RESEARCH BULLETIN \® OF THE NATIONAL EDUCATION VOL. XIV - No.3 MAY - 1936 ASSOCIATION 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. GIVI 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 remitta: accompanies order: Single copies, 50c. 2 to 9 copies—10% reduction. 10 to 99 copies—25% reduction. 100 or more copies—331',% reductio: Orders for Research Bulletins not companied by remittance are subject transportation charges. Make checks pa able to National Education Association. Reproduction of Material in Research Bulletins Material appearing in the Resear Bulletin is copyrighted. However, LD: partments and regularly affiliated 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 previous to such reproduction. In other cases app! cation for the release of materials is ré quired. Address communications to Research Division, National Education As sociation, 1201 Sixteenth Street, N. W Washington, D. C. CONTENTS OREWORD a ee ee ae ee ae ae a ee ee : eee Sate oe soe CyapTER I—THE PROBLEM................ CuapTreR [I—Review or Previous RESEARCH oe The Measurement of the Efforts of Local Communities To Support Education lhe Measurement of the Efforts of States ‘lo Support Education ete OS lhe Measurement of the Adequacy of the Educational Programs of Local Communities 105 [he Measurement of the Adequacy of the Educational Programs of States... . . 109 ee OE re on ST Eee eee ee vreerere. jy 110 Cuaprer III—TuHe ForMutas anp Basic DatTa...... reer ee my Qe. N: li i Sia coi, GEeGue sede saab ch arene ty. a. ome 1} 1 a PES eee me ae ae r ~~ ae Financial Adequacy ......... iv Saitek: rkadicces te bk wc ee ah 115 go Ee ee are sedahaatatas Awe les Br «116 eae. so.chx le chee ciy aja hwo abo Re aoe : Y cree he » s Iie Ee re et ee ey ere rare ae Fe A 119 Cautions Regarding Use of Formulas and Basic Data Presented, ....5%. . te Fee eek, ae eo oe ei er rere are Ser arene ears years Dis. Me Kee és 4 12] Cuaprer IV—Tue Errorts oF THE STATES To Support EpucaTion. 2. &..2- 12 NE rr ee ae. Vee ae 122 Effort Using Newcomer’s Data.................0008- i ee 2 12 Differences in Effort Based on Chism’s and Newcomer’s Data............ 12 EE Tin ato eked ens teehee ts Fouls sab eee ee ae net oe arate 13 CuapteR V—THE ApbEQUACY OF FINANCIAL SUPPORT PROviDED EDU@ATION IN TH! MONA nok as an Bek oe arte, Wave ele kine OSS. SKA WS SOR CL aK ORE SOR ERI 13 ee ND CE Is 8 ks Kovs bd eS OR Nee Ceara nt aeaerncees 13 Comparison of Financial Adequacy with Other Measures of Adequacy...... 133 a ahi Sl inere stack pre Gaby n aww A SA ep aihndig Cane blgv A ae wade ee mim x ea RMS 139 CuaprerR VI—THe RELATION OF Errort, ADEQUACY, AND ABILITY........ 140) Relation of Effort to Adequacy Using Chism’s Data................... 140 Relation of Effort to Adequacy Using Newcomer’s Data. . as iota oe 140 Correlation between ‘Effort’ and “Adequacy’’ When Adequacy Is Calculated in Terms of Various Measures of Educational Load................. wags 140 ee NS Os Che RES abn dda ste o hOw eds 0 ww. 143 en en ee a ee 143 Graphic Presentation of “Effort,” “Adequacy,” and “Ability’........... 143 ee Se ROL, ORT. 6 ctw share Aet MASTERS SCOR meee: 147 CHaprer VII—Errorts REQUIRED OF THE STATES To Support A DEFENSIBLE NA I No can 6 aa hoo hbk ROO 404d OR a dee Ne Ceram RMeS 148 a La auedanenebaedesede 148 So ae a te sah nn Gi aked ines Sanwa eee 148 Adequacy at Various Levels of Effort............cccccccccccencscoes a aiees 148 TO SD gE eT 152 CHaprer VIII—SuMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS............00cccceceeccecess 153 Re A ee er ae ee ee ee 153 Conclusions .......... Pee des Pane Raw ee tke a acanedn we 154 re sg hi GS apn vbiieses otneon 155 ead has xpd Uke bw. Os eee rian 156 eee kaw eucdeteateesecteeaves ak aca 161 OS SESS EE RS EE ee [ 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 educa 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 relative 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 in 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 pat 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. lhe question of what part the federal gov- ment should take in the financing of public ation has received increasing attention in erl ed 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 need for the participation of the federal gov- ernment in the financing of education; that each state is able if it is sufficiently interested, some that there is no 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 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 some justification for federal Cited in an editorial in the Elementary School Journal 34 CHAPTER I The Problem 241-45 [105 | states which, f other make up the arrearages in whatever reason, have sacrificed proportionately If children in less. some states are condemned t illiteracy, who condemns them? Satisfactory evidence has not been available for either reaffirming 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, states can support their and whether all schools with a reasonable degree of effort. Do the states which exert greatest effort to support education receive in return the most adequate financial support for the schools thei: 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 thei: 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 eftort 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 state put forth provided more ( hools the effort their or less adequate financial support for than is provided in other states; and (3) with out regard to what other states did, whethe: their state tended between 1920 and 1932 to December improve or decline on “effort” put forth and the measurement of educational nee “adequacy” of support provided. above. ‘The present investigation also presents data The technics utilized in the present stu of use to those who are interested in the adop- primarily statistical, analytical, and int tion of better plans of state and local taxation. tive. These technics will be described It will show what states are exerting most used. effort to support education in terms of a uni- This study deals only with the p: form tax plan. States with poor systems of mentioned as they pertain to expenditu taxation find it more difficult to raise revenue the current costs of public elementa: than those with more efficient systems. If the secondary education. The word “edu poor states, for example, which put forth least will be defined as pertaining only to effort in terms of a model tax plan have un branches of the educational system. Each desirable tax systems, this fact will be evidence nate year from 1919-20 thru the year 19 of the need for improving their tax plans. The _ is covered. results will be of similar value in the case of The specific purposes of this study n wealthy states which exert but little effort in| summarized as follows: (1) to measu terms of a model tax plan and provide only relative “efforts” of the states to finance | inadequate support for their schools. education; (2) to measure the relative The principal sources of data for this study quacy”’ of the financial support provided | are: (1) Chism’s study? of the relative tax re- education in the several states; (3) to di sources of the states; (2) Newcomer’s esti- the relationship existing between the mate*® of the relative tax resources of the factors, “effort,” “‘adequacy,” and “‘al states; (3) Mort’s study* of the measurement and (4) to discover the “efforts’’that wo of the educational needs of the states; and (4) required of the states to support a reasor the Biennial Surveys of the United States Of- uniform program of financial support fo fice of Education, principally the section on the _ lic education. In general, these are the “Statistics of State School Systems.”’ steps into which the problem was broke: The data of the present study as to the to facilitate the investigation. Chapter | adequacy of financial support accorded the views previous research. In Chapter II] schools are superior to those previously used in formulas and the data for the measureme: comparing the states in that a more scientific “effort” and “adequacy” are presented. ( measure of educational load than was hitherto ters IV, V, VI, and VII deal with the available is utilized. This is Mort’s index for problems listed above in the order menti 2 Chism, Leslie L. The Economic Ability of the States: The Ability of the Various States to Raise Tax Revenu a Plan of Taxation Based on the Model Plan of State and Local Taxation, with Special Reference to the Relative Abili States to Support Education. Teachers College, Columbia University, Contributions to Education No. 669. New York of Publications, Teachers College, Columbia University, 1935. 169 p * Newcomer, Mabel. An /ndex of the Taxpaying Ability of State and Local Governments. New York: Bureau of Pul Teachers College, Columbia University, 1935. 85 p. This monograph gives data for 1930 only. A revision of this including data for 1920 as well as 1930 is included in: Mort, Paul R. Federal Support for Public Education. New York of Publications, Teachers College, Columbia University, 1936. p. 115-78 and 283-308. ‘Mort, Paul R. “An Objective Basis for the Distribution of Federal Support to Public Education.’’ Teacher Record 36: 91-110; November, 1934. [ 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 idequacy of the accorded education in Con- siderable work has been done on the isolated problems of “effort” and ‘“‘adequacy” in local areas, however, and a few such studies have financial support yublic the several states. been made of states. The implications for this study of previous research on these problems in local and state ireas will now be considered. This review as presented does not include all studies bearing on the problem. It is intended, however, to in lude 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 n 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 ® Examples are: Pritchett, Henry S. Report of the ( ermont. Brattleboro, Vermont: Vermont Printing Co., 1914 lucation in Maryland. New York: General Education Board ‘ Updegraff, Harlan. nth Annual Schoolmen’s Week Proceedings, 1923 * Strayer, George D., and Haig, Robert M. The 1923. p. 172. ® Reeves, Floyd W. The Political Unit of Public School “Constructive Criticism of Proposed Financing * Morrison, H. C. The Financing of Public Schools in the State of William F.; Holy, Thomas C.; and Stone, Raleigh W. The 142 7 Mort, Paul R. State Support for Public Education Mort, Paul R. State Support for Public Schools. New York: Bureau of Publications 1926. p. 4 * Cubberley, Ellwood P. School Funds and Their 113 Apportionment. New York Teacher »mmission to Investigate th 145-46 q 1916. p. 152-54 Plans for Distributior Philadelphia Finance in Financing of Edu 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.” 4 Strayer and Haig in 1923 suggested taxable income plus one-tenth the full value of real of economic ability instead Theoretically, the estate aS a measure of taxable property alone. calculation of effort, upon the basis of such a ability, would have been a beyond the Cubberley measure of step approach. However, in the series of other studies under the auspices of the educational finance inquiry, which Strayer directed, a uniform tax rate on the full 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 eftort. According to Mort, “no substitute has as yet been developed for the assessment of property as a measure of ability to pay.” 7 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- munities is as follows: the district is Teacher Univer 1905 he Educational System wl Conditions of Flexner, Abraham, and Bachman, Frank P. Public Monevs t Local nsvivania Press. 1923 f State University of Per of Education in the State « New York. New York Illinois. New York: Macmillan C Illinois. New York: Macmillan Co., 1924 f tion in lowa. New York: Macmi Washington, D. C { 107 ] limited in the changes it can make without state action. The power to adjust the tax sys- tem, therefore, 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 States Commissioner of Education, recognized the great differences in effort re- quired of the states to support education. In an address that year before the National Edu- cation Association he said: The 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 amount with a census division that possesses a greater amount of assessable wealth per capita. 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, * Ibid. p. 129-30 ® Maguire, Samuel H George Peabody College for Teachers, 1934. p. 106. Harris, William T Localities."’ Proceedings 1905. Washington, D. C.: Trends in Principles and Practises of Equalization of Educational Opportunity “Some of the Conditions Which Cause Variation in the Rate of School the National Education Association. p. 203. North are less than one-half those in the Division, and any tax paid by the individ schooling is to the average citizen of the far greater burden than in the northern comm As a measure of effort, Commissioner | presented data showing by states the ex ture for public schools on each $100 of valuation of all real and personal propert the year 1903 he found the extreme rat 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 or ability of the states to support education | problem. '* Norton defined effort as “the percenta the state’s economic power annually de to education.” His definition of “econ power” of a state for a given year wa 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 tim much effort as the state putting forth the 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 relation between the efforts the states put forth in port of education and the amount of ws 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 term financial support. Many studies of this have been made. The Biennial Surveys of Nashville Expenditures in Dif "! 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 \ Texas: Texas Educational Survey Commission, 1925. p. 23. 1926. p. 48-55. M ibid. p. 55 '® Norton, John K. The Ability of the States to Support Education. Washington, D. C.: National Education Assi { 108 ] ted States ¢ )ffice of Education prov ide data nature Nearly and city school survey has also utilized every two years. ever\ 1S this procedure. Such studies have been made 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 in terms of the quality of the educational rram. Reeves,'® for example, utilized such factors as length of school term, qualifications f teachers, number of days each pupil at tended school, and the percent of pupils en ed in high school. Frasier developed an index of the quality f a city’s educational program which he reco -d as unsatisfactory but which he felt did that tain “those measurable factors are ciated with and are the necessary corollary ‘6 The factors were: f eficient education.” i. The percent of sixteen- and seventeen-year-old Idren in school 2. The percent of elementary classes having fewe! than forty children enrolled 3. The 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 5. The percent 001 all day and in adequate buildings owned by of children enrolled who attend e city 6. The percent of the m 1913-14 to 1919-20 that salaries for elementary women living of increased increased cost was met by teachers." In the recent New Jersey school survey a study was made of “‘the efficiency and the effec- tiveness of the services provided in the public This inalysis showed that with regard to every major schools on three expenditure levels.” '* service a school should provide, the schools at the lower expenditure levels furnish services distinctly inferior to the schools at the median } i expenditure level, while the schools on the median level provide these services much less satisfactorily than those at the highest expend: ture levels. A similar study was made as a part 15 Reeves, Floyd W The Political Unit of Publi December, 1924. School Finance which th of the Maine survey from ( essential concl ns were derived These studies tend to validate the th quite generally accepted that the quality of an in a local community ot OogTram educational pr ee ae ] | in general, related to the level expend! re ot in support The Measurement of the Adequacy of the Educational Programs of States Study in this area has been devoted both to the level of financial support provided and to the educational results achieved. Com financial figures have been used most 1 quently. The Biennial Surveys of the United States Office of Education provide comparat financ ial data for state school systems every t years. Ayres Was the first to attempt to mi objectively the efficiency of the forty school systems. His original study in 1912 not widely known but his 1920 study has been much used lhe ten sets of statistical data he used come under the two main headings of 1) attendance and enrolment and (2) finar Considerable criticism was leveled at the Ay index because of certain weaknesses whi Ayres himself had recognize imc «CG the most part, 1924 Phillips he Ayres index and made two In summarized cisms of t tant adaptations of them: (1) the financial items were revised to allow for the de ( ed purchasing power of the dolkar; and the states were classified into urban, mix nd rural types to make possible comparison of ranks among states of similar population acteristics. Phillips also reduced the number of general financial items from five to two, sub stituting statistics concerning illitera t h ers’ salaries, and teacher training. Norton measured the financial provisions made by the states for education and also mea ured the efficiency of the state school systems For the latter purpose he used these criteria: number of days schools were kept 1. The average open in 1922 New Y Macmillan Compa l 4 in Illinois 16 Frasier, George Willard. The Control of City School Finances. Milwaukee, Wisconsit Bruce Publishing ( 1 68 7 Ibid. p. 68-69 18 Mort. Paul R. Report of the Governor's School Surve Commission. Vol. Il Re struction of the r Support in the State of New Jersey.’’ Trenton: Governor’s School Survey Commission. 1933. p. 76-112 ™ Mort, Paul R. The Financing the Public Schools M aine——Re port urve State and Local Support Publi ols. Augusta, Maine: The Maine State School Finance ¢ mission, 1934. p. 64-97 ® Ayres, Leonard P. An Index Number for State Sch Systems. New York: Russell Sage Foundatior l 7 “1 Phillins. Frank M. ‘‘Educational Ranking of the St by Two Method {merican School Board Jour 47-49 2. Average number of days attended by each Since Cubberley measured effort by | hild enrolled i 22 : child enrolled in 19 , See ; tax rates in 1905, there have been no 3. Percent of attendance in high school in 1922 4. Percent of teachers normal graduates around tially new developments so far as the p: 1922 pertains to local areas. 5. Average number of years of school life on the Mort justifies uniform tax rates on p1 basis of a 180-day year.” as a measure of effort on the ground t} In 1932 the Research Division of the Nea- method measures effort under the tax tional Education Association ranked the states imposed upon local communities by the on each of five factors indicative of state school hat complete equalization of burden efficiency. No attempt was made to combine be achieved until ability in other forms them into a single rating. The factors selected Property has been measured, however, is nized by students of the problem. Norton measured the efforts of the stat the percent that educational expenditures of a state’s economic power defining the were: 1. The proportion of children reached by the services of the schools 2. The holding power of the schools 3. The quality of teaching provided as taxable income plus one-tenth the ful! 4. The material school environment of real estate. > — 4 = 23 — . 5. Percent of literacy. The measurement of the adequacy of cial support accorded the schools in local Summary ‘. has been measured (1) by the expenditure The foregoing summary of research on the various measures of educational load, and problems of “effort” and “adequacy” is by no _ by factors indicative of the quality of the means complete. An attempt has been made, cational program provided. however, to present selected studies which it Both of these methods have also been ut is believed represent all of the significant meth- in measuring the adequacy of financial su; ods of approach that have been utilized. accorded to state school systems. @ Norton, John K. The Ability of the States to Support Education. Washington, D. C.: National Education Ass 1926. p. 45 * National Education Association, Research Division. ‘‘Estimating State School Efficiency.”’ Research Bulletin May, 1932. Washington, D. C.: the Association. [110] CHAPTER III The Formulas and Basic Data [he first section of this chapter will present formulas to be used in the measurement of ftort”’ » developed. ‘he second main section will and ‘‘adequacy” and describe how they were present the data used in the calculation of “effort” and ‘“‘adequacy” in accordance with the formulas presented. The Formulas Effort Che 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 ars vi des 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 the of the efforts of the states to support education: (1) into a formula for measurement 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 Effort of a State fo 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 the amount of money that actually goes to provide indicate accurately 1 Over a long period of years there would probably expenses but over a short period of years there is a wide flu [ a fairly constant 111 educational oppor pI tunitie Sina given yea! unds are used ¢ ither the some part of these is < capital outlay or for payment of debt interest. Second urrel it expenditures pro a better basis of comparison between systems than do capital outlay ind s shown by the wide fh to! imong the states as indi charges. This fact tion of index figures current expenses capital outlay lable 1. tional need used In certain sections of this stud Third, the basic measure of edi \ was developed on the basis of current expendi tures. Over ot largely removed. Since the bulk of school reve a period of several decades the first two the foregoing objections would be 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, date the I hus It reterence obligating itself to pay at a future difference between the two figures was decided that, particularly with to the year 1932, a better measure than receipts from taxation and appropriation should be sought. 2. Total expenditures—This figure was con sidered unsatisfactory for these reasons It would include expenditures for capital Tor as explained above; lay and debt service which is undesirable the purpose of this study (2) a small fraction of the total expenditures by of the states such as represented the fed | sidies is available to the states without revenue sub ettort study from eral government and from on their part states; (3) since this as covers a period of years, the use of total ex I double counting of expenditures in that money penditures would involve a certain amount o hir } between capita tuation ] realized from bond issues is listed once when the money is expended for capital outlay and a few years 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 This 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. 4. Total expenditures for current ex exclusive of interest, plus the cost of th department of education, less the amount aforementioned expenditures received f) federal government and from subsidies figure was finally decided upon. The ir item is not included in the expenditure utilized in this study for two reasons There are a number of states for whic! plete information on this item is la Hence, the omission of this item was man since if the data were not available fo states they could not be included for any The bulk of interest charges does not re; the provision of educational opportunities given year as explained above. The inter: short-time loans is the only part of the int > According to a letter from Emery M. Foster, chief, Division of Statistics, U. S. Office of Education, dated N 1934, with regard to the states where this information does not appear in the Biennial Survey: ‘“‘There is no possible w as I can see, for you to obtain figures for these states unless you were to get in touch with every city and county those states.”’ The explanation of this by Mr. Foster was that ‘“‘there are several states in which there is legally no su as school bonds or interest on school bonds since all bonds are issued by the city, or county, and a single issue for a vear covers schools, roads, water-works, etc. The only possible way to separate the schools in this set-up is to go to t county treasurer’s office and, by going over the records, find out the amount in the original city issue which was asked purposes and then apply this percentage to all future interest and bond payments on this issue.” TABLE 1.—COMPARISON OF INDEXES OF EXPENDITURES FOR CURRI EXPENSES AND CAPITAL OUTLAYS 1926 TO 1932 OF EVERY THIRD ST SELECTED ALPHABETICALLY oo 1926 — 100 State 1926 1928 1930 193 Alabama Current expenses 100 120.4 134.2 12¢ Capital outlay 100 103.1 90.7 1 California Current expenses 100 115.9 126.4 131 Capital outlay 100 80.7 62.7 3¢ Delaware Current expenses 100 104.3 123.3 13 Capital outlay 100 34.0 193.1 30 Idaho Current expenses 100 167.3 113.4 10 Capital outlay 100 172.7 159.9 4( lowa Current expenses 100 91.8 92.4 84 Capital outlay 100 48.5 59.1 1 Louisiana Current expenses 100 112.4 117.4 115 Capital outlay 100 97.8 77.1 5 Massachusetts Current expenses 100 115.1 120.6 119 Capital outlay 100 79.4 75.7 64 Mississippi Current expenses 100 135.6 134.9 134 Capital outlay 100 252.3 176.9 1 Nebraska Current expenses 100 103.8 106.9 106 Capital outlay 100 43.9 37.1 New Jersey Current expenses 100 115.8 130.7 138 Capital outlay 100 100.6 108.1 51 North Carolina Current expenses 100 109.2 118.3 10 Capital outlay 100 107.9 57.2 t Oklahoma Current expenses 100 101.0 126.4 11 Capital outlay 100 100.9 116.2 45 Rhode Island Current expenses 100 115.8 129.5 13 Capital outlay 100 115.8 89.7 9 Tennessee Current expenses 100 110.1 120.7 115 Capital outlay 100 128.5 52.7 54 Vermont Current expenses 100 103.8 115.0 104 Capital outlay 100 187.3 221.8 31 West Virginia Current expenses 100 105.7 118.8 1i¢ 100 77.3 55.9 34 Capital outiay Read table thus: The amount expended in 1926 is given the value of 100. The relative amounts expended for the years are shown by the index numbers. Thus Alabama spent 120.4 percent as much for current expenses in 1928 as in 19 only 103.1 percent as much for capital outlay. [112] it could be so considered and it 18 SO fraction of the total expenditure that r caused by failure to so consider it is o e. | total cost of the state department ot 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 tion have to do with public elementary | secondary education, the bulk of their work oncerned with these phases of the state’s educational program.* Since there is no satis- factory method of determining the percent of the total cost of state departments that could chtfully be charged to other than the public lucation phases of their work, it seems bette1 lude the entire amount than to omit the re amount. Receipts from subsidies of educational foun tions and from the federal government learly do not represent effort on the part of the states, as states, and were, therefore, de- ducted from the expenditure figure utilized in measuring effort. It is debatable whether revenue from perma ' , : nent funds and the lease of lands should be included in the expenditures of the states for a OO OO 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 25 percent, depending upon the year of the study under consideration. If expenditures, without regard to the source of the revenue, are used in measuring effort, states with rela- tively high returns from permanent funds will —- appear to be making greater effort than if the revenue from permanent funds is deducted from the expenditure figure utilized in measuring effort. Che 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 granted school lands by the federal govern- » ment. In some cases and in varying degrees, ; aie lOWEVE ds have been sold and the eceipts placed in permanent school funds. In Case ¢ has used the pring pal ol h tunds and tself a permanent debtor the schools of the state, which means that revenue derived from such sources now repre part of the state. In still sents ettort on the other cases, at least a part of the principal of permanent tunds comes from such sources fines and licen [hese funds obviously ar 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 from permanent funds and school lands was to include revenue from this source in the expenditure figure used in the basic calcula tions. Appendix | shows the eftect that deduc revenues has upon the relative efforts of the states to support education and tion of these 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 except 1925 and 1930.° On the basis of the data for these two years, estimates could be made for the other years of the study. But since there would be considerable question about the iccuracy 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 proposal does not credit the states with expenditures for pri- vate and parochial schools. Section II of the Appendix, however, shows the effect that the This is clearly indicated in the following study: National Education Association, Research Division Staffs and Salarie Departments of Education.” lp 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, 293 Studies in State School Administration N« Education. Washington, D. C Washington, D. C.: the Association, Ma National Education Association. School Finance System Series 1 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 denominator of the frac tion, in the effort formula proposed, sev- eral possibilities were available. ‘The 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 uniform 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, Newcomer’s measure of tax resources more closely approximates the actual tax re- sources of the states under present tax condi- tions than does Chism’s. ®* Norton, John K. The Ability of the States to Support Education. Washington, D. C 1926. 88 p 7 Chism, Leslie L. The Economic Ability of the States of Publications, Teachers College, 1936. 169 p. *’ Newcomer, Mabel. An Index of the Taxpaying Ability of the State and Local Governments cations, Teachers College, Columbia University, 1935. 85 p. This monograph gives data for 1930 only. A revision of this n including data for 1920 as well as 1930 is included in: Mort, Paul R. Federal Support for Public Education. New York of Publications, Teachers College, Columbia University, 1936. p. 115-78 and 283-308. ® National Tax Association. Second Report on a Plan of a Model System of State and Local Taxation © Mort, Paul R. Federal Support for Public Education. New York: Bureau of Publications University, 1936. p. 303. See Table 5 of this bulletin for specific taxes used in each plan and their relative weightings [114] The Ability of the Various States to Raise Tax Plan of Taxation Based on the Model Plan of State and Local Taxation, with Special Reference to the Relative Abilit States to Support Education. Teachers College, Columbia University, Contributions to Education Perhaps the most effective way to n the difference in objectives and results two studies is to cite a specific illust is well known that the state of Delay trom ceives much revenue business actually located in other states but inc: in Delaware because of the advantages of the Delaware incorporation law. The tax structure used by Chism did clude a tax which credited Delaware \ revenue. He allotted to Delaware 0; revenue that Delaware could have rais the tax system based on the Second Mo Plan. Newcomer, on the other hand, in to crediting Delaware with tax revenu a number of taxes similar to those Chism also included revenue from in tion taxes because this state, among was in a position to realize revenue fron From these two different approaches not to be expected that the results of studies would correlate perfectly.'° T} efficient of correlation for 1930 was .9 the special factors mentioned above wer: nated and only the basic plan of each 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, ac: 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 sam: 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 National Education A Revenu No. 669. New York 7 Bureau New York 1933. 68 | Teachers College, ‘ tates is 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 sum] { opinion, it was decided to use “‘total relative tax resources” in this study. It was decided that both the Chism and the Newcomer data should be used in the present study. Therefore, calculations will be made ising the results of both of these studies as the denominator 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 \ —- W here Zz decided upon. The formula is x x — the effort of a state to provide financial sup- port for education y — 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 z — 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 III. 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 Publi Bureau of Publications, Teachers College, Columbia University, 1936. p. [11 Hence, 1 measure ot the idequac y ort cational programs of the states may be ex pressed by the torraula: Relative Ade \mount Expended for Educati juacy of Fina Units of Educational Load cial Support For the numerator ot the right hand mem ber ot the equation, the same expenditure figure is that used in tl ot le measurement eitort Ww be used for 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 of eftort ex cludes all other revenue, except the debatable item of revenue from permanent funds. (2) It +} ippeared desirable to use the same data in the “eftort”’ as the determination of the relation measurement of both and ‘‘adequacy inasmuch 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. ‘his 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 (1) daily attendance in public schools; (2) popu load were considered for use: average 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 the number of units of educational need as deter mined by the use of the index Mort has pro cided upon was the third alternative, i.e., 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. Education. New York 303-05 The Basic Data Effort According to the effort formula already pre- Table 2 by which the expenditure fizu shows step by step the Ca e i r was derived in accordance y ith the sented, two sets of data are required. The first _ tioned plan. The amount list. d in co , . . . an , 7 is the expenditure figure. lable 2 for any given state is th. TABLE 2.