Expenditures for relief and education in the state of California from 1929 to 1938
381 7 35MB
English Pages 322
Polecaj historie
Citation preview
SXPENDITURES FOR ?a.RELIEF AND iEDUCATION i■.wIN '■THE STATE .•?.•v ; .P ’ .iy* * ' ,■ .-V-'JT* .• l . \
OF CALIFORNIA FROM 1929 TO 1938
A Dissertation Presented to the Faculty of the School of Education University of Southern California
In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Education
by William Nathan Wilson October 1942
UMI Number: DP25705
All rights reserved INFO RM ATION TO ALL USERS The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy subm itted. In the unlikely event that the author did not send a com plete m anuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be rem oved, a note will indicate the deletion.
UMI' Dissertation Publishing
UMI DP25705 Published by ProQuest LLC (2014). C opyright in the Dissertation held by the Author. M icroform Edition © ProQ uest LLC. All rights reserved. This w ork is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code
ProOuest ProQ uest LLC. 789 East Eisenhow er Parkway P.O. Box 1346 Ann Arbor, Ml 4 8 1 0 6 - 1346
T h is d is se rta tio n , w r i t t e n u n d e r the d ir e c tio n o f the C h a ir m a n o f the c a n d id a te ’s G u id a n c e C o m m itte e a n d a p p r o v e d by a l l m em bers o f the C o m m itte e , has been pre sen ted to a n d accepted by the F a c u l t y o f the S c h o o l o f E d u c a t io n in p a r t i a l f u l f i l l m e n t o f the re q u ire m e n ts f o r the degree o f D o c t o r o f E d u c a tio n .
D a t e J . . ^ M Z A 9.A.A.lA......
Guidance Committee
Osman R. Hull Chairman
R. J. Weersing
Merritt K. Thompson
Loui s P . Thorpe
D. Welty Lefever
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The author is deeply grateful for the kindly supervision of his committee chairman, Doctor Osman R. Hull, for the suggestions and criticisms of Doctor D. Welty Lefever, and for the many hours of friendly guidance into the realm of educational philosophy hy Doctor Merritt H. Thompson.
This study has been possible only through the
patience, encouragement, and sacrifice of the authorTs wife, Genevieve Patton Wilson.
TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER I.
PAGE
PRESENTATION OF THE P R O B L E M .....................
1
Education is a function of government . . . .
2
Education supported from public monies
...
3
........
4
..........
7
Development of state support
...
Funds of educational legislation
New techniques for carrying out responsi bility of state
..................
10
Costs of education haved e c r e a s e d .............. 13 Money spent on education is economically j u s tified...................................
18
S u m m a r y ............................
20
Welfare has made increased demands upon public f u n d s ............................ * Relief is a permanent problem Financing welfare work . . . . .
21
........... 24 .............
27
Costs of w e l f a r e ......... ................. 28 Old age pensions as a relief measure
. . . .
The effect of pensions upon school finance
29 .
30
S u m m a r y ........................................ 30 Tax capacity is l i m i t e d ....................... 31 Measure of tax c a p a c i t y ....................... 32 A danger in too narrow a margin in tax b a s e ...................................
33
iii CHAPTER
PAGE Effect on educational costs from increased welfare support
.
S u m m a r y .................. .. ..............
^ 37
Statement of the p r o b l e m ..................... Definition of terms . .
.. ..................
Method of p r o c e d u r e Sources of data II.
37
.
38 39
.......................
42
TRENDS OP TOTAL EXPENDITURES FOR EDUCATION IN CALIFORNIA WITHIN EACH COUNTY FROM 1929 TO 1938 ............................................ The development of education in California . . Early educational offerings in California Early financing of e d u c a t i o n .........
.
43 43 44
45
City and county systems weredeveloped
...
45
The School Law of 1 8 5 1 ....................
46
The School Law of 1852
...............
District system established
.................
48
School Law of 1856 ...........................
48
School district taxes established in1858 District school tax required
.....
.
...
47
49 49
Free rural schools established ...............
50
No state provision for high school support in 1879 State apportionments for high schools
...
51
iv CHAPTER
PAGE Tax structures for s c h o o l s ...................
52
Increased basis for state taxation ...........
55
School attendance from 1929 to 1938
. . . . .
^8
District expenditures per A. D. A ............ District expenditures defined
........
. .
District expenditures per pupil in average daily attendance
...............
Elementary expenditures decreased
66
...........
Secondary expenditures sharply dropped . . .
67 69
Junior college expenditures increased but were less per A. D. A .......................
73
All education expenditures per A. D. A. were r e d u c e d ....................................
74
Debt service has been e x c l u d e d ...............
77
Amounts of educational funds from their various sources
................................
77
Elementary
district sources of funds . . . .
79
Sources of
secondary district funds . . . .
83
Sources of
funds for junior colleges . . . .
86
Summary of
state apportionments
88
..........
Total educational expenditures from 1929 to 1938 ..........................................
91
Total elementary expenditures from 1929 to 1938 ........................................
91
CHAPTER
PAGE Total secondary expenditures from 1929 to 1938 ......................................
32
Total educational expenditures of each county from 1929 to 1938 Summary III.
100 ..............
HI
TRENDS OF TOTAL EXPENDITURES FOR STATE AND COUNTY WELFARE IN CALIFORNIA FROM 1929 TO 1938
. . .
H4
Historical development of welfare in Califor nia
................
11^
Law of 1883 to assist the indigent aged
. .
County made responsible for indigent . . . .
HO
Aid to o r p h a n s ............................... State grants for o r p h a n a g e s
HO
118 .
H8
Children aided on per capitab a s i s .........
HO
. ..........
120
Qualifications for eligibility . . . . . . .
121
Amounts of grants to needy children
122
Orphan out-relief established
. . . .
Administration of orphan a i d ............
.
120
Trends in orphan a i d .......................
125
California child aid in national setting . .
HI
Summary of orphan aid in California
. . . .
-*-51
Aid to the needy b l i n d .......................
155
Program really started
in1929 .............
Amounts to needy blind have increased
. . .
155 155
vi CHAPTER
PAGE Blindness has been more definitely defined .
-^5
Qualifications for blind a i d ...............
*^6
■Trends in aid to needy b l i n d ...............
*^8
California leads the nation in blind aid . . Summary of California aid to needy blind . . Aid to the needy aged
.......................
Development of the program .
^2
............
Methods of supporting old age pensions . . . Eligibility requirements for old age pen sions
.........................
Trends in aid to the needy a g e d .............
146 148
California!s aid to the aged lead the n a t i o n .............................
154
Summary of aid to the a g e d ...................
155
Summary of categorical r e l i e f ...............
155
Indigent a i d ..................... ........... Confusion exists as to amountsexpended County indigent relief allowances
. .
...........
150 154 157
Volume of indigent relief reduced since 1935 ...................................... S u m m a r y ......................................
170 l7^
Expenditures by counties for categorical and indigent aids Unemployment relief
........................ ...........................
-*-7(^ 200
vii CHAPTER
PACE The national unemployment p r o b l e m .......... 200 The beginnings of unemployment relief in C a l i f o r n i a ................ ................ 202 First period of r e l i e f ...................
203
Second phase of relief .......................
204
The third period of r e l i e f ...............
205
The fourth phase of r e l i e f ...................
205
The fifth phase of r e l i e f ...................
205
Sixth phase of r e l i e f ....................... 206 Volume of unemployment r e l i e f .............. 207 California’s agricultural labor requirements affected the relief load
. . . . .
The relief rolls were higher in urban areas
214 , 214
Aliens on r e l i e f ............................. 216 Expenditures for relief through the State Relief A d m i n i s t r a t i o n ..................... 217 Federal Works Program expenditures in Califor nia
.........................
. . . . . . .
224
Total welfare expenditures in California . . . 226 Summary of unemployment
.......... 226
Expenditures by counties for unemployment relief •
............ .................... 230
Summary of the c h a p t e r ....................... 237
viii CHAPTER IV.
PAGE
THE RELATIONSHIP OP WELFARE EXPENDITURES TO EDUCATIONAL EXPENDITURES .....................
242
Total welfare expenditures within the counties compared with total educational expendi tures San Bernardino County outstanding
... .
242
........
246
Los Angeles County spent almost half welfare funds
. . . . . . . . . .
Interesting comparisons can be made
. . . .
248 248
Total expenditures for relief in California compared with total expenditures for educa tion
....................................
