The district tax situation in each county is shown in a rough way by the two maps in Figure 11. The map at the left shows for each county the per cent of districts that levied 5 mills or less than 5 mills for maintenance in the year 1921. The white counties are those in which 25 per cent or less than 25 per cent of the districts levied 5 mills or less. The lightly shaded counties are those in which from 25 to 50 per cent of the districts levied a maintenance tax of 5 mills or less. The heavily shaded counties are those in which from fifty to one hundred per cent of the district levied 5 mills or less.

In the same way the map at the right shows the counties in which from 50 to 100 per cent of the districts levied a tax of more than 20 mills. These, as will be seen, are the heavily shaded counties. The lightly shaded counties are those in which from 25 to 50 per cent levied more than 20 mills. The white counties are those in which 25 per cent or less than 25 per cent of the districts levied a tax of 20 mills.

Figures 10 and II show that a larger per cent of the districts in St. Louis County levy a maintenance tax of 20 mills or more than in any other of the nine counties chosen. It must be remembered that a considerable proportion of the property in St. Louis County is owned by mining companies and that levying heavy taxes upon such property represents no sacrifice on the part of the voters at the school meeting. Leaving St. Louis

County out of our discussion, we discover that in Murray County, which stands second in the state from the standpoint of the amount of wealth back of each school child, only 3 districts out of 100 levy 20 mills or more; in Sibley, the eighth richest county, 6; in Sherburne, 10; in Mille Lacs, 33; and in Hubbard, the poorest county in the state, 47 districts out of each 100 levy over 20 mills.

Inequalities in state aid. Two of the officially avowed purposes of state aid are (1) to equalize school opportunities, and (2) to equalize school burdens. It has already been shown that in 1920-21, both school opportunities and school burdens were woefully unequal. State aid has not succeeded in equalizing either of these factors. It remains to be seen to what extent state aid is so administered as to tend toward equalization. If state aid is to tend towards equalization of educational opportunities and school burdens, the state should now be paying a larger share of the expense of education either in those counties where school opportunities are best, or in those counties where the burden of school taxation is heaviest.

TABLE XX

NINE MINNESOTA COUNTIES' INEQUALITIES IN SCHOOL ATTENDANCE, AVERAGE SCHOOL TAX RATES, EXPENDITURE, AND STATE AID

a Data taken from unpublished reports of county auditors, to the Minnesota State Department of Education.

b Data taken from unpublished reports of county superintendents, 1920-21, on file in the offices of the Minnesota State Department of Education.

Per child in average daily attendance, computed on the basis of data cited in a and b.

Table XX compares nine Minnesota counties with regard to length of school term, annual expenditure per pupil, average tax levy, and the per cent of school expenditures furnished by the state. The question is to what extent does state aid increase proportionately as any of these three

other factors increases? To facilitate this comparison, the nine counties have been ranked with regard to five educational factors.

St. Louis County ranks first as to wealth per child, length of school term, annual expenditure, and average total school levy; first, in ability, effort, and achievement as measured by these criteria. It ranks ninth with regard to the share of educational expenditure furnished by the state, receiving only 4 per cent of its total expenditure. On the basis of ability, this is obviously just and right; St. Louis County is the richest county in the state, and therefore best able to pay for its own schools.

Let us next examine the county which ranks lowest in effort and in achievement as measured by these same criteria. Sibley County which outranks all the other counties in the group except Murray and St. Louis as regards wealth per child, has the shortest term of school, the lowest average school tax levy, and spends next to the least per child in attendance. How does the aid given by the state to this county compare with that given to others? Of the nine counties studied, Sibley receives next to the largest per cent of its school expenditures from the state. Almost one fourth (24 per cent) of the total school costs in Sibley County is borne by the state.

It is easy to multiply examples of such injustice. Chippewa County, which spends least of all the counties studied for each child in attendance, is the county which receives the greatest share (38 per cent) of its school expenditures from the state. Evidently the amount of state aid granted to the richest, the eighth richest, and the county of median wealth, bears no relation to their respective financial ability nor to their efforts to provide school revenues.

Let us now examine the aid given the poorest county in the state. Hubbard County has the least wealth per child and levies the heaviest school" tax of any county in the nine except St. Louis. In this group, it has the fifth longest school term, and is third in the amount expended per pupil. As measured by the wealth per pupil this county has the least ability to support schools. Its school tax levy of 26.9 mills is amazing in view of its comparatively small valuation. This levy is more than twice the levy in Chippewa County and more than four times the levy in Sibley. Yet Hubbard County receives a smaller per cent of its school expenditure from the state than does either Chippewa or Sibley, for Chippewa receives 38 per cent, Sibley receives 24 per cent, and Hubbard receives 23 per cent.