—EXPENDITURES OF THE STATES FOR CURRENT EXPENS|! PUBLIC EDUCATION LESS FUNDS NOT RAISED BY THE STATES SELVES, 1929-30 Revenue received from Cost of state Curre State Current expenses departments of (Col. 2 Federal! aid Subsidies education and 4, 1 2 3 4 5 Continental U.S $1, 834,507, 895 $7 333,834 $844,084 $7,840,859 $1 2 Alabama 17,652,225 137,938 75,939 196.39 Arizona 8,289, 546 39 301 60 &R Arkansas 11,101,551 99.122 56.912 R46 2 California 121,136,633 186,878 7,500 03 , 394 Colorado 21,125,901 36,787 32? OOR Connecticut. 28,155,339 76,750 330 % Delaware 3,448, 408 30,879 53.028 Florida 13,516,229 160,382 53,540 113. 0¢ Georgia 17,166,356 167,113 30,797 59 41 Idaho 8,553,928 21,833 41. 74¢ Illinois 123,430,692 713,552 08 839 1 Indiana 54,666 ,666 210,335 107,514 lowa 44,692,503 176,372 104,63 { reamees 33,857,923 86,045 174.331 Kentucky 20,009, 576 163,135 37,339 103 .62¢ Louisiana 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, OR 1 Mi samnaiunien 74,034,720 219, 598 176,493 Michigan 96 , 968 , 550 137,347 195,32 Minnesota 46,271,102 155,397 125,61 { M ississi ppi 15,757,723 133,392 90.921 05 760 Missouri 40,513,185 236,430 12,103 86 484 ‘ Montana 11,557,838 53,498 51.644 Nebraska 24,123,984 184,315 85.359 rl Nevada 2,039,602 24,993 56,810 New Hampshire 6,119,532 21,832 60.449 New Jersey 82,801,149 172,675 252.4% g New Mexico 5,884,701 41,453 38.5 New York 256,705 , 491 567 , 802 1,789,533 5 North Carolina 28 , 830, 362 195 849 120,909 176, 263 rg North Dakota 14,794,184 25,470 60.601 i Ohio 109,213,169 573,900 188, 301 108 Oklahoma 30,780,341 94, 836 65 , 566 148.321 3 Oregon 16,030,009 41,790 44 517 ' Pennsylvania 145 , 861,417 697 ,343 535,620 145 Rhode Island 9,821,214 32,811 42.781 South Carolina 13,933,522 97,478 121,078 53,144 1 South Dakota 13,219,921 33,381 39.100 13 Tennessee 20, 560,079 175,453 35,317 64,451 20 — 58,597,695 291, 409 154,307 5 Utah 9,052,640 . era 59,632 Vermont 4,883,970 15,640 ecard 35,593 4 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 25 Wisconsin 44,566,798 175,000 186,820 44 Wyoming 6,137,422 18,529 33,963 ¢ 3, and 4 are from the “State School Systems” sec tion of the Biennial Survev of the Off The data in Columns 2, tion for 1929-30. The data in Column 5 are from Finan tal Statistics of States for 1930 published by the Bureau of [116] “Seal that state raised for the current ition thru its own effort including re om permanent funds. Similar tables are expense ve S Ter separated from total current expenses sented for other years since the process ecisely the same with one exception. In rs except 1929-30 and 1931-32 ) the in est item had ti lhe expenditt Bie nN nial Sur vel ered in this study ) i e deducted since reports for those yea are presented in Was mnt in the ire figures derived by simil ilculations for the other biennial periods c Table 3 TABLE 3.—EXPENDITURE DATA DERIVED FOR THE MEASUREMENT OF “EFFORT” AND “ADEQUACY” (In thousands of dollars) State 1919-20 1921-22 1923-24 1925-26 1927-28 1929-30 1931-32 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 71s $86?.429 $1 3 R5 $1 > 581 $1,530 36«6©$1,696,820 $1,834 1 1, 801 7.730 10. 4¢ 11.728 13. 10¢ 15 R825 1 635 1 Ré 4.824 5.196 6.240 6,499 »34 8,311 Ms ( 5.861 634 8 728 10.48 11.015 11.032 ) 39,219 63,192 054 95,78 110,81 121,146 ‘ 10.182 15.628 18.086 19 9 0,9 21,121 0 13.822 18.545 0,694 3.54 5 946 8,418 30), 1,512 ». 317 » 576 », 944 3,471 0 r 5.589 7,642 8,250 13 19.556 1 415 | s 8.207 11.55? 13.216 1 15 16.186 1 7K 6,186 7 1 331 so 8 OR3 8 574 . 58.162 9 821 01.847 101.903 112.353 12? 9?¢ 28.736 50.085 44,587 47.803 56,176 54,564 & A 31,210 37.069 42,204 48 350 44.361 44.621 +( ( »2.529 28.312 »9 465 31.040 R32? 33.946 7,120 12,579 14,439 15.617 18,291 19.913 R OR4 i & 940 12,789 13,435 14,381 16,027 16.843 5 M 5 868 RO R 372 R R16 9 573 9 64 . M d 7.793 12.010 13.583 14.791 17.044 19.104 Massac setts 38 045 51,808 58.016 61.335 70.599 3,992 M n 37,806 51.882 62.791 6.545 86 .057 97 .O2¢ - 168 M i 28.392 39,022 43,371 42,492 44,865 46,241 15.4 Mississippi 4.384 R 553 8.525 11.605 15.726 15.629 1 ‘ Mis 22.874 32.394 34.823 39 820 39. 5907 40.351 12.0 M 1 9.749 10,966 9.673 10.419 10,935 11,556 10 ska 17,754 25,969 20, 986 »2. 551 >3.435 4 025 0 vada 1,170 1,547 1,700 1.830 2.017 » O71 0 New Hampshire 3,624 4.565 5.165 5.659 5.874 6.158 6.4 ew Jersey 32.883 46.121 54.886 63.360 3.430 82.881 87.538 New Mexico 3,393 4.055 4,201 4.607 4.637 5 882 6 .f New York 95 ¢ 152,381 173,185 187.356 »25 048 257,92 j 9 North Carolina 9,762 16,061 19,736 24,406 26,562 28,690 4 N Dakota 10,770 13,233 14,366 12 i9 13,423 14,829 1 & 54,419 79,378 82,228 91 30 101,370 108,828 O98 , 4 k ma 17,423 23,21 25,977 24,315 4.515 30,768 178 Ureg 7,934 11,851 12,432 14,230 15,554 16,033 028 Pennsylvania 65,796 92,251 111,473 127,474 134,888 145,700 149 ¢ Rhode Island 4.394 6,104 6,792 , 575 8,754 9,831 10,4 5 Carolina 5.297 7.620 9.537 11.838 12.989 13.768 10.867 S Dakota 8,538 10,994 11,620 12,35 12,615 13, 22¢ 389 nessee 8.510 12,049 13,966 16,95 18.656 20,414 61 ex 26,906 43,141 40.815 $0.83 49,010 58,461 ( $ 5.939 7,162 7,499 90K & 606 9.0 & x 3.618 4,248 4.054 4.2066 4.423 1.904 1.4 10,139 15,240 16,346 17,19 18,363 19,984 9 W ngton 18.533 22.087 »? 726 4 574 6.522 960 639 West Virginia 10,081 16,296 18,781 1,34 2,535 5.3 15 M nsin 22.464 32.722 37.160 37.90 39. OR7 44,579 44 ¢ ng 3.116 3,984 4,966 5 8 5,588 6,153 48 All expenditure figures derived by the process shown Table 2 for 1931-32 [117] orem ge Lhese data are used in “adequacy” as well as “effort.” the measurement ot The other data required in the calculation of effort is that representing the ability of the states to support education. As previously ex plained two recent studies by Chism and New omer providing data of this type will be used in the present study. ‘J hei in Table 4. Certain differences in the } two studies were presente shows specifically how the various taxes utilized in tl! pared for the year 1930. It obvectives ad earlier. I weighting he two pl vail | ne ve TABLE 4.—THE RELATIVE TAX RESOURCES OF THE STATES State 1921-22 l 2 ( nental U.S $4,092,487 \labama 34,130 \rizona 14,265 \rkansas 30,257 California 199, 260 Coleseiin 38,204 Connecticut 70,922 Delaware 8,123 Florida 31,836 Georgia 46.002 Idaho 15,571 Illinois 307,474 Indiana 111,731 lowa 125.768 Kansas 77,829 Kentucky 43,070 Louisiana 39 601 Maine 25.931 Maryland 53,256 Massachusetts 185,164 Michigan 149,282 Minnesota 102,301 Mississippi 24,534 Missouri 122,006 Montana 23,828 Nebraska. . 65,565 Nevada...... 7,053 New Hampshire 17,102 New Jersey... 157,744 New Mexico 9, 230 New York 575,060 North Carolina 52.572 North Dakota 27, 838 Ohio 246,655 Oklahoma $1,317 Oregon 40,438 Pennsylvania 380, 208 Rhode Island 26,508 South Carolina 26,644 South Dakota 33,301 Tennessee 50, 456 Texas 128,006 Utah 16,704 Vermont 10.410 Virginia 57,847 Washington 65 , 887 West Virginia 60 006 Wisconsin 97 066 Wyoming........... 8,525 1 Chism’s data are presented originally in these two studies in thousands 1923-2 3 $4,629 38 16 34 234 42 81 — Uw “I 340 125 135, 82 49 45 a, 59 205, 174, 660 61,5 29, 281, 56 429, 30, 36, $7, 147 19 11, 65, 76, 67, 106 10, 4 766 565 610 877 486 192 163 373 807 389 518 ,433 595 940 542 , 065 007 755 703 387 312 940 197 $5,373 46 19 40 274 18, 389 143, 153 95 55, Chism 1925-26 283 359 194 746 381 397 ,054 ,224 958 121 615 933 144 051 0160 639 493 037 824 ,195 531 669 395 341 2,565 7,076 , 468 , 704 159 , 591 5,194 6,151 , 354 ,082 In thousands of dollars 1927-28 1929-30 1931-3 5 6 7 $6,250,768 $6,769,297 $6,341 53,108 57,537 5 22,933 25,050 3 45.300 49,179 44 330,591 359, 501 333 54,773 61,923 58 110,353 121,681 11¢ 13,502 14,819 13 56,442 57,204 54 70,506 75,843 ) 23,733 25,416 $ 445 503 495,822 458 163 ,645 181,137 173 173,185 198,439 191 109, 809 124,880 118 62,715 69,557 65 59,074 64,596 61 37 660 44,814 40 75,745 86,219 $2 272,529 299 , 339 285 242,005 260 ,672 240 147 933 166 , 966 162 38,770 41,207 37 181,478 198,358 192 35,090 37,745 36 91,029 103,520 99 9,030 10,664 10 25,707 27,992 27 242,674 278,921 260 14,113 16,160 15 972,833 943 ,267 834 83,413 87.574 83 38,088 43,701 42 377,740 410,425 385 76,649 85 , 868 77 59,124 65 , 393 63 563,421 621,792 583 39,808 43,052 41 40,527 43 ,663 41 8,677 53,078 51 77,070 84,122 79 198,234 216,870 205 24,862 27,321 26 15,093 16,706 15 86,156 94,736 93 97,312 108,713 103 86,023 94,733 92 143,976 159,709 152 12,827 13,413 12 of dollars and Newcomer’s in millions of dollars just New In millions 2 1920 8 023 $3.4 g 141 650 15 58 4 550 14 146 35 64 45 ) 4 410 1 44 ® 113 14.8 10 65 R83 92.4 479 14 01 70 S01 41.4 188 34 861 18.0 581 4 542 139.9 132 112.9 149 86 444 25.1 588 105.4 513 20 469 64 168 7.4 433 12.8 189 109.4 127 F.e 313 514.4 542 46 .¢ 916 26.9 978 196.0 848 56.9 527 36 632 255.8 546 20.8 182 27.8 555 40.9 220 46.2 073 113.3 323 14.4 804 7.9 195 44.5 638 50.7 614 46 O84 78.4 864 12.0 as the data are [118 ] aa) - TABLE 5.—COMPARISON OF RELATIVE WEIGHTING OF VARIOUS TAXES UTILIZED IN THE CHISM AND NEWCOMER STUDIES IN 1930 Millions of dollars Percent Types of taxes Newcomer Chism Newcomer Chism $1 ) $5 01 4,623.8 50.5 & ) 4 ; 5 n organizatior 8 ; er 8 ted States Total 4 . ¢ 69 100.0 100.0 Adapted from Appendix E of Mort, I R. Fe r I es 9 | achers College, Columbia University, 193¢ A : ’ : the income tax is weighted much more heavily) plus the average attendance in elementa inder Newcomer’s plan than under Chism’s ut 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; iffect only a few states while those included n the Chism plan have, in general, a uniform iffect 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. lhese 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 stud) is the number of “units of educational need,”’ derived by use of the index Mert has pro This the primary measure because it seemed more valid vided.'? method was selected as than any other available measure for this pur pose. The procedure developed by Mort involved the following steps: dance was used as the basic figure. (2) Each (1) Average daily atten 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 the number of elementa attendance units. Since the B | nited states Office oT attend schools g1IVves total average daily ennial Surveys ot the } Education, from which average daily ance figures were secured, do not segregate high-school average daily attendance hgures from those in elementary schools, it was nec« the the basis otf the sary to estimate correct proportions. I} was done on percent which high-school enroiment was oft element ir\ sé hool enrolment Altho this procedure is not entirely satistat tor it appeared to be the most accurate method of making the desired estimate now available. (3) The total numb of elementary average daily attendance unit was then multiplied by Mort’s composite index, which corrects for sparsity ot population and cost of living to obtain the total number of units of educational need per state. This procedure was applied to each state fo the study, i.e., for the biennial 1919-20 thru 1931-32. Table 6 . 1 educ iTional each vear of periods from mber of units of presents the m need as deri. ed trom these calculation Cautions Regarding Use of Formulas and Basic Data Presented alculated on the basi both Chism and Effort is to be data as to tax resources by Newcomer. The difference in objective ot these studies should be considered in the i 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 1930 for the vear Newcomer's data were + normal to the extent that agri ulture was out Federal S Py} Ey , 7 119 | ot adjustment with other industries. T shows that these years were tor a “trough” period agriculture whereas other industries re- = @ and effort between the agricultural abl states may be somewhat different {; sults of this study. Chism points out mained relatively prosperous until 1930. ble weakness of his data due to this {a Hence, the true relationship with regard to findings of the present stud, should - preted with reference to this situatior Chism, Leslie L. op. cit. p. 129. TABLE 6.—UNITS OF EDUCATIONAL NEED BY YEARS (In 1000’s) State 1919-20 1921-22 1923-24 1925-26 1927-28 1929-30 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Continental U. S 22,814 26,434 27,710 28 , 983 30,114 31,3 Alabama 499 596 580 575 641 658 Arizona 75 R4 91 102 115 128 Arkansas 446 507 495 482 484 466 California 756 949 1,155 1, 237 1,304 1,414 Colorado 244 286 308 309 319 324 Connecticut 276 318 323 360 359 385 Delaware 37 4! 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 Iowa 609 723 709 713 738 748 Kansas $21 584 627 623 625 642 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 72 181 Nebraska 339 454 455 473 477 466 Nevada ‘ 18 20 21 22 26 26 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 ‘ ie : 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 13 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 1,527 1,601 1,706 1,712 1,797 Utah 142 157 166 178 182 188 Vermont 74 85 86 81 84 87 Virginia 479 543 580 604 613 646 Washington 320 368 385 414 436 448 West Virginia 338 389 414 414 452 481 AC Stan teE $33 621 692 733 725 711 Wyoming........... 55 62 70 73 68 84 \s calculated in this study by the application of Mort’s index of educational need. See prec: pag [120 ] L TABLE 7.—INDEX NUMBERS OF FARM PRICES AND PRICES PAID BY FARM- ERS, 1910-33 * 1910-14 100 Prices paid by Prices Ritio of Year and farmers for received prices re- nth commodities for farm ceived to bought products prices paid 2 3 4 98 102 104 101 95 94 100 100 100 101 101 100 100 101 101 105 OR 93 124 118 95 149 175 117 176 20 115 202 213 105 201 211 105 152 125 82 149 132 89 152 142 93 152 143 o4 157 156 99 155 145 94 ) 153 139 91 155 149 96 153 146 95 145 126 87 ) 124 87 70 23 107 65 61 1933 109 70 64 S. Department of Agriculture. Bureau of Agricultural cs. Division of Statistical and Historical Research Vumbers of Prices Paid By Farmers for Commoditi 1910-1934. Washington, D. C The 1933 and September, 1934. 25 p. (Mimeographed. ) Department Summary Che formula proposed for the measurement ¢ of the ettorts ot the states to support educa is, with certain refinements, the relation of ex penditures of the states for current expens« of education to the relative tax resources t the states. Data as to the relative tax resource: ot the states by both Chism and Newcomer art utilized. \ det iilled was presented. While the form statement of there are certain re nized limitations in the formula proposed elimination of them lies beyond the scoy the present investigation. A brief discussion of some of these limitations ts presented In Appendix. The formul of the adequacy of i proposed for the measurement the financial support ac corded education is the amount of money ex + pended for current costs of education per un of educational need. Exactly the same expendi in this formula as in ot ettort ture figure will be used the for the Mort’s index of educational need is used in de formula measurement termining the number of units of educational load in each state. Two other measures of need will also be used enough for comparative pul poses. The basic data to be used in the measure ment of both effort and adequacy have also been presented in this chapter. CHAPTER IV The Efforts of the States To Support Education ‘The 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 for Education Effort “ns r Financial Resources Effort 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 are given in Table 9, showing for each year the relation of the effort of each state to the effort of the United States as a whole. Examination of Table 8 will show no marked tendency for any particular group or type of state to put forth more or less effort than any other group or type. Table 10 consists of another set of index numbers showing the trend in the effort of each state over the period of the study in terms of the effort it put forth in 1922. The United States as a whole spent a smaller percent of tax resources for education each year 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 1 The most pronounced of these was in the case of Florida which advanced in place from 44 in 1925-26 to ¢ and then dropped back to 34 in 1929-30. At first it was thought that this must be due to an error The cause was a greatly enlarged expenditure in Flor the expenditures having been verified by correspondence rechecking found them to be correct shown by the following tabulation of data partment of Education Relative tax resources (in thousands) Expenditures (in thousands) [12 years under consideration. Among th showing the greatest decline over the | the study are Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, K Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska, Nort kota, South Dakota, Utah, and Vern The average percent given in colu Table 8 is shown graphically in Figu: Certain characteristics of the data 8 are presented in Table 11. For United States as a whole and the me 48 states, the percent of tax resources ex for education declined thruout the p the study except that 1931-32 was higher than 1929-30 in both cases. 