school support. In most of the states the existing met of obtaining school They are hangovers from a time when nomic conditions were quite different those existing today. School progress i: state will lag so long as the general pro tax in its primitive form remains the s: principal source of school revenue. One of the early steps which most must take in order to establish a sound just plan for financing its schools is thi vision of its whole system of taxation. conclusion has been repeatedly arrived recent investigations: revenue are ob Arkansas:—. . . authorities on taxatio! . « «+ convinced of the necessity of emp! new types of taxation, such as income, corpo! and severance taxes, instead of, or in additi: general property taxes. Swift & Goldt/ Studies in Public School Finance, The South. California:— The state levies n whatever upon real and personal property bu [40] 7 ido. fp Georgia lina ¢ ot sch the procee gia would ree state ibility jo Ss) Illinois ncome ta satisfactor ive alre: Delaware, them disti The se natural pt cultural. if taxatic Louisiana tion infor: 1 fixed | Harper § The Mid Indianz fact that | a re- ement ¢ Chis m nt time lent to 1 tax will it the elk na Ru Missot ~ q majority of its school revenues from the f the corporation taxes covered into the ol fund and thence appropriated to the Fletcher Harper Swift. Studies in Pub- Finance. The West. p. 2. Colorado:—New methods of taxation have been | and used successfully by the United States ient and state governments; these methods of state income classified ixes, special taxes on Corporations, and severance - A portion of the additional to finance adequately public education in ido should be raised through a state income A state income tax which yields an amount to one-third of that collected by the financial taxes, property revenues federal authorities If Colo- rado levied a state income tax on this basis, she ment is regarded by g satisfactory for state purposes. would realise from this source practically $3,640,- tax business corporations cor- Many 10n states franchise or excise taxes are easily col- { and highly remunerative and should be serious consideration. \ tax which is being increasingly used at the as a revenue is the sever- ance tax on natural resources. Don C. Sowers. e Financing of Public School Education in Col rado. p. 11 and 81. Georgia :— Massachusetts, Delaware, and Nortb irolina at the present time derive the major por- nt time source ot PSE 3 tion of school revenues furnished by the state from the proceeds of state personal income taxes. Geor- gia would do well to follow the example of these three states. Gordon G. Singleton. State Respon- sibility jor the Support of Education in Georgia. p. 50. Illinois:—A number of states are levying state ncome taxes and are finding them a thoroughly means of producing revenue. We have already seen that four states, Massachusetts, North Carolina, and Arkansas, levy them distinctly for purposes of school revenue. The severance tax is a tax levied upon all natural products severed from the soil except agri- Louisiana is a pioneer in this method of taxation. . . . The 1921 report of the Commission of Assessment and Taxa- tion informs us that the severance tax has become satisfactory Delaware, cultural. Louisiana a fixed part of our revenue system. Fletcher Harper Swift. Studies in Public School Finance. The Middle West. pp. 89 and 91. Indiana:—Recognition should be taken of the fact that there is considerable agitation in the state { re-consideration of the income tax to plement our present general property tax. ‘ his matter is of particular interest at the pres- nt time due to the fact that a proposed amend- or a sup- }ment to the state constitution allowing an income tax will be submitted to the voters of the state it the election of November, 1926. Report of In- diana Rural Education Survey Committee. p. 67-8. Missouri:— New of taxation should forms be The devised. general property tax is paying its share of state school moneys. The new forms that are worthy of consideration are a graduated come tax, a tax on gross receipts of corporations and a severance tax Facts Concerning Pul Education in Missouri. Report of the Missouri School Survey. p. 41 New Jersey:—Economists who have given this question study state that the total incom of the people of New Jersey is $2,500,000,000 It goes without saying that a small percentag: of taxes placed on this entire income, making only the exemptions that are legal exemptions, will provide a revenue that will lift the burden of tax ation from the farms, the homes and the little personal belongings of the people of the state Commission to Investigate the Subject of the Dis tribution of State School Moneys Report f March 10, 1923. p. 1 North Carolina:—At the general election 1920, the voters of North Carolina approved a constitutional amendment providing for the lev ing of a graduated state income tax on all incomes of certain sizes Ihe funds derived from this income tax, together with other state revenues were sufhcient to enable the state to discontinue levying a property tax for state purposes. In de riving its revenue from the above mentioned sources the state left to the county and local con munity all revenues to be derived trom tax upon general property On the whole the income tax law of North Car lina meets the major requirements of a good in tax Che taxation as a supplement to property taxes marked come law. adoption of this form of a distinct achievement for North Carolina Fred Wilson Morrison. Equalization of Financial Bur den of Education Among the Counties of Nort Carolina. p. 18 and 52 Oregon:—In general the most _ progressive states are resorting mainly to three or four forms of taxation. These are (1) the income tax, (2 tax on business, (3) inheritance tax, and (4) sev erance tax. Homer P. Rainey. The Study of Pul lic School Finance in Oregon. p. 131 Washington :—Theoretically, the fairest tax is the income tax, because it is based directly on ability to pay. About one-third of the states have income taxes. O. C. Pratt. Public School Finan in Washington. Washington Educational Journal November, 1925. /p. 70. Any system of school support is detective which employs the general property tax as a principal source of revenue, particularly for that part of school revenue which comes from the state. States whose systems of taxation need re vision should hesitate no longer. ‘The dire tion of tax reform is now rather generally agreed upon. ‘This is the topic of the next section. [41] ~ town The Essentials of a Sound Plan of State and Local Taxation In an earlier section of this Bulletin it was stated that the problem of obtaining adequate school support in many states is not one of waiting for an increase in economic resources. It is rather a problem of finding and being willing to put into effect the methods of taxa- tion which will divert from the abundant sup- ply of economic power already in existence, a share appropriate to the importance of educa- tion in a modern civilized commonwealth. Our economic system has _ completely changed. Our wealth and income have grown tremendously. But the methods of securing school revenue have stood still. What must be done to bring state and local systems of taxation into accord with modern economic conditions ? i One answer to this question is found in the report of a committee appointed by the Na- tional Tax Association to outline a plan for a model system of state and local taxation.’ This report early states three propositions which it considers fundamental in a modern system of state and local taxation: The first is the principle that every person hav- ing taxable ability should pay some sort of a direct personal tax to the government under which he is domiciled and from which he receives the personal benefits that government confers. The second principle is that tangible property, by whomsoever owned, should be taxed by the jurisdiction in which it is located, because it there receives protection and other governmental bene- fits and services. The third principle, somewhat less clearly and generally exemplified by our tax laws but discern- ible none the less, is that business carried on for profit in any locality should be taxed for the benefits it receives. This report further states: Whatever one may think of any or all of these principles, the fact remains that they undoubtedly represent hard facts which any new system of tax- ation must take into account. That they are not in many cases logically and consistently applied, admits of no doubt; that they sometimes lead to confusion and involve unjust double taxation and disregard of interstate comity, cannot be ques- tioned. But the committee believes that merit in each of these principles, even th have been frequently misapplied; and is that the laws in which the principles are . will not be changed except to give place t. that provide fairer and more logical m« carrying the principles into effect. In summarizing the advantages of | of taxation the report concludes: This system will satisfy every legitima of any American state. It provides that sons shall be taxed fairly and fully at th of domicile for the personal benefits th: from the government. It provides that a ble property which any state may desi: shall be taxed fully at its situs for thé mental services it there receives. It elimi taxation of intangible property, as prop: cause such taxation cannot be carried out a large amount of unjust double taxatio: finally, it provides a method by which which desires to tax business may do so and effective manner. No single tax levi on income or property could possibly satis! these claims. The combination of taxes we have reco will give better results than any