METHODS OF APPORTIONMENT

The problem of apportioning the primary school interest fund in Michigan is one of the greatest problems, in my judgment, before the people at this time and one that deserves the most careful and conscientious consideration.

The statutes provide in Section 4676 of Compiled Laws, that the primary school interest fund shall be used for teachers' wages only, and in Section 4665 the one mill tax shall be used for teachers' wages until the district has maintained eight months of school. If there is a surplus of one mill tax after having maintained school for eight months, such surplus may be used for general running expenses of the school. There are rural school districts in the State which have from $500 to $5,000 of primary school interest fund on hand which has accumulated during recent years and which cannot be used for anything but teachers' wages. The apportionment of primary school interest fund for the year 1905 was $3.30 per capita, and the reports to this office show that with this rate of apportionment over 300 districts received more primary school interest fund than they expended for teachers' wages, to say nothing of the one mill tax, and that 1,700 additional districts received more money from primary school interest fund and one mill tax than was expended for teachers' wages. In 1907, 1,296 school districts in the State received more primary school interest fund alone than they paid for teachers' wages, and 3,297 districts received from the primary school interest fund and one mill tax an amount equal to or greater than the amount paid for teachers' wages. In July, 1908, there were 1,054 school districts in the State having enough primary money on hand to pay the teachers for two years.

There are 7,330 school districts in the State and, of this number, more than 1,000 districts receive so small an amount, because of the small number of children, that it is of practically no benefit whatever, and these people are obliged to support their school by the one mill tax and the direct taxes levied upon the district. It appears to me, therefore, that the present method of apportioning the primary school interest fund is absolutely unjust and inequitable. I am convinced that the people of the State are practically a unit in favor of the proposition that the primary school interest fund shall be used for teachers' wages and tuition only and also that a very large number of our people have no objection whatever to the levying of the one mill tax under the statutes of the present time, which provide in Section 4705 of the Compiled Laws, as amended in 1905, that when a district has on hand a sum equal to or greater than the amount paid for teachers' wages the one mill

tax shall not be levied on that district. In some instances, districts have been laying aside a sinking fund for building purposes, but generally the balance on hand is composed almost entirely of primary school interest fund and one mill tax. Where the census

is low and the valuation high, the surplus will be largely one mill tax. Where the reverse is true, the surplus is largely primary money. The present system of apportioning, makes it possible for some districts to have on hand a large amount of primary school interest fund which is not used, and this money is simply tied up and does no one any good, while other districts are really suffering because of lack of funds with which to maintain even five months of school. From the standpoint of the State, such unequal conditions ought to be adjusted, because the school exists for the children and their interests ought to be safeguarded by the State at every point. The question is, what plan of distribution of this money will be for the best interests of our schools.

STATISTICS SHOWING AMOUNT OF PRIMARY MONEY ON HAND IN CERTAIN DISTRICTS

The purpose of legislation on this subject is to secure the greatest good to the greatest number, and alleviate the extremely trying conditions in hundreds of school districts of the State of Michigan without distressing any single district.

II. THE DISTRIBUTION OF SCHOOL REVENUES

[From the Report of the Ohio School Revenue Commission, 1907, pp. 41-45.]

66

Important as is the raising of sufficient school revenues, the distribution of such revenues is even more important. Granted that we are able to raise the money," and that we have "raised the money," the next important question is how to distribute this money so as to accomplish best the real purpose of public education.

Taxes and all forms of public revenues are designed primarily to promote the public good. We have systems of government, local, state, and national, as the machinery necessary to carry out the will of the people in this respect. Government is for the people as a whole rather than for the individual apart from his relations to the whole. The beneficent effects of popular education raise the standards of the citizenship of the whole State by raising the ideals and efficiency of individuals. As a means of self perpetuation, therefore, the State must provide means for raising and maintaining such standards of efficiency as will effectually permeate the whole citizenship. The matter of popular education is not one of personal privilege. Wealth cannot rightly buy immunity from its just share of the responsibility in providing educational advantages for even the most unfortunate or improvident. Education and the consequent advances of civilization make wealth possible. But the wealth of a man in Chicago may be all produced by labor of men in Colorado, or by the mere environment of property in Wisconsin. If wealth has any particular locus, it ought to be where it is produced, rather than where its possessor happens to reside. Wealth should be levied upon wherever it is found to make better the educational advantages of those whose work and citizenship make that wealth possible. The State, then, owes to every child within its borders equal educational advantages up to a minimum standard of efficiency. A child in the poorest section of the State has as much right to this minimum of training as the child of the wealthiest man within the State's borders. The geographical distribution of wealth has no vital relation to the problems of universal education.

