public schools, they must direct the treasurer of the State to withhold the State school fund and the proceeds of the one and one-half mill tax until such town satisfies them that it has complied with the law. In Massachusetts no town may receive any part of the income of the State school moneys unless it has complied, to the satisfaction of the board of education, with all laws relating to the public schools. In New Jersey, when any officer or official body neglects or refuses to perform any legal duty, State school moneys are withheld upon the approval of the commissioner of education, and continue to be withheld until all laws have been complied with. Further, the commissioner of education may directly withhold from any district its share of the public money of the State for willfully disobeying any provision of the law or any decision, order, or regulation of the State board of education or of the commissioner.

Withholding State school moneys for failure to comply with certain requirements.

DISCUSSION.

Punishment for nonperformance of duty is the logical outcome of the adoption of mandatory legislation. When a State is endeavoring to maintain a certain principle, the only sure way by which it can expect to secure results is to punish acts of failure or refusal to perform specific duties. Although it is probably true that most communities and most officers will carry out the intent of the laws so far as they relate to education more faithfully than to any other branch of civil service, yet it is unfortunately true, even here, that acts of neglect will occur. Hence the necessity for legislative provisions such as have been dealt with within this standard. While the penalties in some cases are more severe than in others, as would be expected where different States are legislating upon the same subjects, yet they are all calculated to achieve the same end-the enforcement of the law. Consideration of the facts that 13 States transfer authority from local to State officers when local officers fail in their obligations in matters involving finance, that 11 States hold localities or local officers financially liable to the State for the same cause, and that 40 States withhold school funds in an endeavor to insure the carrying out of the laws relating to one or more aspects of educational administration in general, makes it evident that in this standard centralization has reached a high point.

VII. GENERAL SUMMARY.

As has been shown, State school legislation pertaining to elementary school finance involves both central and local control. From a study of legislation alone, however, it is extremely difficult, if not impossible, to determine with accuracy the degree of centralization or localization existent. In the first place, taking some of the standards considered, central control operates only when localities desire to exercise certain functions or to avail themselves of certain opportunities offered by a State; hence to have a true picture of control the extent to which localities exercise their prerogatives must be known. In the second place, as strict obedience is by no means universal, the extent to which localities live up to the letter and the spirit of the laws must be known before drawing a too definite conclusion. In a word, complete data would require a knowledge of actual practice, as well as of legislation. This study of elementary school finance attempts only the latter; and to the extent to which practice, for one or other of the two general reasons just stated, fails to coincide with legislation, to that extent are its findings open to question. In the main, however, it may be assumed that any difference between law and practice is not so great as to affect very appreciably the conclusions reached, which, after all, should be regarded as broad generalizations showing tendencies rather than as an attempt to depict exact conditions.

In general, it may be stated that some standards which on the surface or by their nature apparently indicate centralization, upon analysis reveal local control or divided control; while other standards which seem essentially local in their bearing, in reality indicate centralized control.

LOCAL CONTROL.

The distribution of State school moneys was regarded as being in itself a central and a centralizing process; the bases upon which such distribution is made, however, indicate varying degrees of centralization. A distribution on a school population or on a property valuation basis exacts little or nothing from localities and consequently indicates little centralization of control. A distribution either on attendance of pupils, number of teachers employed, or ratio of local school tax to total town tax, requires localities to exercise a certain amount of effort or cooperation in order to secure their full quota of school moneys, while distribution on an inverse property valuation basis tends to equalize the burden of local taxation proportionately to community wealth. Through such methods of distribution central control is brought considerably more into evidence. There