RESEARCH BULLETIN 8 OF THE NATIONAL EDUCATION VOL. XIV - No.3 MAY = 1936 ASSOCIAT ION The Efforts of the States To Support Education As Related to Adequacy and Ability Published by the RESEARCH DIVISION of the NATIONAL EDUCATION ASSOCIATION 1201 Sixteenth Street, N. W., Washington, D. C. RESEARCH BULLETIN o: Published five times each year in January, March, May, September, and November President, AGNES SAMUELSON NATIONAL EDUCATION ASSOCIATION Executive Secretary, WILLARD E. G Director of Research: William G. Carr; Associate Director: Frank W. Hubbard Assistant Directors: Richard R. Foster, lvan A. Booker Research Assistants and Section Heads: Frances G. Bradley, Louise B. Sease Hazel Davis, Helen H. Cox, Anna Haddow, Elsie S. King, and Madaline K. Remmlein Executive and Editorial Offices 1201 Sixteenth Street, N. W., Washington, D. | Copyright, 1936, by the National Education Association 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. Subscriptions The payment of the $5 membership fee of the National Education Association entitles one to receive for one year the Research Bulletin, the Journal, the An- nual Volume of Addresses and Proceed- ings, and certain other publications of the Association. One dollar of each $5 mem- bership fee is for a year’s subscription to the Research Bulletin. The Research Bulletin may be received regularly thru a special subscription at $1 per year. Many of the early issues of the Research Bulletin are already out of print. The special subscription at $1 per year offers an opportunity to maintain a complete file of future Research Bulletins. Those entitled to receive the Research Bulletin regularly are asked to report at once any change of residence, giving old as well as new address. Purchasing Copies Additional copies of this issue of the Research Bulletin may be obtained at the following prices, postpaid if remitt accompanies order: Single copies, 50c. 2 to 9 copies—10% reduction. 10 to 99 copies—25% reduction. 100 or more copies—334% reducti Orders for Research Bulletins not companied by remittance are subject transportation charges. Make checks pay able to National Education Association. Reproduction of Material in Research Bulletins Material appearing in the Resear Bulletin is copyrighted. However, L: partments and regularly afhliated organ zations of the National Education Ass ciation may reproduce parts of thes bulletins for the advancement of educatior These departments and organizations ne no authority other than this notice previou to such reproduction. In other cases app! cation for the release of materials is r¢ quired. Address communications to the Research Division, National Education As sociation, 1201 Sixteenth Street, N. W Washington, D. C. CONTENTS FORE WORD CuapTeR I—THE PROBLEM.... Cuaprer II—Review or Previous RESEARCH The Measurement of the Efforts of Local Communities To Support Education The Measurement of the Efforts of States To Support Education The Measurement of the Adequacy of the Educational Programs of Local Communities The Measurement of the Adequacy of the Educational Programs of States Summary wapTreR I[1I—TuHe ForMutas anp Basic Data lhe Formulas Effort Financial Adequacy Ps oa ch oc hk Rn tn keedaadieneieaee Effort Adequacy Cautions Regarding Use of Formulas ; Summary v Cuaprer [V—THeE Errorts oF THE STATES To Support EDUCATION. .2Q. &... BS BOER. ook keane vient oad Ook dan ees ee been ~ Ae Rg eS errr re x3 Differences in Effort Based on Chism’s and Newcomer’s Data... ............445: Summary CHapTeR V—THE ADEQUACY OF FINANCIAL SUPPORT PRovIDED EDU@ATION IN THI Adequacy Indexes Relative Only Comparison of Financial Adequacy with Other Measures of Adequacy Summary CuapreR VI—TuHe RELATION oF Errort, ADEQUACY, AND ABILITY Relation of Effort to Adequacy Using Chism’s Data Relation of Effort to Adequacy Using Newcomer’s Data Correlation between “Effort” and ‘Adequacy’ When Adequacy Is Calculated in Terms of Various Measures of Educational Load Relation of Effort to Ability Relation of Ability to Adequacy Graphic Presentation of “Effort,” “Adequacy,” and “Ability” Summary CHapTerR VII—Errorts REQUIRED OF THE STATES To Support A DEFENSIBLI TIONAL MinimMuUM PrRoGRAM Using Chism’s Data Using Newcomer’s Data Adequacy at Various Levels of Effort Summary Cuapren VIII—SumMary AND CONCLUSIONS...........cccccccccccccccescececs Summary Conclusions Implications APPENDIX BIBLIOGRAPHY Td ee ee dedseadeadcdtaeen 163 [ 103 ] FOREWORD OR MANY YEARS evidence has been available showing the tremendous dis parity in the ability of the states to support public education. In view of this situation the National Education Association has urged that the federal government should participate in the financing of public education. The Association has taken numerous steps looking toward bringing about such participation by the federal government. In 1926 it published Norton’s pioneer scientific investigation of the relative ability of the states to support education. The platform of the Association declares that “funds should be provided by the federal government to assist the states in making an adequate education available to every child and adult.” At its Denver convention in 1935 the Representative Assembly approved this resolution: ‘““The National Education Association reaffirms its stand that adequate federal aid should be made avail able to the states to the end that every child and unemployed youth should be enabled to enjoy his right to formal education, and to the end that adult edu tion may be financed, provided always that the expenditure of such funds and the shaping of educational policies shall be matters of state and local control.’ The present investigation, utilizing the most recent studies of the relativ: ability of the states, presents evidence as to the relative efforts of the states to support education and shows what the results of their effort have been terms of financial provisions for state educational programs. This bulletin effectively refutes the charge that the states where public education is inade quately financed are not exerting as much effort as other states. It shows that there are many more poor states than rich states exerting great effort to support education. It shows that almost the entire financial resources of some of the poor states would be required to provide a reasonable educational program, leaving nothing for the support of other governmental functions. This study, therefore, presents new evidence of the need for federal par ticipation in the financing of education. It is the first comprehensive study of the relationship of the three factors, “effort,’’ “adequacy,” and “ability,” as related to the financing of state school systems. It should be of service to students of school finance and of value to all those interested in having the federal government help to insure a reasonable educational opportunity to every child. This bulletin was prepared by Lyle W. Ashby, assistant director of the Division of Publications, with the assistance of members of the staff of the Division of Research. Wixiarp E, Givens, Executive Secretary, National Education Association. { 104 ] CHAPTER I The Problem lhe question of what part the federal gov- ernment should take in the financing of public education has received increasing attention in recent years. During the depression years the inability of many states and communities to support their schools adequately has been em- phasized more strongly than ever. The present study provides significant new data which will contribute to a solution of the problem of the relation of the federal government to educa- tion. lt is contended by some that there is no need for the participation of the federal gov- ernment in the financing of education; that each state is able if it is sufficiently interested, to support its own educational program. It has been proved, however, that the ability of the states to support education varies widely. Nor- ton’s pioneer investigation showed that in 1922 the state with the greatest ability to support its educational program was six times as able to do so as the state with least ability. Chism’s study of the relative tax resources of the states, published in 1936, reaffirms Norton’s findings. Newcomer’s study, published in 1935, shows an even greater disparity. Any assertion that the states are equally able to meet their educa- tional responsibilities is disproved by these studies. Nevertlieless, the argument still persists that the states which do not provide adequate finan- cial support for their schools are failing to exert sufficient effort to support them or that they are making less effort than the states where more adequate financing is provided the schools. Thus, according to an editorial in the New York Sun: Anybody can figure out for himself that the New England states have been willing to spend propor- tionately more of their aggregate wealth for educa- tion than the South Atlantic states have been willing to spend... . There might be some justification for federal financial support of schools if it could be shown that the people in those regions have already done their utmost for their own schools. But if their public authorities have preferred to spend relatively little for public education, whose fault is that? ... Many states have made heroic sacrifices in the upbuilding of their public schools; these would be the first to be called upon for additional money to ' Cited in an editorial in the Elementary School Journal 34 make up the arrearages in other states which, for have some whatever reason, sacrificed proportionately If children in illiteracy, who condemns them? ' less. States are condemned to Satisfactory evidence has not been available for either reafirming or denying the above point of view. Further research has been needed to provide a more scientific determination of the relative efforts the states have put forth in support of education, of the relative adequacy of financial support they have been able to pro- vide their schools with the efforts put forth, and all their schools with a reasonable degree of effort. Do the states which exert greatest effort to whether states can support support education receive in return the most adequate financial support for the schools their children attend? Or do the states which exert least effort to support education nevertheless receive in return for their small effort the most adequate financial support for the schools their children attend? Or is there no relationship between effort to support education and the adequacy of the support provided ? Any one of these three types of relationship is a possible answer. Do the states of most ability to support edu cation exert the greatest effort to do so? Or do the states of least ability to support education exert the greatest effort? Or is there no rela tionship between effort and ability ? Any one of these three types of relationship is also pos sible. Scientific information on these and related questions should be of value in connection with the problem of the proper relationship of the federal government to the financing of educa tion. The present study is also valuable in other ways. It provides information useful to educa- tional leaders and citizens who are interested in knowing (1) whether their state has exerted more or less effort to support schools relative to the efforts of the other states; (2) whether the effort their state put forth provided more or less adequate financial support for schools than is provided in other states; and (3) with- out regard to what other states did, whether their state tended between 1920 and 1932 to 241-45. December, 1933 [105 ] ng a Ea “effort” put forth and ” of support provided. improve or decline on “adequacy ‘The present investigation also presents data of use to those who are interested in the adop tion of better plans of state and local taxation. It effort to support education in terms of a uni- will show what states are exerting most form tax plan. States with poor systems of taxation find it more difficult to raise revenue than those with more efficient systems. If the poor states, for example, which put forth least effort in terms of a model tax plan have un desirable tax systems, this fact will be evidence of the need for improving their tax plans. The results will be of similar value in the case of wealthy states which exert but little effort in terms of a model tax plan and provide only inadequate support for their schools. The principal sources of data for this study are: (1) Chism’s study? of the relative tax re- sources of the states; (2) Newcomer's esti- of the ot states; (3) Mort’s study* of the measurement mate * relative tax resources the of the educational needs of the states; and (4) the Biennial Surveys of the United States Of- fice of Education, principally the section on the “Statistics of State School Systems.”’ The data of the present study as to the of the schools are superior to those previously used in adequacy financial support accorded comparing the states in that a more scientific measure of educational load than was hitherto available is utilized. This is Mort’s index for the State States ind Lo Leslie L. The Economic Ability a Plan of Taxation Based on the Model Plan oj States to Support Education. Teachers College of Publications, Teachers College, Columbia University New Mabel. An Index of the Taxpavying Teachers Columbia University, 1935. 85 p including data for 1920 as well as 1930 is included in 2 Chism 1935 omer {bility of College Columbia University, Contributions to Education No 169 p This monograph gives data for 1930 only. A revision of this the measurement of educational ne above. The technics utilized in the present st primarily statistical, analytical, and tive. These technics will be described used. This study deals only with the | mentioned as they pertain to expendity the current costs of public elementa secondary education. The word ‘edu will be defined as pertaining only branches of the educational system. Ea nate year from 1919-20 thru the year 1' 1s COV ered. The specific purposes of this study summarized as follows: (1) to ‘efforts’ of the states to finance | 2) meas ‘ relative education; ( to measure the relativ: quacy”’ of the financial support provided | education in the several states; (3) to d the relationship existing between the factors, “effort,” “adequacy,” and and (4) to discover the “efforts’’that w required of the states to support a re uniform program of financial support fo is lic education. In general, these are the steps into which the problem was broker to facilitate the investigation. Chapter |! views previous research. In Chapter II] formulas and the data for the measureme: “effort” and “adequacy” are presented. ( ters IV, V, VI, and VII deal with the problems listed above in the order ment The Ability of the Various States to Raise Tax Revenu al Taxation, with Special Reference to the Relative Al 669. New ¥ State and Local Governments. New York: Bureau of P New York: | Mort, Paul R. Federal Support for Public Education of Publications, Teachers College, Columbia University, 1936. p. 115-78 and 283-308. * Mort, Paul R An Basis for ord 3 11-110; November Objective the of Public Education.’’ 7 1934 Distribution Federal Support to Re [ 106 ] CHAPTER II Review of Previous Research [he present study is the first one devoted primarily to a consideration of the efforts of the states to support education as related to the adequacy of the financial public education in the several states. Con- siderable work has been done on the isolated problems of “effort” and ‘“‘adequacy” in local areas, however, and a few such studies have support accorded been made of states. The implications for this study of previous research on these problems in local and state areas will now be considered. This review as presented does not include all studies bearing on the problem. It is intended, however, to in- clude the more important studies and to omit none which would make an added contribution to the discussion. Measurement of the Efforts of Local Communities To Support Education Effort has long been recognized as a factor in the apportionment of state school funds. As early as 1874 Massachusetts passed legislation denying aid to the wealthiest districts.’ Cubberley recognized the effort factor as essential in any method of apportioning state school funds. His theory was that the effort of a community could be measured thru the tax rate on property.” This fundamental concept is still in use in presentday state educational equalization programs. A number of the early state school surveys discussed the problem of measuring the efforts of communities to support education.* They followed the same general pattern Cubberley had suggested earlier. Perhaps Updegraff laid more stress on the effort factor than any other writer in order to support his payment-for-effort theory. He sity, 1926. p. 4. * Cubberley, Ellwood P. School Funds and Their Apportionment. New York: Teachers College 213 8 Examples are: Pritchett. Henry S. Report of the Vermont. Brattleboro, Vermont: Vermont Printing Co., 1914 Education in Maryland. New York: General Education Board ‘ Updegraff, Harlan. Commission to Investigate the Educational System 1916. p “Constructive Criticism of Proposed Plans for Distribution of State Moneys to Local Schoo held that the effort of a community to support education could be measured “‘by its tax rate based upon the valuation of its taxable prop- erty for school purposes, at 100 percent of its value or at its true value.” * Strayer and Haig in 1923 suggested taxable income plus one-tenth the full value of real estate as a measure of economic ability instead of taxable property alone.* Theoretically, the calculation of effort, upon the basis of such a measure of ability, would have been a step beyond the Cubberley approach. However, in the series of other studies under the auspices of the which Strayer directed, a uniform tax rate on the full educational finance inquiry, value of property was utilized as a measure of effort.°® Mort, in his studies on state school finance, has used the value of taxable property as a measure of the ability of a community to sup- port education. Equalization of burden obvi- ously requires a measure of effort. According to Mort, “no substitute has as yet been developed for the assessment of property as a measure of ability to pay.” * If one accepts this, one must also accept the statement that there is no better measure of the efforts of local communities within a given state to support public education than the tax rate on equalized assessments of property. However, this is not a true measure of effort from the point of view of the community’s total economic ability. It measures effort only in terms of a faulty tax system and fails to take into consideration certain other factors which should be included in a theoretically correct formula. Mort’s defense of this measure for local com- . . the district is “cc munities is as follows: 1 Mort, Paul R. State Support for Public Schools. New York: Bureau of Publications, Teachers College, Columbia Univer- 1905 Columbia University ind Conditions of © Flexner, Abraham, and Bachman, Frank P. Public 152-54 145-46 Districts.” Tenth Annual Schoolmen’s Week Proceedings, 1923. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1923. p. 102 ° Strayer, George D., and Haig, Robert M. The Financing of Education in the Co., 1923. p. 172. F bs Reeves, Floyd W. The Political Unit of Public School Finance in Illinois Morrison, H. C. The Financing of Public Schools in the State of Illinois. New York The Financing of Education in lowa William F.; Holy, Thomas C.: p. 142 7 Mort, Paul R and Stone, Raleigh W State Support for Public Education Washington, D. C State of New Vork. New York: Macmillan New York: Macmillan Co., 1924 72-73. Macmillan Co., 1924. p. 52. © Russell, New York: Macmillan Co 1925. American Council on Education. 193 I 135 [ 107 ] without make state action. [he power to adjust the tax sys- limited in the changes it can tem, theretore, lies with the state government and the true criterion of the relative ability of local communities to pay for education is the ability to pay under the taxing system estab- lished by the state rather than the ability to pay under an ideal taxing system.’ Actual practise bears out Mort’s contention that no substitute has been discovered for the tax rate on equalized assessments of property as a measure of effort. Maguire, in his study of trends and equalization practises, found the frequency with which various factors have been included in the equalization plans of all the states from the beginning of the practise to the present. He discovered that “the most common provision of equalization laws is the require- ment that the local unit levy a specified tax rate on property.” * He found no other measure of effort being used; nor does he relate the find- ing of any attempts to refine this measure. The Measurement of the Efforts of States To Support Education As early as 1905 William T. Harris, then United Education, recognized the great differences in effort re- States Commissioner of quired of the states to support education. In an address that year before the National Edu- cation Association he said: he less received from taxation at a given rate for public expenses—say, school expenditure—the more the individual must pay from his own earn- ings; that is to say, if he is to expend an equal with a census division that greater amount of assessable wealth Hence, if the inhabitants of the South Atlantic and South Central Divisions, possessing less than one- half of the amount of assessable wealth per capita, are to continue their schools for the same length as the school session in the North Atlantic Division, and if they are to pay as high salaries as in that division, a very large sum would have to be made up from the annual earnings of the individuals, or else a rate of taxation nearly double that in the North Atlantic Division must be adopted. But the individual earnings in that section, as it appears, amount possesses a per capita. * Ibid. p, 129-30 Maguire, Samuel H George Peabody College for Teachers, 1934. p. 106 Harris, Wiiliam T Localities."’ Proceedings 1905. Washington, D. C Trends in Principles and Practises of Equalization of Educational Opportunity are less than one-half those in the North Division, and any tax paid by the indivi schooling is to the average citizen of the far greater burden than in the northern con As a measure of effort, Commissioner | presented data showing by states the ey ture for public schools on each $100 valuation of all real and personal propert the year 1903 he found the extreme effort based on this measure to be 3.4 to A few state school surveys '* have deal: this problem to a limited extent but on significant study of the efforts of all the in support of public education has been Norton devoted a section of his study ability of the states to support education 1 problem.'* Norton defined effort as “‘the percent the state’s economic power annually di His definition of a state for a given year w to education.” of “eco power” income of the state plus one-tenth of its w: Whereas Norton found that the richest was 6.11 times as able to support educat the poorest state, he found that the state ting forth the greatest effort in support of cation was putting forth only 2.94 tin much effort as the state putting forth th effort. He reached the conclusion “that given period different states tend to allot lar percentages of their economic powe! school support whether they possess a relat large or small number of units of econ power behind each child to be educated.’ Thus, he found no significant relatior between the efforts the states put forth in port of education and the amount of we and income they possessed per child. The Measurement of the Adequacy the Educational Programs of Lox Communities The adequacy of local school programs been most frequently measured in terms financial support. Many studies of this have been made. The Biennial Surveys « + Nashville “Some of the Conditions Which Cause Variation in the Rate of School Expenditures in Dif the National Education Association. p. 203. [hid. p. 205-7 '? Examples are: General Education Board. Public Education in Kentucky. New York: General Education Board p. 202. Pittenger, B. F., and Works, George A. Texas Educational Survey Report, Vol. II: ‘Financial Support A Texas: Texas Educational Survey Commission, 1925. p. 23 *Norton, John K. The Ability of the States to Support Education. Washington, D. C.: National Education Ass 48-55 4 Shid p. 55 1926. p { 108 ] ted States ( )ffice ot Education prov ide data Nearly and city school survey has also utilized 1s Mature every two years. ever) procedure. Such studies have been n.ade in s of various measures of educational load as enrolment, average daily attendance, population of school age. n a few cases, attempts have been made measure the adequacy of educational sup educational in terms of the quality of the cram. Reeves,'® for example, utilized such tors as length of school term, qualifications teachers, number of days each pupil at nded school, and the percent of pupils en ed in high school. Frasier developed an index of the quality city’s educational program which he recog but which he felt did that 1 as unsatisfactory tain “those measurable factors are ciated with and are the necessary corollary efficient education.” '® The factors were: The percent of sixteen- and seventeen-year-old iren in school ?. The percent of elementary classes having fewer han forty children enrolled he percent of children who have sixty square t or more of playground space +. The percent of teachers who have six or mort rs training above the eighth grade The percent 100! all day and in adequate buildings owned by 5 of children enrolled who attend city The percent of the increased m 1913-14 to 1919-20 that ilaries for elementary women teachers.” of increased cost living was met by In the recent New Jersey school survey a tudy was made of “the efficiency and the effec veness of the services provided in the public This inalysis showed that with regard to every majo schools on three expenditure levels.” '* ervice a school should provide, the schools at the lower expenditure levels furnish services distinctly inferior to the schools at the median he expenditure level, while the schools on t nedian level provide these services much less satisfactorily than those at the highest expendi ture levels. A similar study was made as a part 15 Reeves, Floyd W. The Political Unit of Public School Finance Finances 4 Frasier, George Willard. The Control of City School 17 [hid. p. 68-69 ® Mort. Paul R. Report of the G pport in the State of New Jersey.’’ Trenton 1 Mort, Paul R. The Financing of the Public Schools hvols. Augusta, Maine: The Maine State School Finance Cor Schoe School vernor s Number for Ranking State of An Index “Educational ” Ayres, Leonard P t Phillins. Frank M December, 1924. St the Survey ( Governor’s School Survey Commission M mission Sy } Maine essential conclusions were derived. of the S from which the urvey +} rit hese studies tend to validate +t quit educational pr e generally accepted that the quality ( ogram in a local community is, in general, related to the level of expenditure in support of it The Measurement of the Adequacy of the Educational Programs of States Study in this area has been devoted the level of financial support provided the educational results achieved. Comparati financial figures have been used most fre quently. The Biennial Surveys of the United States Office of Education provide comparative financial data for state school systems every two years. Ayres was the first t the » attempt of the school systems. His original study objectively efficiency L91lZ peen Is in not widely known but his 1920 study has The ten sets of statistical data oT much used. } he used come under the two main headings linance, he \y iS index because of certain weaknesses which, for |) attendance and enrolment and Ss Considerable criticism was leveled at t the most part, Ayres himself had recognized 1924 Phillips ° cisms of the Ayres index and made two impor In summarized the criti tant adaptations of them: (1) the financial rea ed de purchasing power of the dollar; and (2) items were revised to allow for the the states were classified into urban, mixed, and rural types to make possible comparison of ranks among states of similar population chat acteristics. Phillips also reduced the number of general financial items from five to two, sub } ) teacl stituting statistics concerning illiteracy, ers’ salaries, and teacher training. Norton the made by the states for education and also meas measured financial provisions ured the efficiency of the state school systems. For the latter purpose he used these criteria: The average number of days schools were kept open 922 in 192 New York: Macmillan Companys Wisconsin: Bruce Publishing C in Illinoss Milwaukee Vol. Il Reconstruction the 1933. p. 76-112 Report of a Survey of State and Lo 1934. p. 64-97 New York: Russell Sage Foundation Method School Board ommission ol aine tems. yy Two American 2. Average number of days attended by each child enrolled in 1922 3. Percent of attendance in high school in 1922 4. Percent of teachers normal graduates around 1922 5. Average number of years of school life on the basis of a 180-day year In 1932 the Research Division of the Na- tional Education Association ranked the states on each of five factors indicative of state school eficiency. No attempt was made to combine them into a single rating. The factors selected were: 1. The children reached by the services of the schools pr oportion of 2. The holding power of the schools 3. The quality of teaching provided 4. The material school environment 5. Percent of literacy.” Summary The foregoing summary of research on the problems of “eftort’’ and ‘‘adequacy” is by no means complete. An attempt has been made, however, to present selected studies which it is believed represent all of the significant meth ods of approach that have been utilized. = Norton, John K. The Ability of the States to 1926. p. 45 * National Education Association, Research Division May, 1932. Washington, D. C.: the Association Support Education Since Cubberley measured effort by tax rates in 1905, there have been m tially new developments so far as the pertains to local areas. Mort justifies uniform tax rates on | as a measure of effort on the ground tl method measures effort under the tax imposed upon local communities by the That complete equalization of burden be achieved until ability in other forn property has been measured, however, nized by students of the problem. Norton measured the efforts of the st the percent that educational expenditurs of a state’s economic power defining th as taxable income plus one-tenth the ful! of real estate. The measurement of the adequacy of cial support accorded the schools in loca has been measured (1) by the expenditu various measures of educational load, and by factors indicative of the quality of th cational program provided. Both of these methods have also been in measuring the adequacy of financial su accorded to state school systems. Washington, D. C.: National Education A Estimating State School Efficiency.”’ Research Bulletin [110] CHAPTER III The Formulas and Basic Data he first section of this chapter will present formulas to be used in the measurement of effort” and “adequacy” and describe how they were developed. The second main section will present the data of and ‘“‘adequacy”’ accordance with used in the calculation “effort” in formulas presented. The Formulas Effort [he effort of a state to support education may be defined, in general, as the extent to which a state exerts itself toward that end in terms of its financial ability. There are many complicating factors which make precise meas urement of the efforts of the states exceedingly dificult, if not impossible. However, it is be- lieved that the use of the formula for the meas- urement of effort developed in this study pro- vides a better measure of the relative eftorts of the states to support education than has hitherto been available. Since a state spends for education out of such fiscal resources as it has, two basic factors enter into a formula for the measurement of the efforts of the states to support education: (1) the amount a state spends for education, and 2) the resources from which it has to spend. This may be expressed by the simple formula: The Effori of a State To Support Edu- cation Amount Spent for Education Financial Resources The Expenditure Figure Several different possibilities were considered in determining what data to use in the numera- tor of the fraction: 1. Receipts from taxation and appropriation —This amount is the total sum of money avail- able to the schools from taxation plus money that may be appropriated from other sources. Practically all of these receipts are from taxa tion in one form or another. Such revenues in- clude only funds raised by the states them- selves and, in a study of effort, such a figure is desirable. But there are certain objections to its use. First, receipts from taxation and ap- propriation do not indicate accurately the amount of money that actually goes to provide 1 Over a long period of years there would probably be a educational opportunities in a given year since some part of these tunds are used either as direct capital outlay or for the payment ot debts and interest. Second, current expenditures provide a better basis of comparison between school systems than do capital outlay and _ other charges. This fact is shown by the wide fluctua tion of index figures for current expenses and capital outlay among the states as indicated in Table 1.'! Third, the basic measure of educa tional need used in certain sections of this study was developed on the basis of current expendi tures. first be Over a period of several decades the of the largely removed. Since the bulk of school reve- two foregoing objections would nues come from taxation, expenditures would necessarily be approximately equal to revenue from taxation and appropriation. In the last years covered by the present study, however, with the onslaught of the depression, many states were forced to borrow large amounts in order to operate their schools. The result was that in some cases the expenditure figure was considerably higher than the amount received from taxation and appropriation. ‘The effort in these cases was represented better by the former figure because, while the state which borrowed money was not that year taxing itself to the extent of its expenditures, it was, nevertheless, obligating itself to pay at a future date the difference between the two figures. Thus, it was decided that, particularly with reference to the year 1932, a better measure than receipts from taxation and appropriation should be sought. Total expenditures—This figure was con es It would include expenditures for capital out sidered unsatisfactory for these reasons: lay and debt service which is undesirable for the purpose of this study as explained above; (2) a small fraction of the total expenditures of the states such as represented by revenue from the federal government and from sub sidies is available to the states without effort on their part as states; (3) since this study covers a period of years, the use of total ex- penditures would involve a certain amount of double counting of expenditures in that money fairly constant relationship between capital outlay and irrent expenses but over a short period of years there is a wide fluctuation [111] realized from bond issues is listed once when the money is expended for capital outlay and a few vears later it is listed again under debt service when the bonds are being retired ; and 4+) the measure of educational need utilized in this study is applicable only to current ex penditures. 3. Total expenditures for current expenses his possibility was discarded because as stated above, a small fraction of the money so expended was available to the states without effort on the part of the states as states. It was necessary to eliminate such funds as far as possible if current expenditures were chosen to represent the efforts of the states. This led to consideration of the next possibility. According to a letter from Emery M. Foster, chief, 1934 as I can see those states.’ The explanation of this by Mr. Foster was that as hool vear covers schools, roads, water-works, et nty treasurer's office and TABLE SELECTED ALPHABETICALLY 1926 4, Total expenditures for current ex exclusive of interest, plus the cost of t) department of education, less the amount aforementioned expenditures received f1 federal government and from subsidi¢ figure was finally decided upon. The item is not included in the expenditu utilized in this study for two reasons There are a number of states for whi plete information on this item is | Hence, the omission of this item was mar since if the data were not available f states they could not be included for ar The bulk of interest charges does not r the provision of educational opportunit given year as explained above. The inte short-time loans is the only part of the Division of Statistics, U. S. Office of Education, dated N with regard to the states where this information does not appear in the Biennial Survey: ‘“There is no possible w for you to obtain figures for these states unless you were to get in touch with every city and county “there are several states in which there is legally n bonds or interest on school bonds since all bonds are issued by the city, or county, and a single issue for a The only possible way to separate the schools in this set-up is to go by going over the records, find out the amount in the original city issue which was asked ses and then apply this percentage to all future interest and bond payments on this issue.” 1—COMPARISON OF INDEXES OF EXPENDITURES FOR CURR! EXPENSES AND CAPITAL OUTLAYS 1926 TO 1932 OF EVERY THIRD 100 State Alabama urrent expenses ‘apital outlay “urrent expenses ‘apital outlay “urrent expenses apital outlay urrent expenses ‘apital outlay Caliornia Delaware “‘urrent expenses apital outlay “urrent expenses “apital outlay urrent expenses “apital outlay urrent expenses ‘apital outlay “urrent expenses “apital outlay “urrent expenses apital outlay “‘urrent expenses “apital outlay “urrent expenses ‘apital outlay urrent expenses ‘apital outlay urrent expenses ‘apital outlay urrent expenses “apital outlay “urrent expenses ‘apital outlay Louisiana Massachusetts Mississippi Nebraska New Jersey North Carolina Oklahoma Tennessee Vermont West Virginia ArmA RAAF AAAA AA AFA AA AAA AAFAAAAAAAASA Read table thus years are shown by the index numbers. only 103.1 percent as much for capital outlay. The amount expended in 1926 is given the value of 100 Thus Alabama spent 120.4 percent as much for current expenses in 1928 as 1926 1928 1930 100 120.4 134.2 | 100 103.1 90.7 100 115.9 126.4 100 80.7 62.7 100 104.3 123.3 100 34.0 193.1 100 107.3 113.4 | 100 172.7 159.9 100 91.8 92.4 100 48.5 59.1 100 112.4 117.4 100 97.8 77.1 100 115.1 120.6 1 100 79.4 75.7 100 135.6 134.9 100 252.3 176.9 100 103.8 106.9 1 100 43.9 37.1 100 115.8 130.7 100 100.6 108.1 100 109.2 118.3 100 107.9 57.2 100 101.0 126.4 100 100.9 116.2 100 115.8 129.5 100 115.8 89.7 100 110.1 120.7 100 128.5 52.7 100 103.8 115.0 1 100 187.3 221.8 100 105.7 118.8 100 77.3 55.9 The relative amounts expended for [112] STA i - 9 a it could be so considered and it is so fraction of the total expenditure that r caused by failure to so consider it is Cc. | total cost of the state department of on is included because the money a state nent spends for the supervision and im- ent of education thru its state depart- f education represents effort just as much money spent directly upon schools. Altho the activities of state departments of mn have to do with public elementary ondary education, the bulk of their work ncerned with these phases of the state’s itional program.* Since there is no satis factory method of determining the percent of total cost of state departments that could htfully be charged to other than the public ition phases of their work, it seems better lude the entire amount than to omit the re amount. Receipts from subsidies of educational foun- ns and the federal rly do not represent effort on the part of from government states, as states, and were, therefore, de- icted from the expenditure figure utilized in measuring effort. lt is debatable whether revenue from perma- nent funds and the lease of lands should be ncluded in the expenditures of the states for education in a study of effort. The range among the states in percent of receipts for education from this source is from zero to approximately 5 percent, depending upon the year of the study under consideration. If expenditures, without regard to the source of the revenue, ire used in measuring effort, states with rela- tively high returns from permanent funds will yppear to be making greater effort than if the revenue from permanent funds is deducted from the expenditure figure utilized in measuring effort. lhe problem is complicated by the fact that the derivation of “permanent funds” in the several states is exceedingly varied. Many of the states, at some time in their history, were nted school lands by the federal govern- ent. In some cases and in varying degrees, This is clearly indicated in the following study: National Education Association, Research Division Administration No. 9 t Departments of Education.’’ Studies in State S« hool See. for example, Indiana section of: Research Division ton. D. C.: the Association, November, 1934 For these years see: Mort, Paul R. State Support for Publi p. 289. 203 National Education Association however, these lands have been sold and the I receipts placed in permanent school funds. In otner Case@s, the state has used the principal of such Tunds ane made itself a permanent debtor the schools of the state, which means that revenue derived from such sources now efttort on t repre still ie part of the state. In sents other caves, at least a part of the principal of permanent funds comes from such sources as fines and licenses.* “These funds obviously are taken from the state’s own economic resources and, therefore, may be said to represent effort on the part of the state. ‘The decision finally reached with regard to revenue trom permanent funds and school lands was to include revenue from this source in the expenditure figure used in the basic calcula tions. Appendix I shows the effect that deduc tion of these revenues has upon the relative ettorts of the states to support education and indicates the maximum possible difference this factor could cause. One item not discussed above is the expendi ture of state governments for teachers’ pensions and annuities. Data are not readily available for any of the years the present study covers 1925 and 1930.° On the basis of the data for these two years, estimates could be except made for the other years of the study. But since there would be considerable question about the accuracy of such figures and since the total amount of expenditures for this item is an ex tremely small percent of the total, it was felt that there would not be sufficient gain to war rant inclusion of expenditures for this item. Thus, for the numerator of the formula pre viously mentioned, it was decided to use the figure arrived at for each state by taking the expenditure of the state for current costs of public education, exclusive of interest, plus the cost of the state department of education, less revenues from the federal government and from subsidies. In keeping with the purposes of the present study, it will be noted that this preposal does not credit the states with expenditures for pri- vate and parochial schools. Section II of the Appendix, however, shows the effect that the Staffs and Salaries Washington, D. C.: the Association, Marck School Finance Systems Series 1 Education. Washington, D. C.: American Council on Education [ 113 ] inclusion of such expenditures would have upon the relative efforts of the states to support edu cation. The Financial Resources Figure With regard to the denominater of the frac tion, in the effort formula proposed, sev- eral possibilities were available. ‘he pioneer study in the area of the relative ability of the states to support education was by Norton.