7] and standard deviation also tended to thruout the period of the study. Table 12 gives the rank of the stat percent of tax resources expended fi tion for each year as presented in ‘] While considerable consistency will be : the rank of the states thruout the px 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, Mississippi Michigan, Indiana, Arizona, and M comprising in order the upper ranki: fourth of the states. The lowest ranking state as to eff Nevada preceded by Maryland which next lowest ranking, then Rhode Isla: ginia, Missouri, Arkansas, Georgia, || see, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, ¢ cut, and Florida comprising in ascendi: 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 n the calculations da during the year with the Florid 1925-26 1927-28 192 $56,224 $56,442 $57 13.556 9 556 12 kewise gives the indexes of these percen 1 the | e Il is a graphic presentation of the _ tive tax reso its for 1930 taken from column 3 of — torth the least 1 13. ent of its Lhe range in the efforts of the States t n 1920 wl t ilcu I tt rt education was very great as ¢ TABLE 8.—PERCENT OF TAX RESOURCES (CHISM) EXPENDED BY THE STATES FOR CURRENT COSTS OF PUBLIC EDUCATION, 1922-32 Years Index State Average 8 1921-22 1923-24 1925-26 1927-28 192 ) 1931-32 U.S ) l 2 3 + 5 ¢ 7 s 9 ~ m0 OQ ¢ Q 1 8 4 @ ) 4 30 30.3 g 4 1g 8 9 9 ) a 36.4 37 3 31 1.3 { aas »5 2 »5 2 1 rl 3 is 84 $1 37? 8 | 3 { 34 ) 110 40.9 4? 10 32 1 465 32 4 134 26.1 5.4 1.9 2 j . 1.9 { ) a 8.5 7 .4 5.8 ? ~ g 5 5 9 ”) 4.0 4 3 | 34 5 x 25.1 5.2 $ ) io j 49.9 41.8 34 xR 1 6.0 ) 0 5 { { 5 8 | 44.8 35 5 3 1 ) 9 5 34 { 29.5 31.1 5 5 1.4 6.9 4.4 225 36.4 35 34.5 5 ? 31 ) 111 k gy 9 4 8 ) . 0 2 9 4 I siar 32 3 9.7 3 7 1 1 Q 3 9 M e 30.0 8.3 5.9 5.4 41 5 9 00 M ind 4 6 2.7 0) 22.5 3.9 ) Massachusetts 8.0 8.3 5 5.9 } 5 { 9 M 4 8 36.0 6.9 5.6 5.5 0 M esota 381 38.1 ) 30.3 g 0 3? i 0 Mississipy 34.9 30.3 34 40 ¢ 41 8 3 g Missouri 26.6 5.5 5? 1 8 ) 1.8 sg M an 416.0 36.3 eB 31 0 » 1 34 ) ska 39 6 9 8 8 3 Ss ) 2 Ne a 1.9 3.5 3 1 ‘ 4 1 0 Ne ~ ae re 26.7 26.9 5 » 8 ) 3.5 r Ri New Jersey 9) 2? 30 30 x0 ) 33.6 30.6 0 4 Mexic 43.9 40 38 32.9 $ 39.8 38 8 New York 6.5 6.7? 4 31 ; 9 4 Nor h Carolina 30.6 32.1 31.8 30.1 $1.9 North Dakota 47.5 48.5 ; S 35 ) 2 3 wR OS ) 32.2 29.2 ( 6.8 5.5 2.0 x Oklahoma 45.2 46.0 3 32.0 g 34.9 8.4 4 Vregon 29.3 at.2 l 6 ’.2 i 4 Pennsylvania 24.3 26.0 3.9 23.9 1 5.6 ‘.9 . Rhode Island 23.0 23.1 0 0 g Ss 1 2 g0) South Carolina 28.6 31.2 33.5 32 4 30 1 { ith Dakota 33.0 31.5 29.0 25.9 1.9 4.0 28. I aS Tennessee 3.9 24.3 5 4? 4 4.7 4 . Texas 33.7 7.8 30.0 4 0 29.6 22 ) Uta 42.9 39 5 3 4 34 » 3 16.3 1 4 Vermont 40.8 34.5 $ 9 ».4 28. 1 32.4 I Virginia 6.3 14.9 ? g 1 1 21.4 0 80 Washington 33.5 29.8 Rg 5 5.7 8 5 100.0 st Virginia 27.2 27.9 8.0 ¢ 5 3 6.9 4.4 Wisconsin 33.7 34.7 30.0 27.8 ) 29.0 30.5 107.0 Wyoming, 46.7 48.7 47.8 43 15.9 42.6 45.9 161 Read table thus: In 1921-22, Alabama expended 30.7 percent of its tax resources for education. The data from which this hgure is derived are taken from Table 3, which shows that in 1921-22 Alabama spent 10,462 thousands of dollars for education 1d from Table 4, which shows that according to Chism’s data the relative tax resources of Alabama in the same year were 34,130 Gemaail of dollars, the former figure being 30.7 percent of the latter. Similarly read data for other states and 1 [1 tive tax resources for education. Thus Ver- sources expended by the states for pu mont in 1920 put forth 15 times as much effort cation was 27.0 and the standard cd: as Delaware. The mean percent? of tax re- was 8.7. The percent * was 24.9 for the See footnotes to Table 11 for explanation of difference between mean percent and the percent for the Unit 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 l 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 ‘ 120.5 127.4 117.9 116.2 122.5 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 R5.8 87.4 86.7 86.3 Delaware 04.4 92.6 90.5 80.4 86.3 Florida 79.5 72.0 84.6 127.7 86.7 C,eorgia , ‘ 83.1 85.1 86.3 84.9 &3.8 Idaho 165.2 141.2 126.3 125.8 124.4 Illinois i 86.1 91.2 91.6 93.0 91.5 Indiana os sige 148.3 119.9 116.5 126.6 111.1 lowa 97.7 105.1 110.5 94.5 83.0 Kansas 120.5 120.6 114.4 27.3 100.4 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 90.9 93.7 79.3 Maryland 74.8 76.7 77.2 83.0 81.9 Massachusetts 92.7 95.6 90.2 95.6 91.1 Michigan ve 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 ; 88.1 86.1 88.4 80.4 74.9 Montana i 152.3 122.6 110.5 115.1 112.9 Nebraska wa , 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 eee ‘ , 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 er 149.7 155.4 27.0 118.1 132.1 Oregon ae 97.0 91.9 95.1 97.0 90.4 Pennsylvania Sadia 80.5 87.8 90.9 88.2 86.3 Rhode Island ; 76.2 78.0 77.2 81.2 84.1 South Carolina : rT 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 te ; 110.9 100.7 101.1 100.7 04.8 West Virginia 90.1 94.3 98.2 96.7 98.5 Wisconsin. ne ee Pe ae re 111.6 117.2 105.3 102.6 103.0 Wyoming ; nieeeedes 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. of [ 124] TABLE 10.—INDEX OF PERCE PENDED BY THE STATES FO is a whole. 1930 Delaware expended only f its relative tax resources for >» Sal per education times as mt percent ot tax tor educ ation is North Dakota at the othe led 79.6 percent, putting extreme forth 21.5 States. eftort as Delaware. The ny resources expended by the states VW tion, 14.2. The NT OF RELATIVE TAX RE R CURRENT COSTS OF PU and the Stand ird ad is $5.9 ae percent was 3/.6 for the United SOURCES (CHISM) EX BLIC EDUCATION. 1922-32 percent of 30.7. Similarly read data for other states and years 1922 — 100 State 1921-22 1923-24 1925-26 1927-28 1929-30 1931-32 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 il U.S 100 98.0 94.4 89 89 4.0 a 100 98 92.5 97.1 99 ) 4 100 103.6 9? 3 86.5 91 4 100 100.0 103.6 96.4 88.9 R4 ( la 100 103.5 110.1 105.7 106 3 118.0 j 100 103.4 97.8 93.6 83.4 R4 4 ut 100 97.3 95.4 90 0 RO 29g D are 100 96.1 90.5 16.5 8? 1 100 " i 100 88.8 100.4 144.2? 97.9 105.4 ( rg 100 100.4 98.0 91.6 90.4 95 6 I 100 83.8 72.1 68.3 67.5 65 | 100 103.8 100.4 96.9 95.4 ) I la 100 79.2 74.1 6.6 67.2 5.8 wa 100 105.4 106.8 86.8 76.3 > K is 100 98.1 89.6 94.8 74.7 9 ? Ke cky 100 100.7 96.6 100.0 97.9 09 3 I siana 100 92.0 84.5 83.9 80.8 83.9 M 100 94.3 86.3 84 71.7 80.3 Maryland 100 100.4 97.3 99.6 98? 105.8 Massachusetts 100 101.1 91.8 92.5 88? 1.2 M gan 100 103.4 106.0 102 3 106.9 10)? Oo M esota 100 100.90 86.4 79.5 ? 35 Mississippi 100 86.8 99.1 116.3 108.6 19.8 Missouri 100 95.9 94.7 82.0 76.3 82 0 Montana 100 78.9 68.5 67.8 66.5 ; Nebraska 100 75.3 71.5 64.9 58.6 N ida 100 107.3 105.5 101.8 88.6 99 New Hampshire 100 100.7 95.9 85.4 82.4 RR New Jersey 100 105.1 103.8 103.8 101.7 115.1 New Mexico 100 92.7 87.2 74.9 82.9 90 New York 100 98.9 91 87.2 103.0 124 North Carolina 100 104.9 110.1 103.9 107.2 8.4 N Dakota 100 102.1 78.9 74.1 71.4 59 ) 100 90.7 85 83.2 82.3 ) ihoma 100 101.8 80.1 70.8 9? egon 100 92.8 92.5 89.8 83.6 20 9 Pennsylvania 100 107.0 106.6 98.4 96.3 10 Rhode Island 100 100.4 95 95 99 1 9 South Carolina 100 109.1 117.1 112.2 110.1 $ South Dakota 100 95.5 87.9 8.5 Tennessee 100 101 105.9 101.3 101 103.3 Texas 100 82.5 89.0 13.3 80.1 87 8 Utah 100 92.1 84.8 80.7 77.4 3.0 Vermont 100 84.6 79.4 1.8 72.1 8.9 Virginia 100 94.7 86 81.0 80.2? 14 V ishington 100 89.0 86.0 81.5 76.7 West Virginia 100 102.6 102.9 96.3 98.2 13.0 Wisconsin 100 103.0 89.0 82 5 2? 2 g Wyoming 100 104.3 102.4 93.4 98 3 Read table thus This table is based on the data presented in Table 8 which show that in 1921 Alabama ¢ ent of its tax resources for education. This is given the value of 100 in (¢ In 1923-24 Alabama expended s tax resources for education, which yields an index number of 98.7 in ter the 1921-22 figure. In other wor 1 [125 ] 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 fo] w — °o j= w 8 ~ wn 30 35 40 45 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 & Tennessee P United States Arkansas Georgia Missouri Rhode Island Virginia I Maryland Nevada Mill 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 °o w Research Division. National Education This chart based on data in Table 8, Column 8. [ 126 ] (he extreme ratios in ettort are partly due the fact that Delaware’s relative tax re es are very great according to New ners data. But even excluding Delaware ind taking the state with the next lowest effort, which was Nevada spending 16.4 percent of the relative tax resources tor education. ratio is 4.85 to 1 for 1930. In Table 14 the states are ranked on the rcent of relative tax resources expended fo: ducation as presented in Table 13. The gain loss in rank of each of the states from 1920 to 1930 is also shown in this table. Not much reliance can be placed upon the latter trend data inasmuch as Newcomer’s data are avail ble only for these two years. ad 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 n on the basis of Chism’s and Newcomer’s 0 I data since the United States total of the rela tive tax resources as calculated by Newcomer: is considerably less than the corresponding fig in Chism’s estimate which approximates the 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 of 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 deter mine the relative abilit} 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 governments, Che efforts of the states to support ed tion as cal ted on the basis of the two studi can be compared by using the indexes of gures derived as presented in Table and 13. These indexes show the relation of ettort ot each state to the eftort of the United States asa vhole. of effort tor will show wi effort hi Comparison of the indexes \labama for 1930, for example ther this state put torth more ot less effort as related to the United States as a whole on the Chism data than on the New comer data. Figure [II shows graphically the relation between the indexes of effort based on the Chism and Newcomer studies for the yea 1930, the only year for which data were avail able from both. Because a few states, partic 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 ot correlation fo: on which Figure III is based is .65 coefficient found between the indexes of effort the data 06. The TABLE 11.—CERTAIN CHARACTERISTICS OF PERCENT OF TAX RESOURCES OF THE STATES (CHISM) EXPENDED FOR CURRENT COSTS OF EDUCATION Highest state Lowest state Difference be- Ratio of United Mean —— Year —-- — tween highest and highest States of the Saiketian c Vig Name Percent Name Percent lowest percent to lowest percent® states” l 2 3 4 | 5 7 8 9 10 1921-22 Idaho 49.9 Nevada 21.9 28.0 ».28 30.2 3 1923-24 Wyoming 48.7 Florida 21.3 27.4 2.29 29.6 31.4 6.6 1925-26 Wyoming 47.8 Maryland 22.0 25.8 I 28.5 9.9 5.4 1927-28 Wyoming 43.6 Virginia 21.3 22.3 2.05 7.1 8 5.3 1929-30 Wyoming 45.9 Nevada 19.4 26.5 Pod 7.1 7.9 5.4 1931-32 Wyoming 42.6 Arkansas 21.3 21.3 ».00 28.4 28.5 5 Read table thus: In 1921-22 Idaho expended 49.9 percent of its tax resour education whereas Nevada ex 21.9 percent of its tax resources for education. The difference between these two 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 wa 7 The standard deviation was 7.5. @ This figure is the percent the total expenditures for current costs of educat the 48 states were of t ax re irces of the 48 states > This figure is the average of the percents of tax resources expended for ed atior n each of e 48 ite ¢ pe nts for the individual states were totaled and divided by 48 { 127 ] based on Newcomer’s data for 1920 and The extent to which there is lack of correla- to the differences in relat tion as to the efforts of the Chism’s data for 1922 is .70 + .05. education on the basis of the two studies states to ive ability TABLE 12.—STATES RANKED BY PERCENT EXPENDITURES FOR CURE COSTS OF PUBLIC EDUCATION WERE OF TAX RESOURCES (CHISM Rank 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Alabama 24 22.5 25 20 14.5 14 Arizona. . 43.5 9 12 16 10.5 8 Arkansas ‘ i 41.5 32.5 36 42 48 California 23 16 9 11 8.5 4 Colorado 9 4 2 3 6 7 Connecticut 39 40 41 39 36 26 Delaware 32 33 36 46.5 36 20 Florida 44 48 44 6.5 34 32.5 Georgia . 42 41.5 42 41 40 38 5 Idaho 1 5 8 10 8.5 11 Illinois 40 35 32.5 34 30 31 Indiana 6 13 14 9Q 16 16 Iowa 27 20 18.5 32 41 46.5 Kansas 3.5 12 16 8 23 34 Kentucky 29.! 27 27 22 19 18.5 Louisiana 21 26 30 25 27 24 Maine 26 29.5 34.5 33 45 37 Maryland 47 47 47.5 43 43 40 Massachusetts 33 20.5 37 29.5 31 27.5 Michigan : 16 11 5 4 3 5 Minnesota 12 8 15 18.5 21 23 Mississippi 15 22.5 10 2 2 2 Missouri 36 39 40 46.5 47 44 Montana 4 10 18.5 17 14.5 17 Nebraska 11 24.5 26 31 38 43 Nevada 48 45 45 44 48 45 New Hampshire 35 36 38 42 44 42 New Jersey 29.5 21 20 18.5 17 9 New Mexico.. 7 6 3 12 4 New York 37 37 43 40 22 10 North Carolina ‘ 25 17 11 15 12 13° North Dakota 2 2 4 5 7 71 Ohio ; 22 28 29 26 26 30 Oklahoma 5 3 7 14 5 6 Oregon , 28 34 31 27 32 41 Pennsylvania 43 38 34.5 38 36 29 Rhode Island 46 46 47.5 45 39 35 South Carolina 31 19 13 13 13 25 South Dakota 20 18 23 29.5 29 38.5 Tennessee... 45 ad 39 37 33 36 Texas 17.5 32 21.5 35 24 15 Utah & 7 6 6.5 10.5 1? Vermont 10 15 17 21 18 22 Virginia 38 43 46 4 46 46.5 Washington 19 24.5 24 24 28 7.5 West Virginia 34 31 28 28 2 32.5 Wisconsin . 17.5 14 21.5 23 20 18.5 Wyoming 3 1 1 1 1 1 Read table thus: In 1921-22 twenty-three states expended a greater percent of tax resources for educa thus ranked 24. In case two states expended the same percent of tax resources for education each state wa between the two rank numbers they would otherwise have been given. Thus in 1923-24 Alabama and M 1921-22 to 1931-32 Alabama gained 10 places in rank. Similarly interpret table for other states * Based on Column 8, Table 8. 22.5 these two figures taking the place of rank numbers 22 and 23. For the six years taken as one, Alabama ranked Rank for Gain State six years 1921-22 1923-24 1925-26 1927-28 1929-30 1931-32 combined * 192 ~ Ww > 2 wun na yn 38 45 18.5 7 an 23 15 45.5 24 29.5 tion than Alaba given a rankir ssissippi are br TABLE 13—-PERCENT OF TAX RE- SOURCES (NEWCOMER) EXPENDED BY THE STATES FOR CURRENT COSTS OF EDUCATION 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 Percent Index—U. S.=100 State Rinks for Gain 1919-20 1929-30 1919-20 1929-30 R ink 1919-20 end loss in - State 1929-30 rank 1 2 3 4 5 1919-20 1929-30 combined 1920-30 ( ental U.S... 24.9 37.6 100.0 100.0 1 2 3 4 5 28.3 60.5 113.7 160.9 \labama 19 5 9 { ’ Jaeetes ae 53.2 122.1 141.5 Arizona 15 15.5 14 0 s 20.9 45.6 &3.9 121.3 Arkansas 39 26 30 i ( rnia . 26.6 39.0 106.8 103 California 24 34 32 0 ( iT 28.9 55.5 116.1 147.6 Colorado 17 10 11 Connecticut 30.6 32.1 122.9 85.4 Connecticut 13.5 41 ¢ elaware i ‘ om 3.7 12.9 9.8 Delaware 48 48 48 ( Florida 20.8 31.2 95.2 &3.0 Florida 28.5 44 42 ( gia 18.3 49.1 73.5 130.6 Georgia 43.5 22 9 1.5 41.9 56.2 168.3 149.5 Idaho 4 & 4 } 21.9 34.6 88.0 92.0 Illinois 31.5 39 41 1 31.1 56.9 124.9 151.3 Indiana 12 7 10 w 21.9 45.9 88.0 122.1 lowa 31.5 24 28 Kansas a 31.2 127.3 136.2 Kansas 11 17 16 ( Kentucky 17.1 e723 68.7 125.8 Kentucky 416 23 34.5 3 I siana 25.9 54.5 104.0 144.9 Louisiana 25 12 18 M € 32.8 38.7 131.7 102.9 Maine 9.5 33.5 25 Marvland 18.3 24.8 73.5 72.3 Marvland 43.5 45 45 5 Massachusetts y aoe 34.4 109.2 91.5 Massachusetts 23 40 38 Michigan ; 33.5 49.6 134.5 131.9 Michigan s 21 15 M esota 32.8 51.0 131.7 135.6 Minnesota 9.5 18 13 R 5 M ssippi ; 17.5 78.0 70.3 207 .4 Mississippi 45 2 7 $ Missouri 21.7 31.8 87.1 84.6 Missouri 34 42 43 ‘ Montana 47.1 53.7 189.2 142.8 Montana 2 13.5 3 Nebraska sae? ee 45.8 110.8 121.8 Nebraska 22 25 Nevada 16.2 16.4 65.1 43.6 Nevada 47 47 47 0 New Hampshire 28.1 42.5 112.9 113.0 New Hampshire 0 29 ri c New Jersey 30.1 34.9 120.9 92.8 New Jersey 16 38 33 New Mexico ee a 65.6 181.9 174.5 New Mexico 3 4 ) i New York » BS 24.8 74.3 66.0 New York 42 46 4¢ { North Carolina 21.0 55.6 84.3 147.9 North Carolina 37 9 a | North Dakota. . 40.1 79.6 161.0 211.7 North Dakota 6 1 1 Ohio (i: ae 42.2 111.6 112.2 Ohio 21 30 Oklahoma 30.6 53.7 122.9 142.8 Oklahoma [s.9 13.5 1 0 Oregon , 21.8 40.7 87.6 108.2 Oregon 33 32 37 Pennsylvania a re 38.7 103.2 102.9 Pennsylvania 27 35.5 34.5 &.5 Rhode Island 21.2 31.7 85.1 84.3 Rhode Island 36 43 44 South Carolina 19.1 76.7 76.7 204.0 South Carolina 40 3 6 South Dakota... 20.8 57.6 83.5 153.2 South Dakota 38 6 20 Tennessee e 18.4 40.0 73.9 106.4 Tennessee 41 33 40 ‘ Texas 23.7 2.0 95.2 111.7 Texas 28.5 31 31 Utah ain 41.0 53.2 164.7 141.5 Utah 5 15.5 & 10.5 Vermont 48.0 50.0 192.8 133.0 Vermont 1 20 5 19 Virginia ‘ ane Meee 38.2 91.2 101.6 Virginia 30 37 39 Washington 36.5 43.8 146.6 116.5 Washington 7 28 19 West Virginia 21.6 50.5 86.7 134.3 West Virginia 35 19 4 16 Wisconsin : 78.7 43.9 115.3 116.8 Wisconsin 18 27 23 9 Wyoming . 