one tax, levied, which is made to yield the same a revenue. With the best drawn law and best of administration, there will alwa certain amount of inequality in the ope any tax. If, therefore, all the revenue derived from but one tax, such inequalit evitably arises will be concentrated at points where it cannot be mitigated. Bu: a system by which the same amount of is collected from separate taxes levied u come, property, and business, it is clear that su inevitabie inequalities as arise in the work any one tax may be, and to a considerab|: must be, offset or mitigated by inequalities under the others. In their practical application the pri stated above, involve: First, a property tax on tangible p: levied where such property is Second, an income tax levied on income of persons residing wit! state Third, a business tax levied on income of business carried on the jurisdiction of the state } The original report of this committee is now out of print. It is available in the printed volume of the Proc: the National Tax Association for 1919 wpe. 426-70. Another reference which reproduces parts of the model pla cusses it with particular reference to } ew York’s system of taxation is: Strayer and Haig. The Financin of in the State of New York. Macmillan Company, New York. scald g hy ff. Drafts of Personal Income and Business Income Tax Acts, prepar y the committee on a Model Syste: and Local Taxation in accordance with the principles set forth in their report, will be found in the Bullet National Tax Association, January, 1921. [42] i L} | the s y eer e ¢ . h prog ? ef tal uMoU ) ‘se I aS wl ; ire * | ’ ; } In pre sumptio Gonly publ iF using p system of matter oO snot t pported welfare, Win calculz lhe SU ipprox ¥ collected relation { taxation ipparent. Nor st pmen eta ition 1 procedure Me be emplo: ing publi advice of j 495 of f the va the continuance under certain Fourth, conditions of other forms of taxation such as the inheritance tax, special as sessments, etc. » are not all the newer forms ot taxa which are suggested by taxation authori The severance tax on mineral wealth, # Land the sales tax on luxuries, such as tobacco, : been advocated for and adopted by some some of these newer forms of taxation have €./ready been put into effective operation by a progressive states. They would be found # ecually effective by other states. quent tables figures are presented to indicate f imount of revenue which the application Sot these newer forms of taxation would raise. In the subse- States which are already using some of these taxes are not excluded from these tables. Cautions and Warnings # In presenting the subsequent material no assumption is made that the schools are the G only public service which are to benefit from raising public funds by a just and modern system of taxation.” Whereas, education is a matter of paramount importance to a state it is not the only public service which must be supported and which is essential to the general iwelfare. ‘This fact was kept clearly in mind bin calculating the subsequent tables. lhe sum yearly expended for public schools is approximately 40 percent of the amount The vital relation to school progress of the system of effect state Sicollected in state and local taxes.* taxation in in a is, therefore, apparent. Nor should it be concluded that the de- velopment of a just and effective system of ta ition for a state is a simple rule-of-thumb iprocedure for which a focl-proof formula can Fybe employed. A satisfactory scheme for rais- ing public revenue must be based upon the advice of experts in a number of fields and a careful weighing of special conditions existing in the particular state concerned In short, the | ing tabulations and cussion are intended to be broadly sugqgqe for all states rather than dehnite ly prescript ; bat One Siate. r any Revenue Raised by Various Forms of Taxation l'ax on tangible property: ‘The model pl in recommends a tax on tangible property levied Many tax, States where such property 1s located. already have a general property which taxes tangible and attempts to tax intangible tax Is This form of property uni both property. versally condemned. It is unjust and unworkable.* ‘The model plan would retain a but tangible property. that classified for taxation to the extent: property tax, would tax only certain forms of TeC The plan further ommends tangible property should be “That a distinction should be drawn at least between real estate and tangible personal property that the classification.” and latter should receive a_ separate Table 9 gives the true value of the tangible property of each of the states as listed by the 1922 federal census. ‘The table does not in clude certain forms of tangible wealth, valued at approximately eighty billion dollars, which probably should be exempted from taxation.® ot present exempted from taxation by state laws. Columns 3 and 4 of table 9 show the amounts which a two and a five mill tax on the full It does include some forms property at value of tangible property would raise. A two mill tax on property is a very light tax. The use for school purposes of the sum which such a millage on tangible property would raise would not shut off other publi: sources supported by state taxation from realizing revenue from the same source. A state tax considerably larger than two mills review of the newer types of state taxes being used specificially for raising school revenue will be four page 495 of Survey of Education in Utah, U. S. Bureau of Education, 1926 Reference No. 87 in the bibliogra l the various forms of taxes now employed by each state space does not permit discussion of whether state taxes should be levied for specific purposes, such as for scl s t, or whether the total state tax revenue should be raised without specific escription as to its use until the t eting + . . - : & Or appropriating stage is reached. xes are not the only source of revenue of state and local communities School costs, theref« titute n lerably less than 40 percent of total state and local receipts. See footnote n page 20 see page 19ff of the following reference for an authoritative discussion of the defects of the general prope BE. R. A. Seligman. Essays in Taxation. Macmillan Co. (Ninth Edition) lifference of opinion exists among tax experts as to whether all tangible property should be tax ee notes at foot of table 9. [43] ie caver eee =e ‘ ee al . . on tangible property would not be high com- pared with some now in effect. Such a tax would leave tangible property relatively free for the purposes of local taxation. Some most common rate. twenty table would be realized. administration. because : 1 Tax Burdens and Exemptions. 2 The Fnancing of Education in the State of New York, p. National Industrial Conference Board, 157. states now levy state taxes on property for school purposes at rates vary- ing from less than one mill to as high as 4.6 mills—with approximately two mills as the In case these states re- tained a two mill tax on tangible property for school purposes, doing away with the tax on other forms of property, the sums given in the This in many cases would be contingent upon a willingness to re- form the present ineffective methods of tax At present revenue is lost so the Some authorities have total abandonment of the state prop 1. Much property escapes assessm that assessed is valued at but fraction of its worth. 2. Too much property is exempt: taxation by law.’ recommend that this over-burdened source of would be somewhat relieved and left purposes of local taxation.2 Th sion of data as to the amount which raised by various state mill taxes on | property is not due to a disagreement wi: recommendation. that conditions in some states will | result in the use of the state mill tax o: erty for some years to come. The fact exists, h The 1923. New York, N. Y., TABLE 9—VALUE OF TANGIBLE PROPERTY AND STATE TAXATION — a a | | | " Sources of data: Census, Table 4 Page 21. ty one inel D street railroads and Figures of column 2 are derived from Estimated National Wealth U. 8. Dept. of Commerce, Bureau nsus is not included in the figures of this — factured products; (b) clothing, furniture and kindred in column 4 are obtained by column 2. The Read table as follows: 1 Alabama a tax of 2 mills (20¢ on each $100 or $2.00 on each $1 taki The princi rsonal pag The .5% of column 2. In Alabama the value of tangible Raperty y with the omissions indicated below is $2,160,325, levied on the full value of tangible property listed in « Included in the value of tangible property in this column are the following: (a) real property ood property exempt by state law but aa including property owned by the = government; (b) live st machinery; (c) manufacturing machinery and implements; (d) rai and other private utilities. Approximately equipment; (e) motor = —— dollars of tangible property listed by the | up this omission are (a) agricultural and in column 3 are obtained by taking would raise revenue of $4,320,650. A tax of 5 mills (50c on each $100 or $5.00 on each $1000) levied on the tangible propert) in column 2 would raise a revenue of $10,801.625. Similarly read data for other states. [44] ! Value of | Value of Tangible Amount Raised Tangible Amount Riised States Property By a Tax on Tangible States Property By a Tax on Tangible | with certain Property of with certain Property of ’ omissions omissions |— 2 mills 5 mills 2 mills 5 mills 1 2 | 3 4 5 6 | 9 8 United States. $238 ,735,223,000 ($477,470,446 ($1,193,676,115 | Montana........ $1 , 871 ,255,000'$3,742,510 $9,356.27 Alabama. ...... 2,160, 325,000 4,320,650 10,801 ,625| Nebraska........ 4,558,525,000) 9,117,050 22,792 ES 1,065,955 ,000 2,131,910 5,329,775|Nevada......... 