LB 5^4 "Jn 'Id 'iili , _ Cornell University Library LB 2826.C6S24 A study of Colorado school revenues, 191 3 1924 013 430 883 Colorado Agricultural College Bulletin A Study of Colorado School Revenues 1915 By C. G. SARGENT ^ Specialist in Rural Education COLORADO AGRICULTURAL COLLEGE FORT COLLINS, COLORADO Series XVI April. 1916 Number 4 Cornell University Library The original of this book is in the Cornell University Library. There are no known copyright restrictions in the United States on the use of the text. http://www.archive.org/details/cu31924013430883 COLORADO AGRICULTURAL COLLEGE BULLETIN A STUDY OF COLORADO SCHOOL REVENUES 1915 By C. G. SARGENT Specialist in Rural Education COLORADO AGRICULTURAL COLLEGE FORT COLLINS, COLORADO Series XVI April, 1916 No. 4 L.& The Colorado Agricultural College FORT COLLINS, COLORADO f THE STATE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE. (BOARD OF CONTROL) HON. J. S. CAUCINS We.stminster, 1917 HON. JOHN C. BELL Montrose, 1917 DR. R. W. CORWIN Pueblo, 1919 HON. CHAS. PEARSON Emrango, 1919 HON. A. A. EDWARDS Fort Collins. 192] MRS. J. B. BELFORD Denver, 192] HON. H. D. PARKER ' Greeley, 1923 MRS. AGNES L. RIDDLE Denver, 192.^ PRESIDENT CHAS. A. LORY. / GOVERNOR GEORGE A. CARLSON, > "^^'°' EXECUTIAE COMMITTEE ,J. C. BKLL A. A. EDWARDS .1. S. CALKIN.S OFFICERS CHAS. A. LORY, M.S., LL.D., D.Sc President S. ARTHUR JOHNSON, M.S Dean of Faculty O. P. GILLETTE, M.S Director Experiment Station H. T. FRENCH, M.S Director Extension Service L. M. TAYLOR Secretary ot tlie Faculty Department of Rural and Industrial Education C. G. SARGENT Specialist in Rural Education and Rural School Visitor W. E. VAPLON State Leader of Boys' and Girls' Clubs Rural Life Betterment Series No. 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS Foreword 4 Introductory Statement 5 Sources of School Revenue 5 Scnool Districts ij Assessed Valuation of School Districts 9 School Census 7 State School Fund 14 General County School Tax 14 Special School District Tax 19 Some Comparisons 2S Some Suggestions for Improvement 29 TABLES TABLE I. — Number of Districts and School Census S TABLE II. — Assessed Valuation of First, Second and Third-Class Districts 10 TABLE III. — Assessed Valuation Per Capita 12 TABLE IV. — General County School Tax 1 1; TABLE V. — General County School Fund Showing Loss or Gain to Third- Class Districts IS TABLE VI. — Special Tax Levies for All Districts in "Weld County 20 TABLE VII. — Special Tax Levies. First-Class Districts.. 22 TABLE VIII. — Special Tax Levies. Second-Class Districts 2i! TABLE IX. — Special Tax Levies. Third-Class Districts 23 TABLE X. — First-Class Districts. Amounts of Money Received from the Three Sources of Revenue 25 TABLE XI. — Second-Class Districts. Amounts of Money Itc-ii'ived from the Three Sources of Revenue 26 TABLE XII. — Third-Class Districts. Amounts of Monoy I'ieii-'ived from the Three Sources of Revenue 27 t- IGURE I. — School Revenue Chart 24 FOREWORD The question of taxation lias always been one of the perplexing problems of our people. The amount of revenue that should be devoted to any particular phase of public service, how this should be distributed among the various individual taxpayers and corporate groups, are matters of perennial interest and of fundamental importance. Especially is this true of the taxes levied for education. For carrying on this fundamental work, funds from the following sources are used: Taxes voted directly by the citizens, assessed by the county commissioners, and levied by the General Assembly, the income from leases and rentals from lands granted to the State by the National Government for school purposes and interest on the funds derived from the sale of such lands, together with certain fines and fees. There seems to be a growing conviction in the minds of the people of Colorado that the cost of education is not fairly distributed among these several sources of revenue, that there is. too great a difference in the school taxes of the various districts, that the amounts contributed by local and general taxation are not justly equalized, that the efforts made from time to time by the General Assembly to remedy this condition are not altogether satisfactory, and that the laws made in early pioneer times no longer provide adequate means for present needs. It is clearly evident, also, that earlier ideas on the relative amounts of the cost that should be borne by the local district, the county, and the State have changed. In connection with this, there is a strong demand for better educational facilities, especially for the country children, and for the enlargement of the work of the schools through various forms of community service. This condition brings up many questions regarding our school revenues, and many suggestions for changes of existing conditions. Naturally a comprehensive knowledge of the amount of revenue coming from local, county, state and national sources, and of the cost of education in the various districts is necessary if any just opinion is to be formed on the question of fair distribution, or if any fair readjustment of the amounts now contributed is to be made. No general study of school revenues of the entire State has ever been made. Studies of certain phases of taxation for schools have been made from time to time, but these confined themselv-es to a limited part of the problem. It was for the purpose of securing accurate information regarding school revenues of the entire State that the present study was undertaken by our Department of Rural and Industrial Education. Much pioneer work has had to be done. Through the kindness of the state superin- tendent of public instruction, the State Tax Commission, the county superintendents of schools, and the county treasurers, we were permitted the use of their official records. These olficers were more than generous in personal assistance. In fact made the survey possible. Much time was necessary for the collection of the data, even more for their classifi- cation, analysis and check up. The utmost care was used so that the results as presented might be used with confidence and assurance. Earnest effort was made in classification and arrangement so that im- portant features might be clearly shown in proper relation. The results are published in the hope that they may be of use in clearing up possible misunderstandings, helpful in legislative efforts for equalizing our school revenues, and of general service in the statewide effort to provide good and adequate school facilities for each and every child. CHAS. A. LORY, President. A STUDY OF COLORADO SCHOOL REVENUES 1915 INTRODUCTORY STATEMENT A study of school revenues in Colorado was one of the projects, or lines of work, undertaken by the Department of Rural and Industrial Education for the year 1915. This study was made chiefly to secure information concerning the finances of rural schools, but