Slike strani
PDF
ePub

and civil-service employees. In order to avoid duplication these questions have not been presented here, but are contained in another section of the survey report.1

On the basis of this review, it is clear that efforts to extend the active supervision of the State government over the State-supported universities and colleges have to do mainly with financial control. The movement is due principally to an effort to reduce expenditures or to introduce greater economy. In the pursuit of this purpose, major issues vitally affecting the welfare of the educational institutions may be sacrificed to the effort to save money at any cost. It is not to be understood, of course, that financial support of higher education can be considered independently from the general financial condition of the State. If the administration of the land-grant college or State university takes any other attitude toward its relationship to the State, it will most certainly be subject to reduction of its estimates by outside agencies.

Difficulty is encountered in obtaining even a relatively correct view of the relationship of the land-grant institutions to the other obligations of the State, but data were secured which show somewhat exactly the present relationship of the financing of the land-grant institutions to the total amount spent for other types of public education. It is not maintained, of course, that the existing proportion of public funds that is spent for the land-grant institutions is the correct proportion. Facts of the kind presented in the following tables should not be used as the basis for determining the proper distribution of educational income. Their chief value lies in the aid that they afford for correcting erroneous opinions and judgments concerning the support of public higher education.

The major units of public education are the elementary and secondary school system and higher education. The first includes kindergartens, elementary schools, all types of high schools, and special schools for the deaf, blind, delinquent, and similar schools. The second includes teacher-training institutions, land-grant colleges, and other public higher educational institutions, such as State universities, independent professional schools, and junior colleges. There are five main sources from which public education receives its income: The Federal, State, county, local governments, and miscellaneous sources. The first four sources are public. The fifth source includes such items as tuition, gifts, and similar funds, but in the ensuing tabulations are excluded gifts for endowment funds, receipts from residence and dining halls, student activities, departmental earnings, athletics, short-term loans, and sale of lands.

Income for public education from the Federal Government consists of two types, direct income from appropriations and indirect income

1 Part III, Business Management and Finance.

in the form of interest on permanent school funds that have been built up both from the sale of land granted by the Federal Government and from leases on parts of this land that has not yet been sold. In the reports of income of land-grant institutions this interest on land-grant funds has always been considered as a Federal source of income, but in public-school income reports this interest has been credited to the State, county, or district holding title to the land and fund and not to the Federal sources. However, in the following data all indirect income from permanent school funds and leases on school lands for the public-school system has been considered as Federal income in the 30 States that have built their permanent funds from Federal lands. In the other 18 States that received no Federal land but created their permanent school funds from State sources, the interest is considered as State income. No effort has been made to include the income for West Point, Annapolis, war colleges, and other Federal institutions supported by public funds or income for military instruction in colleges and secondary schools as it is impossible to secure data at all complete or comparable with that for other educational institutions. The District of Columbia has also been omitted as it is not comparable as to types of sources available.

TABLE 1.-Sources and distribution of income for public education, 1927-28

[blocks in formation]

1 $6,057,045 (14.33 per cent) is from direct appropriations; $21,850,396 (51.73 per cent) is indirect income from interest on permanent school funds and leases on school lands.

Less than one-tenth of 1 per cent.
Less than one-tenth of 1 per cent.

Table 1 gives a distribution of all income to publicly supported education showing both the source of money and the type of education for which it is used. The public-school system receives about two-thirds of the Federal and State money and practically all the county and local money. It is interesting to note the similarity of distribution between the public schools and higher education of Federal and State money. When the Federal Government is given credit for the interest derived from the original grants of land for the public-school system, 33.93 per cent from Federal sources goes to higher education and 30.39 per cent from State sources. The land-grant institutions receive 32.44 per cent of all income derived from the Federal Government for publicly supported education, 14.48 per cent of all income from the State, 1.61 per cent of all income from the county, and 23.48 per cent of all income from miscellaneous sources. Of the $2,295,882,532 representing the entire income for publicly supported education from all sources, the land-grant institutions received $118,861,954, or 5.18 per cent.

TABLE 2.-Sources and distribution of income for public education in 19 States having the land-grant institution separate from the State university, 1927-281

[blocks in formation]

1 Alabama, Colorado, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Michigan, Mississippi, Montana, New Mexico, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, Virginia, and Washington.

2 $1,976,449 (9.93 per cent) is from direct appropriations; $11,641,879 (58.48 per cent) is indirect income from interest on permanent school funds and leases on school lands.

3 Less than one-tenth of 1 per cent.

Table 2 is similar to Table 1, but includes only the 19 States in which there is a separate land-grant institution from the State university. The significant figures in this table are those showing the distribution of State income. About the same proportion, approximately 8 per cent, goes to teacher-training institutions, as is shown

in the table covering all the States. The land-grant institutions only receive 12.42 per cent of the State money in these 19 States, as compared with 14.48 per cent in all States. The 10 per cent less received by the public-school systems goes to increase the share of the separate State universities. Part of this loss to the public schools is made up by a larger indirect income from the Federal permanent school funds.

Table 3 shows from what sources each type of education receives its support.

TABLE 3.-Percentage analysis of income of each type of public education

[blocks in formation]

! From direct appropriations 0.2937 per cent, and from indirect income, 1.0596 per cent. 'Less than one-tenth of 1 per cent.

The total amount of money spent by the Federal Government on public education is so small, comparatively speaking, that although two-thirds of it goes to the public-school system, this is only 1.06 per cent of the public-school income. The chief sources are local political units, that supply 68.42 per cent, and the State, that supplies 16.65 per cent. Teacher-training institutions obtain 86.43 per cent of their income from the State. The land-grant institutions receive 60.09 per cent of their income from the State and 11.53 per cent from the Federal Government on a basis of the figures presented in the table, but special attention must be called to the fact that these figures on income do not include receipts from residence board and dining halls, student activities, department earnings, athletics, loan funds, and similar rotary funds. The inclusion of such revenues would considerably reduce the proportion from both State and Federal sources, as is shown in Part III, dealing with business management and finance of the land-grant institutions. While the State has taken upon itself the major portion of the responsibility for financing public higher education, the table shows it has assumed only one-sixth of the financial responsibility for the public-school system. In Table 4 is presented the proportion of income for each type of education secured from public sources,

TABLE 4.-Percentage analysis of income for each type of education from public

[blocks in formation]

1 Income from miscellaneous sources is excluded from this table.
? From direct appropriation, 0.3 per cent, and from indirect income, 1.10 per cent.
Less than one-tenth of 1 per cent.

Only public money is considered in this table, income from miscellaneous sources being entirely eliminated. The significance of the table is that the State provides 80.65 per cent of the income of landgrant institutions from public sources, as compared with 99.16 per cent furnished by the State to teacher-training institutions and 82.82 per cent to other public colleges. Of the total public money used by land-grant institutions, 15.47 per cent comes from the Federal Government, 80.65 per cent from the State government, and 3.88 per cent from local public sources. For all higher education, including teacher-training institutions, land-grant institutions, and other public colleges, the State furnishes 85.53 per cent of the total income from public sources, exclusive of income from miscellaneous sources. TABLE 5.-Sources and distribution of income for publicly supported higher

education

[blocks in formation]

Table 5 is similar to Table 1, but includes only income for higher education. The Federal Government's support of higher education goes largely to the land-grant institutions, the percentage being 95.63, but only a little less than half of the State support goes to landgrant institutions, the remainder being divided between teacher

« PrejšnjaNaprej »