Per capita comparison of
expenditures
. . .
249 253
The effect of welfare expenditures on those of education
............
The effects on district funds
.............
Tax delinquency and district funds ........
253 253 255
A danger to local revenues from increased welfare expenditures..............
258
Welfare support from local sources increas ing
...........................
261
Hie number of aged persons in California is i n c r e a s i n g ..........
262
ix CHAPTER
PAGE The effect of relief on state expenditures for education
. ....................
263
Welfare and education compared with total state expenditures.........................
266
In all state expenditures education, the lowest, welfare the highest increase since 1934
266
Federal revenues unaffected
.................
270
The ability of the county, state, and federal tax structures to support welfare and educa tion
. . . . . . .
The tax structures vary in strength
270
. . . .
271
Total tax collections have increased . . . .
274
California^ total tax structure solvent . .
275
Trends pointed to greater demands on local tax structure
..........
. . . . . . . .
Summary of c h a p t e r ........................... V.
275 277
GENERAL SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDA TIONS
..........................................
General s u m m a r y ............................... Background of the problem
.................
281 281 281
The p r o b l e m ....................... .. D e f i n i t i o n s ................................. General procedure
.............................
282 282
X
CHAPTER
PAGE General findings ...............................
284
General conclusions and recommendations
291
....
LIST OF TABLES TABLE
PAGE I.
Percentage of Public School Costs Paid frora State and Federal Moneys, 1925-26 .•. . "v . ' ' ••
II.
_ "**
‘
r± .
7 ' "y
•
‘
'^.'c
- }**
>*.-
*1
'••***.;;c-
i
If/
y,/ ’ :*
6 ^
i-
Percentage of Public School Revenue Derived from Statewide Sources, "1935-36/.
III.
“
* '.i & .. u. v 8
Percentage of Public School Funds Derived from State and Number of States, 1925-26 and 1955-36 .................... ^ .........
IV.
Statistical Summary of Elementary and Secondary Schools Combined.............
V.
9
15
Year of Original Enactment of State Legislature for Categorical Relief and for Emergency Unemployment Relief as of December 31, 1935 ............ . ..........
VI.
Kindergarten Average Daily Attendance and State Enrollment.
VII.
.... ........... ./ . . . .
IX.
Relation of A.D.A. to Enrollment, 1937.
XI.
61
...
65
Elementary District Expenditures Including Kindergarten.................
X.
59
Average Daily Attendance, California Public Schools 1928-29 to 1938-39.............
VIII.
25
68
Secondary District Expenditures .............
71
Junior College District Expenditures per A.D.A...............................
75
*.t
v-
..
xii
T.iBLE XII. XIII.
•'
-‘
;
District Funds Expended for Bond Interest.
...
78
Elementary District Fiscal Sources ............
80
XIV.Sources, of Secondary District Funds...............84 V; '-7IV: ; :K;;]r ^ v ^ V"• > ■XV. Sources of Funds for Junior College...............89 XVI. ^ State Apportionments............................. 90 XVII.
Total Expenditures for Elementary Schools (Including Kindergarten)
XVIII.
.....................
Total Expenditures for Secondary Schools (Including Junior College)
XIX.
93
...................
96
Total Expenditures forAllS c h o o l s ................. 98
XX.
Expenditures 1928-1929 .........................
101
XXI.
Expenditures 1929-1930 .........................
102
XXII.
Expenditures 1930-1931 ......................... 103
XXIII.
Expenditures 1931-1932 .........................
104
XXIV.
Expenditures 1932-1933 .........................
105
XXV.
Expenditures 1933-1934 .........................
106
XXVI.
Expenditures 1934-1935 .........................
107
XXVII. XXVIII. XXIX. XXX. XXXI.
Expenditures 1935-1936 . . . >'. . . . . . . . . Expenditures 1936-1937 . . . * • ■; •' |
108
A . . 109 :tT- ' : . . . 110
Aid to Children...................................127 Numbers of Children Aided and Average Amounts Per Child, by Counties, October, 1937........
129
V.
TABLE XXXII.
•
'
PAGE
State Comparisons in Child Aid for Month of January, 1939...................
XXXIII.
Aid to the Blind...................
'V
*
XXXV.
139
Comparative State Aid for Needy Blind h
XXXIV.
.
-
-
,•
- :;s
;
■'
Month of January, 1939...................
143
Aid to the Needy A g e d .....................
149
XXXVI.
■
California1s Position in National Aid to Aged January, 1939 ...................
XXXVII.
138
156
Expenditures for Categorical Public :> Assistance by Source of Funds, July 1, 1937-June 30, 1938...............
XXXVIII.
157
Report on Expenditures Made to Counties and Institutions by State Department of Social Welfare and Federal Funds Accruals Aged, Blind, and Children^ A i d ........
XXXIX.
XL. XLI. XLII. "s‘
Organization of County Agencies Concerned with Public Assistance...................
161
Welfare Expenditures of County Governments.
163
County Disbursements for Welfare, 1929-38 .
165
Comparison of the Average Relief Extended ■
■ .
•*
' .
;
’
per Case per Month in Each County, 1937 . XLIII.
168
County Welfare Expenditures July 1, 1928 to June 30, 1930..................
XLIV.
158
County Expenditures for Welfare, 1930-31.
171 .
175
xiv table
_7
-
*
page
XLV.
County
Welfare Expenditures,
1931-32. .
. .
178
XLVI.
County
Welfare Expenditures,
1932-33. .
. .
181
XLVII.
County
¥/elfare Expenditures,
1933-34. . . .
184
XLVIII.
County
Welfare Expenditures,
1934-35. .
. .
188
XLIX.
County
Welfare Expenditures,
1935-36. .
. .
191
L. LI. LII.
County Welfare Expenditures, 1936-37. . .
194
County Welfare Expenditures, 1937-38.
197
...
Estimated Volume of Unemployment, 1922-1938 201
in the United States.................... LIII.
Organization of State Agencies Related to 208
:■ :Unemployment Pr ohlera..................... LIV.
Persons Receiving Relief Under Programs in California, July, 1933to December,
LV.
1935.
212
Seasonal Agricultural Employment in California, 1935. .
LVI.
h. .
215
Sources of Unemployment Relief Eunds in California January,1933 to
LVII.
June,1938.
.
218
Percentage Distribution of Relief Funds According to Source by Semi-Annual iPeriod s , 1933-1935................. *
LVIII.
220
u?
Federal Expenditures for Relief in California Under the Federal Works P r o g r a m ...........................
LIX.
225
Total Wei fare Expenditures in California, 1929-1938 ...............................
227
XV
TABLE
^ '
PAGE
LX.
S.R.A. Expenditures................................ 231
LXI.
Federal E x p enditures.............................. 235
LXI I.
Expenditures for Labor by the Works Progress Administration in Calif o r n i a ................
LXIII. ' /•-
LXIY.
Comparison of Total Expenditures ............... Z-
I
'
5
!
27,516,517
28,936,098
22,058,583
24,370,473
1,645,687,651
1,589,692,732
1,317,898,716
1,330,401,986
329,312,434 86,040,235
384,799,151 64,601,318
402,500,724 68,194,070
555,353,854 61,276,103
2,088,556,837
2,068,029,299
1,810,652,093
1,971,402,416
TABLE IV (continued) 1
STATISTICAL SUMMARY OF ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY SCHOOLS COMBINED Item Expenditures Sites, buildings, furniture, libraries, apparatus Salaries For all other purposes Total
1932
1930
# 370,877,969 1,295,201,424 650,710,991 2,316,790,384
$
210,996,262 1,310,040,500 653,613,793 2,174,650,555
1934
#
59,276,555 1,103,705,671 557,123,003 1,720,105,229
1936
|
171,321,674 1,181,772,745 615,803,779 1,968,898,198
1 Biennial Survey of Education in the United States, United States Department of Interior, ?/ashington D.C., 1938, p. 55.
o>
17
Federal, State anc local Expend, excluding educ.
High School Enrollment
/30
State and local expend, exclud. education
//O
Total Enrollment /00
Uocai Expenditure exclud. education
do Public Educational Expenditures
/320 FIGURE 1 INDEX OF EDUCATIONAL EXPENDITURES AND OTHER GOVERNMENTAL EXPENDITURES 1926-1934 Figures from Research Bulletin N.E.A. Vol. XV No. 4 September 1937 p. 176
18 Are certain government services developing at the expense of education? While relief measures have been necessary, there is considerable evidence that the need for some new federal services could be prevented if the federal government assumed its rightful place in the financing of education. Figure 2 shows that from 1925 to 1937 in cities of over 100,000 in population educational expenses have steadily declined In the percentage of total city expenditures.
