EXHIBIT 7

Current expenditure per pupil in average daily attendance in the various States, 1935-36

Source: The Advisory Committee on Education, Report of the Committee, p. 22.

In 3 States in 1937-38, the amount spent per pupil was less than $35, while in 3 it was more than $131, or nearly four times as much. No less than 20 States were spending below $48 per child 5 to 17 years of age, the amount which has been fixed in some studies as necessary for a minimum defensible program of

The amounts expended by the various States are not an entirely satisfactory measure of differences in educational opportunity, but they are undoubtedly the most important single statistical measure. In general, there is a very high relationship between the amount of money spent and the quality of the service provided.

EXHIBIT 8

Current expenditure per pupil in average daily attendance in the various States, 1935-36

Source: The Advisory Committee on Education, Report of the Committee, p. 23.

public education. The figures contained in the table are State-wide averages. Most of the States in which average expenditures exceed $48 per child include many communities in which expenditures are below that level.

Many important factors in educational opportunity are closely related to the differences in average expenditures among the States. Some of the more significant of these factors are shown in exhibit 9, which compares expenditures with the average number of days that schools are in session, the percentage of pupils in the high-school grades, average salaries of teachers, urban and rural, and the value of school property.

EXHIBIT 9

Selected measures of public elementary and secondary education, by States, 1935–36

4 Derived from ibid., pp. 65-66.

3 Staff includes teachers, supervisors, and principals. Data from ibid., pp. 118-119.

5 Ibid., p. 81, table 17, column 5. Data cover all property used for school purposes.

6 Data not available for either 1933-34 or 1935-36.

7 States in which some or all elementary schools have only 7 grades.

8 Data for 1934.

In about one-third of the States, school facilities are provided separately for children of the Negro race. For these States, average statistics are very nearly meaningless, since in most cases there is considerable difference between the white and Negro school systems, and the averages fall somewhere between. Statistics for the separate school systems are not available in all cases, but data indicating the situation with respect to teachers' salaries and the value of school property for a number of States with separate school systems are shown in exhibit 10.

EXHIBIT 10

Average salary of teachers, principals, and supervisors in 14 States, and value of sites, buildings, and equipment per pupil in 10 States, by race, 1935–36

Biennial Survey of Education: 1934-36, vol. II, ch. II, p. 103.

? The average salary in each case was weighted by the corresponding number of positions.

3 Enrollment taken from Biennial Survey of Education 1935-36, ch. II, p. 103; value of school property for all pupils from ibid., p. 81; and for Negro pupils from David T. Blose and Ambrose Caliver. Statistics of the Education of Negroes, 1933-34 and 1935-36, U. S. Office of Education, Bulletin 1938, No. 13 (Washington: U. S. Government Printing Office, 1939), table 28.

THE ABILITY OF THE STATES TO SUPPORT SCHOOLS

The relative ability of the States to support schools varies directly in proportion to the amount of funds they are able to raise through taxation per child of school age. The actual amounts they do raise cannot be used as a measure of relative ability, since some States levy heavier taxes than others. It is therefore necessary to estimate the amounts that could be obtained in each State through the application of a suitable uniform tax plan.

The greater part of the intensive work in this field has been done under the direction of Dr. Paul R. Mort of Columbia University, who has served as a consultant of the Advisory Committee on Education. Dr. Mort's earlier studies of the problem were based upon the relatively normal conditions of the year 1930. Exhibit 11 shows in concise form the results of his research as to conditions in that year.

From this exhibit, it is apparent that the State of New York could have supported a minimum defensible program of public education with only 16 percent of the estimated yield of the uniform tax plan. California and New Jersey could have done the same with about 22 percent. On the other hand, in 20 States more than 50 percent of the yield would have been required, and in 9 States more than 100 percent. About two-thirds of the States could not have supported the minimum program from the estimated yield of the tax plan without seriously trenching upon the amount needed for other governmental services.

The uniform tax plan used to measure State and local ability included: (1) A progressive income tax beginning at 1 percent on the first $1,000 of taxable income and rising 1 percent per $1,000 to a maximum rate of 10 percent, with personal exemptions of $1,200 for a family head, $600 for a single individual, and $200 for each dependent; (2) a real-estate tax of 1 percent on the full value of all real estate without exemptions; (3) a business income tax of 4 percent on the net income of corporations and of 2 percent on the net income of unincorporated businesses; (4) a stock transfer tax of $0.04 per $100 par value or of $0.04 per share for stock of no par value; (5) a severance tax of 2 percent of the gross receipts from petroleum

317387-41- -9

and natural gas; and (6) a corporation organization tax of 0.5 percent on the par value (or issue price of no-par stock) of authorized capital stock of corporations, paid at the time of organization or when additional stock is authorized.

EXHIBIT 11

Percentage of the yield of a uniform tax plan required to finance a defensible founda tion program of public education, by States, 19301

Derived from Paul R. Mort and Eugene S. Lawler, Principles and Methods of Distributing Federal Aid for Education, Staff Study No. 5, The Advisory Committee on Education (Washington: Government Printing Office, 1939), table 2, p. 14.

Consideration was given to the Federal tax system existing in 1934 both in specifying the tax bases and in determining the tax rates. The original study should be consulted for a discussion of the reasons for selecting the particular taxes and rates.5

New estimates of tax paying ability for the year 1935 were prepared under the direction of Dr. Mort for the Advisory Committee on Education. The total tax-paying ability of the States as measured by the uniform tax plan was considerably lower in that year, as might be expected, but the relative distribution of ability among the States remained about the same. Exhibit 12 shows for each State the number of children of school age, their percentage distribution among the States, and the estimated revenue available per child for education in each State if it made average effort to raise funds for the purpose.

An easy calculation from this table will show that about 20 percent of the children live in States where more than $75 per child could be provided for education without heavier-than-average taxes. On the other hand, another 20 percent live in States where not more than $25 per child could be provided without heavier-than-average taxes. An expenditure of $50 per child of school age would be low by city standards almost anywhere, yet more than 60 percent of the children of the United States live in States that on a State-wide basis could not provide $50 per child for public schools without more-than-average effort.

See the Advisory Committee on Education, Staff Study No. 5; Principles and Methods of Distributing Federal Aid for Education, p. 49; and Paul R. Mort, Federal Support for Public Education, ch. VI.