Table XX shows that in rural districts, the enrollment ranged from 35 per cent to 103 per cent of the school census, the median being 75 per cent. In independent districts, the enrollment ranged from 162 per cent to 54 per cent of the census, the median being 90 per cent, while in consolidated districts, the range was from 138 per cent to 21 per cent, the median being 88 per cent of the census. In length of school year the longest, shortest, and typical school years are respectively 180 days, 102 days, and 150 days for rural districts; 182 days, 129 days, and 173 days for independent districts; and 180 days, 107 days, and 171 days for consolidated districts. Figure 4 shows these inequalities in length of school year graphically. It is interesting to note that the highest and lowest salaries paid. women teachers doing grade or elementary teaching are paid in the rural districts, the variation being from $1578.84 to $447. The median salary is lowest in the rural districts, being $752.59, and highest in the consolidated districts, being $900. Figure 5 shows graphically these salary facts. In expenditure per child enrolled, the consolidated districts show the highest and lowest figures, ranging from $322.57 to $16.83, with a median of $97.77. The medians for the rural districts and the independent districts are $62.64 and $67.04, respectively. Figure 6 shows these average expenditures graphically. Such tables as No. XX do not by any means show the extreme variation of educational opportunity in the state. They are made from county averages and do not show the variation among the districts situated within the counties themselves. That much worse conditions exist in certain districts than is shown here is evident by the following quotation from the 1919-20 report of the state Americanization director, giving the record of a certain township. Number of school buildings, 4; value of each $273; equipment in each $62.50; three "teachers" were employed in 1918-19 for the terms of 2, 3 and 5 months at the salaries of $55, $60, and $65 respectively; all those "teachers" taught on a "special" certificate, i.e., were unable to secure a regular third grade certificate from the state department on examination. There were 74 persons of school age of whom only 36 were enrolled in school and these attended on an average only 73 days during the year. The tax levies in the districts in this township were 1.27, 1.46, and 2.00 mills respectively, and the amount received from taxes was $555.64 while $484.93 was received from the state apportionment. With 74 persons of school age in the district, the average attendance was only 26, yet the longest term was five months. Practically all the laws of the state designed to secure efficiency in school work were being violated in this districtit is but one of many- the minimum term law, the law requiring a qualified teacher, the compulsory attendance law, the law witholding the state apportionment from districts not having a seven months term, the laws providing for suitable building and equipment, laws of hygiene and sanitation, etc.; yet the state is contributing almost as much as the local districts in maintaining these "schools." In some instances, the state contributes almost the entire sum used in maintaining just such schools as these-they are practically "state schools" as far as financial responsibility is concerned. Inequalities in ability, effort, and aid.-One of the chief functions of state aid should be to equalize the burden of school support among the various districts or counties. The discussion of the distribution of state aid has made it clear that South Dakota does not take into consideration the financial ability of the counties or districts in distributing any portion of her state aid. She should consider particularly three things: (1) the number of children being educated; (2) the ability of the school unit to finance the education of its children, as expressed in terms of true valuation per school child residing within the school unit; (3) the effort of the school unit to educate its children, as expressed in the ratio between the true valuation and the local tax levy. TABLE XXI INEQUALITIES IN THE DIVISION OF SCHOOL BURDENS AMONG SOUTH DAKOTA COUNTIES AS SHOWN BY VARIATION IN PROPORTION OF REVENUE FURNISHED BY THE STATE AND BY THE DISTRICT RESPECTIVELY, 1920 a Computed by dividing valuation of county as given in Report of State Tax Commission, 1919-20, pp. 102-3, by combined census, given in State Superintendent of Public Instruction Report, 1920, pp. 155, 156, 196, 197, 239. b Computed by combining figures given for rural, independent, and consolidated districts as given in State Superintendent of Public Instruction Report, 1920, pp. 171, 175, 220-25, 251-53, but leaving out of consideration, balance on hand at beginning of year, amount received from sale of bonds and amount received from sale of property and insurance. © Computed by combining figures given for rural, independent, and consolidated districts as given in the State Superintendent of Public Instruction Report, 1920, pp. 171-74, 220-25, 251-53. South Dakota does not levy any county tax. While the assessed valuation by counties is available, it is not available by districts. So the second item to be considered above cannot be determined directly. Table XXI 8 Superintendent of Public Instruction Report, 1920, p. 18. and Figure 7 present the facts for nine counties chosen on the basis of assessed valuation per child 6-21 years of age, namely the three richest, the three poorest, and three of approximately average valuation. The first and third counties in rank were omitted because they are unorganized counties and are therefore hardly representative. For this table, the items as given in the report of the state superintendent of public instruction for rural, independent and consolidated districts were combined. INEQUALITIES IN ASSESSED VALUATION AND STATE AID Table XXI shows that the assessed valuation per census child varies from $19,436 in Stanley County to $5433 in Dewey County. It is a peculiar fact that these two counties are both west of the Missouri River and are separated by only a small unorganized county. Grant County is the median county, with an assessed valuation of $10,852 per school child. Table XXI and Figure 7 show also that there is a wide variation, not only in the ability of the counties to finance their schools, but also in the assistance the state gives them. The aid given by the state is not proportioned to the ability of the county. A rich county, Stanley, gets $10.90 per child enrolled, while a poor county, Campbell, gets $6.94 per child enrolled. In Table XXII, the conditions in the rural schools of the nine selected counties are shown with respect to state aid per child enrolled, state aid per teacher employed, average school tax in mills raised by the districts, and the amount raised by district tax for each $1 of state aid received. Figure 8 is based on Table XXII and shows the inequalities in effort as shown by the average school tax in mills and aid as shown by the amount raised by district tax for each $1 of state aid. TABLE XXII INEQUALITIES IN ABILITY, EFFORT, AND AID IN SOUTH DAKOTA RURAL DISTRICTS OF NINE SELECTED COUNTIES, 1920 a Counties selected on the basis of their wealth per school census child. Valuation per child computed by dividing valuation of county as given in Report of State Tax Commission, 1919-20, pp. 102-3 by combined census, given in State Superintendent of Public Instruction Report, 1920, pp. 155, 156, 196, 197, 239. b Computed by dividing total state aid as given in Superintendent of Public Instruction Report, 1920, pp. 171-74, by total enrollment as given in ibid., pp. 157, 158. e Computed by dividing total state aid as found in (b) above by total number of teachers as given in State Superintendent of Public Instruction Report, 1920, pp. 151, 152. a Ibid., pp. 169, 170. e Computed by dividing amount raised by district tax as shown in Superintendent of Public Instruction, 1920, pp. 171-72 by total state aid as found in (b) above. In Table XXII variations in the burdens and aid of the rural districts of the same nine counties are shown. While the valuations given for the entire county are not necessarily true for the rural schools only of the county, no other valuations are available. Several of these variations are particu larly worthy of comment. The rural schools of one county, Campbell, received only $5.94 from the state for each child enrolled, while those of another, Potter, received $16.06. At the same time Campbell County rural schools taxed themselves at the average rate of 7.5 mills, while the Potter County rural schools were levying only 2.46 mills. Campbell County rural schools raised $7.99 by local tax for each dollar given them in state aid, INEQUALITIES IN EFFORT AND AID IN RURAL DISTRICTS while Potter County rural schools raised only $3.06 for each dollar of state aid received. If we consider the valuations of the county as applying to the rural schools of the county, Potter County is almost twice as rich per school child as is Campbell County. Table XXIII compares the ability, |