488,506,000) 977,012, 2,442 Arkansas... .. ‘ 2,011,257 ,000 4,022,514 10,056,285 New Hampshire 970, 863, 000) 1,941,726) 4,854,215 California. .... | 11,179,065,000 22,358,130 55,895,325|New Jersey ....| 7,984,909, 000'15,969. 818 9 $5 ' Colorado...... 2,549 318,000 5,098 ,636 12,746,590|New Mexico... 732,956,000) 1,465,912 64,780 Connecticut....| 3,936,494,000 7,872,988 19,682,470|New York ..... 27 ,709, 124 000/55, 418, 248 138, 545,62 Delaware....... } 50 ,073 ,000 900, 2' 250,365 North Carolina...| 3,147,672,000) 6,295,344 15,738. 3¢ Dist. of Col...... | 1,416, 576,000 2,833,152 7,082,880) North Dakota....| 2,203,706,000) 4,407,412 11,018.53 Florida. . es | 2,013 , 366 ,000 4,026,732 10,066 ,830/Ohio............ 13,929, 252, ae ahs 858 , 504) 69 646, 26 Gocrgia | 2,797 ,997 ,000 5,595,994 13,989,985 Oklahoma....... 3,050,923, 000! 6,101,846 254 SRR | 1, 267 ,757 ,000 2,535,514 6,338 ,785'Oregon.......... 2,879,275,000) 5,758,550 14,396 ite: k pe) 16 ,737 , 966 ,000 33,475,932 83,689,830 Pennsylvania. . -aemsaomee neaten seen: 258 104 , 589 ciao wes | 6,738,036 ,000 13,476,072 33,690,180 Rhode Island. 1,255, 831,000) 2,511,662 6,27 Iowa..... al 9 ,026 , 834,000 18,053 ,668 45,134,170 South Carolina. . 1,695,886 ,000, 3,391,772 3.4 Kansas.........! 5, 182,620,000 10,365,240 } 25,913,100 South Dakota....| 2,634,801,000 5,269,602 74,0 Kentucky... ....| 2,643,014,000 | 5,286,028 13,215,070| Tennessee. ...... 3,271,072,000 6,542,144 5 uisiana.......| .2,235,442,000 | 4,470,884 11,177,210|Texas........... 7, 820,420,000 15,640,840 2.100 Maine..... sea 1,472,893,000 | 2,945,786 ‘Utah Pid 6nansee 1,205,488,000) 2,410,976 27 AA Maryland.... 2,752,519, 000 | 5,505,038 13, 762, 595|Vermont........ 609 , 365,000) 1,218,730 46 , 825 | | Massachusetts .- 9,196,197,000 | 18,392,394 | 45,980,985)|Virginia......... 3,808,141,000| 7,616, 282 40,7 Michigan... .... | 8,104,939,000 | 16,209,878 | 20. 524,695 IWeshington saa aac 4,279, 989,000) 8,559,978 19,4 | Minnesota. . | 6,789, 180,000 13,578,360 | 5900 West eee 4,057 , 984, 000) 8,115,968) 20, 289,92 | Mississippi... .. 1,597 , 106 ,000 3,194,212 | * oes. 530/ Wisconsin. ...... 5,835,896 ,000/11 671,792 20,179.48 Missouri... .... 7,638 978,000 15,277 ,956 38, 194,890|/Wyoming........ 851 , 598,000) 1,703,196, 4,257, TABL state of th net 1 TABLE 10—PERSONAL NET INCOME AND FEDERAL AND STATE TAXATION ‘ | Revenue Yielded by Revenue Which Personal Net Federal Normal Revenue Yielded by | Would be Yielded by State Income Subject and Surtax Federal Normal a State Tax at Rates to Normal Tax Schedules of 1924 Tax of 1924 One-half Those of Federal Norma! Tax ' ; ; f United States $7,991, 186,906 $702 , 783 , 507 $257 , 794,728 $128, 715,528 00 L sma : 55,746,526 2. tease 1.640.881 820.440 50 4.589.579 511.987 370.541 185.270. 5% 27 , 448 , 969 1,458,499 822.316 411.158 00 | forn'a 561,593,815 37,880,658 17,804,526 8 902,263.00 ; ae 48 , 389, 328 3,162,736 1,425,097 12,548.50 5 ticut 125,453,347 12,593,904 4,026,236 013,118.00 J r 12,871,131 ?, 432,617 458,839 »29, 419.50 ' f Columbia 84,685,125 5.765.861 » 643,534 1.321 67 .00 Florida 89,765,665 7,229,272 3.171.616 1.585.808 00 ? Corea 67,034,058 3,398, 860 1.913.521 956. 760.50 ' 11,155,917 261,008 60,414 130, 207,000 " iiinoi 845.840, 321 66,583,239 16 636. 467 13.318. 233.50 ladianh 114,506, 466 6,655,560 3.357.083 1,678,541 50 a lowa 74,602 ,273 3,123,808 1.969. 85)? 984 996 OO , Kansas 49,290,375 1,918,019 1,372,881 686, 440.50 ¢ Kentucky. .e 62,864,781 3,805,669 1,861,390 930,695 00 , Louisiana 68,151,411 3,528,511 » 041, 466 1,020,733 .00 35,130,894 2,568,353 1,045,355 §22,677.50 ¥ arvland 158,803,189 12,073,312 5,014,622 > 507,311.00 Massachusetts 384,548,379 40,857,137 13,168,221 6,584,110.50 Michigan... 295,475,070 30,983,705 9,422,299 4.711,149.50 ) Minnesota 92,942, 869 6,720,567 ?, 727,859 1, 363,929.50 Mississippi 20,211,500 1,155,729 603 , 384 301,692 00 yl Missouri 182,114,273 12,373,492 5,461,587 2,730,793 .50 Montana..... 20,076,212 731,111 512,743 256,371.50 Nebraska 46 978,395 1,848,121 1,280,072 640 036.00 sed Nevada 7,352,734 184,334 165,407 82,703.50 ngible New Hampshire 21,920,771 1,377,393 630 ,063 315,031.50 = New Jersey... 408 ,619, 164 31,941,148 12,737,556 6, 368,778.00 x New Mexico. . 7,598,892 223,842 196,349 98,174.50 — New York 1, 878,480,152 236,774, 567 68,692,101 34, 346,050.50 3 —— Carolina 44,775,590 3,777,873 1,349, 447 674,723.50 orth Dakota. . 10,054,325 268 ,090 241,028 120,514.00 oe io 394 , 900 , 648 32,061,822 11,994, 382 5,997,191 .00 ons Oklahoma 62,246,218 3,794,477 1,987,934 993,967 .00 be - Oregon ; 51,006, 336 2,025,068 1,393,482 696,741.00 4 Pennsylvania 796,336,135 77,873,521 25,729,442 12, 864,721.00 ad Rad Rhode Island 60,791,905 6,722,491 1,960,209 980,104.50 eis South Carolina | 17,046,029 727,462 493.191 246,595.50 64 78 South Dakota 10,977,259 306 ,097 268 , 229 134,114.50 “4 Tennessee. ... 65,181,061 | 3,419,535 1,963,030 981,515.00 | 18°33 Texas in 203,452,810 10,235, 806 5,986,793 2,993,396.50 | 16.380 Utah : 18,475,921 599,194 468 067 234,033.50 7 Vermont..... ; 15,296,675 978 ,252 428,263 214,131.50 { Virginia ies 60 , 069 , 839 3,313,896 1,747,924 873,962.00 oo * Washington!....... 104, 697 , 762 3,231,233 2,497,176 1, 248,588.00 mde West Virginia...... 47,029,068 2,796,310 1,324,719 662 , 359.50 ody Wisconsin......... 140, 863,653 7,344,053 3,824,150 1,912,075.00 rom Wyoming........ 13,744,090 414,087 339,312 169. 656.00 74,005 ! a ; — a Read table rene s: In Alabama the net taxable income in 1924 was $55,746,526 (Col. 2) which yielded a rever ar f $2,771,221 (Col. 3) under the federal normal and surtax schedules of 1924, described in the next paragraph. Inthis | 4A ROE tate $1,640,881, (Col. 4) revenue was yielded by the federal nor 7. tax of 1924. A state income tax at one-half the rat: | aeiew of the normal federal tax would yield a revenue of $820,440.50 ( 5). a Rate of 1924 income tax: The federal government according to the revenue act of 1924 levied a normal tax on the 50 Os net income (gross income less items deductible, such as: expenses paid or incurred in the carrying on of business, interest | ao aa m indebtedness, taxes, losses and contributions) of two - rcent on the first $4,000, four percent on the next $4,000, and 7 4 Six percent on all other net income in excess of credits allowed. Credits allowed on net income for the purpose of the - normal tax were: A personal exemption of $1,000 in the case of a single pe rson; a personal exemption of $2,500 in the case of a married person living with husband or wife; an exemption of $400 f or ea h dependent (other than husband or wife inder 18 years of age or incapable of self-support; certain exe oueeienn allowed he China Trade Act; exempti allowed on the income of non-resident alien individuals, and on income derived fr outside the United States. A scale of progressive surtaxes was also levied on net incomes in excess of $10, 000 ranging from one percent on the am in excess ot $10,000 of incomes of from $10,000 to $14,000, to approximately forty percent on net incomes in excess $500,000. Certain credits, on capital net loss and earned income, etc., in ad in ion to those listed above are al awe 1 on the tax under both the normal and surtax schedules. They involved a reduction in the t of revenue actually realized Tr he reductions in the amounts given in this table invol Ived in these credits was + y $39,000,000. For detailed pe of the personal income tax rates of 1924, see ‘Revenue Act of 192 No. 176—68th Congre 671 Source of data: Column 2 from . s of Income from the Returns of Net Income for 1924, Treasury Depart ment, United States Internal Revenue, Tat , page 102. Columns 3 and 4 are from Ibid., Table 1, page 103. Colu: > 18 one-half of Column 4. ' Also includes Alaska. table 9 should be of interest to such states. These states will want to make this tax as effective as conditions permit. Personal income tax: A state income tax is recommended in the model plan of taxation and by other taxation authorities. Table 10 should be studied in this connection. This table shows the amount of taxable income declared in each state, under the 1924 federal schedule, after allowing legal deduc- tions.' The federal income tax is based upon two schedules; the normal tax schedule and the surtax schedule. The surtax schedule applies only to net incomes in excess of $10,000. The surtax rates range from one percent on the amount of income in excess of $10,000 of incomes of from $10,000 to $14,000, to ap- proximately 40 percent on incomes in excess of $500,000.” The normal tax of 1924 levied on net in- come was at the rate of 2 percent on the first $4000 of income which increased to 6 percent on net income of over $8,000. Ex- emptions of $1,000 in the case of a single per- son, $2500 in the case of a married person living with husband or wife and $400 for each dependent other than husband or wife were allowed before the rates of the normal schedule took effect. Column 3 of Table 10 shows revenues yielded by both the surtax schedule and the normal tax schedule of 192+. The amount of tax collected under the federal normal tax schedule of 1924 is indicated in column 4 of Table 10. Column 5 of Tab!e 10 gives the revenue which would be yielded by a state tax at rates one-half those of the fed- eral normal tax. The amounts paid by in- dividuals of varying incomes under such a state rate would be those indicated in Table 11. An inspection of this table indicates that such a state income tax would be light. This tax at rates progressing from 1 to 3 percent on normal income would be well within the rates recommended by the model plan. This plan states: We recommend that the rates of taxation shall be progressive, the progression depending upon the amount of the taxpayer’s net