as the work progressed it seemed best to include all school districts whether rural or urban. We shall consider the sources of school revenue, the revenue- producing ability of city, town and rural schools and the extent to which each class of districts is using its resources in the support of its schools. All the data used In this bulletin have been compiled from the financial reports of county superintendents of schools, from the printed records of county assessors and county treasurers, and from the records on file in the offices of the State Superintendent of Public Instruction and the State Tax Commission. The whole subject of taxation is treated from the standpoint of what the people or their representatives intended to raise by their tax levies. All revenues from taxes are those that the different levies would have produced had all the money been collected and placed at the dis- posal of the districts. The total amount of taxes due in any county is probably never quite all collected. One county reported a loss of less than 1 per cent through failure to collect. In others the per cent would doubtless run higher. Besides, county treasurers charge 1 per cent for collection. All such losses would tend to lower the amounts given in tlie different tables in this bulletin. However, it is very doubtful if any district ever takes this fact into account in estimating the amount of money needed to run its schools for any given year. Only such subjects are treated as will contribute directly to a clearer understanding of our school revenue system; and these are arranged, as far as possible, in the order best suited for a comparison of the different classes of school districts. SOURCES OP SCHOOL REVENUE There are three regular and permanent sources of school revenue provided by law for the support of district schools. Pii-gt. — There is a permanent state school fund, the interest only of which is apportioned semi-annually by the superintendent of public in- struction. This money is apportioned on a per capita basis of the school census of each county and is sent to the county treasurer, and later apportioned to the several districts in each county by the county superintendent. Second. — The county commissioners of each county are required by law to levy a general county school tax on all the taxable property in 6 COLORADO AGRWVLTURAL COLLEGE their respective counties. The proceeds from this tax are also appor- tioned to the several districts in each county in the same manner and usually at the same time that state money is distributed. Third. — Each school district may, and most of them usually do, levy a special district tax which is collected on the taxable property of the individual district. All funds needed for the operation of schools that do not come from the first two sources of revenue mentioned above, must be raised by this special district tax. These three sources of revenue are the main ones upon which all district schools depend for their operating expenses. But in addition to these three, certain fees, fines, and forfeitures are turned into the school funds in the counties in which they are collected. Also, all tuition fees, etc., would add to the regular finances of the districts. But all these constitute but a small fraction of our school funds, and they are probably never considered in estimating the amount of money needed to run the schools. They may be entirely omitted in considering our revenue sys- tem, unless perhaps they may be understood to balance the losses due to fees for collection and to failure in collecting taxes. Educators quite generally agree that in a state where the small district system is in use, a well-balance school revenue system is one in which approximately one-third of the total revenue is provided by the state, one-third by a general county tax, and the remaining third by a special district tax. Such a system would at least equally distribute the burdens of financial support. How near the Colorado system measures up to such a standard, may be seen on the succeeding pages. SCHOOIi DISTRICTS In Colorado, the school district is the unit for the organization and administration of schools. The school board of each district is practically independent of any outside authority in the management of its schools. All school boards are vested with the authority and power to employ and discharge teachers, fix the length of school term, select the text books, make or adopt courses of study, certify tax levies, etc. And the boards do all these and many other things without any reference to what the other districts in the same county are doing. For all practical purposes, each district is a separate and independent system. Districts are classified by law as first, second, and third class, accord- ing to the school census of each. Districts that have more than 1,000 children listed on their census books are called first-class districts. After once entering this class, districts do not revert to a lower class should their census fall below 1,000. Districts that have between 350 and 1,000 children listed on their census books are districts of the second class. Second-class districts legally revert to third when their census falls below 3 50. All districts that have fewer than 3 50 children are third-class districts. During the year 1915 there were 27 first-class districts. These in- cluded all our city schools. There were 47 second-class districts and the schools maintained therein may be called town schools. There were 1,703 third-class districts, and although many of their schools are located in villages, still all may be properly classed as rural schools. A STUDY OF COLORADO SCHOOL REVENUES 7 All first, second and third-class districts in each county are grouped together, each forming a class by itself. This makes it easier to com- pare one with the other. Table I shows the number of districts in each class in each county. SCHOOL CafiNSUS The school census of any district may, and should, include the names of all persons between the ages of 6 and 21 years that were residents in the district on the 10th day of February of the year in which the census was taken. The school census determines the class to which a district belongs and the amount of money it receives from state, and county apportion- ments of school funds. All persons are eligible for listing on the school census in the dis- tricts in which they reside, until they pass 21 years of age, regardless of their mental or physical condition, or whether they attend school or not. The age limit alone determines the ability to draw state and county school money no matter if the persons listed have permanently dropped out of school, or completed its course, or even if they have graduated from college. Some persons are so listed on the school census after they have married and have children of their own. Table I gives the number of districts in each class of the 63 counties of the State and the school census of each. COLORADO AGRICULTURAL COLLEGE TABLE NO. I Number of Districts and Census of All School Districts 1915 Pirst-Class Districts Second-Class Districts Third-class Districts Total County No. of Dlsts. Census No. of Census Dists. No. of Dlsts. Census Dists. Census Adams 1 1 463 36 2,437 37| 3,900 Alamosa 1 840 16 485 17| 1,334 Arapahoe 3 1,610 26 1,124 291 3,734 1 1 666 13 681 14| 1,347 Baca 1 1 17 984 171 984 Bent 1 971 18 839 19| 1,810 2 4,575 2 1 1,495 62 2,553 66 8.623 '>,t74: Chaffee 1 1,367 ] i 324 25 483 27 1 1 » 823 446 »| 823| 1 1 647 n 101 1,093 j Conejos 1 28 13 3,104 1,701 281 3,104j Costilla 1 12) 1,701 Crowley 2 1 1,027 7 690 9| 1,717 1 1 21 561 Delta 1 i 1,365 49,768 3 1 1,404 18 1,658 32| 4,427! Denver 1 1 1{ 49 Tftfi' 1 1 * 173 Douglas 38 865 Qci anK Eagle 1 33 896 231 896 Elbert — „ 8.7S0 2,12a 1-43 1,882 -11 aca El Paso 1 51 3,919 5^ 2 2 i 1.274 25 1,576 29 i 4,973 Garfield . . .... 