HnU OJolkge of ^Kgricultute At ajornetl IntaersitB Itliara, Sf. f . SItbcatg Cornell University Library LB 1620.B8 Problems in state high school finance, 3 1924 013 026 970 a Cornell University M 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/cu31 92401 3026970 CHOOL EFFICIENCY MONOGRAPHS PROBLEMS IN STATE HIGH SCHOOL FINANCE Birn'ERWORl'H PROBLEMS IN STATE HIGH SCHOOL FINANCE SCHOOL EFFICIENCY MONOGRAPHS AnJfrHnn Education of Defectives in the Public Schools Arp Eural Education and the Consolidated School Problems in State High School Finance !Eab>n Record Forms for Voca- tional Schools McPi,vSirtm The Public and Its School Standards in English An Experiment in the Fun- damentals Mtth Newsboy Service SCHOOL EFFICIENCY MONOGRAPHS PROBLEMS IN STATE HIGH SCHOOL FINANCE BY JULIAN EDWARD BUTTER WORTH, Ph.D. PEOFESSOE OF SECONDARY EDUCATION UNIVEESITT OF WYOMING With an Introduction by PAUL MONROE PEOFESSOE OF THE HISTOEY OF EDUCATION, AND DIEECTOE OF THE SCHOOL OF EDUCATION, TEACHERS COLLEGE, COLUMBIA UNIVEBSITY; EDITOE OF " CYCLOPEDIA OF EDUCATION " YONKERS-ON-HUDSON, NEW YORK WORLD BOOK COMPANY 1918 WORLD BOOK COMPANY THE HOUSE OF APPLIED KNOWLEDGE Established, 190S, by Caspar W. Hodgson YONKEHS-ON-HUDSON, NeW YoEK 2126 Pbaihie Avenue, Chicago Publishers of the following professional works : School Efficiency Series, edited by Paul H- Hanus, complete in thirteen volumes ; Edu- cational Survey Series, three volumes already issued and others projected ; School Efficiency Monographs, eightnumbersnowready, others in active preparation sbm; bpsmsf-1 Copyright, 1918, by World Book Company All rights reserved PREFACE TTl 7E need a philosophy of educational finance. V V School support is in a chaotic state. We have no clearly defined principles governing such problems as these: the proportion of all civic expenditures that should be used for schools; the distribution of funds among city and rural schools, among elementary and high schools, among general and practical courses ; the place of the state, county, and district in raising funds ; the control of these funds ; methods of apportioning them. While a few conceptions have been accepted as fundamental and have been observed rather generally in practice, a study of existing conditions justifies the con- clusion that all too frequently each school-finance prob- lem has been solved as it arose, with little or no regard to its relation with other problems. Obviously, a set of governing principles in this field can come only from a careful study of the many details involved. Several studies made during the last few years have contributed their share. The author hopes that the present volume may likewise do its part. To those who have undertaken similar studies no apology need be made for such inadequacies as exist. These may be overcome in time as our methods of collecting and tabulating school statistics are refined. The au- thor has tried to point out plainly these inadequacies in order that they may be properly evaluated by the reader and so be made the basis for constructive criticism. The courtesy and care with which state school offi- cials, almost without exception, have supplied data, so far as lay in their power, and have given interpretations to complex situations is a most hopeful sign for the ultimate development of a school administration that [v] PREFACE Will be truly scientific. To these officials and to several personal friends the author is grateful for invaluable assistance. JUULAN E. BUTTEKWOETH The Univeesits- of Wyomikg [vi] CONTENTS CHAPTER PAOB I. Historical Statement, and Outline of Problems . ., 1 II. Support of Secondary Education with- out Special State Aid 18 III. Special State Aid for General Hiqh School Purposes 27 IV. Special State Aid for General Hiqh School Purposes {Continued) 41 V. County Funds as a Supplementary Source OF Revenue for Secondary Education 94 VI. Some Phases of State Supervision op Pub- lic High Schools 115 VII. Stimulating and Measuring the Effort of Local Communities 130 VIII. Free High School Privileges 146 IX. Special State Aid for Special High School Courses and for High School Li- braries AND Laboratories 179 X. The Sources and the Forms of State High School Funds 188 Selected Bibliography 207 Index 209 [vii] INTRODUCTION TWO problems of public school administration have assumed peculiar importance in recent times. One is the diversification of secondary education, adapt- ing it to the interests of the individual students and to the needs of the community. The second is the use of state aid to accomplish results commensurate with the educational needs and opportunities, to stimulate rather than to retard local effort, and to render aid when most needed and where most remains to be accomplished. This volume by Dr. Butterworth treats of both prob- lems from the point of view of finance. The public school system has become so large, its ad- ministration so complex, its financial problems so much a matter of expert administration, that special consid- eration and scientific treatment are now demanded. This volume provides such guidance to the adminis- trator. Its appeal is to a small class of educators ; namely, to administrators or officials of the public school system, particularly to those charged with the conduct of high schools, and to principals and instructors in high schools interested in the administration of secondary education as it affects the character and purpose of adolescent education. To all these the definite and consistent con- ception of the problem, the clear and precise style of presentation, the accurate and scholarly treatment, will commend this volume. Paul Moneoe Teachers Coixeoe COLITMBIA UifivEEsmr [ix] PROBLEMS IN STATE HIGH SCHOOL FINANCE CHAPTER ONE HisTOKiCAL Statement, and Outline of Problems A. development of the high school THE history of American secondary education shows three fairly distinct periods, each repre- sented by a type of school with characteristic func- tions, curricula, and administrative features. The first period is that of the Latin grammar school, cov- ering the period from 1635, when the Latin Grammar School of Boston was established, to about the close of the eighteenth century. The second period is repre- sented by the academy, and extends from about the end of the eighteenth century to the Civil War. Begin- ning about 1860 the development of the high school into a well-established type of secondary school ushers in the high school period, extending down to the present day. Fundamentally, the growth of American democracy with its requirement for the realization of democratic ideals has been responsible for the present-day high school. The specific forces that have exercised an in- fluence in this growth of secondary education have been many and interesting, but they may be grouped into three general classes: (1) forces demanding cur- ricula suited more and more to the requirements of everyday life; (2) forces insisting on a secondary [1] PROBLEMS IN STATE HIGH SCHOOL FINANCE school under the direct and complete control of the people; (3) forces requiring a secondary school open on equal terms to all who could make legitimate use of its opportunities, without cost to the individual as such. This third group of forces involves, of course, public support of secondary education. In a way, these forces are still important in shaping present-day secondary school training, though in some cases the emphasis has shifted and new interpretations have become necessary. It would be interesting and profitable to follow each of these forces to see just how and to what extent each is exerting an influence at the present time, but the scope of this study requires that attention be confined to the third. B. SOUKCES OF SUPPORT FOB. SECONDARY SCHOOLS The Latin grammar school was ordinarily main- tained by funds secured from a variety of sources.^ Thus, the Boston Latin Grammar School was assured after certain prominent persons had raised by sub- scription something over 40 pounds. A few years later the rental of certain lands given by the General Court of Massachusetts to Boston was set apart by the city for this school. In addition to these sources there were occasional bequests and, after a time at least, the revenue from tuition fees. In the case of many schools endowments were made. This was es- pecially true in the Southern colonies. The Colonial governments did much, particularly through land grants. In New England, especially, the community soon became largely responsible for the necessary funds 1 Brown, Elmer E., The Making of Our Middle Schooh, pages 31-104; and Jones, David Rhys, Stati Aid to Secondary Schools, pages 50-71. [2] THE PROBLEMS STATED supplied by rates, appropriations, or direct taxation. Free tuition was granted in some cases, especially where the pupils were unable to pay, but " the greater number of pupils paid a regular fee which seems in most cases not to have gone above 20 shillings a year. Pupils were sometimes required in addition to provide each a fixed amount of wood for fuel." ^ The income from liquor licenses and from the licensing of hawkers and peddlers was sometimes set aside for schools. In the later Colonial period the Society for the Propaga- tion of the Gospel and other religious bodies seem to have given something for school support. In 1647 Massachusetts made a step toward the formation of a state system of secondary schools by requiring all towns with 100 householders to maintain grammar schools.^ Evidently the law was rather gen- erally evaded. Action similar to that in Massachu- setts was taken in Connecticut and New Hampshire, and a proposal for a state system was made in Mary- land. The academies were likewise supported by moneys received from a variety of sources.* Endowments were common and to all appearances more important, com- paratively, than they were in the grammar school pe- riod. Tuition also appears to have constituted a larger share of the income of the academy than of the gram- mar school, particularly in the early part of the academy period. Subscriptions, bequests, and taxes also were used. The following quotation indicates the growing importance of the concept of an education di- rected and financially assisted by the state: 2 Brown, page 143. 3 Ibid., pages 64-72. *Ibid., pages 179-226. [8] PROBLEMS IN STATE HIGH SCHOOL FINANCE " While the academies are primarily institutions of semi- private or local origin, most of the states assisted in their founding and support. Several states provided systems. Georgia and New York furnish the most interesting early legislation, each in turn curiously anticipating the other. Georgia's constitution of 1777 called for ' schools ' in each county ' supported at the general expense of the state.' In 1783 her legislature provided by land endowment for a sys- tem of county academies, and on February 25, 1784, sim- ilarly endowed a university. New York, on May 1, 1784, chartered a university and provided for ' schools and col- leges ' to be parts of the university (the grade of the schools not being specified) . Georgia amended her university char- ter in 1785, requiring that ' all public schools . . . shall be considered as parts or members of the university.' The uni- versity should ' prescribe what branches ... be taught . . . in each ' ; and should ' also examine and recommend the in- structors to be employed in them.' In 1787 New York amended her 1784 act so as to authorize and require the re- gents ' to visit and inspect all the colleges, academies, and schools which are or may be established in this state.' In 1813 New York established a 'Literature Fund,' the in- come of which went to the support of academies. In 1821, Georgia established a similar ' academic fund ' of $250,000. But by 1840 Georgia had abandoned support and con- trol of her academies in favor of elementary education, while New York began to increase both her support and control. " Many other states adopted one or more of the features above described. Massachusetts in 1797 sets out a policy of land endowments of properly located academies. The next year Kentucky does the same for a comity system. Later Maryland, Louisiana, Tennessee, and Indiana adopt the county system. To speak generally, the states subsi- dized the academies by one plan or another, leaving them, for the most part, to self-perpetuating boards or other forms of local control. Tuition charges were almost invariable." ^ 5 Monroe's Cyclopedia of Education, Vol. I, pages S3, 23. [4] THE PROBLEMS STATED In some states a part of the revenue given academies by the state came from lands granted by the federal government.® Apparently the sources of support of some of the early high schools did not differ greatly from those of the academies. Thus, we find that in Charleston, South Carolina, a tuition fee of $4)0 was charged.'' In several cases the endowments that had been made for academies were used for the high schools when the academies were changed into these newer institutions.® During the period from 1821, when the Boys' English High School was established in Boston, until about 1875 there was much discussion of the relative merits of the academy and the high school.^ Such discussion tended to bring clearly to consciousness the necessity of public support of the high school if it was to become a school free to all the people and under the direct control of the people. In Massachusetts the law of 1647, modified by later laws, requiring certain towns to maintain grammar schools was reenacted in 1827 so that towns of 500 were required to maintain secondary schools.^" In New York the policy of state assistance was also con- tinued, with modifications from time to time in the method of distribution.*^ In some of the other states the policy of encouraging a state system of secondary schools begun during the academy period was con- tinued, though in others this was not the case.^* e See Brown, page 219. 1 1bid., page 312. sibid., pages 312, 313. elbid., pages 316-321. 10 Jones, page 73. "i-T- Annual Report of New York Education Department, 1914, pages 137-140. 12 Jones, pages 73, 112, 113, 117. [5] PROBLEMS IN STATE HIGH SCHOOL FINANCE In those states in which there was no legislation con- cerning a state system of secondary schools, something had to be done to make it possible for the community to tax itself for high school purposes.^^ In some state^ special laws were passed permitting individual towns and cities to do this ; in other states laws of a general nature, making it possible for districts to maintain high schools, were passed. In still other states high schools were evidently established without specific legal authority. In such cases it was inevitable that cer- tain taxpayers of the community should object; the result was a number of suits to determine whether such action was legal. The widely quoted Kalamazoo case of 187^ was particularly influential in establishing the status of the high school in the public school system. In this study we are particularly interested in the participation of the state in the maintenance of high schools. While a very few of the states, as indicated , above, continued the policy of state assistance begun during the academy period, the year 1873, when Maine adopted her law for special state aid, may be set as the virtual beginning of the movement in the high school period that has developed special state aid laws for general high school purposes in almost half the states of the Union. In order, however, to get a clear conception of the state as a factor in the support of high schools, it is necessary to understand the attitude of the different states toward permitting the high schools to share in the general state fund established for assisting public schools. In most commonwealths it seems to have been the policy to consider the high school as a part of the " common schools " or " public schools " and so to have 13 Brown, pages 352-355. [6] THE PROBLEMS STATED made it possible in those commonwealths to use a part of the district's share of the general school fund for high school purposes if the district so desired. In Some states such a policy has not been possible because of the interpretation given to the term " common schools " or because the constitution specifically des- ignated the elementary grades only as entitled to these moneys. In a few states where this was the situation for a time, legal decisions, legislation, or constitutional amendments have made it possible for the high schools to share in the general school funds. The detailed history of this interesting phase of state high school finance cannot now be written, and probably cannot be written accurately until we have a history of educa- tion for each state in which this problem is given special attention. The following table does, however, give some information on this subject. In all cases, except where otherwise indicated, the information comes from the State Department of Education. Tabu; 1 Date when spe- School Date when fund cial aid 15 for State fund" could be used general high created for high schools school purposes was adopted 1. Connecticut 1795 always i« 2. Delaware 1796 always • • • < 3. New York 1805 always i« 1784 4. Tennessee 1806 1909 ir 1909 1* Swift, Fletcher H., A HUtory of Public Permanent Common School Funds in the United States, 179S--1905, pages 98, 99. IS This information is from the school laws for the year cited or from the State Department of Education. 18 In these states the information has been qualified by state- ments indicating a lack of certainty as to whether this has always been the situation. IT In Tennessee there are two funds, each forming a part of the [7] PROBLEMS IN STATE HIGH SCHOOL FINANCE Tabije 1 (Oontimued) Date when spe- School Date when fund cial aid for State fund could be used general high created for high schools school purposes was adopted 5. Virginia 1810 .... 18 1906 6. South Carolina. . 1811 always 1907 7. Maryland 1813 always 1910 8. Indiana 1816 1834 1817 always 9. Georgia 1913 19 10. New Jersey 1817 always 20 1907 11. Illinois 1818 1818-21 always 12. Kentucky 1831 1912 (?) 21 .... 13. Mississippi .... 1821 never general school fund: (1) the permanent school fund, the interest from which has always been used for elementary schools as pro- vided by the state constitution; (3) the General Education Fund which was created in 1909. Of this latter fund 8 per cent is set aside for assisting county high schools. See Tennessee School Law, 1909, Chapter 264. 18 Virginia School Laws, 1915, page 8, section 11. 19 " Our constitution originally confined the use of state funds to elementary schools. Three years ago the restriction to elementary branches was removed." Superintendent M. F. Brlttain in per- sonal letter, July 1, 1916. 20 In 1905 there was really a new affirmation. 21 " The common school fund of Kentucky is constitutionally confined to common school uses. The courts have held, in de- cisions heretofore, the term common school to mean practically what we now consider the elementary school. In 1908 the State Legislature passed a bill requiring every county in the State to maintain one or more county high schools, and at the same time provided for a county common school levy not to exceed 20 cents on the $100 of taxable property, to be known as the county school fund. In 1913 an amendment was made to the law, making the county school fund and the money derived from the State for public education a single fund, with the express stipula- tion that all money coming from the state should be used for the payment of teachers' salaries. There is nothing in our law def- initely stating whether or not this particular fund coming from the State to the county shall be confined to the payment of ele- mentary school teachers. The question as to whether the county [8] THE PROBLEMS STATED Table 1 (Oontirmed) Date when spe- School Date when fund cial aid for State fund could be used general high created for high schools school purposes was adopted 14. New Hampshire (1821)? 1866 22 15. North Carolina. 1826 23 1907 16. Ohio 1827 always 17. Vermont (1825) no information 1915 18. Alabama 1828 always 2* 1907 19. Maine 1828 never 1873 BO. Rhode Island . . . 1828 26 1898 21. Pennsylvania . . 1831 always 1895 82. Massachusetts . . 1834 always 18 1902 33. Arkansas 1836 always 1913 26 24. Michigan 1837 always . . . • ^ 25. Missouri 1835 1837 always 1913 26. Texas 1839 always .... 1845 27. Florida 1845 always 1903 27 28. Louisiana (1845) always 1908 29. Iowa 1846 always high school is a common school within the meaning of the Con- stitution, and the decision of the Court heretofore, has never yet had a legal determination. It is therefore an open question whether strictly state money can be used for the payment of high school teachers or not." High School Inspector McHenry Rhoads in personal letter, July 10, 1916. 22 In this year the high school law permitting the higher branches was enacted. 23 According to information from the state department, the high school may not now participate in the general state school funds. No information is given as to whether this has always been the case. 24 See also General Public School Laws of Alabama, 1915, p. 169. 25 At least the appropriation of $120,000 to be paid out of the in- come of the permanent school fund and from other money in the treasury can be used for high school purposes. There is no in- formation as to how long this has been the situation. 28 A law granting special state aid on the basis of classification was passed in 1913. In 1916 this statute was declared uncon- stitutional. 2T This law gave assistance for 3 years upon the basis of the classification of the school. In 1909 it was declared unconstitu- tional. [9] PROBLEMS IN STATE HIGH SCHOOL FINANCE Tabu: 1 (^Confirmed) Date when spe- School Date when fund cial aid for State fund could be used general high created for high schools school purposes was adopted 30. Wisconsin 1848 .... 28 1875 31. California 1850 never 2» 1903 S3. Minnesota 1858 1908 always 1878 33. Oregon 1859 always 34. Kansas 1861 always .... 35. West Virginia.. 1863 always 1911 36. Nevada 1864 always 37. Nebraska 1866 always 38. Colorado 1876 80 .... 89. Montana 1889 always 40. North Dakota.. 1889 always 1899 41. Soutli Dakota.. 1889 31 .... 42. Washington 1889 1895 32 1909 43. Idaho 1890 always 1911 44. Wyoming 1890 always 45. Utah 1895 always 1911 46. Oklahoma • > > • always .... 47. Arizona > > • • no information .... 48. New Mexico . . . 1898 always .... 28 " The state law of Wisconsin distributes the income from the common school fund and the 7/10 of a miU tax for the common school among the school districts of the state proportionately to the number of children between 4 and 20 years of age in the state. These districts use this money, and whether it is used for the com- mon or high school is largely a matter of bookkeeping, as the money is never sufScient to pay more than the expenses of the grades below the district high schools. Where several districts have united for high school purposes (the grade districts being still separate), the state money goes to the grade districts and is not in any way paid to high school districts This would seem to indicate that the intent of the general apportionment law is to distribute to common or graded schools alone." Superintendent C. P. Cary in personal letter, August 31, 1916. 29 See Cubberley's statement in University of Illinois Bulletin, Vol. 10, No. 19, pages 11-13; also Snyder, Legal Status of Rural High Schools, pages 67, 68. Since 1879, at least, when the new constitution was adopted, the high schools have not been per- mitted to share in the state school fund. 30 At present the general state school fund may be used for high [10] THE PROBLEMS STATED C. THE PROBLEMS STATED This historical outline gives a background for the interpretation of those problems of state high school finance that are today in the course of solution. Now that the right and the duty of society to furnish free secondary school privileges have been rather generally accepted in America, attention should be directed to the extent to which this principle has been actually applied and to its new applications and implications. 1. There is the problem of equalization of burdens. Even in the Colonial period it was realized that the state should do something toward relieving the burden involved in the maintenance of secondary schools. As time went on, increasing emphasis was given to this matter, if we may judge by the increasing frequency with which the state assumed financial responsibility. The existence of special state aid laws for general high school purposes in 23 states, many of which have been passed in very recent years, indicates that its im- portance is by no means diminishing. Such questions as the following need, therefore, to be answered so far as is possible at the present time: To what extent is equalization, as indicated by present laws and tend- encies, desirable.? What specific methods for equaliz- ing high school burdens are now being used and how do these compare in effectiveness.'' What is the rela- tive importance of the county and of the state in this work ? What does this analysis of the present situation school purposes, but there is no information as to how long this has been possible. See School Laws of Colorado, 1916, section 238 and notes. 31 High schools may share in the general state school fund, but there is no information as to how long this has been the case. 32 In this year the maintenance of high schools by public funds was legalized. [11] PROBLEMS IN STATE HIGH SCHOOL FINANCE indicate as to future tendencies and ideals concerning equalization? These and related questions are dis- cussed in Chapters II, III, IV, and V. 2. In most states we find that the giving of state money to the local district has been, and is now to a much greater degree, contingent upon the district's meeting certain educational standards. Such stand- ard^ may be set up and enforced where financial sup- port is involved when this might otherwise not be pos- sible. It is, therefore, worth while to inquire to what extent high school finance laws have played a part in the setting of state standards. In this connection it will be shown how methods of high school support must provide for the protection of the elementary school more than has been done in the past; how they may stimulate the expansion of high schools ; and how they should lead to more effective regulations concerning the establishment of high schools in a state. Chapters VI and VII are devoted to these problems. 3. It is a well-known fact that a large proportion of our population does not live in communities large enough or wealthy enough to maintain standard high schools. This condition has led to a broader concep- tion of free high school privileges, so that these ques- tions are extremely vital: What are the different states now doing to meet this situation? V^at is the comparative effectiveness of present methods? What may be expected of the future in regard to ideals and methods of giving really free secondary school privi- leges? These are considered in Chapter VIII. 4s. High school finance laws seem frequently to have been enacted as supplementary legislation without proper regard for their connection with other laws or their effect upon the school system as a unit. There [1«] THE PROBLEMS STATED are special aid laws for normal training, for agricul- ture, for manual training and home economics, for libraries and laboratories. Special aid for general high school purposes is taken sometimes from the gen- eral school funds, sometimes from a special high school tax, sometimes from a special appropriation, etc. Sometimes these funds guarantee to the school the amount intended by the law; frequently they do not. What is the present status of sources and of forms of state high school aid? What effect upon the develop- ment of individual schools and of a unified public school system in a state do these sources and forms have.'' What conclusion may be drawn as to the forms of high school finance that should be developed.'' These prob- lems are discussed in Chapters IX and X. In this investigation two general aims have been kept in mind: (1) to interpret in the light of history and of present practices and tendencies, ideal modes of procedure, that are attainable, for the maintenance of high schools; (2) since these ideals cannot be attained quickly by most states, to analyze various modes of procedure now in use and to measure these modes by as objective criteria as can now be devised, in order to indicate those that are most effective. D. CBITEEIA I"OE EVALUATING LAWS The evaluation of a number of laws, such as this study undertakes, is a complex and difficult matter. In state finance laws two phases stand out above all others: (1) the degree to which these laws equalize the burdens and the opportunities of education among the communities of the state; and (2) the degree to which these laws stimulate the communities to improve their educational facilities. In neither case do we have def- [131 PROBLEMS IN STATE HIGH SCHOOL FINANCE inite and uniform criteria by which to measure the degree to which a law accomplishes its purpose. In equalizing school burdens, states have used a variety of methods for apportioning the state school funds — the number of pupils of school age in the community, the average daily attendance, the number of teachers, etc. While it has been clearly shown that some of these methods are superior to others, none have been accepted as a true measure of need.^^ The writer has, therefore, adopted as a standard by which to measure both the equalizing and the stimulating value of a law two factors that seem to be more fundamental in get- ting at the elements in the situation than have the factors ordinarily employed, and more constant in giving a uniform comparison under different condi- tions. J One of these factors is the cost of maintaining schools. If the schools in one community cost $5000 and those in another cost $8000, the second community will, other conditions being equal, find school support the more burdensome. The second factor employed is the wealth of the community. It is obvious that, other conditions being equal, the community with a wealth of $1,000,000 will not need to give such a large per- centage of its wealth for the support of schools as will the community with a wealth of only $500,000. As a matter of fact, however, we know that conditions are not equal ; that there are great variations in both cost of schools and in wealth among the different communi- ties of a state. However, by combining these two fac- tors we may secure an index (the tax rate) of the ss Cubberley, EUwood P., School Fimds and Their Apportion- ment. See especially pages 250-253. [14] THE PROBLEMS STATED energy expended in any community or number of com- munities. But there are difficulties in applying such a standard to the evaluation of finance laws. In the first place, we must define the conditions before we can be certain that the tax rate is a real index of the energy two communities are expending for schools. Two towns may each have a school tax of 2S mills, but in one town there may be only a mediocre elementary school with a single high school teacher doing two years of work, while in the other there is a superior elementary school and an accredited high school with three teachers and proper library and laboratory equipment. In order to get a basis for accurate comparison in using the two factors selected as criteria, the first must be modified to say that it shall be not the cost of maintaining schools but the cost of maintaining such schools as win just satisfy the minimum standards of the state in regard to building, equipment, library, grounds, number and qualification of teachers, working hours, or whatever the state may deem desirable. By doing this we have a definite basis for comparing costs. While practically all states have set more or less definite standards for high schools, we seldom find a statement of costs for maintaining schools of minimum standard. Hence in this study it has been necessary, in comparing schools, to take those belonging to the same class or those having about the same number of teachers, and to consider that these are of approxi- mately the same standard. In using the second factor — the wealth of the com- munity — there is another difficulty. This is the fact that at present in many states property valuations are [15] PROBLEMS IN STATE HIGH SCHOOL FINANCE not equalized among the various sections. In one com- munity property may be assessed at its real value; in another at a rate considerably below its real value. In spite of this difficulty we have adopted it as a factor in evaluating high school finance laws because we be- lieve that ultimately to make this a just and accurate factor in measuring school needs and effort is a realiz- able and necessary ideal. (1) In making compari- sons of what their communities are doing for any public work, people frequently, perhaps generally, use the tax rate as the basis for comparison, indicating how funda- mental the tax rate is considered. (2) In some states valuations are known to be fairly well equalized; in nearly all, if not all, much thought is being given to the matter. While absolute equalization may never be reached, it is reasonably certain that the states will succeed in time in putting on a comparable basis of valuation the property in different sections. (3) The increasing importance of state taxes, due to the multi- plication of the activities for which the state is assum- ing responsibility, will be an ever present stimulus to state equalization boards to do their work in such a way that each community of the state will contribute its just share. (4) An analysis of school finance laws shows a groping toward a method of measuring need and effort that will be more fundamental and more con- stant than the methods usually employed. In fact, in several states the property valuation is an important factor in the measures now used, and it is probably not without significance that these are, with one excep- tion, among the very newest of the high school finance laws. While these two factors of cost and wealth have been used in this study as criteria for a general evaluation [16] THE PROBLEMS STATED of such laws, it is not intended to convey the idea that every statute which does not use these factors should be condemned. It is quite possible that some of the better laws work more satisfactorily and equitably for present conditions than would laws using these two fac- tors. Therefore, tables given, particularly in Chapter IV, are intended to show existing inequalities under present conditions of costs and valuations rather than to suggest a wholesale condemnation of the laws them- selves. That these factors assist one in making a more accurate estimate of the present situation and a more reliable forecast of future developments than do the factors that have ordinarily been used will be demon- strated from time to time. CHAPTER TWO SuppoET OF Secondary Education without Special State Aid a. geneeal methods of high school suppoet AN analysis of the various means now employed for financing secondary education shows that there are five general methods ^ in use: (1) dependence en- tirely on local funds; (2) dependence on local funds supplemented by participation in the general school funds of the state after they are distributed to the various local units; (3) dependence on local and gen- eral state funds supplemented by special state aid for general high school purposes; (4) dependence on any of the preceding sources supplemented by participation in county school funds, either general or special; and (5) dependence on any of the preceding sources sup- plemented by special state aid for such specific high school purposes as free tuition, libraries, and manual training, agricultural, or normal training courses. This chapter will consider the first two of these gen- eral methods. B. THE GENERAL SCHOOL FUNDS The general school revenues of the state are derived ^^rom three main sources: (1) permanent funds whose income only is used for schools; (2) state taxes; (3) state appropriations. The permanent funds have been 1 Throughout this study it should be remembered that these methods are not mutually exclusive. Laws relating to high school support are so lacking in uniformity that an analysis of the states into groups employing methods that are mutually exclusive would be impossible. However, this classification enables us to make an evaluation of the educational principles involved. [18] SUPPORT WITHOUT SPECIAL AID created by and supplemented from a variety of sources, the most important of which are: United States grants to the state of land and money ; state grants of land and money; fines; dog, liquor, and gambling licenses; escheats; gifts.