income. The lowest rate should not be less than one per- cent, and under present conditions we rey as inexpedient for any state to impose higher than six percent. The use for school purposes of the which an income tax, at rates varying 1 to 3 percent, would raise, would no: off other public service supported by taxation from the realization of 1 through the income tax. If the state ji; tax were levied at the full rates consi. reasonable by the Model Plan, that is at varying from 2 to 6 percent on net in the total income to the State Treasury \ be that of column 4. The adoption and successful administ; of the personal income tax by the na: government, has greatly increased the | cability of putting a state income tax effect. The existence of the well deve! federal tax machinery greatly reduce: administrative organization which a stat: provide in adopting the income tax. ‘The ( laration of income made to the federal g: ment can be used by individuals in report to the state. A state income tax, there! involves a minimum of state administra: machinery for collecting the tax and a mi mum of inconvenience to those from the tax is collected. Table 11—Amounts Which Would Be Paid Individuals With Varying Incomes Un Tax Rates One-half Those of the Fede: Normal Tax Schedule of 1924 A married per- | son with two A single person| Paid dependents Pa a (other than a pendents and a tax husband or tax net income of : of : wife) and a of | with no de- net income of : | j_ | $2,000 $10 - $2,000 no ta z 40 5,000 $17 10,000 150 10,000 94 00,000 2,850 100,000 2,661 Tax on net income of corporations: A ' levied upon the net income derived from | ness carried on within the state is re mended by the model plan of taxation an: other tax authorities.* Table 12 shou! studied in this connection. 1 The details of this schedule may be found in the Revenue Act of 1924, pp. 33 to 44. 2 See notes at foot of Table 10. * Net income is gross income minus certain deductions o—— which are the following: expenses paid or incu the carrying on of business, interest on i be defined as net profit. page 34 ff. ndebtedness, taxes, an 1 ‘ For the provisions of the federal reserve revenue act on this point see Revenue Act oi losses sustained. For practical purposes net incon [46] bee meet. < _k. rABI nite en be \BLE 12—CORPORATION NET INCOME AND FEDERAL AND STATE TAXATION of Tax Amount of Revenue Which Would be Raised by State Amount ly Tax on Net Corporation Income of t Incor He f - Collected in State States oO . . Under Federal Gesgenatiens Schedule of 1924 1! 2! 4 1 2 Ri 4 5 0 United States $7 554,581 , 582 $877 , 871 595 $70 229,727.60 $140,459,455 20 $280,918,910 40 : 35,538,812 3,905 ,099 312,407 .92 624,815.84 1,249,631 68 . 7,412,641 776,072 62,085.76 124,171.52 248,343.04 . 18,080,163 1,864,449 149,155.92 08,311 84 596.623 68 rnia 376,724,853 44,161,442 3,532,915. 36 7,065 , 830.72 14,131,661 44 ado 60,846,149 7,024,097 561,927.76 1,123,855.52 ?, 247,711.04 it 103,180,674 11,848.12 947,850.16 1,895,700. 32 3,791,400 64 are 39 , 540,910 4,703,290 376,263.20 752,526.40 1,505,052. 80 f Columbia 47 , 457 , 561 5,745,401 459,632.08 919. 264.16 1.838.528 32 ja 62 , 343 , 490 7,006, 389 560,511.12 1,121,022.24 » 242,044.48 via 50,161 , 660 5,536, 205 442,896 40 885,792.80 1,771,585.60 6,845,563 680, 401 54.432 08 108 , 864.16 17 8.3 i 706,054,194 82,467,674 6,597 413.92 13,194,827.84 6, 389,655.68 ina 114,989, 588 12,930, 26 1,034,421.36 ? 068 , 842.72 4,137,685 .44 i 49,731,875 5,284,901 422,792.08 845,584.16 1,691,168. 32 a 84,610,712 9,832,973 786,637.84 1,573,275.68 3,146,551 36 tucky 64,974,995 7,347,437 587,794.96 1,175,589.92 » 351.179.84 isiana 54,436, 362 5,934,261 474,740.88 9049 481.76 1.898 963 Maine 31,347,813 3,533,832 282,706.56 565,413.12 1.130.826.24 Marvland 83,492,835 9,846,911 787,752.88 1,575,505 .76 $,151,011.5 Massachusetts 352,209,591 40,796,074 3,263,685 .9 6,527,371 .84 13,054,743.68 Michigan 497 ,940 013 59,869,257 4,789,540 56 9,579,081 .12 19,158,162.24 Minnesota 111,844,643 12,698 ,035 1,015,842 .80 ? 031,685 60 4,063,371 .20 Mississippi 13,197,415 1,335,653 106,852.24 13,704.48 $27,408 96 Missouri 225,899, 300 6,039 , 340 ? 083,147.20 4,166,294.40 8, 332.588 80 Montana 8,948 562 841,019 67,281.52 134,563.04 269 126.08 raska 26,913,914 2,762,866 221,029.28 442,058 56 884,117.12 Nevada 1,661,752 147,158 11,772.64 23,545.28 47.090 .56 ‘ew Hampshire 8,535,896 929,840 74,387.20 148,774.40 197.548 80 New Jersey 260 , 526,000 30 , 688 ,913 2,455,113.04 4,.910,226.08 9, 820,452.16 New Mexico 2,873,952 270,885 21,670.80 43,341.60 86,683.20 New York 2,096, 541,720 246,109, 308 19 688,744.64 39 377,489.28 78,754,978 .56 Jorth Carolina 83,731,523 9,726,312 778,104.96 1,556, 209.92 3.112.419.84 rth Dakota 5,699 606 443,397 35,471.76 70,943.52 141,887.04 )hio 442,810,151 51,129,974 4,090, 397.92 8,180,795 .84 16,361,591 .68 )klahoma 39,221,970 3,969 267 317,541.36 635,082.72 1,270,165 .44 egon 29,088 , 365 3,106,610 248,528.80 497 ,057 .60 994,115.20 Pennsylvania | 730,528, 286 87,512,252 7,000 , 980.16 14,001 960. 32 18 003,920.64 Rhode Island 44,861,723 5,236,749 418,939 92 837,879.84 1,675,759.68 South Carolina 14,250,797 1,372,469 109,797 .52 219,595.04 439 190.08 uth Dakota 4,792,550 355,445 28 435.60 56,871.20 113,742.40 nnessee 52,089 , 336 5,789,104 463,128.32 926,256.64 1,852,513 .28 Texas... 150,501 , 590 16,819,180 1, 345,534.40 2,691 ,068 . 80 5, 382,137.60 tah P 19,351,555 2,098 811 167 ,904.88 335,809.76 671,619.52 rmont 9,133,396 1,011,271 80,901.68 161,803.36 323,606.72 rginia... 82,085,981 9,392,478 751,398.24 1,502,796.48 3,005,592 96 Washington P 54,809,158 5,850,662 468 ,052 .96 936,105.92 1,872,211.84 West Virginia 50,065,172 5,635,527 450,842.16 901 , 684.32 1,803, 368.64 Wisconsin. . : 132,284,875 15,113,200 1, 209,056.00 ? 418,112.00 4,836,224.00 Wyoming ee 4,411,941 391,311 31,304.88 62,609.76 125,219.52 Read table as follaws: In Alabama the net income of corporations in 1924 was $35,538,812 (Col. 2) which yielded a tax revenue of $3,905,099 (Col. 3) under the federal schedule described in the next paragraph. The amounts in Colum: 3 are not 124% of those in Column 2, due to the credits allowed by the federal schedule. If a state tax similar y federal tax, except that net income of corporations is té axed at 1% instead of 124%, = us levied, a revenue of $312,407.92 Col. 4) would be raised in Alabama; if a 2% tax was levied, a revenue of $624,815.84 (Col. 5) would be raised; if a tax 4% was levied, a revenue of $1,249,631.68 (Col. 4) would be obtained. Similarly re sa data for other states Rate of 1924 income tax: The federal government according to the revenue act of 1924 levied a flat tax of 12 ‘49 ipon the amount of net income (gross income less items deductible, such as expenses paid or incurred in the carrying { business, interest on indebtedness, taxes paid or accrued, and losses sustained) in excess of credits allowed. Credit illowed on net income were: an exemption of $2,000 in the case of corporations having a net income of less than $25, 000 ‘ ith special provision in the case of corpor: ations having a net income ye y in excess of $25,000; interest upon obligati f the United States; certain exemptions allowed under the China Trade Act A ¢ é redit n the amount of the tax paid wa ilso allowed for income, war, or excess profits taxes payable to any foreign countr any possession of the United St. ate t a detailed description of the corporation income tax rates of 1924, see Revenue , t of 1924"’—Publi No. 176 68th Congress, H. R. 6715. Sources of data: Columns 2 and 3 from Statistics of Income from Returns of Net Income of 1924, Treasury Depart ment, United States Internal Revenue, page 23. Column 4 is obtained by dividing the figures of Column 3 by 12 4, whi represents the rate of levy on net income of corporations after allowing the credits provided for in the federal schedul 1924. Columns 5 and 6 are 2 and 4 times Column 4, respectively. [47] Since the adoption of the federal tax on the income of corporations the practicability of state business taxes has been greatly in- creased. As the model plan states: today every business concern of any consider- able size is obliged to make a return of its net income to the federal government; and it is, therefore, both practicable and convenient to im- pose a business tax upon net income. The federal tax on net income of corpora- tions was in 1924 at the rate of 1214 percent. This schedule provides for exemptions from taxation of the smaller business concerns. Corporations having a net income of less than $25,000 are exempted from payment of a tax on $2,000 of their net income. This means that the corporations of the country, with relatively small incomes, are either wholly or partly exempt from taxation under the fed- eral schedule. Table 12 indicates that reve- nue of $877,871,595 was realized by the fed- eral tax of 121% percent on net income after the exemptions indicated above were allowed. In case a state were to levy a busines. on corporation net income what shoul, the rate of the tax? The recommendatio;, .; the model plan is as follows: the actual rate of the tax should be mod . . « One percent of the net income derived business done in the locality would be a ver, tax; and we believe, that in general, a tax of :\ percent of such income would be adequate ceptional conditions in particular states may higher rates, but we believe that the rates case should exceed five percent. Table 12 shows the amount of re which would be raised in each state by on corporations at three different rates within the limits recommended in th. ceding quotation. ‘These rates are on cent, two percent and four percent. This table indicates that a substantia! nue can be raised in every state in the un by a tax on the net income of corporation ‘rates which are moderate, after generous emptions have been made effecting incom concerns with relatively small profits. TABLE 13—AMOUNT SPENT FOR TOBACCO AND REVENUE WHICH WOULD BE RAISED BY A STATE TOBACCO TAX — Estimated Ex- | Revenue Yield- Estimated Ex- | Revenue Yield States penditures for | ed by Tax of 5% States penditures for | ed by Tax of 5 Tobacco by States etail To- - Tobacco by on Retail T 1924 bacco Sales States bacco Sales 1 2 3 4 ] 6 United States.........