This
merely verified the statement that governmental expenditures have been increasing at a much more rapid rate than those for education. Costs in education have been decreased in spite of the fact that most educational experts in the field of finance gave strong economic urges for the maintenance of full support. Money spent on education is economically justified.
In
his book on School Revenue, Morrison said that money devoted to the support of schools does not constitute a depletion of 2 the national income. Carr Insisted that a better attitude toward school expenditures would be encouraged by consideration of the far reaching effect of education on the economic welfare
1 Research Bulletin of the National Education Association, ffFederal Support of Education,1’ Vol XV, Nol 4~, (Washington, D. C .: September, 1937). 2
Henry C. Morrison, ££. cit., p. 58.
FIGURE
20
of the people.
The proportion of the total social income
allotted to eduction was an investment which returns worth while dividends in the economic sense.
The school cannot he
regarded as a non-productive, parasitic, or charitable insti tution.^ Summary.
Dawson
2
summarized the trends in state
support by pointing out that legislation during recent years indicated that states were increasing the relative amounts of their contribution to schools, changing and improving the methods of distribution of state school funds, increasing state control over local school expenditures, attempting to increase the efficiency of schools through the provision of new services, adopting new sources of revenue, and reducing or abandoning general property taxes.
The outstanding causes
for increase in the relative amount of state support for schools appeared to be the general breakdown of local property taxes, the exhaustion of credit by local school districts, tax limitation laws, and an increased recognition of state responsibility for the support of adequate school advantages for all children of the state.
.
_
William G-. Carr, School Finance (Stanford: University Press, 1933), p. 36.
Stanford
2 Howard A. Dawson, "Trends in School Finance in Several State Educational Programs for Today and Tomorrow," Bulletin, School of Education (Pennsylvania; University of Pennsylvania, March, 1936).
Many new techniques have been developed for the more efficient administration of state funds and the granting of them on a more equalized basis.
However, with all of this
there has been a notable decrease in the costs of education. Could this have been accountable to a lack of available funds If so, was it due to a decrease in tax structure or to an increase in expenditure for other purposes? Although over a period of years there has been a trend towards greater state support of education, educators have often been negligent in not realizing that there are othe.r functions of government that may legally have as justi fiable claim to state funds as the schools.
The clause in
the Constitution ”to provide for the general welfare” may be interpreted widely in its connotations.
As Judd has said:
The discussion of educational problems often seems to proceed on the assumption that schools are self-contained institutions, determined in their organization and pro gram of instruction, wholly from within. The fact is that the educational system of any age or country is con ditioned by economic, industrial, and other social forces outside the schools.3Welfare has made increased demands upon public funds. An accelerated demand for relief and social insurance has focused the attention of the public upon the problems of public welfare and of social planning in their relations to
I Charles E. Judd, Problems of Education in the United States (Hew York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1933), p. 6.
22
government and democracy.^
The trend towards the accurate and
technical definition and classification of social welfare service as a normal function of government indicates the importance of long time planning and the danger of allowing temporary emer gencies or special interests unduly to influence major pol-
. . 2 lcies. Anne E. G-eddes summarized the trends in relief expen ditures as follows: Information concerning past relief trends is limited for the most part to scattered data on relief expenditures in selected areas since 1910. They are exclusive of institutional relief and as far as possible, of expendi tures for administrative purposes. Considered in conjunction with trends in relief legis lation since 1910, they present a consistent picture of gradually increasing relief burdens prior to the precipitous upward movement in 1930. The assembled pieces of evidence are believed to support a number of conclusions concerning the trend of relief expenditures in the United States in the twenty-six years from 1910 through 1935. . . . Their greatest value lies in their bearing upon future develop ments. The following basic tendencies may be noted: 1. The forms of public relief have tended to become more and more differentiated through the enactment of special legislation. 2. There has been a progressive tendency to widen the base of governmental responsibility for relief beyond the local units, first through the state and then through federal participation.
1 Howard W. Odum, "Public Welfare Activities, Recent Social Trends in the United States," Report of the President1s Research Committee, Vol. II (New York: MeGraw-hi11 Book Company, 1933), p". 1270. 2
Ibid., p. 1273.
23 3. At least since 1910 there has been a strong under lying upward trend in relief expenditures. Hie very great increase in expenditures in the depression years represents a sharp acceleration of a tendency manifest through the preceeding two decades. 4. The increase in both public and private relief expenditures has been far greater than the growth in population. 5. The rate of increase of public relief expenditures, at least in large urban areas, has greatly excelled that of all governmental expenditures combined.i Benevolence has alv/ays been a function of government, but with the apparent collapse of our social economic structure, the problem of providing for the large number of people who are no longer self-sustaining, has thrown a great burden upon the state.
With the prolongation of the depression and the
accompanying economic and social complexities, there has been a continuous and increasing demand upon state funds for pur poses of welfare expenditure.
Socie.1 services have increased
greatly in recent years; they are likely to expand in the future.
Every new service creates an administrative and
financial dilemma to add to the existing confusion.
2
1 Anne E. Geddes, "Trends in Relief Expenditures 19101935," W. P. A. Division of Social Research, Research Monograph, X, 1937 (Washington, D. C.: United States" Government Printing oHTce, 1937), p. xiii.
2 Educational Policies Commission, Social Services and the Schools ('Washington, D. C.: National Education Associa tion 1 9 3 9 " ) , p . 6 .
24 In Table V
will be found the year of enactment of
legislation for categorical relief and for emergency unem ployment relief among the various states as of December 31, 1935,
In the majority of cases the laws have been made com
paratively recently. Relief is a permanent problem.
Most of the authori
ties agreed that relief is a permanent problem and that the expenditure of state funds to meet this need will be a con tinuing factor.
Haber asserted that if all the able bodied
workers now on relief were to get jobs tomorrow, three forths of the problem would remain. ,1 as an emergency measure.
Relief can no longer be treated
That unemployment may be considered as a permanent problem was further evidenced by the following statement in the National Resources Committee report: While the continuous advance in the material well being of the country depends upon technological progress of the countryfs productive apparatus, we must look to a much more rapid expansion of production than has taken place between 1933 and 1935 before we can expect a re turn either to the employment or unemployment levels of the pre-depression period. A rough calculation indicates that in order for enemployment to drop to the 1929 level by 1937, goods and services produced would have to reach a point 20 per cent higher than in 1929, even if the productivity level of 1935 remained unchanged. Further technological advances in industries would necessitate
1 William Haber, ’'Relief a Permanent Program," Survey Grajjhic, 27:591-94, December, 1938, p. 594.
25 table v
YEAR OF ORIGINAL ENACTMENT OF STATE LEGISLATURE FOR CATEGORICAL RELIEF AND FOR EMERGENCY UNEMPLOYMENT RELIEF AS OF DECEMBER 31, 1935a T*
State and geographic division
Categorical relief Aid to ^Aid to Aid to aged blind dependent children
New England Maine New Hampshire Vermont Massachusetts Rhode Island Connecticut
1933 1931 1935 1930 1935 1935
1915 1915 1935 1920
Middle Atlantic New York New Jersey Pennsylvania East North Central Ohio Indiana Illinois Michigan Wisconsin West North Central Minnesota Iowa Missouri North Dakota South Dakota Nebraska Kansas South Atlantic Delaware Maryland District of Columbia Virginia West Virginia North Carolina South Carolina Georgia Florida
7
Emergency unemployment relief
1921
1917 1913 1917 1913 1923 1919
1931 1931 1931
1930 1931 1933
1922 1931 1933
1915 1913 1913
1931 1931 1931
1933 1933 1935 1933 1925
1898 1935 1903
1913 1919 1911 1913 1913
1931 1931 1932 1933 1932
1929 1934 1935 1933
1913 1915 1923
1933
1917 1911
1913 1913 1917 1915 1913 1913 1915
1931 1934 1933 1933 1933 1933 1933
1931 1927 1935
1929 1935
1917 1916 1926 1918 1915 1923
1932 1931
1907
1931
1935
1935
1919
1935 1931
1931
1935
26 TABLE V (continued) YEAR OF ORIGINAL ENACTMENT OF STATE LEGISLATURE FOR CATEGORICAL RELIEF AND FOR EMERGENCY UNEMPLOYMENT RELIEF AS OF DECEMBER 31, 1935a
State and geographic division East South Central Kentucky Tennessee Alabama Mississippi West South Central Arkansas Louisiana Oklahoma Texas
Categorical relief Aid to Aid to Aid to aged blind dependent children
Emergency unemployment relief
1926
1924
1928 1915
1935 1934
1935
1928
1933 1933 1932 1935
1935
1931 1928 1935
1917 1920 1915 1917
1935 1934 1931 1933 1933 1935 1933 1933 1935 1933 1933 1933 1933 1933 1931
1935
Mountain Montana Idaho Wyoming Colorado New Mexioo Arizona Utah Nevada
1923 1931 1929 1927
1917 1935 1925
1933 1929, 1923 d
1931 1925
1915 1913 1915 1913 1931 1914 1913 1913
Pacific Y/ashington Oregon California
1933 1933 1929
1933 1935 1929
1913 1913 1913
a Declared Unconstitutional; next act passed 1917. ^ Repealed same year; next act passed 1925.