25.8 54.9 103.6 146.0 Wyoming 26 il 17 15 Read table thus: In 1920, Alabama expended 28.3 percent Read table thus: In 1919-20 eighteen states expended ts tax resources for education. The data from which this greater percent of tax resources for education tha Alabama hgure was derived are taken from Table 3 which shows that which thus ranked 19. A “.5” added to a rank means that 1919-20 Alabama expended 7.7 millions of dollars for educa two states expended the same percent of tax reve r on and from Table 4 which shows that according to New education and each was given a rank halfway betwes ‘ mer’s data the relative tax resources of Alabama in the same two rank numbers they would otherwise have beer I year were 27.2 millions of dollars, the former figure being 28.3 the years 1919-20 and 1929-30 combined Alabama ranked percent of the latter. Similarly read data for other states and From 1919 to 1929-30 Alabama gained 14 place ank ears 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 ° r=) oo] ra} ww ra) & vw ra) g 70 80 North Dakota Mississippi South Carolina New Mexico Alabama South Dakota Indiana Idaho North Carolina Colorado W yoming Louisiana Montana Oklahoma Arizona Utah Kansas Minnesota West Virginia Vermont Michigan Georgia Kentucky lowa Nebraska Arkansas Wisconsin Washington New Hampshire Ohio Texas Oregon Tennessee California Maine Pennsylvania nN Virginia New Jersey Mlinois Massachusetts Connecticut Missouri Rhode Island Florida Maryland New York Nevada Delaware ie United States 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 °o Pesearch Civision. onal Education 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 gu Based on Chism's Data (LU) «Css« Based on Newcomer's Data 100 Research Division, National Educat m's data was 112.9. .(See Table 9.) In Read chart thus: In 1929-30 the index of effort for Alabama based on Chis The bars for Alabame the same year Alabama's index of effort based on Newcomer's data was 160.9. (See Table 13.) represent these two index numbers, Similarly read chart for other states. [131] states to support education according to these two sets of data, inasmuch as the expenditure figure used is precisely the same in both cases. The differences between the studies as to types of taxes used and their relative weighting as presented in Table 5 are doubtless largely re- sponsible for the differences found both as to ability and effort 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 of 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 between mean percent and the pe as a whole. The average ratio betweer tremes of percent of relative tax pended by the states for education to |. On the basis of Newcomer’s data, 1 tax expended percent of resources states for education in 1920 was 27.( standard deviation of 8.7. In 1930 percent was 45.9 with a standard dey 14.2. The ratio between the extreme relative tax resources cent of expel education was 15 to 1 in 1920 and 21 in 1930. It should be borne in mind that pe: relative tax resources expended by the 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 [132] resou 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 Table 15 expenditure per thousand units of educa were presented in Chapter II1. In nal need is presented for each year of the study. Index numbers for these data are pre sented 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 17 consists of another set of index numbers showing the trend in expenditures for current costs per thousand units of educational need of each state over the period of the study in terms of its expenditure in 1919-20. Che average annual expenditure per thou- sand units of educational need as presented in olumn 9 of Table 15 is shown graphically in Figure LV. Table 18 presents the rank of the states on expenditures per thousand units of need. For the 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 lowed by Nevada, California, Michigan, Massachusetts, Wyoming, Connecticut, Ari- zona, 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, North Carolina, and South Carolina, Tennessee, Kentucky, Virginia, Texas, Florida comprising in ascending order the Louisiana, lower quarter of the states. Table 19 shows certain characteristics of the expenditures per thousand units of educa- tional need for each year of the study. This table indicates that the range in expenditures increased somewhat during the period of the present study. Both the expenditure of the United 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 economic situation. In 1919-20, $5.50 spent per unit of educational need in the state of highest expenditure level to $1 in the state of lowest expenditure level. The average ratio for the seven years combined was $4.70 to $1. Was Adequacy Indexes Relative Only It should be emphasized that the adequa indexes presented in Table 16 are relative “Adequacy” expressed in terms of the nat average, or any other point in the entire rang does not represent absolute “adequacy ot 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 of reference for making comparisons. It is doubt ful 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 certain effici compared with adequacy based upon other objective factors indicative of the 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 3. Average child enrolled 4. Percent of school number of days attended total enrolment found in 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, principal ind supervisors 9. Percent of literates ten years of age [ 133 ] 10. Percent of high school graduates continuing vears 1922, 1924. 1928, and 1930. to education vears covered by the present study. | Phillips has published the ranking of the rank-difference method of correlation 1 tates on these ten items combined for the ‘Phillips’ ranking for each of these to TABLE 15—EXPENDITURE FOR CURRENT EXPENSES PER THOUSAND OF EDUCATIONAL NEED BY YEARS State 1919-20 1921-22 1923-24 1925-26 1927-28 1929-30 1931-32 Average l 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Continental U. 5 $37 , 803 $46, 807 $49 426 $52,815 $56, 347 $58,467 $54,061 $50,818 \labama 15,491 17,554 20,221 22,950 24,688 26,801 84 »1,42 \rizona 64,320 61,857 68 , 571 63,716 62,904 64,930 58 841 63.591 Arkansas 13,141 15,057 17,632 21,755 22,758 23,674 19,704 19,103 Califorma 51.877 66 , 588 66,713 77,430 84,982 85.676 81,632 73.557 lorado 41,730 54,643 58,721 62,650 65,759 65,188 59,079 58,253 Connecticut 50, 080 58,318 64,068 65,394 72,273 73,813 73,428 65.339 Delaware 40,865 56,512 57,244 61,957 58,880 66,750 68 .94 58 736 Florida 25,875 32,109 31,369 40,345 52,429 36,753 34,114 36,142 Georgia 12,884 15,717 17,528 21,223 21,639 22,728 1, 336 19,008 Idaho 47,221 52,154 51, 266 49 346 1,484 52,280 45 6 49.931 [}linois 43,797 53,643 58,539 63,769 65,322 68 943 63 3 59.612 Indiana 44,346 69,756 55,319 54,260 63,048 61,446 52,434 57,230 lowa 51,248 51,271 59,526 67,812 60,110 59 654 §2.707 57,483 Kansas 43,242 48,479 46 ,994 49,823 60,531 52,875 43,629 49 , 368 Kentucky 15,378 21,466 25,287 29,578 30,587 32.644 28 895 26,26 Louisiana 26,294 32,377 32,929 35,248 36,097 34,800 32,078 32,83 Maine 36,222 42,983 44,503 46 ,646 49,345 48,235 46.277 14.88 Maryland 32,744 44,154 47 ,827 48,977 53,263 56,521 54,223 48 244 Massachusetts 54,428 65,997 70,152 67,924 77,752 78,133 73,043 69 633 Michigan 52,146 65,425 67,736 77,162 78,807 80, 386 67,564 69, 889 Minnesota 47.558 57,301 65,122 61,942 63,819 64,582 60,078 60.05 Mississippi 12,419 16,199 16,146 20,218 26,519 25,790 25,990 20, 469 Missouri 29.176 37,537 39, 980 43,662 43,802 44,685 4,241 40,440 Montana 65,430 66 , 866 59,710 62,389 63,576 63,845 55,905 62,532 Nebraska 45 640 57,200 46,123 47,677 49,130 51,556 4,043 48 838 Nevada 65,000 77,350 80,952 83,182 77,577 79,654 8,750 77,495 New Hampshire §0.333 57.785 62,988 65,046 66 ,000 66,215 65,888 62,036 New Jersey 54,442 69,355 76,337 82,179 89,114 95,156 04,026 80,087 New Mexico 34,979 43.138 38, 898 40,412 45,461 44,901 41,483 41,325 New York 50,145 71,373 76,025 77,677 88 ,636 94,826 94, 456 79,020 North Carolina 15,720 22,307 26,210 29,547 30,048 30,619 4,510 25.566 North Dakota 49,404 46,760 56,117 50,114 54,344 54,720 45,423 50,983 Ohic 48 589 58 , 366 56,748 59,589 65,106 65,599 56,784 58,683 Oklahoma 33,314 35,995 38,830 35,916 34,872 42,264 35,250 36,634 Oregon 34,798 48,971 48 945 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 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 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 Vermont 48 , 892 49 976 47,140 52,667 52,655 56, 368 50,420 51,160 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 West Virginia 29,825 41,892 45,365 51,563 49,856 52,624 45,717 5,263 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 Read table thus: In 1919-20 Alabama expended $15,491 per thousand units of educational need. The data this figure is derived are taken from Table 3 which shows that Alabama in 1919-20 spent 7,750 the usands of dolla tion and from Table 6 which shows that Alabama in the same year had 499 thousand units of educational need former figure by the latter gives the $15,491 figure for Alabama in 1919-20. Similarly read data for other states D the rank of the states tor the level of expenditure per unit of educa 1] need as calculated in this study, the co ©-ients are as follows: TABLE 16—INDEXES OF EXPENDITURE Same years TIONAL Ol NEED BY YEARS PER THOUSAND UNITS OF State io ware ja sas icky 8 i Maine Maryland Massachusetts [ gan M 1esota Mississippi Missouri Montana raska Nevada. New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico w York North Carolina North Dakota ‘klahoma. Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Ut ah Vermont Virginia \ Vashington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming Read table thus: This table is based on the data presented in Table 15, which show le expended $37,803 per thousand units of educational need while Alabama expended $15,491 1919-20 1921-2 4 3 0 100.0 0 5 1 132 Rg 3 » ? 142.3 4 116 5 124 120 } 68 1 3 9 111.4 9 114 3 149.0 6 109.5 4 103.6 7 15.9 6 69.2 8 91.8 6 94.3 0 141.0 9 139.8 8 122.4 9 34.6 2 80.2 1 142.9 7 122.2 9 165.3 1 123.5 0 148.2 5 9? 2 6 152.5 6 7 7 99.9 5 124 1 76.9 1 104.6 4 103.3 4 117 7 35.5 9 105.3 4 41.4 9 60.4 6 97.5 3 106.8 0 60.0 0 128.2 9 89 5 5 112.6 9 137.3 United State 100 2 1923-24 1925-26 4 5 100.0 10 10 } . 0 35 rl 1 5 ) } 8 10 ) 4 g 4 ) 11.9 10 120.4 8 4 7. . 4 51 90.0 88 IH 8 ) 141.9 128 137 0 14¢ 131.8 11 3) 38 80.9 bas 120.8 118 93.3 9 163.8 15 127.4 123 154.4 155.6 78.7 76.5 153.8 14 1 53.0 55.9 113.5 4.9 114.8 112.8 78.6 8.0 99.0 98.3 114.1 116.0 iF .3 115 44.7 4 5 100.0 4 46 1 5 > 51.6 5 4 91.4 R4 95.4 19 57.0 53.9 119.4 1 4 91.8 7 108.6 7 143.5 137.4 3 1919-20 the thousand 100 84 101 119 United tional need. Taking the United States figure as 100, the figure for Alabama yields an index number of 41.0, ie., it as great as the United States figure Similarly read data for other states and [ 135 ] ten were financial in character, Since three of the items in Phillips’ list of and since a high correlation would be expected between each of them and the financial measure of adequacy utilized in this study, these three items were excluded and the correlation ag iin computed. Ihe coefficient, using only the seven non-finan- TABLE 17.—INDEX OF NUMBER OF DOLLARS EXPENDED PER THOUSA) cial items in Phillips’ 1930, the only year for which Philli il t is .é } lished his data on each of the separate I Another check made was a compariso: rank of the states accor ding to exper level and a ranking of the states on non-financial 100 factors UNITS OF EDUCATIONAL NEED 1919-20 = related to State Continental U. S Alabama Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware Florida Georgia Idaho 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 Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming This figure was given the value of 100 as shown in Column 2. educational need. In terms of the 1919-20 figure this yields an index number of 113.3 as shown in Column 3 for other states and years 1919-20 2 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 i100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 3 123 113 96 114 128 130 122 100 1i2 139 123 118 134 121 125 120 130 128 102 125 119 114 127 123 142 141 94 120 108 140 120 118 138 98 140 124 109 102 132 103 140 125 113 1921-22 sa Uw ~nNnN ew CoN DOW ~ ON & oo 0 4 4 130 130 106 134 128 140 140 121 136 108 133. 124 116 108 164 125 122 146 128 129 136 130 137 91 101 124 125 140 111 151 166 113 116 116 140 140 125 184 98 165 112 108 96 133 101 152 127 125 1923- 127. om non 24 a NNNN — NAeGQAs NOUN Uw Read table thus: In 1919-20 Alabama expended $15,491 per thousand units of educational In 1921-22 Alabama expended $17,554 per thousand Similarly 1925 5 139 148 165 149 150 151 155. 164 104 145 122 132 115 192 134 128 149 124 148 130 162 149 95 104 128 129 150 115 154 188 101 122 107 149 1 1 1 -26 1 > worwe VWuannn “N wom w tN Oo ~oO ouwon Ve “1 Oh ~~ 6 202 168 109 149 142 140 198 137 13¢ 142 151 119 131 163 130 176 191 110 134 104 157 156 144 225 102 204 126 113 107 141 105 167 130 145 0 9 9 0 -28 1929-30 7 154 173 100 180 165 156 163 142 176 110 161 238 104 219 143 115 115 146 107 176 148 129 3 oS eS OO 4 8 3 need as shown [ 136 ]} AN 144 FIGURE IV —— °o $10 $20 $30 AVERAGE EXPENDITURE PER UNIT OF EDUCATIONAL NEED 1920-32 $40 $5 jo $60 $70 $80 New Jersey New York Nevada California Michigan Massachusetts Wyoming Connecticut Arizona 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 Texas Virginia Kentucky North Carolina Tennessee South Carolina Alabama Mississippi Arkansas Georgia Hi “United States $10 o Similarly read chart for other states $20 $30 $40 $5 $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 $80,087, as shown in Table 15, Column 9, or slightly more than $80 per unit of need | 137 ] tional] 1930 National Education These relation coefhcients were: Education Asso ation items and Associat Association the tor efficiency by the Research Division of the Na- the rank-orde1 yeat COI Relative amcunt of school itt dance The holding power of the schools Percent of Combining the ranks of items and correlating with the financi School literacy Efiicien the thre TABLE 18.—RANK OF THE STATES IN ACCORDANCE WITH CURRENT EX! ITURES PER THOUSAND UNITS OF EDUCATIONAL NEED, 1920-32 State Arizon Arkansas Califorr Col id Cons Delawar Florid (,eorg Idal Illinois Indian lowa Kansas Kentucky Louisian 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 Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming Read table thus: In 1920 forty-one states expended more money per thousand units of e& which thus ranked 42. For the entire period of years covered Alabama ranked 45 and lost 3 places 1920 14 x 16 19 10 24 43 30 34 39 26 16 40 Nw Anau 1922 3 44 10 48 6 19 41 29 12 36 26 28 18 45 25 43 39 30 24 40 11 34 21 9 Similarly read table for other states and years 1924 4 > zn 10 18 38 47 24 16 13 29 42 33 Nun 9 48 34 12 30 23 4 1926 29 16 48 34 i4 31 42 20 25 24 6 Rank 1928 wen Wm ty =n — ie ae > oo 1930 30 WN nN Ny ° 40 32 25 41 20 28 1932 16 48 14 43 30 19 31 44 29 36 33 28 0 11 Rank for entire period 30 6 13 46 35 10 29 15 31 »? / ucational need rank from I +} [ 13 $ ] TABLE 19.—CERTAIN CHARACTERISTICS OF THE STATES FOR CURRENT COSTS OF EDUCATION EDUCATIONAL NEED EXPENDITURES OF PER THOUSAND THE UNITS OF Highest state Lowest state Difference Ratio of between highest Mean Expenditure Expenditure highest expendi United expend Y Name per 1000 Name per 1000 and lowest ture to States tur units of need units of need expenditure owest expendi he figure ture® tat 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 ) 19-20 Montana $65 , 430 South Carolir $11,984 $53, 44¢ 5 $37, 803 $3 { 1-22 Nevada 77,350 Arkansas >, 05 ) 40, 80 } 1923-24 Nevada 80,952 [ 16, 14¢ 64, 80 0 $9, 426 8, 64 925-26 Nevada 83, 182 p ( 8 »2,964 4.1 5? 