2 1 945 40 1,912 421 ■» fi*i'^ Gilpin 1 1 331 12 420 Grand 1 1 15 499 15| 499 2 1 721 26 798 281 1,519 Hinsdale .... 1 1 4 126 4| 126 1 1,356 39 6 3,178 401 4,534 270 6| 270 Jefferson 3 1 1,896 47 2,007 501 3,903 1 1 15 1,144 i5\ 1,144 Kit Carson 1 57 2,137| 57| 2,137 1 2,178 1 8 198 9| 2,376 La Plata 1 1,.500 1 1 32 2,0631 Larimer 2 4,555 1 1 341 47 2,898 Las Animas 1 3,143 2 1,213 78 6,138 81 1 10,4d4l 1 25 1,944 251 1,944 Logan ... 1 1,244 1 1 51 3,299 Mesa 1 2,090 2 1 883 31 3,092 i 1 1 5 281 5| 281 1 Moffat 1 1 13 561 131 561 Montezuma 1 500 20 1,082 21 1 1,582 1 1,434 1 1 399 25 1,731 1 1 1.860 1 1 036 13 1,3331 Otero f> 3,243 2 1 760 18 1,470 221 5^73 Ouray 1 383 13 4471 14| 830 Park : 1 1 20 397 Phillips .... 1 1 33 1.069 Pitkin 1 826 1 1 14 4051 131 1,231 Prowers 1 1,082 1 1 .371 40 1,761 42 3,214 .1 STUDY OF COLORADO SCHOOL REYENVJUS TABLE NO. I (Continued) Number of Districts and Census of All School Districts 1915 First-Cla^s 1 Districts 1 Second-Class Districts Third-Class Districts To tal County No. of Dists. Census No. of Dists. Census No. of Dists. Census Dists. Census Pueblo 12,389 1 2 42! 1,079 45 1 2,728 10| 438 47 11 34 30 15,117 S62 25 1 750 331 1,710 30| 1,573 1,835 Itoutt 1 1 1 1 1 1 399 2,115 Saguache 1,573 San Juan 420 039 1 1 11 25 9 14 59 420 San Miguel 101 567 1,206 .Sedgwick 25| 970 9| 383 13 299 976 383 Teller 1 l" 3,18« i 3 3,485 Washington 59 106 3,104 3,104 Weld 1 3,14C 1 .S2« 8.169 110 9] 13,141 Yuma 91 3,183 3,183 1111.1891 47 ;;4,SitO 1,703 92,4911 1,7771228,570 The 27 first-class districts listed in Table I have approximately 49%, or nearly one-half of the school census of the entire State. The 47 second-class districts have 11%, while the 1,703 third-class districts have 40%. ASSESSED VALUATION OF SCHOOL DISTRICTS The assessed valuation of any school district or county is the sum of all taxable property in that district or county that is listed for taxation. Valuations vary greatly in Colorado because of the great diversity in altitude, climatic conditions and rainfall, and because of differences in the character of the land and its productiveness. There is often wide variation In values In adjoining districts and frequently within the same district. Most of our vast mountainous areas are still held in the name of the state or national governments and are not subject to taxation. Still, all these lands are included within school districts. Much land that is now occupied as "homesteads" is not taxed because title thereto has not yet passed from the government to private owners. Deeded and improved lands also differ greatly in value according to their location, altitude, rainfall, irrigation systems, etc. Again, district valuations are often greatly increased by the location therein of corporation property, such as railroads, mines, mills, smelters, light and power plants, and other properties of a similar character. Many districts owe a large part of their taxable property to such sources. Most of our railroads are valued at from $25,000 to $50,000 per mile, and it is easy to see how a "shoe-string" district In a winding mountain valley may draw a large share of the railroad mileage of a county at the expense of most of the other districts. Such a condition has a most vital rela- tion to our school revenue system when we remember that, on the aver- 10 COLORADO AORICULTUUAL COLLEGE age, more than 70% o£ all school revenues are derived from a special tax on the local district, as will be shown later in this bulletin. In 1915 there were 134 districts that broke the Minimum Term and Salary Law either by not paying their teachers $50.00 per month, or by not maintaining school for six months, or both. The chief cause for this, no doubt, was in a large measure lack of funds due to low valuations. Several districts had an assessed valuation of less than $10,000. No doubt most of these were "joint" districts, the other parts being in an adjoining county. There was one with a valuation of $280. A ten- mill special levy on the valuation of this "district" would yield but $2.80 annually to contribute to the maintenance of its school. Quite a num- ber of districts were found with a valuation of less than $50,000 each. Yet all these are independent units in our school system, charged with all the important functions of public education, and perhaps not one of them could maintain a six or eight month's school. Years of experience and observation in rural schools will prompt one to remark that, after all, the "independence" of most of such districts appeals to the people in them with more force than the kind of schools they have. There are hundreds of districts with low revenue-producing ability because of low valuations. There is no county in which the valuations are so high that the third-class districts, when acting separately and individually, as they all do now, can possibly provide the larger and better things that all these schools should have, such as modern build- ings, trained teachers, special teachers, adequate supervision, and a good high school. The single rural district cannot afford these things, except in a very few cases. Individually, third-class districts are weak financially, but when their valuations are considered collectively, they are strong. So that if the revenue-producing ability of all third-class districts in a given county is compared with the revenue-producing ability of the first and second- class districts in the same county, in almost every case they are found to make a stronger taxing unit than the town and city schools. Table 11 gives the total assessed valuation of all districts of each of the three classes in each ot the counties. TABLE NO. II Assessed Valuation of First, SeconrJ and Tliird-Class Districts 1915 First-Glass County Districts Second-Class Third-Class Total Districts Districts AssessedVal. 1 S 1,819,055':); 20,373,685$ 22,192,740 2,163,0801 4,582,69»| 6,745,779 6,335,8601 10,144,2351 16,480.095 1.891,2531 2,476,4071 4,367.660 Archuleta I Baca ; . . . 