the policy for a short time of making appropriations. Does she, in distributing the state school money, make any attempt to reduce inequalities? Could she not by distributing on a scientific basis the money now available and by means of a reasonable state tax greatly reduce these inequalities? The paragraphs immediately following will point out the apparent aims of the different forms of state aid which South Dakota distributes to the schools, and will show what effort the state is making toward equalization of educational opportunities and burdens.

TABLE XXVI

INEQUALITIES IN ABILITY, EFFORT, AND AID OF SELECTED RURAL ONE-TEACHER DISTRICTS IN TURNER COUNTY, SOUTH DAKOTA, 1921-22a

a The state aid was not reported, except special aid. The aid was computed on the basis of $10 per census child, which was the amount apportioned for the year. None of the districts shown in this table receives any special aid.

Aims of different forms of aid in South Dakota.-According to the constitution of the state of South Dakota the income from the land given to the state for common schools "shall be used for the equal benefit of all the people of the state and may not be diverted even temporarily." In

Constitution of South Dakota, art. 8, sec. 3.

9

accordance with the constitutional provision, the income from the permanent school fund is apportioned to the schools of the state in proportion to the school population. This plan helps to insure to all pupils the opportunity to attend school, but makes no attempt to equalize those opportunities. The distribution of the poll tax money, the only money raised in the county for schools, and the proceeds from fines, distributed in the same way, serves the same purpose.

The distribution of money appropriated to match Smith-Hughes aid can help only a limited number of the people of the state. This is devoted to vocational training and does not affect greatly any large proportion of the population of the state. It might be argued with truth that the aid devoted to high schools for teacher-training affects the rural schools of the state at large in making available a large number of better trained teachers and therefore indirectly helps to provide equal educational opportunities to the children of the state. Nevertheless, so far as its direct effect is concerned, this fund benefits only a small group, namely, high school pupils pursuing rural teacher-training courses.

The appropriation for aid for common schools has for its purpose the returning to those districts, which have within their borders indemnity or endowment land owned by the state and non-taxable, part or all of the money which might have been received by the district for school purposes in taxes on such land. This is an eminently fair thing to do for those districts, as this land is constantly returning a fair income to state school funds. Appropriations for aid for evening schools have for their purpose the furnishing of an opportunity for those people above sixteen years of age who have not received an education and who cannot attend day school. This might be taken as an attempt to equalize opportunity, and, by the nature of the law which compels certain uneducated to attend evening schools, it is an effort on the part of the state to remove illiteracy and advance the education of those who need it most.

What may be considered the only serious attempt to equalize educational opportunity in the state in a large way was inaugurated by the legislature in 1919. The appropriation of large sums of money known as "aid for rural and consolidated schools" for the purpose of "aiding and encouraging the improvement of educational conditions in the rural schools of the state," ,” 10 marks an era in the distribution of school money in South Dakota. The method of distributing this fund and the requirements for participating in it have already been discussed (Chapter XVIII). Undoubtedly it will fulfil, to some extent at least, the purpose for which it was intended.

10 School Laws of South Dakota, Annotated, 1919, p. 84, sec. I.

It is too early to discover what the result has been or what it may be, but it is undoubtedly a step in the right direction.

If the distribution of this fund is considered from the standpoint of equalizing opportunity, we see that it may serve its purpose in several different ways. Equality of opportunity means not only equality in length of school year; it means equality in the training of the teachers provided; in equipment; sanitary and healthful buildings; equality in scope and richness of courses of study; equality in opportunity for discovering ability and for developing physically, mentally, and socially.

Districts with different economic ability cannot be expected to furnish such equality alone. State funds should be distributed to the districts on

the basis of the financial ability of the districts and their effort. The appro-et

priation under discussion fulfils these purposes only in part. Certain minimum standards in buildings, equipment, playground, and training of teachers must be met in order to receive aid from this fund, but no provision is made for increased aid if conditions are brought above the minimum, unless a school by raising its standards can get into a higher class for which a larger sum is provided. The opportunities for this are limited. No provision is made in distributing these funds, nor in fact any funds in the state to schools, to take into account the financial ability of the district.

We must conclude that South Dakota has scarcely made a beginning towards the equalization of educational opportunities and burdens of support.