815 1927-28 New Jersey 89,114 ,475 } 56,347 30 New Jersey 95,156 Georgia 8 », 428 } 58,46 ) 1031-32 New York 94,456 Arkansas 19,704 1 +8 54,06 ; Read table thus: In 1919-20 Montana spent $65,4 er thousand unit whe South Ca difference between these two figures is $53,446. The ' f the large 1 rT c vest expenditure state spent $5.50 per unit of educatior need to $1 P expenditure The United States was $37,803 per thousand units of need w e the mear ta as $ was $15,190 [his figure is secured by dividing the total expen é mber of units of educational need in the United State > This figure is the average of the 48 figures de ed | ding the expe rret state by the number of units of educational need in each state ( the ex res f 1 gether and divided by 48 ire utilized in this study yields a rank orde1 this study the number of dolla: 7s ae ee may . coefhcient of correlation of .72 + .05. annually f the current cost of Che preceding coefficients of correlation are schools per unit of educational load of special significance because there is no erro1 associated with population sampling since the of the states utilized was the number The basic measure of the educ total population is represented. While other of educational 1 sampling factors remain in the data upon which the correlations are based, the coefficients pre i: . th > most sented on the preceding pages are high enough legs . : ; ‘ from $+ t to indicate a close relationship between ade quacy of financial support and adequacy of educational program as determined by the use ot certain objective non-financial factors. . } ured by tl Summary The relative adequacy of the educational _ tional prog 1 ' I programs of the several states is measured in _ studies t | 139 | $1 received { SS i t t ne Y I us ed as unit of education i e of nor formula developed by Mort. n determined in cet she ) cal ul iter The states in which schools w adequate financial suppo: Sin he si hools In the states corded the least adequate financial Generally speaking, the relative ad he educational programs of the sta 1e level of financial suppor the same as the relative adequacy ot ¢ nnan pended ic educ: The Relation of Effort, Adequacy, and Ability The purpose of this chapter is to show the relationship which exists among the factors “effort” as presented in Chapter IV, “ade- quacy’’ as presented in Chapter V, and “‘ability” as estimated by Chism and Newcomer whose basic data were presented in Chapter III. Relation of Effort to Adequacy Using Chism’s Data Correlation coefficients ' 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- lized in this study per 1000 units of educa- tional need. The relationship is generally slightly positive as shown by the following coeficients of correlation for the six years of the study: 1921-22: r = 32 = 09 1923-24: r = So 2 1925-26: r = 04 = .10 1927-28: r = 08 = .10 1929-30: r — 02 + .10 19s8-54: & = if = 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 1 All correlation coefficients in this chapter were worked by the Pearson product-moment method. The probable « ’ coefficient was calculated, altho the problem of population sampling is not present since the total population of the available for study. The sampling factor still remains, however, in the data, particularly with reference to ‘‘abilit; “effort” since the latter is calculated in terms of “ability’’ data would doubtless be somewhat different in result so that the sampling factor exists here. It is present in the ‘‘adequacy to a less extent because this factor is measured in terms of actual expenditures instead of estimates, sampling enter formula only for the measurement of educational need, and this is also based primarily upon the actual data of aver attend»nce 2 Chapter VII shows the relative efforts that would have been required of the states to support a defensible nat mum program ® Seven vears are included in this average since data for 1920 were needed for use in connection with Newcome to tax resources for 1920 CHAPTER VI { 140 ] 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 edu need for the seven biennial periods | 1932.8 Relation of Effort to Adequacy U Newcomer’s Data “Effort,” as calculated on the basis of comer’s data, was also correlated w “adequacy” of the support provided. Fo the correlation coefficient was .43 + .08 1930 the situation had so changed that t! relation coefhicient was —.37 + .08, a d shift from the relationship found for As shown by the probable errors, both of correlations are significant especially in of the fact that the total population was able for study. Figure VI presents grap! the relationship for 1930. Whereas in 1920 there was a definite dency for the states which put forth the gr¢ effort in support of education to provid most adequate level of financial supp their schools, in 1930 there was a definit dency for the states which put forth the gr effort to be unable to provide as adequ level of financial support for their scl other states exerting less effort. Correlation between “Effort” and “Ad quacy” When Adequacy Is Calculat in Terms of Various Measures of Ed cational Load The basic measure of the adequacy financial support accorded the schools study has been the expenditure per unit of « cational need. It may also be measure Studies of ability other than those by Chism and tor to nu ‘“Ade- ilated Edu of t in t »f edu red 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. nn N. Mex N. Dak. Rn ee a a ae a N. Dak Colo. RE a RE NSE Colo Okla. Okla Idaho enn ne eR Idaho Miss. LS Miss Utah Utah Mich. Mich bed —_—_—_—_—_————— re Ind Ariz. —LLLL_ TT + Ariz Mont. I ectiedaalnanneEEaEaeaiaietieeceeieenmenammaiael rc Mont Calif RC RR a er Calif Minn. Minn Vt. Vt Kans. : Kans N.C. N. € N. J. N. J $s. ¢ a a ae a IT S. € Wis. Wis Ala. Ala Ky. Ky Texas | Texas Wash. Wash La. La Nebr. Nebr S. Dak. S. Dak Onio Ohio lowa lowa Ww. Va. | WwW Va N. Y. N. Y Pr tt ems a Ore. [ Ore Del. Del il. Wil Fla. Fla Conn. Conn — RO EO a ce P, N. H. NH Tenn. - _ Tenn Ark. U.S U.S Ark Ga. Ga Mo Mo R. 1. | R. 1 Va = Va Md. Md Nev. = Ney 0 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 Percent of Tax Resources Expended for Education Unit of Educational Need N. Dak. Miss. N. Mex. Ale. S. Dak. Ind. Ideho N.C Colo Wyo. Okla Mont. Ariz Utah Kans. Minn. W. Va. Ve Mich Ga lowa Nebr. Ark. Wis Wash. N. H. Ohio Texas Ore Tenn. Calif. Maine Pa Va N. J. WW Mass. Conn. Mo R. I. Fla. Md. N.Y Nev Del ° | _ ww “EFFORT” BASED ON NEWCOMER’S DATA AND “ADEQUACY” Effort* 30 COMPARED 1929-30 Adequacy Number of Dollars Expended per °o 45 60 75 $80 $60 $40 $20 HAM N. Dak Miss > C¢ N. Mex Ala S. Dak Ind Idaho N. C Colo Wyo Okla Mont Ariz Utah Kans Minn W. Va Ve Mich lowa ° a” id ° ° ss 60 15 $80 $60 $40 Research Division, Nationa! Education *Based on data from Table 13, Column 3. >Based on data from Table 15, Column 7. 1 ns of two other educational ad: (1) the expenditure per pupil in aver measures of ve daily attendance and (2) the expenditure per child five to seventeen years of age. Data on these two items are presented in Appendix IV. For comparative purposes, correlations were alculated for 1930 between “effort’’ based on both Chism’s and Newcomer’s data and “ade quacy” based on the two measures mentioned avove. The 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- comer’s data the correlations are all negative attendance and population are used as the measure of educa but somewhat lower when 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 fac 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: r — 30 + .09 i923: tr = a1 = vou. ¢§ = 46 + .08 ives. % = —.19 = 09 The correlation coefficient for the average of 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- comer’s data, is correlated with the relative ability of the states to support education, using Newcomer’s data as a measure of the relative ability of the states, the correlation coefficients ire: 1920: — .28 + .09 1930: — 70 2 a 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 child in Per child resource data average daily attendance Per unit of educational need 5-17 years of age 4 Chism Newcomer forth less effort in support of edu 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 for representative years are: 1924: 1 83 1928: 1 79 1930: r 82 1932: 1 82 The correlation for the average factors for the combined six years of based on Chism’s data resulted in a c 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 =.31 + .09 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 sh groups the efforts of the states to suppor cation in 1929-30 using Chism’s data as to tax resources. Figure VIII is similar except that based on Newcomer’s data as to tax Figure IX it 1s resources. shows by groups the L 143 | FIGURE VII PERCENT OF TAX RESOURCES (CHISM) EXPENDED FOR EDUCATION 1929-30 ] First twelve states = Second twelve states faa |hird twelve states ME fourth twelve states Research Division, Nationa! Educatior FIGURE VIII PERCENT OF TAX RESOURCES (NEWCOMER) EXPENDED FOR EDUCATION 1929-30 LEGE ND [_] First twelve states E53 Second twelve states pee | Third twelve states aw Fourth twelve states Research Division, Nat A\ssociat FIGURE IX NUMBER OF DOLLARS EXPENDED PER UNIT OF EDUCATIONAL NEED 1929-30 LEGEND hae First twelve states = Second twelve states aa Third twelve states THE wih 2m Fourth twelve states -” vision, Nationa! Educa FIGURE X RELATION OF EFFORT, ADEQUACY, AND ABILITY =~ e ee ee NAW WH AR ODDNOAUPWH ook aad oak ead aod acd acd od > WhO > >A LSA A AWW N s © & (Percent of tax resources expended for education) $40 $50 $60 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] adequacy of support provided education as measured by the number of dollars expended per unit of educational need. Figure X also shows the relation of ‘‘effort,” calculated on Chism’s data, to ‘“‘adequacy”’ for 1930. Each state listed by the corresponding number in the the year number represents the legend and is plotted according to its proper position with regard to the “effort’’ and “ade- The number given each state is its rank on ability to support education ac- quacy” factors. cording 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 horizonial 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 the twenty-four states ranking highest on ability to support education from the twenty- four states ranking lowest. All of the states ranking 25 to 48 on ability to support educa- tion fall in the unshaded area when they are plotted on the “effort” and “adequacy” factors. A\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- 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 schools. Thirteen rich states, altho exerting relatively low effort, nevertheless were able to provide their schools with a high level of financial sup- 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 [ 146 ] states as poor states provide their sch } a level of financial support above the Generally speaking, the tendency is for t states to be able to provide their scho more adequate financial support than t states and with less effort than the p exert. The latter statement is qualified be the fact that seven of the poor states p 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 t] ents of federal support have in mind w assert that all the states could support quate program of education if they tr well to point out, however, that as seven poor states exerting less than effort there are seventeen rich states same classification. In these seven poo the following percents of tax resources v 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: G¢ 60.0; Arkansas—56.9 ; Tennessee—48.3 ; | ana—45.0; Virginia—40.9 ; Florida—38.3; V Virginia—30 5. The median percent of tax resout pended by the states for education in 193 approximately 27. Only one state, Ws spent over 38 percent of its tax reso education. The adequacy of support p: in West Virginia was almost as great median and only a slightly greater effort v have placed it above the median on this f In view of the fact that the average st voted only 27.9 percent of its relat resources to education in 1929-30, none other six of these states could reasona expected to put forth as great a percent of tax resources for education as would quired of them to support the defensi gram. Figure X with which the above discus concerned is based upon the efforts and ab 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 and would show even more of the poor st putting forth greater effort with inadeq al support resulting and more rich states source t that in 193 ded higher financial support at less eftort ot Newcor s data. the correlation coefh was ; tl high negat Summary ’ . " ' Be rwee t ¢ re TO the \ yn data presented, it appears that thet aa study of yrs, “‘abilit if ttle relationship between the two factors _ / aos : ‘a 34 — Z cording to 4 sm s data and the fort’ and “adequacy, there being only a ; . R expenditu yr education, there ¢ itive re ¢ ship S] 1 S e dat a . . positive relationship using Chism’s data. pioh posit wecbetien ot S2 Get l'sing Newcomer’s data, the correlation co quacy” at Neurite *s diath ta. te as > > . ficient declines from .43 in 1920 to —. 37 in — the correlation was .31 in 1920 and .68 IU, Chere is a tendency for the rich state Between “‘eftort’’ and “‘ability”’ there is a vide thei: ols with more adequate fin icant but not high negative relationshiy support, ever the they exert less ett the basis of both sources of data on tax than tl ) state CHAPTER VII Efforts Required of the States To Support a Defensible Nation Minimum Program \s shown in Chapter V there was a wide range among the states in the amount of money This range was caused by the varying ability and expended per unit of educational need. the varying efforts of the states to support education. The purpose of this chapter is to show what results when either of these two factors is held constant. The cost of a defensible national minimum expenditure per unit of educational need as calculated by Mort is $60.! arriving at this figure was to find the commu His procedure in nities of average wealth in the United States. Then, in the thirty-three states for which data National School Finance, he listed all communities that were collected in the Survey of did not vary more than 10 percent from the Next, he found how much these communities were ex- The average figure of these communities was found to be $60, or what may be termed a defensible average in wealth per unit of need. pending per unit of educational need. national minimum expenditure per unit of edu- cational need.* Using Chism’s Data In Table 21 the states are arranged in order of the percent of relative tax resources required to meet the defensible national minimum pro- gram for the year 1930. Figure XI expresses similar data for 1932 in graphic form. In 1930, 88.2 percent of Mississippi's rela- tive tax resources would have been required to support such a program as contrasted with only 14.6 percent for Nevada. The ratio be- tween Mississippi and Nevada would have been approximately 6 to 1. Using Newcomer’s Data Table 22 ranks the states on the percent of tax resources, as calculated by Newcomer, that would have been required to support the de- fensible national minimum program in 1930. This relationship is shown graphically in Figure XII. Mississippi would have been re- 1 Mort, Paul R. Federal Support for Public Education. New York: Bureau of Publications, University. 1936. p. 207-17. 2 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 yields a slightly lower figure than Mort’s, i.e., $58 per unit of educational need. [ 148 ] quired to put forth 55.1 times as mu Delaware is cause it is an extreme case, the ratio is as Delaware. If exclud between Mississippi and Nevada. The required for the United States as a w greater than on the basis of Chism’s d to the fact that the total tax resources nation as calculated by Newcomer we than as calculated by Chism. Adequacy at Various Levels of Eff In this section the efforts of the calculated on the basis of Chism’s d held constant at various levels in orde: the relative adequacy of the support that be provided with all the states exert same effort. TABLE 21.—PERCENT OF TAX SOURCES (CHISM) REQUIRED HAVE SUPPORTED A DEFENSI! NATIONAL MINIMUM PROGRAM $60 PER UNIT OF EDUCATION NEED IN 1930 Percent of Per State tax resources State tax ré required requ 1 2 3 Mississippi 88.2 Montana Alabama 68.6 South Dakota South Carolina 66.1 Michigan North Carolina 64.2 Missouri Georgia 60.0 Nebraska Arkansas 56.9 Maine Kentucky 52.6 Wisconsin Oklahoma 50.9 Minnesota Texas 49.7 Oregon New Mexico 48.6 Washington Tennessee 48.3 Ohio : Louisiana 45.0 California Utah 41.3 Maryland Virginia 40.9 lowa Idaho 38.7 Illine Florida 38.3 Pennsylvania Wyoming 37.6 Delaware North Dakota 37.2 New Hampshire Colorado 31.4 Rhode Island Vermont 31.2 Connecticut Kansas 30.8 Massachusetts Arizona 30.7 New Jersey West Virginia 30.5 New York Indiana 29.4 Nevada Continental U.S. 27.8 Teachers College, ( h TABLE 22.—PERCENT OF TAX RE- SOURCES (NEWCOMER) REQUIRED TO HAVE SUPPORTED A DEFEN- SIBLE NATIONAL MINIMUM PRO- GRAM OF $60 PER UNIT OF EDUCA- TIONAL NEED IN 1930 Percent of tax resources required Percent of tax resources required l 2 3 4 sIppi 181 Montana »0 Carolina 160 Arizona ma 135 Maine 48 gia . 