1 1 2,339,179 2,339,179 Bent 1 3,302,7951 7,508,145 10,810.940 Boulder I 18,460,782 2,900,7821 ' 18,580,8261 39,942,390 Chaffee 1 3,353,248 912,7731 7,404,4041 11.670,425 Cheyenne 1 1 7,814,8431 7,814,843 Clear Creek I 2,636,4301 2,672,3001 5:508,730 Conejos 1 1 7,638,4781 7,638,478 .1 N777»Y OF VOLOHADO SCHOOL REVI'l.VUI'lS 31 TABLE NO. II (Continued) Assessed Valuation of First, Second and Tliird-Class Districts 1915 County First-Class Districts Costilla Second-Classl Districts I Crowley Custer . Delta ■I Denver — City Dolores Dou glas .... lilag-le 4,340,6701 C ounty . .| 403,719,688 Elbert . . El Paso F remo nt i-larfleld . I 47,438,8501 •I ',719,771 Gilpin .... Grand .... Gunniso n . Hinsdale . . Huerfano . Jack^son .Tefferson . . Kiowa .... Kit Carson Lake La Plata . . Larimer . . . . Las Animas 2,S1033S 0, 96805 3 (;,348,434 Lincoln . . . . Logran ilesa ^lineral . . . Moffat' Montezuma Montrose . . Morgan . . . . Otero Ouray Park Phillips . . . . Pitkin '. . . . . Prowers . . . Pueblo .... Rio Blanco Ilio Grande Routt .Saguache . . .San Juan . . San Miguel Sedg^vick . . 1 4,968, 1601 10,531,811 3,861,805 8,379 556 5,588,560 7,013.193 13,093,075 2,637,335 3,357,873 48,414,285 Summit TelleFT Washington Wel der .... Yuma 14,584,590 1 O^J^JOOO 4,383,383 4,159,0 15 3,371,120 6,475,451 819,520 3,335,715 6,804,490 1,331,690 3,518.822^ 3,<>«0..S-I1 1 .503,454 1,47.5,150 3,346,8441 3,273,101 1,551,696 2,4.'>S.«0(i 1 ,338,440 3,597,795 1,680,854 8.230.220 Third-Class Districts 5,47i^l!0r Total Assessed Val. 4,066,1181 2,605,9051 6,S07,100| 5,471,310 8^349,40] 2,605,905 15,206,785 1,511,806! 9,119,903] 6,532,8.351 10,386,S54| 23,665,lS0r 9,044,5891 403,71 9,668 1,511,806 9,110,902 6,533,835 10,380,854 76,044,030 30,135,480 12,274,029|_ 2.879,9131 18,749,480 5,107,0921 11,3947285]" 909,9551 3,699,433 5,107,092 14,630,000 ' 909,955 9,454,1571 3,976,8 85] 1 .3,773,3601 7,097,0651 1 0,232,19 61 13,273,495 3,976,88: 20,577.750 7,097,0(; 1 0,222,1 !»!•5 9,981,680 18^408 715 28,026,785 1,735,369 4,157,040 6^368,308 14,633,090 16,900,727 27,910,004 5,640,982 9,001,645 6,465,509 6,912,51 5 18,738,2611 05,029,763 4,848^4.67 10,479,304 12.575,114 11,008,067 4,397.(r3n' 5,S56^43]_ 5,821,439] 3,'242,]7bl ll^l 23,195] 56,064,.5901 9,941,6001 4,748,555 9,527,910 5,8 56,64 3 5;831,439 17,826,760 1 1.123.19: 75,8 77.900 0,941,600 TOTAL |!|i 044.4 82.14«l!|i 97,8 .54.971 !)! .-07.215.661 ]$1. 309,55 3,778 43 V, " Percent of total ■ I 49 % 8 7, 12 COLORADO AGRICULTURAL COLLEGE Summarizing from tlie totals of all first, second, and third-class districts in the entire State, we find that approximately 49% of the total assessed valuation of the State is contained within the first-class, 8 % in the second-class, and 43% in the third-class districts. But after all, valuations should be considered in the light of the needs of the districts, as indicated by the number of children to be educated, the number of teachers that must be employed, and the num- ber of schools to be maintained. When measured by such standards, the amount of assessed valuation- per census pupil or per teacher is a better guide as to the financial ability of a district, or group of districts. A comparison of the per capita wealth of the three classes of districts is a more accurate index of financial strength than that of the total valua- tions of each. Table III gives the assessed valuation of the three classes of dis- tricts per census pupil. TABLE NO. Ill Assessed Valuation Per Capita First, Second and Tliird-Class Districts 1915 County Valuation Per Capita First Class Adams Second Class | Third Class Alamosa Arapahoe Archuleta $ 3,93» 3.548 3,935 2,840 Bent 3,401 Boulder Chaffee 4,035 I 3,453 I 1,940 2,817 Cheyenne . . Clear Creek Conejos . . . . Costilla Crowley 4,171 $ 8,360 9,449 9,035 3,636 3,377 8,949 7,378 15,330 9,496 " 5,992 2,461 3,316 5.893 Custer 4,645 Denver ^,107 I 8,113 i 2,063 Dolores Douglas Eagle . . El Paso Fremont Garfield 5,433 3,636 Gilpin 3,646 6,852 2,476 Grand Gunnison Hinsdale 4,627 xiuerfano Jackson Jefferson 3,589 4,106 8,739 10,543 7,291 ^,519^ _7,744_ 5,739 J5^419 6,857 10.235 14.153 7,222^ 2,975 14.729 6.863 A STUDY OF COLORADO SCHOOL REVENUES 13 TABLE NO. Ill (Continued) Assessed Valuation Per Capita First, Second and Third-Class Districts 1915 Valuation Per Capita County First Glass Second Class Third Class Kit Carson 4,786 Lake 3,199 33.928 La Plata 4,232 1 4,331 Larimer 3,28C 3,612 6,322 Las Animas . 3,348 2,901 4,179 Lincoln 3^04 3,992 5,135 Log"an 6,327 Mesa 4,146 5,170 0,140 Moffat 1 7,410 Montezuma 3,007 4,496 3,897 3,697 4,372 Morgan 3,771 5,238 4,910 Otero 4,0.S7 4,30.-> 7.854 Ourav .3,193 3,103 4,or>] 9,162 Park" 22,674 Phillips 6,048 Pitkin 10,556 Prowers 6,627 7,332 Pueblo 3,908 6,311 2,921 8,242 PlIo Grande 3,334 4,23.'> i 9,103 6,343 Saguache . . 1 7,380 San Juan 11,306 8,029 1 7,756 Sedgwick 6,001 15,200 4,578 10,843 Washington 3,516 Weld 3,494 4,502 1 6,937 Yuma - 3.123 AVERAGE PER CAPITA * 5,79fi $ 3,931 $ 6,133 By referring to Table III, it will be seen that in most of the counties the per capita valuation is greater in the third-class group than in either of the others. In many of them it is much greater. The comparisons between the three are as follows: First-class districts $5,796 per capita Second-class districts 3,931 per capita Third-class districts 6,133 per capita For each $100 of valuation in third-class districts, flrst-class dis- tricts have hut $94, while second-class have only $64. Or when con- sidered on the percentage basis, first-class districts are but 94%, and second class only 64% as strong as the third. It is readily seen that the ability of any district to maintain a good school depends, in a large measure, upon its assessed valuation. This 14 COLORADO AQRWULTURAL COLLEGE is especially true of the rural schools, since in some counties more than 90% of all their funds come from the local district tax. In one county more than 95% came from this one source, and the average for all third- class districts was 78%. A high assessed valuation invariably means a low tax rate and ample funds, while a low valuation always means a high tax levy and a scarcity of funds. This is one of the fundamental defects of the district system, and helps to account for the great in- equality in educational opportunity in the different districts. STATE SCHOOL PITSD Colorado has no State school tax for the support of district schools. But when the State came into the Union, the federal government ceded to the commonwealth Sections 16 and 36 in each township. These are known as "school lands", and the money arising from the sale, rental, and royalties from these lands is put into a fund known as the State School Fund. Some of this is grazing land, some is forest land, some is valuable for the minerals it contains, while some is the finest agricul- tural