of any supplemental aid, and that supplemental aid should be paid from the residue of the biennial appropriations and, if necessary, prorated. Due to this last provision and to the fact that the total appropriations for state aid were reduced by approximately one million a year below the estimates made by State Commissioner McConnell, it is not surprising to find that in 1923 only 53 per cent of the supplemental aid was paid. In this way, the effect of the law designed to alleviate the great educational inequalities, was greatly reduced in usefulness, for, as has been repeatedly pointed out in the present study, a district is likely to be greatly embarrassed if it fails to receive state aid which it has been led or permitted to expect. Such a misfortune bears particularly heavily upon the poorer and more ambitious districts which, acting upon what they believed to be an absolute guarantee of state reimbursement, have taxed themselves far beyond their ability. INADEQUACY OF 1923 LEGISLATION The need for a state equalization fund and the hardship worked by its being prorated appear more clearly when we examine the tax levies and their proceeds in the districts levying twenty mills or more. Pleasant Valley, which is District No. 40 in Beltrami County, levied a local tax of 103 mills, and was entitled to receive $24.98 per pupil in supplemental aid. That is, the levy of 103 mills yielded only $15.02 per pupil. Of the promised supplemental aid, which totaled $1574, Pleasant Valley received only $834.22. The unorganized territory in Beltrami County levied a tax of 41.7 mills which produced only $6.03 per pupil, and which entitled the district to $33.97 per pupil in supplemental aid, a total of $9444. The district received only $5005.32. District 27 in Carlton County had an enrollment of 109 pupils, for whose education the district levied a tax of 70 mills. This yielded only $4.94 per pupil, leaving $35.06 to be supplied by supplemental state aid. Of this, the prorated fund furnished only a trifle more than half. Such instances could be multiplied almost without end.5 The following table shows in summary form the supplemental aid which would have been received by the schools of the state, if aid had been paid in full and the amount which such schools actually received. It From this table we see that there were no less than 630 school districts in the state of Minnesota which were entitled to supplemental aid. should be borne in mind that these districts were all districts representing 630 extreme cases where low valuations combined with courageous effort, whole-hearted belief in education and confidence in the pledge made by the state, led to the levying of high taxes. The average tax levied by these districts varied all the way from approximately 31 to 44 mills; 120 high Unpublished data, prepared by the Minnesota State Department of Education. school districts containing 64,282 pupils entitled to receive from supplemental aid over $12 per child, received only $6.45; 119 graded elementary school districts enrolling 23,365 pupils entitled to receive $12.87 per pupil, received only $6.81; 391 ungraded elementary school districts containing approximately 22,000 children entitled to receive $20.72 per child received only $10.98. Based upon unpublished data compiled by the Minnesota State Department of Education. The legislation of 1923 is a mournful record when viewed in the light of actual conditions. The need of a large state equalization fund had been pointed out again and again. Indeed the legislature itself had given definite recognition to this need by the passage of section 9, already quoted. But instead of providing a fund sufficient to guarantee the creation of an equalization fund adequate to meet the just claims of the districts, the legislature definitely provided for the prorating of this fund, a policy which cannot be too strongly condemned and which has already produced chaos among the school districts and shaken the faith of multitudes in the promises of the state. Not only did the legislature fail to adopt a policy which would guarantee the payments of every dollar to which the districts were entitled, but it made no adequate provision for new sources of public revenue. All data at hand show that, unless Minnesota devises new sources of revenue it will continue to be increasingly difficult for her to meet the just claims of her constituent political corporations. The passage of a state income tax, or a state severance tax, as pointed out in a previous chapter, is the most obvious remedy to the present situation but a remedy which the people of Minnesota have thus far refused to employ. Recommendations upon these points together with other important matters are presented in the immediately following chapter. CHAPTER XIV RECOMMENDATIONS History of previous recommendations.-In October, 1922, the authors of the present study published a summary of the present report under the title Public School Finance in Minnesota. On page 25 of this brief report was asked the question, "What opportunities has Minnesota had of getting scientific advice as a basis for reforming her system of school finance?" This question was answered by indicating the various reports and studies on Minnesota public school finance published between 1914 and 1920 as follows: 1914, Report of Legislative Public Education Commission; 1918, Kent, A Study of State Aid to Public Schools in Minnesota; 1920, Kelley, Public School Support in Minnesota; 1920, State Board of Education, Report upon the Revision of State Aid. Among the causes assigned in this brief report for certain deplorable educational conditions in Minnesota, two concern us here: namely, backwardness in legislation, and the failure of the legislature to avail itself of expert knowledge. Before presenting the recommendations which have been reached as the result of the present study, it may be helpful to review briefly the recommendations made in previous studies and reports, both by experts employed by the state of Minnesota and by the State Department of Education itself. We shall at this point confine our attention to the recommendations of the two outstanding official reports; namely, the 1914 Report of Legislative Public Education Commission and the 1920 State Board of Education, Report upon the Revision of State Aid. Recommendations of 1914 commission rejected.