Our present system of distribution of the State Common School Fund in Ohio is almost the poorest that could be devised to accomplish the purpose for which it is supposed to be maintained, -to equalize the burdens of taxation for school support. In brief, it is as follows: One mill is levied equally on all the listed property of the State. This amount, $1 on every $1000, is paid to the county treasurer and the whole amount so collected by him is paid to the state treasurer, and this collective sum is known as the State Common School Fund. Until 1906 the county treasurer retained 1 per cent for collecting the tax. The state treasurer, on the warrant of the state auditor, showing the total enumeration (unmarried youth between 6 and 21) in the county, pays back to each county treasurer an amount determined by multiplying $1.70 by the number of school youth enumerated in the county. This total is then distributed among the various township, village, special and city districts in the county on the basis of the school enumeration. The rate of distribution, $1.70 per enumerated pupil, is determined by the legislature by computing the amount of tax that will likely be raised by the levy of one mill and dividing this amount, plus any accumulated balance, by the number of school youth enumerated. This amount per enumerated pupil, $1.70, was raised to $1.75 for 1907, due to the fact that the valuation had increased faster than the school population. The rate fixed by the legislature is to be understood to be the minimum rate and the state auditor has the right to increase it if there is sufficient balance to warrant such increase. For more than 30 years prior to 1904 it was $1.50, which occasionally was advanced to $1.55. Yet for a number of years prior to 1904 a balance was allowed to increase until it reached $318,078. Just why would be hard to tell, but this balance in 1904 made it possible, after a warm fight in the legislature, to advance the pro rata distribution to $1.70, and it is not likely to fall below that again.

It will be noticed from the tables that all but $213,000 of this $2,163,000 raised in 1905 went back to the counties paying it in. There was, therefore, no State aid in so far as the remaining $1,950,000 was concerned.

But this system of distribution is manifestly unfair if the claim for it is, that it will help weak communities to reach the minimum of educational advantages which the State must make possible if it is impossible for the community to do so itself. For example, there is Cleveland, with a large foreign population over 14 and under 21. These people are enumerated but they are not enrolled and are not receiving instruction. In 1905 Cleveland enumerated 114,393 school youth, but the average daily attendance was only

52,102 or 45 per cent of the enumeration. This means that Cleveland is drawing $1.70 per pupil for 62,291 children who are not receiving daily instruction, or $104,894.70 for children who are not being taught. If these 62,291 children were in school, it would require 1,557 more teachers at 40 pupils to the teacher and would add about $1,600,000 to the annual cost of the schools, supposing these pupils were all enrolled in elementary schools. The city would also find it necessary to build more school houses, and have $9,000,000 more invested in school property. This extra $104,894.70 which Cleveland draws annually from the State Common School Fund, and for which the city gives the State nothing in return to these 62,291 children, raises the average received per pupil actually in daily attendance to $3.73. But take any town or city in which the average daily attendance is higher and quite a different result will be obtained. There is Painsville, not far from Cleveland. The enumeration in 1905 was 1,371 and the average daily attendance was 932, or 68%. Painsville received $1.70 per pupil enumerated, or $2.50 per pupil actually taught, as against $3.73 per pupil actually taught in Cleveland. This discrimination of $1.23 per pupil actually taught gives Cleveland $64,085.46 more than the city would be entitled to on the basis the State is aiding Painsville. In Cincinnati the amount the city receives from the State per pupil actually taught is $6.51, or $137,683.35 more than that city would be entitled to on the Painsville basis.

When we take the cases of the smaller town and rural communities, the discrimination is still greater. The State School Fund was originally provided for in 1853 with the thought that it would equalize the burdens of taxation, but investigation clearly and conclusively shows that the system extends the greatest favors to the populous centers where there is always more wealth per capita, and consequently, where the people are better able to help themselves or make ample provision for their schools without state aid. Here, for example, is Portsmouth, Ohio, on the opposite side of the State. The enumeration for 1905 was 6837 and the average daily attendance was 2812, or only 41% of the enumeration. The city is drawing money from the State Common School Fund for the 4,025 children of school age not in average daily attendance, at $1.70 per pupil, or $6,842.50-enough to pay 13 teachers $525 each. The amount Portsmouth received from the State was really not $1.70 per pupil, but $4.13 per pupil actually taught. Instead of encouraging communities to provide educational opportunities for all the youth, such a law encourages a community to enumerate as many youth as possible and enroll as few as possible - encourages the non-enforcement of the com