^ The sources of these per- manent funds vary from state to state. The income likewise varies, ranging from nothing in Pennsylvania in 1912-13 to $2,555,257 in Texas in the same year.* School taxes are levied in all except a few states. The rate levied and the amount realized differs from state to state. Most states also make frequent appropria- tions for current support of schools. C. TWO GENEBAL METHODS COMPAKED As indicated by Table 1, in the last chapter, 23 states have special aid laws for general high school purposes. Of these 23 states there are a few in which the general state school funds may not be used for high schools, though in most of these states it is pos- sible to do so. Of the other 25 states there are, ac- cording to information at hand, 1 in which the general school funds are limited for use to the elementary schools; 1 in which the situation is doubtful; 1 about which we have no information; and 22 in which the community's share may be used for high school pur- poses also if the local school authorities so desire. In some of the states permitting the use of the general state school funds for high school purposes, high schools maintained by units of organization larger than the district may not participate in the state funds. 2 For a complete discussion see Swift, A History of PubUe Per- manent Common School Funds in the United States, 1795-1905, Chapters 3 and 4. s Report of U. S. Commissioner of Education, 1914, Vol. II, p. 17. [19] PROBLEMS IN STATE HIGH SCHOOL FINANCE Such, for example, is the case in the county high schools of Montana, Nevada, and Oklahoma, and in the town- ship high schools of Illinois.* In most, if not in all, cases this is due to the fact that state funds are dis- tributed to elementary school districts, so that if the money were given both to these districts and to the high school districts as composed of elementary school districts, such school units would receive twice the amount to which they would be entitled. Are high school burdens equalized when the local community is compelled to maintain its high school without assistance.'' Tables 2 and 3 answer this ques- tion for township high schools in Illinois. Table 2 gives information concerning certain high schools ac- credited to the North Central Association of Colleges and Secondary Schools, while Table 3 gives similar information concerning schools accredited to the Uni- versity of Illinois but not accredited to the North Cen- tral Association. In Table 9, the percentage of the average rate which different communities must levy to maintain standard schools varies from 78 to 169. In Table 3 it varies from 37 to 225. Table 24 School Rate per $100 Deviation from average rate Percentage of average rate Bloom J. Sterling Morgan . . De Kalb 1.00 1.00 .80 .77 1.27 1.49 .92 1.44 .69 .72 + .12 + .12 — .08 — .11 + .39 + .61 + .04 + .56 — .19 — .16 114 114 91 Deerfleld Joliet New Trier 88 144 169 La Salle-Peru Oak Park Pontiac Princeton 105 164 78 82 Average for all North Central township schools, .88. * From information given by the state departments pf education. [20] SUPPORT WITHOUT SPECIAL AID Table 3 5 School Rate per $100 Deviation from average rate Percentage of average rate AssuxuDtion .75 1.12 1.S0 .23 .46 .61 .40 1.50 1.25 1.05 + .13 + .50 + .88 — .39 — .17 — .01 — .22 + .88 + .63 + .43 121 Benton 181 Flora Georgetown Marion MUford Mt Pulaski 225 37 72 98 65 Palestine 225 202 169 Average for all township high schools not accredited to North Central, .62. The causes of such inequalities of tax burden for high schools are easily found. They may be classed as (1) conditions affecting the assessed valuation of the property upon which taxes are levied; and (2) con- ditions affecting the cost of maintaining minimum standard schools. In the first class will be found the following circum- stances: Property valuations differ among cities, vil- lages, and rural districts because of the amount of the property. Valuations vary, too, because of the com- mercial and civic advantages to be found in a larger place, and because these advantages attract persons of great wealth. Not only will the value of the prop- erty of a city, a village, and a rural district differ, but it will vary among units of the same class. Differ- ences among rural districts may be accounted for by variations due to differences in fertility of the soil, presence of timber and minerals, variable rainfall, pres- BFrom data given in University of Illinois Bulletin, No. 48, pages 21-23. The high schools in each tahle are considered by the high school visitor of the University of Illinois to be on about the same plane of efficiency as regards number and ability of teachers, equipment, number and effectiveness of curricula offered, etc. [21] PROBLEMS IN STATE HIGH SCHOOL FINANCE ence of corporate property such as railroads, and ac- cessibility of the market. It is evident, then, that the school burden will vary with the valuation of the prop- erty; the greater the valuation from which the cost of maintaining the schools is to be raised, the smaller will be the tax rate to raise a given amount and the lighter will be the burden.® In the second set of conditions — those affecting the cost of maintaining minimum standard schools — may be mentioned the number of pupils to be educated and the distribution of these pupils in the grades so that the number of teachers required will vary from place to place. It is evident that, in two towns or cities hav- ing approximately the same assessed valuation, the bur- den for schools will be very different if it costs more to maintain minimum standard schools in one than it does in the other. These are the chief causes for the inequalities in the school burden shown in the above tables. To equal- ize these burdens, some provision must be made so that the communities that are most able to maintain high schools may assist those that are less able to do so and yet should offer such advantages. This is done by providing funds belonging to or raised by all communi- ties, to be distributed to those that are in need of as- sistance. These funds may be township, county, or "A good discussion of this, with many illustrations, may be found in S8th Biennial Report of Superintendent of Public In- struction of Illinois, 1908-10, pages 493-499. The following is an illustration from this article: "In Morgan County last year one rate was below 95 cents; 14 were between 26 and SO cents; 26 be- tween 51 and 75 cents; 33 between 76 and $1.00; 18 between $1.01 and $1.25; 10 between $1.26 and $1.50; 4 between $1.51 and $1.75; 8 between $1.76 and $2.00; 2 between $2.01 and $3.25; and 1 be- tween $2.26 and $2.50. The average was 98 cents." [22] SUPPORT WITHOUT SPECIAL AID state ; the larger the unit for this purpose, the greater the chances for complete equalization. To depend entirely on local funds for the support of the high school does not, of course, provide for such equalization funds. Each community must provide its high school education entirely through its own efforts. While the states employing this method have equaliza- tion funds, these funds may not be used for the support of the high school, or at least of certain types of high schools. It is obvious that this method of financing secondary education works an injustice to those com- munities in which economic conditions are less favor- able than are the conditions in most communities. The citizen in the rural or village community is performing a service to his state of fully as great importance as is the man in the city. Yet, in spite of the fact that this rural citizen, through desire or force of circum- stances, lives under pioneer or semi-pioneer conditions (relatively speaking), he is compelled to forfeit educa- tional and other advantages or to secure them at an unusual sacrifice. This the state should neither require nor permit. In educational matters at least it should adopt some plan whereby an adequate training may be secured at a reasonable sacrifice. Is there an equalization of the high school burden when the local community is permitted to use a part of what it receives from the general state school funds for high school purposes? Table 4 gives data con- cerning the high school tax rate for certain districts in Montana maintaining accredited high schools. The data are for 1909—10, the latest year for which they are available. It will be seen that there are marked differences in the rates levied. Table 5 gives similar [23] PROBLEMS IN STATE HIGH SCHOOL FINANCE Table 4 7 School Tax rate (in mills) Deviation from average rate (in mills) Per cent of average tax Anaconda Billings Columbus Chinook Ft. Benton GlaSffOw 6 10 10 11 1.5 10 12 2.5 7.5 5 6 7.41 — 1.41 + 2.59 + 2.50 + 3.59 — 5.91 + 2.59 + 4.59 — 4.91 + .09 — 2.41 — 1.41 80.9 134.9 134.9 148.4 20.2 134.9 Great Falls 161.9 Havre Hamilton Pony Virginia City Average 33.7 101.1 67.6 80.9 information concerning self-imposed tax rates in or- dinary and consolidated districts in Colorado in 1913-14.. Why do we find such differences in rates when the general state funds may be used for the support of high schools.'' In the first place these state funds are too small to make complete equalization possible. In 191^13 only 19.03 per cent of the entire revenue for common schools in all states came from permanent funds, rents, and state taxes.^ It is quite obvious, then, that when, in general, more than four fifths of the school revenue is raised by the local community, the sum given by the state cannot offset all the great varia- tions in different communities, even though the entire sum received from the state were used for that purpose. At present, however, it is not true that all the state school funds are used for the purpose of equalizing school burdens among the various communities. This 7 llth Biennial Report of Superintendent of Public Instruction of Montana, 1910, page 25. 8 Report of Commissioner of Education, 1914, Vol. II, page 18. [24] SUPPORT WITHOUT SPECIAL AID ■3 «5 OD OD t> «0 m :- : :-- I-H »— 1 I-H o» • Ot • ■ . o I-H : : : « tn «5 .-' rH rt t- ■* M »o ■-(■-( ^ t- 03 0> Oi • CO 04 «3 CO 0« I- OT to 0> : ■-H CN 0< ■ «5 (S I CS >* 01 1-1 ts ■* 2 CO ^ O* W . . . . ,-1 o 5>> t- § g) 0^ d Oi '8 o" S r-4 55 1 '^ ^ 09 > X [26] PROBLEMS IN STATE HIGH SCHOOL FINANCE has been clearly shown by Cubberley.^" While some progress has been accomplished along this line since Cubberley's study was made, and while the desirability of using the state funds for this purpose has been more clearly recognized, most states still use factors for dis- tributing state aid that give a very unreliable index of the school needs of different communities. We must therefore admit that permission to use a part of the district's share of the state school funds for high school purposes does little to equalize better the burdens for secondary education than is the case in those states where such permission is denied. There is one respect, however, in which the use of the general state school funds for high schools is an advance over the method of throwing the entire burden upon the local unit, and that is that the high school is recognized as a part of the state school system. With this legal recognition may come more adequate support, better standards, a stronger feeling of the need for high school training, and other conditions that bring about a higher standard of secondary education for the state. Whether, in these days of the popularity of secondary school training, it has much effect may be questioned. That it did have an effect in the earlier days is reason- ably certain. For instance, Cubberley gives it as his opinion that the constitutional provision in California permitting the use of the state school funds for pri- mary and elementary schools only " helped materially to prevent the development of high schools in the state." " 10 Cubberley, Ellwood P., School Funds and Their Apportiorir ment. Teachers College Contributions to Education, No. 2. 11 Proceedings of the High School Conference, 191S, University of IlUnois Bulletin, Vol. X,' No. 19, page 11. [26] CHAPTER THREE Special State Aid for General High School Purposes a. necessity for such aid "C^ OUR educational demands have been instrumental ■■■ in causing certain states to set aside special funds for the assistance of high schools and in determining the nature of the funds thus provided: (1) A larger number of high schools has been needed to provide the more advanced training demanded by our increasingly complex social conditions. In order to encourage communities to develop these high schools, special as- sistance has frequently been necessary. (2) In some states a larger revenue from the state to be used for public schools has been desired. Special high school aid has been one way of giving this additional revenue. (3) There has been a demand on the part of educa- tional leaders that means for improving the quality of high school training be provided. Some state aid funds have, therefore, been used to secure better teachers, more equipment, and more satisfactory build- ings. (4) In some states it has been keenly felt, and in nearly all states having such funds it has been felt to some degree, that the states should aid different communities in different amounts according to the edu- cational needs or the educational efforts of these com- munities. It is not now possible to indicate to what extent these different demands have been influential in developing special state high school aid in any state or in modify- ing from time to time the laws governing the use of this aid. Doubtless there has been a shift of emphasis [27] PROBLEMS IN STATE HIGH SCHOOL FINANCE from state to state or from time to time within a single state according as conditions have changed. Facts from two states will illustrate all four de- mands. In a recent report the state superintendent of Missouri gives the following table : Table 6 i Average percent- age of mainte- nance spent on Elemen- tary schools Second- ary schools In 130 districts having first-class high schools. . In 56 districts having second-class high schools In 86 districts having third-class high schools In 359 districts having unclassified high schools 75.8 61.1 62.0 70.5 24.2 38.9 38.0 29.5 In explanation of the table the Report says: " Although the districts having second- and third-class high schools expend upon them a much larger per cent of the revenues of their cities than do the first-class high schools, yet they are unable to reach first rank. These towns cannot spend more money on their high schools without lessening the efficiency of the elementary work, which should not be done. The same condition prevails in the districts having unclassified high schools. There are over four hundred of the second- and third-class and unclassified high schools. Forty-eight of the fifty-six districts maintaining second- class high schools are now levying the constitutional limit for school purposes; sixty-four of the eighty-six districts maintaining third-class high schools are also levying the limit; and 150 of the two hundred and sixty-eight districts having unclassified high schools are levying the limit. " Thus a total of 262 districts are doing all that they can under our present laws and constitution. Occasionally one 1 64th Missouri Report of Public Schools, 19tS, pages 221, 222. [28] SPECIAL STATE AID of these hard-pressed districts ignores constitutional and statutory limits and levies illegal tax rates in order to main- tain its school. The boys and girls of these 262 towns are as worthy of high school training as the boys and girls of wealthier communities. They are certainly as deserving as the boys and girls of other states." Two reasons are then pointed out why the state should come to the assistance of these communities: (1) Communities that maintain high schools of a grade lower than first furnish the secondary school training to the majority of country boys and girls, who, as a consequence, are deprived of the best sort of high school facilities; (2) the state did not realize the need for secondary education when the present constitu- tional tax limits were set. Data given in a recent Idaho Report emphasize the need of a better distribution of the burden for school support. The following table shows some striking differences in valuations of districts maintaining high schools : Table 7 2 Average Highest Lowest Four-year schools — With over 30 teachers (1 ) $25,992,676 With 7 to 20 teachers (13) . . 4,167,467 $8,331,890 $2,200,000 With 4 to 6 teachers (21) ... . 1,450,839 2,738,073 432,255 With 3 teachers or less (25) . 784,986 2,377,245 227,863 Three-year schools (14) 557,304 1,577,529 164,147 Two-year schools (11) 518,190 1,051,879 239,646 One-year schools (17) 447,551 1,012,273 130,273 All schools reported (102) 1,484,046 25,992,676 130,273 2 1st Biennial Report of State Board of Education, Idaho, 191S- H, page 42. [29] PROBLEMS IN STATE HIGH SCHOOL FINANCE Continuing, the same section of the Report says : " Another comparison may be made, that is of districts with less than $500,000 valuation; of such districts the fol- lowing number support high schools : Four-year schools 11 Three-year schools 7 Two-year schools 7 One-year schools 11 Total , 36 Yet many districts with more than this valuation maintain no high school work ; for example, in Canyon County, 5 ; in Bannock County, 6; in Bear Lake, 4; in Clearwater, 10. This is another example of the failure of the present sys- tem to distribute the burden of school support properly. This can be remedied largely by larger county and state school support." B. EXPLANATION OF TERMS The term " special state aid for high schools " is used ordinarily to refer to any aid given by the state specifically for high school purposes. The term " special " indicates that this aid is differentiated from those general or regular state school funds raised by the state for general school purposes. The term " for high schools " is, of course, to distinguish this assist- ance from the special aid granted in some states for elementary schools. According to current usage, special state aid for high schools may mean any or all of four different kinds of aid: that granted for (1) general high school purposes; (2) high school libraries and laboratories; (3) the extension of free high school privileges to pupils not residing in a high school district; (4) such special high school courses as agriculture, normal training and manual training. Now, it is evident that [30] SPECIAL STATE AID each of these four forms of aid has a very different purpose, so that the bare statement that a state has special state aid for high schools may be misleading. In view, then, of the various meanings that may be given to the term, it is desirable that some differentia- tion be made. The simplest method that will make the distinctions clear will be the best. This study will, therefore, differentiate the terms on the basis of the purpose for which the aid is given. " Special state aid for general high schdol purposes " or merely " special state aid for high schools " will refer to the first type of aid — that given for general high school purposes. " Special state aid for high school libraries and labora- tories," " for normal training in high schools," " for free high school tuition," " for agricultural courses," etc., will refer each to the kind of aid used for the purpose expressed. C. STATUS OF THIS METHOD Up to the end of the legislative sessions of 1915 and 1916, 23 states had adopted laws for special state aid for general high school purposes. The more impor- tant features of these laws are given in the following brief statements: Alabama $3000 for each county high school when certain conditions in regard to building, grounds, and equipment are met.' California $15 is levied for each high school pupil in average daily attendance. Two thirds of the total revenue for the state is distributed on the basis of average daily attendance. The other one third is divided equally among the approved 8 General School Laws of Alabama, 1915, section 1862. [31] PROBLEMS IN STATE HIGH SCHOOL FINANCE high schools of the state. This latter basis gave about $871 to each school in 1914..* Idaho S per cent of the entire state and county school fund, or as much of this as is needed, is set aside for rural high schools, not more than $200 being given for each teacher in such high schools.' Louisiana $50,000 appropriated for 1916-17 to be apportioned equally among the approved high schools.^ Maine Two thirds of the amount spent for in- struction, but not over $500 to each school. No high school is to be aided unless the appropriation and expendi- ture of the town for such school " has been exclusive of the amounts required by law for common school purposes." ' Maryland To each high school of the first grade $600 for the principal, $300 for each of the first three assistants in the high school, $400 for each of two special teachers giving at least two fifths of their time to the high school, and $100 for each additional grade teacher, but not more than $2500 in all. To each school of the second class, $600 for the principal, $400 for one assistant in the ^School Law of California, 1915, sections 1760-1763. The amount per school is estimated from data given on pages 9 and 42 of California Biennial School Report, I9IS-I4. 5 School Laws of Idaho, 1915, section 67. « Public School Laws of Louisiana, 1916, page 140, and B«- quirements for State Approval of Louisiana High Schools, 191S, page 7. T Laws of Maine Relating to Public Schools, 1915, sections 72, 74. [32 J SPECIAL STATE AID high school, $400 for an instructor of special subjects.* Massachusetts $500 for each town of less than 500 fam- ilies maintaining an approved high school, providing that the average valu- ation per pupil of the town is not above the average for the state.* Minnesota $1800 for each approved high school; $250 for each high school teacher in a graded school. " Districts whose tax levy for maintenance of schools exceeds 20 mills in any year may receive in ad- dition to other aid one third of the amount raised in excess of that received from the 20-milI levy, with a maximum of $2500 to each high school . . ." " Missouri $800 to high schools in districts with a valuation under $300,000 ; $600 if valu- ation is $300,000 and less than $400,- 000; $400 if valuation is $400,000 and less than $600,000 ; $200 if valuation is $600,000 or more ; but no school is to be aided unless it is levying the maximum rate for maintenance (100 cents) pro- vided by law. No school may receive more than half the amount of teachers' salaries the previous year, and a school receiving any other form of special high school aid may not receive any from this fund. Amount for this purpose cannot be over 5 per cent of total school fund.*^ 8 Public School Laws of Maryland, 1916, section 128. 9 Revised Laws Relating to Public Instruction of Massachusetts, 1915, pages 17, 18. 10 Laws of Minnesota Relating to the Public School System, 1915, sections 190, 191, 196. 11 Revised School Laws of Missouri, 191S, pages 94-96. [33] PROBLEMS IN STATE HIGH SCHOOL FINANCE New Jersey $600 for each supervising principal or city superintendent of schools ; $500 for each assistant supervisor and assistant superintendent; $400 for each teacher in a four-year school; $300 for each teacher in a three-year school ; $200 for each teacher in a high school depart- ment of less than three years; $80 for each temporary teacher employed for at least four months. The remainder of the school fund to be distributed to the different districts on the basis of total days' attendance of pupils.^^ New York $100 for each high school, and, after appropriations are made for books and apparatus and tuition, the remainder of the " Literature Fund " is distributed on the basis of attendance.^^ North Carolina $200-$600 for each high school, dis- tributed according to : ( 1 ) average daily attendance over 20; (2) number of fuU- time teachers employed; (3) grade and character of work done. Local commun- ity and county must each contribute an amount equal to that granted by state. Except in certain cases towns with over 1200 population are not aided.^* North Dakota $800 for each four-year, $500 for each three-year, $300 for each two-year high school; $200 for each school doing one year of high school work where two or more teachers are employed.^^ 12 New Jersey School Law, 1914, section 223. 13 Education Law of New York, 1914, paragraph 493. 1* Public School Law of North Carolina, 1915, pages S0-S3. 15 General School Laws of North Dakota, 1916, section 1433. [34] SPECIAL STATE AID Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina A sum not exceeding $800 for each first- class, $600 for each second-class, and $400 for each third-class high school.^" $25 for each pupil in average daily at- tendance for the first 25 pupils; $15 for each pupil in average daily attendance for the second 25 pupils.^' Districts having at least two high school teachers, an enrollment of not less than 25 high school pupils, and levying a special tax of not less than 4 mills are entitled to assistance. Not more than $500 may be given a high school with two teachers, not more than- $600 to one with three teachers, not more than $700 to one with four or more teachers. Ad- ditional appropriations may be made for the attendance of high school pupils from outside the high school territory and for meritorious work in agriculture, manual training, and domestic science.^' County high schools are assisted in pro- portion to the amount of money received from other sources and expended an- nually for the payment of teachers' sal- aries and incidentals, but not more than one third of the amount received from other sources and expended for main- tenance. No county may receive more than one fiftieth of the whole amount. If money remains in the high school fund after the maximum allowed each '^« School Laws of Pennsylvania, 1915, section 1713. IT Laws of Rhode Island Relating to Education, 1910, pages 97, 98. 18 General School Law of South Carolina, 1916, sections 1813d- 1812i. [351 Tennessee PROBLEMS IN STATE HIGH SCHOOL FINANCE Utah school has been distributed, high schools may receive additional aid for industrial work. If a county levies the maximum tax allowed by law, and is unable to raise $2000, enough may be given by the state to insure a fund of $2000." State high school tax of two tenths of 1 mill distributed according to attend- Vermont Towns having a grand list of $5000 or less receive $20 per pupil per school year; more than $5000 and not more than $7000, $15 per pupil; $7000 and not more than $10,000, $10 per pupil; more than $10,000 and not more than $15,000, $5; more than $15,000, no re- bate.=i Virginia $250-$400 for each high school, accord- ing to the amount raised from local sources. ^^ Washington $100 for each grade above the grammar grades having an average daily attend- ance of at least four pupils, and one and one half times the apportionment per pupil from regular school funds.^^ West Virginia $800 for each first-class, $600 for each second-class, $400 for each third-class high school.^* 19 Public School Laws of Tennessee, WIS, pages 72-74. 20 School Law of Utah, WIS, pages 41-44. 21 Vermont School Laws, WIS, page 42. The term " grand list " means 1 per cent of the entire property list, plus a poll list of $2 per poll. 22 Virginia School Laws, WIS, section 94. 23 Code of Public Instruction of Washington, WIS, sections 249, 2S2. 24 School Law of West Virginia, WIS, page 26. [36] SPECIAL STATE AID Wisconsin One half cost of instruction, over and above the amount required by law to be expended for common school purposes, not to exceed $500 to a district high school; $900 to a town or union high school with a principal and one assist- ant; $1200 to a town or union high school with a principal and two assist- ants; $1500 to a town or union high school with a principal and three or more assistants.^^ High schools of the state, not exceeding 15 in number, may establish winter terms equal in length to one half the length of the regular course. Two thirds of the salaries for this teach- ing is paid by the state from a special appropriation made for that purpose.^* D. A GENERAL EVALUATION Special state aid for general high school purposes has unquestionably done much to extend and improve the facilities for secondary school training in those states where it has been employed. This opinion has been expressed time and again by those officials in a position to know.^^ When, however, we attempt to show in quantitative terms the extent to which develop- 25 Law/ of Wisconsin Relating to Common Schools, 1915, section 496. 26 Ihid., section 494 a. 27 See for example, Biennial Report of State Superintendent of Schools, West Virginia, 191Z-14, page 12; SM Biennial Report of State Superintendent of Public Instruction, Arkansas, 1911-13, pages 108-110; Biennial Report of State Superintendent of Pub- lic Instruction, Louisiana, 1909-11, page 54; Uth Annual Report of State Superintendent of Education, South Carolina, 1912, page 24; Annual Report, New York Education Department, 1915, pages 247-249. According to one author the discontinuance of high school aid in Maine for one year, 1879, led to a discontinuance of [37] PROBLEMS IN STATE HIGH SCHOOL FINANCE ment has been due to state aid, we find it almost im- possible to do so. High schools have increased in number in every state at a remarkable rate, and the quality of the work everywhere has been so greatly im- proved that it is difficult to determine just how much of this development has been due to state aid and how much to the insistence of the people on a better grade of secondary school. More than either of the methods already presented, the plan of supporting secondary education by local and general school funds supplemented by special state aid for general school purposes has made the state realize the desirability and the necessity of extending high school privileges. When the locality is com- pelled to bear the whole burden of the high school while assistance is given by the state for elementary educa- tion, the entire state is led to feel that a high school education is more or less of a luxury, with the result that it will, in general, be provided only by those com- munities that can do so without much sacrifice. Much the same can be said of the method of permitting the use of a part of the general state funds for high school purposes. In either case this high school training is furnished only by an unusual effort on the part of the locality in raising the funds, or by making a poorer elementary school through diverting funds from it to the high school. But, when the state adopts the policy of setting aside a certain part of the state revenue for the development of high schools, then the people of the state are made to realize that a high school education is desirable, and by a proper emphasis of this policy nearly every high school that had been established in the rural commnnities. See Jones, State Aid to Secondary Schools, page 109. [381 SPECIAL STATE AID they may be made to realize that such an education is necessary. Another advantage in this method is that it has tended to increase the effort of the state for school purposes. When special state aid for general high school purposes has been adopted, it has generally been in addition to, and not at the expense of, the gen- eral state school funds. That is, whatever amount is appropriated for high schools is taken from the general revenues of the state and not from those revenues that make the general state school funds. There are, how- ever, some exceptions to this which will be discussed in a later chapter. Again, this method, better than either of the others, enables the state to set definite minimum standards for schools. That a few states have developed fairly defi- nite standards without this method of support, or that a few states using it have not developed such standards, does not disprove the general truth of the statement. In states where the feeling is strong for local control of education it might be disputed whether a state which did not provide, as a state, for its schools would have a legal right to require those schools to reach a mini- mum standard. Even had it the legal right to do so, it might be impossible for the state to enforce such standards. As will be shown in Chapter VI, the state requirements for receiving aid from the general school fund have been so low that little has been accomplished in the matter of setting standards, and it is doubtful if the states could now retrieve the fault by means of the regular state school funds as they are now ap- portioned. When, however, the state adopts a new form of financial assistance, such as special state aid for general high school purposes, especially if the as- [39] PROBLEMS IN STATE HIGH SCHOOL FINANCE sistance be large, definite standards can easily be set. A state giving such aid or contemplating doing so should recognize that the earlier the setting of such standards is begun the less difficulty will it encounter in public opinion. Not only will special state aid for general high school purposes aid in developing high school stand- ards, but it will react to the standardizing of elemen- tary education. In order that the high school may reach a required standard, it must be based upon a standard elementary school. Hence, the standardiz- ing of the high school has naturally led, in many states, to a more or less definite standardizing of the elementary school. [40] CHAPTER FOUR Special State Aid fob. Geneeal High Schooi. Purposes (Continued) SOME of the states that first adopted a form of special state assistance for general high school purposes apparently had in mind the desirability of aiding different communities according to their edu- cational needs.