‘ It was based on data from the year 1922. Since Norton’s study covered only this one year at the beginning of the period included in the present study, and since more recent studies are now available, it was decided not to use his data on the ability of the states. Two recent studies provide significant data as to the ability of the states to raise tax reve- nue for the support of education. These studies are by Chism* and Newcomer.* While both attempt to measure the taxpaying ability of the states, their objectives are not identical. Chism’s purpose was to measure the relative tax resources of the states which would result from the application of the Second Model ‘Tax Plan of the National Tax Association.’ His study estimates what the relative tax resources of the states would have been from 1922 thru 1932 if the Second Model Tax Plan had been in operation. While Newcomer also assumed a unitorm tax in all the states and employed a tax struc- ture similar in many respects to that employed by Chism, the rates applied were different. Her study also took account of certain tax resources specially benefiting some of the states; tax re- sources depending to a large extent on wealth or economic activities outside these states. Thus, more closely approximates the actual tax re- Newcomer’s measure of tax resources sources of the states under present tax condi tions than does Chism’s. * Norton, John K. The Ability of the States ti 19276. 8&8 Pp 7 Chism, Leslie L. The Economic Ability of the States Support Education The Perhaps the most effective way to | the difference in objectives and result two studies is to cite a specific illust is well known that the state of Ds ceives much revenue from business actually located in other states but in in Delaware because of the advantag: of the Delaware incorporation law. The tax structure used by Chism d clude a tax which credited Delawar He allotted revenue that Delaware could have ra revenue. to Delaware the tax system based on the Second M Plan. Newcomer, on the other hand, to crediting Delaware with tax reve: a number of taxes similar to thos Chism also included revenue from in tion taxes because this state, among was in a position to realize revenue fro From these two different approach¢ not to be expected that the results of studies would correlate perfectly.'® ‘J efficient of correlation for 1930 was the special factors mentioned above wer nated and only the basic plan of eac! used, the coefficient of correlation w: higher still. In addition to calculating total relat resources of the states, Chism also show much of these tax resources should, a to his method, be available for education. the customary practise of the states as t] criterion, he found that the average per actual tax collections allotted to educat the states, over a period of years, was percent. He then assumed that the san cent of the total relative tax resources states, as he calculated them, should be to education. Thus his “tax resources fo: cation” could have been used in the study rather than “total relative tax reso However, inasmuch as the relative posit Washington, D. C.: National Educati \ Ability of the Various States to Raise Tax Revenu Plan of Taxation Based on the Model Plan of State and Local Taxation, with Special Reference to the Relative Al States to Support Education of Publications, Teachers College, 1936. 169 p. * Newcomer, Mabel. An Imdex of the Taxpaying cations, Teachers College, Columbia University, 1935. 85 p including data for 1920 as well as 1930 is included in f Publications, Teachers College, Columbia University, 1936 ibility of the State and Local Governments. New York This monograph gives data for 1930 only. A revision of this Mort, Paul R. Federal Support for Public Education. New York: | p. 115-78 and 283-308. Teachers College, Columbia University, Contributions to Education, No. 669. New York Burea ’ National Tax Association. Second Report on a Plan of a Model System of State and Local Taxation. 1933. 68 Mort, Paul R. Federal Support for Public Education University, 1936. p. 303 New York: Bureau of Publications, Teachers College. ( See Table 5 of this bulletin for specific taxes used in each plan and their relative weightings [ 114 ] tates 1s identical in both cases and since the the tax resources Chism decided should otted to education involves certain as tions regarding which there is difterence nion, it was decided to use “‘total relative tax resources” in this study. It was decided that both the Chism and the New rudy. Lherefore, calculations will be omer data should be used in the present made ising the results of both of these studies as the lenominator in the effort formula mentioned tbove. The difference in objectives of these two studies should be kept clearly in mind."! We may now restate the general formula for the measurement of the efforts of the states to support education in the specific terms finally \ decided upon. The formula is x — where Zz the effort of a state to provide financial sup- port for education the current expenses of the state for educa- tion, exclusive of interest, plus the cost of the state department of education, less revenue from the federal government and from sub- sidies the relative tax resources of the state (a) as calculated by Chism and (b) as calculated by Newcomer. Certain recognized limitations in the effort formula proposed are discussed briefly in Ap- pendix IIT. Financial Adequacy The first problem was to develop or select a measure of the financial adequacy of the edu- cational programs of the states best suited to the present study. As was pointed out in Chap- ter Il, adequacy of the educational programs of local communities and of states has been measured both by the level of the financial sup- port per unit of educational load and by cer- tain qualitative and quantitative measures of the educational program itself. However, satis- factory measures of many qualitative and quan- titative aspects of a state’s educational program have not yet been developed. Therefore, while a financial measure of adequacy is admittedly imperfect, it is at least as satisfactory as any measure now available and it has the added advantage of being an objective measure easily understood by layman as well as educator. A financial measure of adequacy was therefore selected. ‘| For a more detailed comparison of these two studies see Mort, Paul R. Federal Support for Public Education Bureau of Publications, Teachers College, Columbia University, 1936. p Hence, a measure of the adequacy of tl Lit cational programs of the states may ve pressed by the formula: R« lative Ade- , Amount Expended for Education quacy of Finan cial Support Units of Educational Load For the numerator of the right-hand mem ber ot the equation, the same expenditure figure as that used in the measurement ot eftort will be used tor these reasons: (1) It was deemed best to measure adequacy of financial support only in terms of funds which the states had raised by their own efforts. The expenditure figure utilized in the measurement ot eftort ex cludes all other revenue, except the debatable item ot revenue from permanent tunds. (2) It ippeared desirable to use the same data in the measurement of both “effort’’ and ‘“‘adequacy”’ inasmuch as the determination of the relation ship of the states to one another on the basis of these two factors is one of the purposes of the present study. A further problem was to decide what meas- ure of educational load should be used to con vert the expenditure figures of the various states to a comparable basis. This is the figure to be used in the denominator of tbe right-hand member of the equation for adequacy given above. The following measures of educational load were considered for use: (1) average daily attendance in public schools; (2) popu lation of school age five to seventeen years of age; (3) Mort’s index for the measurement of educational need applied to average daily at tendance. The basic measure of educational load de- cided upon was the third alternative, i.e., the number of units of educational need as deter- mined by the use of the index Mort has pro- vided. This measure was chosen because it is a more scientific measure than the others inas- much as it takes into account such factors as sparsity of population and cost of living. However, for the purpose of comparison and for those who may prefer to use them, adequacy of financial support was also measured in terms of average daily attendance and number of children five to seventeen years of age. Com- parisons of the relative adequacy of financial support by the use of these two measures of educational load with the basic measure utilized are presented in Appendix IV. New York 303-05 [115] The Basic Data Effort According to the effort formula alr sented, two sets of data are required. is the expenditure figure. ) Ss Table by which the expenditure figure f hows step by step the eady pre was derived in accordance with the The first tioned plan. The amount listed in Table 2 for any given state is the TABLE 2.—EXPENDITURES OF THE STATES FOR CURRENT EXPENS PUBLIC EDUCATION LESS SELVES, 1929-30 FUNDS NOT RAISED BY THE STATES Revenue received from Cost of state Cur State Current expenses departments of (Col Federal aid Subsidies education and 4 1 2 3 4 5 ( ental U. S $1. 834,507 , 895 $7 333,834 $844,084 $7,840,859 $] sJabama 17,652,225 137,938 75,939 196 , 393 icheone g 2290 54 39, 301 60 , 887 Ark 11,101,551 99,122 56.91? R6 R323 Cal ia 121.136,633 186,878 7,500 203 , 394 ( rad 1,125,901 36,787 32 008 Connecticut - 8. 155,339 76,750 339,39 D ware 3 448,498 30,879 53. 028 I la 13,516,229 160,382 53,540 113.065 Georgia 17,166, 35¢ 167,113 30,797 259.413 Ida 8,553,928 21, 833 41,746 Hiinois 123,430,692 713,552 08 , 839 Indiana 54,666 ,666 210,335 107.514 “poe 44. 692,503 176,372 104 633 Kansas 33. 857,92 86.045 174.331 Kentucky 0) 009.576 163.135 37,339 103 .626 | siana 16,847, 280 88,099 47,358 131.613 Maine 9 647,509 61,840 61.365 Maryland 18,880,053 79,632 9,280 313,080 M :chusetts 74,034,720 219,598 176,493 Michigan 06 . 968 . 550 137,347 195,322 Minnesota 46.771,102 155.397 125.617 Mississipp! 15,757,723 133,392 90,921 95 ,760 Missouri 40,513,185 236,430 12,103 86 484 Montana 11,557, 838 53,498 51.644 Nebraska »4,123, 984 184,315 85,359 Nevada ? 039 ,602 24,2993 56.810 New Hampshire 6,119,532 21,832 60.449 New Jersey 82,801,149 172,675 252,426 New Mexico 5. 884,701 41,453 38,577 New York 56,705, 491 567 , 802 1,789,533 North Carolina 28 , 830,362 195 , 849 120,909 176,263 rth Dakota 14,794,184 25,470 60 601 Ohio 109, 213,169 573,900 188.391 , Oklahoma 30, 780,341 94,836 65.566 148 321 Oregon 16,030,009 41,790 44.517 Pennsylvama 145,861,417 697 343 535 620 14 Rhode Island 9,821,214 32,811 42,781 South Carolina 13,933,522 97,478 121,078 53,144 South Dakota 13,219,921 33,381 39,100 Tennessee 20,560,079 175,453 35,317 64,451 Texas 58,597 ,695 291,409 154,307 58.4 Utah 9.052.640 35,465 59 632 Vermont 4,883,970 15,640 35,593 { Virginia 20 026 , 944 154,903 72,525 184,782 19 Washington 27,976,728 89,985 73,027 ) West Virginia 25,265,495 99 , 867 7,000 153,821 Wisconsin 44,566,798 175,000 186,820 44 Wyoming 6,137,422 18,529 33,963 The data in Columns 2, 3 and 4 are fr the “State School Systems” section of the Biennial Survey of the Off tion for 1929-30. The data in Column 5 are from Financial Statistics of States for 1930 published by the Bureau [ 116 ] that state raised for the Current expenses tere om permanent funds. Similar tables are sented for other years since the process ecisely the same with one exception. In rs except 1929-30 and 1931-32. the in- TABLE 3.—-EXPENDITURE DATA DERIVED FOR THE “EFFORT” AND “ADEQUACY”: tion thru its own effort including reve sepa st item had to be deducted since it was not (In thousands of dollars) The expenditure figures derived ered in this study +} rated trom total current expenses in the Biennial Survey reports for those years by similar calculations for the other biennial periods coy are presented in Table 3 MEASUREMENT OF 4 1925-26 5 581 $1.530.736 g 13. 19¢ 40 6.499 g 10. 486 O54 oS R1 OR6 19.359 694 »3 §4?2 57¢ > R50 SO 13.556 16 15.153 $1 sso R4 101,903 58 47.803 04 48 350 465 31.040 439 15.617 435 14,381 322 8, 816 583 14.791 016 61.335 91 6,545 371 42,492 525 11.605 R23 39 820 673 10,419 O86 22.551 700 1,830 165 5.659 886 63,360 201 4,607 1R5 187.356 736 24,406 366 12,779 228 91,230 977 24,315 432 14,230 473 127.474 792 7.575 537 11.838 670 12. 353 966 16,957 R15 50.837 499 906 054 4. 206 346 17,197 726 24,574 781 21,347 160 37.90? 966 5,298 for 1931-32 1927-28 1929-30 1931-32 6 7 ‘ $1,696,820 $1.834 171 Si Ro 15,825 1 635 1 ROE 7,234 8311 s 0 11,015 11,03? ys 110,817 121,146 124 $4 0,977 1,121 O.14¢ 25.946 8 418 10 023 2,944 3,471 0 19.556 13.415 1 ‘ 16,186 1 228 | 425 R ORS & 574 RI¢ 112.353 122.926 16.613 56,176 54.564 | & 44,361 44.621 10.901 37,832 33.946 ) R4 18,291 19.913 1R OR4 16,027 16,843 9.573 9 647 QO gs 17,044 19.104 19 ; 70,599 73.992 + 2 86.057 97 ,026 8 468 44,865 46,241 15.479 15,726 15.629 18 64¢ 39 597 40,351 42.029 10,935 11.556 10 »? 23,435 4.025 2,550 2.017 » 071 os 5.874 6,158 6.45 73,430 82,881 87.538 4.637 5 882 6.01 225,048 257.927 74,299 26,562 28.690 5.147 13,423 14,829 12,128 101,370 108,828 98 463 24,515 30,768 178 15,554 16,033 15.028 134,888 145,700 149 625 8,754 9 831 10.432 12,989 13.768 0, 867 12,615 13,226 R90 18.656 0). 414 19. 561 49 010 58 461 60.614 8.606 9.0 & i8 4.423 4.904 4.43 18,363 19.9R4 19.9] 26.522 7 . 960 6.639 2? $35 SS 3] 3.453 39, 9R7 44.579 44.17¢ 5 588 6.153 48 State 1919-20 1921-22 1923-2 1 2 3 4 i * $862,429 $1 3 85 $1.369 730 10.462 11 4,824 5.196 ( 5 861 634 Rg 39 719 63.19? 10,182 15.628 18 13.82? 18.545 ) 1.51? > 317 r 5.589 7.642 x & 207 11.55? 1 6,186 7,771 58.162 79.821 1 28 36 50_ORS 4 . 31.210 37.069 4 >? 599 28.312 0 7,120 12,579 14 & 940 12,789 13 { 5 R68 7.780 ~ Marvland 7.793 12.010 13 M setts 38 045 51.808 52 Mi t 37, 806 51,882 62 28.392 39.02? 43 4.384 R 553 & { 22.874 32,394 34 1 9,749 10, 966 9 17.754 25.969 20 1.170 1.547 1 I shire 3.624 4.565 5 Jersey 32, 883 46.121 54 w Mexic 3,393 4.055 4 ' rk 95. 22¢ 152,381 173 \ Carolina 9.762 16,061 19 N Dakota 10.770 13.233 14 54.419 79.378 2 k ma 17,423 23,217 5 934 11,851 12 Pennsylvania 65.796 92,251 111 Rhode Island 4.394 6.104 6 S Carolina 5.297 7.620 9 ~ Dakota 8.538 10,994 1 « I essee 8,510 12,049 13 26, 906 43,141 40 - - 5.939 7.162 3.618 4.248 4 10.139 15.240 1¢ ngeton 18,533 22,087 22 rginia 10,081 16, 296 18 nsin ; 22,464 32.722 3 ng ‘ 3,116 3,984 4 \ll expenditure figures derived by the process shown in Table ; 2073 | hese idequacy data are used In as well as *" the *ttort The other data required t effort 1 s that representing tates to support education. Lined two recent studies by ner providing dat 1 of this TABLE 4.—THE in + he the Cals \s prey iousl\ ex Chism and New tvpe t VW Isca in the present study. heir dat Table 4. in i Certain differences in the object two studies were presented earlie! shows specifically how the weightin various taxes utilized in the two | pared for the year 1930. It wi \e i lI RELATIVE TAX RESOURCES OF THE STATES State Louisiana Maine M arviand Massac! Michigan ust Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming 1921 $4,092 34 i4 30 199 38 70 8 31 46 15 307 111 125 43 39 25 53 185 149 102 380 26 26 33 50 128 16 10 57 65 60 o7 8 1 Chism’s data are presented originally in these two studies >? 48; 130 265 5 260 204 92? 123 R36 00 <7 474 731 768 829 070 601 931 56 164 282 sO 534 000 R28 565 053 102 744 230 060 838 655 $17 438 208 508 ,644 301 456 , 006 704 410 847 887 0006 060 525 340 125 135 49 45 59 205 174 113 136 % 19 178 10 660 . 2 61 29 281 67 106 10 in thousands 518 433 ,595 940 542 065 007 755 703 387 312 940 197 yf dollars and Newcomer’s in 1925 $5,373 46 19 10 74 is, O4 11 56 61 20 389 143 153 95 55 5? 34 67 239 207 129 33 157 33 7 i¥ Chism In thousands of dollars 26 283 419 359 194 46 381 397 O54 224 547 958 689 943 412 100 346 626 102 207 118 714 O41 547 811 121 615 7.933 >? 144 1927-28 $6 110 13 56 70 23 445 163 173 109 209 051 12.016 770.639 72,493 34.03 330.824 67 5? 491 34 35 42 67 169 21 13 75 RS 76 126 11 195 531 669 395 341 565 076 468 704 159 591 194 ,151 354 082 563, 660 745 529 005 7,933 770 ,478 090 029 030 707 674 113 833 413 O88 740 649 124 421 808 527 677 070 1929-3 359 61 495, 198 124, 69, 64, 44 86, 299, 260, 621, 43 43 53 84, 216, 27, 16, o4, 108, 94, 159, 13, millions of 0 297 537 050 179 501 923 681 R19 204 843 416 8? 2 137 439 880 557 596 814 219 339 672 966 , 207 358 7,745 520 664 992 921 , 160 , 267 ,574 ,701 ,425 , 868 , 393 792 ,052 663 ,078 122 870 321 706 736 713 733 709 413 1931 458 191 118 65 61, 40 82 285.5 240 162 37 192, 99 10, 260, 385, ‘i, 63, 583 41 41 Si 205, 26, 15, 93, 103 92, 152, 2,864 1 ? -32 141 650 58 550 446 149 444 588 983 ,469 632 ,546 , 182 .555 220 073 323 804 195 ,638 614 O84 dollars just as the dat Ne In mill 1920 86 5 105 w 20 .¢ 64 12.( a are [118 ] v = yy -” TABLE 5.—COMPARISON OF RELATIV UTILIZED IN THE E WEIGHTING OF VARIOUS TAXES CHISM AND NEWCOMER STUDIES IN 1930 Millions of dollars Types of taxes Percent Newcomer Chism Newcomer Chism $1.465.9 $563.9 30 1 465.7 4,623.8 50.5 68 65 ) 624 5 y organizatior g 3 sfer 8 { 0 5 ( 40 ted States Total 4.878. ¢ 69.3 100.0 100.0 Adapted from Appendix E of Mort, Pa R. Federal Support } Edu k: 3 ’ hers College, Columbia University, 193¢ the income tax is weighted much more heavily plus the average daily attendance in elementary inder Newcomer’s plan than under Chism’s it that the property tax is weighted less heavily under Newcomer’s plan than under Chism’s. Both the Newcomer and the Chism plans ontain three minor types of taxes not included n the other. A distinction between the types of these minor taxes is that those included in the Newcomer plan are types which significantly ffect only a few states while those included n the Chism plan have, in general, a uniform ffect upon all the states. Adequacy According to the formula already presented, the expenditure figure to be used in the meas irement of adequacy is precisely the same as that to be used in the measurement of effort. hese data have already been presented in lable 3. The measurement of adequacy also requires a measure of educational load. The primary measure of educational load used in this study is the number of “units of educational need,”’ derived by use of the index Mort has pro- This method the primary measure because it seemed more valid vided.'? was selected as than any other available measure for this put pose. The procedure developed by Mort involved the following steps: (1) Average daily atten dance was used as the basic figure. (2) Each high-school pupil in average daily attendance was weighted in terms of elementary pupil units by the index of 1.7. Therefore, 1.7 times the average daily attendance in high schools 12 Mort, Paul R. ‘“‘An Objective Basis for the Distrit Record 36: 91-110; November, 1934. schools gives the total number of elementary average daily attendance units. Since the B: ennial Surveys of the United States Office of Education, from which average daily attend ance figures were secured, do not segregate high-school average daily attendance figures it was neces his was done on the basis of the percent which ot school enrolment. Altho this procedure is not the from those in elementary schools, sary to estimate the correct proportions. enrolment elementary high-school was be entirely satisfactory it appeared to most accurate method of making the desired estimate now available. (3) The total number attendance units of elementary average daily was then multiplied by Mort’s composite index, which corrects for sparsity of population and cost of living to obtain the total number of units of educational need per state. This procedure was applied to each state for each year of the study, i.e., for the biennial periods from 1919-20 thru 1931-32. Table 6 presents the number of units of educational need as derived from these calculations. Cautions Regarding Use of Formulas and Basic Data Presented is to be calculated on the basis of both Chism and in of Effort data as to tax resources by The these studies should be Newcomer. ditterence objectives considered in the in terpretation of the results based on them and of anv difference in results that may be found. All of the vears covered by Chism’s data and | the vear 1930 for Newcomer's data were ab- normal to the extent that agriculture was out Federal Support to Public Ed n.”? 7 [ 119 of adjustment with other industries. shows that these years were a “trough” ‘Table 7 effort between the agricultural and period states may be somewhat different f: for agriculture whereas other industries re- sults of this study. Chism points out — mained relatively prosperous until Hence, the true relationship with re Chism, Leslie L. op. cit. p. 129 1930. ble weakness of his data due to this ¢ gard to findings of the present study should preted with reference to this situat TABLE 6.—UNITS OF EDUCATIONAL NEED BY YEARS (In 1000’s) State 1919-20 1921-22 1923-24 1925-26 1927-28 1929-30 l 2 3 4 5 6 7 Continental U.S 22,814 6,434 27,710 28,983 30,114 31,371 Alabama 499 596 520 575 641 658 Arizona 75 84 91 102 115 128 Arkansas 446 507 495 482 484 166 California 756 949 1,155 1,237 1,304 1,414 Colorado 244 286 308 309 319 324 Connecticut 276 318 323 360 359 3R5 Delaware 37 41 45 46 50 52 Florida 216 238 263 336 373 365 Georgia 637 735 754 714 748 758 Idaho 131 149 143 153 157 164 Illinois 1,328 1,488 1,569 1,598 1,720 1,783 Indiana 648 718 806 881 891 888 lowa 609 723 709 713 738 748 Kansas 521 584 627 623 625 642 Kentucky 463 586 571 528 598 610 Louisiana 340 395 408 408 444 484 Maine 162 181 187 189 194 200 Maryland 238 272 284 302 320 338 Massachusetts 699 785 827 903 908 947 Michigan 725 793 927 992 1,092 1,207 Minnesota ; 597 681 666 686 703 716 Mississippi 353 528 528 574 593 606 Missouri 784 863 871 912 904 903 Montana 149 164 162 167 172 181 Nebraska “ 389 454 455 473 477 466 Nevada 18 20 21 22 26 6 New Hampshire 72 79 82 87 89 93 New Jersey 604 665 719 771 824 871 New Mexico 97 94 108 114 102 131 New York 1,899 2,135 2,278 2,412 2,539 2,720 North Carolina 621 720 753 826 884 937 North Dakota 218 283 256 255 247 271 Ohio 1,120 1,360 1,449 1,531 1,557 1,659 Oklahoma 523 645 669 677 703 728 Oregon 228 242 254 274 284 270 Pennsylvania ‘ 1,636 1,907 1,976 2,081 2,139 2,243 Rhode Island 95 111 117 124 131 137 South Carolina 442 458 432 472 481 481 South Dakota 170 223 235 247 244 252 Tennessee 619 622 613 624 663 677 Texas 1,189 1,52 1,601 1,706 1,712 1,797 Utah 142 15 166 178 182 188 ' Vermont 74 85 86 81 84 87 ) Virginia 479 543 580 604 613 646 Washington , 320 368 385 414 436 445 West Virginia ‘ 338 380 414 414 452 481 Wisconsin me ' , 533 621 692 733 725 711 Wyoming.. sak cin fe 55 62 70 73 68 84 \s calculated in this study by the application of Mort's index of educational need. See preceding page { 120 ] TABLE 7.