27 even a greater expansion of production to restore pre depression unemployment levels.1 Financing welfare work.
No well defined distinction
can be made between financing of public social work and the financing of government activities in general.
Substantially
the same problems are faced and the same policies followed. This is due partly to the common practice of financing govern ment expenditures from general and not specific sources.
It
is partly due to the difficulty of distinguishing public 2 social work from other governmental activities. This last statement should be accompanied by one from Odum wherein he pointed out that it is in the field of state public welfare that recent trends are most marked and measureable.
The modern state organization of public wel
fare will emphasize in its organization and service such major activities as general administration, administration of institutions, child welfare, mental health and hygiene, crime and the treatment of criminals, county and community organizations and public relief, besides general education
1 • National Resources Committee, Technological Trends and National Policy (Washington, D. C.7 United States Govern ment Pr in ting Office, January, 1937), p. 87. 2 Ray Blough, “Financing Public Social Work," Social Work Yearbook (New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 1939), p. 135.
28 and the raising of standards.^ The above concept has a dangerous connotation if educa tion is to be administered by, and as a subsidiary to the Welfare organization.
In contrast to this is the statement
in the Policies Commission book on Social Services: Public schools strive through education to promote personal and social adjustment of children. In this sense the educational function in society is preventive. Social welfare agencies seek to correct maladjustments which may be personal, social, and even financial.^ Costs of welfare.
Costs of Welfare work have steadily
increased since 1930 and consequently have taken an increas ingly larger portion of the available state funds.
A recent
article made the statement that nearly a sixth of the total population was dependent partly or wholly upon relief, accord ing to Social Security Board studies.
Five per cent of total
income payments in the United States were going to relief pay ments.
Nearly twice as much money was being spent now (1939) 3
as at the depth of the depression in 1933-34.
1 Howard W. Odum, op. cit., p. 1230.
2 Social Service and the Schools, op. cit., p. 87. 3 Editorial, Current History, April, 1939, p. 47. Quoted from Washington Correspondent of Christian Science Monitor.
29 Soper
1
asserted that the trend in all government costs
since the depression has been a larger proportion of total expenditures on charities, recreations, protection of persons and property--a smaller proportion to general government, conservation of health, highways, and education. Staffelbach reported that the state of California in creased charities expenditures 805.2 per cent from 1932 to 1937.2 Old age pensions as a relief measure.
As old age
pensions have principally been designed to help the needy aged, it may be classed as relief.3
The per cent of the
population 65 or over receiving aid varies from 7.1 in New Hampshire to 59.8 in Oklahoma.^ Larson continued his findings by reporting that by 1934, approximately one half of the state legislatures had made it mandatory to provide some financial assistance for the aged persons.
Approximately three fourths of the states
1 Wayne Soper, "Cost of Education Compared with Other Government Costs,” Proceedings of the 76th Annual Meeting of the National Education Association “(Washington, D. C., 193^7, p. 348.
2 Elmer H. Staffelbach, "Costs of Government,” Sierra Educational News, 35:13-14, November, 1939, p. 14. 3 Emil L. Lawson, "Must the States Choose Between Schools for Youth and Pensions for the Ages," School and Society, December 2, 1939, p. 713. Ibid., p. 713.
30 depended upon general appropriations, whioh meant of course that the money was raised from general taxation.1 From 1900 to 1940 the number of people 65 years of age had increased from 4.1 to 6.2 per cent of the total population.
By 1950 the proportion will he 7.7. 2 age group will become increasingly prominent.
The old
The effect of pensions upon school finance.
In
questionnaires sent to forty state superintendents, Larson found that one third of the states reported that old age pensions were making the financing of schools more diffi cult.
In one third of the states, old age pension plans
had not yet affected school support to any extent. Summary.
The trend in public welfare showed that it
was steadily increasing in scope and cost.
Relief was
evidently a permanent problem and as a result definite charges for financing the program are becoming fixed parts of the state general funds.
The amounts being expended for
relief purposes appeared to have been increasing and the effects upon school monies were being noted.
1 Ibid., p. 718. 2 Ibid., p. 712. 3 Ibid., p. 717.
31 Tax capacity is limited.
One of the fundamental prin
ciples underlying all taxation is that there is a limit to the ability of any tax basis to support the tax applied to it. In other words, the income that pays the tax is limited, and too great a tax will destroy the base.
If this is true, it
means that there are limitations to the amounts that may be derived from taxation. Shoup'*' outlined three limits to the tax capacity of any unit: 1. Constitutional restrictions, which are not funda mental ones, because they can be eliminated by simply amending the Constitution.2 2. Political limits whereby a limit to taxable capacity may be set by the unwillingness of the voters to pay taxes.3 3. Economic limits beyond which the people would be crushed with a tax load too heavy to b e a r . 4 In explaining this latter Shoup said: This limit will be near if the revenues are spent in such a way that nothing is ever added to the flow of consumers goods and services. Unproductive expenditure usually occurs when the government requisitions goods for destruction or pays to have productive factors held idle. 1 York:
Carl Shoup and others, Facing the Tax Problem (New Twentieth Century Fund, Inc., 1937).
2 3
Ibid., p. 57. Ibid., p. 58.
4 Ibid., p. 59.
32 Another example Is the use of tax revenues to support certain groups of people who themselves contribute nothing. The people may be government exmployees, and the failure to contribute is then a result of inefficient government as when a department is overstaffed or staffed with in competent persons. They may on the other hand, consist of those who are idle because of involuntary unemployment, or because of old age, or injury, or sickness. The government relief for this latter class, however, may indirectly increase the efficiency of the employed. They may produce more efficiently because they worry less about their own future or the present insecurity of their friends or relatives. Unemployment relief payments may result directly in an increased flow of consumer’s goods and services. Govern ment spending brings into play economic forces whose full significance cannot be given in simple terms. Despite ail qualifications, however, the support of large numbers of idle persons is the kind of expenditure that brings the taxable capacity limit near to the existing level of taxation.3* Measure of tax capacity.
In its simplest terms the
gross fiscal capacity of a government unit is represented by available revenues both from internal taxation and from other units.
Net capacity for the support of schools may be
obtained by charging against the tax and other revenues rais ing capacities of the unit, debt charges, and the current costs of other government services.
The net tax raising
capacity of units for the support of schools therefore involves three elements,
(a) economic resources and tax ability,
1
Ibid., p. 59.
35 (b) costs of government other than education, and (c) debt service charges.'*' Norton combined data on income and wealth in developing a formula for measuring the economic resources of the various states.^ Speaking of the limited tax base Norton and Norton pointed out that the most modern systems of taxation and the most perfect government organizations do not create wealth 3 and income, This should be kept in mind in spite of the fact that the fraction of state revenues derived from property taxation, so conderamed by all experts, amounted to about 8 per cent in 1937.
States rely heavily on corporation and business
taxes, gasoline, income, and retail sales taxes, the latter 4 being used by about half the states now. A danger in too narrow a margin in tax base.
Knott
after defining tax leeway as the amount of potential tax
Paul R. Mort and Francis G. Cornell, "The Support of Education, Major Problems/' Review of Educational Research, Vol. VIII, No. 2, April, 1 9 3 ^
2 John K. Norton, National Education Association Research Bulletin, "Ability of the States to Support 'Education11 (Wash ington, D. C., March, 1926). 3 John K. Norton and Margaret A. Norton, Wealth, Children, and Education (New York: Teachers College, Columbia. University, 19377V p7^757 4 Roy Blough, 0£. clt., p. 158.