* Thus, the first high school aid law in Maine, 1873, made much the same provision which is now in existence, that a town maintaining a high school " shall be entitled to receive from the state one half the amount actually expended for instruction in said school, not however exceeding $500 from the state to any one town; provided, that no town shall be entitled to such state aid unless the appropriation and expendi- ture for such school on the part of said town has been exclusive of the amounts required by law to be ex- pended for common purposes." ^ A somewhat similar law was passed in Wisconsin in ISTS.^ Early in the nineteenth century Massachusetts required towns hav- ing a population of 500 families or householders to provide secondary school privileges, a law which has in general been in force since that time.* In 1895 towns were permitted to vote money for the payment of the tuition of high school pupils in academies, and the state agreed to reimburse towns of less than $500,- 000 valuation for aU amounts expended by them for 1 This term means the relative, not the actual, needs of the com- munity. See page 143. 2 Lawi of Maine, 187S, Chapter 124. ^Laws of WifconHn, 1875, C!hapter 323. •* Jones, David Rhys, State Aid to Secondary Schoolt, pages 11^114; 73. This law followed a similar one dating back to 1647. [41] PROBLEMS IN STATE HIGH SCHOOL FINANCE tuition in and transportation to approved high schools. In 1902 a town having a per-pupil valuation not higher than the per-pupil valuation for the entire state was entitled to $300 a year to assist in maintaining an accredited high school. More detailed provision was also made for granting state assistance for the pay- ment of tuition on the basis of the valuation of the community. Other states seem not to have seen so clearly the desirability of aiding according to need. In 1878 Minnesota gave each approved high school $400.^ North Dakota, in 1899, gave $175 to each four-year, $140 to each three-year, and $100 to each two-year high school.^ In 1895 Pennsylvania gave $800, $600, and $400 to each of three classes of high schools main- tained by joint districts, townships, or joint town- ships.^ In the cases of North Dakota and Pennsyl- vania some recognition of educational need was made, since first-class schools were given more than schools of lower classes, but none of the three states had a requirement concerning the effort a community must make before receiving this assistance. Twenty-three states now (1916) have special state aid for general high school purposes. In these states various degrees of attention have been given to the problem of assisting according to educational need, and, where serious attention has been given to it, va- rious methods have been employed in attempting to solve the problem. It will, therefore, be worth while to eval- uate, by as objective and accurate standards as can be B Jones, pages 132-134. «8th Annual Report of Inspector of High Schools, 1915, page 7 Snyder, Edwin R., The Legal Status of Rural High Schools in the United States, page 58. [42] SPECIAL STATE AID devised at this time, the different types of method now used. So far as possible the specific provisions found in different types of laws wiU also be evaluated. In this chapter, only those specific provisions will be con- sidered that bear upon the question of the equalization of educational burdens, leaving to later chapters the discussion of the effect of types of laws and of specific provisions of those laws upon the development of an effective secondary school system in a state. A. THE FIRST STEP IN EaUALIZATION If a state wishes to make certain that the small sum which it feels able to set aside for high school purposes is used to the best advantage in aiding communities, that state must first determine the basis upon which it will make the distinction between schools that it should aid and those it should not aid. Five ways are now employed for making this distinction: (1) The 500-fainily basis; (2) the population basis; (3) the grand-list basis; (4) the average-valuation-per-pupil basis; (5) the tax-rate basis. 1. The ^OO-F amity Basis This method has, with the exception of a few years, been employed in Massachusetts since 1827 — three quarters of a century before special high school aid was granted — for the purpose of determining the towns that must maintain secondary schools. In modified form the law dates back as early as 1647.* The present law requires each town of 500 or more 8 For a brief statement of the history of this law see Report of Board of Edtuiation of Massachtuetti, 1897-8, pages 366-368. [43] PROBLEMS IN STATE HIGH SCHOOL FINANCE families or householders to maintain a four-year high school without special assistance from the state.® Does the 500-family basis permit many towns not in need of assistance, compared with all towns in the state, to receive aid? In 1913-14, 47 towns received state aid. In that year the rate raised by local tax- ation on the total state valuation and expended for the support of public schools was $4.54 per $1000.^"' Of the 47 towns receiving aid all but 3, Lunenburg ($4.43), Medfield ($2.96), and Tisbury ($3.36), had a rate higher than the state rate ^^ dnd should there- fore be entitled to assistance. One must conclude, therefore, that the law worked fairly well in Massachu- 'setts in 1913-14 so far as it concerned the aiding only of towns relatively in need. Does the law exclude many towns relatively in need of assistance.'' Of the 47 towns receiving aid none had, in 1913-14, over 6% teachers ; all but S had between 2 and 4 teachers. ^^ There were, in the same year, 23 towns of 500 or more families having from 2 to 4 teachers. Of these 23 towns only 2, Marshfield ($3.53) and Duxbury ($2.65), had a rate below the state rate of $4.54,^^ a situation which indicates that the 500-family basis did eliminate many towns that were entitled to assistance. Table 8 is of interest in this connection. 9 Revised Laws Relating to Public Instruction, Massachusetts, 1915, page IS. 10 78th Annual Report of Board of Education, Massachusetts, 1913-14, page 154. 11 Ibid., pages 148 ; cix-cxii. ^^Ibid., pages xviii-xcix. A part-time teacher is arbitrarily counted as a half-time teacher. ^s Ibid., pages xxxviii-xcvii; cix-cxii. [44] SPECIAL STATE AID 3 V 01 «D ■* « ,-( Q» b- i-( ^ cc •* (S . Pi a> -H OS cc us * • o'S Sii +J i* 4-> 6 « "S- bo.& °'S OiOi t^ fc- 1-1 to t- us to ^ to us 00 ^ us a u *■ ^ t- t- IH «J QD rH us OS CO t- CO OS OS 01 •3 o OQ W CO 05 t- to CD fc- i-l t^ <© §5SS s s s r°, J= rs i-l i-H 1-1 e< CS (S <5« C5« o» S *" O^ ee- •a 4J ■^ o 2 1^ ^2 . . . .... o-a ; I I ' : i a 1 1 = C ^i t « 1 j a '31 fe>,Sti llll hO aj g 0, : • :-§ S X a! 5 « W «5 CO t- to « (D Ol CO OS CO •* t-' CO ^' » w* us »> to l> CS l> r-1 la ^1 ■a 0) O'S (N -l t- CO us 00 S^ ■« ^ « S §0b-0 t- -.*< CD OD rt CO CO us OS us -^#1 CO CD to r-i Ot CD S oa « -$ X 10 CO CD t7- CO «5 CO b- ■* to O* i-H 04 0* CO G4 M J^J= « rt M rH rt rt & !?;& Sv%^ H -g >.5 B g fi S tJ C8 2 si^5« 2 1 1 < 5§l 1 < 1 "i B S 111 OhJa t te < il 3 c u II u a1 OS'S 8*" i.s §1 8 5 ■&5 V •« o as 05 i [45] PROBLEMS IN STATE HIGH SCHOOL FINANCE The parallel columns give information concerning towns receiving assistance and towns not receiving as- sistance because they had over 500 families. The towns are grouped into those having 9, teachers, 3 teachers, and 4 teachers, so that the comparison may be as accurate as possible. Except in the 4-teacher group one fails to see why those in the first column were any more entitled to aid than those in the second column. This is true whether one compares costs and rates in individual schools or the averages for the dif- ferent groups. Probably it would be true that, as the comparison of schools with a larger number of teachers is continued, those having over 500 families would be found to be in less need of state assistance. Though the available facts show that the 500-fam- ily method does not permit many towns to receive aid that are not entitled to it, the fact that there are so many excluded by this law that are entitled to it would indicate that the method is not a completely satisfac- tory one. An analysis of the 500-family basis of elim- inating schools fails to reveal any reason for believing that it should work with justice in any except a very general way. The notion leading to the enactment of the law probably was that a town with 500 families, being larger than many towns in the state, should have more wealth with which to maintain a secondary school. In general it is true that the cities have the most wealth and the finest schools in the state, and yet levy rates for schools that are comparatively low.^® Boston, for instance, found it necessary in 1912-13 to levy a rate of only $3.45 to maintain its splendid school system. 16 Examine the tax rates for cities given in tlie Massachusetts report cited, page cxv, and compare these rates with those of towns given in the following pages. [46] SPECIAL STATE AID It does not follow, however, that one can select an arbi- "^ trary number of families and expect this to be a correct -^ index of the educational needs of a community. Es-' pecially does this become true as conditions demand more and more a refinement of methods for determining need. 2. The Population Basis This method is similar to the family basis, except that here every person is counted instead of counting only the number of families. North Carolina does not permit towns of more than 1200 inhabitants to benefit by the high school aid act unless the high school in such a town has been selected by the County Board of Education to provide free tuition to pupils of high school age and to public teachers of the county, and unless such arrangement has been approved by the State Board of Education.^® In 1913-14 there were 83 high schools excluded on the basis of population; 6 others would have been excluded except that they were affording free tuition to the counties in which they are located. There were 209 rural high schools receiv- ing aid.^^ Until 1916 the South Carolina high school aid law set the population limit for towns receiving assistance at 2500.^® In addition to this a special tax of at least 2 mills had to be levied. Now there is no population restriction, and a special tax of at least 4 mills must be levied.^* Although there are no data available by which the 18 Public School Law of North Carolina, 1916, page 51, section 6. 17 7th Annual Report of State Inspector of High Schools, 1914, pages 4;2-48, 49, S3, S3. 18 General School Law of South Carolina, 191$, section 182S. 19 General School Law of South Carolina, 1916, sections 1812o- 1812J. [47] PROBLEMS IN STATE HIGH SCHOOL FINANCE effectiveness of the population basis in eliminating towns not in relative need may be measured, it is likely that the results are not much more fair than they have been shown to be in Massachusetts under the 500-fam- y ily basis. The number of people is no real index of ' the school costs in a community or of the ability of 'the community to pay those costs. ^^ 3. The Grand-List Basis This is employed in Vermont. Under this law, which was adopted in 1915, towns with a grand list of more than $13,000 receive no aid from the state, while towns with a smaller grand list receive assistance according , to the size of the grand list. This grand list, being 1 per cent of the entire property list plus a poll list of $2.00 per poll, is virtually the property valuation of a ' community. In 1915, 25 of the 285 towns had a grand list over $15,000.^1 Obviously the property valuation of a town would, in general, be a more reliable index of the needs of that town for high school purposes than would be its popu- / lation or the number of its families. But, while the valuation gives us a definite notion of the ability of a ' community to maintain schools, it gives no idea of what ^ it costs to maintain minimum standard schools. That " the cost of these schools might legitimately differ in 20 In his 1909-10 report, pages 21-23, the high school inspector of South Carolina arraigned most severely the population limit. He presents a table showing that, in 18 towns studied, $80,917.84 or 41 per cent of the 3-milI constitutional levy went to support schools outside these towns, and yet the communities could not share in the high school appropriation merely because they had a population of more than 2500. 21 Vermont School Report, 1915, pages 218, 2S2, 286, 320, 353, 382, 412, 438, 470, 504, 542, 580, 614. [48] SPECIAL STATE AID different places when all are held to the same standard' will be conceded; that the cost does actually differ under present conditions may be seen by turning to page 81 and comparing the costs in Missouri communi- ties having approximately the same valuation. 4;. The Valuation-per-Pupil Basis This method, used in Massachusetts in connection with the 500-family basis, is a fourth basis employed for eliminating towns not in relative need. By this law all towns of less than 500 families with a valuation per pupil above that of the average for the state ($8841 in 1913-14() are excluded from sharing in the special aid for high schools. In 1913-14 there were 15 such towns. Of these only 1, Brewster ($4.74), had a rate above the state rate. In general the rates for these towns are low, the average being $3.22, the lowest $1.03, and the high- est $4.74.^* All these towns, with one exception, main- tain standard high schools, as judged by the require- ments for teachers adopted by the State Board of Edu- cation in 1915 for high schools in towns belonging to superintendency unions. It would appear, then, that elimination on this basis worked with considerable jus-' tice in Massachusetts in 1913-14, so far as it con- cerned refusing aid to towns of less than 500 families having a lower rate than the state average. It is of interest to know how the valuation-per-pupil basis would work if there were no 500-family restric- tion in Massachusetts. Of the 23 towns of more than 500 families having from 2 to 4 teachers, we find that in 1913-14 only 3 had a per-pupil valuation above 22 78th Annual Report of Board of Education, Massachusetts, 1913-14, pages 155; cix-cxii. [491 PROBLEMS IN STATE HIGH SCHOOL FINANCE the state average, — Marshfield ($11,815), Wayland ($9091), and Duxbury ($16,518). The per-pupil valuations of the other 20 towns ranged as follows: $2000-$2999, 1; $3000-$3999, 5; $4000-$4999, 7; $5000-$5999, 5; $6000-$6999, 1.^* These figures in- " dicate that many of the towns shown on page 45 to be . relatively in need of assistance would not have been ex- ■^ eluded on the per-pupil-valuation basis as they were ■' on the 500-family basis. Of the 47 towns receiving state aid all have, of course, a per-pupil valuation be- low that of the state average, and, since it was shown on page 44 that most of these were relatively in need of assistance, the per-pupil-valuation basis would work as well with them as would the 500-family basis. If we compare the rates and the per-pupil valuations of the 33 cities, the 70 towns with more than 5000 popu- lation, and the 250 towns with less than 5000 popula- tion for the year 1912-13, a year for which the per- pupil valuations are given, we get the table, shown on the opposite page.^* If the results of this table are combined, we find that in about 88 per cent of the cases a per-pupil valuation above the state average means a rate below the state rate or that a per-pupil valuation below the state average means a rate above the state rate; while in only about 12 per cent of the cases does a per-pupil valuation above the state average mean a rate above the state rate or a per-pupil valuation below the state average mean a rate below the state rate. This, in short, means that while the per-pupil valuation is not an ab- 23 Ibid., pages xxxviii-xcvii. The per-pupil valuations are com- puted from the average membership and valuation data given in these tables. ^*Ihid., pages cxiv-cxlix. [60] SPECIAL STATE AID Table 9 I. 33 cities A. Having a per-pupil valuation above the state average and a rate below the state rate B. Having a per-pupil valuation above the state average and a rate above the state rate 6 3 Percentage of the 33- cities 18.3 6.1 C. Having a per-pupil valuation below the state average and a rate above the state rate 75.7 D. Having a per-pupil valuation below the state average and a rate below the state rate II. 70 Towns of over SOOO population A. Having a, per-pupil valuation above the state average and a rate below the state rate 7 1 59 3 Percentage of the 70 towns 10.0 B. Having a per-pupil valuation above the state average and a rate above the state rate C. Having a per-pupil valuation below the state average and a rate above 1.4 84.3 D. Having a per-pupil valuation below the state average and a rate below 4.3 III. 3S0 towns of less than 500 population A. Having a per-pupil valuation above the state average and a rate below the state rate B. Having a per-pupil valuation above the state average and a rate above 44 4 148 53 1 Percentage of the 250 towns 17.6 1.6 C. Having a per-pupil valuation below the state average and a. rate above the statf* rate 593 D. Having a per-pupil valuation below the state average and a rate below 21.2 E. Having a per-pupil valuation below the state average and a rate the .4 [51] PROBLEMS IN STATE HIGH SCHOOL FINANCE solute indication of whether a town should or should not be eliminated from participation in state aid, in 88 cases out of 100 it is a correct index in Massachu- setts. In fact, it would appear from the data con- cerning rates and per-pupil valuations in towns of more than 500 families having from 3 to 4 teachers 'that elimination from state aid would be much fairer if the 500-f amily limit did not exist in Massachusetts ■ and the elimination were made entirely on the basis of " the valuation per pupil. If we remember that the two fundamental factors in estimating the relative need of a community are (1) the cost of maintaining minimum standard schools and (2) the wealth against which this cost is to be assessed, we can understand why the per-pupil valuation is a more reliable index of need than any of the three J methods previously discussed. Ihe per-pupil valua- " tion gives some indication of the wealth back of each 'pupil, thus taking into account something of both the "* fundamental factors in determining need. On the other hand, neither the 500-family basis nor the popu- lation basis gives any reliable indication of the wealth in the community or of the cost of maintaining mini- mum standard schools. The grand-list basis gives an index of the wealth of the community but not of the cost of maintaining minimum standard schools. 5. The Tax-Rate Basis This method is employed in 5 states, though in some of these the law has no practical effect. In Maine the law states that " no town shall receive state aid for the maintenance of a free high school unless its appro- priation and expenditure for such school has been ex- clusive of the amounts required by law for common [52] SPECIAL STATE AID school purposes." ^^ The Wisconsin law says that districts maintaining high schools " shall be entitled to receive from the general fund of the state annually one half of the amount actually expended for instruction in its high school during such year over and above the amount required by law to be expended for common school purposes . . ." ^ The South Carolina high school statute of 1907 provided that " no aid shall be given any high school unless the district or districts composing the high school territory are levying or shall levy as much as 2 miUs special tax, which may be levied as either a common school or a high school tax." ^^ In 191 G the rate was raised to 4 mills; this tax is in addition to the required county tax of 3 mills. The Missouri high school law of 1913 requires that before receiving aid a district must show that it has levied for school purposes (teachers and incidental expenses) the maximum levy provided by law.^® In North Car- olina it is specified that the local committee of each public high school receiving state aid " shall appor- tion out of the local school fund raised by special tax, or shall raise by private donation or otherwise, at least as much as the State Board of Education apportions to said high school . . ." ^® It may be mentioned in this connection that the new Massachusetts statute for aiding communities for high school transportation is based upon the tax rate levied for school purposes. While this method of determining the high schools that are not relatively in need of assistance is called 25 Lawg of Maine Relating to Public Sehooh, 1915, section 73. 28 Laws of Wisconsin Relating to Common Schools, 1915, section 496 (1). 2T General School Law of South Carolina, 191$, section 1831. 28 Revised School Laws of Missouri, 1913, page 94. 29 Public School Law of North Carolina, 1915, page 54. [53] PROBLEMS IN STATE HIGH SCHOOL FINANCE the " tax rate " method, a uniform and definite tax rate for this purpose is not always set. Thus, in Maine the requirement is that each town must raise and expend annually for the support of common schools not less than 80 cents for each inhabitant.^" The rate necessary to raise this amount will necessarily differ in different communities. In North Carolina the rate that must be levied cannot be definitely stated, since it will depend upon both the amount given by the state and the property valuation of the high school district. In Missouri, however, the rate is definitely known and is uniform throughout the state. The same is true for South Carolina. To what extent do these different laws actually in- dicate the communities of a state not in need, compar- atively speaking, of state aid for high schools? In North Carolina there are no available facts upon which to base an evaluation of this phase of the law. In South Carolina, in 1915, 76 per cent of the districts of the state, according to information from the state department, levied a special tax ranging from 1 mill to 16 mills. The fact that in 1916 the rate that a high school district must levy to receive state aid was raised from 2 mills to 4s mills would indicate that the former rate had ceased to be a real test of need. In Maine, the requirement has in most communities vir- tually ceased to be effective, since, according to the state department, " the average for the state would show that the rate actually levied for common school purposes (.0026 in 1916) is much higher than that re- quired by law." According to information from the Wisconsin state department the requirement " is su- perfluous and has no effect on the state aid for high 30 Laws of Maine Relating to Public Schools, 1915, section 16. [54] SPECIAL STATE AID schools." Missouri requires the levying of the maxi- mum rate (100 cents on the $100) provided by law (for teachers and incidentals), with the result that only those communities can receive assistance that are doing all that the law will permit in the support of schools. The Massachusetts transportation law excludes towns that have a tax rate for schools of less than $4! per thousand of valuation. The state tax rate in 1913 was $4.54 per thousand, this rate being the percentage of the total state valuation raised by local taxation for the support of public schools. It is evident, therefore, that the Massachusetts law aims to set as the rate re- quired before aid for transportation may be given by the state, a rate that approximates that actually re- quired for maintaining schools. B. THE SECOND STEP IN EaUAMZATION After it has been determined what communities are not in need of high school assistance, relatively speak- ing, the next step is to adopt some measure for deter- mining to what extent those needing help should be as- sisted. The many methods now employed for this pur- pose may be classified under eleven general types: (1) a definite or proportional sum to each high school meet- ing the conditions of the state law; (2) the amount furnished by the local community; (3) the classifica- tion of the high school; (4) the attendance; (5) the attendance and the school ; (6) the number of teachers ; (7) the number of teachers and the attendance; (8) the cost of high school instruction; (9) the property valuation of the community; (10) the property valua- tion and the attendance; (11) a combination of va- rious factors. The very fact that we have so many different [55] PROBLEMS IN STATE HIGH SCHOOL FINANCE methods of measuring the amount of aid that should be given to a school is proof that the desirability of hav- ing such a measure is conceded. The remainder of this chapter will attempt to compare, so far as is possible with data now available, the results of these general types and of certain important phases of these types. 1. A Certain Amount to Each High School Meeting the Conditions Set hy the State This is the method of distribution employed by three states. Alabama grants $3000 to each county high school which has a suitable site of at least five acres of land and a properly equipped building costing at least $5000.^^ In Louisiana the annual appropria- tion for high schools is divided equally among the ap- proved schools of the state. Massachusetts, after eliminating certain towns as described in the first part of this chapter, allows $500 to each town maintaining a four-year high school which employs at least two teachers. Any high school maintained by a town re- quired to belong to a superintendency union must meet the standards approved by the State Board of Educa- tion. This method of assistance does not recognize the differences in the ability of communities to maintain minimum standard high schools, since the same amount is granted to each. Table 10, giving facts concerning towns in Massachusetts having three high school teachers each, illustrates this.^^ SI For the citations of the state aid laws mentioned in this chapter see the footnotes for each state in Chapter III. 32 It is interesting to note in this connection that the high school inspector of Massachusetts has proposed a new aid law of which the following are the essential features: (1) Eliminate towns of 500 or more families and those having an average valua- [56] SPECIAL STATE AID Table 10 3S Valuation Bate per $1000 for all public schools Cost of high school Amount of state aid Bate neces- sary to pay remainder of high school cost Avon Bolton Charlemont . Lunenburg . Sandwich . . Sterling . . . Tisbury . . . Westminster. $1,079,697 678,970 661,400 1,392,764 1,300,800 1,849,690 1,807,747 990,900 $7.63 7.66 8.18 4.43 6.09 4.98 3.36 5.61 $2874 1547 2682 2789 3417 2376 3074 2322 $500 600 500 500 500 500 500 500 $8.19 1.54 3.88 1.64 2.84 1.50 1.48 1.84 State average 4.54 2. The Amount Raised by the Local Commwaity The amount raised by the local community, within certain limits, is the basis for aid in Virginia. The state duplicates the amount between $250 and $400 raised by the district. The North Carolina law for- merly granted from $250 to $500, depending upon the amount furnished from local sources.^* In 1915 an- other basis of distribution was adopted, although it tion per pupil over the average for the state; (2) eliminate towns having a school tax rate of $4 per $1000 valuation or less; (3) aid other towns as follows: (a) when the school rate is more than $4 but not more than $5, 30% of the net expenditure for high school instructors; (b) when the rate is more than $5 but not more than $6, 40%; (c) when the rate is more than $6, 50%; (4) but the aid shall not exceed " the product of $40 by the average number, not exceeding 25 pupils over fourteen years pi age, resi- dent in the town and members of that high school, for that school year, increased by the sum obtained by multiplying $20 by the excess, if any, in the average membership of such pupils, over 25 but not over 75." It is readily seen that such a law considers bpth needs and abilities of different communities. 33 Data from 78th Animal Report of Board of Education, Maaaa- chuaetts, 1913-14, pages 154, xxxviii-lxxvii, cix-cxii. 34 PiOilic School Law of North Carolina, 1913, page 96. [571 PROBLEMS IN STATE HIGH SCHOOL FINANCE was still required that the local committee apportion from the local school funds raised by special tax or by donation an amount at least equal to that given by the state, and that the county board apportion at least an equal amount from the general county fund. The state may not give less than $200 or more than $600.*° Such a law as that in Virginia tends to encourage high schools in small communities and, by setting a maximum amount that may be given to any school, makes certain that the bulk of the state appropriation for this purpose does not go to a few of the larger schools where high schools are liberally supported by local taxation. It is quite evident, however, that the amount a community provides for high school purposes is no index of the needs of the community for those purposes or of its ability to supply those needs. 3. The Classification of the High School This basis of distribution is used in North Dakota, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia. The amounts al- lowed for the different classes of schools are: North Dakota, $800, $500, $300, $200 ; Pennsylvania, $800, $600, $400; West Virginia, $800, $600, $400. In North Dakota and Pennsylvania, if the appropriation for high schools is not sufficient to pay the maximum amount allowed by law, the money is prorated to the different schools. The principle upon which this method is based is that a four-year high school is in greater need of as- sistance than is a three-year school; that a three-year school is in greater need than a two-year school, etc., because the longer the course the greater will be the cost. There is also included an element of effort, since S5 Public School Law of North Carolina, 1916, pages 54, 55. [58] SPECIAL STATE AID a community that is willing to exert itself to maintain a first-class school will receive more assistance than the community that wiU support only a second-class school. In evaluating this method two important questions must be answered. First, to what extent does this method aid the different schools of the same class ac- cording to need? For example, are all four-year schools receiving $800 in need of state assistance to about the same degree? Second, to what extent do the amounts given to the different classes of schools succeed in helping such schools according to need? For example, does the giving of $500 to second-class schools aid those schools according to need in about the same degree that $800 aids first-class schools? Table 11 gives data from North Dakota high schools throwing light upon both questions. It will be seen that the first question is really the same as that raised on page 56, where the equalization effect of granting Tabij: 11 38 School Valuation Cost of in- struction State aid Bate neces- sary to pay remainder of cost First-cltisa schools $2,059,023 498,665 730,255 734,896 261,167 908,718 195,785 — 6,787,023 $9430 3690 6970 6150 4510 6090 2870— 21,730 $544 544 544 544 544 4.3 mills Bottineau Cando 6.3 8.8 7.6 Cavalier 15.3 Arerage for all (41) first- clasB schools Range for all (41) first-class schools .... 8.6 2.7— 15.2 se 8th Annual Report of Inspector of High Schools, North Da- kota, 191B, pages 15-17; 26-31; 42. The cost of instruction is es- timated from data given in these pages concerning number of teachers and salaries. [59] PROBLEMS IN STATE HIGH SCHOOL FINANCE Table 11 {Continued) School Valuation Cost of in- struction State aid Kate neces- sary to pay remainder of cost Second-class schools Anamoose Aneta Ashley Bathgate Berthold Average for all (29) sec- ond-class schools . . Range for all (29) .... second-class schools. . $312,989 314,812 184,000 186,740 337,827 311,225 155,832— 618,018 $2642 3348 2642 2642 3348 3226 2642— 5466 $340 340 340 340 340 7.3 9.6 12.5 12.3 8.9 10.4 4.2 — 21.2 Third-class schools Beffield Bowman Buffalo Buxton $388,474 434,012 401,633 254,349 248,548 275,518 113,321— 499,133 $1726 2373 1726 1726 2373 1987 1726— 3020 $204 204 204 204 204 3.9 4.9 3.7 6.9 8.7 Average for all (52) third- class schools third-class schools . . . 