In 1950-51 current expenditure for public elementary and secondary education per capita of the population, by States, was as follows: Current expenditures from State and local sources, per capita of population, 1950-5) United States__ Wyoming Montana Oregon.. Arizona California New Mexico.. North Dakota. Michigan. New Jersey. Oklahoma Nebraska $33 Connecticut.. Illinois_ 47 Colorado.. 43 Pennsylvania 43 Texas. 42 Vermont 42 Wisconsin 40 West Virginia. 37 Missouri. 37 Virginia 36 South Carolina. 36 Alabama 36 Georgia 36 Tennessee. 35 Kentucky. 20 19 Basic sources: Jaracz, William A., Statistics of State School Systems, 1950-51, Circular No. 367, Washing ton, D. C.: U. S. Office of Education. Federal Security Agency, March 1953. Table 3. U. S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. 1950 Population Census Report P-B1. Vol. 2. pt. 1, ch. B. Wash ton, D. C.: Superintendent of Documents, Government Printing Office, 1952. Table 58, p. 105. Calcu tions of current expenditure per capita of population made in NEA Research Division. 3. RATIO OF CURRENT EXPENDITURE TO INCOME OF THE PEOPLE As represented by the percent that current expenditure for public schools from State and local sources is of total income payments, the effort to support elementary and secondary education varies consider ably among the States. For the school year 1951-52 the percentage ranged from 1.70 in Rhode Island to 3.74 in New Mexico. In the 9 States which were making the least effort as measured on this basis less than 2 percent of total income payments were expended from State and local sources for the support of public schools. On the other hand, in the 11 States making the greatest effort so measured, the expenditure was 3 percent or more of total income payments, These eight States making the greatest effort in terms of percent of income expended were Alabama, Arizona, Idaho, Louisiana, New Mexico, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, West Virginia, and Wyoming. It is noteworthy that Mississippi, which expended the lowest amount ($19) per capita of population for the support of its public schools in 1951 nevertheless was making an effort greater than the national average, in terms of percent of total income payments expended for this purpose. Mississippi spent 2.67 percent of total income payments. The national average was 2.36 percent. 834 M P ana oma Dakota a Virginia ing na e data for all of the States follow: Relative financial effort made to support public schools, 1951-52 [Percent that current expenditure from State and local sources is of total income payments] United States__ Mexico Carolina urces: Schloss, Samuel, and Carol Joy Hobson. State School Systems: Statistical Summary of 4. RELATIONSHIP OF CAPITAL OUTLAY TO INCOME foregoing discussion has drawn significant comparisons between expenditure for public schools and income of the people, by to show their relative efforts to meet the current cost of public tary and secondary education. Such comparisons are reasoncause the current expenditures are drawn from current income. ould not be reasonable, however, to attempt to make similar isons with respect to expenditures for capital outlay—that is, school sites, buildings, and equipment. These expenditures ally made entirely or to a large extent from borrowed money d by the issuance of bonds. This money does not come from income. It is expected to come from taxes levied against for the next 20 to 40 years. The total amount spent for outlay in any given year therefore has no relationship to the of the people during that particular year. However, average capital outlay per pupil in average daily attendance over a of years is an indication of effort. Relevant data are given er IX of this report. It seems reasonable to conclude that the problem of financing outlay for school facilities is generally greater in areas where (1) the pe capita income is low, (2) a high percentage of the population is with the 5-to-17-age group, and (3) a relatively high percentage of the income of the people is being used to meet current expenditure for public schools. However, in spite of their significance these factors do not constitute all the elements necessary for a composite ranking of the States with respect to ability and effort to make all provisions for elementary and secondary education including capital outlay Remaining are the major factors of bonding capacity and effort and other considerations already discussed in this report. Adequate data are not presently available for a full comparison of State and local ability and effort to provide needed school facilities. the CHAPTER VIII. ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS AND DISTRIBUTION FORMULAS posed in School-Construction Bills, 83d and 84th Congs., to January 24, 1955) ་་་་་་་་་་་་ CONTENTS A. Types of administrative structures proposed: 2. The public-works type. B. Types of distribution formulas proposed: 1. Flat grant per pupil. 2. The 40 to 60 equalization formula. 3. The 33% to 66% equalization formula. 4. The Hill-Burton principle. 5. The population-taxation formula. st of the general school-construction bills introduced into the A. TYPES OF ADMINISTRATIVE STRUCTURE PROPOSED 1. THE STATE-PLAN TYPE type of proposal emphasizes the traditional responsibilities of ate educational agencies. Bills of this kind would provide for otment of Federal funds by the United States Office of Educathe respective State educational agencies in accordance with ribed formula. These bills would place upon the State educaagencies the responsibility for the allotment of funds to the listricts within the State. State desiring to accept the benefits of the act would be d to submit, through the State agency, a plan for carrying out poses of the legislation. Participation in the program would d upon the approval of the plan by the United States Com er of Education. bills of this type would provide a uniform amount per child out the Nation. Other bills of this kind would give slightly allotments per child to States in which the per capita income vely low. ་་་་་་བས་ས་ཀ The program would be administered by educational agencies the Federal, State, and local levels of government. Examples of this type of proposal are: S. 359, S. 536, S. 2294, S. 2601, H. R. 249, H. R. 544, and H. R. 1612, 83d Congress; and S. 4, S. 5, S. 480, S. 522, S. 650 H. R. 14, H. R. 15, H. R. 44, H. R. 108, H. R. 361, H. R. 517, H. R 764, H. R. 1565, H. R. 1633, H. R. 1791, H. R. 2548, H. R. 2585, and H. R. 2612, 84th Congress. 2. THE PUBLIC-WORKS TYPE As regards administrative provisions, school construction bills of the public-works type represent a sharp cleavage from those of the State-plan type. Bills of the public-works type have proposed dire Federal loans and grants to local school agencies by the Federal Works Administrator or the Housing and Home Finance Agency. The bills require a 50-50 matching contribution, alleviated somewhat by a provision for loans to school systems unable to raise the required loca contribution. Bills of this kind provide for: (a) approval of projects by State school authorities, (b) apportionment of 75 percent of the funds among the States on a formula basis, (c) distribution of the remainder by the Administrator at his discretion to meet needy situations. These bills make no mention of the United States Office of Education. They contain provisions to insure payment of prevailing wage rates to workers on school projects. Examples of bills proposing the public-works type of administration are H. R. 566, H. R. 2142, H. R. 4537, and S. 969, 83d Congress. At the time of this writing no bill exactly of this kind has been introduced in the 84th Congress. B. TYPES OF DISTRIBUTION FORMULAS PROPOSED 1. FLAT GRANT PER PUPIL This kind of formula provides for the allotment of Federal funds solely on the basis of school-age population. The allotment to each State would be determined by the ratio of the State's school-age population to the school-age population of the United States. How ever, there are certain restrictions or matching requirements. Under this formula if Alabama, for example, has 2.5 percent of the Nation's school-age children, Alabama would receive 2.5 percent of the total Federal allocation, provided the matching requirement is met. Under this kind of formula, if the total Federal allocation amounted to $500 million per year, the allocation to each pupil in each State would amount to about $14.12. Examples of bills containing this type of distribution formula are S. 359, 83d Congress, and S. 480, S. 522, H. R. 14, H. R. 15, and H. R. 653, 84th Congress. Following is a tabulation of the estimated allotments to States under this formula on the assumption of a total Federal appropriation of $500 million per year. W |