34 revenue in excess of that levied at present, found that too narrow a tax leeway involved real dangers for education.
The
educational adaptability of the communities was dependent upon the tax leeway. 1 the adaptability.
The greater the leeway, the greater was
If there is a limited tax structure as the basis for securing state funds, a real problem is presented as to how the educational offerings may be maintained in the face of the increasing competition of public welfare.
One of the most
menacing threats to both current and long-time educational programs is the growing burden of relief and welfare costs.
2
Effect on educational costs from increased welfare support.
With limited state funds and the increased amounts
spent for relief purposes it follows that other expenses of government must be cut.
Fixed obligations contribute to
fixity and inflexibility of the tax rate; they will almost of 3
necessity reduce current expenditures.
In fact as recently
1 W. D. Knott, The Influence of Tax-Leeway on the Educa tional Adaptability (New York: Teachers College ConVributions to Education, No. 785. Teachers College, Columbia University, 1939), p. 70.
2 Lester A. Kirkendall, "Expenditures for Relief and Educational Financing," Social Frontier, Vol. V, No. 46, June, 1939, p. 284. 3 Emil L. Larson, o£. cit., p. 715,
35 as August, 1932, the Indiana legislature enacted a lav/ limiting the tax rate for all governmental purposes to 15 mills on the 1 dollar of taxable property, 2 Kirkendall sent letters of survey to a number of state superintendents in the fall of 1938 and the following were some of the most pertinent findings: 1,
In Delaware in 1933, $1,000,000 was diverted from
school funds for relief purposes.
The total income for schools
declined steadily from $7,187,939 in 1931, to $3,567,456 in 1935,
Prom 1935 to 1938 school income rose to $4,924,376;
yet revenues never again reached high figures due to extra ordinary expenditures in other areas, 2.
State commissioner in Maine stated that educational
needs did not then compete directly with relief demands but were coming into competition with old age assistance. 3,
In Michigan in 1937, educational appropriations
were cut $2,800,000 and in 1938 by approximately $8,000,000 because of need for welfare funds, 4.
In Minnesota since 1933, the state income tax had
been designated for school purposes.
In 1938 it was proposed
1 American Council of Education Research Staff, Research Problems in School Finance (Washington, D. C., 1933), p7 149. 2
Lester A. Kirkendall, o£. cit., p. 285.
36 in the legislature that income tax be diverted for relief* Although not successful this showed a trend of relief pressure, 5,
In Virginia educational appropriations competed
directly with relief funds and state department there reported that it curtailed the amount of revenue for education. 6.
In Pennsylvania for bienniums 1931-1939 according
to the Division of Child Accounting and Research of the Penn sylvania Department of Public Instruction, October 26, 1938, the situation was as the following table Indicates:
Biennium 1931-33
To tal Gen • Fund Appropr.
Appropr. to Education
% total
Appropr. to Relief
of /0
total
$213,228,027 $92,854,972
43.5
$29,000,000
13.6
1933-35
232,804,608
87,276,600
37.5
59,100,000
25.4-
1935-37
453,668,531
87,820,460
19.4
127,657,000
28.1
1937-39
398,631,087
89, 937,677 22.6
137,046,100*
34.4
*To emergency relief board and newly created Department of Public Assistance* These findings were stark evidence of the situation that faced education.
In the competition for funds all the findings
showed that the requirements of relief were squeezing out the requirements of education.
To create a darker picture,
Chisholm said that if federal aid and federal subsidies were given to the states for the support of governmental services other than education, they could actually cause a reduction
37 in the amount of money spent on the schools.^ Summary.
There was a limit to the ability of any
government unit to furnish taxes.
Ihere was danger involved
for education when the limits of ability to support were too closely approached.
Since education and welfare both receive
funds from the same tax sources in most cases, they must divide the available monies.
Ihe amounts spent on relief
were steadily increasing and in many states the amounts spent on education were decreasing. I.
STATEMENT OP THE PROBLEM
The purpose of this investigation was to make a criti cal analysis of the expenditure of public funds for education and for welfare in the state and counties of California during the period between 1929 and 1938.
By means of this analysis
it was proposed: 1.
To determine the total educational expenditures
and trace their trends. 2.
To determine the total welfare expenditures and
discover their trends. 3.
To compare the amounts spent for education with the
amounts spent for welfare.
^Leslie L. Chisholm, "Federal Subsidies to States as Indirect Aid for Education," Journal of Educational Research, April, 1940, p. 595. ..
38 4.
To determine the relationship of the trends in
expenditures for welfare to the trends in expenditures for education and to total state services. 5.
To estimate the possible future effects of welfare
expenditures upon those for education by an analysis of the trends during the decade from 1929 to 1938, and by an analysis of the total tax structure, county, state, and federal. Definition of terms.
Welfare is well-being.
It
comprehends all efforts to provide for the amelioration of dependency, delinquency, indigency, and mental-physical maladjustment or deficiency.
Public welfare comprises all
forms of public assistance including unemployment relief in its various forms; special services to handicapped persons and dependents; care of delinquents including institutional care; probation and parole; and the several forms of social security.1 For the purposes of this study, welfare was limited to aid to orphans, aid to the blind, aid to the aged, and support for the unemployed.
These are the categories of
public assistance which have required rapidly increased support from public funds within the last few years, and for the most part have been administered through the counties.
1 Social Services and the Schools, op. cit., p. 13.
39 The other aspects of welfare have maintained a more or less steady continuity in their demands upon public support. Education may be defined as the formal system of learn ing which is provided by the state.
For the purposes of this
study, education was limited to the public schools from Kindergarten through Junior College which receive their support from public funds.
The money for the upkeep of these
schools is administered through the counties and thus a direct comparison can be made within the counties between the educational expenditures and the welfare expenditures as outlined previously.
Debt service was excluded from edu
cational costs since the original expenditure was once included as a charge against the schools. Method of procedure.
To complete this investigation
it was necessary to assemble fiscal data concerning both education and welfare.
Every effort was made to secure
reliable statistical information and wherever possible, original sources were consulted at Sacramento. The educational information was copied from unpub lished data in the annual "total books" at the office of the State Department of Education.
Each item of expenditure as
reported for every county was secured, tabulations made, and totals were calculated.
The results furnished the first
complete picture of total state expenditures by counties.
40 .after conversations with the State Department of Social Welfare in Los Atigeles and Sacramento, and corres pondence with the Sacramento office, it was discovered that there were no complete data available for county indigent expenditures during 1933-34 and 1934-35.
By checking and
cross-checking all the available data, the amounts submitted in this study were as close to the actual expenditures as it was possible to secure. One of the difficulties encountered during this study was that the different supposedly authoritative sources which presented fiscal data gave varying amounts for the expenditures on the same item.
Much effort was made to
reconcile these variations and finally where the reasons for variance could not be determined, a selection became neces sary.
All the sources have been clearly defined. Data on the purchasing power of the dollar and cost
of living indices were examined and rejected for inclusion in this study since the expenditures for welfare and for education occurred at the same time and thus were directly comparable. It was not the purpose of this study to make recom mendations as to the use of tax structures or to propose more suitable ones.
The only purpose of this investigation
was to make an analysis of the present situation. Chapter II presents the fiscal data from which the
41 trends of total expenditures for education in the counties of California may he ascertained.
A historical review of
the development of the financial support of education has heen followed by an analysis of expenditures per pupil in average daily attendance.
A review of the sources of public
school funds and the amounts obtained from them for each school level is followed by a state summary of the expendi tures within each county for all educational purposes in the various school levels. Chapter III gives the fiscal data from which the trends of public welfare expenditures may be determined.
An analysis
has been made of the development of the programs of aid to orphans, to the blind, to the aged, and for indigents. review of the programs for unemployment follows.
A
The amounts
spent for each category have been listed together with their sources and the total expenditures for all welfare purposes are summarized. Chapter IV seeks to determine the relationship between welfare expenditures and educational expenditures by comparing the amounts spent in each county for welfare with the amounts spent for education, as well as comparing the state-wide totals in each field.
State contributions to
welfare and to education are compared and the relationship of both to total state expenditures has been shown.