7.2 3.0 18.0 the same aid to all approved schools was discussed, so that a comparison of rates necessary to pay that part of the high school cost not paid by the state aid an- swers the first question. Thus, in first-class schools in North Dakota, we find a range of rates from 2.7 mills to 15.2 mills, while in the S schools given in the table only S have a rate approximating the average rate. The second question, to what extent do the amounts given to the different classes of schools succeed in aid- ing such schools according to need, is difficult to an- swer because of the uncertainty that we have the same basis for comparing the different classes. We should be certain, in order to make a fair comparison, that the [60] SPECIAL STATE AID pupils in a two-year high school have as effective in- struction as pupils in the first two years of a four- year school. If, to consider just one of the numerous factors involved, we compare the effectiveness of the instruction by the average salaries paid in the differ- ent classes of schools, we find the average salary as given in the annual high school report is : Superintendents, first-class schools $1848 Superintendents second-class schools 12S0 Principals, third-class schools 1081 Assistants (including principals), first-class schools 803 Assistants (including principals), second-class schools 713 Assistants, third-class schools 681 Apparently, then, from the fact that the salaries are higher in the higher-class schools, the different classes are not on the same plane of effectiveness. If, however, we assume, for illustrative purposes, that the classes of schools are comparable, it would ap- pear from Table 12 that the second-class schools Table 13 Average valuation Average cost of instruc- tion Amount of state aid Average rate First-class schools Second-class schools Third-class schools $908,718 311,235, 275,518 $6090 3226 1987 544 340 340 8.6 10.4 7.2 should, compared with those of the first-class, in gen- eral, receive a larger sum than they do now, and that the third-class schools, compared with those of the first-class, should in general receive a little less than [61] PROBLEMS IN STATE HIGH SCHOOL FINANCE they now do. Remembering, though, the probabiUty that the third-class schools in order to be on the same plane of effectiveness must make a greater effort than they now do, it is quite likely that they should not have the present amount of aid reduced. The data are not now available for making a similar evaluation of the classification basis for granting aid as employed in Pennsylvania and West Virginia. It is not unlikely that similar results would be found in these states were such an evaluation feasible. Such laws, by dividing the schools into groups on the basis of the effectiveness of the work done, rather than on some basis considering the cost of maintaining schools and the wealth against which this cost is assessed, must certainly show inequalities even in schools having about the same standards of effectiveness. It is quite likely, too, that the amount given by the state to the different classes of schools is determined somewhat arbitrarily rather than by a careful study of comparative needs in the different classes. At least such is the conclusion one is tempted to draw from the data given in Table 12. In fact, it does not seem possible to divide the high schools of a state into groups upon the basis of effectiveness of work done and give to each group that amount that will equalize, even in a general way, the needs of individual schools. 4. The Attendance Rhode Island and Utah distribute their aid on the basis of attendance. In Rhode Island, each town maintaining an approved high school is allowed $25 for each of the first 26 pupils in average attendance and $13 for each of the second 25 pupils in average attendance. In Utah the income from a state high [62 J SPECIAL STATE AID school tax of two tenths of a mill is apportioned to the schools meeting certain standards upon the basis of the number of pupils who have been in attendance at least 20 weeks during the year. In 1914, when the rate was one half mill, the state was enabled to pay $15.37 for each pupil.^'' Theoretically, at least, the Rhode Island law is the better. It tends to limit the amount that may be given to the larger high schools, since aid is granted for 50 pupils only. It favors the small high schools by allow- ing a higher rate for the first 25, and, in comparison with the large high schools, favors those of medium size by allowing something for the second 25 pupils. The Utah law, on the other hand, makes no such dis- tinction, the same amount being given for each pupil who has attended for at least 20 weeks. As a result we find in Utah that in 1914 Salt Lake City received 27 per cent of the entire state high school fund and that the 5 largest schools received 56 per cent of the entire fund.»8 To what extent is attendance a measure of high school need? Without doubt it does indicate need in a general way, for a high school with 200 pupils will have much greater costs than one with 50 pupils. It may be true that in 2 schools of 50 pupils each the costs will be about the same, but it is also quite likely to be true that a school with 65 pupils can be main- tained at the same degree of effectiveness for a sum no greater than is required for the school of 50 pupils. Even granting that attendance does give a general in- dex of what it will cost to maintain a high school, at- tendance can give no information concerning the other 37 Utah School Report, 191S-U, page 70. 38 Computed from data in Utah School Report, 1913-14, page 70. [63] PROBLEMS IN STATE HIGH SCHOOL FINANCE factor involved in estimating school need, the property valuation of the community. Table 13 illustrates these conclusions for Rhode Island for 1913-14. Table 13 39 Schools Valuation Cost of high school instruction Amount from state Tax rate nec- essary to pay remainder of cost of in- struction Barrington Bristol Burrillville Central Falls Cranston Cumberland East Providence . . Hopkinton Newport New Shoreham .... North Kingstown . . Pawtucket Providence South Kingston . . . $5,035,558 7,244,400 4,462,450 11,364,965 23,486,355 9,885,114 13,570,869 1,510,450 63,364,109 984,950 4,843,030 53,741,070 333,686,980 5,738,443 6,818,335 9,779,900 10,474,235 28,142,800 $1,498 6,524 2,090 6,531 12,733 3,125 9,892 1,650 33,801 600 3,284 25,459 187,018 5,310 3,500 8,786 8,411 10,251 $925 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 880 1000 745 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 .00011 .00076 .00024 .00048 .00049 .00022 .00065 .00051 .00052 .00000 .00047 .00045 .00056 .00075 .00037 Westerly West Warwick Woonsocket .00079 .00077 .00033 East Providence and Cranston had practically the same attendance and each received $1000 from the state, but there is a difference of almost $3000 in the cost of the two schools.*" The rates of all towns, while low, vary from .00011 to .00079. 39 70th, Annual Report of Commissioner of Public Schools of Rhode Island, 1914, pages 156, 161. The information concerning the am,ount from the state was given by the state department. For d statement of school tax inequalities in the state, see the commissioner's discussion on pages 110 and 111 of the Report. *o This is an illustration lOf how, in order to make a really valid comparison of schools, in estimating their need, we should have some definite statement of minimum standards. It could then be [64 J SPECIAL STATE AID In 1914, the Rhode Island law had practically the effect of giving $1000, the maximum allowed, to each high school, since only 3 of the 18 towns received less than this amount. The reason for this is, of course, that rarely do high schools have fewer than 60 pupils. If, therefore, Rhode Island continues to make use of the attendance method of measuring high school needs and if she wishes to assist the smaller schools in greater proportion than the larger schools, it will be necessary for her to revise the attendance limits for which aid will be given. The following table indicates the num- ber of schools that would receive the maximum amount under different limits, on the basis of the 1914 attend- ance: Table 14" Aid for 50 papils (as at preBent) gives maximum amount of aid to. . ..16 towns " ** 100 '* would give maximum amount of aid to 11 " " 150 " " " " 8 " " " 200 " " " " " ' 7 " " " 250 >' " " " 6 " " " 300 " " " " " •■ '• " 3 <• 5. The School and the Attendance In California $15 for each pupil in average daily at- tendance during the preceding year is raised by a state high school tax. One third of this is distributed to the approved high schools of the state, giving to each, in 1913-14, about $871. The remaining two thirds of determined whether a school is just meeting those standards or whether it is doing that and something more. *i 70th Annual Report of Commissioner of Public Schools of Rhode Island, 1914, page 157. The attendance figures here given include the non-residents for whom aid is not given the high school where they attend. These non-residents, being only about one tenth of the entire attendance and probably fairly well dis- tributed among the different high schools, doubtless have little effect upon the validity of this table. [65] PROBLEMS IN STATE HIGH SCHOOL FINANCE the fund is apportioned on the basis of average daily at- tendance, giving about $10 for each pupil.* '^ This method of measuring the needs of high schools, by granting a certain sum to each approved school before distributing on the basis of attendance, aids the small school to a greater degree than it does the large school. This is shown in Table 15, where a compari- son is made of the amount per pupil received in Cali- fornia high schools of different sizes under the present plan of distribution and under a plan of apportioning all on the basis, of attendance. If the whole fund were Table IS School Attend- ance Amount now re- ceived on basis of Amount now re- ceived Amount received was all given on attendance Scbool Attend- ance Total Per pupil Total Per pupil 1 2 3 4 5 6 25 SO 100 200 500 1000 $871 871 871 871 871 871 260 600 1000 2000 6000 10000 $1121 1371 1871 2871 6871 10871 $44.84 27.42 18.71 14.35 11.74 10.87 $375 750 1600 8000 7500 15000 $15 16 15 15 16 15 distributed on attendance, each school would, of course, get $1S for each pupil. Under the plan employed, the 25-pupil school would receive $44.84< for each pupil in average daily attendance; the 200-pupil school, $14.35; the 1000-pupil school, but $10.87. On the assumption that the small school is in greater relative need than the large school, a situation which is gen- erally true, the California plan of granting a certain amount to each school before apportioning the money on attendance is distinctly superior, from the point of 42 Computed from data in California Bieimial School Report, 1913-14, pages 37, 42. [661 SPECIAL STATE AID view of equalization, to such a plan as that of Utah, where attendance is the only factor considered. Table 16 gives information regarding the extent to which high school burdens are equalized in California. Counties having the same number of high schools and almost the same number of high school teachers are Table 16*3 County No. high schools in county No. teachers in county Average tax rate for maintenance Glenn Tuolumne .... Yuba Amador Siskiyou Nevada San Luis Shasta Kings Marin Napa Placer Yolo 2 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 11-15 11-15 11-15 11-15 11-15 16-20 16-20 16-20 21-25 21-25 21-25 21-25 21-25 .15 .115 .473 .33 .25 .283 .475 .282 .48 .306 .38 .43 .353 Average for state .305 compared. Additional data on the equalization effect among the different schools of a single county will be found in Table M, page 103. In New York, $100 is set aside from the so-called " Literature Fund " for each " academic department " or high school. In 1912-13, $71,400 was used for this *3 Calif orma Biennial School Report, 191S-14, pages 37, 48. This table is based upon figures secured before the new county high school aid law went into effect. [67] PROBLEMS IN STATE HIGH SCHOOL FINANCE purpose.** After the payments are made for books and apparatus and for non-resident tuition, the re- mainder of the fund is distributed on the basis of at- tendance of high school pupUs. In 1912-13, $116,- 148.51 was used in this way.** At one time, from 1818 to 1834, the whole fund was distributed on the basis of attendance. Later a part was given for books and apparatus; still later, a part was given on the basis of credentials earned by pupils in examinations. In 1901 the latter basis was discontinued.*® Washington gives from its general school fund $100 for each grade above the grammar grades having an average daily attendance of at least 4 pupils, and one and one half times the regular apportionment per pupil for attendance. In 1916 8.5 per cent of the total fund estimated for 1916, or $259,037.87, was used for high school aid. Of this amount $89,300 was given for the grades maintained, and $169,737.87 was given for attendance.*® In this method we have, theoretically at least, an improvement over distribution on the basis of attend- ance alone, in that it tends to favor the smaller schools, as shown in Table 15. To the extent that the smaller schools are in greater relative need than the larger ones, this conclusion is valid. Such a law is not, however, a real measure of high school need, since it gives only a general idea of the cost of the school and gives no indication of the wealth of the community that is main- taining this school. 4* Annual Report New York State Education Department, 19H, page 140. «5 Ibid., pages 137-140. *" The Apportionment of the Current State School Fund, Wash- ington, 1916, page 16. [68] SPECIAL STATE AID 6. The Teacher This is the basis of distribution in Maryland and Idaho. In Maryland the high schools are divided into 2 groups. Those of the first class, fulfilling certain conditions as to attendance, number of teachers, length of curricula, minimum salaries, provision for manual training, and domestic science and either commercial or agricultural subjects, etc., receive $600 for the prin- cipal, $300 for each of the first 3 assistants doing regular high school work, $400 for each of 2 special teachers, $100 for each additional regular grade teacher, but not more than $2500 in all. Each of the 4 Baltimore high schools receives $2500. Second-class schools receive $600 for the principal, $400 for 2 as- sistants in regular high school work, $400 for a teacher of special subjects, and $150 if an instructor in manual training or agriculture is required to divide his time among not more than 4 schools of the group. The Maryland method of measuring the need of high schools is interesting in several particulars. In the first place, it accepts the teacher as the most important item in high school costs and grants aid, within limits, upon this basis. Such a method is quite likely to be more equitable in measuring need than any of the other measures so far discussed, because it gives us a better index of what it costs to maintain a school. It does not, however, consider the other fundamental factor in estimating need, the wealth of the community against which the high school costs are to be assessed. Table 17 shows the equalization effect of the Maryland law. Column 5 gives the rates that certain representative counties must levy in order to pay the remainder of the high school costs under the present method of dis- [69] PROBLEMS IN STATE HIGH SCHOOL FINANCE tributing state aid. Thus, Harford and Garrett, each with 6 teachers, have quite different rates. Baltimore City, with an assessed valuation over half that of the entire state, can support its splendid Eastern High School of 37 teachers at an extremely low rate com- pared with the rates necessary in most of the counties. Since public high schools in this state are maintained by the county, burdens are equalized to a greater ex- tent than they would be if the schools were maintained by districts within the counties. But, while the number of teachers may be a fair index of the cost of maintaining a school, this principle cannot operate fully in Maryland because that state limits the number of teachers for whom state aid may be granted. In first-class schools aid is given for 3 academic teachers and 2 special teachers only. The general effect of this law should be to help the smaller schools more, in proportion to the cost of the schools, than the larger ones. The actual effect of this limit is indicated in Table 17 also. Column 6 shows what could be received by certain first-class schools at $600 for the principal, $300 for each academic teacher, and $400 for each special teacher. The $100 given for each additional grade teacher is not counted, since we are concerned with high school teachers only. In most of the counties the first-grade high schools employ about the same number of teachers, so that in these counties it would make little difference under present conditions in the relative rates needed to pay the remainder of the high school cost whether the aid were given for all teachers or for a limited number only. The advantage of limiting the number of teachers for whom aid is given is shown when the large schools are compared with the smaller ones. Thus, under the present law [70] SPECIAL STATE AID aa 2 o eo*a Olt>(NO«DtOO THrt O « i-l i-i N OJ i-t sal oo oo ooooo * ' «2 oo ooooooo o u oo OOOOOOO a t-o O t- b- 1-t « t- t- coco eo 04 OI CO CO M C4 »|5sg ai es a P33 So a _2 73 « I-) ■* iH "* » 00 O CO f-l O* CO Ci iH ooooooo ooooooo ooooooo oo oo eoeo ooooooo ooooooo CO CO CO CO CO CO CO 01 C4 Ot Ot « C4 C4 rH CO CO CO 0» Cd CO 00 C4 rHO CO 00 ■*CO oa ka ■« OO CO o ca 04 C4 t- t-T •* o i-^ ^ o oo CO 0> t~ 03 O 03 C« OlH 0> CO CO 00 CO i-i"o"or'^C0 1> 1§ &.S2 I a.- ® 6"^ -S O !3 *a s5 fe ^ r5 £■3 S o » S| a [71] PROBLEMS IN STATE HIGH SCHOOL FINANCE Baltimore City can receive for its Eastern High School only $2500, while if aid were given at the same rate for all teachers it would receive about $12,300. With a rate that is already only about one fifth that necessary to maintain first-class schools in the different counties, Baltimore City would, without the limit, have its rate reduced still more until the rate would be about one eighth that of the average in other counties. Even this reducing of the state aid for the Eastern High School by $9800 does not make a great difference, comparatively speaking, in the rate that Baltimore City must levy. On the other hand, if their share of this $9800 were taken away from the other counties it would make a considerable difference in the effort some of them would have to make to keep their high schools up to the present standard. In 1913-14! each second-class school received $1400, the maximum for schools of that grade, and each first-class school re- ceived $2300, the maximum allowed for high school teachers in schools of the first grade.*® In Idaho 3 per cent, or as much as is needed, of the combined state and county school funds is set aside for the benefit of rural high school districts and con- solidated districts which do approved high school work. This sum is distributed among the teachers in such schools, not more than $200 being given for each high school teacher. In 1913, 21 rural high schools were reported as employing 42 teachers. 21 counties did not report rural high schools.*^ Compared with the Maryland statute, this is a very simple law, there be- *s^th Annual Report, State Board of Education, Maryland, 1914, pages 80, 82. *9 1st Biennial Report, State Board of Education, Idaho, 191S- 14, page 264. See also note 31, Chapter III. [72] SPECIAL STATE AID ing no limits as to number of teachers for whom aid may be given, no maximum amount to be received by any school, and no differentiation of sums for different kinds of teachers. It does, however, make a distinc- tion between town and rural high schools, giving special aid only for the rural schools. This tends to en- courage the development of high schools in such dis- tricts and doubtless tends to equalize somewhat the difference in ability of town and rural communities to maintain high schools. 7. The Teacher and the Attendance New Jersey employs this basis. In this state the state and county funds, with the exception of the in- come from the state school fund, are distributed among the counties on the basis of ratables, 90 per cent of the tax paid by each county being returned to it and 10 per cent constituting a reserve fund to be distributed according to the discretion of the state board of educa- tion. The state school fund is distributed on the basis of days' attendance. In each county the state and county funds are distributed to the districts on the basis of teachers employed, rebates for tuition and transportation, and attendance; $600 is given for the employment of a principal giving his entire time to supervision; $400 for each teacher in a four-year ap- proved high school ; $300 for each teacher in a three- year approved high school ; $200 for each teacher in a two-year or a one-year approved high school; $80 for each temporary teacher employed for not less than four months. The amount left after the apportionments have been made for all high school, elementary, and special teachers and for tuition and transportation, is distributed on the basis of total days' attendance of [73 J PROBLEMS IN STATE HIGH SCHOOL FINANCE pupils, high school and elementary pupils sharing equally.^" It is thus evident that the amount given for attend- ance will vary in the different counties. Estimates made for 1914—15 by the state department of education show an average rate of 7.1 cents for the state, the range being from 16 cents to .9 cents, and a total amount given for high school attendance of $473,726.32. Here, again, we have the teacher, as the principal item of cost in maintaining schools, used as the chief basis for giving assistance, with the attendance of pupils as an additional index of school costs. Except for the 10 per cent reserve fund which is to be dis- tributed among the counties according to the discre- tion of the state board,^^ no account is taken of the ability of a community to maintain minimum standard schools. The New Jersey method of assisting high schools, therefore, practically neglects this factor, since the high school aid is distributed by the county superintendent from the funds paid to the county by the state. 8. The Cost of Instruction In Maine a town is reimbursed to two thirds the cost of instruction, not exceeding $500 to any school, for maintaining an approved school of any one of the 3 classes. In Wisconsin one half the cost of instruction is given, but not over $500 to a district high school, and, in the case of a town or union district high school, not more than $900 when the school has a principal and 1 assistant, $1200 when it has a principal and 2 60 j^eia Jersey School Law, 19X4, sections 206-224. 61 In the New Jersey School Report, 1914, pages 125-127, a his- tory and description of the reserve fund is given. [74] SPECIAL STATE AID assistants, and $1500 when it has a principal and 3 or more assistants. This method is suggestive in that instead of adopting the amount raised by the local community, the classifica- tion of the school, the attendance, or the number of teachers as a measure of the high school needs of a com- munity, it adopts the actual cost of instruction as such a measure. This actual cost of instruction, being usu- ally the largest item in school costs, gives a more reli- able measure of what it costs to maintain a high school than do the others just enumerated. However, neither Maine nor Wisconsin considers the wealth of the com- munity as a second and necessary factor in measuring need. The equalization effects for Maine are illustrated in Table 18, on the following page. What effect do the maximum sums allowed each school have in these states.'' Table 19 gives informa- tion on this point. It will be noticed that in Maine only 15 per cent of the schools aided received less than the maximum. Since the law permits reimbursement to the extent of two thirds of the cost of instruction not exceeding $500, and since the average cost of instruction in all the high schools is $2408, it is quite certain that the great majority of schools will always, under the present law, be entitled to the maximum sum given by the state. If only one half the cost of instruction were paid, the percentage of schools receiving the maximum sum in 1913-14 would have been reduced from 85 to 72. If but one third of the cost of instruction were paid, only 48 per cent would have received the maximum.®^ In ^2 Ibid., 179-186. The average cost of instruction is computed from infoTmation given in these pages. [75] PROBLEMS IN STATE HIGH SCHOOL FINANCE Table 18 S3 Cost Amount Rate Town Assessed valuation of high school in- struction of high school aid necessary to raise remainder of cost Class A: Abbott $220,000 $1,209 $500 3.2 Albion 387,000 978 500 1.2 Alfred 407,000 1,107 500 1.5 Ashland 675,000 1,533 500 1.5 Auburn 11,033,000 14,314 500 1.3 Class B: Andover 360,000 863 500 1.0 Brooks 333,000 768 500 .8 Brownfield . . 370,000 863 500 .9 Canton 352,000 957 500 1.3 Casco 296,300 540 360 .6 Class C: B alley ville . . . 1,560,000 886 500 .2 Canaan 330,000 752 500 .7 Carthage 171,875 540 372 .9 Cumberland . . 137,000 495 330 1.2 Denmark .... 440,000 720 432 .6 Wisconsin none of the district high schools received less than the maximum in 1912—13, while in the township and union district schools the percentage was 100, 82, and 54 for schools of different size.^* An evaluation of the maximum rates in these states must rest largely upon which of two policies seems at the present time to be the more important. If one em- phasizes the notion that all high schools should receive 53 Maine School Report, 1914, pages 108-136; 179-181 ; 202. The assessed valuations are computed from data given on pages 108- 136. 6* 16th Biennial Report, Department of Public Instruction, Wis- consin, 191S-14, pages 94-107. » [76] SPECIAL STATE AID Table 19 Maxi- Per cent of No. high Average schools State state aid schools cost of receiving aided instruction less than maximum Maine 53 $500 185 $3408 IS Wisconsin : 54 District 500 258 4429 Township or union district: Prin. and 1 teacher 900 15 1543 100 Prin. and 2 teach- ers 1200 17 2301 82 Prin. and 3 teach- ers 1500 13 3751 54 aid so as to bring them under the supervision of the state, then the present maximum provisions, which are comparatively low in Maine and in the district high schools of Wisconsin, are perhaps satisfactory. As to whether the schools would place themselves under state supervision for a smaller sum then $500 is an open question. If, on the other hand, one emphasizes the notion that where the state aid fiuid is small it should be used largely for aiding the towns in greatest need and according to their needs, then the present maxi- mum rates and methods of distribution should be modi- fied so as to make that result possible. 9. The Property Valuation The Missouri law requires that the maximum levy provided by law for maintenance (100 cents on the $100) be made, that an approved high school be main- tained, etc., before assistance may be given. Com- munities are then aided as follows: if the valuation is less than $300,000, $800 from the state; valuation [77] PROBLEMS IN STATE HIGH SCHOOL FINANCE $300,000 and less than $400,000, $600; valuation $400,000 and less than $600,000, $400; valuation $600,000 or more, $200. No school may receive more than one half the salary paid its high school teachers the previous year, nor may any school receiving any other form of special high school aid receive money from this fund. Not over S per cent of the state school fund may be used for this purpose. The first interesting phase of this law is the require- ment that a community must levy the maximum rate allowed by law for teachers and incidentals before re- ceiving special state aid. The first column in Table 20 shows the percentage of the districts maintaining Table 20 cs Bate below 100 cents Percentage of districts having Districts maintaining Valuation less than $300,000 Valuation $300,000- $400,000 Valuation $400,000- $800,000 Valuation more than $600,000 First-class high schools Second-class high schools Third-class high schools 21.6 32.1 6.7 47.0 78.6 10.7 15.6 18.1 19.5 S5.S 5.7 62.9 11.8 3.6 ^S65th Misiouri Report of Public Schools, 1914, pages 147-152; 196-217. The levies given on pages 196-217 are tlie rates for all school purposes. Whether or not a school of the second or the third class had a rate for maintenance below 100 cents was de- termined by whether or not it received state aid. This method could not be employed for first-class schools, since many of those were receiving aid for normal training, and under the law could not participate in the general high school aid. If we do not eliminate the normal training high schools, 70.5 per cent of first- class schools had a rate below the rate required; if we elim- inate the 85 normal training high schools in 1913-14, only 17.2 per Cent had too low a rate to receive general aid. The actual percentage that was eliminated because of tax rate could not be determined, but it lay somewhere between these two figures. [78] SPECIAL STATE AID second- and third-class schools that had a rate be- low 100 cents and so could not share in the state aid. The same information for districts with first- class schools was not available. The remaining col- umns of the table show that the higher the class of school maintained, the greater as a rule is the wealth of the district. Thus, in the districts having first- class high schools only 5.7 per cent have a valuation under $300,000, while 62.9 per cent have a valuation over $600,000. In this list are to be found most of the cities and towns of more than average wealth. In the districts with second-class schools, 47 per cent have a valuation under $300,000 while only 11.8 per cent have a valuation over $600,000. In the districts with third-class schools the same tendency is shown, but to a more marked degree. An inspection of the tax rates, valuations, and costs in second and in third-class schools indicates that dis- tricts maintaining third-class schools are not making as much of an eff'ort in proportion to their wealth as are districts with second-class schools. This will ex- plain the reason that a somewhat larger percentage of schools in the third-class list than in the second-class list have a rate too low to receive high school aid. Further evidence of this is seen in the fact that in 1913— 14 the tax rate for all purposes in districts maintaining second-class schools was 122 cents, while in districts with third-class schools it was only 116.3 cents.'* This mode of distribution gives a result quite in con- trast to the modes employed in some other states. Thus, North Dakota, together with several others, gives most aid to districts maintaining first-class schools and least aid to those maintaining third- or se Ibid., page 252. [79] PROBLEMS IN STATK HIGH SCHOOL FINANCE fourth-class schools. The Missouri law tends to give the most money to the districts maintaining the lower- class schools. Referring again to Table W, it is seen that in districts with first-class high schools only 5.7 per cent of all would be entitled to $800 (if there were no tax-rate restriction), while 62.9 per cent would be entitled to $200 only. On the other hand, 78.6 per cent of the districts with third-class schools might receive $800, while only 3.6 per cent would be com- pelled to take $200. 1 Thus, the using of the property valuation of the community as the basis of distribution tends to give the least aid where it is least needed and the most aid where it is most needed. ] Table 21 gives some interesting figures concerning individual schools. Four first-class schools are given from each of the 4 classes of property valuations. It will be noticed that, in general, the schools of low valuation have somewhat higher rates, for the reason that a minimum equip- ment, a minimum number of relatively well-paid teach- ers, etc., are necessary to maintain a first-class high school. One can therefore readily see the greater jus- tice of giving a poor community more than a wealthy community than in giving both the same sum because both maintain the same class of school. Variations in tax rate, sometimes marked, may be seen among districts that are put into the same prop- erty valuation class. Thus, in districts having a val- uation under $300,000, Everton is required to levy a rate of .0077 to pay the remainder of the cost of main- tenance, while Hopkins needs a rate of only .0043. Such variations in rate are certain to occur because districts are divided into 4 classes and because no recognition is given to the element of cost of mainte- nance. These variations would continue to exist until [80] SPECIAL STATE AID Table 21 »' School Valuation Mainte- State nance aid $2099 $656.60 1857 656.60 3182 656.60 2756 656.60 3152 492.44 2380 492.44 3554 492.44 3314 492.44 2916 328.30 3693 328.30 2382 328.30 3087 328.30 7224 164.15 5076 164.15 22251 164.15 3665 164.15 Rate neces- sary to pay remainder of cost Everton . . . . Hopkins . . . . Knobnoster . Lockwood Adrian Bosworth . . . Braymer . . . . Breckenridge Belton Bloomfield . . Hardin Fairfax Bonne Terre Carterville . . Independence Kennett $187,600 278,715 275,005 240,000 341,000 330,070 381,220 325,000 503,770 460,000 427,363 401,962 1,534,830 824,105 5,382,110 955,880 .0077 .0043 .0052 .0087 .0078 .0057 .0080 .0087 .0051 .0073 .0048 .0068 .0046 .0059 .0041 .0036 each district is considered as an individual case and aided according to its valuation and the cost of main- taining minimum standard schools. Yet, while we may raise the question as to whether ultimately Missouri may not find it desirable to aid schools more in ac- cordance with their individual needs instead of putting them into classes according to their property valua- tions, we must recognize that Missouri has a law based upon right principles in that (1) it tends to eliminate, from the small state aid that can be granted, those schools that are not in relative need; and (2) it gives more aid to a district of low property valuation than to one of high property valuation and so gives most assistance where the need is likely to be greatest. The law limits the high school fund to 5 per cent ^T 64th Missouri Report of Public Schools, 1914, pages 147-152; 196-205. [81] PROBLEMS IN STATE HIGH SCHOOL FINANCE of the entire state school funds. In 1913—14! this gave $96,502.50 for high schools, of which $45,284.94 was given as unconditional aid and $51,217.56 was set aside as conditional aid not to be released until the work was approved.^* An important phase of the law provides that if the total applications for high school aid exceed the amount in the high school fund, aid is first to be given to those counties having no districts with a valuation over $300,000. The remainder is then to be prorated among the other schools according to the sum to which they are entitled. 10. The Property Valuation and the Attendance In Vermont if a town has a grand list of $5000 or less, $30 per pupil per school year is given. More than $5000 and not more than $7000, $15 per pupil per school year is given. More than $7000 and not more than $10,000, $10 per pupil per school year is given. More than $10,000 and not more than $16,000, $5 per pupil per school year is given. More than $15,000, no rebate is given. Since the grand list in Vermont means 1 per cent of the entire property list plus a poll list of $2.00 per poll, this is practically the property valuation basis. It will be noticed that this law differs from the one in Missouri in several particulars. (1) The amount given each school depends upon the attendance and the valuation alone, (2) Instead of determining tlie schools that are not in relative need by means of the tax rate levied for maintenance, Vermont eliminates from state aid those towns with a grand list of $1.5,000 or over. (3) In the Vermont law there is no statement as to the maximum that may be given any school. In 58 Ihid., page 159. [82 J SPECIAL STATE AID the main, however, the intent and the spirit of the two laws are alike. Each aims to eliminate certain com- munities that are not in need, relatively speaking, of state assistance. Each divides the communities into classes according to their property valuation ; and each gives a larger sum for communities with a small prop- erty valuation than is granted to the wealthier com- munities. The Vermont law has one characteristic not emphasized in the Missouri law ; by considering the at- tendance, it gives recognition to the cost of maintaining schools as a factor in aiding according to need. This is the first of the laws thus far discussed that empha- sizes both the fundamental and constant factors in de- termining the amount of aid that should be given to a community. 