129 Minnesota 47 sas 116 lowa 46 Carolina 109 Wyoming 44 ina i Missouri 42 Dakota Washington vy Mexico 87.3 Wisconsin icky : Oregon essee 2 Ohio New Hampshire Michigar ia . Pennsylvania Illinois Maryland California is 8.2 Rhode Island Massachusetts Dakota Virginia Connecticut New Jersey New York Nevada 0 Delaware Continental U. S. 38.6 Table 23 shows the extent to which the de fensible national minimum program in each state would have been met in 1932 if each state had put forth the same effort as would have hat een required of New York to maintain t 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- ible to meet the defensible national minimum program even if they had put forth as much effort as the states which ranked high on effort to support education. For example, sixteen states could not have met the defensible na tional minimum if their efforts had equaled the average effort of the six states ranking highest, or expended 37.9 percent of their tax resources for education: New Mexico North Carolina Oklahoma South Carolina Alabama Arkansas Florida Georgia Idaho Kentucky Louisiana Mississippi ‘Tennessee Texas Utah Virginia Many of the states, even great eftort; would have been unable to pr with relat sufficient funds to equal the national ay 1000 units of educational was $58,467. expenditure pel in 1930 which The averag ources expended for educat the cent of tax re 1930, based on Chism’s data, of which ranked 13 to 24 on this factor was percent. With this effort the following could not have provided their schools w national aver expenditure per unit cational need for that year: North Carol North Dakot Oklahoma South Carolina Alabama Arizona*? Arkansas Colorado*Z Florida? Georgia Idahot Kansas*2 Kentucky Louisiana Tennessee lexas Utah Vermont*? Virginia West Virg Mississippi W yoming New Mexico Of this list only those marked with ast (*) could have met the national aver 1930 if they had put forth the same et 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 Nevada 126.5 West Virginia New York 100 Vermont Massachusett 99 7 Connecticut 99 Kansas Rhode Island O88 Colorad New Hampshir 9) Arizona New Jersey 97 North Dakota Illinois 86 Wyoming Indiana lowa Idal Pennsylvania R4 Fl Delaware ; Virgini ( Maryland lorida ta Ohio 77 Louisian Washing l 7 Texas 7 Tennessee New Mexico Oklahom California Minnesot South Dak Missour Kentucky Nebraska 7 Arkansa Montana Georgia Maine rth. Michigar yuth ¢ Wisconsin Oregon 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 °o = o 18 w °o & 50 60 70 80 90 100 Mississippi Alabama South Carolina North Carolina Georgia Arkansas Kentucky Oklahoma New Mexico Tennessee Texas Louisiana NA - United States 70 80 90 100 ° 3 3 wt & 3 & Research Division, National Education A [150] FIGURE XII EFFORT, BASED ON NEWCOMER'S DATA, REQUIRED TO SUPPORT NATIONAL MINIMUM PROGRAM, 1930 Percent of Tax Resources Required To Support a Defensible Program of $60 per Unit of Educational Need ° 43 & 60 80 Mississippi South Carolina Alabama Georgia Arkansas North Carolina Louisiana North Dakota New Mexico Kentucky Tennessee Texas iu i ‘United States Research Division, National Education A ~ the average effort of the upper fourth of the states or had spent 35.7 percent of their relative tax resources for education. Only those marked with the number sign t ) (ft) could have met the national average in 1930 even if they had put forth the same effort as the average effort of the first six states or had spent 37.9 percent of their relative tax re- sources for education. Summary The cost of a defensible national minimum expenditure per unit of educational need as calculated by Mort at $60 is utilized in this chapter. Based on Chism’s data for 1930, Mississippi would have had to put forth 6 times as much effort as Nevada or to have devoted 88.2 per- cent of its tax resources for education as against 14.6 percent in Nevada in order to provide the defensible national program. Using Newcomer’s data for 1930 sippi would have been required to put 55.1 times as much effort as Delaware to provide the de‘ensible national n program or to have devoted to educati percent of its tax resources as against cent in Delaware. Next to Delaware. t which would have needed to put forth t effort Nevada where than teenth as effort have quired as in Mississippi. On the basis of Chism’s data, sixtee could not have financed the defensible : minimum program in 1930 even if t put forth as much effort as the avera; less was much would of the six states which ranked highest that year or had expended their relative tax resources for educatior With the same effort fourteen of th could not have financed the national expenditure per unit of educational 1930. 37.9 pe! [ 152] CHAPTER VIII Summary and Conclusions Summary [he purposes of this study have been: (1) » measure the relative efforts of the states to fnance public education; (2) to measure the lative adequacy of the financial support pro- ded public education in the several states; 3) to discover the relationship existing be- rween the factors “effort,” “adequacy,” and ibility’; and (4) to determine the relative efforts that would be required of the states to support a defensible national minimum pro- gram of financial support for public education. [he study covered each biennial year from 1920 thru 1932. [he formula developed in this study for the measurement of the effort of a state to sup- port education was, with certain refinements, the ratio of the state’s expenditures for current costs of public education to its relative tax re- sources. The specific expenditure figure util- zed for each state was its expenditure for irrent costs of public education, including the combined expenditures of both the state and local school systems, exclusive of interest, plus the cost of the state department of education, less revenues received from the federal govern ment and from subsidies from private sources. Data as to the relative tax resources of the states were available in two recent studies. Chism’s study provided data of this nature for each year from 1922 thru 1932 based upon the appl 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 ertan respects from the Model Tax Plan. The objectives of these two studies were not identical. Some of the differences between them were explained in Chapter III. Calculations based on both these sets of data Association. Newcomer’s to the relative tax resources of the states show that there is a considerable range in the efforts of the states to support education. On he basis of Chism’s data, some states put forth re than twice as much effort as others. For e six biennial periods 1922 to 1932 combined, voming! put forth the greatest effort, spend- 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 3.2 percent. The mean percent of the 48 states was 27.0 and the stand ard deviation 8.7. In 1930 the range was even North cent of its relative tax resources for edu where the percent was only 3.7. the 48 states was 45.9 percent and the standard devia 14.2. The extreme ratios in effort on the bas greater, Dakota expending 79.6 pe ition or 21.5 times as much as Delaware The mean for tion, Newcomer's data are partly due to the fa that Delaware’s relative tax resources are ver) great according to Newcomer’s data. But even excluding Delaware and taking the state with the next effort, Ney ida spending 16.4 percent of its relative tax re lowest which was sources for education, the ratio is 4.85 to | 1930. Che Pearson correlation coefhicient between for the indexes of the efforts of the states to sup port education on the basis of the two studi 1929-30, the only for data as to tax resources were available fron both This there was some disagreement as to the relat was .65 in year which studies. correlation means that omplet« efforts of the states, due to the lack of « t agreement between the two studies as to thi relative ability of the states to support educa + tion. The latter is probably due in large par a to the difference in objectives of the tw The genet studies explained in Chapter IIT. 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 Table A See Appendix 153 | 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. The findings by this measure of adequacy were in substantial agreement with 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 was —.02. ‘This means that among the states which exert rela- tively great effort to support education there 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 adequate financial support. In 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” and “ability” was a significant but low negative 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 and “ade- on the basis of Chism’s data as to 82. On ability it correlation coefficient was of Newcomer’s data as t 1920 and .68 in 1930 Mort’s figure of $60 was take: fensible national minimum unit of Chism’s data, Mississippi would ha quired to devote 88.2 percent of tax resources to education in order: the defensible whereas Nevada would have needed expen educational need. In 19 national minimum percent. In 1930, using Newcomer's dat sippi would have been required 181.7 percent of its relative tax res education in order to provide the national program Delawar have needed only 3.3 percent. In Ne next to the lowest state, only 12.: would have been required. On the basis of Chism’s data sixt: could not have met the defensibl minimum program in 1930 even put forth as much effort as the av the six highest ranking states or had 37.9 percent of their relative tax res education. With the same effort, fourteen of could not have financed the nationa expenditure per unit of educational 1930. whereas T Conclusions The principal conclusions to be d: this study are: 1. Generally speaking, there is for the rich states to provide their sch vit ae more adequate financial support thar | vided in the poor states and with | than the poor states exert. 2. There is considerable range in t ‘ tive efforts of the states to support ed ‘ 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 < with the range in “adequacy” as calcu 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 eft [154] ily slightly more than one-half as great in (920, and one-third as great in 1930, as the -ange in “ability.”” The range in “effort’’ based , Newcomer’s data, however, is three to four rimes as great as the range in “adequacy” of nancial support as calculated in this study. 5. There is no significant relationship be- rween the two factors “effort” and ‘‘ade- yuacy.” 6. There is a significant but low negative relationship between the two factors “effort” ind “ability” except that in 1930 on the basis § Newcomer’s data there was a fairly high ative correlation of —.77. There is a rather high positive relation- and ne i¢ y / ship between the two factors “‘ability’’ adequacy.” 8. Many of the states, even if they put forth relatively great effort, could not provide minimum defensible program of In some states practically national financial support. il] 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 federal participation. It is unjust for the poor to be oyerburdened in their support schools whereas the Ss attempt more able states are only lightly burdened. It is unfair that children of the rich states should have adequat result of tl educational opportunities as a little effort their states exert, whereas the chil dren of the poor states have inadequate edu cational opportunities despite the fact that the States exert great eftort to support schools. The fact that there are exceptions to this statement 2) Some does not undermine its general truth. ( 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 reasonabl financial support for their schools leaving noth ing for the support of all other state and local Many need to spend a greater proportion of their tax pos sibly afford to spend in view of other govern governmental functions. others would resources for education than they could mental needs. 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 E from Permanent Funds in Calculat- tures for Private Schools y; ing the Efforts of the States To Relative Efforts of the States 1 Support Education port Education It will be recalled that in the basic calcula- tion of the efforts of the states to support edu- cation the revenue from permanent funds and school lands received and expended by the states was included in the expenditures of the states for education. Since there are certain arguments against this procedure calculations dren thru public tax funds. Hen The basic calculations in this with public education only. Several large enrolments in private and schools. The public schools of t} therefore, are required to educat: were also run excluding the revenue from this burden and the expenditures for pu source in order to determine the possible error tion are less, and the efforts of because of the treatment of this item. Table A by the formula utilized in the bas shows the absolute and relative difference found shame of this study are lower tha: by the two methods in all states where the <*> , fe - had been no private and parochial relative difference was 5 percent or more, when effort is calculated on the basis of Chism’s data as to the relative tax resources of the states. Only 14 states are affected to this extent in any year of the study. Wyoming, South Da- 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 if in Table A would also be the states most af- provided all the children with as fected if effort were calculated on the basis of cational opportunities as were pr those enrolled in the public schools these states had been required to p: lic education for all the childre: funds, the expenditures for publi and, therefore, the efforts of the stat Newcomer’s data. 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 elative difference States 1924 1926 1928 1930 1926 3 4 5 Colorado 2 Idaho Indiana Minnesota Montana Nebraska Nevada New Mexico North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma South Dakota Texas Wyoming 7 3 w 11 6 Vine nw Uh 5 5 7 3.0 : 1 3 ( at 4 11.8 10.6 15.6 5.4 17.0 Read table thus: Colorado spent 40.0 percent of its tax resources for education in 1926 including revenue fr funds. Deducting this revenue Colorado would have spent only 38.0 percent of its tax resources for education, an abs of 2.0 percent and a relative difference of 5.0 percent. Similarly read table for other states and year [ 156 ] relative and absolute tax B shows the e in the percent of d for education caused by resources the inclu f expenditures for private schools in the tes where this factor causes a relative in- rease of 10 percent or more. III. Limitations of the Effort Formula Proposed [here are certain recognized limitations in the effort formula proposed used in the present study. The possibility of developing a more deal measure of effort than the formula used depends upon: |. The ability to identify and isolate the factors nvolved in effort not cared for by the basic for nula already proposed ?. The extent to which themselves to objective measurement. these factors will lend Some limitations in the formula proposed ire presented in the following paragraphs. It should be pointed out that the limitations dis- issed here are factors which affect a state’s bility to finance its educational program. are, therefore, not limitations in the pattern of the formula but in data used in the TABLE B.—EFFECT OF INCLUSION OF EXPENDITURES FOR PRIVATE PAROCHIAL SCHOOLS UPON THE EFFORTS OF THE STATES WHERE THE RELATIVE INCREASE IS 10 PERCENT OR MORE formula. If we knew ex actly how these factors attect a state’s total economic ability in tion to its total governmental and educational use of the formula rela load, the results frorn the 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 for variations in Wl fo allou formula used fails the ratio of total govern mental needs to fax resources It assumes that the ratio is constant in all states when 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 of needed educa for variations in the ratio tional services to other governmental needs 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 ous states. This range is doubtless partially AND Percent of tax resources expended for education calculated on basis Pereent difference Absolute ew Hampshire ew Jersey 6 Read table thus: In 1921-22 Connecticut expended 26.1 percent of Had expenditures for private and parochial schools been included the percent of tax resources expended for a Connecticut would have been 31.3, an absolute increase of 5.2 and a percent increase of 19.9 as listed espectively. Similarly read data for other states and years. 1921-22 of Chism’s data of Newcomer’s data 1929-30 1929-30 Percent difference Percent difference Relative Absolute’ Relative Absolute’ Relative 3 4 5 19 16 10 3. 16 > > 3 its tax resources for public education. (See Tal educatior in Columns [157] caused by real difference in the ratio of edu- cational needs to other governmental needs. Theoretically, the formula should take this range into account. To do so, however, would again require the measurement of all other governmental needs as well as educational needs. Strayer and Haig have discussed this point as follows: It should be observed that equalization of the rate of taxation for educational purposes in the different sections of the state (New York) not result in a uniform total tax rate thruout the state. There are other essential governmental needs besides public education which must be provided for in varying amounts, and at varying costs by the different localities.’ would Morrison also brings out this point with regard to the problem in local communities: The ratio of school obligations in the local com- munity to other civic obligations must be found and ...the proper indices for weighting pur- poses arrived at.” One of the principal problems in this con- nection is the widely varying ratio of adults to children found in the various states as shown ! Strayer, George D., and Haig, R. M., op. cit., p. 173 2 Morrison, H. C. School Revenue. Chicago $ Clark 1925. p. 20 in Table C. Clark developed a fi essence of which was “that beginni: reasonable number of children, dou number reduces to one-fourth the education that can be supplied for eac} However, he studied the problem as the ratio of persons under twent those over twenty-one varied. It wi that if this problem were to be compr: treated, information regarding items the following should also be brought upon it: (1) the percent of persons in ductive age group twenty to forty-f of age or some similar age grouping, percent of persons sixty-five years of over, (3) the percent of all dependent young, (4) the ratio of males to fem the size of families, and (6) the of expenditures for different age le both the ¢ Newcomer studies take care of the p To a certain extent ratio of adults to children and relat: since in the application of the person tax, exemptions are allowed for child University of Chicago Press, 1930. p. 203. Harold F. The Effect of Population on Ability To Support Education. Bloomington, I: TABLE C.