| $1,847,000,000 | $92,350,000 NS a. 5 16 dares BR $8,126,800 $406 , 34 Ma vnc taesbivncd 15,514,800 775,740 ES ee 21,425,200 1,071, 260 Arizona....... 5,356, 300 267,815 a ii 1,847 ,000 92 , 350 IN. 6s «4 ai donee an 12,005,500 600 , 275 New Hampshire........ 6,649, 200 332,46 MENG « civeeaeeacs 112,297,600 5,614,880 ae 60, 766, 300 3,038,315 Ss. . 264.8 Alabama as $77,315 8 (Col. 2) in 1924 If a tax of 3 a re f $2,319,4 raised from t Mineral Resour he Uniled Siates in 1925 (Pr 1926 The ‘ + P oe we suhiect ¢ 1} + a { 3 3 a — =e. 4 ] what form of severance tax might be adopted by individual states cannot be indicated here.* Table 14, however, indicates by states the total value of mineral products in 1924.2. A tax amounting to 3 percent of the value of mineral products in 1924 would have raised revenues of approximately $140,000,000. This fact justifies careful study of the sever- ance tax as a possible source of revenue by those states in which such a tax is not already in effect. Revenue Various Taxes Would Raise Compared with State Contributions to School Support Table 15 shows the amount of revenue which the various states might realize using taxes of the types which have been described. The taxes required to raise the sums indicated in column 7 are: 1. A two mill tax on tangible property 2. A personal income tax at progressive rates of from one to three percent 3. A tax of two percent on the net income of corporations 4. A three percent tax on the value of min- eral products 5. A five percent tax on retail tobacco sales All of these taxes are light according to present standards and the opinions of tax au- thorities. They are so far below the rates which are recognized as moderate that the contribution by the states for school purposes of the full sums indicated in Table 15, col- umn 8, would not preclude the raising of ad- equate revenues for other state supported en- terprises through these same taxes. In studying Table 15 it should also be kept in mind that but five possible sources of revenue are considered. ‘There are already in effect in the states a number of other taxes and methods of raising revenue which account for sums into the hundreds of millions.’ Among these are the license taxes, heritance tax, and fines and forfeits. adoption of the corporation net incom: described earlier in this section would ably make it desirable to reduce the am of revenue now realized from business | taxes. The adoption of severance taxes wou reduce the sums which could wisely be |, against mining industry in the form o{ property tax or a tax on net income. ()t}), i sources of revenue at present in effect would not be overlapped by the taxes suggested Table 15. The raising of the sums given in column 7 of Table 15 by the states to be distributed + local communities for school support woul: not, therefore, cut off the sources of suppor: of other enterprises supported in part whole by the state. The amounts given in column 7 of Table 15 are in every case considerably larger than the sums at present being raised by the stat: governments for the support of schools, as i: dicated in column 8 of the same table. |) many cases the amount in column 7 is severa! times the present state contribution. There is not a state in the union where : adoption of a modern tax system wil! not make possible substantial increases in ¢| amount of school support available. If th: state governments raised the sums indicated in column 7 of Table 15 for school support, i: would be possible at the same time to increas total school expenditures and to reduce th: burden of local taxation. This evidence offers further support for t!y previously stated conclusion, that there is not a state in the Union which cannot increase th amount it is spending for education, if schoo! efficiency demands. It furnishes additiona! support for the statement that the problem «! obtaining adequate school revenue in most 0! the states is less a matter of waiting for an in- crease in economic sources than of being wi!!- ing to adopt modern systems of taxation. 1 For general articles and pro and con discussion of the severance tax, see the following references: Allen, R chmn. “Report of the Special Committee on Mine Taxation,” Proceedings of the National Tax Association, 1°. pp. 405-13; Armitage, Paul “Income as a Factor in Mine Taxation,” Proceedings of the National Tax Associ 1920, pp. 413-21; Vaughan, George, “Taxation of Natural Resources” Proceedings of the National Tax Associc' 1920, pp. 425-47; Vaughan, George. “The Increasing Importance of Special Taxes,” Proceedings of the Nationa‘ Association, 1924, pp. 395-406. 2In studying this table it should be realized that the amounts given in the column headed “Value of Mineral |’ ucts” are not in all cases subject to state taxation, In some cases they are partly based upon from mining operat controlled by the federal government. 5 Financial Statistics of the States, 1924. U. S. Bureau of the Census, Government Printing Office, Washington, | 1926, Table 17. [50] i rABLE States l United State | Indiana Lowa nansas Kentucky Maryland Massachus Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada N. Hamps! New Jerse} New Mexi New York No. Caroli No. Dakot Ohio Oklahoma i“ Oregon Pennsylva Rhode Isle So. Caroli South Dak Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia. . Washingt West Va. Wisconsil Wyoming 7 Rec the amc support Sor column from St *§ in this ¢ : This sts state m not be: } i ABI E is—REVENUE VARIOUS ! CONTRIBUTIONS SUPPORT IN 1924 FORMS OF TAXES WOULD YIELD AND STATE TO SCHOOL Yield of a per Yield of a sonal income Yield of a tax on Yield of three Yield of tax Total vield Sch two mill tax at one-half net income of per cent tax on of five percent of foregoing forms receipts tes tax on tan- rates of Federal corporations value of min on retail of taxation the st gible property normal tax at two percent eral products tobacco sales 1924 19 ¢ 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 yt ted States. $477,470,446 |$128,715,528.00 $140,459,455.20 $139,747,292 $92,350,000 $978,742,721.20 $268,607 4,320,650 820,440.50 624,815.84 2,319 740 8. 861.118.34 " , 2,131,910 185,270.50 124,171.52 3,009 2 81 5,718,929 .02 } I s 4,022,514 $11,158.00 298 311.84 1.852 600 275 7'184'728 84 9's rnia 92 358,130 8 902, 263.00 7.065 ,830.72 12,845,270 14 880 56.786 .373.72 ) S do 5.098 ,636 712, 548.50 1, 123,85. 2 1,844,636 831.150 9.610.826 .02 1.0 it 7 , 872,988 2,013,118.00 1,895,700. 32 243, 880 1,459,130 13,484, 816.32 1 st d + elaware 900 , 146 229,419.50 752,526.40 15,370 66,230 2.063 691.90 4 P viet of Col 2,833,152 1, 321,767.00 919,264.16 24,408 720,330 >, 818,921.16 03 rida 4,026,732 1, 585,808.00 1,121 ,022.24 393 , 036 655,68 7, 782,283.24 j gia 5,595,994 956 . 760.50 885.792.80 148, 398 1.080.49 8,967 ,440.30 1 3 2,535,514 130 , 207 .00 108 , 864.16 834,949 29 0) } 005.054.16 Ré 33,475,932 13,318,233. 50 13,194,827 .84 ,073, 831 803,57 74.866 449.34 8 382 ‘ 13,476,072 1,678, 541.50 2,068, 842.72 3,368,972 2, 234,870 22 827 . 298.22 111 : 18,053,668 984 ,926 .00 845,584.16 1,213,796 2.031.700 23.129. 674.16 76 ynsas 10, 365, 240 686 , 440.50 1,573, 275.68 3,150,164 1, 200 0 16,.975.670.18 ) h , utucky 5,286,028 930,695.00 1,175, 589.92 3,615,323 1.0 OS 12,032,720.92 eas lisiana 4,470,884 1.020.733 .00 949 481.76 1,707 , 920 951.205 9.100. 223.76 12 t \Iaine 2,945,786 522,677.50 5,413.1: 181,055 6,395 4,741,326.62 > 69 faryland 5,505,038 2,507 , 311.00 1.575.505. 7¢€ 955, 206 1 t 430 11.417.490.76 j fassachusetts 18,392,394 6, 584,110.50 6,527 ,371.84 171,776 j 15,915 36 491,567.34 ( I gan 16,209,878 4,711,149.50 9,579,081 .13 127 ,182 629 355 37 556 645.62 12 linnesota 13,578, 360 1, 363,929.50 2,031 ,685.60 235,340 1, 883,940 22 093,255.10 ) OS lississippi 3,194,212 301,692.00 213,704.48 62,713 $89 45 1,261,776.48 s SI lissouri 15,277 .956 2.730.793. 50 +, 166,204.40 2.431.624 2 715.000 7 . 321 . 757.90 { lontana 3,742,510 256 , 371.50 134,563.04 2,118,954 106.340 6.658.738. 54 1 O49 ebraska 9,117,050 640 , 036.00 $42 058.56 96 . 283 071,260 11,366 .687.56 | } Nevada 977 ,O12 82,703.50 23,545.28 786,778 92,350 1.962.388.78 { Hampshire 1,941,726 315,031.50 148,774.40 101,3 $32,460 2.839. 336.90 i] New Jersey 15,969,818 6, 368,778.00 4, 910,226.08 2,258 , 130 O38 315 32,545, 267.08 i4 v Mexico 1,465,912 98,174.50 13,341.60 717 , 406 156,99 2,481,829 10 New York 55,418,248 34, 346,050.50 39. 37 189 OS > 863.059 ] 690 . 265 147 .695.111.78 10.13 No. Carolina 6,295,344 674,723.50 1,556, 209.92 277 , 844 951.20 9.755.326 .42 6.890 No. Dakota t 407 ,412 120,514.00 70,943.52 83 , 302 § 635 >. 060. 806.52 $ Ne Jhio 27 . 858, 504 5.997 .191.00 8. 180.795.84 7.471.489 41 000 5. O48 979. 84 i] - ‘klahoma 6,101,846 993 , 967.00 635,082.72 11,790,920 978,910 20, 500,725.72 64 Oregon 5,758,550 696 ,741.00 $97 ,057 .60 220 , 927 R58 855 8. 032.130.60 1 ennsylvania 41,835,758 12, 864,721.00 14,001 , 960.32 30, 348 , 926 8 283,795 107 335,160.32 26 360 le Island 2,511,662 980,104.50 837 . 879.84 33,979 600.275 4.963.900. 34 $3 So. Carolina 3,391,772 246 , 595.50 219,595.04 103 , 331 63,335 4.524.628. 54 > QOR South Dakota 5, 269 ,602 134,114.50 56,871.20 206 , 533 170,985 6,138,.105.70 1.974 Tennessee 6,542,144 981,515.00 926 , 256.64 1.060.635 1,034,320 10. 