11. A Combination of Several Factors In Minnesota a high school receives $1800 per year. If the district has a tax levy for the maintenance of schools exceeding 20 mills, it is entitled to additional aid to the extent of one third the amount in excess of that received from the 20-mill levy, but not to exceed $2500. If a graded school has one or more high school teachers, it receives $250 for each such teacher. A graded school with more than a 20-mill rate is also en- titled to additional aid on the basis of one third the additional expenses not to exceed $1800. The pro- vision for additional aid has been added in the last two or three years; previously a stated simi was granted each approved high and graded school. Since the average school rate for communities main- taining state high schools is 19 mills,^' the law grant- S9 2M Annual Report of Inspector of State High Schools^ Minnetota, 1915, page 64. [83] PROBLEMS IN STATE HIGH SCHOOL FINANCE ing additional aid to schools having a rate of 20 mills or over approximates closely the evident intention of the law of giving this additional aid only to communi- ties that are actually in relative need. Here again we find the use of both factors — the wealth of the com- munity and the cost of maintaining schools. The tax rate indicates, therefore, the extent of need as judged by these fundamental factors. In 1914-15, 68 of the 213 towns and cities with state high schools had rates of 20 mills or over, and would therefore have been en- titled to this additional aid had it been granted at that time.«o All state high schools in Minnesota receive a certain amount of aid without regard to their relative needs. The amount given has varied from time to time, being in 1914-15 $2200. The new law sets the amount at $1800. While, from the point of view of a strict log- ical application of principles of equalization it is de- sirable to eliminate some of the communities not so much needing assistance from the state, there is one decided advantage in making it possible for all to par- ticipate. This advantage comes in placing practically all schools, since practically all will wish the state aid, under some degree of state supervision. The probable effect of the additional aid provision of the law for the year 1914-15 is shown in Table 22 for certain towns and cities having high schools of different size. By comparing columns 6 and 7 it may be seen to what extent the additional aid of one third the ex- pense in excess of the amount received from the 20-mill levy would reduce the rate necessary to raise the sum now expended. In column 5 there is given the amount that a school would be entitled to were there no $2500 «o Ibid., pages 48-53. [84] SPECIAL STATE AID e» ■■*3 ot s Ti 9 ii H n a ir-lt- CO-*'*03MCOC003o>'*"* t> fa's d •S"* .«^I "(22 •^ !^ i: fl ■«■ fi( ^ «g§g&tSag-B.2g CO ^ '3 So a: eg B . 00 M £ 7« [86] PROBLEMS IN STATE HIGH SCHOOL FINANCE limit, and in column 8 is given the rate that it would be necessary to levy were there no $2500 limit. The Minnesota law gives the following results: (1) It provides a definite amount of state aid to all ac- credited high schools without regard to the rate of tax levied. This means that many communities with a relatively low tax rate — e.g., Duluth, 5.70 mills — receive assistance. (2) All communities that have a levy of 20 mills receive additional aid. Since the aver- age levy for towns maintaining state high schools is 19 mills, this provision insures that no additional aid is given to communities that are not carrying a tax burden for schools greater than the average for the state. (3) By granting as additional aid one third of the expense over the amount received from the 20-mill levy, the state assumes the attitude of giving this as- sistance in proportion to the additional burden car- ried by the community. (4) By limiting to $2500 the amount that may be granted any school, there is a tendency to prevent a large part of what the state may be able to give as additional aid from going to a com- paratively few of the large schools where a small levy will give large returns. In Tennessee, county high schools are aided " in pro- portion to the amount of money received by the sev- eral schools from other sources and expended annually for the payment of teachers' salaries and incidentals, not including permanent improvements of grounds or buildings," but no county may receive more than one fiftieth of the whole fund and no school more than one third the amount received from other sources and expended for maintenance. If, however, some money remains in the high school fund after the maximum allowed each school has been paid, the remainder may [86] SPECIAL STATE AID be used for (1) stimulating and encouraging depart- ments of industrial work, and (2) giving to such coun- ties as are levying the maximum rate for high schools and are unable to raise $S000, a sum that will insure a high school fund of $2000. It is interesting to compare the Tennessee mode of determining school costs with that employed in Maine and Wisconsin. These two states use the actual cost of instruction, usually the largest item in school ex- pense, only, while Tennessee uses the actual cost of maintaining the whole school, permanent building and ground improvements not being counted. The Ten- nessee method is clearly the better for determining the actual cost of schools, because it takes into considera- tion such items as cost of fuel, textbooks where furnished, supplies, and administration, items which are certain to vary somewhat, and properly so, even among communities having the same class of school or an equal number of teachers. Tennessee goes another step beyond Maine and Wis- consin in considering somewhat the ability of the county to maintain secondary schools. Counties levy- ing the maximum rate and not able to raise $2000 may receive from the state high school fund enough to have a fund of that size. In 1913-14 there were 15 counties levying the maximum rate of 15 cents on the $100, but only 4 of these would have been entitled to this addi- tional aid.^^ In the same year 35 counties received industrial aid to the extent of $41,144, this sum being a little over one third the total high school fund.®' 82 Biennial Report of State Superintendent of Public Instruc- tion, Tennessee, 1913-14, pages 176, 172-173. 63 Ihid., page 1S3. [87] PROBLEMS IN STATE HIGH SCHOOL FINANCE While there are several commendable phases of the Tennessee law, particularly the one giving additional aid to the poorer counties, these desirable phases of the law are not comprehensive enough to insure an equi- table distribution of the high school burden. This is illustrated in the following table. Thus, Campbell County is able to maintain 1 first-class, 2 second-class, County No. high schools No. teachers Rate Class 1 Class 3 Class 3 levied Anderson Bledsoe Bradley Campbell Cheatham Claiborne Coffee Dyer 1 1 1 1 1 3 1 2 3 3 1 3 4, 10 3 3 13 4 5 5 17 S IS 10 10 12.S 10 10 15 Average for state lO.TS and 2 third-class schools with 13 teachers for the same rate that is required in Bradley County to maintain 1 third-class school with 3 teachers. The South Carolina law makes the following condi- tions for the apportionment of the high school fund: (1) 2 teachers in the high school department; (S) an enrollment of at least 25 pupils; (3) a special tax of not less than 4 mills ; (4) not more than $600 annually to a high school with 2 teachers, not more than $600 to one with 3 teachers, not more than $700 to one with 4 or more teachers; (5) additional aid may be given for the attendance of high school pupils from outside the high school territory and for meritorious work 84 Ibid., pages 158, 176. [88] SPECIAL STATE AID in agriculture, manual training, and domestic science. The state board has " full authority to prescribe such regulations as may not be inconsistent with this act . . . and to make regulations for the apportionment and disbursement of the state appropriation . . . ." The following rules indicate to what extent the board has gone in making use of this power: (1) "in a 2- teacher school the amount of state aid shall not ex- ceed $55 a month " ; (2) " to high schools of 3 or more teachers, the initial appropriation will be the lowest high school salary up to $55 a month. Any additional appropriations will be made in accordance with sec- tion 6 of the High School Act of 1916, No. 501, page 875, Acts of 1916.""'^ This latter regulation evi- dently refers to the appropriations for tuition, agri- culture, manual training, and domestic science. From 1907, when the high school aid law of North Carolina was adopted, until 1915 state assistance was given on the basis of the amount raised by the local community. The state duplicated the amount between $250 and $500 raised by the community."® In 1915, 4 bases were provided for the distribution:®'^ (1) a minimum amount to each school meeting the require- ments of the state; (2) attendance; (3) number of full- time teachers in the high school department ; (4) grade and character of the work done. The state board of education has issued a circular in which the operation of the new plan is explained.*® The state high school fund of $73,000 is divided into '3 parts roughly as fol- lows: (1) $45,000; (2) $20,000; (3) $10,000. The '^ State Department of Education, High School Regulation!. 88 Public School Law of North Carolina, 191S, page 96. " Public School Law of North Carolina, 1915, pages S4, 5S. «8 The North Carolina High School Bulletin, Vol. VI, pages 145- U7. [89] PROBLEMS IN STATE HIGH SCHOOL FINANCE first division of $45,000 is divided on the basis of the number of schools accepted, $200 being given to each school. The second division of $20,000 is distributed among those schools maintaining an average daily at- tendance considerably in excess of the minimum re- quired, employing a sufficient number of teachers, and having a reasonable patronage from outside the local school district. The third division of $10,000 is dis- tributed on the basis of grade and character of work done, the following factors being considered: number of years in course ; number and qualifications of teacher ; length of school year ; length and number of recitation periods ; character of building and equip- ment; requirements for graduation; general efficiency of the organization; administration and instruction; scope of patronage. Laws such as those in South Carolina and North Carolina make it possible to consider several factors in giving state aid, and to change the factors or their em- phasis from time to time as conditions warrant. While the giving of so much power to the state board might create administrative difficulties in some states, it seems to have worked well in South Carolina for the 9 years in which it has been in operation. It will be noticed, however, that, except for the requirement of a 4-mill levy in South Carolina, practically no weight is given to the wealth of the community. In this respect these two laws are inferior to some that have been discussed. They are superior to most high school aid laws in the flexibility with which they encourage the development of high schools, an aspect of state aid to be considered in Chapter VII. [90] SPECIAL STATE AID C. FUNDAMENTAL AND CONSTANT FACTORS The foregoing analysis impresses one with the notion that most of the states with special aid for high schools have been actuated more or less by the desire to give this aid according to the relative needs of the different communities. One is not so impressed, however, with the success of these states in securing that result. Considering that the 23 states are using 11 distinct types of distribution, one feels that the whole problem of proper apportionment of state high school funds is still in the experimental stage, and that more funda- mental and constant factors than those ordinarily em- ployed for measuring need should be discovered and used. In Chapter I it was shown that under favorable conditions the cost of maintaining minimum standard schools and the wealth of the community that main- tains these schools are the most desirable factors for measuring the amount of money that should be given by the state to any particular community. It is true that the attendance, the classification of the school, the number of teachers employed, etc., do usually give some indication of the ability of a community to do what the state requires in the way of maintaining schools, but it is quite obvious that, under favorable conditions, none of these is so fundamental nor so constant in measuring ability as are the two factors mentioned. With the growth of the feeling that the state should do more in equalizing school burdens and opportuni- ties, it appears quite certain that a more accurate measure than those generally employed for accom- plishing this will be demanded. A valid comparison of the 23 laws for special high [91] PROBLEMS IN STATE HIGH SCHOOL FINANCE school aid by using these two factors cannot now be made. The lack of definite minimum standards of a uniform nature among these 23 states, the uncertainty of the extent to which property valuations have been equalized in some of the states, and the lack of suf- ficiently definite data for applying some laws would viti- ate any tabular comparison that might be made at the present time. Yet, by using the two fundamental and constant factors as criteria one may form at least gen- eral conclusions concerning the comparative value of methods now employed.®® D. SHOULD SPECIAL STATE AID BE THE GOAL.'' That this form of aid has been important in the past there can be no doubt: it has made secondary educa- tion more of a state affair and a necessary part of the education of American youth than would perhaps have been the case without it ; it has lessened the burden for many communities to such an extent that high schools have developed where they otherwise would not ; it has been a means of hastening the setting of state stan- dards. On the other hand it has been found, as results are more carefully checked, that special state aid has certain defects: it has sometimes encouraged the de- es It may be repeated that the classification and evaluation of laws as made in this chapter does not intend to make a wholesale condemnation of present methods of distributing high school aid. The chapter does intend (1 ) to show the various types of methods now being used; (2) to set up certain criteria that, under favor- able conditions, appear to be more fundamental and constant in measuring need than those ordinarily employed; (3) to indicate the lack of equalization in present laws as revealed by these criteria; (4) to show the tendency toward the use of these criteria in certain laws and to make a general and tentative evaluation of the various types by reference to these criteria; (5) to evaluate the more important of the limiting clauses found in existing laws. [92] SPECIAL STATE AID velopment of too many weak high schools (see Chapter VI) ; it has frequently permitted the development of high schools at the expense of the elementary schools (Chapter VI) ; it has not tended to develop as much as would be desirable the conception of the elementary school and the high school as a unit in our educational system (Chapter X) ; it has encouraged the establish- ment of various funds for a variety of secondary school purposes (Chapter IX) and has therefore been a means of making state aid an unduly cumbersome and com- plex process. While some of these defects have been due to weaknesses in individual aid laws and could be remedied under proper special state aid statutes, it is well to inquire whether there is some other form of high school support that will correct the defects and give the advantages that special high school aid has brought. Facts and tendencies that suggest tenta- tive conclusions will be presented in Chapter X. [93 J CHAPTER FIVE County Funds as a Supplementary Source of Revenue foe Secondary Education a. county school funds Two general forms of county assistance to second- ary education are found: (1) participation in the general county funds after these are distributed to the various districts; (2) special high school aid, in which special provision is made for the high school. This special aid may be subdivided into (a) county aid for single county high schools; (b) county aid for free high school tuition for all pupils in the county ; (c) county aid for high schools within the county that are maintained by the different units; (d) maintenance by the county of all or part of the public high schools within the county. In practically all states these county funds supplement some form of state high school support: general school funds, special state aid for general high school purposes, or special state aid for special high school purposes. These general county funds are not at all uniform in composition among the various states. In general, they are derived from any or all of these sources: (1) county school taxes; (2) polls, fines, licenses, etc.; (3) rent of lands. ^ The size of the tax varies.^ Some- 1 See General School Laws of North Dakota, 1915, sections 1224, 1325 ; and Public School Laws of Texas, 1915, page S, section 6, for illustrations. 2 In Florida, the county is required to levy a tax of from 3 to 7 mills; in Wyoming, to levy enough to pay $300 per teacher but not more than 3 mills. [94 J COUNTY AID times the county's share in the state school fund is considered as a part of the county school fund.^ B. STATUS OF THIS METHOD Participation in the general county school funds exists in at least the following states: Florida,* Illi- nois, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, Nevada, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon, South Carolina, Texas, Virginia, Washington, and Wyoming.^ There are un- doubtedly many other states with county funds which may be used for high school purposes after these funds are distributed to the various districts. ' County high schools are authorized by law in at least the following states: Arizona, California, Colorado, Alabama, Kansas, Iowa, Montana, Nevada, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Oregon, Tennessee, Virginia, and VT^y- oming. In Nebraska any county in which there is no approved 12-grade high school is required to establish a county high school. There is a tendency to throw upon the county the responsibility for providing free high school tuition for persons not living in a high school district. Kansas and Oregon illustrate this tendency. In Kansas, Oregon, California, and Idaho there are funds for the assistance of high schools within the county. In Maryland the county board of school commission- ers is authorized to establish such high schools as are 3 This is the case in Idaho and Florida, for example. See School Laws of Idaho, 1915, section 67; and Digest of School Laws of Florida, 1911, page 4, section 9. * Where a definite citation is not given, the authority for the classification of a state is information from the department of public instruction of that state. 5 School Laws of Wyoming, 1915, page 25, section 4. [95] PROBLEMS IN STATE HIGH SCHOOL FINANCE needed, and to maintain them by a county tax.® The same is true in Louisiana^ The high school law of North Carolina provides that the county board of edu- cation may organize one or more high schools in each county and that not more than 4 such schools may re- ceive state aid.® In 1908 Alabama passed a law that evidently intended to require the establishment of a county high school in each county, to be under the con- trol of the county board.' However, in 1914! there were 14 counties without such schools.^** In 1908 Ken- tucky required that within S years the county board of education of each county establish 1 or more county high schools or arrange with a city high school to edu- cate those completing the rural school course.^^ Other states have similar laws tending to make the county the unit for school support and conjrol. C. AN EVALUATION OF COUNTY SUPPOBT As a unit for the development of equalization funds, the county stands between the district and the town- ship on the one hand and the state on the other. Since the county is larger than either the district or the town- ship, it is obvious that equalization funds developed by the county will, in the long run, equalize the burden more than wiU funds developed by either of the smaller units. By reason of differences in productivity of the e Public School Laws of Maryland, 1914, sections 125; 23-26. T Public School Laws of Louisiana, 1914, P^ge 26. 8 Public School Law of North Carolina, 1915, page S2. 8 " The governor, auditor, and superintendent of education shall constitute a commission to locate 1 high school in each of the counties of the state." General School Laws of Alabama, 1911, section 1861. 10 Annual Report of Department of Education, Alabama, 19U, page 35. 11 Kentucky School Laws, 191S, paragraph 125. [96] COUNTY AID soil, nearness to the market, or number of children to be educated, one township will be more able to main- tain schools of a given standard than will another township. County funds are, therefore, valuable for equalizing the burden of these townships just as the township funds are valuable, to a lesser extent, for equalizing the burden of the districts. On the other hand, the state is a still more effective unit for the development of equalization funds, since it includes all counties and can, therefore, remedy the inequalities that are apt to exist among different coun- ties. Since the state is the best unit for the develop- ment of equalization funds, it would seem desirable that ultimately the township and county equalization funds should be discontinued and the funds now held by these units or the rates now levied by them should be turned over to the state. This would mean that the same ef- fort would be made for education and that the same amount of money would be available for equalization purposes, but that it could be used for equalizing the burden of the whole state rather than that of merely the county or the township. While this is, logically, a situation to be desired, it must be recognized that just now there is a strong tendency to increase the importance of county support. Doubtless this is due largely to the development of county unit systems of various types which make cer- tain the support of schools by the county to a greater degree. Doubtless, too, in some states there is a strong feeling against the too rapid development of state taxes, with a consequent falling back upon the county as the next best unit for financing public edu- cation. [971 PROBLEMS IN STATE HIGH SCHOOL FINANCE 1. The General County Funds The method of distributing the general county funds is usually the same as that employed in distributing the general state school funds. In only a few states is provision made whereby the county superintendent may modify the method employed by the state. Where such provision is made, the method to be used by the county more nearly approximates distribution according to need and effort than does that used by the state. Thus, Idaho provides that the state superintendent shall apportion the state fimds to the county on the basis of the number of children of school age, while the county superintendent is to apportion the county funds and the county's share in the state funds on the basis of number of teachers, number of children, and needs of poor districts. ^^ 2. County Aid In the days of sparsely settled counties, when there was frequently not even a single community in a county with sufficient wealth and pupils to maintain a good high school by its own efforts and when usually there was not more than one such community, it was natural that a whole county should pool its efforts for the maintenance of a secondary school. In most of the states in which the county is a political unit of any im- portance the county high school has, therefore, been an important factor in the development of secondary education. In some states, particularly in the Rocky Mountain region, the single county high school still ex- ists. The majority of states and counties have, how- ever, now gone beyond the point where a single high ^^ School Laws of Idaho, 1915, sections 66, 67. [98] COUNTY AID school meets adequately the needs of the county. Cen- ters of population have developed in various parts of the county, and these have demanded a secondary school training more accessible than that afforded by the cen- tral high school. Such, for instance, is the situation at present in Colorado, which has been so well analyzed by Dr. W. A. Cook, High School Visitor of the University of Colorado. He shows that since 19 of the 63 counties of the state have county high schools, and since parts of these county high school districts are maintaining full-fledged high schools in their local districts at their own expense, something must be done to meet the new situation. ^^ One mode of meeting such a situation in the past was to provide free high school privileges. Sometimes this was done by the state, as in Minnesota,^* or in part by the state, as in Massachusetts ; sometimes by a tax upon that part of the county not in a high school district, as in Oregon; sometimes by the whole county as provided by the recent Illinois law ; frequently these privileges were furnished wholly or in part by the dis- trict in which the pupil lived, as in South Dakota. Of late a few states have extended the movement for free high school privileges by providing for transportation, as in California, and by suggesting the need of some assistance for maintenance of pupils away from home, as in Nevada. Another mode of settling the problem of secondary school training was to provide a county fund for the aid of all high schools in the county. In California 13 The Colorado School Journal, Volume XXX, No. 5, pages 7- 12. See also ISth Biennial Report of Superintendent of Public Inftruction, Montana, 1914, page 15, for statement of conditions in that state. 1* Details of these laws wiU be found in Chapter VIII. [99] PROBLEMS IN STATE HIGH SCHOOL FINANCE such county aid for high schools followed a law for the payment of high school tuition by that part of the county not in a high school district.^ ^ In Oregon the county tuition law followed the special county aid law.i« Before turning to the fourth mode of solving this question of secondary school training through the county, it will be well to analyze the special county aid laws for high schools now in existence. For the 6 years preceding 1915, California required that part of a county not in a high school district to levy a sum sufficient to pay the tuition of all pupils who attended high school. In 1915 the present county high school aid law was adopted. This provides that a county tax be levied so that there is raised: (1) $60 for each pupil in the county in average daily attend- ance upon a high school in the county and, under cer- tain circumstances, in attendance upon a high school in an adjoining county; (2) the actual amount paid by a high school board for transportation of pupils not residing in a high school district, not to exceed $5 per month for each pupil; and (3) if the above es- timates do not produce $250 per teacher, not to exceed 4 teachers for each high school of the county, employed for the full time during the preceding school year, enough more is to be levied to produce this sum. In the distribution of this county fund there is paid: (1) the amount due another county for the attendance of high school pupils; (2) the amount due for trans- portation of high school pupils; (3) $250 for each 1^ School Law of California, 1911, section 1758; and School Law of California, 1915, section 1764. 18 Oregon School Laws, 191S, sections 361-371 ; Oregon School Laws, 1915, sections 398-408. [100] COUNTY AID full-time teacher employed, not to exceed 4 teachers for any high school ; (4) the remainder on the basis of average daily attendance. ■''' Obviously, such a law has an advantage over the older tuition law in that the whole county is made to contribute more to secondary education. On this point Commissioner W. C. Wood says: " An investigation of the problem of financing secondary education in California revealed the fact that property as- sessed at $400,000,000 — one seventh of the total assessed valuation of the state — was not subj ect to a high school district tax. Pupils living in territory outside of high school districts were attending high schools furnished and maintained by the high school districts, and paying only a small tax to meet tuition charges. The average rate of tax for high school purposes levied on property in high school districts was about 5 mills, while the average rate levied in territory outside of high school districts for tuition of pupils attending from such territory was about seven tenths of a miU. In other words, territory inside was paying at least seven times as heavy a rate as territory outside." ^* A specific illustration is given from Solano County. Property within high school districts is taxed from 17 to 56 cents per $100 for the maintenance of high schools. The territory outside of high school districts is paying only 5 cents per $100 for high school tu- ition.^® It is doubtful if this is quite a fair compari- son, since families living far from the high school were compelled, under the old law, to furnish transporta- tion or to pay for room and board if the transporta- " School LatD of California, 1915, section 1764. 18 From statement entitled " Establishment of County High School Fund." !• Report of Commissioner of Secondary Schools, 1914, page 35. [101] PROBLEMS IN STATE HIGH SCHOOL FINANCE tion was not provided by the high school. There is no doubt, however, that such a plan is superior to the payment of tuition as a means of distributing the bur- den for supporting secondary education, and that thfi adoption of such a plan indicates a high status of edu- cational sentiment. Commissioner Wood ^ has furnished data showing the increased extent to which the maintenance of high schools in certain counties is borne by territory out- side the high school districts (see Table 24). In Ala- meda County the tax of such territory increased from 4 cents to 13 cents; in Butte County, from 8 cents to 18 cents; in Colusa County, from 5 cents to 10 cents; in Contra Costa County, from 5 cents to 8 cents; in Humboldt County, from 3 cents to 12 cents ; in Impe- rial County, from 9 cents to 13 cents. The way in which the law will work in a county is shown by the following data from Colusa County. To each of the 5 high school districts there is given $250 for each of 4 teachers, or $1000, and about $37 for each pupil in average daily attendance. The last two columns give a comparison of the tax rate necessary in each district under the old law and under the new law. It will be noticed that in all the districts except Pierce the rate is lower under the new law. This means that the ad- ditional burden is borne by the territory outside of the high school district. It should also be noticed that this outside territory is not bearing as great a burden as are the high school districts, since the rate in the former is 10 cents while the average rate for the latter is 26.6 cents. From this table one learns also something of the equalizing effect of this new law. That the rates are 20 In personal letter, December 27, 191S. [102 J COUNTY AID 2 ^t .12 a ^ a a DO F e3 o SB g s a ^ O H S a ID o a S S C8 V i2j: o (D1309 *a.a.sg 00 000 00 o o re CO Wi-J C4Q0O ■*04 r-iiOCO VCO in 04 01 WW OKMC4 -401 rHlOOO «OCO OOiO COM iac« 1 1 •s 1 a 1^1 COOCOH WC- C4iaect-Q0£- Without teacher limita- tion 00 t-ca ■*^- 1- CO CO U3«D CO ec 1 ooc-M ■^b-t- cotomtooco > s s 'a 1 si* O OOOOO COCDOOiOM iHC0 5D00"*CO I-l Without teacher limita- tion != = = = = 02 o 12; o oooi>oin tHOOOOOO t- C4 rJH 00 © 0> O |i ©MOMO'* i-KNCOQOOT No. years in course WM ■* ■* ■*■* 111 oooooo tum loooeio «D t- lO (O 00 04 §1 Aumsville Hubhard Jefferson Woodburn .... Silverton A to em e8 flj 2 OS "t3 *- ^^ -. **H-9 s « '^.^g C fl-*^ ta u-g ■l^fl" fewg l,„9 „a.S »3iS ■S""o MS " «■" 3 ^ fl M •H. rj 2 « O flB [106] COUNTY AID commissioners the amount of the levy.^^ According to the state department it is the policy of practically all counties operating under this law to levy the limit permitted by the law. In 1913 there were 39 of the 105 counties that had adopted this form of county aid.^^^ A later law of similar import, but with important differences in detail, was passed in 1911. Counties of less than 10,000 population may, upon petition of a majority of the school electors of the county, petition the county superintendent and the county commission- ers to extend aid to a certain high school or high schools within the county. The commissioners may levy such tax, not to exceed one and one half mills in counties having a population of 3000 or less nor one half mill in counties having more than 3000 inhabit- ants, as will be " sufficient to raise the amount neces- sary to aid such district or districts as said county superintendent and said board of commissioners be- lieve proper." Such high schools are under the con- trol of the county superintendent and the district boards of education.^'' This law enables certain counties that could not meet the requirements of the other law to aid high schools, and permits them to do so by petition and action of the county commissioners instead of by election. In December, 1916, there were, according to the state superintendent, but 2 counties operating under this law. In 1915 Nevada passed a law ^^ providing for county 25 Superintendent W. D. Ross in personal letter, December 11, 1916. 28 Wife Biennial Report of State Superintendent of Public In- struction of Kansas, 1914, page 221. 