We have already seen (Tables II and III) that with respect to many important features of the public school system, Minnesota has steadily lost rank in the United States during the past thirty years. States with far less wealth (i.e., having less wealth per child) have outstripped her because their money has been more wisely and justly expended.

Let us pause for a moment to ask more definitely just what are a child's chances of getting an education in Minnesota today, and just what sort of an education is being provided for the average child. We may answer these questions by determining just how many chances out of a hundred the average child in Minnesota has of being even enrolled in school; how many chances has the child who is enrolled in school, of actually being in school on any particular day; what professional preparation has the teacher of the average Minnesota child received; how much money will probably be expended on his education?

At the present time, out of every 100 children between the ages of 5 and 18 in Minnesota, 18 are not even enrolled in school. Of the 82 who are enrolled, only 79 per cent are in school on any given day. In other words, on an average school day, out of every 100 children of school age (5-18 years) 36 are not in school. This general condition is well known to Minnesota state officials. In 1920, the State Department of Education published this statement:

Approximately 2,000 children are denied all educational opportunity because they live so far from school that attendance is either prohibitive or the compulsory attendance law not obligatory. The fact that this condition exists not only in the northern part of the state, but also in the wealthiest counties in Minnesota, even in districts where the school tax is less than five mills, only emphasizes the seriousness of the situation." These results are clearly substantiated by the Federal Census Report. In 1920, the number of native-born white persons over ten years of age in Minnesota who could neither read nor write any language, was 5955. The total number of illiterates above the age of ten was 34,487, or practically 2 out of every 100 persons living in the state."

10

The question of enrollment is, however, only one of several important factors determining what sort of a chance for an education Minnesota is giving her future citizens. Enrollment is of no value unless a child attends regularly during a school term of sufficient length to give him an elementary education at a fairly early age. Minnesota has an average school year of 160 days, and ranks thirty-third in the United States in this particular. This is actually below the average for the United States, which is 161.9 days, and

8 Unpublished data furnished by the United States Bureau of Education.

• Minnesota State Board of Education, Report upon the Revision of State Aid, p. 71.

10 Bureau of the Census Bulletin, Population: Minnesota, p. 4, Table 4.

compares very unfavorably with Iowa's average term of 174 days, Wisconsin's average of 175.3 days, and New York's of 188 days. In 1921, the average pupil in Minnesota attended school 136.6 days, that is to say, six months, three weeks, and one day. The average pupil in high and graded school districts attended seven months and seven days. Of an ordinary nine-month term, he missed seven weeks. In the rural and semi-graded districts the average pupil attended five and one-half months, or exactly 113.1 days. These are the children whose school years are likely to be few, who will leave school early to go to work, and yet Minnesota is satisfied to give them five and a half months of school per year.

We have then, in Minnesota, 64 children out of 100 in school for six months, three weeks, and one day each year. On the other hand, Oregon gives on the average, to every child enrolled, eight months and four days of school, and Indiana and Illinois each keeps the average child enrolled for more than seven months.

11

No less important than the length of the school year is the question-by what kind of teachers are the children of the state being taught? In the graded and high school districts, conditions are fairly satisfactory. Thirtyfour out of every 100 teachers are college graduates, and only about 3 per cent are not at least high school graduates. But 21 out of every 100 teachers in the rural and semi-graded schools are not even high school graduates, and only 4 out of every 100 are graduates of a normal school. It is true that in teacher preparation a state usually gets about what it is willing to pay for. Adequate salaries permit the enforcement of good standards of requirements. Consequently, it is in order here to recall the fact that although many enterprising states have passed minimum wage laws for teachers, Minnesota has none. Furthermore, the Legislature of 1921 expressly forbade the State Board of Education to make the distribution of state aid "contingent upon any scale of wages."12 Such an act absolutely debars the State Board of Education from exerting the leverage which such states as Massachusetts exert to induce communities to pay good salaries and thus secure good teachers. In the light of these facts, it is not surprising that I out of every 5 rural teachers in the state is not even a high school graduate.

Practically half the school children in Minnesota live in the country, and the facilities provided in rural schools give us an accurate idea of how well Minnesota is providing for 50 per cent of her children.

A survey made of the rural schools in 6 counties in 1917 showed that 90 per cent had no play apparatus; 79 per cent carried drinking water some distance; 60 per cent did not have proper desks for all of the children; 37

11 Minnesota Department of Education Report, 1919-20, p. 166-67.

12 Laws of Minnesota, 1921, p. 764; ch. 467, sec. 4.

per cent had very poor light; and 51 per cent were not even clean. Out of every 20 rural children, less than 10 are in school on an average school day. Of these, 9 are in a school without playground apparatus; 6 are in a school without proper desks for the pupils; 3 do not have proper light to study by; and 5 are in dirty schoolhouses. Undoubtedly conditions have improved in many communities since 1917, but the fact that the State Department of Education cited the above facts in their 1920 Report upon the Revision of State Aid may be considered sufficient evidence that the conditions of 1917 still persist widely.13

The last few paragraphs have revealed the opportunities offered to children in the state as a whole, as indicated by state averages. We will now examine the educational opportunities of the children in specific counties. To simplify this discussion, nine representative Minnesota counties have been chosen. The counties were selected on the basis of their ability to support schools as measured by the assessed valuation per child in average daily attendance in the schools. In order to make such a selection, it was necessary to rank all of Minnesota's 86 counties on this basis. The nine counties chosen include the two richest, the two poorest, the two falling nearest the median, and the first and third quartile counties. To these was added the county ranking eighth. This results in our having selected from Minnesota's 86 counties, those which ranked 1, 2, 8, 22, 43, 44, 66, 85, and 86 in regard to total wealth per child in average daily attendance in the public schools. (See Table X.)

TABLE X

WEALTH PER CHILD IN NINE REPRESENTATIVE MINNESOTA COUNTIES, 1920-21

b Total assessed valuation of taxable property taken from Minnesota Tax Commission, Statement of Assessed Values and Tax Levies in Each County for 1920. Number of children in average daily attendance taken from Reports of County Superintendents, 1920-21, on file in the office of the State Department of Education.

13 Minnesota State Board of Education, Report upon the Revision of State Aid, p. 60.

Among these, St. Louis County is the richest, with $14,915.88 for each pupil in average daily attendance. This is more than six times the wealth of the poorest, Hubbard County, which has only $2,338.27 for each child. Murray, the second richest county, has $9,162.32, or almost four times the valuation of Hubbard County. Forty-nine of the 86 counties of the state have more than twice Hubbard's valuation, but there are 19 whose valuations are not '50 per cent greater. It is evident at once that with respect to the ability to support schools, St. Louis County stands in a class by itself, and that the remaining counties are distributed over a wide range in wealth per child in average daily attendance. It is also true that the counties chosen are well distributed geographically, with at least one in each quarter of the state.

Figure 4 shows how eight of these nine Minnesota counties compared in the year 1921 with respect to their wealth per child in average daily attendance and their total expenditure per child.

It shows us that there is no reason at the present time for believing that because a county in Minnesota is rich, it will provide generously for schools. Hubbard, the least able of the eight counties shown in Figure 4, spends more money per child than any other county in the group, except Sherburne and Nicollet. Sibley, the second most able, spends less money per child than any other county except Chippewa, and exceeds Chippewa by only one dollar.