An
analysis of the effects of welfare disbursements upon the tax
42
sources of county, state, and federal governments and their ability to support both welfare and education in the future closes the chapter. Chapter V contains a summary of the study, presents the findings therefrom, and offers the conclusions and recommendations that have been reached as a result of the investigation. Sources of data.
The entire field of literature
relating to the problem was surveyed.
Only those sources
from which material of major import to this study was secured have been listed in the Bibliography.
In many cases, after
much material had been covered, a condensed summary would be located and quotations made from the one source.
In every
case, the original authors were investigated whenever they could be secured.
Hundreds of monthly reports of welfare
were read to secure a comprehensive picture of the programs. The principal sources of fiscal data consisted of financial records in the State Department of Education, Biennial Reports of the State Department of Social Welfare, Reports of the State Department of Finance, California Controllers Annual Reports, Financial Transactions of Municipalities and Counties, and State Relief Administration Reports.
CHAPTER II TRENDS OF TOTAL EXPENDITURES FOR EDUCATION IN CALIFORNIA WITHIN EACH COUNTY FROM 1929 TO 1938 The purpose of this chapter is to present the fiscal data from which the trends of educational expenditures in the public schools may be ascertained.
The major subdivisions of
the chapter are as follows: 1.
A brief historical review of the development of
the educational system in California, with particular emphasis upon the methods of securing financial support. 2.
A report of average daily attendance during the
period covered by the study. 3.
An analysis of district expenditures per pupil in
average daily attendance. 4.
A review of the sources of public school funds and
the amounts obtained from them for each school level. 5.
A state summary of the amounts expended within each
county for all educational purposes in the kindergarten, elementary, secondary, and junior college levels. THE DEVELOPMENT OF EDUCATION IN CALIFORNIA Before a clear picture may be had of the financing of public education in the state of California there should be an understanding of the development of the educational system.
44 It was originally patterned after the "district" plan which was being used in some of the eastern states, and which allowed a school to be started wherever and whenever the need arose, without much foresight towards a unified state system of learning. Early educational offerings in California.
Before any
constitutional government had been established in California, schools of various kinds were established.
These were
private schools, organized by some teacher or clergyman, and supported by tuition.
A few denominational and parochial
schools made their appearance with the development of church organizations• On October 11, 1847, a Committee of the Town Council of San Francisco secured the construction of a one-room schoolhouse in that city.
During the early part of the
following year the voters elected the first Board of School Trustees who in turn elected a teacher.
The Town Council
agreed to guarantee the salary of the teacher to the extent of $400•
This school was partly financed by tuition although
free to indigent pupils.
By May of 1848 the enrollment of
this first quasi-public school was thirty-seven.
It was not
until April, of 1850, that San Francisco, through its City Council, opened Californiafs first free public school and
45 adopted the first public school ordinance of any kind ever passed in the state.^ Early financing of education.
At the time the first
State Constitution was adopted, it was contemplated that the schools of the state would be wholly supported from the income and sale of the sixteenth and thirty-sixth sections of each township of public land or equivalent vhich had been set aside for such a fund under an Act of Congress approved in 1841.2 Schools organized under authority of the Constitution were supported altogether by charitable organizations, by tuition fees, through local assessments or "rate bills." There was no thought of state or county tax-supported schools. City and county systems were developed.
The 6,719,324
acres of school land that California had acquired by 1853 brought in very little revenue and v/as not an important item in determining the structure of early educational organization. Schools were established where communities grew up.
They were
subject to the abilities of local resources and the attitudes of the local populace.
From the beginning there were two channels
1 California State Department of Education, Study of Local School Units in California (Sgcramento, Califorma,“T937) , p. 7. 2 Ibid.. p. 16.
46 of development; one in the incorporated cities with their local schools provided for by special charters; the other, in the rural areas where the county was the unit of control under direct state school law. The School Lav; of 1851.
This law provided for the
apportionment of the interest from the State School Fund "to the counties on the basis of the number of children be tween seven and eighteen years of age.”
County treasurers
were ”to apportion to districts according to the number actually attending school,” and no district was to receive its share of state money "unless school was maintained three months, and unless it raised a sum equal to at least one-half of its share of the State Fund.””*" The School Law of 1851 was faulty in many ways.
It
authorized the building of schoolhouses, but gave the district no power to levy a tax for the purpose.
It divided the
apportionment of the State School Fund among sectarian and denominational schools, orphan asylums, and almshouse schools, as well as to the public schools.
It was not until 1861 that
state funds were made available to public schools only.
The
law made no provision for district, county, or state taxes but did furnish some regulations for local control.
Ibid., p . 17.
It provided
47 for district Superintending School Committees of three members to be elected annually and whose powers were to examine and appoint teachers, to disburse the School Fund, to build schoolhouses, and report yearly to the State Superinten dent of Public Instruction, an office created in 1849 by the Constitution, The first School Law provided for the establishment of high schools which were to be financed by not more than onefourth of the school monies.
No high schools we re organized
under its provision and when the school law was re-enacted in 1852, all reference to high school was omitted. The School Law of 1852.
Since the state school fund
did not materialize as expected, the second School Law, passed in 1852, provided for a district tax of three cents on the hundred dollars.
The next year, the district was author
ized to raise by tax whatever amount was necessary, and the county was empowered to levy a tax of five cents on the $100. The religious and public schools were to share alike in this county fund.
As soon as taxes began to be raised for school
support, the county assessors were appointed ex-officio county school superintendents with the responsibility of collecting and disbursing the school funds.
1 Ibid., p. 17.
48 The law of 185S provided for the apportionment of monies on the basis of the number of "census” children between five and eighteen years of age.
Since this fund
together with 50 per cent of the county fund was to be used exclusively for teachers1 salaries, it tended to encourage the establishment of numerous school districts in counties of larger population. District system established.
The "district” system of
schools was first mentioned in Section 3 of Article IX of the Constitution to the effect that any "district” failing to maintain a school may be deprived of state school funds.
In
1855, the legislature became more specific in its reference to school districts when within the "Law Establishing and Regulating Common Schools,” it defined districts and provided for the establishment of new ones. School Law of 1856.
School legislation in 1856 pro
vided for the election of county superintendents of schools "by popular vote.
It authorized incorporated cities to raise
a school tax not to exceed £5 cents on the one hundred dollars, and provided for the appointment or election of city boards of education and city school superintendents.
Counties were
granted the right to levy a school tax not to exceed 10 cents on the one hundred dollars. ^
1
> P • 18 •
School district taxes established in 1858*
Legislation
was passed in 1858 which provided that school districts could, by a vote of the people, levy a district tax for the support of schools or for building schoolhouses, "under the restric tions that the district must have maintained a school four months; that the public money must be insufficient to defray one-half the expenses of another term; that a tax for supporting a school and for building a schoolhouse could not be levied the same year; and that the trustees considered the tax advisable*"
The law was poorly framed and few districts
used it to raise additional revenue.'*’ In 1859, school districts themselves were authorized, after an approving vote by the electors, to levy district taxes for the support of schools or for capital outlay purposes. In 1860, the county tax was raised from 10 cents to 25 cents per one hundred dollars, and in 1863 the first state tax of 5 cents on one hundred dollars was authorized to supplement the very meager State School fund which by 1876 yielded only $1,737,500, due to waste and poor investments. District school tax required.
A more effective law
concerning the assessment and collecting of local taxes was
1 Ibid.* > P* 19 •
50 passed in 1863 and in the following year the legislature made it the absolute duty of the district trustees ,fto levy a direct property tax sufficient to maintain a public school five months in each year, whenever the state and county money shall be insufficient for that purpose.” Free rural schools established.
The Revised School Law
of 1865-66 was the beginning of free common schools in every rural district in the state.
From the start, the incorporated
cities, by virtue of their charters, began to develop city school systems more or less independent of outside control. Although the old district system was the basis, a ”board of education” of five members was maintained rather than the district trustee of three.
By virtue of the ”Revised School
Lav/” the state school tax become 8 cents per one hundred dollars.
The county school tax was fixed at a three dollar
minimum per census child, with a 35 cent maximum levy on the hundred dollars.
District trustees were authorized and re
quired to levy a district tax if necessary to keep a free public school for five months. No state provision for high school support in 1879. Although the Constitution of 1879 noted the high school in its section on the public school system, it made no provision for its support.
It declared that the entire revenue from the
State School Fund and the state school tax "shall be applied
51
exclusively to the support of primary and grammar schools.” Under this Constitution, the county educational organization was strengthened at the expense of state control by the re quirement of a board of education within each county. In 1883, the legislature empowered the electors of any school district to establish a ”grammar school course” which was ”to fit and prepare the students therein to enter the scientific department of the University of California.”