—INDEX NUMBERS OF FARM Summary PRICES AND PRICES PAID BY FARM- ERS 1910-33? I he tormula proposed for the measurement of the ettorts of the states to support education 1910-14 100 . is, with certain refinements, the relation of ex penditures of the states for current expenses Prices paid by Prices Ratio of ot education to the relative tax resources OT and farmers for received prices re- nth commodities for farm ceived to the states. Data as to the relative tax resource bought products prices paid . of the states by both Chism and Newcomer are 2 3 4 utilized. A detailed statement of the formul Was presented. While there are certain recog 98 102 104 Sat Bae = 101 95 94 nized limitations in the formula proposed, th 100 100 100 . oe eae a? ee 101 01 100 elimination o1 hem lies beyond the COT 100 101 101 the present investigation. A brief discussion of 105 OR 93 . . . | ' 124 118 at some of these limitations is presented in the 149 175 117 Appendix. 176 20 115 i 202 213 105 ‘he formula proposed for the measurement > 11 Ss . . ~ oa _ of the adequacy of the financial support ac 149 132 89 corded education is the amount of money ex 152 142 93 Bo _—- 152 143 04 pended for current costs of education per unit 157 156 99 of educational need. Exactly the same expendi 155 145 94 ’ ' ; 153 139 91 ture figure will be used in this formula as in 155 149 96 the formula for the measurement of effort 153 146 95 a 145 126 87 Mort's index of educational need is used in de 124 87 70 a Ee Digi ' a7 Pt ‘a termining the number of units of educational 109 70 64 load in each state. T'wo other measures of need will also be used enough for comparative put S. Department of Agriculture. Bureau of Agricultura s. Division of Statistical and Historical Research Vumbers of Prices Paid By Farmers for Commoditi: The basic data to be used in the measure 1910-1934. Washington, D. C The Department 1933 and September, 1934. 25 p. (Mimeographed.) poses. ment of both effort and adequacy have also been presented in this chapter. CHAPTER IV The Efforts of the States To Support Education lhe formula and the basic data for the meas- urement of the efforts of the states to support education were presented in Chapter II]. In general terms the formula for the measure ment of effort is: Amount Spent fer Education Effort — Te Financial Resources Ettort was measured in terms of two sets of data on the relative financial ability of the states. These are the studies of the relative tax resources of the states by Chism and New comer. It should be kept constantly in mind that these two studies had different objectives as explained in Chapter III]. Any difference in the findings as to the efforts of the states as measured by the use of these two sets of data should be interpreted in light of the difference in objectives mentioned. Effort Using Chism’s Data Table 8 shows the percent the expenditures of the states for current costs of education were of relative tax resources for the biennial years 1921-22 thru 1931-32 on the basis of Chism’s data. The indexes of these percents ar Table 9, showing for each year the relation of the effort of each state to the effort of the United Table 8 will show no marked tendency for e given in States as a whole. Examination of any particular group or type of state to put forth more or less effort than any other group or type. Table numbers showing the trend in the effort of each 10 consists of another set of index state over the period of the study in terms of 1922. The United States as a whole spent a smaller percent of tax resources for education each after 1922 than it did in that year. As would be expected in view of this, only a few states— California, Michigan, New Jersey, and Ten- nessee—kept their precent of tax resources ex- pended for education as high or higher than in 1921-22 for each of the five remaining biennial the effort it put forth in year 1 The most pronounced of these was in the case and then dropped back to 34 in 1929-30. At first it was rechecking found them to be correct. The shown by the following tabulation of data, the exper partment of Education cause was Relative tax resources (in thousands) Expenditures (in thousands) Florida which advanced in place from 44 in 1925-26 t thought that this must be due to an error in the calculat 1 greatly enlarged expenditure in Florida during the year ditures having been verified by correspondence with the I years under consideration. Among showing the greatest decline over the | the study are Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, k Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska, N kota, South Dakota, Utah, and Vern The average percent given in co Table 8 is shown graphically in Figu Certain characteristics of the data 8 are presented in Table 11. Fo: United States as a whole and the 1 48 states, the percent of tax resources e) tor education declined thruout the | the study except that 1931-32 was higher than 1929-30 in both cases. ‘] and standard deviation also tended t thruout the period of the study. Table 12 gives the rank of the st percent of tax resources expended fi tion for each year as presented in ‘| While considerable consistency will the rank of the states thruout the the study, there was nevertheless a able amount of variation and a few changes.* For the average of the six years, W was the highest ranking state as to eff lowed by New Mexico, North Dakot rado, Oklahoma, Idaho, Mississip; Michigan, Arizona, comprising in order the upper rank fourth of the states. The lowest ranking state as to ett Nevada preceded by Maryland which next lowest ranking, then Rhode Isla: ginia, Missouri, Arkansas, Georgia, |] see, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, ¢ Indiana, and M cut, and Florida comprising in ascendir the lower ranking one-fourth of the st Effort Using Newcomer’s Data Table 13 presents the percent the tures of the states for current costs of tion were of relative tax resources in t! ' years for which Newcomer provides 1925-26 1927-28 ] $56,224 $56,442 $57.2 13.556 19.556 { 4 II is a Ta yh presentat ts for 1930 taken trom rt education was very gre [he range in the efforts o ? > column ) ion of th tax resources To is Vermont put fort! t +51) percent TABLE 8.—PERCENT OF TAX RESOURCES (CHISM) EXPENDED BY THE FOR CURRENT COSTS OF PUBLIC EDUCATION, 1922-32 State 1921-22 = ; r 4i) 4 19 14 a] , 0 = i a ' e@ 2 34 7, on P ei leit 34 . %6 , 46 39 da 1 w Hampshire 26 Jersey 9 Mexic 43 Car 30 Dakota 4 37 ma 45 y 9 Pennsylvania 24 Rhode Island 23 South Carolina 28 > 1 Dakota 33 Tennessee 2 Texas 33 42 : 10 \irginia 26 uy ngton W 1 lp West Virginia Wisconsin 33 Wyoming 416 Read table thus: In 1921-22, Alaba hgure is derived are taken from Table 3 sands of dollars, the former figure being which 1923-24 3 $0) 4 3) _8 1? 5.4 2 4 1 25.2 41.8 i) 35.5 31.1 35 74 9 8 3 9 8 3 46.0 38.1 30.3 IS 5 46..3 > & 23.5 26.9 30 40 6%? 3? 1 48.5 29 > 46.0 7 ? 26.0 23.1 31.2 31.5 24.3 Rg 195 34.5 24.9 29.8 27.9 34.7 48.7 ma expended 30.7 shows that and from Table 4, which shows that according to Chism’s data the relative tax resources 30.7 percent Average 30 1931-32 7 s 8.4 >) 9 Io 34.3 4 / 1.3 ‘1 1 44.0 1 t4.5 38 4 4 5 $9 } PR 5 5 ) 4.0 a 5 x 5.4 5.2 9 5 4 21.4 ) 5.2 1.9 , 0) ba ) , { g 4.1 5.9 3.9 5 6.4 35.5 0 8 0 ) ) 41.8 36 1.8 29.1 34.1 4 21 0 ) 23.5 24 $3.6 30.6 4 598 32 32.9 6 10.1 41.9 ) Q 3 3. 5.5 2.0 & 34.9 32.4 5 re 4 6 4 j 5.6 14.9 - 5.1 3.0 5 6.4 0 ) 4.0 8.1 2 47 4 5 0 29.6 RR 31.3 36.3 4 28.1 5 4 1 21.4 3.0 $5.7 28.5 5 3 6.9 9 29.0 30 9 4? 6 45.9 for education. The data 10,462 thousands of doll of Alabama in the same 3 jata for other states and tive tax resources for education. Thus Ver- sources expended by the states for mont in 1920 put forth 15 times as much effort cation was 27.0 and the standard as Delaware. The mean percent * of tax re- was 8.7. The percent ? was 24.9 for th See footnotes to Table 11 for explanation of difference between mean percent and the percent for the U1 TABLE 9.—INDEX OF PERCENT OF RELATIVE TAX RESOURCES (CHISM PENDED BY THE STATES FOR CURRENT COSTS OF PUBLIC EDUCATION United States — 100 Years State 1921-22 1923-24 1925-26 1927-28 1929-30 1 2 3 4 5 6 Continental U.S 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Alabama 101.7 102.4 99.6 110.0 112.9 Arizona 120.5 127.4 117.9 116.2 3.3 Arkansas 83.4 85.1 91.6 89.7 82.7 California 105.0 110.8 122.5 123.6 124.4 Colorado 135.4 142.9 140.4 141.3 125.8 Connecticut 86.4 85.8 87.4 86.7 86.3 Delaware 04.4 92.6 90.5 80.4 86.3 Florida 9.5 72.0 84.6 127.7 86.7 (Georgia R31 85.1 86.3 84.9 R38 Idah« 165.2 141.2 126.3 125.8 124.4 llinois 86.1 91.2 91.6 93.0 91.5 Indiana ‘ me 148.3 119.9 116.5 126.6 111.1 lowa 97.7 105.1 110.5 04.5 83.0 Kansas 120.5 120.6 114.4 127.3 100.4 Kentucky 96.7 99 3 98.9 107.7 105.5 Louisiana 107.0 100.3 95.8 100.0 96.3 Maine 99 3 95.6 00.9 93.7 79.3 Maryland 74.8 76.7 Pe 83.0 81.9 Massachusetts 92.7 95.6 90.2 95.6 91.1 Michigan 115.2? 121.6 129.5 131.4 137.3 Minnesota 126.2 128.7 115.4 111.8 102.2 Mississippi 115.6 102.4 121.4 149.8 139.9 Missouri R81 86.1 88.4 80.4 74.9 Montana , 152.3 122.6 110.5 115.1 112.9 Nebraska 131.1 100.7 99 3 94.8 85.6 Nevada 72.5 79.4 81.1 82.3 71.6 New Hampshire 88.4 90.9 89.8 84.1 81.2 New Jersey 96.7 103.7 106.3 111.8 109.6 New Mexico 145.4 137.5 134.4 121.4 134.3 New York 87.7 88.5 85.3 85.2 100.7 North Carolina 101.3 108.4 118.2 117.3 121.0 North Dakota 157.3 163.9 131.6 129.9 125.1 Ohio 106.6 98.6 96.8 98.9 97.8 Oklahoma 149.7 155.4 27.0 118.1 132.1 Oregon 97.0 91.9 95.1 97.0 90.4 Pennsylvania 80.5 87.8 90.9 88.2 86 Rhode Island 76.2 78.0 77.2 81.2 84.1 South Carolina 94.7 105.4 117.5 118.5 116.2 South Dakota.. 109.3 106.4 101.8 95.6 91.9 Tennessee 79.1 82.1 88.8 89.3 89.7 Texas 111.6 93.9 105.3 91.1 99.6 : Utah 142.1 133.4 127.7 127.7 122.5 Vermont , 135.1 116.6 113.7 108.1 108.5 I Virginia... 87.1 84.1 80.0 78.6 77.9 Washington 110.9 100.7 101.1 100.7 94.8 West Virginia 90.1 04.3 98.2 96.7 98.5 Wisconsin ‘ ae 111.6 117.2 105.3 102.6 103.0 Wyoming staee 154.6 164.5 167.7 160.9 169.4 Read table thus: This table is based on the data presented in Table 8, which show that in 1921-22 the Unite whole expended 30.2 percent of its tax resources for education while Alabama expended 30.7 percent of its tax the same purpose. Taking the United States figure as 100, the figure for Alabama yields an index number of 101 101.7 percent of the United States figure. Similarly read data for other states and years. [124] TABLE 10.—INDEX OF PERC PENDED BY THE STATES F 1922 100 State 1921-22 1923-24 1925-26 1927-28 1929-30 1931-3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 =il UL S 100 98.0 94.4 89.7 R9 4.0 100 98 92.5 97.1 99 7.4 100 103.6 92.3 86.5 91.2 94.2 100 100.0 103.6 96.4 88.9 R4 ia 100 103.5 110.1 105.7 106.3 118.0 100 103.4 97.8 93.6 83.4 84.4 ut 100 97.3 95.4 90.0 89 8.9 100 96.1 90.5 76.5 82.1 100.0 100 88.8 100.4 144.2 97.9 105.4 ( g 100 100.4 98.0 91.6 90.4 95.6 100 83.8 72.1 68.3 67.5 65.1 100 103.8 100.4 96.9 95.4 9 i 100 79.2 74.1 76.6 67.2 va 100 105.4 106.8 86.8 76.3 5 K is 100 98.1 89.6 94.8 74.7 69.2 K cky 100 100.7 96.6 100.0 97.9 »9 3 I la 100 92.0 84.5 83.9 80.8 83.9 M 100 94.3 86.3 84.7 se 80.3 M and 100 100.4 97.3 99.6 98.2 105.8 Massachusetts 100 101.1 91.8 92.5 88.2 91.8 M gan 100 103.4 106.0 102.3 106.9 102.0 M esota 100 100.0 86.4 79.5 72.7 = M SIppl 100 86.8 99.1 116.3 108.6 119.8 Missouri 100 95.9 94.7 82.0 76.3 82.0 M ana 100 78.9 68.5 67.8 66.5 6 ; ska 100 75.3 71.5 64.9 58.6 57.3 la 100 107.3 105.5 101.8 88.6 91 w Hampshire 100 100.7 95.9 85.4 82.4 R82 0 v Jersey 100 105.1 103.8 103.8 101.7 115.1 v¥ Mexico 100 92.7 87.2 74.9 82.9 90 w York 100 98.9 91.7 87.2 103.0 124.2 Carolina 100 104.9 110.1 103.9 107.2 8.4 rth Dakota 100 102.1 78.9 74.1 71.4 99.6 100 90.7 85.7 83.2 82.3 » 2 yma 100 101.8 80.1 70.8 79.2 2 regon 100 92.8 92.5 89.8 83.6 80.9 Pennsylvania 100 107.0 106.6 98.4 96.3 105.3 Rhode Island 100 100.4 95.7 95.7 99 1 109 1 South Carolina 100 109.1 117.1 112.2 110.1 92.3 S Dakota 100 95.5 87.9 78.5 75.5 Tennessee 100 101.7 105.9 101.3 101.7 103.3 Texas 100 82.5 89.0 73.3 80.1 87.8 tal 100 92.1 84.8 80.7 77.4 3.0 100 84.6 79.4 71.8 72.1 68.9 I rginia 100 94.7 86.7 81.0 80.2 81.4 ha shington 100 89.0 86.0 81.5 76.7 6 West Virginia 100 102.6 102.9 96.3 98.2 93.0 M nsir 100 103.0 89.0 82.5 82.8 86.1 Vyoming 100 104.3 102.4 93.4 98.3 91.2 Read table thus: This table is based on the data presented in Table 8 which show that in 192]-27 Alabama vended ent of its tax resources for education. This is given the value of 100 in Column In 1923-24 Alabama expended er s tax resources for education, which yields an index number of 98.7 in terms of the 1921-2? figure. In other word isa whole. 1930 Delaware expended it led ( A only s relative tax resources for s North Dakota at the other 79.6 percent, putting yes per education extreme torth 4 ie times as mu percent ot t ; tor education > "4 tion, 14.2. ‘J Otates ENT OF RELATIVE OR CURRENT COSTS he percen TAX RESOURCE OF PUBLIC EDU h eftort as Delaw > Was 3/.¢ re. (x resources expended by the was 45.9 and the stand ird de +} >for Che he | S (CHISM) EX- CATION, 1922-32 percent of 30.7 Similarly read data for other States ind y [ 12 5 ] j FIGURE I RELATIVE EFFORTS OF THE STATES TO SUPPORT EDUCATION 1929-39 As Shown by Average Percent of Tax Resources (Chism) Expended for Current Costs of Public Education o w _ oO _ w 3 ro w w °o w w & & Wyoming New Mexico North Dakota Colorado Oklahoma Idaho Mississippi Utah Michigan Indiana Arizona Montana California Minnesota Vermont Kansas North Carolina New Jersey South Carolina Wisconsin Alabama Kentucky Texas Washington Louisiana Nebraska South Dakota Ohio lowa West Virginia New York Massachusetts Oregon Delaware Maine Mlinois Florida Connecticut Pennsylvania New Hampshire a Tennessee United States Arkansas Georgia Missouri Rhode Island Virginia : ' Maryland Nevade 25 30 35 40 45 ° w r=) rr 3 Research Division. National Educat This chart based on data in Table 8, Column 8. [ 126 ] SS Se [he extreme ratios in eftort are partly due the fact that Delaware's relative tax re es are very great according to New ners data. But even excluding Delaware | taking the state with the next lowest effort, which was Nevada spending 16.4 percent of relative tax resources tor education, the tio is +.85 to 1 for 1930. In Table 14 the states are ranked on the cent of relative tax resources expended for cation as presented in Table 13. The gain loss in rank of each of the states from 1920 1930 is also shown in this table. Not much ince can be placed upon the latter trend ta inasmuch as Newcomer’s data are avail only for these two vears. t Differences in Effort Based on Chism’s and Newcomer’s Data Direct comparison cannot be made of the cents of tax resources expended for educa non the basis of Chism’s and Newcomer's ta since the United States total of the rela » tax resources as calculated by Newcomer: considerably less than the corresponding fig in Chism’s estimate which approximates 4 he actual tax collection figure for the United States. This variation in total relative tax re sources of the United States is largely ac counted for by the difference in objectives ot the two studies. Chism purposely set his theo- retical tax levies high enough to bring in an amount approximately equal to actual tax col- lections. From his data he was able to dete: mine the relative ability of the states to sup port education. Newcomer was interested only in determining the relative ability of the states to support education, and did not attempt to make the total of the relative tax resources of the states equal the total actual tax collections ot local and state governments. The efforts of the states to support educa tion as calculated on the basis of the two studies can be compared by using the indexes of the eftort figures derived as presented in Tables 9 and 13. These indexes show the relation of the ettort of each state to the effort of the United States as a whole. Comparison of the indexes ot ettort tor Alabama for 1930, for example, will show whether this state put forth more o1 less effort as related to the United States as a whole on the Chism data than on the New comer data. Figure III shows graphically the relation between the indexes of effort based on the Chism and Newcomer studies for the year | 1930, the only year for which data were avail able from both. Because a few states, particu larly Delaware, have relative tax resources foreign to the general distribution—accord ing to Newcomer’s calculations—the index of effort based on her data is greater than 100 in thirty-seven of the states. When Chism’s data are used only twenty-three of the index num bers exceed 100. As a result the bar represent ing the index when effort is calculated on the basis of Newcomer’s data is longer in about three-fourths of the states than that based on Chism’s data. The coefficient of correlation for the data on which Figure III is based is .65 .06. The coefficient found between the indexes of effort TABLE 11.—CERTAIN CHARACTERISTICS OF PERCENT OF TAX RESOURCES OF THE STATES (CHISM) EXPENDED FOR CURRENT COSTS OF EDUCATION Ratio of United Mean Highest state Lowest state Difference be- ! Standard Year -——_—— - tween highest and highest States of the daskaiien Name Percent Name Percent lowest percent to lowest percent* states® l 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1921-22 Idaho 49.9 Nevada 21.9 28.0 ».28 30.2 2.7 5 1923-24 Wyoming 48.7 Florida 21.3 27.4 29 29.6 31.4 6.6 1925-26 Wyoming 47.8 Maryland 22.0 25.8 2.17 28.5 9.9 5.4 1927-28 Wyoming 43.6 Virginia 21.3 22.3 2.05 27.1 8 3.3 1929-30 Wyoming 45.9 Nevada 19.4 26.5 37 2.4 17.9 5.4 3 Arkansas 21.3 1.3 2.00 28.4 28.35 §.3 1931-32 Wyoming 42.6 Read table thus: In 1921-22 Idaho expended 49.9 percent of its tax resources f 21.9 percent of its tax resources for education. The difference between these two for education whereas Nevada expe i figures is 28.0. The ratio of the highest per cent to the smallest is 2.28. The percent for the United States as a whole was 30.2 while the mean for the 48 states was 32.7 The standard deviation was 7.5 * This figure is the percent the total expenditures for current costs of educa in the 48 states were of the total tax re- ces of the 48 states > This figure is the average of the percents of tax resour expended jucation in each of the 48 state e., the per ts for the individual states were totaled and divided by 4 (127 ] SA AE based on Newcomer's data for 1920 and __ tion as to the efforts of the states Chism’s data for 192? is 70 t 05. education on the basis ot the two studie The extent to which there is lack of correla to the differences in relative abilj: TABLE 12.—STATES RANKED BY PERCENT EXPENDITURES FOR CURR COSTS OF PUBLIC EDUCATION WERE OF TAX RESOURCES (CHISM Rank State 1921-22 1923-24 1925-26 1927-28 1 2 3 4 5 Alabama 24 22.5 25 20 Arizona 13.5 9 12 16 Arkansas 41 41.5 32.5 6 California 23 16 9 11 Colorado 9 4 2 3 Connecticut 39 40 41 39 Delaware 32 33 6 46.5 Florida 44 48 44 6.5 Georgia 42 41.5 42 41 Idah« 1 5 & 10 Illinois 40 35 32.5 34 Indiana 6 13 14 9 lowa 27 20 18.5 32 Kansas 13.5 12 16 & Kentucky 29.5 27 27 22 Louisiana 21 26 30 25 Maine 26 29.5 34.5 33 Maryland 47 47 47.5 43 Massachusetts 33 29.5 37 29.5 Michigan 16 11 5 4 Minnesota 12 8 15 18.5 Mississippi 15 22.5 10 2 Missouri 36 39 40 46.5 Montana 4 10 18.5 17 Nebraska 11 24.5 26 31 Nevada 48 45 45 44 New Hampshire 35 36 38 42 New Jersey 29.5 21 20 18.5 New Mexico 7 6 3 12 New York 37 37 43 40 North Carolina 25 17 11 15 North Dakota 2 2 4 5 Ohio 22 28 »9 26 Oklahoma 5 3 7 14 Oregon 28 34 31 27 Pennsylvania 43 38 34.5 38 Rhode Island 46 46 47.5 45 South Carolina 31 19 13 13 South Dakota 20 18 23 20.5 Tennessee 45 44 39 37 Texas 17.5 32 21.5 35 Utah & 7 6 6.5 Vermont 10 15 17 21 Virginia 38 43 46 48 Washington 19 24.5 24 24 West Virginia 34 31 28 28 Wisconsin 87.3 14 21.5 23 Wyoming ; 1 1 1 1929-30 6 14.5 10.5 30 20 1931-32 7 14 8 48 4 ‘ 26 20 32 38 11 29 35 5 38 36 ww Rank for Ga six years combined * > @D ww na 20 Read table thus: In 1921-22 twenty-three states expended a greater percent of tax resources for education than A thus ranked 24. In case two states expended the same percent of tax resources for education each state was given a rank 1923-24 Alabama and Mississippi are | between the two rank numbers they would otherwise have been given. Thus in ).§ these two figures taking the place of rank numbers 22 1921-22 to 1931-32 Alabama gained 10 places in rank. Similarly interpret table for other states * Based on Column 8, Table 8 and 23. For the six years taken as one Alabama ranked TABLE SOURCES (NEWCOMER) EXPENDED THE STATES FOR CURRENT COSTS OF EDUCATION 13.—PERCENT OF TAX RE- aly BY —_ State l ul U.S a cut re i | Lida k < 7 cky I ina Pa Marvland M chusetts M igan Minnesota M ssippl Missouri Montana N ska Ne ja vy Hampshire New Je New Mexico rsey York North Carolina North Dakota O Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina ith Dakota nessee ea Utah ermont ginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming Read table thus: ts tax resources for education. rure was derived are taken from Table n and from Table 4 mer’s data the relative tax resources of Alabama in the sam Percent 1919-20 1929-30 2 3 24.9 37.6 28.3 60.5 30.4 53.2 20.9 45.6 26.6 39.0 28.9 55.5 30.6 32.1 | Pry 23.7 31.2 18.3 49.1 41.9 56.2 21.9 34.6 31.1 56.9 21.9 45.9 31.7 33.2 17.1 47.3 25.9 54.5 32.8 38.7 18.3 27.2 27.2 34.4 33.5 49.6 32.8 51.0 a7 5 78.0 21.7 31.8 47.1 53.7 27.6 45.8 16.2 16.4 28.1 42.5 30.1 34.9 45.3 65.6 18.5 24.8 21.0 55.6 40.1 79.6 7.8 42.2 30.6 53.7 21.8 40.7 ye 38.7 r 4 Be 31.7 19.1 76.7 20.8 57.6 18.4 40.0 41.0 $3.2 48.0 50.0 22.7 38.2 36.5 43.8 21.6 50.5 28.7 43.9 25.8 54.9 In 1920, which shows that Index 4 100 113 122 106.5 116 12 05 73 168 && 124 88 68 104 131 109 134 131 110 65 112 120 181 74 84 161 111 122 87 103 85 76 3 73 95 164 192 91 146 86 115 103 1919-20 ~ wnu ~ Ww = The data from 3 which 1919-20 Alabama expended 7.7 millions of dollars for educa according to New U.S. 1929-30 100 160 141 121 103 130 149 9? 