-While it is true that the Legislature of 1915 accepted, in part, certain recommendations of the legislative public education commission, the outstanding fact is that the great group of the recommendations of this commission were entirely ignored and the schools of Minnesota were forced to blunder on very much as if this commission had never pointed out the highway to educational progress. These rejected recommendations may be summarized as follows: 1. The adoption of the county unit.1 2. Removal of the county superintendency from politics and the appointment of the county superintendent by the county school board." 3. Separation of the proceeds of the state school tax from the income of the permanent school fund. 4. Disbursement of the income of the permanent school fund on the basis of the number of "scholars" attending school at least one hundred days. 1 Public Education Commission, Report to the Governor, p. 11. 2 Ibid., p. 11. 5. Conversion of the district one-mill tax (presumably the so-called "county one-mill tax") into a state one-mill tax, the proceeds of the same to be combined with the proceeds of the state one-mill school tax. 6. Distribution of the proceeds of the thus constituted state two-mill school tax on a twofold basis: one half to be distributed on the basis of aggregate attendance in days by "scholars," and one half on the basis of teachers' salaries, counting no annual salary of less than $400 and counting annual salaries in excess of $1000 as $1000.3 Even a cursory reading of the laws in force in the year 1921 will show that not a single one of the above recommendations was ever enacted into law. Certain 1914 recommendations accepted in part. For the purpose of equalizing school burdens, this commission made the following recommendation: The amount (of aid) should be governed primarily by the cost assumed by the district. It should be modified by the principle of equalization of the burden. Money should not be taken from one district, which may be taxing itself to the limit, to be given to another which is hardly doing its fair share toward the support of its own schools or which is so fortunately situated that a trifling tax rate is sufficient for the maintenance of its schools. On the other hand, additional aid may well be awarded to districts that must tax themselves excessively to provide the ordinary school facilities. Additional aid will be granted rural schools, graded schools, and high schools, provided that the tax levy for maintenance in the district exceeds fifteen mills. The state will pay one-third of the excess cost above fifteen mills until the aid for: Class "A" Rural Schools reaches High Schools reaches $ 225 125 1,800 2,500 No school district will receive annual aid for any school of any class unless the tax levy for maintenance exceeds five mills in the district.* In 1915, the legislature accepted the fundamental principle of this recommendation, but raised the required levy to 20 mills, established the maximum aid to all rural schools at $200, and eliminated the provision that no annual aid would be paid any school in any district unless the tax levy for maintenance exceeded 5 mills." Raising the required tax levy to 20 mills shut out almost all the rural schools from any benefit from this act, since they were by law prohibited from levying more than 15 mills for maintenance unless they supported a high or graded school. The recommendation of the committee would have stimulated the laggard rural districts to greater effort, and would have given valuable aid to those struggling under heavy taxes levied on a small valuation. The legislature not only robbed the rural schools of this aid, but Public Education Commission, Report to the Governor, p. 12. Ibid., pp. 24, 25, 26. Session Laws of Minnesota, 1915, ch. 296. refused the special recognition advised for superior or "Class A❞ rural schools, and reduced the maximum aid for the best rural schools to $200 per teacher. 1920 recommendations of State Board of Education rejected.—Chapter IX has called attention to the fact that forty days' attendance provided by the legislature in 1887 as the basis for apportioning the current school fund was approximately the average attendance at that time. The Report upon the Revision of State Aid recommended that the attendance requirement for participation in the endowment fund be raised to sixty days. Even more fundamental than this proposed reform was the recommendation that a new and additional two-mill state school tax be levied for the support of special state aid.' It may be noted that in the presentation of its program this tax reform was commonly asserted and accepted as being the most important of all reforms urged by the State Department of Education. The Legislature of 1921 rejected both of these reforms and consequently left the law absolutely unchanged. No less than seven other reforms recommended by the State Board of Education, which, together with the above two, constituted the most important planks in its reform program were absolutely and entirely rejected by the Legislature of 1921. These rejected recommendations may be summarized as follows: (1) the levying of a new and additional two-mill state school tax for the support of special state aid, (2) raising the attendance requirement for participation in the endowment fund to sixty days, (3) setting aside $500,000 each year from the proceeds of the state one-mill tax, for distribution with the state aid fund for health supervision, physical education, evening schools, special classes for defectives, building aid, and community service, (4) state aid for supervision of rural schools, (5) state aid for county supervision of physical training,10 (6) state aid for part time education,11 (7) state aid for health supervision,12 (8) state aid for physical education,18 (9) the establishment of a sliding scale of aid based upon the number of teachers employed in the special departments.14 Not content with ignoring the most fundamental recommendations of the report of the State Board of Education, the legislature took it upon itself so to modify many of the features of the State Board's recommendations which were adopted as to nullify some of the most important aims of these recommendations. For the purpose of equalizing school burdens, the Board of Education offered the following provision: * State Board of Education, Report upon the Revision of State Aid, p. 8. Ibid. Ibid., p. 10. 11 Ibid., p. 13. 13 Ibid., p. 14. 8 Ibid., p. 8 and p. 14. 10 Ibid. 12 Ibid. 14 Ibid., p. 12. |