(2) From a county tax to produce a sum equal to $10 per child of school age residing within the county. For the year 1919-20 this amounted to $3,593,564.77 and was equivalent to $16.92 for every pupil in average daily attendance.

(3) From special district taxes levied upon all the property in the separate school districts, not, however, exceeding ten (10) mills of the assessed valuation, except by a vote of the electors, when it may be increased to twenty (20) mills. For the year 1919-20 this sum for all the local districts amounted to $10,567,687 and was equivalent to $49.76 for every pupil in average daily attendance.

The total amount from these three sources was $17,796,248.97 and was equivalent to $83.78 for every pupil in average daily attendance.

For comparison we find that in 1909-10 the State contributed $2,625,823 or $16.82; the county $1,695,144 or $10.86; and the local districts $4,284,623 or $27.45; making the total from all sources $8,605,590 or $55.13 for every pupil in average daily attendance.

The greater demand for school funds was recognized by the legislature at the special session held in March 1920 when it increased the amount which should be contributed by the State from $10 to $20 per child of school age, but even with this additional aid few of the districts in the State are enabled to operate without recourse to special elections and asking the voters to permit levies beyond the ten (10) mills authorized by the statute.

B. INEQUALITY OF PRESENT SYSTEM

While there is a demand for more money for education, there is no doubt that the present methods of raising and apportioning the funds have much to do with the unequal opportunities afforded the children of the State to gain that education. Under the present system of taxation there are school districts which, either because of a larger amount of wealth and a greater extent of territory within their boundaries, or because of small school population, are enabled to provide modern buildings, pay good salaries, and maintain efficient schools and yet escape with little or no local tax levy, while adjoining districts without this wealth and property must tax themselves to the utmost limit and then can only inadequately provide for the children in their districts.

C. HOW CONDITions May Be RemEDIED

What remedies can be suggested that will overcome the present inequality in acquir ing the funds for the common schools and give greater and more nearly equal educational opportunities to all the children of the State?

(1) A more equitable system of taxation that will not only be spread upon the property now upon the assessment rolls, but upon other property or forms of wealth which is now escaping its just share of the cost of education and other burdens of State. While the commission does not consider this as one of its problems, it does feel that measures to this end should be considered by the legislature.

(2) Raising a larger portion of the cost of education by a tax levied equally upon all the property within the State. By constitutional enactment the State guarantees to all the children of the State an equal opportunity for education, but because of the difference in value of property, this is impossible when the funds are raised in the several school districts. In 1909-10 the State contributed $16.82 per pupil, or 30.5 percent of the total amount of $55.13 per pupil paid for education in the common schools; in 1919-20 the State contributed $17.10 per pupil, or 20.4 percent of the total amount of $83.78 paid for education in the common schools. With $20 per census

child this would have made $34.20 per pupil, or 41 percent of the total for 1919-20. This amount and percentage will not hold good, however, for the year 1920-21, because the cost of the schools for the present year, as shown by the estimates of the different districts, will approximate $100 per pupil. On this basis the contribution from the State would be the same, viz: $34.20 per pupil, but only 34.2 percent of the total cost of the schools. Thirty dollars per census child would yield about 50 percent under the present cost of operation.

(3) By increasing the statutory provision of levying taxes in the local district from 10 to 15 mills on the assessed valuation. Under the present laws nearly all districts are required to hold special elections for authority to levy beyond the 10 mills, and even though greater State aid is provided, it will undoubtedly be necessary for many districts to levy more than 10 mills to continue their schools upon the present basis. 42

The proposed 30-10 plan.-Because of the inequalities of educa tional opportunities in the State there developed in 1922 a movement to secure an expansion of the "Barefoot school boy law." The action was launched by the State branch of the National Congress of Mothers and the parent-teacher associations. It was sponsored by the Washington Education Association. An initiative measure, no. 46, was placed on the ballot in the general election in November 1922 but it failed to carry.

The measure was designed to place upon the State a larger share of the common-school tax and to reduce the amount raised directly by the local districts. In most cases it would have meant that each com munity would provide the same amount of revenue as before, but that the State would disburse a larger amount and the local district a smaller amount than before. Evidently the people preferred to control their school revenues more directly themselves.

The main specific features were as outlined below:

1. The State board of equalization would have been required to levy a State tax sufficient to produce thirty dollars for each child between four and twenty-one years of age.

The county commissioners of each county would have been required to levy ten dollars for each child in the county.

The school district would have been empowered to tax itself not over seventeen mills.

2. One-half the State and county funds were to be apportioned on the basis of attendance, the other half on the basis of the number of teachers employed.

3. The minimum school term was to be eight months, the maximum 190 days. Proponents of democratic education have always recognized the limited opportunities for schooling existing in certain sections. State Supt. Josephine C. Preston, stated in 1922, "There is a need for a substantial State equalization fund to aid districts which, because of

"Report of the public-school administrative code commission of the State of Washington, 1921, pp. 25–28.

extreme and unusual conditions, are not sufficiently helped by the general plan of apportionment." 43 She recommended the creation of a special fund from the current State fund before its apportionment, to be administered to such needy districts.