151 122 136 125.3 144 102 91 131 135 207 &4 142 121 142 108 102 84 204 153 106 111 141 133 101 116 134 116.3 146 which shows year were 27.2 millions of dollars, the former figure being Similarly read data for other states ercent of the latter ears 100 a 0 Alabama expended 28.3 percent this that 28 3 TABLE 14.—STATES RANKED BY PER CENT EXPENDITURES FOR CUR RENT COSTS OF PUBLIC EDUCA- TION WERE OF TAX RESOURCES (NEWCOMER) 1919-20 AND 1929-30 Rinks for Gain or Rink 1919-20 and loss in State 1929-30 rank 1919-20 1929-30 combined 1920-30 1 2 3 4 5 \labama 19 5 9 14 Arizona 15 15.5 14 0 Arkansas 39 26 30 13 California 24 34 32 10 Colorado 17 10 11 Connecticut 13.5 41 +¢ 5 Delaware 48 48 48 0 Florida 28.5 44 42 15.§ Georgia 43.5 22 9 1.3 Idahe 4 8 4 $ Illinois 31.5 39 41 5 Indiana 12 7 10 lowa 31.5 24 8 Kansas 11 17 16 ri Kentucky 46 23 34.5 3 Louisiana 25 12 18 13 Maine 9.5 35.5 25 x Maryland 43.5 45 45 5 Massachusetts 23 40 38 Michigan 8 21 15 13 Minnesota 9.5 18 13 8.5 Mississippi 45 2 ] $3 Missouri 34 42 43 8 Montana 2 13.5 3 11 Nebraska 22 25 22 3 Nevada 47 47 47 0 New Hampshire 20 29 26 9 New Jersey 16 38 33 New Mexico 3 4 1 New York 42 46 46 4 North Carolina 37 9 21 8 North Dakota 6 1 1 5 (no 21 30 27 9 Oklahoma 33.3 i .% 12 0 Oregon 33 32 37 1 Pennsylvania 27 35.5 34.5 8.5 Rhode Island 36 43 44 South Carolina 40 ; 6 South Dakota > we 6 20 3 Tennessee 41 33 40 g Texas 28.5 31 31 5 Utah 5 15.5 g 10.5 Vermont 1 20 5 19 Virginia 30 37 39 Washington 7 28 19 1 West Virginia 35 19 4 16 Wisconsin 18 27 23 9 Wyoming 26 11 17 15 Read table thus: In 1919-20 eighteen states expended a greater percent of tax resources for education than Alabama which thus ranked 19. A “.5” added to a rank means that two states expended the same percent of tax revenues for education and each was given a rank halfway | between the e two rank numbers they would otherwise have been given. | the years 1919-20 and 1929-30 combined Alabama ranked ‘ d From 1919-20 to 1929-30 Alabama gained 14 places in rank Similarly read data for other states and years [129] FIGURE II RELATIVE EFFORTS OF THE STATES TO SUPPORT EDUCATION 1929-30 As Shown by the Percent of Tax Resources (Newcomer) Expended for Current Costs of Public Education °o r=) in] °o w °o & 50 60 70 80 North Dakota Mississippi South Carolina New Mexico Alabama South Dakota Indiana Idaho North Carolina Colorado Wyoming Louisiana Montana Oklahoma Arizona Utah Kansas Minnesota West Virginia Vermont Michigan Georgia Kentucky lowa Nebraska Arkansas Wisconsin W ashington New Hampshire Ohio Texas Oregon Tennessee California Maine Pennsylvania Nh Virginia New Jersey Minois Massachusetts Connecticut Missouri Rhode Island Florida Maryland New York Nevada Delaware - United States ————— 30 40 50 60 70 80 oO or m o arch Civision National Educat This chart based on data in Table 13, Column 3. [ 130 FIGURE III COMPARISON OF INDEXES OF EFFORTS OF STATES BASED ON CHISM AND NEWCOMER DATA 1929-30 ME Based on Chism’s Data (IIIT «Ss Based on Newcomer's Data f T 2 Ariz Nev L mms mms i N_H Calif. N it nt J ee sa L aa me onn F ‘ NL. Y 2 ecm . Fla fr 7 N. Dak Ge. = cece sale Idaho = Okle i manrem “ L Ind. Ps Lo .. nfs L ee ie { i tH. ee oe ale aaa ORAM ; a im ; Te ie an iJ Md h S Uteh Mass. V iste } : Mich. Vv ir | > Ve ee iiass if i ene Miss. W. Ve b wrt ,§ aie it J Mont. —_—_—_—_— w C i } i 100 100 Research Division, Nationa! Educat A Read chart thus: In 1929-30 the index of effort for Alabama based on Chism's data was 112.9. (See Table 9.) In the same year Alabama's index of effort based on Newcomer's data was 160.9. (See Table 13.) The bars for Alabame represent these two index numbers. Similarly read chart for other states. Sssocié + states to support education according to these two sets of data, inasmuch as the expenditure figure used is precisely the same in both cases. ‘he difterences between the studies as to types ot taxes used and their relative weighting as presented in Table 5 are doubtless largely re- sponsible for the differences found both as to ibility and eftort on the basis of the two studies. Summary ‘This chapter has presented the efforts of the states to support public education using two sets of data as to the relative tax resources of the states. On the basis of Chism’s data the average of the mean percents * of tax resources expended by the states for education for the six years ot study was 29.8 with an average standard deviation of 5.9. The average of the percents for the six years was 28.5 for the United States See footnotes to Table 11 for explanation of difference [ 132] between mean percent is a whole. The average ratio betwee: tremes of percent of relative tax res pended by the states for education to |. On the basis of Newcomer’s data resources expended 1920 was 27 1930 percent of tax states for education in standard deviation of 8.7. In percent was 45.9 with a standard dey 14.2. The ratio between the extreme cent of relative tax resources expen education was 15 to 1 in 1920 and in 1930. It should be borne in mind that pe relative tax resources expended by for education, as calculated on the bas Chism and Newcomer data, cannot pared directly because of the differen total estimated tax resources for the States in the two studies. and the percent CHAPTER V The Adequacy of Financial Support Provided Education in the States (he formula and basic data for measuring efforts of the states to support education e presented in Chapter II1. In Table 15 expenditure per thousand units of educa il need is presented for each year of the ly. Index numbers for these data are pre ted in Table 16, showing the relation of expenditure per thousand units of educa nal need of each state for each year of the study to the United States as a whole. Table consists of another set of index numbers wwing the trend in expenditures for current ts per thousand units of educational need of each state over the period of the study in erms of its expenditure in 1919-20. [he average annual expenditure per thou- sand units of educational need as presented in lumn 9 of Table 15 is shown graphically in Figure IV. lable 18 presents the rank of the states on expenditures per thousand units of need. For combined biennial periods 1920 to 1932, New Jersey ranked first, expending an average of approximately $80 per unit of educational need. The next highest was New York, fol- wed by Nevada, California, Michigan, Massachusetts, Wyoming, Connecticut, Ari- yona, Montana, New Hampshire, and Rhode Island, forming the upper quarter of the states. Georgia ranked lowest for the entire period, expending an average of approximately $19 per unit of educational need. ‘The next lowest was \rkansas, preceded by Mississippi, Alabama, South Carolina, Tennessee, North Carolina, Kentucky, Virginia, Texas, Louisiana, and Florida comprising in ascending order the lower quarter of the states. Table 19 shows certain characteristics of ie expenditures per thousand units of educa- tional need for each year of the study. This table indicates that the range in expenditures +} creased somewhat during the period of the present study. Both the expenditure of the nited States as a whole and the mean expen- diture of the states increased each year thru 1929-30 and then decreased as a result of the 1919-20, $5.50 spent per unit of educational need in the state of highest expenditure level to $1 in the state ‘conomic situation. In was of lowest expenditure level. The average ratio for the seven years combined was $4.70 to $1. Adequacy Indexes Relative Only It should be indexes presented in Table 16 are re emphasized that the adequa lative only “Adequacy” expressed in terms of the national average, or any other point in the entire I ine does not represent absolute “adequacy” of financial support of schools. If this were the case, the states spending in excess of the na tional average would be spending more than necessary. The average, or any other point on the scale, simply provides a convenient point ot reference for making comparisons. It is doubt tul if any state is spending as much as it could profitably spend on education but this is a moot question which cannot be settled objec tively. Each state must determine its expendi tures for education in terms not only of its educational needs, but also in proper relation ship to other governmental needs as nearly as such relationship can be determined. Table F in Appendix V shows how the ex clusion of revenue from permanent funds and school lands would have affected the relative adequacy of financial support accorded educa tion in the states. Comparison of Financial Adequacy with Other Measures of Adequacy Adequacy of financial support in the several states based on the level of expenditure was compared with adequacy based upon certain other objective factors indicative of the efhici ency of a state school system. One of the criteria chosen for this purpose was Phillips’ ranking of the states on the fol lowing ten factors: ] 1. Percent of school population attending school daily 2. Average number of days schools were kept open 2 3. Average child enrolled 4. Percent of number of davs attended by each total enrolment found in high school 5. Ratio of students preparing to teach to teach ing positions 6. Average expenditure per child of school age 7. Expenditure per pupil for purposes other than salaries 8. Average salaries of teachers, principals, and supervisors 9. Percent of literates ten years of age and over: Pe ent of high-school gra ites nt £ years 1922. 1924, 1928, and 1930 t edue tion 7 : — years covered by the present study. | Phillips has published the ranking of the — rank-difference method of correlation tates on these ten items combined for the ‘Phillips’ ranking for each of these f TABLE 15—EXPENDITURE FOR CURRENT EXPENSES PER THOUSAND UN OF EDUCATIONAL NEED BY YEARS State 1919-20 1921-22 1923-24 1925-26 1927-28 1929-30 1931-32 Average I l 2 3 + 5 6 7 & 9 S $37,803 $46. 80 $49 426 $52,815 $56, 347 $58 , 467 $54,061 $50,818 bama 15,491 17,554 0 »2,950 24,688 26,801 22,284 1.4 z 64,320 61,85 68,5 63,716 62,904 64,930 58 841 63.591 \rkans 13,141 15,05 17,632 21,755 22,758 23.674 19,704 19,10 ~anrornsa 51,877 66, 588 66,713 77,430 84,982 85 676 81,632 73,557 i 41.730 54.643 58.721 62,650 65,759 65,188 59.079 58.253 rl 50 080 58,318 64,068 65,394 72,273 73,813 73,428 65,339 Delawa 40, 865 56.512 57,244 61,957 58,880 66,750 68 947 58 73 Flor 25.875 32,109 31.369 40,345 52,429 36,753 34,114 36,14 Georg 12,884 15,717 1 528 21,223 21,639 22,728 21,336 19,008 j 47,221 52.154 51, 266 49,346 51,484 52,280 45 766 49 93 t 43 797 53,643 58 539 63,769 65,322 68 943 63,273 59 612 li 44,346 69,756 55,319 54,260 63,048 61,446 52,434 §7,230 wa 51,248 51,271 59,526 67,812 60,110 59 654 52,707 57,483 b Sa 43,242 48,479 46 994 49 823 60,531 52,875 43,629 49 368 U ck 15,378 21,466 2S 287 29,578 30, 587 32,644 28,895 26,26 Le ina 26,294 32,377 32,929 35,248 36,097 34, 800 32,078 32,83 M 46,222 42,983 44,503 46 646 49, 345 48 ,235 46,277 14,88 Maryland 32.744 44,154 47,82 48,977 53,263 56,521 54,223 48,244 Massachuse 54.428 65,997 70,15 67,924 77,752 78,133 73,043 69.633 Michig 52.146 65,425 ( 73 77,162 78,807 80, 386 67 , 564 69 889 \ 47.558 57.301 65,122 61,942 63,819 64,582 60.078 60.05 Miss 12,419 16,199 16,146 20,218 26,519 25,790 25,990 20,469 Mis 29.176 37,537 39, 980 43,662 43,802 44,685 44,241 40,440 Mon 65,430 66, 866 59,710 62,389 63,576 63, 845 55.905 62,532 Ne k 45 640 57.200 46.123 47.677 49, 130 51.556 44 043 48 838 N da 65.000 350 80,952 83,182 77,577 79,654 78,750 77,495 New Hampshire 50,333 57,785 62,988 65 ,046 66 , 000 66,215 65 , 888 62,036 New Jersey 54.442 69,355 6,337 82,179 89,114 95.156 94,026 80, 087 New Mexic« 34,979 43.138 38 898 40,412 45,461 44,901 41,483 41,325 New York 50,145 71,373 6,025 77,677 88 ,636 94,826 94,456 79,020 North Ca ina 15,720 22,307 26,210 29,547 30,048 30,619 24.510 25,566 North Dakota 49.404 46,760 56,117 50,114 54,344 54,720 45,423 50,983 Ohi 48 589 58 366 56,748 59,589 65,106 65,599 56,784 58 683 Oklahoma 33.314 35 905 38. 830 35.916 34,872 2,264 35,250 36.634 Oreg 34.7908 48.971 18,945 51,934 54,768 59 381 43,308 48.872 Pennsylvania 40,218 48,375 56,413 61,256 63,061 64,958 62,111 56,627 Rhode Island 46,253 54,991 58.051 61,089 66,824 71,759 70, 966 61,419 South Carolina 11,984 16,638 22,076 25,081 27,004 28,624 20,938 21,764 4 South Dakota 50,224 49 300 49 447 50,012 51,701 52,484 49 163 50,333 ‘ Tennessee 13,748 19,371 22,783 27,175 28,139 30,154 27,473 24,120 1 Texas 22,629 28,252 25,493 29,799 28,627 32,533 33,919 28,750 Utah 41,824 45,618 45,175 44,416 47 , 286 48 282 40,581 44,740 g Vermont 48 892 49 976 47,140 52,667 52,655 56,368 50,420 51,160 00 Virginia 21,167 28 066 28,183 28,472 29,956 30,935 28.699 27,925 Washington 57,916 60,019 59.029 59,357 60, 830 62,411 56,558 59 446 1 West Virginia 29,825 41,892 45 365 51,563 49 856 52,624 45,717 45 263 8 Wisconsin 42,146 52,692 53,699 51,708 55,154 62,699 54,741 53,263 $ Wyoming 56,655 64,258 70,943 72.575 82,176 73,250 64,494 69,193 3¢ Read table thus: In 1919-20 Alabama expended $15,491 per thousand units of educational need. The data fr this figure is derived are taken from Table 3 which shows that Alabama in 1919-20 spent 7,730 thousands of dollars tion and from Table 6 which shows that Alabama in the same year had 499 thousand units of educational need. D former figure by the latter gives the $15,491 figure for Alabama in 1919-20. Similarly read data for other states a [ 134 ] the rank of the states for the same vears on 1922 - level of expenditure per unit of edu 1924 9 il need as calculated in this study, the « 192 31 ficients are as follows: 193 83 16—INDEXES OF EXPENDITURE PER THOUSAND UN TIONAL NEED BY YEARS TABLE ITS OF EDUCA ——— United States =100 f State 1919-20 1921-22 1923-24 1925-26 1927-28 1929-30 1931-3 ] 2 3 4 5 6 7 e ) | S m0 100.0 100.0 100.0 0 0 100.0 " 41.0 ; 5 10 43 4 4 170.1 132 8 0 1 1.8 32.2 5 +1 10.4 10 37.2 142.3 146 50.8 j j 10.4 116 g 18 19 5 124.6 129 123.8 x y 8.1 120 115.8 11 04.5 114 8.4 O8 » 4 3 0 ) 4 1 3.6 40 Rx 4 ‘8.9 | 4.9 111.4 103 3.4 1 4 go 4 g 115.9 114.6 118.4 1?0 ) 117.3 149.0 111 ) 192 111.9 105 ) ) 135.6 109.5 120.4 178 4 106 10? Oo ) 114.4 103.6 5 4 10 4 Mi 4 xO) k 40.7 415.9 | 56.0 54 $5 4 , 19.6 69.2 6 6 $1 59 j 95.8 91.8 90.0 RR 3 . ) Rg? 5 5 RN . ] ] R66 94.3 6 8 92.7 94.5 96 100.3 4.9 ssachusetts 144.0 141.0 141.9 128.6 38.0 133.6 135.1 :7.0 137.9 139.8 137.0 146.1 139.9 137.5 125.0 M esota 125.8 122.4 131.8 11 ] 133.9 110.5 lit 8 ssippi 32.9 34.6 32 38.3 47.1 44.1 18 40 souri 77.2 80.2 80.9 82.7 77.7 76.4 81.8 9 in 173.1 142.9 120.8 118.1 112.8 109.2 03.4 ; ska 120.7 122.2 3.3 90 3 87.2 RR R15 la 171.9 165.3 163.8 157.5 137.7 136 145 w Hampshire 133.1 123.5 127.4 123 117.1 113.3 121.9 1 w Jersey 144.0 148.2 154.4 155.6 158.2 162.8 173.9 5 w Mexico 92.5 92.2 78 76.5 RO. 7 76.8 76 ~ ; w York 132.6 152.5 153.8 147 15 3 162.2 174 55 rth Carolina 41.6 47.7 53.0 55.9 53.3 52.4 45 50 rth Dakota 130.7 99.9 113.5 94.9 06.4 93.6 84.0 100 3 ) 128.5 124.7 114.8 112.8 115.5 112.2 105.0 115.5 lahoma 88.1 76.9 78.6 68.0 61.9 72.3 65.2 1 Oregon 92.1 104.6 99.0 98.3 97.2 101.6 80.1 96.2 *® ‘ Pennsylvania 106.4 103.3 114.1 116.0 111.9 111.1 114.9 11.4 6 Rhode Island 122.4 117.5 117.5 115 118.6 122.7 131.3 120.9 v South Carolina 31.7 35.5 14.7 47.5 47.9 49.0 38 42.8 5 South Dakota 132.9 105.3 100.0 94.7 91.8 89.8 90.9 9 0 Tennessee 36.4 41.4 46.1 51.5 49.9 51.6 50.8 47.5 t ‘ Texas 59.9 60.4 51 56.4 50.8 55.6 62 Utah 110.6 97.5 1.4 84 83.9 82.6 5.1 88.0 v rmont 129.3 106.8 95 4 99 93.4 96.4 93.3 100.7 4 Virginia 56.0 60.0 57.0 £39 53.2 52.9 3.1 55.0 ashington 153.0 128.2 119.4 112.4 108.0 106 104.6 117.0 6 st Virginia 78.9 89.5 91.8 97.6 88.5 90.0 R4 89.1 sconsin 111.5 112.6 108.6 97.9 97.9 107.2 101.3 104.8 yming 149.9 137.3 143.5 137.4 145.8 125.3 119.3 136.2 Read table thus: This table is based on the data presented in Table 15, which show that in 1919-20 the United States as S le expended $37,803 per thousand units of educational need while Alabama expended $15,491 per thousand units of edu mal need. Taking the United States figure as 100, the figure for Alabama yields an index number of 41.0, i.e., it 41 perce — 4s great as the United States figure. Similarly read data for other states and year [ 135 ] Since three of the items in Phillips’ ten were financial in character, correlation would be expected between each of them and the financial measure of adequacy ] it ltl excluded and the correlation again computed. lhe coefficient, using only the seven non-finan- ] t LIST ¢ ized in this study, these three items were f cial items in Phillips’ list, is .62 and since a high non-financial tactors related 1930, the only year for which Philli } lished his data on each of the separate Another check made was a comparisor rank of the states according to expe: level and a ranking of the states on to state TABLE 17.—INDEX OF NUMBER OF DOLLARS EXPENDED PER THOUSAN UNITS OF EDUCATIONAL NEED 1919-20 100 State 1919-20 1921-22 1923-24 1925-26 1927-28 1929-30 19 l 2 3 4 5 6 7 ( rental U.S 100 123.8 130.7 139.7 149.1 154 Alabama 100 113.3 130.5 148.2 159.4 173.0 Arizona 100 96.2 106.6 99.1 97.8 100.9 Arkansas 100 114.6 134.2 165.6 173.2 180.2 California 100 128.4 128.6 149.3 163.8 165.2 Coloradc 100 130.9 140.7 150.1 157.6 156.2 Connecticut 100 116.4 127.9 130.6 144.3 147.4 Delaware 100 138.3 140.1 151.6 144.1 163.3 Florida 100 124.1 121.2 155.9 202.6 142.0 4,eorgia 100 122.0 136.0 164.7 168.0 176.4 Idahe 100 110.4 108.6 104.5 109.0 110.7 Illinois 100 122.5 133.7 145.6 149.1 157.4 ndiana 100 157.3 124.7 122.4 142.2 138.6 | lowa 100 100.0 116.2 132.3 117.3 116.4 Kansas 100 i2.1 108.7 115.2 140.0 122.3 Kentucky 100 139.6 164.4 192.3 198.9 212.3 Louisiana 100 123.1 125.2 134.1 137.3 132.3 Maine 100 118.7 122.9 128.8 136.2 133.2 Maryland 100 134.8 146.1 149.6 162.7 72.6 Massachusetts 100 121.3 128.9 124.8 142.9 143.6 Michigan 100 125.5 129.9 148.0 151.1 154.2 Minnesota 100 120.5 136.9 130.2 134.2 135.8 Mississippi 100 130.4 130.0 162.8 213.5 207.7 Missouri 100 128.7 137.0 149.7 150.1 153.2 Montana 100 102.2 91.3 95.4 97.2 97.6 Nebraska 100 125 101.1 104.5 107.6 113.0 Nevada 100 119.0 124 5 128.0 119.3 122.5 New Hampshire 100 114.8 125.1 129.2 131.1 131.6 New Jersey 100 127.4 140.2 150.9 163.7 174.8 New Mexic« 100 123.3 111.2 115.5 130.0 128.4 New York 100 142.3 151.6 154.9 176.8 189.1 ‘ North Carolina 100 141.9 166.7 188.0 191.1 194.8 North Dakota 100 94.6 113.6 101.4 110.0 110.8 Ohic 100 120.1 116.8 122.6 134.0 135.0 Oklahoma 100 108.0 116.6 107.8 104.7 126.9 Oregon 100 140.7 140.7 149.2 157.4 170.6 Pennsylvania 100 120.3 140.3 152.3 156.8 161.5 154 Rhode Island 100 118.9 125.5 132.1 144.5 155.1 1 South Carolina 100 138.8 184.2 209 .3 225.3 238.9 174 South Dakota 100 98.2 98.5 99.6 102.9 104.5 Tennessee 100 140.9 165.7 197.7 204.7 219.3 Texas 100 124.8 112.7 131.7 126.5 143.8 $ Utah 100 109.1 108.0 106.2 113.1 115.4 Vermont 100 102.2 96.4 107.7 1C7.7 115.3 Virginia 100 132.6 133.1 134.5 141.5 146.1 Washington 100 103.6 101.9 102.5 105.0 107.8 West Virginia 100 140.5 152.1 172.9 167.2 176.4 Wisconsin 100 125.0 127.4 122.7 130.9 148.8 Wyoming 100 113.4 125.2 128.1 145.0 129.3 11 Read table thus This figure was given the value of educational need 1919-20 Alabama expended $15,491 100 as shown per thousand units of educational need as shown in Ta in Column 2. In 1921-22 \labama expended $17,554 per thousand In terms of the 1919-20 figure this yields an index number of 113.3 as shown in Column 3. Similarly for other states and years { 136 } FIGURE IV AVERAGE EXPENDITURE PER UNIT OF EDUCATIONAL NEED 1920-32 o $10 $20 $30 £40 $50 $60 $70 $80 New Jersey New York Nevada California Michigan Massachusetts Wyoming Connecticut Arizona 4 Montana New Hampshire Rhode Island Minnesota Illinois Washington Delaware Ohio Colorado lowa Indiana Pennsylvania Wisconsin Vermont North Dakota South Dakota Idaho Kansas Oregon Nebraska Maryland West Virginia Maine Utah New Mexico Missouri Oklahoma Florida Louisiana HH Texas Virginia Kentucky North Carolina Tennessee South Carolina Alabama Mississippi Arkansas Georgia “United States | o'r $10 $20 $30 $40 $50 $60 $70 $80 Read chart thus: The average expenditure per 1000 units of educational need in New Jersey for the alternate years 1919-20 to 1931-32 inclusive was $80,C87, as shown in Table 15, Column 9, or slightly more than $80 per unit of need Similarly read chart for other states eficiency by the Research Division of the Na Relative amount of school attendance Che holding power of the schools : sda “ neat sencint » the vear ional Education Association for the l ccc alt Waele 1930." “These items and the rank-order cot Combining the ranks of the thre lation coeflicients were: items and correlating with the finan al Educa A I , } FE ’ 77 \ 4 TABLE 18.—RANK OF THE STATES IN ACCORDANCE WITH CURRENT EX! ITURES PER THOUSAND UNITS OF EDUCATIONAL NEED, 1920-32 Rank Rink for >tate entire 1920 1922 1924 1926 1928 1930 1932 period l 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 42 44 45 45 46 45 45 $ \riz } 10 ¢ 12 18 16 16 9 ‘ : 48 4 46 47 47 48 47 ( ) 6 ~ 4 3 z z { ‘ r 19 15 13 11 14 15 18 14 13 10 ) 8 7 5 r De y re 17 i8 15 4 11 x l F] ! 38 38 38 2 37 37 3 ( + 47 4 47 48 48 46 48 Ida 19 22 4 9 30 30 27 I 20 11 12 10 12 4 Ind 4 1 17 21 23 0 va 10 3 13 8 21 22 22 19 Kansas 4 4 29 28 20 27 32 f ck 45 4) 4 40 39 39 40 41 Louisiat 3 37 37 38 37 38 39 38 Maine 40 33 33 32 32 33 26 32 Maryland 44 31 27 30 26 24 21 30 Massachusett ; ; 5 7 6 6 6 6 Michigan 8 8 7 5 5 4 9 5 Minnesota 18 15 9 16 14 17 14 13 Mississippi 4 46 48 48 45 46 43 46 Missouri 36 35 34 34 36 35 30 35 Montana 1 5 12 i4 15 18 19 10 Nebraska 1 16 30 31 3 31 31 29 Nevada , l 1 1 7 5 4 3 New Hampshire 11 14 i1 10 10 12 10 il New Jersey 6 4 : 2 i 1 2 1 New Mexico $1 32 35 35 35 34 34 34 New York 13 : 3 3 2 2 1 2 North Carolina 41 41 40 41 40 42 44 42 North Dakota.. 