2T Common School Laws of Kansas, 1915, sections 423-434. i» Nevada School Code, 1915, pages 130, 131. [107] PROBLEMS IN STATE HIGH SCHOOL FINANCE aid to district high schools in counties not having a county high schooh The commissioners are required to levy a tax of not more than 10 cents on the $100 of assessed valuation, and high schools are permitted to share in this fund when (1) standard courses are main- tained in industrial work, (2) the district is levying a special tax of not less than 15 cents, and (3) free tuition is granted properly qualified pupils in the county. If there is more than 1 high school to be as- sisted, distribution of the county fund is made by the state superintendent as follows : one third according to the enrollment; one third according to the school cen- sus; one third according to the assessed valuation of the districts. The fourth mode of county aid for high schools is that in which the county becomes the unit for the main- tenance of both high schools and elementary schools within the county. While this county unit organiza- tion has been in operation in a few of the Southern states for over a quarter of a century, there has been a renewed and increased interest in it during the last few years. The county-unit plan ^® aims, in brief, to make the county the unit for the maintenance and the administration of all public schools ; levies a tax upon the entire county to be distributed among independent and county districts on the basis of school population, and among the different schools of the county district on the basis of need; enables districts to supplement the county funds when they wish; provides a county school board, taking over many of the functions now exercised by district boards and making the district 29 This is the plan recommended by the Bureau of Education in Coimty-Unit Organization for the Adminiatration of Rural SchooU, Bulletin, 1914, No. 44, page 8. [108] COUNTY AID boards custodians of school property and advisers to the county board; and provides a superintendent elected by the county board who is the real professional head of the public schools in the county. The difference between the county-unit plan for maintaining high schools and special county aid for high schools is, from the financial point of view, largely a matter of the amount of money furnished by the county. Under special county aid only a part of the cost is paid by the county, the remainder coming from the local district or from the state or from both. Thus, in Oregon not over $40 per pupil is raised by the county. Under the county-unit plan, the county as- sumes the entire responsibility for maintaining high schools except in those cases where certain independent districts are excluded or where the local districts may levy an additional tax, using also whatever the state may give for this purpose. Frequently, though not always, there is more flexibility under the county-unit system in the way in which the moneys may be dis- tributed to the different schools, the county board be- ing the determining power in estimating the needs of different communities. Thus it may place a four-year high school in one community, a two-year high school in another, one of a single year in a third, and may provide free tuition and transportation for all other communities requiring them. The following brief statements, which have been checked and approved by the different state superin- tendents, will give some notion of the present status in certain states that are employing a county-unit or a partial county-unit system. 1. In Maryland all high schools, as well as elemen- tary schools, in each county are under the direction of [109] PROBLEMS IN STATE HIGH SCHOOL FINANCE the county superintendent of schools subject to the county board of education, and are maintained by a tax levied upon the entire county. In the establish- ment of high schools it is necessary to secure the ap- proval of the state board of education, which acts upon the recommendation of the state superintendent. Local trustees have the care of school houses, lands, and equipment but do not employ any one connected with the schools. They may present charges for the removal of the principal teacher, but the teachers and other employees of the schools are selected by the county superintendent subject to the approval of the county board. No local taxes may be levied. No tuition is charged for attendance at a high school, and the county board has authority to provide transporta- tion where necessary.^** 2. In Kentucky the territory of each county not in towns or cities having separate systems of schools is divided into 4, 6, or 8 educational districts, and these in turn into subdistricts, each with a trustee. The chairmen of the educational districts with the county superintendent form the county board of education. This county board estimates the taxes that should be levied and expends them " as in their judgment as a county board, the needs of the individual schools for white and colored pupils demand." The county tax is not to be levied upon property in cities and towns maintaining a first-class system of schools nor on prop- erty in school districts operating under the inde- pendent graded-district school law. The subdistrict may, upon vote, levy an additional tax which is to be expended by the county board for the benefit of the subdistrict. The county board is required to estab- so Public School Laws of Maryland, 1916, sections 22-78; 125. [1101 COUNTY AID lish one or more county high schools. If there is al- ready a first-class high school in the county, arrange- ments may be made to furnish free tuition in this high school. The county board is also empowered to unite with a city or town board to establish and maintain a high school for the joint use of the city and the county. The county board is authorized to provide transporta- tion in consolidated districts, which may include the transportation of high school pupils.^^ 3. New Mexico has only a partial county-unit sys- tem. Local district boards, both city and rural, make an estimate of the money needed for schools, and sub- mit this estimate to the county superintendent, who in turn submits it to the board of county commissioners. The commissioners then levy upon the entire county the rate, not to exceed 18 mills in special tax, that will produce the sums asked for by the district boards. County high schools are authorized by an election. Such high schools are under the management of local boards of education, of which the county superintend- ent is an ex-officio member, and estimates for the sup- port of these high schools are made by these local boards and submitted to the county commissioners. A special high school tax of not more than 2 mills is levied for maintenance, but the cost of site and buildings must be paid by the district in which the high school is located. When there is more than one county high school, the county high school fund is apportioned on the basis of attendance. When an additional high school is established it receives during the first school year not more than one third of the moneys then in the county high school fund. High schools may also be established by local districts as district high schools. ^'i- Kentucky School Lawt, 191S, Chapter 10. [Ill] PROBLEMS IN STATE HIGH SCHOOL FINANCE In December, 1916, there were 46 district high schools, and 14 county high schools in 9 counties. In county high schools tuition is free to all children of school age residing in the county.*^ Some variations will be noticed in the above county- unit and partial county-unit systems. Sometimes the schools are supported entirely by the county and the state (Maryland) ; sometimes local taxes may be levied (Kentucky). Sometimes the management is practically in the hands of the county board (Kentucky) ; some- times it rests largely with the local board (New 'Mexico). Sometimes all high schools are under the coimty board (Maryland) ; sometimes not (Kentucky). Sometimes the law is permissive (New Mexico); usu- ally compulsory (Kentucky). Usually the county board may use the funds as the needs of the school require, but in the case of New Mexico a definite method of distribution is provided. While the county-unit system involves a degree of centralization that many states are not yet ready to accept, it now appears certain that the next few years will see a considerable extension of its influence as peo- ple become familiar with its supervisory and adminis- trative advantages. No one can, however, predict with certainty what place the county, as compared with the state, will finally have in the supervision, administra- tion, and support of high schools. The next chapter will show certain needs that apparently can best be met through the state. Four general steps by which the county has been a factor in the development of secondary education stand out rather clearly. These also constitute four S2 House Bill No. 232, 1915; and New Mexico Code of Public In- struction, pages 29, 30. [112] COUNTY AID general modes by which the county is still a factor. (1) There was the single county high school suited to the more pioneer conditions when it was necessary for a whole county to pool its strength in order to maintain a good high school. In nearly all states this situation has now passed. (S) With the development of the county in population and wealth, communities other than the one in which the county high school was located wished for a high school. This led to the dis- continuance of the single county high school and the establishment of several high schools in the county maintained by the different districts. To provide free secondary school privileges for those living in districts not able to maintain a high school, free tuition was provided by the district, by that part of the county not in a high school district, by the entire county or by the state. In a few cases transportation also was pro- vided. (3) Under the arrangement whereby the county or part of county became responsible for the tuition, it was found that sometimes the outlying dis- tricts could secure secondary school opportunities at a much less expenditure of energy than was required by the districts maintaining high schools. To meet this condition a few states developed county aid for high schools so that such outlying districts would bear a larger share of the burden. (4) Finally, in certain states the high school was conceived as being an integral part of the public school system and a more important part than it was usually considered. Hence, when the county was made the unit of administration and sup- port, the high school was included in the plan, so that under the more advanced schemes of county-unit or- ganization taxes for all school purposes are levied upon the entire county, then used by the county board of [113] PROBLEMS IN STATE HIGH SCHOOL FINANCE education according to the needs of various sections. Such flexibility, when properly safeguarded by well-de- fined principles of determining and supplying need, seems the best form of county participation in sec- ondary as well as in elementary education. [114] CHAPTER SIX Some Phases of State Supekvision of Public High Schools A. STATE standards THE history of American education shows clearly a tendency toward a greater centralization of power and responsibility in the larger school units, and a greatly increased efficiency as a result of this central- ization. The creation of permanent school funds managed by the state ; the assessing of state and county taxes for school purposes ; the creation of state depart- ments of public instruction ; the giving of special state aid for high schools, industrial education, normal train- ing, and weak rural schools ; the appointment of state inspectors for these schools and lines of work ; the pass- ing of compulsory education laws ; certification of the teacher first by the district, then by the county, finally by the state; uniform textbook legislation; etc., etc., all bear witness to this centralizing tendency and to the many lines of educational activity in which it has been carried out. Few persons will be inclined to deny that a more effective school system has been the out- come of this centralization. In secondary education, as well as in other phases of school work, complete control by the local commu- nity has generally meant a neglect of the schools, com- paratively speaking, due either to an unwillingness to make a reasonable sacrifice for schools or to ignorance as to how educational progress may be secured. Hence the high school visitor or inspector from the university or the state department has done much to [115] PROBLEMS IN STATE HIGH SCHOOL FINANCE take communities away from their provincialism in high school matters. In spite of the fact that much has been accomplished in the development of an effective system of high schools in most states, any high school visitor or inspector will admit that much remains to be done. This chapter and the following one will deal with four of the most important of these problems by showing how finance laws may be a real factor in their solution. It must be admitted that the general state school funds have not, as a rule, been of as great influence in setting high standards of school efficiency as they should be. MacDowell has shown in his analysis ^ that 8 of the states have not set requirements that must be met on penalty of having the state funds withheld. Of the 40 states making such provision 28 require that school be maintained a minimum length of time. How- ever, very few of these require school years of 8 or 9 months; several require only 3 or 4 months; 11 states require the levying and payment of certain taxes; 7, the care for and expenditure of school moneys and the filing of official bonds ; 19, the filing of reports; 13, the enumeration of school children; 11, the employing of qualified teachers and superindendents and the paying of a minimum salary; 6, specified school accommoda- tions ; 3, the enforcement of the compulsory school law ; 7, the introduction of specified subjects into the cur- riculum; 6, the use of state-adopted texts and state course of study; 1, the observing of laws relating to medical inspection; 1, the excluding of instruction in foreign tongues; 4, the excluding of denominational, 1 MacDowell, Theodore L., State versus Local Control of Ele- mentary Education, page 78. Bureau of Education Bulletin, 1915, No. 22. [116] STATE SUPERVISION sectarian, or partisan instruction; 1, the non-separa- tion of pupils because of race or social position; 1, the closing of schools during institute session; 2, the appointing of a school agent or treasurer and report of the same; S, the performing of all duties specified by law. Although some states are exceptions, it is quite fair to conclude from these facts that the general school funds even yet have not taken the lead in setting the standard of efficiency that we may expect in the elementary schools. The reasons for this lack of influence of the general school funds have never been worked out in detail, and it is outside the scope of this study to do so. A read- ing of the history of education in different states throws some light upon the matter in showing the atti- tude during the first half of the last century toward free public schools. Swift has summarized this atti- tude in several pages, of which the following quotation is representative: " Public sentiment respecting the establishing and main- taining of free schools ranged all the way from indifference, disbelief, and contempt, to open hostility. ... It may be argued that the existence of such conditions in the West was due, in part at least, to the hardships of pioneer life and the sparseness of population, but in the East, where public schools had existed since colonial days, conditions were fre- quently little better. The free public school continued to be regarded as a charity school provided for those who were unable to pay. In Massachusetts, the law of 1827 had re- quired all public schools to be free, supported by taxation; nevertheless public schools were ' languishing for support to a degree destitute of public sympathy.' . . . The free school in the South was regarded, generally speaking, distinctly as a charity school. Striking evidence of the truth of this is presented in the fact that the portion of the Permanent [117] PROBLEMS IN STATE HIGH SCHOOL FINANCE School Fund established by Georgia in 1821, which was de- voted to the support of free schools, was commonly known as the Poor School Fund. . . . After Florida had estab- lished a Permanent Common School Fund in 1848, she was unable to secure reports from the schools as to school at- tendance. From 1850 to 1851 it was provided by law that a county, in order to receive its share of the revenue of the School Fund of Florida, must submit to the State Superin- tendent, prior to May, 1852, a report of the number of chil- dren in each district of the county from five to eighteen years of age who had actually attended school in the district within three months of the date of the report. This law was repealed in 1852 owing to the impossibility of enforc- ing it." 2 But special state aid for high schools has been more fortunate in securing reasonable standards. Almost every state receiving such assistance has set definite standards that must be met by the community before it is entitled to aid. In some cases the state aid law itself sets such standards ; ® in most cases some state board has been designated for this purpose.* Informa- tion received from most of the state departments of the states giving special aid indicate that very little if anything was done in the setting of high school stand- ards before state aid was adopted.^ Sometimes the 2 Swift, Fletcher H., A History of Public Permanent Common School Funds in the United States, 1795-1905, pages 161-164. s See, for example. Public School Law of Maryland, 1916, sec- tion 126. * See, for example. Laws of Minnesota Relating to the Public School System, 1916, section 143. 5 The following quotation from the high school inspector of South Carolina is fairly representative: " It is fairly correct to say that prior to 1907 there were no definite high school standards in South Carolina. The State Constitution was so worded as to enable districts to use school funds for high school purposes as well as for elementary school purposes. There were no rules what- [118] STATE SUPERVISION University had done something.® Sometimes detailed requirements were not made until a few years after state aid was first begun.'' Usually, too, the standards set for high schools have been such as to place a real responsibility upon the community, a situation which still is not true in regard to participation in the gen- eral school funds in many states. All credit for the development of such standards in the United States cannot, however, be given to state aid. In some states where aid is not given, stand- ardization has made great progress through the in- fluence of the state university or the state department of education. Of late years state departments have taken a greater interest than formerly in this work, without regard to aid from the state — due, doubtless, to the growing recognition of the fact that the develop- ment of an effective secondary school system demands such standardization.® While, therefore, special state aid may be given great credit for the development of the spirit for definite standards, it is quite likely that it will not have so great an influence in the future be- cause the demand of the community for an adequate checking system has become a more important factor. ever governing the establishment or maintenance of high school grades in any school. The only approach to regulations was the adpption of textboolcs suitable to high school work." B Illustrated in Arkansas. T Illustrated in California. 8 Illinois is a good illustration. For many years the University has done most effective work in stimulating the development of high schools. A few years ago the state department undertook to supplement the work of the University, particularly in the non- accredited high schools. [119] PROBLEMS IN STATK HIGH SCHOOL FINANCE B. THE PKOTECTION OF THE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL Any one, on a very little reflection, will concede that, desirable as high schools certainly are, it would not be wise to permit their development at the expense of the elementary school. It is essential that all children be provided with a training of reasonably high stand- ard in the elementary grades before provision is made for the smaller number that take the high school course. It would seem that such a self-evident proposition would need no agitation, much less a careful system of standards and checks to see that it is carried out. The more important reasons why it is necessary to provide in a conscious fashion for the protection of the ele- mentary school are: 1. Many persons in a community do not understand modern social conditions well enough to appreciate the need not only of a school of minimum length but of minimum standards of accomplishment as well. Prob- ably every community has its citizens who consider that the type of education that would do for conditions when they were children will do for the present genera- tion also. 2. Some persons, even if they see the need of con- tinually raising standards for meeting more and more complex conditions, do not see this need clearly enough to overcome the tendency to establish the high school grades at the expense of the elementary school for the standing it gives the town among its neighboring com- munities. Professor W, H, Hand, high school inspec- tor for South Carolina, has repeatedly called attention, in a laudably fearless manner, to this tendency in his state. [120] STATE SUPERVISION " In fully one half of the schools that have been reduced from a two-teacher basis to a one-teacher basis, and in nearly all of these that have dropped out entirely, the ele- mentary schools have suffered in some way. In many of them wholly unprepared pupils have been promoted to the high school solely to make the required high school enroll- ment for state aid. In some instances the highest grade of the elementary school has been utterly destroyed, and in most cases it was done at the direction of the local board. In several instances your inspector has had to refuse to accept such pupils as belonging to the high school. "Another evil is that of giving a small number of high school pupils to one teacher at a fair salary, and overcrowd- ing the elementary teachers at beggarly salaries. . . . Many of the schools have two teachers teaching three high school grades, and three teachers teaching seven elementary grades. It is highly regrettable that so many school boards and com- munities are willing to work an injustice to their teachers and to their own children for the sake of getting three or four hundred dollars from the state." * Mr. Hand then gives a table showing some of these evils. For the sake of brevity every third school only has been taken from his table. School High school teachers High school salaries High school pupils Elemen- tary teachers Elemen- tary salaries Elemen- tary pupils Williams .... Croeketville . . Oakway Due West. . . Pendleton . . . Saluda Chesterfield . . Cross HiU ... EUoree Ridge Spring. Branson .... 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 6 $675 765 600 1137 1100 1246 1260 1450 1120 1440 2946 20 19 38 39 38 80 40 40 26 38 76 2 2 3 3 S 3 3 3 3 3 3 $585 720 640 1020 960 1160 900 1390 840 1080 1080 108 98 169 131 106 181 223 14S 174 130 207 Report of High School Inspector, South Carolina, 1909-10, pages 9, 10. [ml PROBLEMS IN STATE HIGH SCHOOL FINANCE The high school inspector of North Carolina has pointed out the same danger in that state.'** Since it is evident that the elementary school has suffered in many communities of some states and is liable to suffer in some communities of any state, it is necessary that precautionary measures be taken. Very little is found in the statutes dealing with the prob- lem. In Virginia it is provided that " The establishment of such schools of higher grade or the introduction of such higher branches shall not be allowed to interfere with regular and efficient instruction in the ele- mentary school." ^^ Oregon has a similar requirement reading thus: " None of the funds of any district shall be used for the purpose of maintaining a high school, unless said district shall also maintain at least eight months' instruction each year in the lower grades of the school system of this state." " Such requirements are too general to accomplish anything of themselves. They do warn local school boards that there may be a tendency to develop a high school or to introduce high school branches at the ex- pense of the elementary school, but the real effective- ness of such laws depends upon the existence of authoritative boards to define what constitutes " regu- lar and efficient instruction in the elementary school" and to enforce their definitions. Information given the writer in 1915 by the educa- tion departments of 22 states showed that 3 had set no 10 Bth Annual Report of State Inspector of Public High Schools, North Carolina, WIS, pages 6-9. 11 Virginia School Lata, 1915, section 90. 12 Oregon School Laws, 1915, section 361. [122] STATE SUPERVISION standards for the elementary school; 1 was planning such standards ; 2 had them in certain counties ; 16 had standards of some sort. Of the 16, however, at least 4 had only nominal standards, such as a state course of study and eighth-grade examinations. More de- tailed information is available on one factor in ele- mentary school standards — the state regulations con- cerning minimum school terms. According to Muer- man,'^ the following is the present status: 4 states have no regulations 3 " require 3 months 6 " 4 t( 7 " S » 13 " 6 " 4 " 7 General School Laws of North Dakota, 1915, section 1431. «i Code of Public Instruction, Washington, 1913, section 249. '2 General School Law of South Carolina, 1916, section 1812-i. »3 Digest of Laws Relating to Free Schools, Arkansas, 1914, sec- tions 7699-y, 7699-i, 7699-fc. [163] PROBLEMS IN STATE HIGH SCHOOL FINANCE tuition. Nevertheless there were in that year 39 cent of the graded school districts that had e under 19 mills. In several of these districts thi was as low as 7 mills.®* Such districts are of ( fully able to pay high school tuition, and in faim the rest of the state should do so. Another result that may follow from the use c method is the partial or complete invalidation ( original purpose of the special state aid to high so It is presumed that when special aid is granted school, that school is worthy in itself of receivin aid. If the school is compelled to care for any ber of non-residents that may apply, it is conce that the special aid is aid merely for free ti While Wisconsin is not employing the method discussion at this point, that state may be us illustrate the possible effect of a law requiring state-aided high school to receive non-residents out charge. Wisconsin is cited because it is tht state for which definite data are available. Tl justice shown here will be even less than might 1 pected from states employing this method, since consin schools may charge a tuition fee while the < may not. The state high school inspector esti in 1908 that the state aid of $500 per school, was from $100 to $150 more than was actually would, when added to the regular tuition fee, p: free tuition for about 33 pupils.®' In 1908-9, the 268 four-year high schools had 33 or more resident pupils, so that in 78 high schools stal 64 isth Anrfual Report of Inspector of State Graded & Minnesota, 1915, pages 45; 16-21. 65 l^th. Biennial Report of Department of Public Insti Wisconsin, 1908-10, page 44. [164] FREE HIGH SCHOOL PRIVILEGES was entirely, and in other high schools partly, diverted from its purpose.®*' Since the tuition rate has been raised in that state, conditions now will be much better. Some supplementary evidence of this danger comes from Washington. The high school aid law there, it will be recalled, counts high school attendance at one and one-half times the regular rate per pupil. This is paid from the state school fund. A letter, April 23, 1914, from the state superintendent states : " The fund which is distributed to high schools amounts to over $400,000 annually. A number of high schools, how- ever, are finding that their compensation from the state fund is insufficient and it is probable that some change in the system will need to be made looking to an increase in the appropriation." Both of the difficulties incident to providing free tu- ition in state-aided high schools may be overcome by a ! proper cooperation between the state and the local unit. b ; 6. Cooperation of State and Local Unit One form of this cooperation is found in Pennsyl- vania,^^ where the amount given by the state to any high school must be deducted from the cost of main- I taining the high school before the tuition rate may be estimated. This method has some advantage over both i the other methods of furnishing entirely free tuition, in that the district is given the advantage of sharing in such funds as the state appropriates to high schools, I and the high school attended is not compelled to re- ceive non-residents at a financial loss. However, no distinction is made in the different abilities of local 6' Calculated from statistics given in Ibid., pages 166-174. ^T School Law of Pennsylvania, 1916, sections 1707-1711. [166] PROBLEMS IN STATE HIGH SCHOOL FINANCE units to pay the tuition. A similar law was istence in California until 1915.®^ In figuring t of tuition there, the amount per pupil receivei the state was first to be deducted. A levy w£ made upon all the county not included in a high district for the payment of this tuition. In county high school aid law was adopted by whi high school tuition was provided for all.®® A second form of this cooperation is that in the state allows a certain amount or percenta pupil and the district pays the remainder. Su< are found in Massachusetts,'''' New Jersey, ^^ and Island.^^ In this connection should be mentione necticut, which has a permissive law, and Maine ware. New Hampshire, and Vermont, which ] partially free tuition. In some of these states no distinction is made ability of different districts to pay the tuition, provides that two thirds of the tuition, not exi $500 to any town, shall be paid by the state. '. suit may be seen from the data for 1913-14 g Table 26. The first 10 towns in the list of th ceiving state aid for tuition are given. Ai Avon, Baldwin, and Bancroft have rates that di: tie from the average rate for the state; Argyle, son, and Addison, for example, have much highei «s School Law of Calif orma, 1911, sections 175&-17S9. 69 School Law of California, 1915, section 1764. For a scription of tliis law and an evaluation of its chief provis pages 100-104. TO Revised Lams Relating to Public Instruction, Massa 1915, pages 16, 17. TiJVew Jersey School Law, 1914, section 223 I (A). 72 Laws of Rhode Island Relating to Education, 1910, j 98. [166] FREE HIGH SCHOOL PRIVILEGES Table Town Cost of 73 tuition Paid by state 73 Rate nec- essary 74 to pay towns share Com- mon 75 school tax Total school tax Addison Alna Amheist •Aigyle Arrowsie Atkinson Avon Baldwin Bancroft Baring $144.00 354.40 78.00 68.00 30.00 360.00 136.00 485.00 90.00 30.00 $96.00 236.26 52.00 40.00 20.00 240.00 90.00 323.33 60.00 20.00 .00022 .00063 .00031 .00041 .00016 .00068 .00022 .00044 .000ft .00009 .0060 .0032 .0026 .0078 .0041 .0062 .0020 .0019 .0018 .0036 .00622 .00383 .00291 .00771 .00426 .00688 .00222 .00234 .00223 .00359 Average for state .002676 New Jersey has a similar type of law. There the state pays $25 for each high school pupil whose tuition has been paid by the districtJ^ Rhode Island refunds $25 for each of the first 25 pupils in average daily at- tendance whose tuition has been paid by the town and $15 for each of the second 25 pupils. Lack of equal- ization of the burdens similar to that shown for Maine exists in this state.^® The average rate for the state is $33.50, the variations being from $14.75 to $63.25 in 1913-14.''® 12 of the 21 towns receiving aid for tuition had a tax rate below the state average. It is clear that, compared with all towns in the state, the 12 towns were not in need of such assistance. The Massachusetts "tuition law aims to remedy this defect by distributing the state aid on the basis of need. '''Maine School Report, 1914, page 198 (appendix). '* Calculated from data given in columns 2 and 18, pages 108- 135 of Maine School Report, 1914. "/6id., pages 108-135. I'lhid., page 136. "2Vea) Jertey School Law, 1914, section 223 (h). '8 See pages 62-65 for an evaluation of this law. " 70th Animal Report of Commitsioner of Public SchooU, Rhode hVmd, 1914, page 161. [167] PROBLEMS IN STATE HIGH SCHOOL FINANCE All towns of 500 or more families are excluded from participation. These must provide a standard high school education for their pupils. Furthermore, a town is excluded from receiving this aid if its valuation per pupil is above the valuation per pupil of the entire state. A town not excluded on either of these grounds receives a rebate of one half of the tuition paid if its valuation is $1,000,000 or over, and all the tuition if its valuation is under that amount.®" The effect of excluding towns on the basis of the number of families or the valuation per pupil has al- ready been shown (pages 43-47; 49-52). Does the provision that all towns entitled to aid shall have one half their tuition refunded if their valuation is $1,000,000 or over, and all their tuition if it is under that amount, give aid to each according to relative need? The answer may be found in the following table : Table 27 si Having Having rate rate Rate for all public schools Per above below cent Amount state state Town Valuation paid paid by average average by state getting getting stete only 60 100 per per cent cent of of tuition tuition Aoushnet .... $1,098,380 $7.39 50 $989.06 XXX Buckland . . . 1,420,026 3.96 60 480 Erving 1,066,053 4.75 50 398.95 XXX Freetown .... 1,019,320 5.13 60 577.80 XXX Lakeville . . . 1,161,885 6.69 60 666.47 XXX Alford 189,638 4.01 100 252.00 XXX Becket 642,960 6.39 100 664.50 Bellingham . . 