An Illinois act of 1923 made some increase in that State's contribution to the schools, but it is perhaps of more interest by reason of the change which it made in the system of distribution of State school funds. Prior to 1924-25, the school year in which this act was put into effect, Illinois distributed its State funds on the school census basis, but this is now displaced by some four bases of distribution. These bases are (1) the "teacher-school day," which is a daily session of not less than 4 hours of class-time work conducted by a full-time elementary teacher with not fewer than five pupils of school age; (2) the teacher basis, account being taken of the amount of training the teacher has received; (3) aggregate days' attendance of pupils; and (4) again the teacher basis, where the teacher is a normal-school graduate who teaches 9 school months in a one-room elementary school district. On the first of these, a flat sum of 70 cents each is allowed, and an additional sum ranging from 50 cents to $2 per "teacher-school-day" is allowed districts of relatively low assessed valuation in inverse ratio to the valuation. Apportionment is made on the first-mentioned teacher basis as follows: For 18 weeks of normal training, 50 cents per week; 36 weeks of normal training, $1 per week; graduate of two-year course in State normal school, $2.50 per week. On the third basis, 12 cents is apportioned for each day a pupil attends school. Fourth basis, $100 for each teacher of the class specified and employed as specified. Chapter 288 of the Oklahoma laws of 1923 proposed an amendment to the constitution of that State. It provided for a State tax levy on an ad valorem basis sufficient to raise a fund equal to at least $15 per annum for each pupil in attendance as shown by average attendance reports. From this fund $15 per unit of average attendance was to be apportioned. The proposed amendment was ratified by the people, but was by the State supreme court later declared invalid on the ground of improper submission to the electorate. The same or a similar amendment will be offered in the legislature of 1925.

The Massachusetts act of 1924 amends an earlier law under which State aid is granted to towns of relatively low assessed valuation in inverse ratio to the valuation. The act of 1924 raises from $2,500,000 to $3,000,000 the property assessment which a town may have and come within the class entitled to State aid for its public schools.

It was said in an earlier paragraph that county taxes have remained during the past two years about as they formerly were. There is one exception to this general statement: Utah in 1923 changed its system of county school taxation. In that State tax levies in county school districts of the first class, which are whole

counties in most cases, are now limited as follows: In a district with assessed valuation of $2,000 to $2,500 per child of school age, 12 mills; in a district with valuation of $2,500 to $3,000 per child, 10 mills; $3,000 to $4,000 per child, 81⁄2 mills; $4,000 to $5,000 per child, 71⁄2 mills; more than $5,000 per child, 7 mills; but these limitations can not in any case operate to reduce a levy below that of 1922. This would seem a more rational basis of limiting tax levies than limiting them in a stated flat rate, as, for example, where a flat rate of 10 mills is made the maximum limit for all counties or districts without regard to assessed valuation.

With respect to district-school taxes, little discussion need be introduced here. Several years ago there was a marked tendency to increase rates of district levies both by local action and, where legislation was necessary to permit higher rates, by action of State legislatures. But in more recent years there has not been so much legislation on the subject. Within the period here under review, Ohio, Utah, Nevada, and one or two other States passed laws of some importance in the field of local-school taxation.

Before the subject of school support is passed, two or three phases of it which have in recent years received more than ordinary notice both in educational circles and in State legislatures may be adverted to here. One of these is the proportion of the burden of public-school support which the State as such is carrying-that is, the proportion which the State as distinguished from the smaller units, county and school district, has assumed.

The results of changes in school support in recent years are shown in the report entitled "Statistics of State School Systems," published by the Bureau of Education. The statement is a percentage analysis of school funds received from taxation and appropriations and shows for the country as a whole the percentages received, respectively, from State, county, and local school district.

It is, of course, not contended that these figures are conclusive, but there is certainly evidence here that the State has not lost ground as a contributor to school support, but has made some slight gain. Such evidence should be gratifying to those who hold the view that the State should be relatively a larger contributor than it is.

Another phase of the problem of school support which has received more than ordinary attention in recent years is seen in various efforts and proposals to provide school revenues from sources other than the usual property tax. That " new sources of revenue " must be found is the belief of various authorities on the subject. It is urged by many that every person having taxable ability should pay some kind of tax to his State, and that some system of taxation should be adopted to reach every form of taxable ability with justice to all. That is to say, that not merely a property tax should be levied, but, for example, also income, inheritance, corporation, franchise, "severance" or production, and possibly luxury and sales taxes. There is doubtless a measure of reason in this view, for such is the complexity of our modern economic system that forms of taxation supplementary to the general property tax would seem imperative. It is hardly fair that a farm or other real estate, easily. reached for the purpose of a property tax, should pay its full quota of a levy, while other kinds of taxable ability, as, for example, various forms of " intangibles," escape with little or no toll taken from them.