This
grammar school course wa.s to be divided into four grades, each to be one year in duration.
This extension of the term
"grammar school” was a means of getting around the provisions of the Constitution of 1879 which limited the use of school monies to the grammar grades.
In 1887, the "Caminette Act”
was passed providing a state fund of three dollars per pupil to make this grammar school course workable. City high schools had been operating since the first one was
established in San Francisco in 1858.
In 1891 the legi
slature
passed the Union High School Act granting
permission
for two or more elementary districts to pool their resources and established a high school.
It was particularly for the
benefit of rural districts but provided no state subsidy of any kind. State apportionments for high mtjBmtmammrnam ■■ mi
mm
m ami ■ lm
in i
■
......
i ■■ i iS f —■■
schools. ■■■■■■ — ■m. m M i *
It was not until
1902 that Article IX of the Constitution was amended by the
52 people to provide for special state revenue for high school support.
The following provision was added:
” . . . the legislature may authorize and cause to be levied a special state school tax for the support of high schools and technical schools, or either of such schools, included in the public school system, and all revenues from such special tax shall be applied exclu sively to the support of the schools for which such special tax shall be levied.” In January, 1903, the legislature established the ”state high school fund” by providing for a tax of one and one-half cents on each hundred dollars of assessed valuation and the state began to assist in the support of secondary education. A transfer of fifteen dollars from the general fund of the state to the state high school fund, for each pupil in average daily attendance, was authorized in 1911.
Two years
later the State Board of Education was reorganized with a Commissioner of Secondary Schools and by 1915 comprehensive legislation made secondary education available to all eligible students free of charge in all parts of the state. Tax structures for schools.
The general property tax
constituted the chief source of revenue for local schools until 1910.
At this time the state constitution was amended so as
to provide for two sources of taxation.
Public service cor
porations paid taxes to the state; real and personal tax payers paid taxes to the county and local governments.
The
55 divided source plan was maintained until January 1955 at which date the Riley-Stewart Amendment became operative* State Constitutional Amendment No. 16 was voted upon and passed in 1920*
It provided that the state should furnish
thirty dollars per child in average daily attendance in both the elementary and high schools of the state, and that the counties should furnish thirty dollars per child in the elementary schools and sixty dollars per child in the high schools of their respective counties.
This amendment also
made the state’s share in the school support a first charge against all revenues of the state."*The adoption by the people on June 27, 1955, of Senate Constitutional Amendment No. 50 made an important change in former methods of financing the public schools of the state.
This amendment, known as the Riley-Stewart Bill,
made the following changes:2 1.
Eliminated the constitutional provisions which
required county taxes for the support of elementary and and secondary schools. 2.
Authorized the legislature by a two thirds vote to
limit the real and personal property taxes which may be imposed for county or city purposes.
1 Ibid., p. 21. 2 A Review of Educational Legislation 1955-1954, Bulletin No. 2, United States Department of the Interior (Washington, D.C.: U. S. Government Printing Office, 1955), p. 6-7.
54 3.
Prohibited school districts from increasing ex
penditures by more than 5 per cent over previous year except by a two thirds vote of the electors or by the consent of the State Board of Equalization. 4.
Prohibited the legislature from increasing expend
itures for any biennium (exclusive of appropriations for public schools) by more than 5 per cent over the previous biennium except by a two thirds vote of the members of each house • 5.
Provided that not more than 25 per cent of the
total appropriations from all funds of the State shall be raised by real and personal property taxes, which shall be assessed according to full cash value. The legislature (A.B. 2442) revised the School Code to give effect to the new constitutional provisions.
The
following were the outstanding changes that related to the financing of schools: 1.
Eliminated all county taxes for elementary and
secondary schools. 2.
State general fund was to be used to take the
place of former county school taxes. 3.
All the provisions of the 1920 amendment were to
be maintained, except that the state was to furnish the total amount of sixty dollars per child in the elementary schools and ninety dollars per child in the high schools.
The provisions of the 1933 amendment called also for the restoration to the local and county tax rolls of "operative" property of the public service corporations formerly subject to the state gross receipts tax.
The
evaluation of this property was to be made by the state board of equalization and not by the local assessors.
Through
this change most local districts were relieved somewhat in their tax burdens.
The state, under this system, financed
”76,4 per cent of the expenditures for the elementary schools and 49.1 per cent of the expenditures for the high schools in 1933-34, or 62,8 per cent of the expenditures for all public schools Increased basis for state taxation.
The passage of
the Riley-Stewart Bill permitted the state to resort to other bases of taxation than property. inheritance taxes v/ere increased.
As early as 1915,
In 1923 a two-cents-per-
gallon gasoline tax v/as levied and increased to three cents in 1927.
Franchise taxes on corporations and banks as well
as taxes on the gross premiums of insurance companies were enacted by the legislature.
The general sales tax of 1933
consisted of two and one-half per cent but was increased to three per cent in 1935.
This tax was adopted primarily
1 Study of Local School Units in California (Sacramento, California: California State department of Education, 1937), p. 44.
56
to supply funds for educational purposes that had previously been furnished by the counties. operative in June of 1935. one-fourth the Federal tax.
The Income Tax became
The rates were approximately All employees of the state,
counties, and local governments, in addition to the normal subjects, were taxable under the measure. State support for the school year 1930-31 for elementary and high schools and junior colleges was 15.2 per cent of the total district receipts. increased to 43.5 per cent.
By 1935 it had
District support had declined
during the same period from 43.4 to 33.4 per cent.
County
subsidies declined from 22 to 2.2 per cent.1 Under present apportionment methods, such elementary district received seven hundred dollars from the state elementary school fund for each 35, or fraction thereof, units of average daily attendance, except that the fraction of 35 above the first unit of 35 may not be less than one pupil in average daily attendance.
The same amount is
2 received from the state general fund.
A minimum of $1400
can thus be assured to each elementary district having an A.D.A. of at least five.
1 Ibid., p. 44.
2
School Code, State of California (Sacramento, California: 1 9 5 7 ) , p. 238.
Due to this fact many smaller districts can maintain schools with a curtailed program on the funds received from the state only.
During the school year of 1934-35, 1,624
elementary districts or 59 per cent of the elementary dis tricts in the state levied no local district tax, either for maintenance or building purposes.
At the end of the same
year 4 per cent of the high school districts levied no dis trict tax.1
In 1935-36, no district maintenance or building
taxes were levied in 1,260 (or 46.5 per cent) of the elem entary school districts. Elementary2
Districts Maintaining Schools
Districts levying No school taxes
1931-32
2,755
Number 966
1932-33
2,736
1,369
50.0
1933-34
2,747
1,587
57.8
1934-35
2,735
1,624
59.4
1955-36
2,708
1,260
46.5
Per cent 36.2
The above does not include some 600 districts that were component parts of union or joint union districts.
1 Ibid., p. 46. o Interim Committee of Twenty-Five of the California Conference on Government and Taxation: Report on the Public School System of California N o . 75, October 18, 1937, p . 2$.
In 1935-56 no district maintenance tax was levied by any district in the counties of Alpine, Amador, Mono, or Shasta, and in not more than 10 per cent of the districts in the counties of Calaveras, El Dorado, Nevada, Trinity, and Tuolomne.
In fourteen counties fewer than 20 per cent
of the elementary districts levied a district maintenance tax. The number of high school districts levying no district maintenance tax has been as follows:^* 1931-32
0
1932-33
6
1933-34
10
1934-35
12
1935-36
6
SCHOOL ATTENDANCE FROM 1929 TO 1938 An analysis of the attendance of pupils in the California public schools presented some interesting trends. Table VI
shows the kindergarten A.D.A. together with
the state enrollment.
Evidently with the advent of the
depression, the birth rate declined because approximately five years after its beginning the average attendance fell off.
The low point was reached in 1934-35 and it was only
59
TABLE VI KINDERGARTEN AVERAGE DAILY ATTENDANCE AND STATE ENROLLMENT-*-
A* 0 *A*
State enrollment
1928-29
40,444
79,256
1929-30
43,267
82,283
1930-31
43,266
81,526
1931-32
42,726
78,573
1932-33
40,212
74,447
1933-34
36,411
64,910
1934-35
34,817
63,925
1935-36
34,944
64,669
1936-37
34,975
63,631
1937-38
37,158
65,110
Year
1 Taken from reports in office of State Department of Education, Sacramento, California.
60
in 1937-38 that an increase was evidenced. The whole picture of average daily attendance is presented in Table
VII and in Figures 3 , 4
and 5.