544.870.64 } 239 Texas 15,640,840 2 993 , 396.50 2,691 ,068.80 8,181,870 2.816.675 32,323 ,850.30 21,211 Utah 2,410,976 234,033.50 335,809.76 2,530,698 341,695 », 853,212. 26 § 657 Vermont 1,218,730 214,131.50 161,803.36 136.482 212.405 2. 243 .551.86 634 Virginia 7,616, 282 873,962.00 1,502,796.48 1,138,864 1.108. 200 12,240, 104.48 ; 5a Washington 8,559,978 1,248, 588.00 936,105.92 634,781 1,431,425 12,810,877 .92 675 West Va 8,115,968 662,359.50 901 , 684.32 9,219,426 941,970 19,841, 407.82 02 Wisconsin 11,671,792 1,912,075.00 2,418,112.00 473,902 2 105, 580 18, 581,461.00 83 t Wyoming 1,703,196 169 656.00 62,609.76 2, 264,825 193,935 4, 394,221.76 1,933 Read table as follows: In Alabama, taxes of the types indicated in columns 2 to 6 would raise a total revenue of $8,861,118 the amount given in column 7. This may be compared with $268,607,668, column 8, the sum which this state tribute r support of local schools. Sources of data: Column 2 from table 9, column 3; column 3 from table 10, colum: lumn 4 from table 12, umn 5 from table 14, column 3; column 6 from table 13, column 3; column 7 is the sum lumns 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6; J rom Statistics of State School Systems 1923-24 Bulletin 42, 1925, U.S. Bureau of Education, Table 20, p. 24 * Some school receipts cannot be segregated as to the governmental unit which is their source Therefore, the figur this column, in some instances, would be somewhat increased if figures making possible a complete segregation were a his statement, more or less, applies to all states and particularly to the states marked with an asterisk Also in e ca tate merely acts as a collecting agency for the smaller governmental units, s0 that some of the amounts given in th u t be state contributions to local school support in the true sense 008* tage eh TA a lg aia ~ Ve gE GE hee Bb aaa ; t 5 Roll Call by States as to Plans Affecting State School Finance Legislation The legislatures of 44 states will hold ses- sions in 1927. This year will witness the adoption by many legislatures of measures of far reaching importance in the development of improved state systems of public school sup- port. In order to secure a nation wide survey of existing plans for proposed legislation, let- ters were sent to all state superintendents of education and full time secretaries of state education associations. In addition to the re- plies to these letters, state surveys and other literature received, as well as articles and news notes appearing in state education association publications, have furnished information. Following is presented a brief summary, for each state, of information, derived from one or more of the above mentioned sources, cov- ering plans affecting school finance legislation. Alabama:—Legislature meets quadrennially; next session convenes January, 1927. Legislative plans: A general program of in- creased financial support of public education in all forms, which will include as its major pro- vision a substantial fund for equalization, will be presented to the Legislature of 1927. Ala- bama’s present method of distributing state aid is on the school census basis. It is proposed to make the assistance to every community receiving aid from the equalization fund proportional to its needs and ability to pay. The extension and in- crease of severance, franchise and hydro-electric power taxes will possibly be considered as addi- tional sources of school revenues. Arizona:—Legislature meets biennially; next session convenes January, 1927. Legislative plans: No plans for legislation deal- ing with school finance have been definitely form- ulated. Arkansas :—Legislature meets biennially; next session convenes, January, 1927. Increase of school revenues by the improvement of the machinery of collecting the present cigar and cigarette tax, by the levying of additional luxury taxes, and probably by the increase of the state mill tax on general property; the creation of an equalization fund for the purpose of bringing all schools up to a fixed standard of efficiency, the funds of which are to be apportioned strictly ac- cording to the needs of the school units after they have put forth the maximum of local effort al- lowed by law; and the adoption of a law which will make possible the establishment of the county as the unit of school support upon the majority vote of the people within the county, are among the proposals to be presented to the 1927 session of the Arkansas legislature. Constitutional Amend- [52] ment No. 13, to increase the constitutiona on taxation for local school purposes, was yo, on by the people on October Sth and was carrie) throughout the state, by a vote of about three , one. California:—Legislature meets biennial], session convenes, January, 1927. Legislative plans: A comprehensive legis|atiy, program has been recommended for adoption 4, the next session of the legislature. The legis|, tion proposed, however, does not involve measure. which directly concern the organization for § nancing the schools. (The California plan m, well be studied by states whose present method. of distributing state funds need revision.) Connecticut :—Legislature meets biennial!) next session convenes January, 1927. Legislative plans: The Commission on the re. vision and codification of school laws, appointed by the 1923 legislature and continued for anothe; biennium in 1925, will make its report at the 1927 session, which convenes in January. A_ stud) authorized by the Commission, of the schoo! §- nance system of the state is under way under the supervision of the Director of Research and Sta- tistics of the State Board of Education. As , result of this study the Commission report to the coming legislature will probably include a recom- mendation in the form of an improved state sup. port bill. Delaware :—Legislature meets biennially; nex session convenes, January, 1927. Legislative plans: The submission of a bi! granting local Boards of Education power to lev; 25¢ on each $100 real and personal property, with- out referendum, and the proposal of a State Aid building program are planned. Florida:—Legislature meets biennially; nex: session convenes, April, 1927. Legislative plans: It is reported that plans are not yet definitely formulated. A_ constitutiona amendment providing for direct appropriation } the legislature for common schools which was re- ferred to the vote of the people at the recent gen- eral election, was passed by a substantial majorit Georgia:—Legislature meets biennially; nex session convenes, June, 1927. Legislative plans: An enabling act authorizing the appropriation of funds for the equalization 0! educational opportunity was passed by the legis lature of 1926, in extra session. In accordanc with this act the State Department of Educatio is requesting the provision in 1927 of one millio' dollars for purposes of equalization. It is sup- ported in this request by the Georgia Educati Association. The equalization fund, if appropr- ated, will be distributed on the basis of the abilir of the counties after meeting the requirement of 4 local tax levy of at least 5 mills, to support the minimum educational offering set up by the S:at Department of Education. Idaho sion con Legisl 3 state legislatu Illino session | Legisl tion thr for an. for an : tion. 1 poses ol on prof on the added fj maintal legal sc India session Legis in favo but it is culmina complet authori constitu ture to the vot low: sion co Legis no pla public Kan session Legis adopte: State 7] items: district law; 3 taxes | discove than t nues n Ken session Legi definit is son to am which propri popula funds includ by the Lot sessiol Leg legis]: 1926 | will a Ma sion ¢ ation th- 5 \id ext ‘ ‘ Idaho:—Legislature meets biennially; next ses- sion convenes, January, 1927. Legislative plans: It is possible that a bill for state wide tax will be presented to the coming legislature. Illinois:—Legislature meets session convenes, January, 1927. Legislative plans: The State Teachers’ Associa- tion through its legislative committee will stand for an increase of the state distributive fund and for an amendment of its present basis of distribu- tion. The use of the fund for equalization pur- poses only, its collection through a state-wide tax on property and its distribution to the localities on the basis of children to be educated with the added provision that it be used to help districts to maintain the state requirement standards for-+a legal school will be recommended. Indiana:— Legislature meets session convenes, January, 1927. Legislative plans: There is sentiment in Indiana in favor of enlarging the unit of school support, but it is impossible to say whether this feeling will culminate in legislation at the 1927 session. A complete survey of the field of public education, authorized by the Governor is now under way. A constitutional amendment authorizing the legisla- ture to levy an income tax, which was referred to the voters at the November election, was defeated. Iowa:—Legislature meets biennially; next ses- sion convenes, January, 1927. Legislative plans: It is reported that there are no plans for legislation affecting the financing of public education in 1927. biennially; next biennially; next Kansas:—Legislature meets biennially; next session convenes, January, 1927. Legislative plans: The legislative program adopted by the General Assembly of the Kansas State Teachers Association included the following items: disentanglement of the confused system of district organization; uniform high school tuition law; a more equitable system of collecting school taxes and of distributing the funds so obtained; discovery and use of productive agencies other than tangible