15 29 1 26 25 26 29 24 Ohio 17 12 19 19 13 13 17 17 Oklahoma 33 36 36 37 38 36 36 30 Oregon 32 26 6 23 24 23 33 28 Pennsylvania 29 28 0 17 16 15 13 21 Rhode Island 20 18 17 18 9 9 7 12 South Carolina 48 45 44 44 44 44 47 44 South Dakota 12 25 25 27 9 29 25 25 Tennessee 44 43 43 43 43 43 42 43 Texas 39 39 41 39 42 40 38 39 Utah 26 30 32 33 34 32 35 33 i Vermont 16 24 28 22 27 25 24 23 Virginia 40 40 39 42 41 41 41 40 Washingtor 4 11 14 20 19 20 18 15 West Virginia 35 34 31 5 31 28 28 31 Wisconsin 25 21 23 24 23 19 20 22 Wyoming 5 9 4 6 + 8 11 7 Read table thus: In 1920 forty-one states expended more money per thousand units of educational need than A which thus ranked 42. For the entire period of years covered Alabama ranked 45 and lost 3 places in rank from | Similarly read table for other states and years [ 138 ] rABLE 19.—CERTAIN CHARACTERISTICS OF THE EXPENDITURES OF THE STATES FOR CURRENT COSTS OF EDUCATION PER THOUSAND UNITS OF EDUCATIONAL NEED Highest state Lowest state Difference Ratio of between highest Mean Expenditure Expenditure highest expendi- United expend Standard Name per 1000 Name per 1000 and lowest ture to States ture of jeviation imits of need units of need expenditure owest expend th figure ture® tat 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 D 20 Montana $65 , 430 South Carolina $11,984 $53,446 5.5 {$37,803 $39 . Nevada 7,350 Arkansas 15,05 ( 293 ae 46. 80 } 24 Nevada 80,952 Mississippi 16,14 64, 806¢ 5.0 49 426 18 j ed 26 Nevada 83,182 Mississipp ( 18 ? 964 4.1 52,815 5 180 28 New Jersey 89,114 Georgia 67,475 +1 56, 347 30 New Jersey 95,156 Georgia - » 428 42 58 46 55.0 New York 94,456 Arkansas 1 4 4,752 1.8 $4,061 0,3 8, 58 Read table thus: In 1919-20 Montana spent $65,4 pe and units of need whereas South Ca i lifference between these two figures is $53,446. The t the larger f e to the alle t expenditure state spent $5.50 per unit of educat eed t $1 in the vest expenditure hahs - nited States was $37,S er th and ate va s $15.19 This figure is secured by dividing the total expenditure ent t education in the 1 er of units of educational need in the United State This figure is the average of the 48 figures derived | ng the expenditures for current by the number of units of educational need in ¢ } ¢ ¢ the expenditure figure 1 r and divided by 48 utilized in this study yields a rank order this study by the number of dollars expended coefhcient of correlation of .72 05. annually for the current cost of the publ lhe preceding coefficients of correlation are schools per unit of educational load of special significance because there is no error The basic measure of the educational load associated with population sampling since the of the states utilized was the number of unit total population is represented. While other of educational need as calculated by the sampling factors remain in the data upon which formula developed by Mort. . , —_ ‘he state ic ls ( orded the correlations are based, the coefficients pre he states in which schools aisle the most adequate financial support received ‘ sented on the preceding pages are high enough nee ws a € PI ; : ae ; from $+ to $5 per unit of educational need to o indicate a close relationship between ade ; ; ! : : : $1 received by the schools in the states being a quacy of financial support and adequacy of : corded the least adequate financial support. educational program as determined by the use . ' . ; ie! ; a he Generally speaking, the relative adequacy of I ot certain objective non-financial factors. 7 c Pe ‘ 1e educational programs of the states as meas S ured by the level of financial support was muc h ummar ; y the same as the relative adequacy of the educa The relative adequacy of the educational — tional program determined in certain previous | programs of the several states is measured in studies thru the use of non-financial measureé [ 139 | CHAPTER VI The Relation of Effort, Adequacy, and Ability ‘The purpose of this chapter is to show the relationship which exists among the factors “effort” quacy”’ as presented in Chapter V, and “‘ability”’ as presented in Chapter IV, “ade- as estimated by Chism and Newcomer whose basic data were presented in Chapter III. Relation of Effort to Adequacy Using Chism’s Data Correlation coefhcients ' were calculated be- tween the “efforts” of the states, expressing effort in terms of percent of tax resources de- voted to education, and “adequacy” of financial support accorded education in the several states as measured by the current expense figure uti- 1000 units of educa- generally lized in this study per The positive as shown by the tional need. relationship is slightly coefhcients of correlation for the six years of following the study: 1921-22: 1 32 = 6 1923-24: r 19 + .09 1925-26: r 04 = .10 1927-28: r = .08 = .10 1929-30: r -.02 += .10 1931-32: r 12 = 10 For practical purposes, relationship between these factors is insignificant. Thus, among the states where the adequacy of financial support of the schools is high, there are states which put forth much effort to achieve a high level of financial support whereas other states are required to put forth but little effort to pro- vide the same level of financial support. On the other hand, where the adequacy of financial support of the schools is low, there are states which nevertheless expend a large percent of their relative tax resources for education. This means that if the Second Model Tax Plan had been in operation in all the states, and the states had supported education as they actually did, there would have been practically All correlation coefficients in this chapter were worked by the Pearson product-moment method coefficient was calculated, altho the problem of population sampling is not present since the total population of the state however, in the data, particularly with reference to available for study. The sampling factor still remains effort’’ since the latter is calculated in terms of formula only for the measurement of educational need attend»nce ? Chapter VII shows the relative efforts that would have been required of the states to support a defensible natio mum program » Seven vears are included in this average since data for 1920 were needed for use in connection with Newcomer to tax resources for 1920 { 140 | “ability’’ data would doubtless be somewhat different in result so that the sampling factor exists here. It is present in the to a less extent because this factor is measured in terms of actual expenditures instead of estimates, sampling entering and this is also based primarily upon the actual data of average no relationship between the two factors and ‘“‘adequacy.” ? Figure V shows graphically the relat ~~ between the average “effort’’ based on data for the six biennial periods 1922 and the average “adequacy” based on of dollars expended per unit of educat need for the seven biennial periods 19 1932.3 Relation of Effort to Adequacy U Newcomer’s Data “Effort,” as calculated on the basis of \ comer’s data, was also correlated wit! “adequacy” of the support provided. Fo: the correlation coefficient was .43 + .08 1930 the situation had so changed that the relation coefficient was —.37 + .08, a di shift from the relationship found fo: As shown by the probable errors, both of 1 correlations are significant especially in of the fact that the total population was able for study. Figure VI presents graph the relationship for 1930. Whereas in 1920 there was a definite dency for the states which put forth the gre effort in support of education to provide most adequate level of financial support their schools, in 1930 there was a definite t dency for the states which put forth the gr effort to be unable to provide as adequ level of financial support for their schoo other states exerting less effort. Correlation between “Effort” and “Ad: quacy” When Adequacy Is Calculat: in Terms of Various Measures of Edu cational Load The basic measure of the adequacy of financial support accorded the schools in study has been the expenditure per unit of « cational need. It may also be measured The probable « “ability 2 Studies of ability other than those by Chism and N “adequacy de ited FIGURE V AVERAGE “EFFORT” (1922-32) BASED ON CHISM’S DATA AND AVERAGE “ADEQUACY” (1920-32) COMPARED Effort’ Adequacy Average Percent of Tax Resources Average Number of Dollars Expended Expended for Education per Unit of Educational Need 0 10 20 30 40 $75 $60 $45 $30 $15 0 Wyo. Wyo N. Mex. N. Mex N. Dak. N. Dak Colo. Colo Okla. Okla Idaho ee nn Idaho Miss. Miss Utah Uteh Mich. Mich Ind. Ind Ariz. Ariz Mont. Mont Calif. NE Cali Minn Minn Vt Ve Kans. Kans N.C. N. C N. J. N. J $.¢ S. € Wis. WwW $s Ala. Ala Ky Ky Texas Texas Wash. Wash La. La Nebr. Nebr S. Dak. S. Dak Onio Ohio lowa lowa W. Va. W.Va N. Y. N. Y Mass. Mass Ore. Ore Del. Del Maine Maine Ul TT] Fla. Fla Conn. Conn Pa. Pa N. H. NH Tenn. « es Tenn Ark. U.S U.S Ak Ga. Ga Mo Mo R. 1. | R. 1 Va. Va Md. Md Nev. Ney te) 10 20 30 40 $75 $60 $45 $30 $15 0 "Based on data from Table 8, Column 8. ‘Based on data from Table 15, Column 9. [ 141 ] FIGURE VI “EFFORT” BASED ON NEWCOMER’'S DATA AND “ADEQUACY” COMPARED 1929-30 Effort* Adequacy Percent of Tax Resources Expended Number of Dollars Expended per for Education Unit of Educational Need ° 15 30 45 75 $80 $60 $40 $20 0 N. Dak N. Dak Miss M $s a< S.C N wen —_—_—————— ee N M Ale Ala S. Dek S. Dal. Ind Ind Ideho Idaho N.C N. ¢ Colo Colo Wye —_—_———_—_—_—_—_—_—_———— ER A EA TTD Wyo Le La Okle Okla Mont Mont Asis —_—_—_—_—_——— NE TD Ariz Kans Kans Minn Minn w Ve ee mT Ww V Ve —_—_— Ve Mich Mich Ga Ga Ky Ky lowe lowe Ark Ark Wis a Wis Wash — i oneeeeennetneeennetnneinenneemenneiineemnnnetee nl Wash a be ee a NH Oho a Ohio Ore Ore Tenn \ Tenn Calif Calif Maine — Ee Maine Pa Pa N. J N. J Wt it Mass Mass Conn Conn Mo [ Mo R.1 R. | Md Md N.Y N. Y Nev Nev Del : : ‘ Del ° 15 45 75 $80 $60 $40 $20 0 Research Division, Nationa! Educat *Based on data from Table 13, Column 3. *Based on data from Table 15, Column 7. [ 142 ] of two other measures of educational id: (1) the expenditure per pupil in aver daily attendance and (2) the expenditure child five to seventeen years of age. Data on -hese two items are presented in Appendix IV. For comparative purposes, correlations were ulated for 1930 between “effort” based on oth Chism’s and Newcomer’s data and “ade guacv” based on the two measures mentioned ove. [he correlation coefficients are given in Table 20 for the year 1929-30. The correla tions, when Chism’s data are used, are close to zero regardless of which measure of edu- ational load is used. On the basis of New omer’s data the correlations are all negative somewhat lower when attendance and population are used as the measure of educa tional load instead of units of educational need. Regardless of which measure of educational load is used, essentially the same conclusion is reached as to the relationship between the fa tors “effort” and “‘adequacy.” Relation of Effort to Ability The correlation between the efforts of the states to support education and their ability to support education was calculated to determine what relationship exists between these two factors. The correlation between the efforts of the states to support education using Chism’s data and the relative ability of the states to support education according to Chism’s data for repre- sentative years yielded coefficients as follows: 1924: 1 — 30 + .09 fase. f= — 3 = OP 1930: r —= — .46 + .08 1932: r -.19 + .09 The correlation coefficient for the average f the two factors for the six years of the study based on Chism’s data is — .31 + .09. When effort, calculated on the basis of New- omer’s data, is correlated with the relative ability of the states to support education, using Newcomer’s data as a measure of the relative ibility of the states, the correlation coefficients ire: 1920: r = — .28 + .09 36: f= 47 = 04 The above correlation coefficients are evi- dence that states of great ability tended to put TABLE 20.—COMPARISON OF CORRE LATION BETWEEN THE TWO FAC- TORS “EFFORT” AND “ADEQUACY” FOR 1929-30 WHEN “ADEQUACY” IS CALCULATED IN TERMS OF VARI- OUS MEASURES OF EDUCATIONAL LOAD Adequacy Source of tax Per unit of Per child in Per child resource data 49 educational average daily 5-17 years need attendance of age 1 2 3 } (hism x 02+ .10 04+.10 0 Newcomer 37 + 08 29+ 09 3+.09 forth less effort in support of education than less able states especially in 1930. Relation of Ability to Adequacy In order to determine to what extent the more able states tend to provide their schools with more adequate financial support, correla tion coefficients were calculated between the factors “‘ability’’ and ‘“‘adequacy.” On the basis of Chism’s data as to the tax resources of the states the coefficients tor representative vears are. 1924: 1 83 03 1928: 1 7 = 1930: r 82 = .03 1932: © $Z = .03 The correlation for the average of the two factors for the combined six years of the study based on Chism’s data resulted in a coefficient of .82 + .03. When ability, represented by Newcomer’s estimates of the tax resources of the states, is correlated with the relative adequacy of finan cial support of the schools the correlation co efficients are: 1920: r Jt = 1930: r 68 + .05 The above evidence indicates that there is a rather high relationship between the two factors under consideration. Graphic Presentation of “Effort,” “Ade- quacy,” and “Ability” Figure VII consists of a map showing by groups the efforts of the states to support edu cation in 1929-30 using Chism’s data as to tax resources. Figure VIII is similar except that it is based on Newcomer’s data as to tax resources. Figure IX shows by groups the L 143 | FIGURE VII PERCENT OF TAX RESOURCES (CHISM) EXPENDED FOR EDUCATION 1929-30 —<-— | First twelve states f—4 Second twelve states ~~ fia) Third twelve states ¥ ME fourth twelve states _ P~ . ery Research Division, Nationa! Educatio FIGURE VIII PERCENT OF TAX RESOURCES (NEWCOMER) EXPENDED FOR EDUCATION 1929-30 ~~ 7 oe ——..: __} First twelve state SS Second twelve state fa Third twelve states RG Fourth twelve states Research Division, Nationa! Educatio [144] FIGURE IX NUMBER OF DOLLARS EXPENDED PER UNIT OF EDUCATIONAL NEED 1929-30 | First twelve states =j Second twelve states ' Third twelve states 4 Fourth twelve states 2 earch Division. Nationa! Educat FIGURE X RELATION OF EFFORT, ADEQUACY, AND ABILITY SOUT Wh a eo aaa Cee ee %) Vas | a (Median| 940 b ODBNAUAWNH—OOD i | ’ j NONMNMNM AH ABeBamamao oo = WH isd oes (Percent of tax resources expended for education) $50 $60 $70 $80 $90 ADEQUACY (Number of dollars expended per unit of educational need) Read chart thus: The numbers in the chart represent the states indicated in the above key and also represent the rank order ability of the states to support education according to Chism's data for 1930. Thus the figure ‘'1"’ in the chart represents Nevada, and also means that Nevada ranked ‘'1"' on ability to support education according to Chism's data for 1929-30 Its plotting shows that Nevada devoted 19.4 percent of its tax resources to education in 1929-30 and expended $79,654 per thousand units of educational need. Similarly interpret other numbers in the chart. Research Division, Nationa! Educat [145 ] educat on as proy ided adequacy Of support measured by the number of dollars expended per unit of educational need. Figure X also shows the relation of “effort,” alculated on Chism’s data, to “‘adequacy”’ for 1930. Each state listed by the corresponding number in the proper position with regard to the “effort’’ and “‘ade- quacy” factors. ‘The number given each state is its rank on ability to support education ac- the year number represents the legend and is plotted according to its ording to Chism’s data as to tax resources. In the following discussion the states ranking | to 24 will be termed rich, and those ranking 25 to 48, poor. It will be assumed that both high and low effort and adequacy are divided by the median lines. The heavy horizontal and vertical lines are the medians of effort (percent of tax resources expended for education) and adequacy (num- ber of dollars expended per unit of educational need), respectively. The shaded area divides ranking highest on ability to support education from the twenty- ranking lowest. All of the states the twenty-four states four states ranking 25 to 48 on ability to support educa- tion fall in the unshaded area when they are plotted on the \ll of the states ranking 1 to 24 on ability to support education fall in the shaded portion of the chart. This chart shows that 13 poor states put forth high effort but even then could pro ‘ ‘effort’ and “adequacy” factors. vide their schools with only a low level of financial support. Seven poor states put forth relatively low effort and thus provided their schools with only a low level of financial sup- port, as would be expected. Four rich states put forth little effort and as a result provided only inadequate support for their Thirteen rich states, altho exerting relatively low effort, nevertheless were able to provide their schools with a high level of financial sup- schools. port. Seven rich states put forth relatively high effort and were thus able to provide their schools with a high level of financial support, four of them providing more adequate financial support than any other states. By exerting great effort four poor states were able to provide their schools with a relatively high level of financial support. Figure X shows that there are over twice as many poor states putting forth greater than the median effort as there are rich states. On the other hand, about five times as many rich states as poor states provide their schox a level of financial support above the n Generally speaking, the tendency is for t states to be able to provide their schox more adequate financial support than states and with less effort than the po exert. The latter statement is qualified be the fact that seven of the poor states put less effort than seven of the rich states. A ing the validity of the measure of effort these poor states which put forth litt] are doubtless the type of state which the ents of federal support have in mind wher assert that all the states could support quate program of education if they tried well to point out, however, that as again seven poor states exerting less than n effort there are seventeen rich states same classification. In these seven poo: the following percents of tax resources w have been required in 1929-30 to support fensible national minimum program of $¢ unit of educational need which is only s] higher than the national average: Gi 60.0; Arkansas—56.9 ; Tennessee—48.3 ; | ana—45.0; Virginia—40.9 ; Florida—38.3; \\ Virginia—30 5. The median percent of tax pended by the states for education in 193 approximately 27. Only one state, Wyo resoul spent over 38 percent of its tax resources education. The adequacy of support pro in West Virginia was almost as great a median and only a slightly greater effort w have placed it above the median on this f In view of the fact that the average stat voted only 27.9 percent of its relativ: resources to education in 1929-30, none ot other six of these states could reasonal expected to put forth as great a percent of t tax resources for education as would be quired of them to support the defensibl gram. Figure X with which the above discuss concerned is based upon the efforts and abi of the states in terms of Chism’s data. A sin chart prepared for any of the years for w! Chism provides data would show essent the same results. A chart based on Newcomer’s data for would similarly divide the rich and poor st and would show even more of the poor st putting forth greater effort with inadeq [ 146 ] ; " } | il support resulting and more rich states sources t that in PIU eo . ] ¢ + | +77 ‘ ¢ } ] } ed higher financial suppor it less effort it Newcor s data, the correlation ¢ I \ a rather high ne Summary ; % s , : : Between the average for the six n data presented, it appears that ther ory ea tudy ot t factors, ability oT t ittle relationship between the two factors | ’ rding to (hism s data and the } and “adequacy,” there being onl ‘ hi aie. xpenditures for education, there positive relationship using sm’s data ° positive re tionship using Chism’s da high positive correlation of .82. Betwe Newcomer Ss data, the correlation co quai 79 ind Newcomer's data as to , line 1 ) ' 1) + Ts . 