land, with good irrigation systems. The State constitution provides that the principal of this fund shall be forever kept intact, and that the interest, only, shall be used in the support of a system of free public schools. This permanent State School Fund in February, 1916, amounted to the sum of $3,403,790, while the estimated value of all school lands still unsold is $150,000,000. This rich heritage, bequeathed to the State when its value was little known, may some day support a magnificent system of public schools, almost, if not wholly without taxation. For convenience, the various amounts of money received from the State Fund by the three classes of districts in each county will be given in connection with the sums received from the other two sources of revenue here considered. GENERAL COUNTY SCHOOL TAX We now come to the subject of taxation where either the electors or their legally constituted representatives deliberately make tax levies to raise funds for the operation of their schools. The school boards or the electors are supposed to carefully estimate the amounts of money needed for the ensuing twelve months for teachers' salaries, repair and mainten- ance of buildings, furniture and equipment, fuel, janitor service, etc., and then make their levies large enough to raise the money needed to main- tain their schools at the desired standard of efficiency. Taxes are levied as so many mills on the dollar of assessed valuation of the county or district, as the case may be. The tax rates for the dif- ferent classes of districts are given as they appear in the printed records, and these levies are computed on the different valuations and the money arising therefrom is what the districts would have received had it all been collected and paid over to them. It is the anticipated revenue, or what the people intended and expected to raise. The law provides that the county commissioners of each county shall, at the time of levying other taxes, levy a general county school tax on all the taxable property of their respective counties. Up to and includins A STUDY OP COLORADO SCHOOL RE\'E\UES 15 tlie year 1912, the legal restrictions on this tax were that it should not be less than 2 nor more than 5 mills on the dollar. But the legislature in 1913 passed a new revenue law according to the provisions of which all property should thereafter be assessed at its full cash value instead of one-third its value, as had been the case up to that time. This law also provides that no taxing unit may increase its taxes in 1913 more than 15% above what they were in 1912 and but 5% annually thereafter. Those most interested in the schools did not know, or even think, that this restriction would apply to school districts, but it has been so interpreted and applied. It is still possible to increase this above the limits stated above by securing special permission from the State Tax Commission. The tax commission seems to have taken a generous view of this discre- tionary power vested in it, and, as far as the writer knows, has never denied legitimate requests for increased taxation, but still it is an awk- ward and roundabout arrangement. The statute providing for this general county school tax is an old one and belongs to the early history of the State, a time when condi- tions were very different from what they are today. It was passed in 1877, or 39 years ago. It seems to have been intended to guarantee a minimum of schooling in each school district. In computing the levy, the estimates are made from the sum of money necessary to pay each teacher in each county $40.00 per month for a term of four months. But that was years ago, when the State was young and undeveloped, when salaries, standards, and educational requirements were not high. At the present time there is a Minimum Term and Salary Law that pro- hibits any district from employing a teacher at a salary of less than $50.00 per month or for a term of less than six months. Still, this old statute remains unchanged, except to be still further restricted. While this is a general county tax levied upon all taxable property in each county, still it is apportioned back to the different districts on the per capita basis of the school census of each. The general county school tax levy for all the counties in 1915 (actually made in November, 1914, but collected in 1915), is given in Table IV. 16 COLORADO AGRICULTURAL COLLEGE TABLE NO. IV General County School Tax in All Counties 1914-15 Arranged in Descending: Order (Continued) County Mills Gilpin a. Lake 2.2 Baca If 7. ..... . . . .7. . .7 2.^ Mineral "» Montezuma . . •>- Bl Paso 1.74 1.5 Pitkin 1.5 . . 1 .42 Douglas ... . 1 3 Elbert 1.2 1.2 1.1 Alamosa Clear Creek . . Costilla • ■ •—■-:- ^•- Grand ^ i^^insdale ., La Plata . .:. ..^^ 1. Phillips ... 1. San Juan 1. . . . . .7 . .7.77.7". . 1. Teller 1. . .7 77. 9 n Rio Grande . . .n .a Pueblo .853 Bent 85 Logan . . . 785 Uoutt 85 84 Lint oln .84 Park Fremont .7 Mesa Moffat — - 7 es fin Otero R2 .6 Kagle .0 Gunnison .... .6 ....... y 77 .G Roulder .E^sn Ciarfield 5C ~7 rtR .5 - 5 County M ills Summit .5 .5 .4 .4 .08 Delta . ... ... — .07 Weld .055 Chaftee .045 Avera.^e .92 Mill rSee top of next column) A STUDY OF COLORADO SCHOOL REVENUES J'7 It will be seen from Table IV that the average general county levy for all the counties was .92 mill. The highest in any county was 'i mills, the lowest was .045 mill. These two extremes are in the ratio of 1 to 68. In one county it yielded $18.00 per census pupil, while in another it produced but 1 9 cents. In the wealthiest agricultural county in the State, the money raised by this tax amounted to but $16.00 an- nually per teacher. In a mining county it amounted to only $8.00 per teacher, or one-fortieth of what it was originally intended to produce, while in another half mining and half agricultural county, it produced only $116.00 annually per teacher. So, instead of guaranteeing teachers' salaries, in some counties, at the present time, it would not even buy pencils for the pupils. A study of the levies given in Table IV will easily prove that this tax has long since become a farce in most of the counties as far as raising any considerable part of our school revenue is concerned. This tax not only does not accomplish the purpose for which it was probably intended, but because of greatly changed conditions, it now takes rather generous sums of money from third-class districts and gives them to first and second-class districts, the schools of which are already much more adequate and efficient than the rural schools that help to support them in this way. Table V shows the apportionment of the anticipated revenue from this general county tax to first and second-class districts as one group, and to third-class districts as the other, together with the amounts pro- duced in each county by the third-class districts and the gain or loss to the country