But it is from the standpoint of school revenues that we are concerned here. With supplementary or multiple tax systems as a theory or a mere economic principle we are not particularly concerned. The argument for sources of revenue other than the general property tax is here based on the needs of the schools. The property tax for school purposes can hardly be said to have broken down, but some hold that it has become antiquated; in some sections it certainly appears unequal to the burden of properly supporting the schools without income from other sources. There are some States in which twice as much money as is now expended could be expended on the schools without just charge of extravagance. At present the schools of those States are poor in quality, terms are too short, and many communities are still without high-school privileges. But already complaint of high taxes is heard. In some cases at least, these complaints are justifiable, for high taxes on infertile or thin farm lands may become practically confiscatory. Therefore other sources of school revenues must be found, and this is essentially a problem for the school men of the country.

THE SCHOOL TERM

The problem of the short school term is usually a problem either of school revenues or of child labor on the farm. By this it is meant that the short term is usually due either to want of sufficient funds to maintain the schools for a longer period in the year or to parental disposition to put the children to work instead of keeping

them in school. It is to correct the first-mentioned condition that school revenue laws are passed and systems of school support improved from time to time by State legislatures. It is to the lastmentioned condition that legislatures give attention when they pass minimum term laws. Some notice will be given here to legislation aimed directly at the short school term.

A Kansas act of 1923 (ch. 181) relates specifically to the school term. It requires that schools be maintained not less than eight months within each school year. Under the provisions of this act any school district which is unable, with a 10-mill levy on its taxable property, to maintain its school as required receives aid from the State and county in an amount equal to the difference between its total income and the sum necessary to maintain the eight-months term. Of this aid the State pays three-fourths, and the county onefourth.

A Minnesota act of 1923 amended section 2796 of the general statutes of that State by increasing from five to seven the number of months of school which districts must maintain. In a companion act the distribution to a school district of the school endowment fund of the State is made contingent upon the maintenance of a school for seven months.

The new school code of North Carolina provides for a six-months term of schools in counties and places upon the county the responsibility and expense of maintaining the schools not less than six months, but a State "equalizing fund" is provided by appropriation for the purpose of aiding counties of relatively low assessed valuation.

The practice of requiring local school units to maintain school for not less than a specified term is almost universal in the States, and the tendency is constantly to make this required term longer. But the standard nine months' term is a consummation to be attained in the future in most of the States.

TEACHERS

Phases of teaching service usually seen in school legislation have been noticeable in the legislation of the past two years, but in less extent than in some former periods. These phases are what are thought of here as the general welfare of the teacher, teacher training and the means of giving it, and the qualifications required.

Legislation affecting the general welfare of teachers includes enactments relating to salaries, tenure, and pensions. The peak of legislation relating to teachers' salaries was reached several years ago; hence the number of laws passed on the subject within the

period here considered is not large. The Legislature of Colorado amended an act of 1921 which was of the nature of a minimumsalary law and which was designed to insure a minimum pay of $75 per month for each teacher. The amendment of 1923 regulated the distribution on the teacher basis of the county tax levied for the purpose. It provided that no school should receive county funds for salary payment for a longer term than 912 months, and that the local district must levy at least 3 mills on the dollar of its assessed valuation. A New York act of 1923 added to an earlier law the provision that the annual increment to the salary of a teacher in the kindergarten or the first eight grades shall be not less than $75 a year in any city of less than 50,000 population, or in any union free-school district employing a superintendent or maintaining an academic or high-school department. An Ohio act, also passed in 1923, authorized the establishment of pay-roll accounts in depositories in city school districts so that teachers may be paid in cash.

With respect to the tenure of teachers there was no outstanding legislation in either 1923 or 1924. However, New Jersey amended in a minor particular its older law on the subject. The amendment requires teachers holding positions to give boards of education 60 days' notice of an intention to resign. Eleven States now have laws designed to give public-school teachers more security in their positions after a reasonable period of probationary service.

Pension legislation has within the past two years received more of the attention of legislators than either salaries or tenure. However, few acts were passed which established pension systems where they had not previously existed. Laws putting new retirement plans into operation were passed in Maine, where a new system to be maintained jointly by teachers' assessments and State contribution and to provide annuities in accordance with McClintock's tables will in the course of time displace the provisions of an older law; in Alabama, where the county boards of education of the three largest counties of the State Jefferson, Montgomery, and Mobile-were authorized to create and maintain retirement funds; and in Washington State, where a contributory system applicable to all school districts not having their own local retirement funds was provided. The application of retirement plans was made broader and extended to other classes of teachers, usually those in certain State institutions or other State service, in California, Indiana, Nevada, Pennsylvania, and Rhode Island. The Michigan teachers' retirement system was reorganized, and in New York provision was made for the discontinuance of local district pensions in favor of participation in the State retirement fund. On the whole, the older tendency