Certainly in the light of the facts just presented, it is easy to see that state funds in Minnesota are not equalizing either school burdens or school opportunities. Nor will they accomplish either of these two purposes until the present antiquated, unscientific, and inherently unjust and unsound

methods of apportioning state school moneys are abandoned, and new methods and bases adopted, methods which take into consideration the relative ability and the relative effort of the local school units.

It is true that the 1921 laws contain two new provisions for aid which will further equalize opportunities and burdens. The first provides a maximum of $50 per year aid for isolated pupils who live beyond reasonable walking distance from school. It is almost certain that this aid will not be paid in full, and the amount in each case is so small that it will not accomplish a great deal. The more significant provision is the one distributing aid on the basis of tax levy. This is a revision of a former law which, with certain restrictions, paid to any district one third of the amount raised by a tax levy of more than 20 mills. A complete discussion of this is given under state aid, but in brief and with certain restrictions, the new act provides that the state shall pay in special aid one third of the amount raised by a school maintenance levy of between 20 and 32 mills, and onehalf raised by a levy in excess of 32 mills. This last is, again, special legislation in favor of special and independent districts, since the same statutes expressly forbid a common school district's levying more than a total of 30 mills for school maintenance. Obviously, no common district will profit by the aid for levies above 32 mills. Unjust as this may seem, it is probably not a matter for great concern. At the present writing, it appears likely that in 29 counties of the 86, there will be no common school districts to share even in the supplemental aid based upon levies of more than 20 per cent.

At any rate, the best that can be said for these 1921 provisions is that they are inadequate patches on a worn out system. They turn only a little more money to the purposes which ought to claim almost the whole amount of state aid: namely, the equalizing of school revenues and school opportunities.

Defects in the system of special state aid.-State moneys for the support of schools in Minnesota may be divided into two general classes: the revenues from the state permanent funds and the amounts appropriated biennially by the state legislature. These appropriations are known as "Special State Aid" and usually comprise a large appropriation "for special aid to high, graded, and rural schools" and several smaller appropriations for various educational purposes, which are listed and discussed in Chapter X. Preceding pages have already shown that the present distribution of the total amount of state school moneys is not successful in equalizing either school opportunities or burdens. We will now turn our attention to a more detailed consideration of the system of special state aid.

The present system of special state aid in Minnesota is outgrown, cumbersome, and wasteful. In an early day, it was probably helpful, and served

to assist certain districts in new and expensive undertakings. It would be humorous, if it were not so tragic, to find Minnesota "stimulating” today well-established undertakings, by state aid to commercial training, offered since 1903; to home training, offered since 1910; to general industrial training, the avowed successor of manual training which was offered in 1894. These "infant" departments are still being aided, but the 1921 Legislature refused to appropriate a dollar for school nurses, physical education, and teacher helpers for the rural schools, all of which would be new in the vast majority of Minnesota schools, and which the State Department recommended for aid. At the present time, state aid is distributed on so many bases that it has become a matter for nice calculation to know in just what way a district can secure the largest share of state aid. Instead of the old system of leaving the requirements for participation almost entirely to the state department, many of them are now matters of statutory enactment, and it is possible for districts to conform to the letter of the law and qualify for state aid when such an apportionment is clearly useless or unjust. At present the whole system is so cumbersome that the most amazing anomalies creep in. For example, under the 1921 state aid, a four-year high school received $1000 flat aid, while a junior and a senior high school in any district received a total of only $900 flat aid.27 A system which has grown so elaborate that even its authors cannot foresee its totals is too intricate to be useful.

The wastefulness of the present system of state aid is apparent when we bear in mind the present condition of Minnesota school finances. The fact that Minnesota ranks eleventh for school expenditure and twenty-fifth for school achievement in the United States means that money is being wasted somewhere. A considerable part of this waste is due to the fact that state aid tends to stimulate school undertakings regardless of the need for them. It has frequently happened that districts have added or retained certain types of classes or teachers solely because of the state aid involved. In other cases, districts have been encouraged to undertake expenditures far beyond their wealth, and dissatisfaction and suspicion have been the result. In a state with only sixty-four out of every hundred children in school on an average school day, it is time that state aid did more to encourage enrollment and regular attendance, and left to local judgment a larger share in determining types of classes and kinds of instruction to be maintained.

These antiquated, cumbersome and wasteful features of state aid have been pointed out repeatedly, but without effect. The public education commission which reported in 1914 advised the apportionment of aid on two bases: aggregate days' attendance and teachers' salaries. In 1920, the

Minnesota School Laws, 1921, p. 65, ch. 9, sec. 217.