districts. There are 24 counties in which there are no districts except those of the third class. The City and County of Den- ver consists of but a single district of the first class, while San Juan County comprises but one district of the second class. This leaves 3 7 counties that contain third-class districts and either first or second, or both. The third-class districts in 3 5 counties in this group produced more money by the general county tax than they received back by the per capita apportionment of the same. In seven of these counties the coun- try districts did not receive back by the apportionment one-half of the money that their own valuations produced by this tax. In these 3 5 counties, country districts contributed the magnificent sum of $77,438 to the support of town and city schools. This was 24% of their total general county tax revenue. This is not the fault of the districts that received it, but it shows the unequal and unjust distribution of the money from this source. This sum is almost twice as much as the com- l)ined salaries of the county superintendents in these counties, and if applied to that purpose would add two more superintendents to each county at the same salaries now paid the superintendents, and that, too, without any increase in taxation for the rural districts. It would supply a trained and adequate supervisory force for all these counties. In only two counties did the country districts receive more from this tax than they produced, and in both cases the amounts were insignificant, name- ly, $163 and $81 respectively. Table V is given on page 18. The funds deri\cd from the State fund and from the general tax in all counties will be given in connection with those from the special IS COLORADO AGRICVLTUBAL GOLLEOE district tax so that these three sources of revenue may be compared to better advantage. TABLE NO. V Apportionment of the General County School Fund between First and Second- Class Districts on the One Hand, and Third-Class Districts on the Other, Showingr the Loss or Gain Sustained by the Third-Class Districts Anticipated Revenue From the General County School Tax Gain or Loss to Third- Class Districts County Received by First and Second-Class Districts if 2425 Received by Third-Class Districts * 11486 Revenue produced by the Third- Class Dists. Gain Loss .$ 12,224 $ 1 » -1.038 1 4,296 2.454 4,583 2.1 29 6,311 1,079 4,400 1,103 6,594 2,188 Archuleta 1,238 135 Bent 4,933 4,262 6,382 2,120 Boulder . . 16,571 6,970 10,944 S,974 Chaffee 406 lie 333 117 Clear Creek 3,144 2,168 2,672 504 Crowley . . 2,003 3,822 1,346 1,626 380 Delta 2,288 2,723 435 91,350 30,474 39,333 8,859 1,871 Fremont . . 9,613 4,460 6,331 Garfield 3,478 7,036 6,873 163 Gilpin 4,892 6,208 8,640 2,432 4,167 4,612 6,777 2,165 58 258 604 662 Jefferson 14,977 27,595 6,435 15,875 2,509 8,850 20,660 14,779 8,936 - --- 4,785 12,270 La Plata 86 23.844 14.113 20,152 6,039 Las Animas 11,195 1.5,775 17,444 1,669 Logan 5,498 10,162 12,365 2,203 Mesa 9,632 9,987 8,710 11,190 1,203 Montezuma 4,025 9,730 1,020 3,758 3,549 3,784 235 936 Morg-an 15.650 8,352 9,288 12,650 2,344 4,645 7,158 3,513 2.736 3,686 9.50 Pitkin 6,955 4.736 3,410 6,413 3,003 Prowers ] 5,741 7,231 14,685 3,249 1,490 Pueblo 45,839 2,145 10,094 2,216 4,591 Rio Blanco 1,033 Rio Grande 5,546 3,886 6,193 2,307 Routt 2,015 8,666 9.252 586 San Miguel 5,048 4,479 4,398 81 Teller 16,312 1.531 3242 1,711 Weld 1.591 2,614 3,117 503 TOTAL $386,238 $237,593 $314,887 $244 $ 77,438 A STUDY OF COLORADO SCHOOL REVENUES 19 SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT TAX All funds that are needed to operate the schools, in addition to what is received from the state apportionment and the county tax, must be raised by a special tax on the local school district. Up to and including the year 1912, first and second-class districts were not limited in respect to their special district levies, but might make them as high as their needs required. Until the time mentioned above, third-class districts might levy 20 mills, but the new revenue law referred to has leveled them all down to an increase of 5 % annually. Until this law was passed, the electors in all third-class districts always voted their special school levies at their annual school election on the first Monday in May of each year. The law now provides that the school boards in third-class districts shall certify the amounts needed, as was formerly the case in first and second-class districts. But even yet, in many cases the electors continue to vote their levies as before. One of the places where the district system shows its full sweep of inequality and inefficiency, is in the levying of the special district tax. During the year 1915, this tax in third-class districts varied from noth- ing at all to 16.5 mills. Many cases were found where one district paid ten times as high a rate as other districts in the same county. There is no system, no regularity, or uniformity in making these levies. Each district is a law unto itself. It is impossible to give in detail the special levies in all districts; so it will be necessary to give only the averages for the three classes of districts. However, one county is taken and the levies for all districts are given in full. This county is fairly typical of many others in this respect. Its schools rank among the best in the State. Table VI shows all the special levies for the three classes of school districts in Weld County. The levies in all the third-class districts are arranged in the descending order of their size for purposes of comparison. The tax rates in the third-class districts in Weld County vary from nothing to 11.5 mills. There were in reality 106 different levies at 57 different rates, or 57 levies no two of which were for the same amount. And all this variation was between and li.5 mills. An average levy of 3.5 mills would have produced the same amount of money. In this county, as in practically all the others, some children attend schools where there are good buildings, good equipment, trained teachers, and pleasant surroundings, but many others attend schools in which some or all of these things are lacking. In the end, it is the children that pay the penalty for this unequal and unjust system of school taxation. The children in the one first-class district in this county received the benefits of a 7.9 mills special tax levy, and receive their education under the most fortunate surroundings, with expert supervision, special teach- ers for special subjects, trained and experienced teachers in all grades, good equipment, good grade buildings, and a magnificent high school. The three second-class districts, with an average levy of 6.3 mills, offer practically the same opportunities only in a slightly lesser degree, while the children in the 106 third-class districts must content themselves with the unequal benefits of tax levies ranging from to 11.5 mills. This state of affairs may not be anyone's business but nevertheless these 20 COLORADO AGRICULTURAL COLLEGE country districts are called upon to train nearly twice as many citizens as are the one first, and three second-class districts. TABI.B NO. VI WELD COUNTY Special Tax Levies for All Districts Third-Class Districts Dist. No. Mills 7G ll.S T7 X0.2 9 10. IT? . .7 9.2 74 9. 