1 ’ ° . , 102 ‘nt declines trom 43 In 1920 to - J/ 1n the correlation was 3] in 1920 and .68 in 193 Chere is a tendency for the rich states t Between “‘ettort’’ and iDility there 1s a vide their schools with more adequate financia ficant Dut not high negative rel itionshit support. even tho they exert le 1 ® | " e hasis ot both sources of data on tax than the po states ett \\ CHAPTER VII Efforts Required of the States To Support a Defensible Nation Minimum Program \s shown in Chapter V there was a wide quired to put forth 55.1 times as m u range among the states in the amount of money as Delaware. If Delaware is exclud expended per unit of educational need. This cause it is an extreme case, the ratio is range was caused by the varying ability and between Mississippi and Nevada. The | the varying efforts of the states to support required for the United States as a w education. The purpose of this chapter is to greater than on the basis of Chism’s d show what results when either of these two to the fact that the total tax resou: factors is held constant. nation as calculated by Newcomer w Ihe cost of a defensible national minimum than as calculated by Chism. expenditure per unit of educational need as calculated by Mort is $60.' His procedure in Adequacy at Various Levels of Efi arriving at this figure was to find the commu In this section the efforts of the calculated on the basis of Chism’s d nities of average wealth in the United States. Then, in the thirty-three states for which data held constant at various levels in order were collected in the National Survey of the relative adequacy of the support that School Finance, he listed all communities that be provided with all the states exertir did not vary more than 10 percent from the same effort. average in wealth per unit of need. Next, he found how much these communities were ex vending per unit of educational need. The TABLE 21-—-PERCERT OF TAX | ( gz pe Oo educationa need. 1 SOURCES (CHISM) REQUIRED average figure of these communities was found HAVE SUPPORTED A DEFENSIBR to be $60, or what may be termed a defensible NATIONAL MINIMUM PROGRAM ‘| national minimum expenditure per unit of edu $60 PER UNIT OF EDUCATION NEED IN 1930 cational need.” Using Chism’s Data Percent of Perce State tax resources State tax re In Table 21 the states are arranged in order required req of the percent of relative tax resources required 1 2 3 to meet the defensible national minimum pro- _ yyississippi —o ‘inteee gram for the year 1930. Figure XI expresses Alabama 68.6 South Dakota ‘ ‘ >: ih : South Carolina 66.1 Michigan similar data for 1932 in graphic form. North Carolina 64.2 Missouri 0 ? eo ‘ a °9 : Georgia 60.0 Nebraska In 1930, 88.2 percent of Mississippi's re Se So 9 Sietoe tive tax resources would have been required Kentucky 52.6 Wisconsin . Oklahoma 50.9 Minnesota to support such a program as contrasted with Texas 49.7 Oregon , only 14.6 percent for Nevada. ‘The ratio be- New Mexico 48.6 Washington es s * ' Tennessee 48.3 Ohio ’ tween Mississippi and Nevada would have Louisiana 45.0 California een approximately 6 to 1. coe as Steestend Virginia 40.9 lowa U i New ’ D t Idaho 38.7 Illinois sing comers Vata Florida 38.3 Pennsylvania 4h SD ow . M ss ’ =e Wyoming 37.6 Delaware lable 22 ranks the states on the percent of North Dakota 37.2 New Hampshire tax resources, as calculated by Newcomer, that Colorado 31.4 Rhode Island . P Vermont 31.2 Connecticut would have been required to support the de- Kansas 30.8 ecieaiematen : on? re : ‘ 30.7 New Jersey tensible nation: inimum program in 1930. Arizona “eee = oa - " a il = : I = x : West Virginia 30.5 New York Chis relationship is shown graphically in Indiana 29.4 Nevada ve r eT : Continental U. S. 27.8 Figure XII. Mississippi would have been re- : 1 Mort, Paul R. Federal Support for Public Education. New York: Bureau of Publications, Teachers College, ‘ University. 1936. p. 207-17 ? Another possible method of arriving at a defensible national minimum expenditure per unit of need is to find the expenditure per unit of educational need of the states of average tax resources per unit of educational need. This 1 vields a slightly lower figure than Mort’s, i.e., $58 per unit of educational need. [148 ] 22—PERCENT OF TAX RE- TABLE SOURCES (NEWCOMER) REQUIRED TO HAVE SUPPORTED A DEFEN- SIBLE NATIONAL MINIMUM PRO- GRAM OF $60 PER UNIT OF EDUCA- rlIONAL NEED IN 1930 Percent of Percent of State tax resources State tax resources required required 1 2 3 4 pI 181.8 Montana 50.3 rolina 160.3 Arizona 49.2 BaS.7 Maine 48.4 129.9 Minnesota 47.5 116.0 lowa 46.2 rolina 109.0 Wyoming 44.6 " 94.3 Missouri 42.7 Dakota 87.4 Washington 42.0 Mex 87.3 Wisconsin 42.0 ky 86.9 Oregon 41 € 79.2 Ohio 38.6 77.2 New Hampshire 38.2 ma 76.1 Michigar 37.0 74.1 Pennsylvania 35.8 66.0 Illinois 30.1 Dakota 66.0 Maryland 28.8 64.3 California 27.3 58.2 Rhode Island 26.6 rginia 57.6 Massachusetts 26.4 55.6 Connecticut 26.1 ska 53.4 New Jersey 22.0 53.3 New York 15.7 E 51.2 Nevada 12.2 51.0 Delaware 3.3 O Continental U. S. 38.6 E )F LL lable 23 shows the extent to which the de te nsible national minimum program in each _ state would have been met in 1932 if each state id put forth the same effort as would have een required of New York to maintain that program. [ With the same effort, sixteen states would have been unable to provide even 50 percent of the defensible national minimum program. On the basis of Chism’s data for the year 1930 many of the states would have been un ile to meet the defensible national minimum program even if they had put forth as much effort as the states which ranked high on effort support education. For example, sixteen tates could not have met the defensible na 5 tional minimum if their efforts had equaled the average effort of the six states ranking ighest, or expended 37.9 percent of their tax ‘sources for education: New Mexico North Carolina Oklahoma South Carolina Alabama Arkansas Florida Georgia Idaho Tennessee Kentucky Texas Louisiana Utah Virginia Mississippi Many of the states, even with relatively reat ettort; would have been unable to provide sufhcient funds to equal the national average expenditure per 1000 units of educational in 1930 which was $58,467. need The average pel cent of tax 1930. which ranked resources expended for education in Chism’s of the states 13 to 24 on this factor was With this effort the following states based on data, percent. could not have provided their schools with the 7 ; national average expenditure per unit of edu cational need for that year: Alabama North Carolina Arizona*? North DakotaZ (Arkansas Oklahoma Colorado*? South Carolina Florida? Cre orgia Idahot K ansas*2 Kentucky Louisiana Tennessee lexas Utah Vermont*? Virginia West W voming? Virginia*? Mississippi Ne w Mexico Of this list only those marked with asterisks (*) could have met the national average in 1930 if they had put forth the same ettort as TABLE 23.—PERCENT OF DEFENSIBLE NATIONAL MINIMUM ~- PROGRAM THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN PRO- VIDED IF EACH STATE HAD PUT FORTH THE EFFORT, BASED ON CHISM’S DATA, THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN REQUIRED OF NEW YORK IN 1932 State Percent State Percent Nevada 126.5 West Virginia 62.9 New York 100.0 Vermont 62.6 Massachusetts 99.2 Indiana 62.0 Connecticut 99.0 Kansas 60.4 Rhode Island oR 4 Colorad 59 New Hampshire 97.5 Arizona ) New Jersey 97.3 North Dakot: 0 Illinois 86.6 Wyoming lowa 86.0 Idaho 19.1 Pennsylvania 84.4 Florida 16.9 Delaware 84.2 Virginia 16.8 Maryland 79.0 Utal { Ohio Vv. Louisiana 41.3 Vi ingt 76.6 Texas 10.0 ( rnia 76.0 Tennessee tR_® Minnesota 74.6 New Mexico South Dak Tho Oklahoma Missour 70.6 Kentucky 34 Nebr 67.7 Arkansas Montana 66.9 Georgia 1.0 Main 66.8 North. j Michigan 66.3 S hCa Wisconsin 65.6 \labam 0 reg 63.8 Mississ ppi Conti 1U. S. 66.3 [ 149 ] FIGURE XI EFFORT, BASED ON CHISM'S DATA, REQUIRED TO SUPPORT NATIONAL MINIMUM PROGRAM, 1932 Percent of Tax Resources Required To Support a Defensible Program of $60 per Unit of Educational Need oO ~ °o jr °o — o & 50 60 70 80 90 100 Mississippi Alabama South Carolina North Carolina Georgia Arkansas Kentucky Oklahoma New Mexico Tennessee Texas Louisiana Utah Virginia Florida Idaho Wyoming North Dakota Colorado Arizona Kansas Indiana Vermont West Virginia Oregon Wisconsin Maine Montana Nebraska Missouri South Dakota Minnesota California Washington Ohio Maryland Delawaie Pennsylvania lowa aerate en RR a F eeeteietamenenetendiannietemmeeeemma —— eee a i aeeeinietieeneanetimeeinenemmmmmnaimmmmeasll ES TE RR er rr meen ta en meme cere A TS A TT ee ee A TT SOOO A men AE TT ee eee TTT TT ES TT ———$——$—$—— TT NE ER TT -_ United States New Jersey New Hampshire Rhode Island Massachusetts New York Nevada 7 8 0 10 ° 3 3 wt & J s Research Division, Nationa! Education A [150] FIGURE XII Percent of Tax Resources Required To Support a Defensible Program of $60 per Unit of Educational Need Mississippi South Carolina Alabama Georgia Arkansas North Carolina Louisiana North Dakota New Mexico Kentucky Tennessee Texas Oklahoma Virginia Utah South Dakota Idaho Kansas West Virginia Indiana Nebraske Vermont Colorado Florida Montana NATIONAL MINIMUM PROGRAM, 1930 o 3 & 80 EFFORT, BASED ON NEWCOMER'S DATA, REQUIRED TO SUPPORT 60 120 140 160 180 ee eee et Nee ee | eeetinsndatitlitetieiamineims eaten RS SS ee | eeeeneneiemmmnnememeeennnl fee eo ee —_——— oe RR ir a oe a me US a tees it a ee ce es eee ee ee RE ens SS Rr en MIR ee a RET en ENE eo net eee LL LS a ee oR ————— RIO Se er mem SS Sew A a LE a - United States 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 Research Division, Nati »nal Educat [151 ] the average effort of the upper fourth of the Using Newcomer’s data for 1930 states or had spent 35.7 percent of their relative sippi would have been required to tax resources for education. 55.1 times as much effort as Delaware Only those marked with the number sign to provide the de‘ensible national n (2) could have met the national average in program or to have devoted to educat 1930 even if they had put forth the same effort percent of its tax resources as against as the average effort of the first six states or cent in Delaware. Next to Delaware, t had spent 37.9 percent of their relative tax re- which would have needed to put forth 1 sources for education. effort was Nevada where less than teenth as much effort would have Summary quired as in Mississippi. On the basis of Chism’s data, sixtee ‘he cost of a defensible national minimum could not have financed the defensible expenditure per unit of educational need as minimum program in 1930 even if calculated by Mort at $60 is utilized in this put forth as much effort as the avera; chapter. of the six states which ranked highest Based on Chism’s data for 1930, Mississippi that year or had expended 37.9 pe would have had to put forth 6 times as much _ their relative tax resources for educatior effort as Nevada or to have devoted 88.2 per- With the same effort fourteen of t! cent of its tax resources for education as could not have financed the national against 14.6 percent in Nevada in order to expenditure per unit of educational provide the defensible national program. 1930. CHAPTER VIII Summary and Conclusions Summary purposes of this study have been: (1) ure the relative efforts of the states to public education; (2) to measure the adequacy of the financial support pro- public education in the several states; }) to discover the relationship existing be- rween the factors “effort,” “adequacy,” and (4) to determine the relative forts that would be required of the states to ty’; and support a defensible national minimum pro- of financial support for public education. e study covered each biennial from 920 thru 1932. lhe formula developed in this study for the -asurement of the effort of a state t education was, with certain refinements, year to sup- ratio of the state’s expenditures for current sts of public education to its relative tax re- The specific expenditure figure util- for each state was its expenditure for rent costs of public education, including the mbined expenditures of both the state and | school systems, exclusive of interest, plus ost of the state department of education, less revenues received from the federal govern- ment and from subsidies from private sources. Data as te the relative tax resources of the states were available in two recent studies. Chism’s study provided data of this nature fot ch year from 1922 thru 1932 based upon the ippl cation of the Second Model Tax Plan of the National Tax study provided data for the years 1920 and 1930 based on a uniform plan but differing in ¢ Association. Newcomer’s tan respects from the Model Tax Plan. he objectives of these two studies were not identical. Some of the differences between them re explained in Chapter III. Calculations based on both these sets of data poe to the relative tax resources of the states w that there is a considerable range in the rts of the states to support education. On he basis of Chism’s data, some states put forth For he six biennial periods 1922 to 1932 combined, re than twice as much effort as others. ming! put forth the greatest effort, spend- If revenue from permanent funds was excluded Wyoming would not rank so high on effort since appr expenditures for education were derived from this source 153 ing an average of 45.9 percent of its relative tax resources for public education whereas Ne vada, which ranked lowest for the entire pe riod, spent an average of 22 percent. The mean percent of tax resources expended by the states for education for the combined six years of the study was 29.8 with a standard deviation of 5.9. On the basis of Newcomer's data as to the relative tax resources of the states, there was a much wider range in effort among the states to support public education. The percent of tax resources expended for public education in Vermont in 1920 was 15 times as great as in Delaware. In this year Vermont expended 48 percent of its relative tax resources for educa tion and Delaware only Boke percent. ‘The mean percent of the 48 states was 27.0 and the stand ard deviation 8.7. In 1930 the range was even greater, North Dakota expending 79.6 pet cent of its relative tax resources for education } ic or 21.5 times as much as Delaware where t percent was only 3.7. The mean for the 48 states was 45.9 percent and the standard devia 14.2. The extreme ratios in effort on the bas he that Delaware’s relative tax resources are very tion, Newcomer's data are partly due to t according to Newcomer’s data. But even he st was great excluding Delaware and taking t with effort, Nevada spending 16.4 percent of its relative tax re ate the next lowest which sources for education, the ratio is 4.85 to 1 1930. The Pearson correlation coefficient between tor the indexes of the efforts of the states to sup port education on the basis of the two studies was .65 in 1929-30, the only for data as to tax resources were available fr both This there was some disagreement as to the rel efforts of the states, due to the lack of complet year which In studies. correlation means that it agreement between the two studies as to the relative ability of the states to support educa tion. The latter is probably due in large part +} to the difference in objectives ot ne two } studies explained in Chapter III. The genera! } ximate See Appendix, Table A conclusions of the present study point in the same direction when either set of data is used. ‘The adequacy of the financial support pro- vided education in the states was measured by the same current expense figure as was used in the measurement of effort. The states where the level of support was most adequate spent from $4 to $5 for current expenses per unit of educational need to $1 spent by the schools where the level of financial support was least adequate. this adequacy were in substantial agreement with The findings by measure of the efficiency ratings of state school systems made by previous investigators using certain qualitative and quantitative factors. The relation between “effort”’ quacy” when effort is calculated on the basis of data taken from Chism’s application of the Second Model Tax Plan was an insignificant positive relationship except for one year when the correlation coefficient .02. This means that among the states which exert rela- tively great effort to support education there and “ade- Was - are some in which the amount of money thus provided is relatively adequate whereas in others it is relatively inadequate. And, on the other hand, among the states which exert rela- tively little effort to support education there are some states in which the funds thus pro- vided are relatively adequate while in others they are relatively inadequate. When “effort” was computed on the basis of Newcomer’s data as to the relative tax re- sources of the states, the correlation coefficient between “effort”? and “adequacy’’ was .43 in 1920. By 1930 the situation had so changed that the relationship was —.37, which repre- sents a striking shift in the relationship be- tween the two factors. In 1920 a relatively great effort by a state tended to result in rela- tively 1930 there was a tendency for the states exerting relatively great effort to be able to provide only relatively inadequate financial support. The relationship between “effort” “ability” was a significant but low negative adequate financial support. In and correlation on the basis of either source of data as to ability, except for 1930, when there was the fairly high negative correlation of —.77 between “effort” and “ability” as measured on the basis of Newcomer's data. Between the average of the factors “ability” and “adequacy” for the six years of the study on the basis of Chism’s data as to correlation coefhicient was .82. ©; of Newcomer’s data as to ability 1920 and .68 in 1930. Mort’s figure of $60 was take: fensible national minimum unit of Chism’s data, Mississippi would hay quired to devote 88.2 percent of expen educational need. In 19 tax resources to education in orde: the defensible national minimum whereas Nevada would have needed percent. In 1930, using Newcomer's dat sippi would have been required 181.7 percent of its relative tax re education in order to provide the national Delawar have needed only 3.3 percent. In N« next to the lowest state, only 12.: program whereas would have been required. On the basis of Chism’s data sixt could not have met the defensibl minimum program in 1930 even it put forth as much effort as the ave: the six highest ranking states or had 37.9 percent of their relative tax resi education. With the same effort, fourteen of could not have financed the nationa expenditure per unit of educational! 1930. Conclusions The principal conclusions to be draw this study are: 1. Generally speaking, there is for the rich states to provide their scho more adequate financial support thar vided in the poor states and with | than the poor states exert. 2. There is considerable range in tive efforts of the states to support edu 3. There is a wide range among t! in the relative adequacy of the finan port accorded education. 4. On the basis of Chism’s data in “effort” is relatively narrow as co! with the range in “adequacy” as calcul this study and in “ability” according to data, being but little more than one-t -~ great as the range in these two factors. O basis of Newcomer’s data the range in [ 154] shtly more than one-half as great in nd one-third as great in 1930, as the n “ability.”” The range in “‘effort’’ based weomer’s data, however, is three to four 1s great as the range in ‘“‘adequacy”’ of il support as calculated in this study. is no significant relationship be- “effort” | here the two factors and ‘‘ade 6. There is a significant but low negative elationship between the two factors “effort” ind “ability” except that in 1930 on the basis } ¢ Newcomer’s data there was a fairly high evative correlation of —.77. 7, There is a rather high positive relation- ship between the two factors “ability” and idequacy.” 8. Many of the states, even if they put forth relatively great effort, could not provide defensible minimum national program of financial support. In some states practically ll] the tax resources would be needed for the educational function of government alone. Implications What are the implications of these findings as to the relationship of the federal govern- ment to the financing of education? No sig- nificant relationship was found between the factors “effort’”’ and “adequacy.”” While more poor states than rich states exert relatively great effort to support education, the rich states ire nevertheless able to provide more adequate financial support for their schools than the poor states. Various interpretations may be given the facts presented in this study. Those who favor federal support for education will contend that the principal implication of this study with re- gard to federal participation in the financing of education is that federal support is essential from two points of view: (1) Justice demands tederal participation. It is unjust for the poor states to be oyerburdened in their attempt to support schools whereas the more able states are only lightly burdened. It is unfair that the children of the rich states should have adequate educational opportunities as a result of the little effort their states exert, whereas the chil dren of the poor states have inadequate edu cational opportunities despite the fact that their states exert great effort to support schools. The tact that there are exceptions to this statement does not undermine its general truth. (2) Some states are not able to support their schools ade quately with a reasonable effort. Even if the Model Tax Plan were in force, the least able states would have to exhaust almost their en tire tax resources even to provide reasonable financial support for their schools leaving noth ing for the support of all other state and local governmental functions. Many others would need to spend a greater proportion of their tax could sibly afford to spend in view of other govern mental needs. resources for education than they pos Those who oppose federal support will main tain that the poor states are no more able to support other functions of government than they are to support education, that it is foolish to assume that the federal government should attempt to equalize burden and opportunity in all areas of state government, and therefore that such support should not be granted in the field of education. They will also contend that any attempt to equalize the burden of provid- ing an acceptable minimum program of educa tional opportunity thru the federal govern ment, will tend to perpetuate indefensible eco nomic and taxation situations existing in the poorer states. The present investigation has not concerned itself with these opposing points of view. It has presented a body of facts which may be interpreted by the reader in accordance with his own philosophy of the place of a public school system in a democratic society. Appendix I. The Effect of Excluding Revenue II. The Effect of Including | from Permanent Funds in Calculat- tures for Private Schools y ing the Efforts of the States To Relative Efforts of the State: Support Education port Education It will be recalled that in the basic calcula van i tion of the efforts of the states to support edu- the basic conemeations a cation the revenue from permanent funds and with public oneenian aoe. — school lands received and expended by the large enrolments m private and states was included in the expenditures of the schools. ‘The public schools of 1 states for education. Since there are certain therefore, are required to educate { arguments against this procedure calculations dren thru public tax funds. Her were also run excluding the revenue from this burden and the expenditures for source in order to determine the possible error tion are less, and the efforts of because of the treatment of this item. Table A py the forimule wtifined in the b ws » abs te; slat . re .