Slike strani
PDF
ePub

Hampshire, Maine, New Jersey, Virginia, California, Delaware, and Wisconsin are supported in part by one or more of the following: Corporation tax, bank tax, railroad tax, public service and insurance companies tax. Income taxes are used for schools in Massachusetts, North Carolina, Arkansas, and Delaware; inheritance tax in California, Virginia, Louisiana, Michigan, and Kentucky; severance tax in Louisiana and Arkansas.1 State income taxes for schools are considered an excellent source of funds. The use of this source has not extended so rapidly as its advocates hoped, owing to the creation of the Federal income tax.

The severance tax is a tax levied on all natural products severed from the soil except agricultural. It is believed by many students of taxation that when minerals, timber, clay, and other natural products are removed the State is permanently impoverished, and that those profiting by it should pay tribute which can properly be spent on the education of future citizens of the State. Severance tax and State income tax are steadily growing in popular esteem as sources of moneys for school support. An extract from the annual report of the Illinois Tax Commission, made in 1922, indicates this:

It is absolutely essential that the State of Illinois, by amendment of its constitution and the passage of appropriate legislation, provide by more modern methods for the realization of a substantial part of the revenues required for public purposes by the State and its political subdivisions, so that in some measure the vast bulk of property invisible to the assessing authorities physically, but productive of very large income values, may be required to contribute its fair proportion to the public burden.

This can be accomplished in part by the use of production or severance taxes upon coal, oil, and mineral deposits in the State which upon removal are forever lost as an element of value subject to taxation, and by license and business taxes upon the activities of the people engaged in trade and callings of such productive character as to be able to bear the same without impairing the maintenance and operation of essential industry.

We recommend favorable consideration of laws proposed to levy a production or severance tax on coal, oil, and minerals, and such additional taxes on occupations and privileges as will contribute measurably to the public revenues without being restrictive of commercial or industrial developments.

It has been emphasized also by students of taxation that whenever posssible the State should draw its revenues from sources other than those taxed by its constituent public corporations. This principle has been definitely and practically recognized in at least two States, Massachusetts and California. Whenever new types of State taxation are proposed it is necessary to emphasize the fact that the reason for introducing such taxes is to reduce the general property tax, both State and local, as far as possible. New sources of income should not be an added burden, but should tend toward a better distribution of tax burdens.

1 Study of school support in Utah by Fletcher Harper Swift.

Equalization funds.-The necessity of some type of equalization fund coming from State sources is becoming very generally recognized. Twenty-four States now provide State equalization funds in varying forms and in varying amounts. It is now becoming generally recognized that the evening out of inequalities within the component parts of State school systems can be done only through equalization funds or through State support of minimum school programs. The amount and method of distributing equalization funds is a problem which must be carefully worked out in each State on the basis of its school needs and conditions, administrative organization, methods of taxation for support of public institutions, and the like.

While the source from which State school funds should come and the proportion which the State should contribute toward the maintenance of its schools are important questions in the welfare of a State school system, the essence of equalization of educational opportunity lies in the method of distribution. Undoubtedly there are many States now contributing enough from State funds to the support of schools to go a long way in the direction of equalizing educational opportunities if the funds were scientifically distributed. Distribution of funds on the school-population basis is the oldest and still the prevailing method of distribution. It was, at the time of its adoption, believed the fairest possible method, and it was hoped that it would assist in equalizing educational opportunities. The fact that general development, concentration of wealth and population, centralization of natural resources, and other influences have resulted in changing conditions to such an extent that the method is no longer an equitable one is responsible for its being discredited at the present time as a method unscientific and inequitable. Progressive States are adopting more effective methods of distribution for all or part of their State funds. Progress in this direction is retarded in many States by the fact that the census-enrollment basis of distribution is provided for in the State constitution and is therefore difficult to change.

The most common methods of distribution of State funds among the different States are: (1) Per pupil basis, either school census, average daily attendance, aggregate attendance, or enrollment. Forty-five States distribute some or all of their funds on one of these per-pupil bases. (2) Per teacher basis, including number of teachers, graduated grant proportioned to salary basis, graduated grant proportioned to qualifications basis. Sixteen States use one or more of these in distributing some of their State funds. (3) On some specifically equalizing basis. Twenty-four States now have equalizing funds. (4) Miscellaneous bases or combinations of different bases.

Of these different methods, distribution on the census basis is considered least equalizing in effect. School enrollment basis, average

daily attendance or aggregate attendance basis, number of teachers. employed, distribution of State money in inverse ratio to the tax valuation of the unit to which it is distributed and direct ratio to the tax rate, are other methods of distribution which are considered better. In some States combinations are employed with advantage. Any State considering changing its system of support and its method of distributing State funds should provide that a careful study of the whole situation in the State be made in order that the distribution adopted may be an equalizing one, combining the best elements of methods used in the most progressive States.

Another distributive plan extensively used in a number of States is that of encouraging progress in individual communities by rewarding through State funds special effort on the part of local districts. Frequently the State matches dollar for dollar a certain maximum amount raised by a local district. This system was inaugurated because it was believed it was a good method to promote progressive practices. Recent studies indicate that State funds can not be satisfactorily used both to equalize opportunity and to encourage progress in individual communities by rewarding effort unless two different funds and systems of distribution are practiced. This has led to a reexamination of State-aid systems. Reward for effort, while an administrative device for encouraging progress, has not the same claim as a State responsibility as that of equalization of educational opportunity. Of the two the latter is of greater importance.