105 9. 93 8.3 69 7.7 40 7.4 85 ~ 7^3 ^Yi 7.2 106 e.9 107 6.4 16 6.3 52 " 7 . . . . . . . ^612 75 6. 88 6. ie . . ' 5.8 92 5.8 77777 5.7 90 5.7 97 5.5 98 5.4 42 . . 5.1 ^ ^ .7. . . . . 5.1 5.1 110 64 5. "96 5. 4.7 49 79 4.6 4.5 99 4.5 46 .... 4.4 83 4.4 ,^9 4.] 11 4. 71 7. 4. 7 2 Tf 7 ~%ri 77 .7"!" 4. m 3.8 48 .1.7 87 3.6 30 !{.r 95 3.5 100 . S.5 104 .t.4 29 R-> 47 .1.3 22 a." 66 .I." 81 H *> Dist. Third-Class District.? (Continued) (See top of next column) No. 60" . . 7 .'. Mills . . .1.1 ri3 . .1. 5 s 3. 6S '~7 73 3 94 1 109 .1. 103 2.!( 33 2.S 66 o 7 86 2.6 17 •> r. 27 ^r. 54 2.5 84 o r 108 2.5 35 2.4 59 '*.J 12 2.3 3 . 2^ 21 2.2 20 2.1 38 2.1 62 2:1 23 41 ... ^ 78 2. .82 2. 102 ". . ; 2 3^2^ '7. 61 t 1 1.8 24 26 50 1.8 31 .... 10 70 10 19 15 43 .... 1.5 45 1.5 7 1.4 13 t d 36 44 1 4 51 . . '. Tr4 18 1.3 28 J^O 101 ■JO 25 (See top next page) A STUDY OF COLORADO SCHOOL REVENUES 21 TABLK NO. VI— Continued "WELD COUNTY Special Tax Levies for All Districts 1915 Third-Class Districts (Continued) Dist. No. Mills 2 . 1. 67_ .^. "._. _ 1. T.^i ! . .'. h.n 77'. . .'. 0^ 83 . .. . . . : . Average S'> Mills Dist. No. First-Class Districts Mills Second-Class Districts Dist. No. 4 . _ - _ Mills 6.7 S . -^ - - :',7 7.J Average 6.3 Mills Note. — These levies include the regular special levies for current expenses all levies for sinking funds and interest on bonds. Tables VII, VIII, and IX give the average special tax levies for the three classes of districts in all counties. These tables are also arranged in descending order to better show where each class of districts stands in a comparative scale where the rate of taxation is the only standard considered. COLORADO AGRICULTURAL COLLEGE TABLE NO. VII FIRST-CLASS DISTRICTS AVERAGE SPECIAL TAX LEVIE.S 1915 County No. of Dists. Special Tax Levy. .Mills Las Animas .... Teller _. . . 1 lO.C j — 8.5 ' - . - .| — Pitkin . . . S.."» ProAvers 1 ^ 1 S 5 ] 8.1 Weld 1 ] 1 7.9 1 2 Delta Fremont 7.S 1 "." [ :; 7.4 Otero 1 - 6 8 Pueblo 6..5 Logan .... j J — % 910 19% 3,040 70% Huerfano . 1 (i,074 1 307 4,215 2,402 18V» 12% 0% 0% 004 2% 30,348 80% 318 6% 4,017 82% Jefferson 15,875 3,549 23% 10% 49,859 30,588 71% 84% 1 4,488 1 410 1 4,332 1 0,080 O'/o 2% 9% 12,267 18% 52,747 76% 2,509 8,850' 14,113 14% 14,578 36,720 83% 73"% 18% 20% Larimer 48,731 71% Las Animas 12,890 12% 15,775 14% 81,321 74% 1 4,082 8% 8,385 18% 35,235 74% 4,828 0,493 1 590 0% ■7% 5 % 10,162 13% 64,297 81% 9,987 10% 78,493 83% 1 3,451 28% 8,368 67% : 1,178 7% 2,910 1S% 12,388 75% 2,272 0% 8,710 25% 24,616 69% 1 3,035 9% 3,549 8% 34,436 83% 2,797 7% 8,352 21% 27,994 72% 3,087 8% 4,645 12% 30,594 13,514 15,393 80% 939 5% 2,736 16% 79% Park 832 3% 7,201 1 31% 60% Phillips 2,245 9% 6,466 25% 17,328 06% Pitkin S5l 4% 3,410 15% 17,099 81% Prowers 3,098 «% 5,741 n% 55,908 85% Pueblo r.,729 0% 10,094 1 12% 70,750 82% Rio Blanco 920 8% 2,210 18% 9,097 74% Rio Grande 1,588 7% 3,880 18% 10,103 75% Routt 3,004 7% 8,600 1 17% 39,078 76% Saguache 3,303 9% 8,120 21% 20,582 70% San Miguel 1,191 7% 4,479 25% 12,050 1 08% Sedgwick : . . . 2,030 7% 3,514 12% 24,422 1 81% Summit 804 4% 2,911 1 14% 1 10,385 82% Teller 028 3% 1,531 0% 22,403 91% Washin gton 0,044 10% 5,502 1 8% 1 50,728 82% Weld 17,155 1 8% 1 2,614 1 1% 198,326 91% Yuma 0.084 9% 8,947 11%. 03,924 80% TOTAL $ 194.231 1 * 372,047 j »2,04 8,587 Per cent of Total Revenue 8% 14% 78 -J *These figures reived from the th show the per cent that ree sources of revenue. each sum is of the total funds re- 28 COLORADO AGRICULTURAL COLLEGE In this large group in which all the counties except two are included, the same fact stands out prominently, namely, that the tax on the local district provides by far the greater part of all school revenues. In one county 95% of the money received from the three sources here dis- cussed came from this district tax, while in this same county but one- half of 1 % came from the general county tax. In the third-class districts 8 % of all funds came from the State, 14 ' v from the general county tax and 78% from the special district tax. SOME OOMPAKISONS A brief summary of what seem to be the facts revealed by this study of our school revenue system may make it easier to understand how the system actually works. First-class districts had approximately 49% of the school census, second-class districts had 11%, while the third had 40%. (See Table I.) First-class had 49% of the total assessed valuation of the entire State, second had 8%, while third had 43%. (See Table II.) But when the per capita wealth of all the third-class districts in each county is compared with the per capita wealth of the first or second-class in the same counties, in almost every case the third-class districts, when com- bined, make a stronger taxing unit than either of the others. In many cases they are much stronger. Below are given the approximate sums of money that our school revenue system should have produced in 1915 in the three classes of districts and the per cent that each sum was of the total revenue of each class. First-Class Districts $ 233,499 From State fund. This was.. 6% of their total revenue. 1,094,816 From general county tax.... 30% of their total, revenue. 2,3 65,257 From special district tax... 64% of their total revenue. f 3, 693, 572 Total from three sources 100% Second-Class Districts f 52,282 From State fund. This was.... 7% of their total revenue. 103,630 From county tax 15% of their total revenue. 558,027 From special district tax 78% of their total revenue. $713,939 From three sources 100% Third-CIass Districts % 194,231 From State fund. This was. 8% of their total revenue 372,047 From county tax 14% of their total revenue. 2,048,587 From special district tax 78% of their total revenue. $2,609,769 From three sources 1007o Summarizing the totals for the three classes of districts, we find that these three sources of revenue should have produced the sum of $7,022,376. 