—RATIO OF ADULTS TO CHILDREN (UNDER 21) BY STATES FO! : AND CHANGE IN RATIO SINCE 1920 Change since 1920 Ritio United States South Carolina North Carolina 95 Alabama 04 Mississippi 0S New Mexico Georgia West Virginia Arkansas Utah North Dakota Virginia Oklahoma Louisiana Tennessee Kentucky Texas Idaho South Dakota Arizona Pennsylvania Wyoming Nebraska Florida Montana 06 09 1 1 1 1 1 1 1.09 1.11 1.16 1.16 1.17 1.18 1.19 1.24 1.24 1.26 1.28 01 1.42 Os 1.44 03 1.44 12 1.44 20 1.45 05 Minnesota Kansas Colorado Wisconsin Michigan Iowa... Maine. . Maryland Rhode Island Vermont. . Connecticut Indiana. . New Jersey Ohio Delaware Missouri. . New Hampshire Massachusetts. . Illinois Washington New York.. Oregon...... California Read table thus: In 1930 there were in the United States 1.46 persons over 21 years of age for each person unde 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. 2 The measure of effort used fails to a r differences in standards of living in wrious states—In some sections of the people live, as measured by material rds, on a lower standard than the people her sections. This is true from the stand- at of both private and public purchasing of . elements of a standard of living. People some states where standards of living are find it impossible to vy would financially jopt the standard of living of other “higher tandard” sections and continue to pay taxes. [hey must be content with low standards of ving so far as private purchases are concerned n order to be able to pay taxes at all. Unless t is possible to equate for differences in stand- ds of living it will not be possible to achieve completely accurate measure of effort or perhaps more accurately, sacrifice. This factor partially cared for by the basic measure The Second Model Plan and the Newcomer plan both call for f effort proposed. Tax 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 to a certain extent. poor for taxes, factor is care of To give adequate consideration to this factor t would be mecessary to have a measure of the ving standards of the populations of entire tates. If the measure is to be in terms of dol lars it would have to be corrected for the cost of living. A crude measure might be arrived by equating money incomes in the several states for cost of living and arbitrarily as- ming 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 ‘f 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 that the effort formula does not adequately take it into con- and basic sideration. z ’ TT ; f as NeASUTt f effort used fais + The count for the varying costs of a given ard of living due to differences in the price The Model New comer Tax Plan were applied uniformly in al No redi states where the private cost of living is hig Tax Plan and the rande . states. allowed in rher iction 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 sac fices required for the payment of taxes will br greater. It will be noted that the standard of living factor tend standard the case of factor and the cost of counterbalance one another. The living factor works adversely in states where per capita resources the rural are low, whereas in these same states the cost favor. The cost of of living factor is in their 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 ae living are relatively high. ible Comparison of the index derived in T 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 State 3 Alabama $ 331 104 $316.75 Connecticut 1,008 115 875.76 Illinois 987 114 861.26 Louisiana 438 105 415.17 Minnesota 610 108 563 Nevada 1,000 102 972 North Carolin 31 103 307 Pennsylvania 815 111 734 Texas 31 105.8 501 West Virgir {85 103.2 169 Alabama index for Ala state ther ndex Read 1929 was $331. The Mort 104.5. The per +} table thus: The per capita income of Harry cost of living bama is capita income of each reduced to the extent that the cost of living $ greater than 100 Alabama the $331 to $316.75. The standard of living index is based for the United States. The corrected Alabama is 42.2 percent of $750 In the case of income is reduced ipon the $750 per capita income income for ® Brookings Washington, D. C > The index numbers are Institution {merica’s Capacity to Consume Brookings Institution, 1934. p. 173 100 plus the excess of the Mort Harry cost of livi index over 100. See Mort, Paul R An Objective Basis for the Distribution of Federal Support to Public Education achers College Record 36: 91-110; No vember, 1934 Percent Columr [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-.'8 1929-30 Expenditure per Expenditure per Expenditure per Expenditure per Expenditure per Exp A* , Ce A* B' or A+ Bi Ce As Bb Ce A* B » A 2 4 5 6 7 9 10 { 14 15 Alabama 18 13 14 2 32 16 Arizona 2 54 107 58 Arkansas 15 2 13 15 17 California 67 7 86 Colorado 55 i) 71 74 Connecticut 58 58 63 Delaware 57 48 53 Florida 32 2 28 44 Georgia 13 15 Idaho 52 53 52 56 61 61 Illinois Indiana lowa Kansas Kentucky 80 63 : 65 22 Louisiana 25 ed Maine . 7 7 7 Maryland 7 39 Massachusetts 64 Michigan 77 65 20 46 60 79 63 Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada 142 New Hampshire 86 New Jersey 99 New Mexico p 66 New York . 108 North Carolina 2 35 North Dakota 47 56 100 Ohio 58 f § 57 81 Oklahoma 36 s 39 59 Oregon 49 f 49 83 Pennsylvania 48 56 74 Rhode Island 55 58 76 61 49 South Carolina 17 . 22 29 25 j 19 South Dakota 49 49 88 66 Tennessee 19 23 31 27 { 23 Texas 28 s J 25 42 27 30 33 Utah 460 51 45 68 51 Ad 69 52 Vermont 50 50 47 71 48 53 78 50 Virginia 28 d 22 28 39 23 28 40 23 Washington 60 . 68 59 92 67 59 93 70 West Virginia 42 s 36 45 61 40 52 70 44 Wisconsin 53 47 54 82 53 52 80 53 64 78 71°» «#121 90 73 126 91 Wyoming 72 47 53 77 51 United States 47 43 49 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. [V. Comparative Adequacy of Financial Support of Public Schools as Meas- ured by Various Units of Educational Load [he basic measure of the adequacy of fnancial support provided the schools utilized in this 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 Kasis 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 Percent difference Percent Absolute difference difference Absolute difference Idaho $3 16 7.2 $4,571 8 Indiana 3,422 5 .¢ Minnesota 554 Montana $4,915 i 8,084 Nevada 540 7 5 ORR New Mexico §.131 009 North Dakot ».920 >. 2 3,899 Oklahoma 1,958 South Dakot 8,565 7 », 442 Wyoming 10,116 * § 804 Read table thus: In 1921-22 th sand units of educational need would have $3,746, a percent decrease of 7 Idaho’s expenditure per been decreased by Similarly read data for states and year tures of the states for current costs of educa tion upon the relative adequacy of the financial support the the 1921-22 and 1929-30 for states where the pe: accorded schools for years cent difference was 5 or more. Bibliography Ayres, LEONARD P. An Index Number for State School Systems. New York: Russell Sage Founda- tion, 1920. 70 p. CuisM, 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, ELttwoop 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, GeorceE W. The Control of City School Finances. Milwaukee, Wis.: Bruce Publishing Co., 1922. 132 p. GENERAL EpucaTion Boarp. Public Kentucky. New York: General Education Board, 1921. 213 p. Education in 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. “Some of the Which Cause Variation in the Rate of School Expendi Different Localities.” Proceedings, 1905 Washington, D. C.: the Association, 195-213. Ropert M School Conditions tures in Vol. 44. 1905. p. HUTCHINS, Elementary ber, 1933 LEVEN, MAURICE; BURTON, CLARK. Washington, D. C. 272 p. McGuire, SAMUEI Condemns Them? 45; Decem “Who Journal 34: 241 Mouton, Haro_p G.; and War 1merica’s Capacity to Consume Brookings Institution, 1934 HARRISON. Trends in Principles and Practices of Equalization of Educational Opportunity. Contribution to Education, No. 121. Nashville, Tenn.: Peabody College for Teachers, 1934. 115 p Morrison, Henry C University of Chicago Press, 1930 George School Revenue. Chicago 242 p [ 161 ] of Publi Educational Morrison, Henry C. The Financing Schools in the State of Illinois. Finance Inquiry Commission, Vol. 9. New York: Macmillan Co., 1924. 162 p. Mort, Pau. R. “An Objective Basis for the Dis tribution of Federal Support to Public Educa- tion.” Teachers College Record 36: 91-110, No- vember, 1934. Mort, Pau R., director. The Financing of the Public Schools of Maine. Report of a Survey of State and Local Support of Public Schools. Au- gusta: Maine School Finance Commission, 1934. 271 p. Mort, Pau R. State Support for Public Schools. New York: Teachers College, Columbia Uni- versity, 1926. 104 p. Mort, PAuL R., director. Reconstruction of the System of Public School Support in the State of New Jersey. Report of the Governor’s School Survey Commission, Volume II. Trenton, N. J.: Survey Commission, 1933. 156 p. Mort, PAuL R., and oTHERs. State Support for Pub- lic Education. National Survey of School Finance. Washington, D. C.: American Council on Edu- cation, 1933. 496 p. Mort, Paut R. “National Government Must Take Part in Financing Education.” Nation’s Schools 13: 20-22; January, 1934. Mort, Pauw R. Federal Support for Public Educa- tion. New York: Teachers College, Columbia University, 1936. NATIONAL ApDvisORY COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION. Federal Relations to Education. Washington, D. C.: American Council on Education, 1931. 2 vols. NATIONAL EpUCATION ASSOCIATION, RESEARCH DiIVvI- sion. School Finance Systems. Series 1. State Systems: Elementary and Secondary Schools. Washington, D. C.: the Association, 1934-35. NATIONAL EpUCATION ASSOCIATION, RESEARCH DiIVvI- sion. “Estimating State School Efficiency.” Re- search Bulletin 10: 77-131; May, 1932. Washing- ton, D. C.: the Association. NATIONAL EDUCATION ASSOCIATION, RESEARCH DivI- sion. Staffs and Salaries in State Departments of Education. Studies in State School Administra- tion No. 9. Washington, D. C.: the Association, March, 1931. 61 p. NATIONAL Tax AssociATION. Second Report on a Plan of a Model System of State and Local Taxa- tion. Columbia, S. C.: the Association (Walter G. Query, chairman), 1933. 68 p. Newcomer, Maser. An Index of the Taxpaying Ability of State and Local Govermnents. New York: Teachers College, Columbia University, 1935. 85 p. Norton, JoHN K. “The Ability and Effort of the States to Support Education.” Journal of Edu- cational Research 16: 88-97; September, 1927. Norton, JoHn K. The Ability of the States to Sup- port Education. Washington, D. C.: National Education Association, 1926. 88 p. NorTON, JOHN K. “Standard of Living an ard of Educating—Have They Kept Pa nal of Educational Research 13: 22-35 1926. PHILLIPS, FRANK M. “Educational Rank States, 1930.” American School Board 84: 25-29, February; 37-39, March April; 39-40, May, 1932 PittinGer, B. F., and Works, Georce A. } Support. Texas Educational Survey Rep ume II. Austin; Survey Commission, 1925 Reeves, FLroyp W. The Political Unit of School Finance in Illinois. Educational Inquiry Commission, Vol. 10. New York millan Co., 1924. 166 p Riemer, G. C. L. “A Study of the Applica the Ability and Effort Plan to the Sch tricts in Pennsylvania.” Tenth Annual men’s Week Proceedings. Philadelphia sity of Pennsylvania, 1923, p. 75-84. RuSseLL, WILLIAM F., and oTHERS. The I of Education in Iowa. Educational Fina quiry Commission, Vol. 8. New York: M lan Co., 1925. 279 p. SHULTZ, WILLIAM J. American Public Finar Taxation. New York: Prentice-Hall, In¢ 635 p. : STRAYER, GEORGE D., and Hatc, Roperr M The Financing of Education in the Stat: York. Educational Finance Inquiry Comn Vol. 1. New York: Macmillan Co., 1923 SwiFT, FLETCHER HARPER, and ZIMMERMAN Lewis. State School Taxes and School Fun Their Apportionment. U.S. Dept. of the | Bureau of Education, Bulletin, 1928, N Washington, D. C.: Government Printing 1929. 431 p. U. §. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS, _DISTRIBUT! STATISTICAL AND HIsTORICAL RESEARCH Numbers of Prices Paid by Farmers for modities Bought 1910-34. Washington, D. | Department, 1933-34. U. S. DEPARTMENT OF THE EpucaTIon. “Statistics of State School Sys Biennial Surveys of Education in the States, 1920-32. Washington, D. C.:. Gove Printing Office. UppecraAFF, HartaAn. Rural School Survey York Financial Support. Ithaca, New York Committee on Rural Schools, 1922. 233 p UppecraFF, HARLAN. “Constructive Criticis Proposed Plans for Distribution of State M . to Local School Districts.” Tenth Annual § men’s Week Proceedings, 1923. Philad« University of Pennsylvania Press, 1923. p VERMONT EpuUCATIONAL COMMISSION. Report Commission to Investigate the Educationa tem and Conditions of Vermont. Brattlebor Vermont Printing Company. 1914. 241 p AGRICULTURE, BUR INTERIOR, OF! [ 162] List of Tables and Figures mparison of Indexes of Expenditures for Current Expenses and Capital Outlays of Every Third State Selected Alphabetically Expenditures of the States for Current Expenses of Public Education Less Funds Not Raised by ( 1926 to 1932 the States Themselves, 1929-30 ; Expenditure Data Derived for the Measurement of “Effort” and 4. The Relative Tax, Resources of the States 5, Comparison of Relative Weighting of Various Taxes Utilized in the Chism and Newcomer Studies in : Units of Educational Need by Years Index Numbers of Farm Prices and Prices Paid by Farmers, 1910 : Percent of Tax Resources (Chism) Expended by the States for Current Costs of Public Educa tion, 1922-32 ; Index of Percent of Relative T'ax Resources (Chism) Expended by the States for Current Costs of Public Education, 1922-32..U. S. = 100 Index of Percent of Relative Tax Resources (Chism) Expended by the States for Current Costs of Public Education, 1922-32..1922 = 100 ' Certain Characteristics of Percent of Tax Resources of the States (Chism) Expended for Current Costs of Education ; States Ranked by Percent Expenditures for Current Costs of Public Education Were of Tax Resources (Chism Percent of Tax Resources (Ne wcomer) Expended by the States for Current Costs of Education States Ranked by Percent Expenditures for Current Costs of Public Education Were of Tax Resources (Newcomer), 1920 and 1930 Expenditure for Current Expenses per Thousand Units of Educational Need by Years Indexes of Expenditure per Thousand Units of Educational Need by Years Index of Number of Dollars Expended per Thousand Units of Educational Need 18. Rank of the States in Accordance with Current Expenditures per Thousand Units of Educational Need, 1920-32 ees re PE eee : 19. Certain Characteristics of the Expenditures of the States for Current Costs of Education per Thousand Units of Educational Need ; Comparison of Correlation between the Two Factors “Effort” and “Adequacy” for 1929-30 When “Adequacy” is Calculated in Terms of Various Measures of Educational Load 21. Percent of Tax Resources (Chism) Required To Have Supported a Defensible National Minimum Program of $60 per Unit of Educational Need in 1930 22. Percent of Tax Resources (Newcomer) Required To Have Supported a Defensible National Minimum Program of $60 per Unit of Educational Need in 1930 Percent of Defensible National Minimum Program That Would Have Been Provided If Each State Had Put Forth the Effort, Based on Chism’s Data, That Would Have Been Required of New York in 1932 APPENDIX Absolute and Relative Difference in the Percent of Relative Tax Resources (Chism) Expended for Public Education Caused by the Exclusion of Revenue from Permanent Funds and School Lands Where the Relative Difference Is 5 Percent or More 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 C. Ratio of Adults to Children (under 21) by States for 1930 and Change in Ratio since 1920 “4 Standard of Living Index for Typical States . Adequacy of Financial Support of the Public Schools As Messured by the Number of Dollars Expended per Each of Three Measures of Educational Load ee F. Number of Dollars Expenditure per Thousand Units of Educational Need Would Be De creased in States Where the Decrease Is 5 Percent or More If Revenues from Permanent Funds Are Excluded Figure I. Relative Efforts of the States To Support Education 1922-32 Based on Chism’s Data Figure II. Relative Efforts of the States To Support Education 1930 Based on Newcomer's Data Figure III. Comparison of Indexes of Efforts of States Based on Chism and Newcomer Data 1930 Figure IV. Average Expenditure per Unit of Educational Need 1920-32 eee Figure V. Average “Effort” Based on Chism’s Data and Average “Adequacy Compared Figure VI. “Effort” Based on Newcomer’s Data and “Adequacy” Compared 1929-30 Figure VII. Percent of Tax Resources (Chism) Expended for Education 1929-30. . Figure VIII. Percent of Tax Resources (Newcomer) Expended for Education 1929-30 Figure IX. Number of Dollars Expended per Unit of Educational Need 1929-30 Figure X. _— Relation of Effort, Adequacy, and Ability Figure XI. Effort, Based on Chism’s Data, Required To Support N: tional Minimum Program Figure XII. Effort, Based on Newcomer's Data, Required To Support National Minimum Program [ 163 ILLIONS OF DOLLARS have been spent by the federal government in various relief enterprises which have indirectly increased the educational level of our people. These are tem- porary measures. Parents and teachers make a strong appeal for funds to support the permanent program of education. They ask that the children of every state have a chance to become the best citizens of which they are capable. Only a system of federal aid to the states can accomplish this goal.—Honorable Brooks Fletcher, Congressman from Ohio, in an address on the N. E. A. broadcast “Our American Schools,” March 4, 1936.