Chapter XXI will attempt to suggest some desirable modifications of South Dakota's system with equalization of opportunities and burdens particularly in view.

CHAPTER XXI

CONCLUSION

The preceding chapters have shown the conditions which exist in South Dakota with respect to educational opportunities, school support, and school aid. Equality of educational opportunity does not exist. Some pupils enjoy the advantages of the opportunity to attend school 180 days in the year, in good buildings, well equipped, with highly trained, well-paid teachers; while others are practically denied the opportunity to attend school at all. Between these two extremes, practically all gradations of variation may be found. Again, some school units are able to furnish to their children a fair education at reasonable tax rate, while others must tax themselves to the limit to furnish a most meager education. State aid to schools is distributed without regard to the ability of the school units to finance schools. If South Dakota is to equalize the educational opportunities offered to her school children and equalize the burdens of school support, she must reorganize certain phases of her system of school support.

The first question to be answered before suggesting modifications in the present system is "What determines equality of educational opportunity?” This question has been answered rather fully by Swift in an article entitled "Existing Educational Inequalities." Again in his monograph on "School Finance in Colorado," he summarizes these factors as follows "(a) the number and quality of the teachers employed; (b) the quality of general control and supervision; (c) apparatus directly related to instruction, including such material as library books, laboratory apparatus and textbooks." To this "length of school term" should undoubtedly be added. To insure educational opportunity the state must see that these factors are properly provided and equalized.

Before calling for increased funds for school purposes, the state should arrange for a scientific method of apportioning the school money it now raises. Any additional funds without a better method of apportionment would not tend to equalize educational opportunities and burdens. Cubberley says, "The use of the school census basis for the apportionment of funds is one of the worst and most unjust bases of apportionment we have in use, and its complete abandonment in the future for some better single basis or for a combination basis plan is greatly to be desired."3

1 American School Board Journal 60:29-30, May, 1920.

Journal of Educational Research 2:755, November, 1920.

3 E. P. Cubberley, School Funds and Their Apportionment, p. 251. See this book for a very complete discussion of basis of apportionment.

He further states that "where the fund at hand for distribution is large enough to permit of the use of such a plan, the best basis for the distribution. of funds is a combination of teacher-actually-employed and aggregate days' attendance.' "South Dakota should employ some such plan of distributing her interest and income fund instead of the census basis now in use, together with a definite recognition of variations in financial ability of the school units.

At present, South Dakota makes the maintenance of a minimum school term the sole condition for receiving state apportionment. And this requirement is not enforced. In distributing the state apportionment, South Dakota should set up certain standards, much as she has in distributing her appropriations for aid to rural and consolidated schools, or as other states have done in distributing their apportionments. The following list suggests what South Dakota might require: (1) raising of a local tax; (2) lawful expenditure of school moneys; (3) employment of teachers of specified qualifications; (4) maintaining a school for a fixed number of months; (5) providing equipment satisfying state standards; (6) providing instruction in the subjects required by law; (7) submitting the reports required by the state or other educational authorities; (8) provision of free textbooks; (9) enforcement of compulsory education and truancy laws; (10) fulfilling all state school laws and regulations.

Another all-important question to be answered in this connection is "What proportion of the school burden should the state bear?" Swift says in substance that the items of expenditure most important in determining educational equality or inequality should be assigned to the state. This would require that a much larger proportion of school money be paid by the state than South Dakota now pays. She should have a state tax to raise additional state funds. Cubberley says, "The state school tax equalizes the burdens best and is the most desirable single form of general taxation for schools." Swift says, "Neither special appropriations which depend upon the judgment and attitude of the legislature from year to year, nor the income of a permanent school fund can in any sense take the place of a state tax.” As a state measure then, South Dakota should increase by a state tax the amount of money she distributes to her schools, and she should adopt a scientific method of apportioning the money received from the state tax

1920.

Ibid., p. 252.

Superintendent of Public Instruction Report, 1920, p. 9.

F. H. Swift, School Finance in Colorado, Journal of Educational Research 2:757. November,

Ibid., 2:755. November, 1920.

8 E. P. Cubberley, op. cit., p. 250.

F. H. Swift, op. cit., 2:755. November, 1920.