6.8% of this money came from the State school fund. 22.3% came from the general county tax. 70.9% came from the special district tax. A STUDY OF COLORADO SCHOOL REVENUES 29 SOME SUGGESTIONS School Census and Apportionment of School Money The age limit for the school census in Colorado Is too high. It now Includes all persons between the ages of 6 and 21 years. Six to eighteen would be a better arrangement, and these are the limits used in many other states. Most country schools offer only the Hrst eight grades, and children entering these schools at 6 years of age, as most of them do, would regularly complete the course in the dictrict school at 14. But accord- ing to our laws at present all such children would continue to be counted on the school census and draw school money from both the State and county for 6 or 7 years after they had finished the course offered in their schools and had ceased to attend them. Only such pupils as are enrolled in school, or those that are at least eligible to enroll, should be permitted to draw school money for the districts in which they reside. However, the number of children in a district is not always a cor- rect indication of financial needs. It may cost as much to erect a build- ing and heat it and to employ a teacher for a school of 5 pupils as for one of 25. These children are certainly entitled to all the schooling provided by law, still all State and county funds are apportioned on the per capita basis, and in such a case as the one just cited, the larger dis- trict would receive five times as much money as the smaller school which must incur practically the same expense as the one with 2 5 pupils. To meet such a situation some states make the teacher the unit for the apportionment of school funds. There is a growing sentiment in favor of increasing the State school funds and so distributing them to the different school units as to stim- ulate local effort and increase local interest in the schools. The State of Colorado should be more liberal in the support of its public schools. A movement should be started at once to study ways and means of best accomplishing this end. The Colorado Teachers' Association might well begin a careful and thoro study of the school lands of the State with a view to ascertaining their value and the best methods for their proper development and conservation. The State should furnish a larger per cent of the total school funds, and if this cannot be done by increasing the State school fund by the sale of lands belonging to the State, then steps should immediately be taken to do it in some other way. All apportionments of school funds, whether State or county, should be made on a basis that would tend to encourage a higher enrollment of the census, a higher average daily attendance of the enrollment, a larger number of graduates, the establishment of high schools, the building of better school houses, and the employment of trained teachers. But with each increase In the amount of State and county school money should go the demand for increased State and county supervision and direction. All this money should be so allotted as to place a premium on high standards of excellence and intelligent local effort. 30 COLORADO AOHICULTURAL COLLEGE General County School Tax It would seem that this tax no longer serves a useful purpose. In many counties it has long since ceased to provide any considerahle part of our school revenue. And where high levies are now made it only results in large sums of money raised on country valuations being turned over to the city schools. This is both unfair to the taxpayers and un- just to country children. The cities and larger towns are amply able to support their own schools and there Is no doubt but that the people in them are entirely willing to do so. First and second-class districts have never experienced any insurmountable difficulties in the way of financing their schools. Third-class districts, when all such districts in each county are combined, make a stronger taxing, administrative or supervisory unit, than either the first or second-class. Since the third- class districts are levying only about 54% as high a rate of school tax as the other districts, they certainly cannot ask aid of the schools that are already paying so much more than they. So there is no equalization of funds needed within a county, except such as should be made between the third-class districts in each. This equalization can best be made by a county board of education that levies a uniform tax on all third-class district territory in each county and that can use this money to maintain schools in any part of the county district where they may be needed. State and county aid to weak districts is misplaced charity so long as large country valuations in the same county remain comparatively un- taxed. All the third-class districts in each county should, collectively, be held accountable for the proper education of all the children living therein. Under any such system the general county tax would not benefit the rural schools, and in justice to all it might be abolished. All Third-Class Districts Should Be Combined This is both necessary and desirable, not only for purposes of taxa- tion, but for administrative and supervisory purposes as well. It has been shown that when all third-class districts in each county are combined they make a, stronger unit than either first or second-class districts. If these districts should combine, they would then have the financial ability to provide practically all the things now found in the best city schools, such as adequate supervision, trained principals, special supervisors for special subjects, better buildings, uniformity in text books and a uniform course of study. Thousands of country children could be put into country high schools, and still the people in this large district would not need to pay nearly so high a school tax as city schools now pay. Further, by thus combining, the country district could successfully compete with city schools in the employment and retention of supervisors and teachers. Special District Tax Speaking in terms of the whole State, the commonwealth of Colo- rado is a minority stockholder in her public schools, that most important part of our educational system that is charged with the duty of giving A STUDY OF COLORADO SCHOOL REVENUES 31 all our future citizens their elementary and secondary training. Colo- rado as a State contributes less than 7 % annually toward the main- tainance of district schools. The State, as such, is exercising a cor- respondingly insignificant influence in the direction and supervision of these schools. The counties do much better than this, with an average of 22.3% of the total annual revenue. Still there is but very little effective county supervision or control, for the county superintendency is an elective office and the power of that office is only advisory. So with the matter of finance, as with everything else, the local dis- trict is called upon to do far more than its share in the serious business of education. In case of the third-class districts, 78% of the total rev- enue came from the local district. That this is not the proper place to put so much responsibility, there can be no doubt, but nevertheless that is the way it works out in our school revenue system as it operates at the present time. Published Monthly by THE COLORADO AGRICULTURAL COLLEGE Entered as Second-Class Matter April 28, 1915, at the Post Office at Fort Collins, Colorado, Under the Act of August 24, 1912