inequity under this method of distribution become. It is interesting to note here the corrective which Michigan has adopted, namely, that when any school district shall have on hand enough funds to meet its needs, the children in said district

shall not be counted in the apportionment until the amount of money in the primaryschool interest fund in said district is insufficient to pay teachers' wages or tuition for the next ensuing two years.

All of the bases in the second group seem to be more equitable than those so far considered. An inverse property valuation basis has as its fundamental purpose an equalization of educational advantages, inasmuch as the poorer localities receive more or relatively more than the richer localities, which are better able to support their schools by local tax; while the distribution of moneys on the principle that the more a locality appropriates for its schools the more it will receive from the State has stimulation of local support as its purpose. The other bases, that is, attendance of pupils and number of teachers employed, are also not only more equitable than the bases under the first heading, but they also have the effect of stimulating local authorities to constant activity. On the one basis, local authorities must see that children are encouraged to attend school; on the other basis, a State offers an inducement to local authorities to employ a number of teachers sufficient to meet the needs of the locality.

The methods of distributing State school funds on a school population basis or on a property valuation basis have no doubt been adopted on account of simplicity, but little control exists under such methods of distribution. The modification of the method of distributing on a property valuation basis--that is, inversely in proportion to the wealth of the locality-indicates a rise of the idea of the necessity of attempting to secure equality of educational opportunity and suggests central control. The methods of distributing on the bases of attendance or of number of teachers employed have doubtless been adopted in order to establish a closer correlation between need and award, and the method of distribution according to the ratio of local school tax to total local tax has for its purpose the direct recognition of local initiative; but all these methods have also had the effect of increasing central control.

From this analysis, it may be said that in the matter of distribution of State school funds the present status of educational control is that of incomplete and ineffective centralization. Fundamentally, the distribution of State school moneys is in itself a central and a centralizing process, but in only a comparatively few States do the methods of distribution in vogue give opportunity for the exercise of efficient central control; practically, therefore, a safer characterization of the results of the analysis would be to say that they indicate

an actual condition of localization rather than of centralization. However, in proportion as the States endeavor to equalize educational opportunity on the one hand, and on the other to encourage local effort and local initiative by adopting distributive bases looking toward these ends, to that extent will centralized control become increasingly effective.

II. EXTENT OF RESTRICTION ATTACHED TO THE LOCAL EXPENDITURE OF STATE SCHOOL MONEYS.1

The preceding standard disclosed the fact that every State in the Union supports, to some extent at least, its free public schools. On the assumption that the distribution of State school moneys is in itself a centralizing process, the standard was analyzed as to the various bases upon which such moneys are distributed so as to ascertain the degree of centralization inherent in each method. The standard now to be considered carries the analysis in a somewhat different direction; irrespective of the basis or bases upon which State school moneys are distributed in each of the various States, the extent of restriction placed upon localities in the expenditure of such moneys also indicates the degree of centralization. If a State distributes the entire amount of its regular allotment of State school moneys to be expended for a specific purpose or for specific purposes and none other, restriction may be said to be complete and control central. If a State distributes a part of the State school moneys under certain restrictions as to expenditure and the remainder unrestrictedly, then restriction may be said to be partial and control divided. If a State distributes moneys without any restriction whatever as to their expenditure by a local unit, then we may say that the expenditure of State school moneys is unrestricted and control local.

COMPLETE RESTRICTION.

In order that all children, no matter what their social or economic level, may receive at the public expense the foundations of education, 23 States 2 designate in their school laws the specific purpose or purposes for which State school moneys are to be expended by localities.

In 13 of these 23 States-California, Connecticut, Kentucky, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, Nevada, New York, North Dakota, Rhode Island, Virginia, West Virginia, and Wisconsin -all State school moneys appropriated to the localities must be applied exclusively to the payment of teachers' salaries, an expense constituting a large portion of public school expenditures.

In the remaining 10 States, State school moneys must also be applied primarily to the payment of teachers' salaries, but not exclusively to this purpose, the following

1 The moneys referred to in this chapter include funds distributed in the regular apportionment to local units generally and not funds distributed under special conditions or for special purposes.

2 Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, North Dakota, Ohio, Rhode Island, Utah, Virginia, West Virginia, Wisconsin, Wyoming.

3 Section 558, page 253, school laws of 1911, provides that the money received from the State (Wisconsin) by each district shall be devoted exclusively to the payment of teachers' wages; the constitution provides that the income of the school fund shall be applied to the support of schools and the purchase of suitable libraries and apparatus therefor. Whether these apparently conflicting provisions can be reconciled or not, it is certain that the legislature here requires that districts shall pay each year for teachers' wages an amount equal to that received from the income of the school fund.-(Interpretation of the State superintendent.)