955,645 6.67 100 896.00 Berkley 530,513 6.92 100 1108.80 Berlin 623,265 6.54 100 1484.00 Average for state 4.54 so Revised Laws Relating to Public Instruction, Massachusetts, 1915, pages 15-17. ) 81 78th, Annual Report of Board of Education of Massachusetts, \\ 191S-14, pages 160-168. j [ 168 ] FREE HIGH SCHOOL PKIVILEGES Of the 10 towns in the table, 5 receive half the tuition from the state and are the first 5 in alphabetical order of 14 towns receiving this proportion ; the other 5 towns in the table receive a reimbursement of 100 per cent and are the first 5 in alphabetical order of 75 towns recei^dng all the tuition from the state. According to this table, 4 of the first 5 towns have a tax rate for schools above the state average of $4.54 and receive only 50 per cent of the cost of tuition from the state, while 1 of the other 5 schools has a tax rate below the state average, yet receives 100 per cent of the tuition cost. Of the 14 towns in the state receiving half the tuition, 9 have a rate above that of the average for the state ; of the 75 towns in the state receiving all the tuition, 29 have a rate below that of the average for the state. This shows clearly that the present method of refunding tuition in Massachusetts, as judged by available data, is only partially successful in aiding the different towns according to need. This is evi- dently due to the fact that the valuation of the com- munity gives only a partial index of the needs of a community; it neglects the factor of cost of maintain- ing the elementary schools. The division of communi- ties into 2 classes tends also to make an arbitrary classification that succeeds only part of the time in ac- complishing its purpose. It is an interesting commentary that in 1913, when Massachusetts adopted a new high school transporta- tion law, the basis adopted for refunding money ex- pended by the towns for this purpose was the tax rate for schools. According to this law, when a town has expended not less than $4 and less than $5 per $1000 of valuation for public schools, one half the expendi- tures for transportation are refunded ; when a town has [169] PROBLEMS IN STATE HIGH SCHOOL FINANCE expended at least $5 per $1000 of valuation for its schools, it receives a refund of all the expenditures for transportation.*^ Since the average tax rate for the state was, in 1913-14, $4.54, it is seen that this new law makes the state assume all the burden when the town has a rate much above that of the state average; that the state assumes only half the burden when the town's rate is about the average of the whole state; and that the state assumes none of the burden when the rate is, approximately, less than the average for the state. While Vermont and New Hampshire do not belong to this group of states that makes tuition entirely free in all cases, they should be mentioned as illustrations of the growing tendency to secure more and more an accurate measure of the extent to which communities should be assisted by the state. Vermont employs the same method for refunding tuition as it does for aiding high schools (see Chapter IV). It gives no aid to towns having a grand list of more than $15,000, but other towns are graded into 4 classes on the grand-list basis, those between $15,000 and $10,000 receiving only $5 for each pupil whose tuition has been paid, while towns of $5000 or less receive $20 per pupil.** The New Hampshire law is even more elaborate, providing for 10 groups of communities, each to receive from the state a different proportion of what has been expended for high school tuition. In order to receive a rebate a town must expend $3.50 or more on $1000 of valuation for schools and an average of $16.50 on $1000 for all i2 Revised Laws Relating to Public Instruction, Masaachuaettt, 1915. page 17. 83 Vermont School Laws, 1915, pages 41, 42. [170] FREE HIGH SCHOOL PRIVILEGES purposes for 5 years preceding. The following divi- sion is then made : ®* If rate is $16.50 to $17.49, 1/10 of tuition is paid " " " 17.50 to 18.49, 2/10 " " " " " " 18.50 to 19.49, 3/10 " " " " " " 19.50 to 20.49, 4/10 " " " " " " 20.50 to 21.49, S/10 " " " " " " 21.50 to 22.49, 6/10 " " " " " " 22.50 to 23.49, 7/10 " " " " " " 23.50 to 24.49, 8/10 " " " " " " 24.50 to 25.49, 9/10 " " " " " " 25.50 or over, all " " " " C. FREE TRANSPOKTATION Transportation is a second general problem in the granting of free high school privileges. While free tuition is an important factor in making a standard high school education possible to every boy and girl who desires it, it is by no means the only factor. There still remains the problem of getting the pupil to and from the high school he is to attend, and, if he cannot go home each day, of paying his room and board. The necessity for providing transportation for ele- mentary school pupils has been growing upon us for many years. The belief that the completion of a standard high school is desirable, in these days of social complexity, for the making of effective American citi- zens is becoming stronger and stronger, so that it seems certain that the demand for high school transportation in every state is only a matter of time. In the last few years high school transportation has made considerable progress. It has not, however, been so generally recognized as has the principle of free high school tuition. This is natural. The farmer tiLawg of New Hampshire Relating to Public SchooU, 1915, page 71. [nn PROBLEMS IN STATE HIGH SCHOOL FINANCE who wished to send his son to the high school in the neighboring village was certain to think first of the tuition money he must pay. The boy could ride or drive the distance, but the tuition called for the im- mediate outlay of cash. Hence, attention was first directed to the tuition element in the question of secur- ing free high school privileges. As the principle of providing these privileges without charge to the pupil has become more thoroughly established, and as the in- creasing number that wish transportation has made it more difficult for all to provide the means of con- veyance on their own responsibility, the question of providing this transportation has come more and more into the focus of consciousness. A brief analysis of types of laws providing high school transportation will suggest the increasing recog- nition of the importance of this problem and will be of assistance in determining the best methods for solving it. 1. No Provision A careful study of the school laws of the various states and the results of a questionnaire sent to the different state departments of education indicate that most of the states have not yet adopted legislation on the subject. 2. Done without Legal Sanction In Florida, at least, transportation of high school pupils, probably with elementary pupils, is done merely by general consent.*^ 85 " There is no statute law in Florida providing for transpor- tation of high school or other pupils, but all counties, with few exceptions, furnish transportation to pupils when necessary, by general consent." Superintendent W. N. Sheats in letter, Jime 14, 191S. [172] FREE HIGH SCHOOL PRIVILEGES 3. Done under General Authority for Transportation of Elementary Pupils In several states this is the case, particularly in Georgia, Missouri, and Montana.*® This is presum- ably done upon the principle that high school pupils should have the same opportunities as elementary school pupils, since all are included in the public schools. However, in some states where the high school is an integral part of the public school, special legislation has been passed in regard to transportation of high school pupils. This is the case in Michigan. 4. Permissive In Maine,*^ Michigan,** and Nebraska *^ there are laws permitting the community to raise funds for the transportation of high school pupils. By implication Pennsylvania also belongs in this class.®" Under cer- tain conditions transportation must be furnished or tuition paid in a nearer high school. 5. In Consolidated Districts Several states permit the transportation of high school pupils in consolidated school districts. In Ar- kansas special mention is not made of high school pupils, but the law has been interpreted to include them.'^ In Ohio a special section of the law deals 88 Information furnished by the different departments of public instruction. 87 LaiBB of Maine Relating to Public Schools, 1915, section 78. 88 General School Laws of Michigan, 191S, section 370. 89 Nebraska School Laws, 1915, section 244. ^0 School Laws of Pennsylvania, 1915, section 1709. »i Digest of Laws Relating to Free Schools, Arkansas, 1914, sec- tion 7547-0, and letter from Superintendent George B. Cook, De- cember 14, 1915. [173] PROBLEMS IN STATE HIGH SCHOOL FINANCE with high school transportation.®^ In Ohio the fur- nishing of transportation is required under certain con- ditions; in Arkansas it is optional. 6. County Aid In California the county superintendent is required to include in the county tax for high school aid a suf- ficient amount to " reimburse all the high school dis- tricts of his county, for money actually expended by them for transportation of pupDs living in territory in the county not included in any high school district, and attending the high schools of the county," not to exceed $5 per month for each pupU so attending.®^ 7. State Aid In New Jersey the local Board of Education is re- quired, when necessary, to furnish transportation to high schools. The state refunds 76 per cent of the cost.®* Any town in Connecticut maintaining a high school may provide high school transportation, while any town not maintaining a high school is required to furnish it. In the latter case the state refunds one half the cost to the town, not exceeding $20 per pupil.**® In Massachusetts a town of less than 500 families not maintaining a high school is required to furnish transportation at a cost not to exceed $1.50 per week. State aid is granted for this purpose on the following basis : If the school tax rate of the town is «2 School Laws of Ohio, 191B, section 7749. 83 School Laws of California, 1915, section 1764. ^iNew Jersey School Law, 191 i, sections 141 and 92.3 I (ft), and information from New Jersey Department of Public Instruction, April 8, 1914. »5 Connecticut School Document, 191&, sections 81-84. [174] FREE HIGH SCHOOL PRIVILEGES not less than $4 and is less than $5 per $1000 of val- uation, one half the cost of transportation is refunded to the town ; if the rate is $5 or more, the whole cost of transportation is refunded.^® The discussion of principles underlying free tuition will have made clear how one should evaluate provisions for high school transportation. Laws such as those in California and Massachusetts, requiring the payment of this transportation, are superior, since they guar- antee this opportunity to all in the state. As to how the other types should be ranked it is difficult to say. If consolidation has made great progress in a state, this method will probably be superior to a permissive law. As a matter of fact, the actual influence of a permissive law wiU depend largely upon the extent to which consolidation has been carried. From the point of view of equalization, the county law of California is greatly superior to those throwing the whole burden upon the district. The states providing state aid are, in general, still better because they provide a larger unit for raising the necessary funds and hence tend to equalize burdens among the different counties. Of these state aid laws, that of Massachusetts is most nearly ideal, since it provides for aid on the basis of taxes levied for school purposes, thus employing the most fundamental and constant factors for determin- ing school needs. D. MAINTENANCE OF PUPILS AT HIGH SCHOOL There may be considerable difference between free high school tuition and transportation and free high school privileges. Provision for supplying the first »8 Revised Laiot Relating to Public Instruction, Matsaehtuetti, 1915, page 17. [175] PROBLEMS IN STATE HIGH SCHOOL FINANCE two will mean free high school privileges only when the pupil can go home each evening. In some states there are many pupils living so far from the high school that transportation each day is not feasible, and it becomes necessary for them to secure room and board near the school. This is particularly true in the states of the Rocky Mountain region where the population is sparse and where, necessarily, standard high schools are not accessible, through transportation, to a large propor- tion of the boys and girls of high school age. Dr. W. A. Cook, of the University of Colorado, has collected some data on this matter in counties of his state main- taining county high schools.®^ He points out that in Colorado 19 of the 63 counties have county high schools ; that about 34 per cent of the area of the state and 13 per cent of the school population of the state are in these county high school districts ; that all of the county schools except one are over 10 miles from one or more post offices of their districts and that two thirds are over 25 miles from one or more post offices; that, finally, the percentage of attendance at these county high schools is only about one half as large as in ordinary high school districts. Under such conditions, where transportation is not feasible, the pupil must pay from $125 to $250 each school year for room and board. If we accept the principle that each person should be provided those educational opportunities for which he can find legiti- mate use, an added responsibility in this matter is thrown upon some unit of school organization. Very little has yet been done in this direction. South Dakota in 1915 passed the following: 87 Colorado School Journal, XXX, page 7. [176] FREE HIGH SCHOOL PRIVILEGES " Whenever children of school age reside in territory not organized into a school district, it shall be the duty of the county commissioners to provide for the education of such children by making provision for the payment of their tui; tion in, and transportation to, some school in an organ- ized school district, or by establishing schools in unor- ganized territory. Provided, that the board of county com- missioners may, in lieu of providing transportation or es- tablishing schools, expend a reasonable amount for room and board of said pupils whose attendance at school can be pro- vided for, by such means, more economically and satisfac- torUy." 98 This refers to elementary school pupils only. Vermont provides that every person of school age, residing at a distance of one and one half miles from an elementary school, shall be furnished with transportation, and " if such transportation is not feasible, such person shall be furnished with board whenever necessary to afford him an opportunity to attend school, and such board shall be paid by the state, not to exceed $1 per week." ®^ So far as the writer has been able to discover, Ne- vada is the only state that has a law concerning the room and board of high school pupils. Section 184 of the 1915 School Code reads : " The coimty board of education is hereby empowered to provide for the rental, purchase, or erection of a suitable dormitory or dormitories and dining hall for high school students, and to provide for the comfort, maintenance, and management of the same. The said dormitory or dormi- tories shall be considered part of the regular high school equipment and organization." 88iaa,g Enacted by 1915 Legislature, South Dakota, section 108o (1). 8» Vermont School Laws, Acts of 1916, section 72. [ 177 ] PROBLEMS IN STATE HIGH SCHOOL FINANCE A letter from the state department of education of Nevada (December 13, 1916) says that at that time some dormitory privileges were granted to pupils in 2 of their county high schools; that the dormitory buildings were not yet completed in any of the counties ; that the pupils were not charged full-cost rates, the counties contributing something to these charges; and that after the dormitories are in operation pupils will have accommodation at exact cost, which will be ap- proximately $16 per month. Nevada will have made the logical step in providing free high school privileges when this cost is borne in part, at least, by the county or by some other unit. The 1914 report of the inspector of high schools of North Carolina recommends the establishment of dor- mitories in connection with a central high school of each county, but evidently does not mean that board should be furnished free.^"" Only the mere beginnings have been made in the mat- ter of taking the final step for insuring free high school privileges, but these beginnings are sufficient to justify the prediction that the next decade will see much progress in this direction. 100 yth Annual Report of State Inspector of PubUc High Schooli of North Carolina, page IS. [178] CHAPTER NINE Special State Aid fob Special High School Coueses AND FOR High School Libeames and Laboeatoeies a. a status of the method WITH the growth of interest in special lines of training such as home economics, agriculture, teacher training, and manual training, various states have found it desirable to give financial assistance for special courses in order to stimulate and direct their development. Table 28 gives the more essential facts concerning special state aid for such courses in high schools. The table is not complete; no attempt is made to give information concerning state aid for in- dustrial courses that are evidently largely of elemen- tary grade (e.g., Indiana), nor concerning special schools such as county agricultural high schools (e.g., Mississippi) and county normal training schools (e.g., Wisconsin). Where citations are not given the in- formation comes from the various state departments. So far as the writer has been able to discover, only 2 states give aid for high school libraries and labora- tories. In Connecticut it is provided that every school district and every town maintaining a high school which raises by tax or otherwise a like sum to establish " a school library composed of books of reference, and other books to be used in connection with school work, and to procure maps, globes, or any proper geographi- cal, philosophical, and chemical apparatus," shall re- ceive $10 from the state; $5 is granted each year for maintaining the library and laboratory if the town raises an equal amount. If the actual attendance is over 100, $6 additional may be given for every other [179] PROBLEMS IN STATE HIGH SCHOOL FINANCE e2 •sl 11 ^1 lum equal to amount raised by district for this purpose, but not over $2600 00 to one high school in each county, pro- viding county board appropriates equal amount or more 50 to each school. No high school receiv- ing aid for vocational education entitled to this aid U3 t- OJ ■W- «■ it c8 6 'fi 'u u a, a 0, P g 9 g, ft »l Qi 1 d ^"o "i^ ® ff °rQ &0 Ojr^ T3 9 s « o o 1 o -5) um State Educ ing o o o § « 1-1 CO <>9- «> , min- n u a 1 domes- e, and ational a s m .3 « 0) . t) u eS cS ft gricultur ing, m a training, tic scien other vo pursuits s e a P4 a o "iS < a s, S C4 m H < u o 1- 0) O J. ^a m a h-ts O V 0) ■a as « a M 03 » * ■Sag « a o -as© bo p n as o o.a . ^ (o a SSmS S o as a Dotij « 0) m ■S.2S -&* m O 09 pd ft ^ *."S .9gS lis"' g|s So 2*oe8 TiSfc u *_ a ® Og.S -^^! a gj BQ ■o « fe ."_, ten 'bOV.S sa [180] STATE AID FOR SPECIAL PURPOSES ■**o ja us ecu i t; «■ « o B)" o d -rra ••-•■w , h 5g 1 §«S5 g.a 9,3 -1 II a *a S »H « g n SB flo'S T-1 o § «■ CO s I S-S 2 " 2 .-2 S ^^O OJ go tf d cs di 11 ■CO .s ■M 'E '5 Sv2 Pi o Pi n O o 1 1 1 a "2« 11 1 ^1 l-i ■Si ■ggg 1^ ■Ss r .3 '"'^ 1" ^mv» es .5 ■o-sSo « p. '3 •^|S| • M g, o o o Jd £3 n o (4 a •g gs s. A a a CQ — « a p. <8 a a '»„'*'3 ? 1-^ ■sg 1-^ "■gs g 3 p,iS d U-H Ig DQ OQ QQ o m to o o o o M o o o o o o o o^ E ua o lO o »H r- lO A 3.5 o"? e_- MO ffl CS Q, 5 .at? .5^ 00 £ a "s SJm4 - 2i« * 2 s So § ' O 10 _ « t- 00 a» iH ills [181] PROBLEMS IN STATE HIGH SCHOOL FINANCE "go ■si al ^oa|g. Is O ffl » SW rn r; H 0*0 0,i5 d d o o ^^ 5§ - ao a §^ w o a& s s-2 00 g OJ5 d d " iS.29 « eB_ ^ 2o O ©u P. S CO «3- & i •^ go .So"* 8*2 ^ 3 S §0, ftoa 0*a O Q] as S"*-* o ^ d S o 3 9 5? o 2 9 u a 3 a-a.g i re, 14 trai rain ^ 3 h &| gricu mere u a 1 home ft «_■« S „ aSbo a « ■3 5^ 5- ts m •o S g U eS ^ a s s g o a 9 o ' « o ^ r "3 * M fl ^u - Id O A bA bo e ■ o Pi C a^ a o a PtO _. o ■Oja m U M SO -ta.r: (go 3.0 "o a So bOh n ■s" la ea ffl * Pi Pi o a •e-gs lb '•-''2 ii o o So Vl ho g3 (a -5 ft o to 'S rt** §las o'6 ca£J ■a-as' ^ o 3 * --S' e I 2i as OS'S (o a MS oj'rf'o aSa I a P f eB'O © Sbog .S.2 ©'ej'w Sag O rt ® •aati SI _ £.1'3 "£3 a a»a « a .i-t 10 00 „rH Sf "^■^ Pi *. T « « S e ffl a § eo" „-C5 „-S^ 5 Nah I*" lis eloel.2 «> 3 « « «a 3 s ti S e-o [183 J PROBLEMS IN STATE HIGH SCHOOL FINANCE o i si 3:3 ■a 3 "a- _,-o >i 6BC4 as** O (8 5 o T5 m a HIS 'O © a.fc 3 aS fe O UTS rt cd -tS a o Mja /, u « -S a 3 Sofl aH=. ■o" " S fci wd „»H a ■^ a 5 t; *^ _. 5) g 35 S a 0) n a V d VO^ S^ as « o ■4a +J So o o ^,a is & -d n a ■« 6 V d> a 0} .^ 3.2 6a fa o Ah ft**-. " ■§ 3 o g-" CO O^^ ^'.^ o 2 B o op.„ .S3 S.2 6 a -3 O 3.2 3 - o. 3 u S s u ^ a.s Ea ■S£"'§g a as-s° 1 = aga1 §->!a8a ^•9 o R .is [184-] ■3 a us'3 « g«io" lis H u o rt . o Ce U BO u :§§i •••I STATE AID FOR SPECIAL PURPOSES ibuted by state rd for maintaining rses in at least one h school in each gresaional district Is •So °»1 half amount ex- ided, but not over for each depart- it where subject is ght in both high 001 and grammar des, and not over when subject is ght in high school » "I'S a to t, a sua « OJ3 HIO ;3ja eaio s U c8 * .si S3 § a M §s,s a ID £1% CS 4a 25 §S5 o «3- < ,a ~~ OS tiO cS cS cS ■5 iS 'S ■c 3 ^H-o Pi Pi p fl ^ s S"2 !• Pi P. » fto §• & P. 1-2 ll ■§1 ■3.1 ■§.§ »4-w M IS M-S K 4^ K-^ — < ■3 &i s E &< E i P.S a .* .S '»< d 1 2 a a 3 •W <9 CD CQ •p4 ^ &= •Si! « o So %»4 [185] PROBLEMS IN STATE HIGH SCHOOL FINANCE 100 pupils or fractional part of 100.^* It is quite clear that this law, enacted in 1856 and amended in 1869 to include high schools,^^ does not give a sufficient sum really to stimulate a library or a laboratory equip- ment that would meet present-day standards. In 1839 ^^ New York began giving assistance for high schools from its Literature Fund. The present law reads : " To each union free school district maintaining an aca- demic department an allowance equal to the amount raised from local sources, but not to exceed $268 annually and two dollars additional for each teacher employed in said dis- trict for the legal term, for approved books, reproductions of standard works of art, and apparatus." ^° In 1912-13, $139,996.50 was expended for this pur- pose.*'' B. METHODS OF DISTEIBUTION Table 29 gives a summary of the methods employed. It is particularly interesting to note that in 6 cases, 4 for industrial work and 2 for teacher training, the state board is given power to distribute the funds with- out a statutory statement of how it is to be done. In South Carolina this apportionment is to be on the basis of " meritorious work " ; in Tennessee, the money is to be used for " stimulating and encouraging " such sub- jects; in Vermont, in such a way as "to equalize the facilities afforded by such courses and the burden of maintaining the same." 34 Jjatai Relating to Schools, Connecticut, 1916, section 248. 85 Information from state department of education. Si New York Education Law, 1914, section 493 (4). 37 Annual Report of New York Education Department, 1914, page 140. [186] STATE AID FOR SPECIAL PURPOSES Tabi:e 29 Teacher triuning Industrial Libraries and labo- ratories Total 1. Amount raised by local district: a. With maximum stated b. Without maxi- mum stated 2. Specified sum to each school 3. Equal share of state fund 4. Number of teachers. 5. School and attend- ance 6. Cost of instruction: a With maximum stated b. Without maxi- mum stated . . . 7. According to discre- tion of state board Total 2 13 4 17 6 32 [187] CHAPTER TEN The Soukces and the Forms of State High School Funds IN Table 28, Chapter IX, data were given in regard to the sources and the forms of the funds providing state aid for special high school courses, but no ex- planation was made at that point in regard to the significance of those data. In this chapter it is pro- posed to analyze the sources and the forms of all special state aid funds to determine what influence the source and the form may have upon the effectiveness of the fund. Table 30 gives the sources and the forms of the funds providing special state aid for general high school pur- poses, while Table 31 gives similar data concerning state aid for free high school tuition, Table 32 for libraries and laboratories, and Table 33 for transpor- tation. These tables show that for all forms of special aid there are 4 general sources: appropriation for the particular purpose; special high school tax; the general state school fund; and the state high school fund. Where citations are not given the information comes from the state department of education. A. FORMS OF high SCHOOL FUNDS These tables show also that 11 different forms of special high school aid funds are found, as follows: 1. A -fixed appropriation is a specified amount, set aside for a particular purpose. Thus, Louisiana gives $50,000 to be distributed among the approved high schools of the state. 2. A variable appropriation is an arrangement [ 188 ] SOURCES AND FORMS OF FUNDS whereby the aid provided by law is guaranteed each school, no matter what the demands upon the fund may be. Rhode Island is an illustration of this form, since the state each year appropriates enough to supply the demands. 3. A definite high school tax is a specified tax rate, e. g., two tenths of one mill in Utah, levied for high schools. 4. A variable high school tax form leaves the rate that must be levied to be determined by the demands, which are based upon some school factor. In Cali- fornia, $15 per pupil is to be raised, so that the rate levied is likely to differ from year to year. 5. A fxed sum from the high school fund is a form whereby there is set aside from the money given for high schools a specified sum to be used for a particular purpose. Thus, North Dakota gives $2500 to each of 5 schools for agricultural courses and provides that this is to be paid from the state appropriation of $85,000 before payments are made for other purposes. 6. An indefinite part of the high school fund is a form that gives from the money for high schools an amount, usually determined by the demands upon the fund for general high school purposes, to be used for a specified purpose. Since the part given for this pur- pose does not necessarily, from one year to another, bear a definite relation to the part used for general high school purposes, this form is called " indefinite." For example, the state board in Tennessee may use a part of any money left, after aid for general purposes is paid, for " stimulating and encouraging " industrial work. 7. A proportional part of the high school fund is a form that provides aid for special purposes in such a [1891 PROBLEMS IN STATE HIGH SCHOOL FINANCE way that these special purposes share on the same basis as that used for granting aid for general high school purposes. In Maryland aid is given on the basis of teachers employed; vocational teachers share this fund with the regular teachers, though at a differ- ent rate per teacher. 8. A variable part of the high school fund is a form that pays out of the high school fund the aid for a certain phase of work before the general distribution is made, thus insuring that the full amount allowed by law is given. In New York the aid for libraries and apparatus is paid before aid is given for any other purpose. 9. A fixed sum from the general school fund is an arrangement whereby a definite sum is set aside from the general school fund for certain high school pur- poses. For example, in Maine $50,000 is set aside for industrial courses from the " school and mill " fund. 10. A proportional part of the general school fund is a form that gives a certain percentage of the fund for high schools. In Idaho S per cent is given for this purpose. 11. A variable part of the general school fund is a form that gives aid for high schools before the general distribution is made. Thus, New Jersey pays the money due for teachers and for tuition and transporta- tion before distribution is made for attendance. It will be noticed that this classification of forms of funds is based upon the source of the fund and its power of expanding to meet increasing demands for high school purposes. Attention should be called to the fact that the term " general school fund " does not always mean all moneys given by the state for general public school purposes. This is the situation in Ten- [190] SOURCES AND FORMS OF FUNDS nessee, where the high school aid is paid from the Gen- eral Education Fund, which does not include the in- come from the permanent school fund. It is also the case in Minnesota, where the aid for these special courses is paid from the appropriations for education which constitute part of the whole state revenue for schools. B. STATUS OF THE VAKIOUS SOUKCES AND FORMS Table 30 special aid for oexebal high school purposes State Amount 1 Source Form Alabama $152,000 Special Appropria- tion 2 Variable appropriation California 642.815 State high school tax 3 Variable tax rate 3 Idaho General school 4 fund — 3 percent Proportional part gen- eral school fund 4 Lonisiana 50,000 Special appropria- tion 5 Fixed appropriation 6 Maine 141,000 Special appropriation Variable appropriation Maryland 118,100 General school fund Fixed sum from gen- eral school fund Massaclmsetts 23,500 Special appropriation Fixed appropriation Minnesota 407,500 Special appropriation Fixed appropriation I MisBonri 96,502 Not over 5 percent state school fund 8 Proportional part state school fund 8 New Jersey State school fund » Variable part state school fund 9 1 In some states — e.g.. Alabama — when the variable-appropriation form is used the sum indicated is that actually paid out in some recent year for this purpose. 2 General Public School Laws of Alabama, 1915, section 1862. 3 School Law of California, 1915, section 1760. *Sehoo\ Laws of Idaho, 1915. section 67. s Public School Laws of Louisiana, 1916, page 140. „. . „ . , tibid., and Requirements for State Approval of Lowtsuma Htffh Schools. 7 Laws of Minnesota Relating to the Public School System, 1915, sec- tions 186-196. a Revised School Laws of Missouri, 1913, page 96. . „ . . 9 New Jersey School Law. 1914, Section 233 I. Aid is first given on the basis of the number of teachers employed, the remainder of the fund be- ing distributed on the basis of attendance. [191] PROBLEMS IN STATE HIGH SCHOOL FINANCE Tabie 30 (Continued) State Amount Source Form New York $327,644 Literature fund lO Variable part literature fund North Carolina 75,000 Special appropria- tion 11 Fixed appropriation li North Dakota 72,500 Special appropria- tion 12 Fixed appropriation 12 PennsylTania 825,000 Special appropria- tion 13 Fixed appropriation 14 Rhode Island 17,550 Special appropriation Variable appropriation South Carolina 60,01)0 Special appropria- tion 15 Fixed appropriation iB Tennessee 50,855 General Education Fund — 8 per- cent 16 Proportional part of General Education Fund 16 Utah 100,000 Special high school taxir Definite tax rate 17 Vermont General school fund Variable part general school fund Virginia 50,000 Special appropria- tion 18 Fixed appropriation 18 Washington 259,037 General school fund 19 Variable part general school fund ^ West Virginia 85,000 Special appropriation Variable appropriation Wisconsin 175,000 Special appropriation Fixed appropriation 10 Annual Report of Education Department, New York, 1914, pages 138, 140. The amounts given for books and apparatus, for academic depart- ments, and for tuition are first paid, the remainder being distributed on the basis of attendance. The regular Literature Fund has, in recent years, been supplemented by a special state appropriation. 11 Public School Law of North Carolina, 191B, page 55. 12 General School Law of North Dakota, 191S, section 1433. 13 Report of Superintendent of Public Schools, Pennsylvania, 191B, page 14. 14 School Laws of Pennsylvania, 191B, section 1713. 1^ General School Law of South Carolina, 1916, section ]812«. 16 Public School Laws of Tennessee, 191S, page 72. This General Edu- cation Fund does not constitute the entire state school fund; it is made up of 33 1/3 per cent of the gross revenues of the state. 17 School Law of Utah, 1915, page 41. 18 Virpmto School Laws, 191B, section 94. • 10 Code of Public Instruction, Washington, 1913, Sections 249, 252. 20 The appropriation of $100 for each high school grade maintained is evidently paid before the general apportionment is made. See The Appor- tionment of the Current State School Fund of Washington, 1916, page 16. [192] SOURCES AND FORMS OF FUNDS Table 31 SPECIAL AID FOE HIGH SCHOOL TtriTIOir State Amount Source Form Connecticut $42,968 21 Special appropriation Variable appropria- tion Delaware 22,000 State school fund Variable part state school fund Maine 84,272 22 High school appro- priation Variable part high school appropria- tion Massachusetts 56,152 23 Special appropriation Fixed appropriation New Jersey General school fund 24 Variable part general school fund 24 New Hampshire 21,232 25 New York 322,398 26 Literature Fund 27 Variable part litera- ture fund 27 North Carolina 2,250 28 High school appro- priation 29 Indefinite part of high school fund 20 Bhode Island 10,790 High school appro- priation Variable part high school appropria- tion Vermont Greneral school fund Variable part general school fund Table 33 special aid foe high school libeabies and laboratories State Amount Source Form Connecticut New York 30 $139,996 Special appropriation Literature Fund Variable appropria- tion Variable part of Lit- erature Fund 21Beport of Board of Education, Connecticut, 1913, page 197. 22 Maine School Report, 191 B, page 197. 23 7stft Anrmal Report of Board of Education, Massachusetts, 1913—14, page 159. uNew Jerseu School Law, 1914, section 223 1. iSNew Hampshire School Report, 1913-14, page 203. ieirinual Report, New York Education Department, 1914, page 140. 27 Ibid., page 138. Apparently the state has adopted the policy of adding b? appropriation to the revenue of the permanent funds belonging to the Literature Fund enough to meet the demands for special state aid. 28 7th Annual Report of State Inspector of High Schools, North Ca/rolina, pages 42-49. 2» Public School Law of North Carolina, 1915, pages 53-55. 30 See notes 26 and 27 of this chapter. [193] PROBLEMS IN STATE HIGH SCHOOL FINANCE Table 33 special aid for high school trairspoetation State Amount Source rorm Connecticut $16,237 31 Special appropriation Variable appropria- tion New Jersey 32 General school fund Variable part generi school fund Massachusetts 33 19,188 Special appropriation Fixed appropriation In Table 34 we have a distribution of the state among the different special funds and the 4 sources Table 34 General high school purposes Special courses Tuition Li- braries Trans- porta- tion Tota Special appropriation Special high school tax 13 2 1 7 19 6 6 2 1 3 1 1 2 1 37 High school fund . . . General school fund. 12 16 This indicates that the special appropriation is by fa the most frequent source for special state aid funds. In Table 35 we have a distribution of the state among the different special funds and the 11 forms. Table 35 General high school purposes Special courses Tuition Li- braries Trans- porta- tion Tota Fixed appropriation . Variable appropria- tion 9 i 1 1 17 2 3 1 1 1 1 1 28 Definite high school tax 1 Variable high school tax 1 Fixed sum from high school fund 3 81 Report of Board of Education, Connecticut, 1913, page 801. 