Recently the State of New York made significant changes in (1) its laws concerning financial aid to enlarged districts and (2) in the apportionment of State moneys appropriated for the support of schools. The former applies to certain districts established by consolidation of two or more districts and aims to insure that when several districts consolidate the resulting consolidated district will receive quotas in the same amount and under the same conditions as though such consolidation had not been effected. This law is designed either to promote consolidation or at least to avoid depriving districts which consolidate of the funds they would otherwise be entitled to. It prevents discriminating against districts which consolidate in the distribution of State funds.

The equalizing method of distribution adopted was based in part on the result of a study and report of a legislative committee.2

The plan aims to determine the educational task by adopting a "weighted-pupil" measure rather than number of teachers, number of pupils, or actual expenditure-measures now used in some States. The following statement of certain essentials and principles embodied in the report is from an article by Paul Mort. Equalization of

Report of State Aid to Public Schools in New York State, prepared for a joint legislative committee by Paul Mort, with the advice and cooperation of G. D. Strayer, J. R. McGaughy, and Robert M. Haig.

Educational Opportunity, Journal of Educational Research, February, 1926, Vol. XIII, No. 2, p. 94:

Taking the offering demanded by a given program for a city elementary child as a unit, this device weights a pupil when measuring the need in any other situation or in any type of education recognized on the minimum program by an amount representing the relative cost of giving the pupil what would reasonably be accepted as an equivalent offering. For instance, a city highschool child is given a weighting of two; that is, a city high-school child counts two weighted pupils.

The minimum program cost on which the study (not the law) was made was a $70 educational offering (cost per year). The author states that "improvement of the present system must come through a change in the (present) method of measuring need of communities for aid and from a consideration of the wealth of communities in the distribution of funds."

The following ends were sought in developing the plan:

(1) A $70 education, that is, an annual current expenditure of $70 per weighted pupil, should be provided throughout the State. (2) The burden of this $70 education should be distributed so as to bear upon the people in all localities at the same rate in relation to their tax-paying ability. (3) No community should receive less State aid than it now receives. (4) Of the total amount of State aid the maximum amount possible should go toward equalization of educational opportunity. (5) The plan should demand as small an amount of State aid and therefore as large a degree of local support as possible.

The ends (3) and (5) are not essential to equalization. They are incorporated for other reasons.

Some of the principles apparently influencing the legislation passed by Massachusetts in 1919 and 1922 are as follows: (1) State aid should be given in the form of reimbursements for money previously expended; (2) the amount of State aid granted shall be determined by (a) the community's ability to help itself as indicated by its assessed valuation, (b) the community's effort as indicated by its local tax rate, and (c) the quality of educational opportunity the community seeks to furnish as indicated by the number and preparation of teachers and the character of the educational facilities provided.

Besides New York and Massachusetts, California, Maryland, North Carolina, Minnesota, Delaware, and a number of other States have worked out methods of distributing their funds which are equalizing in effect. These methods are not alike. Each has some strong and some weak charac eristics. They are, however, well worth studying by States cons dering changes in distribution of funds.

LOCAL TAXATION

The difficulty of supporting schools in local districts dependent wholly or in large part on local taxation has long been recognized.

Generally speaking, the smaller the local units the more inequitable are school opportunities furnished under this system. In States in which a reasonably large percentage of the support comes from a county tax assessed on all property of the county, including independent city school districts, and then divided between the city systems and the rural schools of the county on some equitable basis, the inequalities are overcome to a certain extent. Unless, however, such funds are supplemented by State funds, the problem remains unsolved, since counties within a State differ in their ability to support schools widely, though not so widely as smaller units such as townships and districts. Under both local and county support certain sections will be able to maintain good schools with a low tax rate because of their accumulated taxable property, while other sections will be unable to support schools adequate to the needs of modern educational practice even with an exceedingly high tax rate.

Chapter IV

SCHOOL ATTENDANCE AND COMPULSORY ATTENDANCE LAWS

Effectiveness of a school system determined by its use.-The effectiveness of a State's school system is determined to a large extent by the degree to which it is utilized. If a large proportion of the children of school age are enrolled in the schools, and if a goodly per cent of those enrolled are in average daily attendance, the schools may be said to be well utilized. From the figures given in Table 10 it is possible to determine this information for each of the various States. In this table the school age is considered as 5 to 17 years, inclusive.

The difference between the census enumeration and the total number of children enrolled in public and private schools is approximately the number of children 5 to 17 years, inclusive, not in school. For the entire United States this is 3,329,839. Of this number many over 14 have finished the elementary school and are excused by law from further school attendance. Some, living in the rural sections of the country, who are over 14 and have completed the elementary school course, would continue school if high-school advantages were available within reasonable distances from their homes. In the cities many between the ages of 14 and 16 have met the educational provisions of the laws for the issuance of labor permits. Some of this number are receiving further instruction in continuation or evening schools. According to information based on data furnished by 830 cities, approximately 12 per cent of the school enrollment is over 18.

« PrejšnjaNaprej »