The Wilmer bill presented to the legislature in 1927 provided for a State-wide tax of three-fourths of a mill to establish such a "school equalizing fund". Every district of one teacher, maintaining a tax of 10 mills, would get $1,000 from the State. No new schools would be organized without approval of the State superintendent. Any balance in the fund after such schools were taken care of, was to go to the next size schools that had levied 14 mills and that were not receiving in county and State apportionment a sum equal to 42 cents per day on their average daily attendance. This bill failed to become a law.

The Showalter bills.-A third attempt to equalize educational opportunity during the last decade was made in the Showalter bill, which first appeared in 1928, but was also considered during the following session. The major objectives were:"

1. To equalize educational opportunity by increasing the State contribution from 30 to 50 percent of the cost of the education, and the county portion from 15 to 25 percent leaving 25 instead of 55 percent of the cost to be borne by the district.

2. To equalize the tax burden.

3. Improve school administration.

4. Remove the office of county superintendent from partisan politics.

This bill survived both houses of the legislature, but was vetoed by the Governor.

The stumblingblock in the way of these constructive measures is the fear of largely increased taxation, especially since the economic depression has made taxes a great burden to the people. The report of the commission appointed by the legislature of 1929 to investigate the tax situation states:

The financial support of the common schools should be equalized to a greater extent over all the property of the State by a substantial increase in State and county financial support:

Provided, That means be developed for controlling school expenditures so that this increase of State and county financial support will not result in an increase in the present total expenditures for the common schools. 45

The report made clear the opinion that large tax liens upon the State to make the State bear the major part of the burdens of public

"Report of Superintendent of Public Instruction, 1922, p. 14.

"Breckner, Elmer L., chairman, Washington Education Legislative Committee, Washington Education Journal, January 1931.

4 Report of the Washington Tax Investigation Commission, 1930, p. 35.

education would require school expenditures to be made by a centralized agency, and "a different conception of public-school administration than that which has grown up in this State out of pioneer conditions." 46

The Showalter Equalization Bill passed in 1933.-On February 21, 1933, a bill was passed which made it the duty of the State board of equalization to levy a tax not to exceed 5 mills on the dollar upon all the taxable property within the State which when added to other sources of school revenues should produce an amount equal to twenty-five cents per day per pupil for each day's attendance in the common schools." Attendance in the junior-high schools yields 30 cents per day and in regular high-school classes 35 cents per day. Pupils in vocational classes draw 45 cents per day; in schools for defectives 50 cents; and in parental schools 75 cents per day. Provisions are made for the State to allow various amounts for kindergarten attendance, part-time schools, night schools, transportation costs, for children on Indian reservations, military reservations, etc.47

The Forty-Mill Tax Bill.—A law known as the " Forty-mill tax limit for taxation was enacted by the legislature of 1933. This provided

that

the aggregate of all tax levies upon real and personal property by the State, county school district, and city or town shall not in any year exceed forty mills on the dollar of assessed valuation, which assessed valuation shall be fifty per cent of the true and fair value of any such property in money, and the levy by the State shall not exceed five mills, the levy by any county shall not exceed ten mills, including the levy for the county school fund, the levy by or for any school district shall not exceed ten mills, and the levy by any city or town shall not exceed fifteen mills.

Provision was made whereby school districts and other units may levy additional taxes to pay the interest or principal on bonds or on warrants outstanding at the time of the taking effect of this act. Further provi sion was made that "any county, school district, city, or town shall have the power to levy taxes at a rate in excess of the rate specified in this act, when authorized to do so by the election of such county, school district, city, or town by a three-fifths majority of those voting on the proposition at a special election, to be held on the Tuesday next preceding the first Monday in October of the year in which the levy is made." 48

The effect of the "Forty-mill limit law "has been greatly to cripple the Showalter equalization measure. The State, the counties, and the

Ibid., p. 32.

47 Laws of Washington, 1933, ch. 28, pp. 162-172.

Ibid., ch. 4, sec. 1, p. 47.

school districts thus restricted have been unable to provide adequate revenues for the public schools and the higher educational institutions. The tables indicating revenues reveal greatly curtailed amounts in the last biennium. See tables 9 and 20 for annual grand totals of expenditures.

Amounts of various revenues.-The total amounts derived from the State, county, district, and other general funds are indicated in table 19.

TABLE 19.-Amounts of school revenues in Washington from State and county appor tionments, from general fund district taxes, and from other general fund sources

2. The Apportionment of School Funds

Early provisions.-The question of the distribution of school funds throughout the entire history of the Territory and State has been one of the most serious problems confronting the proponents of good edu cation. At the present time the just and equitable distribution of the revenues provided by State and county is uppermost in the minds of the makers of the law.

The law of 1854 provided that the county superintendent of each county should distribute the current school fund accruing from the permanent fund to the various districts on the basis of the number of children between the ages of 4 and 21 residing within the district. The proceeds of the county school fund were apportioned on the same basis. In order that any district might participate in these apportionments it was compelled to show that school had been maintained and taught by a qualified teacher for at least 3 months during the year. If a district failed to report to the county superintendent as provided by law, it lost its apportionment for that year. This law also provided that each school district must tax itself to provide a sum for school purposes at least equal to the amount it received from the current and