32 See note 2i of this chapter. 33 See note 23 of this chapter. [194] SOUHCES AND FOKMS OF FUNDS Table 35 (Continv.ed) General high school Special courses Tuition Li- braries Trans- porta- tion Total purposes Indefinite part of high school fund. . 2 1 3 Fioportional part of high school fund. . 1 1 Variable sum from high school fund. . 1 3 1 6 Fixed sum from gen- eral school fund. . 1 2 3 Proportional part of general school fund 3 a 5 Variable sum from general school fund 3 1 3 1 8 According to this table the fixed-appropriation form is found much more frequently than any other form. The variable-appropriation and the variable-sum-from- general-school-fund are the next most frequent forms. C, AN EVALUATION OF THESE SOURCES AND FORMS Of what significance is the source and the form of the funds used for special state aid? An evaluation may be made from two particularly important points of view: (1) their effect upon the supplying of an in- creased support fund as the demands on the part of the high schools increase; (2) their effect upon the de- velopment of a unified state school system. In taking up the first phase of this problem, a dis- tinction must be made between the development of an increased support to meet the increased cost of main- taining individual schools and to meet the increased demands due to the development of new schools. Pri- marily, the supplying of an increased support to meet the increased cost of maintaining individual schools depends upon the method of distributing the state fund. Thus, where $800 is given for a first-grade high school, the failure of the state aid to increase as the cost of the high school increases is not due to the form [ 195 ] PROBLEMS IN STATE HIGH SCHOOL FINANCE of the state fund but to the fact that the method of distribution limits the amount that may be given. The same may be said of most of the other methods of dis- tribution. In some cases, however, the form as well as the method of distribution has some effect. For ex- ample, the variable-high-school-tax form of the Cali- fornia law makes it possible for the amount that is given a school to increase indefinitely, a situation which is in marked contrast to the Rhode Island law, where there is a limitation in regard to the number of pupils in a school for whom aid may be given. It is under- stood, of course, that such limitation of the amount that may be given a school frequently adds to the equal- izing value of a law (see Chapter IV). The form of the fund has a decided effect upon meeting the increased demands due to an increase in the number of schools entitled to assistance. By analyzing the classification of forms presented above it may be seen that if the source of the state fund is ignored, there are 5 forms only: (1) a fixed sum; (2) a propor- tional rate; (3) a definite rate; (4) an indefinite sum; (S) a variable sum or rate. Under the fixed-sum form a certain amount of money is set aside for a particular high school purpose, and since there is only the specified sum available either new schools must run the risk of being denied assistance due to the exhaustion of the fund or the amount that is given each school must be reduced below the maxi- mum allowed by law. An illustration of this is seen in Table 36, where information is given concerning special state high school aid in North Dakota. Of the 16 years for which data are given there were only 4 years in which the high schools received the amount to which they were entitled by law. The fuU sum was [196] SOURCKS AND FORMS OF FUNDS Table 36 s* -; Amount intended for Amount received by Tear Appro- priation each school each school First Second Third First Second Third class Class class class class class 1899 $4,000 $175 $140 $100 $175 $140 $100 1900 175 140 100 175 140 100 1901 175 140 100 175 140 100 1902 ...*■■ 175 140 100 160 126 85 1903 10,000 400 800 200 350 270 180 1904 ••■••• 400 300 200 325 250 166 1905 25,000 800 600 • ■ ■ 750 650 1906 800 600 760 560 1907 4"B,b00 800 600 300 800 600 800 1908 800 500 300 720 450 270 1909 '45,666 800 500 300 720 460 270 1910 800 500 300 640 400 240 1911 45,666 800 500 300 600 375 225 1912 57,500 800 500 300 640 400 240 191S 77,500 800 BOO 300 720 460 270 1914 85,000 800 500 300 544 340 204 given in 3 of these years because of the slow develop- ment of high schools ; in the fourth year it was due to an increase in the appropriation from $25,000 to $45,- 000. Furthermore, it will be seen that this increase was sufficient to accomplish its purpose for the 1 year only; that it was 5 years before another increase was secured, and that the sum then appropriated was in- sufficient to give the full amount to each school. Other states — e. g., Pennsylvania ^^ and Wisconsin ** — have had the same difficulty to meet. In fact, the law of Pennsylvania provides that " if the appropria- tion is insufficient to pay the maximum amounts, . . . the appropriation shall be distributed to the schools of the respective grades in such a manner that each school shall receive its pro rata share thereof." " i*8th Annraal Report of Inspector of High Schools, North Da- kota, 1915, page 42. 85 Information from the state department of education. ^'16th Biennial Report of Department of Public Instruction, 1912-14, page 95. ST School Laws of Pennsylvania, 1916, section 1713. [197] PROBLEMS IN STATE HIGH SCHOOL FINANCE West Virginia labored under this handicap for several years,^® but the new law makes it necessary to appropri- ate the sum that will give the aid provided. In some cases — e.g., Massachusetts — an additional appro- priation is made at the next legislature to cover the deficiency.^® The proportional-rate form sets aside a certain per- centage of the state fund — e. g., 3 per cent in Idaho, 6 per cent in Missouri — for the purpose specified. The advantage of the proportional-rate form is that it enables the high school to share in the same propor- tion as other phases of school work for which the money is available. If the fund increases, the high school gets its share ; if the fund does not increase as rapidly as do the needs of the schools, the high school is limited by a definite proportion. The disadvantages of this form are: (1) there is no certainty that the proportion set aside for, let us say, general high school purposes, represents correctly the needs of the high school as compared with other parts of the school system; (2) it may not give the full amount allowed by law to each school. Thus, in Idaho the high school share in a county may not be enough to provide .$200 per teacher, while in Missouri it was anticipated that the fund might be inadequate, a situation that has actually arisen (see page 82). A slight modification of this form is found in Maryland. There aid is given to high schools on the basis of the number of teachers, within certain limits, that are employed. The rate for differ- ent types of teachers differs, but vocational teachers are as certain as regular teachers to receive the aid to 3s Report of State Supervisor of High Schools, West Vir- ginia, 1913-U, page 21. S9 Information from state department of education. [198] SOURCES AND FORMS OF FUNDS which they are entitled. According to the state de- partment of education • new schools are not approved unless there is sufficient money to give the aid allowed by law. The definite-tax form makes a definite levy, the pro- ceeds of which are to be distributed among the high schools that qualify. As the property -Valuation in- creases the income becomes greater, but this increase may or may not keep pace with the legitimate demands upon the fund. In most respects it has the advantages and the disadvantages of the proportional-rate form. The indefinite-sum form enables each school to get what it is allowed by law, but only because the law refrains from stating what is to be given for this pur- pose. In the few cases in which the form is found, the state board has power to distribute a part of the high school fund for certain purposes according to its dis- cretion. While the method of distribution is desirable because of its flexibility, the limited amount that is likely to be available in the existing cases does not have a sufficiently stimulating effect upon the development of these lines of work. What is needed, however, is more money rather than a different form for this kind of aid ; with sufficient money it may be a most effective sfprm. The variable-sum or variable-rate form insures that all high schools that can qualify will receive all the as- sistance to which they are entitled by the state aid law. The variable-sum form is illustrated by Rhode Island, where the state appropriates whatever is needed to meet the obligations of the state for this purpose. The second type is found in New Jersey, where the aid given for teachers is paid from the general school fund first, any amount remaining being distributed according to [199] PROBLEMS IN STATE HIGH SCHOOL FINANCE attendance. The obvious advantage of this form is that each high school receives what the law grants it, and each high school is usually able to estimate rather well what it will receive from the state. A possible disadvantage of this form in some states comes because the aid for general high school purposes or some phase of high school aid is paid before any other distribution is made. Thus, in Washington the $100 allowed for each high school grade is deducted first of oW from the general school fund, and in New York the amount al- lowed for library and apparatus is deducted from the Literature Fund before other high school assistance is given. Such a situation may not do any harm, yet its lack of flexibility is not to be encouraged. In those cases in which the high school fund comes from a special appropriation and not from a school fund, there can of course be no criticism on this score, • In turning to the second point of view for evaluating sources and forms, their effect upon the development of a unified school system, one is again unable to draw definite conclusions because of the complexity of the factors involved. According to Table 35 there are 37 cases in which some form of appropriation for different high school purposes is used, 16 cases of some form of the general school fund, 12 cases of some form of high school fund, and 2 cases of some form of special high school tax. The following arguments may be urged against the uniting of school funds as is done in those states pay- ing special state aid from the general school funds or paying for special courses or tuition from the high school funds: (1) Such action may have some effect upon the reduction of the total amount given for schools. In such states as North Dakota, Alabama, [200] SOURCES AND FORMS OF FUNDS and West Virginia, where special appropriations are made or where the money comes from the state treasury, the special high school aid is so much added to the support of schools. In other cases, such as Missouri and Idaho, the special aid is paid from the regular school fund and to all appearances no additional money is put into the fund to meet this new demand. The validity of this objection will, however, depend upon the educational sentiment of the state. If the state realizes the necessity of giving a larger share of its state revenue for schools as the demand for a more effective education increases, then this argument would have no weight. In states where there is a state tax providing a large share of the general school fund or where a certain percentage of the entire revenue of the state is set aside for schools, as in Tennessee, the in- come for schools increases automatically with the in- crease in the wealth of the state. (2) The discon- tinuance of special funds for different purposes may have some effect in retarding the development of new phases of high school work. The most common source of aid has been a special appropriation, given from time to time as the needs of certain aspects of high school work in the state demanded it. It is a debatable question as to whether the existence of a single school fund would make it unduly difficult to secure aid for some new phase of high school work should such aid be considered necessary for its proper development. In this connection it is interesting to note that in 11 of the 30 cases of aid for special high school courses the money comes from the high school fund or from the general school fund. In favor of a imification of funds the following argu- ments may be presented: (1) It reduces the number [ 201 ] PROBLEMS IN STATE HIGH SCHOOL FINANCE of funds for school purposes and therefore the diffi- culty of distributing them. We have in Maryland a good illustration of a large number of funds. The survey commission has recommended the abolition of some funds and the combination of all others, to be called the general state school fund.*" (2) It may make the high school and the elementary school seem more of a unit than has frequently been the case. In Chapter VI it was pointed out that in many states action should be taken to protect the elementary school and to regulate the establishment of high schools. A unified fund is not necessary to accomplish this, but in so far as such a fund tends to develop more clearly the concept of a unified public school system, to that extent mil the unified form of the fund be found of advantage. If the unification of the funds tends also to bring about the use of more uniform methods of dis- tributing funds so that the problem of equalization is recognized as belonging to the whole school system rather than to the separate parts, much good will have been accomplished.** If this unification of funds is achieved, we are ap- parently brought back to the situation that existed in most of the states before the development of special *o Flexner and Bachman, Public Education in Maryland, Chap- ter XII. 41 There are various degrees to which this unification might be carried. One is illustrated In Tennessee. There the General Edu- cation Fund, which is composed of 33-1/3 per cent of the gross state revenues, is divided into certain parts as follows: 61 per cent to the counties on the basis of scholastic population; 10 per cent for more nearly equalizing the common schools, for develop- ing industrial work in rural schools, and for encouraging the es- tablishment of consolidated schools; 8 per cent for assisting in the maintenance of county high schools; 1 per cent for public school libraries; 13 per cent for the establishment and maintenance of normal schools; 7 per cent to the University of Tennessee. [202 J SOURCES AND FORMS OF FUNDS state aid for high schools, when there was a general school fund that could be used in part for high school purposes if the local districts so desired. There are, however, important differences in the two situations. (1) The special state aid granted high schools has done much to give the high schools a definite place in our public school system by indicating to the people of the state the necessity for such schools and by encouraging poor communities to build such institutions. Even in those states not giving this special aid high school education has doubtless been stimulated through the knowledge of what was being done in states receiving special aid. New York and Maine in the East, Wis- consin and Minnesota in the Middle West, and Cali- fornia in the West have for many years been looked upon as pace setters in the development of secondary education. In more recent years the same may be said of North Carolina and South Carolina in the South. (2) The methods of distributing these special high school funds, analyzed in Chapters IV and VII, lead one to beheve that there has been considerable experi- mentation looking toward some method that wiU give the aid to the different communities on the basis of need and effort. To all appearances there has not been the same degree of experimentation in distributing the gen- eral school funds (though certain states like Massachu- setts and New Hampshire are marked exceptions), so that special state aid for high schools has doubtless done much to bring about ultimate improvements in methods of state apportionment. (3) Special state aid for high schools has also given us many valuable experiences. It has shown us how great an influence the state may have in improving the quality of second- ary school training through the setting of minimum [203] PROBLEMS IN STATE HIGH SCHOOL FINANCE standards that a community must meet before it may share in the state funds for high schools. It has shown us the danger of allowing the high school to expand at the expense of the elementary school and without re- gard to the needs of the community, so that we doubt- less have a more adequate conception of what a really effective school system means than was the case before special high school aid developed. Almost the same may be said about, special state aid for such specific purposes as free tuition and transpor- tation, high school libraries and laboratories, and special high school courses. Special aid has hastened the development of these aspects of secondary school work. In many, perhaps in most states, this aid is still needed for some of these purposes in order to stimulate their development to the proper extent, but it is never- theless true that a tendency is showing itself to accom- plish the same purpose by other means. For instance, special aid for high school libraries and laboratories is, so far as the writer has been able to discover, given only in New York and Connecticut, states that began this form of aid many years ago. That more states have not adopted this plan does not mean that libraries and laboratories are neglected; merely that the means of achieving the goal has been changed. Now, practically every state requires, through its statement of minimum standards, proper library and laboratory facihties. Maryland has discontinued the aid it once gave for manual training and commercial work and now seeks to accomplish the same purpose through its general high school aid law.*^ Idaho requires that the course of study for rural high schools receiving state aid on *2 Snyder, Edwin R., Legal Status of Rural High Schools, pages 114-116, and Public School Laws of Maryland, 1916, section 138. [204] SOURCES AND FORMS OF FUNDS the basis of teachers employed " shall include instruc- tion in manual training, domestic science, nature study, and the elements of agriculture." *^ The Pennsylvania law makes it necessary that township high schools re- ceiving state aid " shall give such instruction in agri- culture as the superintendent of public instruction shall prescribe." ** The new Vermont law requires that in- struction in at least one vocational subject shall be given in both junior and senior high schools.*^ These illustrations are sufficient to show that in some states, at least, the sentiment for certain lines of high school work has become so strong that requirements may be made without giving aid specifically for those lines. This period of special state aid for high schools and for various high school activities may, therefore, be thought of as a period of training which has made us see more clearly than might otherwise have been the case the importance of a secondary school training, the necessity for extending our conception of a free secondary school and the breadth of training to be given in such a school, and certain dangers that must be avoided if we are to have a really effective school system. When this training is accomplished we may, therefore, return to a system of public school support by the state less complex than those systems now em-- ployed in several states, using a single fund from which all moneys may be paid. Doubtless that time has not arrived in all states, and the slowness of the legislative machinery may put it far in the future for some states ; but the tendencies given above indicate that some such plan may ultimately be adopted. What new phases of 43 School Laws of Idaho, 1915, section 137/. ** School Laws of Pennsylvania, 1915, section 1713. ^5 Vermont. School L.(fws, 1915, pages 39-41. [ 2,06 ]. PEOBLEMS IN STATE HIGH SCHOOL FINANCE secondary training will develop no one can say ; whether these ought to be stimulated by special aid is likewise a matter of speculation. C5ertainly it is true that America has never had the secondary school conscious- ness it now has, so that it is not unlikely that in the future we shall not have to resort to the stimulating measures that have seemed desirable in the past. [206] SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY 1, Elmer Ellsworth, The Making of Our Middle 'chools. Longmans, Green & Co., 1910. rworth, Julian 'E., An Evaluation of Methods for P ra- iding Free High School Tuition. School Eeview, Vol. :XIII, pages 85-96. :ld, J. H., The Opportunities of the Rural Population or Higher Education. Report of Committee on Sec- ndary Education, 1889. )n, Frank T., Economic Influences upon Educational Progress in the United States, 1820—1850. Thesis,. Jniversity of Wisconsin, 1906. William A., Equalization of Privileges in County ligh Schools. Colorado School Journal, Vol. XXX, io. 5, pages 7-12. tt, H. R., Free High Schools for Rural Pupils. Ichool Review, Vol. VIII, 213-219, 335-863. :rley, EUwood P., School Funds and their Apportion- lent. Teachers College, Columbia University, 1906. irley, EUwood P., The California System of High 'chool Support. In University of Illinois Bulletin, ''ol. X, No. 19, pages 1 1-23. er and Bachman, Public Education in Maryland. The reneral Education Board, New York, 1916. wood, et al.. Taxation as Related to Public Education. National Education Association Report, 1905. s, William T., The Political Economy of School Fi- ances: Educational Review, Vol. XXIX, pages 486- 09. Iter, Horace A., High School and Class Management, Chapter 3. D. C. Heath & Co., 1915. , David Rhys, State Aid to Secondary Schools. Uni- ersity of California Publications, Vol. 3, No. 2, pages .7-150. [2071 PROBLEMS IN STATE HIGH SCHOOL FINANCE Lewis, T. H., Public Education in Maryland: A Study of Its Finances. Maryland Department of Education, Quarterly Bulletin, No. 1, 1909. Reports of the various state departments of education, as cited. Reports of the various state high school inspectors, as cited. School Laws of the various states, as cited. Shawkey, M. P., Financial Support of the Public Schools, School and Society, Vol. I, pages 361-364<. Snyder, Edwin R., The Legal Status of Rural High Schools in the United States. Teachers College, Columbia University, 1909. Stewart, Rolland McClaran, Cooperative Methods in the De- velopment of School Support in the United States. Iowa City, Iowa, 1914. Swift, Fletcher Harper, A History of Public Permanent Common School Funds in the United States, 1795- 1905. Henry Holt & Co., 1911. [ 208 I INDEX Iture, state aid for, 179- la, aid law of, explained, S; evaluation of aid law i ; county high schools of, 5, 149 t-raisedr-by-local-commu- basis for aiding schools, 3; state aid as a factor mulating, 139 ionment. See Distribu- 1, aid for indnstrial sub- in, 180 as, state aid law for- r in force in, 9; tuition onnerly in force in, 156 mce basis of aiding Is, 63-65; state aid as a r in stimulating, 134-137 lia, state aid law of, ex- ed, 31, 65; county hi^ Is in, 95; evaluation of aid laws of, 65-67, 134, changes in manner of ding free tuition in, 100, county aid law of, lOft^ 174 :ation-of-school basis for I schools, 58-62; as s of stimulating high Is, 133-134 lo, district rates in, 35; y high schools in, 95, ation-of - several- factors for aiding schools, 83- 90; as means of stimulating high school, 140-142 Connecticut, effect of tuition law of, 148 ; description of tu- ition law of, 151; transporta- tion law of, 174; library aid law of, 179 Constant factors in estimating school needs, 13-17, 91, 92 Cook, W. A., cited, 99, 176 Cost-of-instruction basis of aid- ing schools, 74-77 County, as unit for paying tu- ition, 95, 99, 113, 160; as unit for giving aid to high schools, 99-108; methods by which, has been effective in develop- ing secondary education, 112- 114 County aid for high schools, 99- 108; result of law for, in Cal- ifornia, 102-104; in Oregon, 104r-106; in Idaho, 105; in Kansas, 105, 107; for trans- portation, 174 County funds, general forms of aid to high schools through, 94; sources of, 94; illustra- tions of participation of high schools in, 95, 96; evaluation of support through, 96-114; methods of distributing, 98 County high schools authorized in certain states, 95 ; as a fac- tor in development of second- ary education, 98, QQ, 113; in- fluence of, in certain states, 149 [2091 ±Vt lJ£4Xk. County unit, high schools sup- ported hy, system in certain states, 95, 96; essential fea- tures of, system, 108; descrip- tion of certain systems, 109- 112 Criteria for evaluating high school aid laws explained, 13- 17; sources of error in ap- plying, under present condi- tions, 14-16 Cubberley, E. P., quoted, 26; cited, 14, 24, 134 Cyclopedia of Education, Mon- roe's, quoted, 4 Definite-sum basis of aiding schools, 56, 57 Delaware, tuition law of, 154 Distribution, need of more fun- damental factors in, 13, 14; methods of, for general high school purposes, 31-37, 55- 90; methods of, of special high school courses, 186, 187 District, high school supported by, 20-23; payment of tuition by, 151, 153-163 Effort, effect on, of aid for general high school purposes, 39; problem of, 130, 131; methods of stimulating and measuring, suggested, 143, 144 Elementary school, problem of protecting, 120; illustration of failure to protect, 121, 122; methods of protecting, 132, 123 Elimination of high school not in relative need, methods of [210] securing, 43-55; determining, by 500-f amily basis, 43-47 ; by population basis, 47, 48; by grand-list basis, 48, 49; by valuation-per-pupil basis, 49- 52; by tax-rate basis, 52-55 Equalization, of high school bur- dens, problem of, 11; reason why present laws do not se- cure, fully, 24, 26; first step in securing real, in high schools, 43-55; second step in securing real, in high schools, 55-90 Five-hundred-family basis for eliminating high school from state aid, 43-47 Florida, aid law formerly in force in, 9; transportation provided in, 172; aid for nor- mal training in, 180 Forms, problem of, of special state high school aid, 13, 13; used in state aid laws, 180- 185, 191-206; definition of, 188-190; distribution of, among various types of state aid, 194, 195 Fundamental factors in estimat- ing school needs, 13-17, 91, 93 General school funds, dates of creation of, 7-10; dates when high school was first permit- ted to share in, 7-10; main sources of revenue of, 18, 19 Georgia, transportation permit- ted in, 173 Grand-list basis for eliminating INDEX schools from state aid. W. H., quoted, 121, 122, cited, 121 chool, principles under- the development of, 1, 'ect on, of special state or general high school ►ses, 37-40 chool aid. See Special aid jconomics, state aid for, B5 'acts from, showing need te aid, 29, 30; state and y aid law of, explained, , 105 ; evaluation of state iw of, 72, 139; tuition f, 1S8 township high school in, 20, 21; tuition law 8-160 , tuition law of, 157 ities in school burden, causes of, 21, 22; in IIU- 20, 21; in Montana, 24; lorado, 25; in Massachu- 45, 46, 49-52, 57; in 1 Dakota, 59-62; in ; Island, 64; in Calif or- 7, 102-104; in Maryland, ; in Maine, 76, 166, 167; ssouri, 80, 81 ; in Minne- 85, 86, 163, 164; in Ten- :, 88 ;ation, aims of this, 11- aition law of, 154; aid armal training in, 180 Kansas, county aid law of, ex- plained, 105, 107; provisions for free tuition in, 151, 152; aid for normal training and for industrial subjects in, 181 Kentucky, coimty unit system in, 110, 111; tuition law of, 158 Laboratories, state aid for, 179, 186 Lack of equalization. See In- equalities in school burden Latin Grammar School, period of, 1; sources of support of, 3, 3 Libraries, state aid for, 179, 186 Louisiana, aid laws explained, 32, 181; evaluation of state aid laws of, 56 Maine, aid laws of, explained, 32, 52, 74, 154, 181; first aid law of, quoted, 41 ; evaluation of state aid laws of, 54, 75, 77, 87, 134, 138, 166, 167; trans- portation law of, 173 Maintenance, problem of, as re- lated to free high school privileges, 175, 176; South Dakota and Vermont laws as- sisting in, of elementary school pupils, 177; Nevada law evidence of beginnings of, 177, 178 Manual Training, state aid for, 179-185 Maryland, aid laws explained, 32, 69, 181; evaluation of state aid law of, 69-72, 132, 138; county unit system in, ram INDEX 109, 110; county high schools in, 149; tendencies toward unification of funds illus- trated in, 204r Massachusetts, aid laws of, ex- plained, 33, 56, 167, 174, 181; evaluation of aid laws of, 43- 47, 49-52, 55; 167-170, 174, 175 Maximum, effect of, provision in state aid law, in Rhode Island, 65; in Maryland, 70; in Maine, 75-77; in Wisconsin, 75-77 Michigan, tuition law of, 154; transportation law of, 173 Mining, state aid for, 180 Minimum standards. See Stan- dards. Minnesota, aid laws of, ex- plained, 33, 83, 182; evalua- tion of aid laws of, 83-86, 132, 138, 163, 164 Mississippi, county high schools in, 149 Missouri, state superintendent of, quoted to show need of special high school aid, 28, 29 ; aid laws of, explained, 33, 53, 77, 182; evaluation of state aid laws of, 53, 54, 77-82; high school transportation in, 173 Montana, district high school rates in, 24; county high schools in, 95, 149; transpor- tation in, 173 Nebraska, county high schools in, 95; tuition law of, 155; transportation law of, 173; [212] aid for normal training am industrial subjects in, 182 Need, defined, 142, 143; relative of various communities ii some states compared, 44-4"d 57, 59-62, 64, 67, 70-72, 76 80-81, 84-86, 88, 101-104, 163 167, 168 Nevada, county aid law of, ex plained, 107, 108; dormitorj system of, 177, 178; aid foi normal training in, 182 New Hampshire, tuition law of 155, 170, 171 New Jersey, aid laws of, ex plained, 34, 73, 166, 174; eval- uation of aid laws of, 73, 74 132, 136, 139, 167, 174, 175 New Mexico, county unit systen in. 111, 112; county higl schools in, 149 New York, aid laws of, ex- plained, 34, 67, 68, 153, 183 186; evaluation of aid laws of 68, 135 Normal training, state aid for 179-185 North Carolina, aid laws of, ex- plained, 34, 47, 57, 152 North Dakota, aid laws of, ex- plained, 34, 58, 163, 183; eval- uation of state aid laws of 58-62, 132, 163-165; difficul- ties of fixed-Sum form of aid illustrated in, 196, 197 Ohio, tuition law of, 155, 156 transportation law of, 173, 17^ Oregon, county high schools in 95; county aid law of, ex plained, 104; result of count] INDEX aid law in, 104-106; law for protecting elementary scliool in, 122} tuition law of, 158 Pennsylvania, aid laws of, ex- plained, 35, 58, 165; evalua- tion of aid laws of, 62, 132, 165, 197 Population basis for eliminating high schools from state aid, 47,48 Privileges, free high school, problem of, 12; general meth- ods for securing free, 146, 146. See also Maintenance, Trans- portation, Tuition. Problems of high school finance outlined, 11-13 Proportional-sum basis of aid- ing schools, 56 Property- valuation- and-attend- *ance basis of aiding schools, 82,83 Rhode Island, aid laws of, ex- plained, 35, 62, 167; evalua- tion of aid laws of, 62-65, 135, 167 Rural high schools, effect of cer- tain laws on development of, 139 School and attendance basis of aiding schools, 65-68 School funds. See General school funds. Sources, of special state high school aid, problem of, 12, 13; of funds used for state aid, 179-185, 191-194; distribution of, among various types of state aid, 194 South Carolina, aid laws of, ex- plained, 35, 53, 88, 156, 163, 183 South Dakota, tuition law of, 153, 154; provision for partial maintenance of elementary school pupils in, 177 Special state aid, date when, first given for general high school purposes, 7-10; defined, 30, 31 ; for general high school purposes, 31-93; for special high school courses, 179-187; for high school tuition, 147- 171 ; for high school transpor- tation, 171-175; for high school libraries and labora- tories, 179, 186, 187 Standards, problem of setting, for receiving high school aid, 11, 12; effect on, of aid for general high school purposes, 39, 40, 118, 119 State aid for high schools. See Special state aid Stimulating effort for high schools, 130-144 Support, general methods of high school, 18; without state aid for high schools, 19-23; with high school sharing in general school funds, 23-26; by special state aid for gen- eral high school purposes, 27- 93 Swift, F. H., quoted, 117, 118; cited, 7 Tax rate, as a criterion for evaluating high school aid laws, 14-17; as a basis for [ 213 ] INDEX eliminating high schools from state aid, 52-55; as a basis for defining need and effort, 142, 143 Teacher basis of aiding schools, 69-73 Teacher-and-attendance basis of aiding schools, 73, 74 Tennessee, aid laws of, ex- plained, 35, 36, 86, 87, 183; evaluation of aid law of, 87, 88; county high schools in, 149 Texas, tuition law of, 158; aid for industrial subjects in, 184 Transportation, problems of, 171, 172; methods of provid- ing, 172-175 Tuition, classification of meth- ods for providing free, 147; paid entirely by pupil, 148- 151; permissive laws, 151- 153; partially free, 153-157; paid by some local unit, 157- 163; free, in state-aided schools, 163-165; payment of, by cooperation of state and local unit, 165-171; rates in certain states, 161 Utah, aid laws of, explained, 36, 62, 63; evaluation of aid laws of, 63-136 Valuation-per-pupil basis for eliminating high schools from state aid, 49-52 Vermont, aid laws of, ex- plained, 36, 48, 82, 154, 155, 170, 184 ; number of towns ex- cluded from state aid in, 48; evaluation of aid laws of, 48, 49, 82, 83, 137, 155, 170; pro- vision for partial mainte- nance of elementary school pupils in, 177 Virginia, aid laws of, explained, 36, 57, 184, 185; evaluation of state aid laws of, 58, 139; law for protecting elementary school in, 122 Washington, aid laws of, ex- plained, 36, 68, 163; evalua- tion of state aid laws of, 68, 132, 136, 163-165 West Virginia, aid laws of, ex- plained, 36, 58, 185; evalua- tion of aid laws of, 62, 132, 198 Wisconsin, aid laws of, ex- plained, 37, 5?, 74, 185; effort to secure equalization in early law, 41; evaluation of state aid laws of, 54, 55, 75, 139; tuition law of, 158, 161, 164 Wood, W. C, quoted 101 ; cited, 103 Wyoming, county high schools in, 95 [214 ]