¢ : : ; shows the absolute and relative difference found tions of this study are lower tha by the two methods in all states where the . ses : had been no private and paroch relative difference was 5 percent or more, w hen , “ea a these states had been required to | effort is calculated on the basis of Chism’s data i ; Wo hild . ; © -atio Wr ¢ > childret as to the relative tax resources of the states. = Ctucatiom ter ah the ch Only 14 states are aftected to this extent in es any year of the study. Wyoming, South Da- nd, therefore, the efforts of the stat kota, North Dakota, and New Mexico are the formula utilized, would have been states most affected. In general the states listed least this would have been true 1 funds, the expenditures for pub! in Table A would also be the states most at- provided all the children with as fected if effort were calculated on the basis of cational opportunities as were p1 Newcomer's data. those enrolled in the public schoo! TABLE A—ABSOLUTE AND RELATIVE DIFFERENCE IN THE PERCEN RELATIVE TAX RESOURCES (CHISM) EXPENDED FOR PUBLIC EDUCA CAUSED BY THE EXCLUSION OF REVENUE FROM PERMANENT FUNDS SCHOOL LANDS WHERE THE RELATIVE DIFFERENCE IS 5 PERCEN MORE Absolute difference Relative differenc« States 1924 1926 1928 1930 1924 1926 1928 3 4 5 6 9 10 11 5 Montana ebraska evada ew Mexico wth Dakota (?Kiahoma Pd é 4 j South Dakota j 7 2 14.9 3 Texas a.0 2 7 0 7 Wyoming 7 7.0 7.3 7.4 11 6 : 14.4 7 17.0 Read table thus: Colorado spent 40.0 percent of its tax resources for education in 1926 including revenue funds. Deducting this revenue Colorado would have spent only 38.0 percent of its tax resources for education, an ab of 2.0 percent and a relative difference of 5.0 percent. Similarly read table for other states and years [ 156 ] absolute the percent B shows relative and e in the of | for education caused by the inclu- tax resources xpenditures for private schools in the vhere this factor causes a relative in- if 10 percent or more. III. Limitations of the Effort Formula Proposed e are certain recognized limitations in e eflort formula proposed used in the present The possibility of developing a more measure of effort than the formula used lepends upon: The ability to identify and isolate the factors lved in effort not cared for by the basic for- , already proposed The extent to which these factors ves to objective measurement. will lend Some limitations in the formula proposed e presented in the following paragraphs. It ld be pointed out that the limitations dis- ssed here are factors which affect a state’s to finance its educational program. are, therefore, not the ttern of the formula but in data used in the fe limitations in If we knew exactly how these factors rela tor ula aftect tion to its total governmental and educational a state’s total economic ability in load, the results from the use of the formula proposed would be satisfactory. All of sented problems that were beyond the scope the limitations discussed here pre of the facilities of the present investigation. l. The effort formula used fails to allou in the of total to tax resources—lt that the ratio is constant in all states when for variations ratio govern mental needs assumes there is no available justification for the as sumption. A satisfactory answer to this prob lem could be found only by the measurement of need in all areas of government and in the maintenance of private life as well. This has yet to be done even for one state. The measure of effort used fails to allow the of needed educa tional services to other governmental needs for variations in ratio The proposed formula for measuring effort involves the ratio of expenditures for educa tion to the tax resources of the states. There is a considerable range in the percent of actual tax collections spent for education in the vari This range is doubtless partially ous States. TABLE B.—EFFECT OF INCLUSION OF EXPENDITURES FOR PRIVATE AND PAROCHIAL SCHOOLS UPON THE EFFORTS OF THE STATES WHERE THE RELATIVE INCREASE IS 10 PERCENT OR MORE Percent of tax resources expended for education calculated on basis 1921 Pereent difference Absolute > < 5 Rg 4 nsin . 6.5 Read table thus: In 1921-22 Connecticut expended 26.1 percent of of Chism’s data of Newcomer's data 1929-30 1929-30 >? Zé Percent difference Percent difference Relative Absolute Relative Absolute’ Relative 3 ‘ . 6 19 15 13.2 10.3 10 35 15 16 12 15 > . 9 27 11 7.2 2 5 3 8 its tax resources for public education xpenditures for private and parochial schools been included the percent of tax resources expended for 5.2 cticut would have been 31.3, an absolute increase of tively. Similarly read data for other states and years. and a percent increase of 19.9 as listed in [157] used by real difference in the ratio of edu- in Table C. Clark developed a f cational needs to other governmental needs. essence of which was “that beginni: Theoretically, the formula should take this reasonable number of children, di range into account. To do so, however, would number reduces to one-fourth the again require the measurement of all other education that can be supplied for e governmental needs as well as educational However, he studied the problem needs. Strayer and Haig have discussed this as the ratio of persons under tw: point as follows: those over twenty-one varied. It w It should be observed that equalization of the that if this problem were to be com; rate of taxation for educational purposes in the treated, information regarding ite: different sections of the state (New York) would the following should also be brou; not result in a uniform total tax rate thruout the upon it: (1) the percent of persons state. There are other essential governmental needs besides public education which must be provided for in varying amounts, and at varying costs by of age or some similar age grouping ductive age group twenty to forty-f the different localities.’ percent of persons sixtv-five vears Morrison also brings out this point with OY (3) the percent of all dependent regard to the problem in local communities: young, (4) the ratio of males to fen es a the size of families, and (6) the The ratio of school obligations in the local com z ee : fe. munity to other civic obligations must be found Of expenditures for different age | and . the proper indices for weighting pur To a certain extent both the ( poses arrived at.’ Newcomer studies take care of the One of the principal problems in this con- ratio of adults to children and rel nection is the widely varying ratio of adults to since in the application of the perso: children found in the various states as shown tax, exemptions are allowed for chi Strayer, George D., and Haig, R. M p. cit., p. 17 2 Morrison, H. C. School Revenue. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1930. p. 203 * Clark, Harold F. The Effect of Population on Ability To Support Education. Bloomington, Ind 1925. p. 20 TABLE C.—RATIO OF ADULTS TO CHILDREN (UNDER 21) BY STATES FO! AND CHANGE IN RATIO SINCE 1920 Change Ritio since 1920 United States 10 South Carolina Minnesota North Carolina Kansas Alabama Colorado Wisconsin Michigan Iowa. . Maine Arkansas Maryland 1 Mississippi 1 1 1 1 1 Utah 1 Rhode Island 1 1 1 1 1 1 New Mexico Georgia West Virginia North Dakota Vermont Virginia Connecticut Indiana New Jersey Ohio Delaware 1 Missouri 1 New Hampshire South Dakota 1 Massachusetts Arizona 1 Illinois Pennsylvania 1.42 Washington 1 1 1 1 Oklahoma Louisiana Tennessee Kentucky Texas Idaho New York 12 Oregon. . 20 Nevada 05 California Wyoming Nebraska Florida Montana Read table thus: In 1930 there were in the United States 1.46 persons over 21 years of age for each persor of age. The ratio increased .10 since 1920 when it was 1.36 [158 ] nendents. However, since the personal tax is only one of the major items util- factor under discussion is only par- rrected by its use. measure of effort used fails to ac- r differences in standards of living in rious states—In some sections of the people live, as measured by material rds, on a lower standard than the people sections. This is true from the stand- at of both private and public purchasing of lements of a standard of living. People some states where standards of living are find it lopt the standard of living of other “higher w would financially impossible to standard” sections and continue to pay taxes. must be content with low standards of ng so far as private purchases are concerned der to be able to pay taxes at all. Unless + is possible to equate for differences in stand- ls of living it will not be possible to achieve mmpletely accurate measure of effort or rhaps more accurately, sacrifice. This factor partially measure effort proposed. The Second Model Tax lan and the Newcomer plan both call for cared for by the basic levying of taxes on income and wealth. [hese are the requisites of a standard of living. Therefore, since the rich pay more than the this taken 1 certain extent. for taxes, factor is care of lo give adequate consideration to this factor t would be necessary to have a measure of the ving standards of the populations of entire states. If the measure is to be in terms of dol irs it would have to be corrected for the cost living. A crude measure might be arrived vy equating money incomes in the several tates for cost of living and arbitrarily as- suming that a given equated income means a ertain standard of living which could then be translated into an index of standard of living tor the various states. Table D is suggestive t how this might be done. The index would then bear with a weight to be determined upon the efforts of the states to support education. The standard of living index suggested in Table D is admittedly a very crude one. De- spite its crudity, however, it does indicate inmistakably that the standard of living is an important factor effort and that the basic formula does not adequately take it into con- sideration. } 4. The measure of effort used fails to a count for the varying costs of a given stand ard of living due to differences in the price he Model Tax Plan and the New lax Plan were applied uniformly in al allowed in states. No r} states where the private cost of living is higher range comet! reduction in taxes is than in others. Yet, other things being equal to the extent that living costs are higher in one state than in another, the effort and sacr fices required for the payment of taxes will bx greater It will be noted that the standard of living factor and the cost of living factor tend to counterbalance one another. The standard of the case of living factor works adversely in the rural states where per capita resources are low, whereas in these same states the cost of living factor is in their favor. The cost of living factor works adversely in the case of the more completely urbanized states where per capita resources by and large are rela tively high, but where also the standards of living are relatively high. ‘Table Comparison of the index derived in TABLE D.—STANDARD OF LIVING IN- DEX FOR TYPICAL STATES (The per capita income for the United States was $750 in 1929) Standard of living index Index of cost of living Income* per capita 1929 Corrected income 2 3 ¢ 5 Alabama $ 331 104.5 $316.75 42.2 Connecticut 008 115.1 875.7 116.8 Illinois 987 114.6 861 114.8 Louisiana 438 105.5 415.17 55.4 Minnesot: 610 108.3 563.25 5 Nevada 000 102.8 972.76 North Carolina 317 103.2 307 .17 Pennsylvania 815 111.0 734.23 Texas 531 105.8 501.89 West Virgini 185 103.2 169.96 a Read 1929 was $331 bama is 104.5. The per capita income of each state is then reduced to the extent that the cost of living index than 100. In the case of Alabama the $331 income is reduced to $316.75. The standard of living index is based upon the $750 per capita income for the United States. The corrected Alabama is 42.2 percent of $750 * Brookings Institution imerica’s Capacity to Consume Washington, D. C Brookings Institution, 1934. f 173 >» The index numbers are 100 plus the excess of the Mort Harry cost of living index over 100. See Mort, Paul R An Objective Basis for the Distribution of Federal Public Education Teachers College Record 36 vember, 1934 © Percent Column 4 is of $750 table thus: The per capita Alabama in The Mort-Harry cost of living index for Ala income ; greater ncome for Support to 91-110; No- [159] D with the Mort-Harry cost of living index, rections in the formula were mad: however, indicates that the standard of living two factors, the results of its use w: factor is more to the disadvantage of the poor greater disparity in the efforts of states than the cost of living factor is to the than will be found in the use of rich states. It seems, therefore, that if cor- formula. TABLE E.—ADEQUACY OF FINANCIAL SUPPORT OF THE PUBLIC SCHO MEASURED BY THE NUMBER OF DOLLARS EXPENDED PER EACH OF MEASURES OF EDUCATIONAL LOAD * 1921-22 1923-24 1925-26 1927-28 1929-30 Expenditure per Expenditure per Expenditure per Expenditure per Expenditure per A* Bt Cc As B Cc As Cc As Bb Ce A® B> C 2 3 4 6 7 8 10 12 13 Alabama { 14 2 16 2 34 Arizona 58 Arkansas 2 f 7 15 2 17 32 California 7 Colorad 71 74 Connecticut 7 7 58 63 Delaware 7 48 53 Florida 2 7 2 28 b 44 Georgia 22 2 3 7 13 2 15 Idaho 53 5? Illinois Indiana lowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania { 74 Rhode Island 2 41 58 76 South Carolina 13 22 South Dakota 49 88 Tennessee 2 17 23 31 Texas 30 25 42 27 49 Utah 51 45 68 Vermont 50 50 47 71 53 78 Virginia 28 § 22 28 39 p 28 40 Washington 60 68 59 92 67 59 93 West Virginia 42 36 45 61 40 52 70 Wisconsin 53 47 54 82 53 52 80 Wyoming 64 78 71 «+121 90 73 126 United States 47 43 49 72 47 53 77 1 Calculated on the basis of the expenditure figure developed in this study * Unit of need > Pupil in average daily attendance © Person 5-17 years of age 1V. Comparative Adequacy of Financial Support of Public Schools as Meas- ured by Various Units of Educational Load The basic measure of the adequacy of fnancial support provided the schools utilized s study has been the number of dollars expended per unit of educational need, the latter being calculated on the basis of the formula provided by Mort. Inasmuch as cer tain other measures of educational load are better known and perhaps preferred by some individuals, the number of dollars expended per pupil in average daily attendance and per person five to seventeen years of age was also calculated. Comparative figures on the basis of these three measures of educational load are given in Table E. V. Effect of Excluding Revenue from Permanent Funds from the Expendi- tures of the States for Current Costs of Education upon the Relative Ade- quacy of Financial Support Table F shows the effect of excluding reve nue from permanent funds from the expendi- TABLE F.—NUMBER OF DOLLARS EX- PENDITURE PER THOUSAND UNITS OF EDUCATIONAL NEED WOULD BE DECREASED IN STATES WHERE THE DECREASE IS 5 PERCENT OR MORE IF REVENUES FROM PERMA- NENT FUNDS ARE EXCLUDED 1921-22 1929 -30 Absolute Percent Absolute Percent difference difference difference difference Idaho 93,746 7.2 $4,571 Indiana 3,422 Minnesota 3.554 Montana 915 7 8,084 Nevada 7,540 7 5,988 New Mexico 131 009 North Dakota 2,920 : 3,899 Oklahoma 1,958 South Dakota 8,565 17.4 6.442 Wyoming 10,116 15.7 18,804 Read table thus: In 1921-22 Idaho’s expenditure per sand units of educational need would have been decre > $3,746, a percent decrease of 7.2. Similarly read data for « states and years tures of the states for current costs of educa tion upon the relative adequacy of the financial accorded the schools for the 1921-22 and 1929-30 for states where the pe: cent difference was 5 or more. support years Bibliography Ayres, LEONARD P. An Index Number for State School Systems. New York: Russell Sage Founda- tion, 1920. 70 p. ‘HIsM, Lestige L. The Economic Ability of the States to Finance Public Schools. Contributions to Education, No. 669. New York: Teachers College, Columbia University, 1936. 169 p. ‘LARK, Harotp F. The Effect of Population Upon Ability to Support Education. Bulletin of the School of Education, Vol. 2, No. 1. Bloomington, Ind.: University of Indiana, September, 1925. 29 p. CuBBERLEY, Ettwoop P. School Funds and Their Apportionment. Contributions to Education, No. 2. New York: Teachers College, Columbia Uni- versity, 1905. 255 p. FLEXNER, ABRAHAM, and BACHMAN, FRANK P. Pub- lic Education in Maryland. New York: General Education Board, 1916. 230 p. Frasier, GeorGe W. The Control of City School Finances. Milwaukee, Wis.: Bruce Publishing Co., 1922. 132 p. GENERAL EpucaTion Boarp. Public Education in Kentucky. New York: General Education Board, 1921. 213 p. GROSSNICKLE, Foster E. Capital Outlay in Relation to a State’s Minimum Educational Program Contributions to Education, No. 464. New York Teachers College, Columbia University, 1931 67 p. Harris, W. T. the Conditions Which Cause Variation in the Rate of School Expendi Different Localities.” Proceedings, 1905 Washington, D. C.: the Association, “Some of tures in Vol. 44. 1905. p. 195-213. HutcuHins, Rosert M. “Who Condemns Elementary School Journal 34: 241-45; ber, 1933. Leven, Maurice; Mourton, Haro.p G.; Them ?” Decem and WarR BURTON, CLARK. America’s Capacity to Consume Washington, D. C.: Brookings Institution, 1934 272 p. McGuire, SAMUEL Harrison. Trends in Principles and Practices of Equalization of Educational Opportunity. Contribution to Education, No. 121. Nashville, Tenn.: George Peabody College for Teachers, 1934. 115 p. Morrison, Henry C. School Revenue. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1930. 242 p [ 161 ] Morrison, Henry ( The Financing of Publi NorTON, JOHN K. “Standard of Living Schools in the State of Illinois. Educational ard of Educating—Have They Kept Pa Finance Inquiry Commission, Vol. 9. New York nal of Educational Research 13: 22-35 Macmillan Co., 1924. 162 p. 1926. Mort, Paut R. “An Objective Basis for the Dis PHILLIPS, FRANK M. tribution of Federal Support to Public Educa- States, 1930.” American School Board tion Teachers College Record 36: 91-110, No 84: 25-29, February; 37-39, March vember, 1934. April; 39-40, May, 1932. Mort, Paut R., director. The Financing of the Pitrincer, B. F., and Works, Georce A. |} Public Schools of Maine. Report of a Survey of Support. State and Local Support of Public Schools. Au- > “Educational Rank Texas Educational Survey Re ume II. Austin; Survey Commission, 192 gusta: Maine School Finance Commission, 1934 Reeves, FLoyp W. The Political Unit 271 p School Finance in Illinois. Educationa Mort, Paut R. State Support for Public Schools Inquiry Commission, Vol. 10. New \ New York: Teachers College, Columbia Uni millan Co., 1924. 166 p. versity, 1926. 104 p. Riemer, G. C. L. “A Study of the App! Morr, PAuL R., director. Reconstruction of the the Ability and Effort Plan to the Sct System of Public School Support in the State of tricts in Pennsylvania.” Tenth Annua New Jersey. Report of the Governor's School men's Week Proceedings. Philadelphia Survey Commission, Volume II. Trenton, N. J.: sity of Pennsylvania, 1923, p. 75-84 Survey Commission, 1933. 156 p. Russect, Wituiam F., and oruers. The | Mort, PAuL R., and oTHERS. State Support for Pub of Education in lowa. Educational | lic Education. National Survey of School Finance. quiry Commission, Vol. 8. New York Washington, D. C.: American Council on Edu- lan Co., 1925. 279 p. cation, 1933. 496 p. SHULTZ, WiLuiAM J. American Public Fir Mort, Pau R. “National Government Must Take Taxation. New York: Prentice-Hall. |] Part in Financing Education.” Nation’s Schools 635 p. 13: 20-22; January, 1934. Strayer, Georce D., and Haic, Rosert M Mort, Paut R. Federal Support for Public Educa- The Financing of Education in the Stat: tion. New York: Teachers College, Columbia York. Educational Finance Inquiry Con University, 1936. Vol. 1. New York: Macmillan Co., 1923 NATIONAL ApvVISORY COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION. Swirt, FLETCHER HARPER, and ZIMMERMAN Federal Relations to Education. Washington, Lawn. State School Taxes and School Fur D. C.: American Council on Education, 1931 T heir Apportionment. U. S. Dept. of the 3 vols. ; Bureau of Education, Bulletin, 1928 NATIONAL EpucATION AssocIATION, RESEARCH DiVvI- oes ‘ ‘ ; . ; spite ‘ Washington, D. C.: Government Printing sion. School Finance Systems. Series 1. State i fs Systems: Elementary and Secondary Schools. _ 1929. 431 p. : Washington, D. C.: the Association, 1934-35. U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, B NATIONAL EpucaATion AssociATION, ResearcH Drv1- AGRICULTURAL Economics, DisTRiBU1 sion. “Estimating State School Efficiency.” Re- STATISTICAL AND HIsToRIcAL RESEARCH search Bulletin 10: 77-131; May, 1932. Washing- Numbers of Prices Paid by Farmers f ton, D. C.: the Association. modities Bought 1910-34. Washington, D NATIONAL EpucaTION AssocIATION, RESEARCH Divt- Department, 1933-34. sion. Staffs and Salaries in State Departments of J. S. DePARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, O! Education. Studies in State School Administra- EpucaTion. “Statistics of State School Sy: tion No. 9. Washington, D. C.: the Association, Biennial Surveys of Education in the | March, 1931. 61 p. States, 1920-32. Washington, D. C.:. Gove NATIONAL TAx AssociATION. Second Report on a Printing Office. Plan of a Model System of State and Local Taxa- [ppgcrarr, HARLAN. Rural School Surve} tion. Columbia, S. C.: the Association (Walter York Financial Support. Ithaca, New York m... Query, coma ae 68 beh rT ' Committee on Rural Schools, 1922. 233 WEGRMEG, SAGES. 28 cae oF ne anpeyng UppecrAFF, HARLAN. “Constructive Criticis Ability of State and Local Gowvermnents. New ey ae se York: Teachers Colleze, Columbia University, Proposed Plans for Distribution of State \ 1935. 85 p. to Local School Districts. Fouts Laaee S Norton, Joun K. “The Ability and Effort of the ™¢n’s Week Proceedings, 1923. Philad: States to Support Education.” Journal of Edu- University of Pennsylvania Press, 1923 cational Research 16: 88-97; September, 1927 VERMONT EDUCATIONAL COMMISSION. Report Norton, Joun K. The Ability of the States to Sup- Commission to Investigate the Educationa port Education. Washington, D. C.: National tem and Conditions of Vermont. Brattlebor Education Association, 1926. 88 p. Vermont Printing Company. 1914. 241 p List of Tables and Figures Pp; nparison of Indexes of Expenditures for Current Expenses and Capital Outlays 1926 to 1932 f Every Third State Selected Alphabetically