properties from which school reve- nues may be derived. Kentucky:—Legislature meets biennially; next session convenes, January, 1928. Legislative plans: It is not yet possible to state definitely the plans for proposed legislation. There is some discussion of a renewal of the attempt to amend section 166 of the State Constitution which requires that the State School Fund be ap- propriated to all counties in direct ratio of school population. An equitable distribution of school funds throughout the state and in each county are included among the legislative objectives outlined by the Kentucky Education Association. Louisiana:—Legislature meets biennially; next session convenes, May, 1928. Legislative plans: No proposed school financ? legislation has been reported. The legislature of 1926 passed a Tobacco Tax bill which it is said will add 50% to the state school fund. Maine:—Legislature meets biennially; next ses- sion convenes, January, 1927. Legislative plans: The school fund laws of Maine, which were revised in 1921, are working well and no further changes are contemplated at the present time. Maryland :—Legislature meets biennially; session convenes, January, 1927. next Legislative plans: No plans affecting the finance ing of schools in the state of Maryland are con templated in the coming legislative session. rhe Maryland plan may well be studied by states whose present methods of distributing state funds need revision.) Massachusetts :—Legislature January, No proposed meets annually; next session convenes, 1927 Legislative plans: legislation re lating to the financing of schools has been re ported. (The Massachusetts system of school finance may well be studied by states whose present methods of raising and distributing state funds need revision.) Michigan:—Legislature meets biennially; next 1927. No school finance legislation session convenes, January, Legislative plans: is proposed in Michigan in 1927. recently amended the law governing the distribu tion of the primary school fund. This is now before the Supreme Court and the opinion as to its constitutionality Minnesota :—Legislature meets biennially; session convenes, January, 1927. Legislative plans: Estimates proximately six million dollars covering the vari ous forms of state aid to schools provided by law will be presented to the coming legislature and deficits for the past two years will also be unde: The legislature amendment is being awaited. next amounting to ap consideration. Mississippi :—Legislature meets biennially ; session convenes, January, 1928. Legislative plans: An increased state appropria tion of at least $1.00 per educable child will be next recommended. Missouri:— Legislature session convenes, January, 1927. Legislative plans: Plans formulated to permit of definite statement but the Missouri State Teacher Association will edly have some finance bills to offer at the coming meets biennially: next are not vet sufhciently undoubt legislative session. Montana:—Legislature meets session convenes, January, 1927. biennially; nex Legislative plans: No proposals for measures to be enacted at the have been reported. Nebraska: session convenes, 1927 session of the legislature Legislature meets biennially; next January, 1927. Legislative plans: No plans as to proposed school finance legislation have been definitely formulated. A study portraying educational ine- qualities is now being made by the Nebraska State Teachers Association and the published report will appear at an early date. Nevada :—Lezgislature session convenes, January, 1927. Legislative plans: The chief planned is the passage for a second time of the meets ‘biennially; next financial measure [53] ‘ Se Ss ee le ee - =e ae oe resolution proposing a constitutional amendment removing the twenty cent state tax limit for the support and maintenance of the State University and the public schools. New Hampshire :— Legislature meets biennially ; next session convenes, January, 1927. Legislative plans: No changes amecting the sys- tem of school finance are proposed for the coming legislative session. New Jersey:—Legislature meets annually; next session convenes, January, 1927. Legislative plans: There is no proposed school finance legislation for the coming session. There has been some rural agitation for a different dis- tribution of state school moneys but it is im- probable that this will culminate in legislation in 1927. New Mexico:—Legislature meets next session convenes, January, 1927. Legislative plans: There is no prospective legis- lation affecting state school finance, so far as is known at present. New York:—Legislature meets annually; next session convenes, January, 1927. Legislative plans: A bill providing for the in- crease of state aid during each of the next five years, so that in 1929-30, state aid would amount to $90,000,000, was introduced in the 1926 legis- lature. This bill failed of passage but it is hoped that it will be enacted during the coming 1927 session. (The New York plan may well be studied by states whose present methods of raising and distributing state funds need revision.) North Carolina:—Legislature meets biennially; next session convenes, January, 1927. Legislative plans: A study of school finance in North Carolina, authorized by the Education Com- mission has been carried on during the past year under the direction of Dr. Fred W. Morrison. The Education Commission will submit its report to the legislature in January and will ask for a sub- stantial increase in the state fund. The legisiative program of the State Education Association will include a constitutional amendment increasing the minimum school term from six to eight months, and an increase in the state fund. No additional sources of revenue are specifically recommended but a number of plans in use in other states will be reported to the legislature. (The North Caro- lina plan may well be studied by states whose present methods of raising and distributing state funds need revision.) North Dakota:—Legislature meets biennially; next session convenes, January, 1927. Legislative plans: A more equitable distribution of the tax levy by means of an increased county school mill tax will be proposed at the 1927 legis- lative session. Ohio:—Legislature meets biennially; next ses- sion convenes, January, 1927. Legislative plans: A committee on taxation ap- pointed by the legislature of 1925 will report at the coming session of 1927. Incorporated in their report will be a large part of the report on the financing of schools made by the Educational biennially; [54] Council and adopted by the general assen the Ohio State Teachers Association. The on which this report is based was conducted Ohio Institute. It is hoped that all or mos; recommendations included will become law Oklahoma :—Legislature meets biennia!! session convenes, January, 1927. . Legislative plans: There is an evident dis tion on the part of incoming legislators to a, priate, from the general revenue fund of the sta, about $1,500,000 as emergency relief to need school districts for the current term. Adoptio the Legislature of a permanent policy of state plan involving about $2,000,000 annually, a py) of which will be raised by special revenue m ures, will also be considered. Oregon:—Legislature meets session convenes, January, 1927. Legislative plans: Legis‘ation to provide for | raising of a larger portion of school revenues | some other method than the property tax—poss; by a tax on corporations—will be sought. Pennsylvania:—Legislature meets next session convenes, January, 1927. Legislative plans: Plans for school finance legis lation are not sufficiently formulated to permit o; their being definitely stated. (The Pennsylyani, plan may well be studied by states whose presen: methods of distributing state funds need revision Rhode Island:—Legislature meets next session convenes, January, 1927. Legislative plans: Two measures equalization of public taxation for schools and equalization of educational opportunities wil! incroduced in the General Assembly. There is growing sentiment in favor of a _ program equalization based upon an assumption of larg responsibility by the state. South Carolina:—Legislature meets annual! next session convenes, January, 1927. Legislative plans. No legislation affecting th financing of schools is contemplated in 1927. Al efforts are being centered on securing the passag: of measures dealing with other phases in the field of education. South Dakota:—Legislature meets biennial)\ next session convenes, January, 1927. Legislative plans: No proposed legislation deal- ing with school finance in South Dakota is re- ported. Tennessee :—Legislature meets biennially; nex session convenes, January, 1927. Legislative plans: Among the educational }i!!: to be presented to the legislature will be one pr viding for the amendment of the Tobacco Tax |aw so that all proceeds therefrom shall go to th: public schools. Texas:—Legislature meets biennially; next ses sion convenes, January, 1927. Legislative plans: Legislation affecting th: sources of income of the state school fund so as ' guarantee a minimum per capita scholastic appo' tionment of $15.00 for the biennium 1927-29, |! appropriation of an adequate equalization and constitutional amendments authorizing biennially : biennial! annuall aiming a +} or i distri sals t The est to c nd of ‘Texa ead ira sion, pu siderati Utah sion COI Legis! vey ol ducted | port of session law lin cation 1 the Uta Verr session Legis regard plated hoped Virg session talk of Legi cial p! the la: high s were § a county school tax and changing the basis Washington —J]egislature meets ' jistribution of state aid are among the pri ext session < es. Januar 1927 5 § 2 ff > . f sals to be presented to the legislature of 192 Legislative } s: The outstandi! , » . —— a e Bm Th establishment of a committee or commissio slation contemplated is the idoptio » snes conduct a thorough survey of the tax resources equalization { 1 tor the reliet f need ra [exas, preliminary to the writing of a new tax and graded sc} s will be urged. The recommendations of the West Virginia:—Legislature meets t t of the Texas Educational Survey Commis next session convenes, January, 192 iblished in 1924, will also come up for cor Legislative plans: A program for the equa program fot jua ' deration, tion of educational opportunity will be present Utah:—Legislature meets biennially next ses to the legislature at the 1927 session This ™ convenes, January, 1927. gram is proposed on the basis of a study by | Legislative plans: During the past vear a sur mer V. Cavins, published under the tith r) i vey of the public schools of Utah has been con Financing of Education in West Virginia lt lucted by the U. S. Bureau of Education. The re includes as its two main features, the adoption rt of this survey will be presented to the coming the county as the unit of school support and tl session of the legislature. A modification of the establishment of a state distributable fund iw limiting the taxing power of boards of edu Wisconsin:—Legislature meets biennially: next cation throughout the state will also be sought b session convenes, January, 1927 , : ~ . . . ft .e Utah Education Association. Legislative plans Several bills will be int r — xis]: @ _ : sal . . ¢ ie 3 Vermont:— Legislature meets biennially; nex duced at the 19 session containing provisions sessi mvenes, January 927. i cae ha eiggis’ Ja oo i abe ' for equalization which aim to relieve the loca Legislative plans: No significant changes with os : » as are gn! 2 B communities of excessive tax burdens. \ revised regard to school finance legislation are contem ; ; s ; F "Mae plan for financing high school costs will be offered plated except that increased appropriations are , : . , Wyoming :—Legislature meets biennially ex hoped for, so that state aid may be more liberal. oe ey ‘ 2 : session convenes, January, 192 Virginia:—Legislature meets biennially; next Lecisl Ie — . ' . egisiativ slans: It is probable that two meas session convenes, January, 1928. There is some egisiauve pla as Prooson caet ow - | talk of an extra session for Januarv, 1927 ures affecting school finance in Wyoming w @ ‘ 7 im ; ° » » . h 1‘ »7 > , ’ Legislative plans: Legislative plans for a finan- presented at the 1927 session; first, the requiring cial program have not yet taken exact form. At of county and state approval for the establishment the last two assemblies increased elementary and of additional one-room rural schools; second, the high school funds and a $500,000 equalization fund granting of more money to schools which meet the vere sought. requirements of the State Board of Education 4 CONOMY DOES not mean merely the saving of money, but rather the spending of money wisely in order that the greatest possible benefit may be derived from the spending of public funds. Economy means expenditure without waste and to the best advantage. Con trasted with economy is parsimony, which implies improper saving of expenditure.—G. I Shirras, The Science of Public Finance, page 30. epee = ae ney ag } i Recent Studies and Articles BearingUpon Problems of State School Finance The following bibliography should be of service to those concerned with the investiga- tion and improvement of state systems of pub- lic school support. Effort has been made to cite, as far as possible, the most recent studies and articles bearing upon problems of educa- tional finance in each state. Studies are not available for all of the forty-eight states, while for some states references included are not of as recent date as could be desired. It is believed, however, that the sources cited point the way to information which will be of assist- ance in the evaluation and comparison of cur- rent state policies and practices in the field of public school finance. Alabama 1. Some Facts Relating to Elementary and High School Education in Alabama. A Study of 1923-24 Reports. State Department of Edu- cation, Montgomery, Alabama. 30p. Mimeographed data showing inequalities in educational opportunity and in ability to support schools. Points out defects in state system and submits recommendations. 2. SwirT, FLeTcHeR HARPER AND GOLDTHORPE, Joun Harorp. Studies in Public Schooi Finance, The South: Arkansas, Oklahoma, Alabama, Tennessee. Research publications of the University of Minnesota. Education Series No. 4, Minneapolis, 1923. 224p. The final volume in a series of studies of state systems of school support, designed to make available complete, detailed knowledge of systems employed in individual states, as a basis for the formulation of principles of sound school finance procedure. Arizona 3. Tupper, C. Ratpu. A Survey of the Arizona Public School System. State Board of Edu- cation, January 1, 1925. 112p. A study made under authority of the state board of education with the purpose of pre- senting recent data on school conditions in Arizona as a basis for the formulating of intelligent school finance legislation. Seeks to provide information whereby school ad- ministrators may secure better understanding of status of Arizona schools as compared with general practice in the nation. ? This is a preliminary edition subject to later revision. search Division of the National Education Association. [56] Arkansas 4. Swirt, FLeTcHER Harper. The Public § School System of Arkansas. Part Ul, “p School Finance.” Bureau of Education }, letin 1923, No. 11. Government Prin:j, Office, Washington, D. C. 110p. An investigation of the educational 2. CALLAHAN, JOHN. Opportunity in Wisconsin. Public Instruction, Madison, Educational ~~ Equalizing Department of 1924. 62p. Surveys variations in taxable wealth and educational offering among Wisconsin school districts. Proposes bill to about equalization of tunity. bring oppor- designed educational o — 3. Wisconsin Rural School Survey. Report of Finance Survey Committee. Bulletin of Wis- consin Teachers Association June, 1926. 37p. A study of the status of rural education in four representative counties. Points out Vk isting inequalities in taxable wealth. increased state aid for equalization purposes Sf and a redistribution of percentages of t vil. & revenues from the various sources. ex- Urges ax 63] 84. CALLAHAN, JOHN. “Educational Progress and the Tax Dollar. Wisconsin Journal of Education 58: 186 January, 192¢ CALLAHAN, JOHN. “The Foundation of Our Public School System.” Wisconsin Journal of Education. 58: 230-2. February, 1926 CALLAHAN, JOHN. “Statutory Methods of Establishing Minimum Standards for Farm Schools.” Wisconsin Journal of Education. 58: 269-71. March, 1926. CALLAHAN, JOHN. “Local School Taxation Wisconsin Journal of Education. 58: 356-8 May, 1926. CALLAHAN, JOHN. “Sources of Income fort the Public Schools.” Wisconsin Journal of Education. 58: 309-10. April, 192¢ A series of articles by State Superintendent of Education dealing with educational offe: ing in Wisconsin, the State Tax System, and other problems of State Aid for schoo! General 85. CupperLy, E. P. An Introduction to the Study of Education. Houghton Mifflin. Chapter XXII. “Financing Public Educa- tion.” Discusses evolution, present status and desirable directions of development of local and state plans for providing school support. 86. Digest of State Laws Relating to Taxation and Revenue, 1922. Bureau of the Census, U. §. Department of Commerce. Govern- ment Printing Office, Washington, D. ¢ 1924. Of value as a guide in making compara tive studies of state tax systems. 87. Newcomer, Mase! Financial Statistics of Public Education in the United States 1919-20. Educational Finance Inquiry Com mission. Vol. VI. MacMillan, New York, 1924. 188p. 88. Norton, JOHN K. The Ability of the States to Support Education. National Education Association. Washington, D. C., 1926. 88p. Presents comprehensive data as to the comparative ability of the states to support schools, as indicated by the wealth and in come of each state and the number of chil dren 6 to 13 years. 89. PirTTeNGeR, BENJAMIN FLOYD In Introdu tion to Public School Finance. Houghton Miffiin Co. Boston, 1925. Summarizes conclusions resulting from the investigation that has taken place in recent years in the field of school finance cee WOULD BE a mistake, however, to sup- is iS) pose that the public resources are in them- selves inadequate. The fault does not lie with the social income. National prosperity is great and growing, and the increase of wealth and of social income is proceeding unchecked. Were our state and local resources marshalled and organized for fiscal purposes, as is done by the national government, the embarrassment would soon vanish. We all know that in normal times there has never been the slightest difficulty in secur- ing a revenue for national purposes which should be, not only abundant, but on the whole satis- factory to the community. We know equally well, however, that what has been so successfully done by the national government is very imperfectly accomplished by our state and local governments. The wealth is there, the resources are there, but the method of tapping the resources has become unsatisfactory, lopsided and unequal. What is needed is a readjustment of the system to make it fit modern necessities—E. R. 4. Seligman, Essays in Taxation, pp. 347-8. Ws. 5.05.8 An A " z ae OF, 7 a os - —— - _ Ma "y “" ? * ra) ? > > ‘ i ( io Y Y » , 2 RE, BE, BY, MAI Sa) Fa) Sa) a) al. Sa) a Sa) Se? & : ) F 4 ) 6) 6) 6) 6 a oe A w ar. Fea J) s SWS SHY 7 ee. Tate Ks er er 4 x) x) 4 STS 6) 6) 6) 6) 6