The
peak in the elementary and kindergarten was reached in 1931-32 and the low was reached in 1935-36.
With the ex
ception of 1935, there was a consistent and rather rapid increase of pupils in the secondary schools*
Between 1929
and 1932 the junior colleges more than doubled in attendance. There was a slight decline from 1934 to 1937 which may have been due to economic pressure in the homes forcing these pupils to seek employment.
By 1938 the A.D.A. in the junior
colleges was 22,811, over three times that of 1928-29. Incidentally, in 1938-39 the A.D.A. was over four times that of 1929. If the total A.D.A. as presented in Figure
is studied,
it shows an increase of 174,818 pupils from 1928-29 to 1937-38.
There was a drop during 1935 which almost extended
down to the 1932 level.
Then the attendance began to rise
once more in 1936 and from that time on the rate of increase was faster than from 1929 to 1932. Table VUI was included to show that A.D.A. does not mean enrollment and that actually more pupils were attending school than shown in the average daily attendance figures. Table VII should be noted in conjunction with the percentages given in Table VICE.
61
TABLE VII AVERAGE DAILY ATTENDANCE, CALIFORNIA PUBLIC SCHOOLS 1928- 29 TO 1938-•39a
Year
Elementaryx
High School"
Junior College
"»:
Total
1928-29 1929-30 1930-31 1931-32 1932-33
622,791 636,247 648,535 655,455 651,236
274,773 296,927 319,130 377,033 356,677
7,218 8,568 10,192 15,693 18,778
904,782 941,742 977,857 1,008,181 1,026,691
1933-34 1934-35 1935-36 1936-37 1937-38 1937-38*
646,931 628,181 622,267 629,848 631,250 631,250
369,998 366,104 381,062 398,163 425,539 425,539
17,126 17,706 17,486 17,894 19,584 22,811
1,034,055 1,011,991 1,020,830 1,045,905 1,076,373 1,079,600
1 Including Kindergarten and excluding Junior High School. 2 Including Junior High School. a Taken from a Table in Tax Digest of March, 1940, p. 91. * Junior College A.D.A. corrected from figures in California State Report on Apportionments, 1939.
Thousands
62 Kindergarten and Elementary including 7th and 8th grades
Secondary including 9th grade
Junior College
1929
30
31
32
33
34
Am U® A.« FIGURE 5
35
36
37
38
Thousands
..
SI ementary including kindergarten -u exclud. Jr.Hijgfc
l y O A ^ M . A ^ A/\AA'/^A'/VV\-'VAy\A/V\^
^AAa/ulaa^/iaA\
,
Secondary including Junior High
excluding Junior college
4
-
33
BLEMSRXABX
MB
34
35
36
SECONDARY A.D.A.
FIGURE 4
37
38
Thousand
/,ogo
TOTAL A'
GE DAILY ATTENDANCE
X H X j \| FIGURE 5
|
65
TABLE VIII RELATION OF A.D.A. TO KNBOLLMENT, 1937 Elementary schools
Per cent
High schools
Per cent
Bakersfield
94.7
Santa Rosa
101.6
Oroville
94.7
Long Beach
101.5
Riverside
94.7
Watsonville
97.5
Woodland
92.8
Albany
97.1
Tulare
92.4
Vallejo
94.6
Santa Monica
86.0
Oroville
85.0
Long Beach
85.6
Piedmont
84.9
San Diego
85.2
San Luis Obispo
84.8
Vallejo
85.1
Monterey
84.3
Watsonville
84.0
Chico
80.4
Average of all cities
88.5
89.3
1 Data taken from Interim Committee Report on Public School System of California No. 75, Appendix A, 1937, p. 4. The percentage which A.D.A. was of state enrollment for the five cities having the highest ratio, the average for the state, and the five cities having the lowest ratio, are shown. The ratios in Los Angeles, San Francisco, and Oakland are close to the average for the state in both elementary and high schools.
DISTRICT EXPENDITURES PER A.D.A. Pi strict expenditures defined.
In California in 1935,
there were 3,162 elementary districts and 295 high school districts, making a total of 3,457.
There were 4,028
elementary schools, and 525 high schools, a total of 4,553. This does not include junior colleges.1 District expenditures are those funds expended by the district itself.
They are classified into current expendi
tures which include disbursements for administration, teachers1 salaries, other expenses, operation of plant, maintenance of plant, other auxiliary charges, library, special expenses,
and transportation.
Capital outlay is the
second main division of expenditures.
District expenditures
do not include those funds spent through the office of the county superintendent of schools. District expenditures per pupil in average daily attendance.
District expenditures per unit of average daily
attendance is the usual means of sho?/ing the costs per pupil. It shows the amount spent in relation to the number served. The usual method of reporting average daily attendance costs is to include the junior high school grades in the secondary
p. 11.
Study of Local School Units in California, op. cit., "~
67
level because these grades are financed and administered by the high school district. Elementary expenditures decreased.
Table IX presents
the district expenditures for current requirements, capital outlay, and their combined total.
The actual current
expenditures reached their peak in 1931, declined to their lowest level in 1934, and during 1937-1938 were approximately at the same level as in 1928-1929.
On an A.D.A. basis, the
peak of expenditure also was attained in 1931, while the low point occurred in 1934.
In 1938 the average cost per
pupil in average daily attendance was 86 cents below that of 1929. The peak of capital outlay v/as reached in 1937 after a record low point during 1933-34.
During the height of
the depression, schools refrained from capital outlay as a means of economy, and the table clearly displays how intensively this measure was carried out. Damage caused by the earthquake in Southern California in 1933, and the compulsory earthquake-proofing of school buildings forced upon school districts by the state legislature during the same year resulted in an intensive program of rebuilding and strengthening of schools.1
This
^ J. C. Bennett, Tax Digest (March, 1940), p. 91.
TABLE IX
ELEMENTARY DISTRICT EXPENDITURES INCLUDING KINDERGARTEN Expenditure Current expenditures
excluding
Capital outlay
Total
Current
seventh
per
A.D.A.
and
eighth
grades
Capital
expenditures
outlay
Total $118.05
1929
$61,649,411
$11,869,820
$73,519,231
$98.99
$19.06
1930
64,570,581
11,494,163
76,064,745
101.49
18.06
119.55
1931
66,435,115
9,484,954
75,920,069
102.44
14.63
117.07 107.68
1932
63,924,610
6,651,421
70,576,030
97.53
10.15
1933
56,439,624
3,238,013
59,677,637
86.67
4.97
91.64
1934
55,098,938
2,864,958
57,963,895
85.17
4.43
89.60
1935
56,217,984
8,583,395
64,801,379
90.13
13.66
103.79
1936
57,622,990
13,832,577
71,455,567
92.60
22.22
114.82
1937
59,003,620
18,090,673
77,094,293
93.68
28.73
122.41
1938
61,948,734
10,234,667
72,183,401
98.13
16.18
114.31
CT> G3
69 program reached its climax in 1937 when #28.73 was spent per A.D.A. on capital outlay. Total expenditures per A.D.A. were at their lowest in 1934 and although they exhibited an upf/ard trend after that time the costs in 1938 were below those of 1929, as shown in Figure 6.
Secondary expenditures sharply dropped. expenditures presented an interesting picture.
Secondary Table X
shows that the low point of depression retrenchments in 1934 found the current expenditures only 11 per cent below those of 1929 but the cost per A.D.A. was #50.90 lower if the junior high grades were included.
In 1938 the
current cost per A.D.A. was #157.79 as compared to #191.79 in 1929.
Figure 7 presents the picture of secondary
exp enditures. The highest point in capital outlay was reached in *•*: .' ; . •* . ’• -* . # .
«*
...
/ •
X?'
.
b
^
1930, but as was the case v/ith the elementary, the lowest expenditure was reported in 1934.
Capital outlay was
approximately five times greater in 1937 than in 1934 due to the earthquake and perhaps to an increase of about 28,000 pupils in average daily attendance.
//6
iNCLUifr:o-_i:.
TABLE X SECONDARY
DISTRICT
EXPENDITURES
Expenditure
■t
Current expenditures
Capital outlay
including Total
per A.D.A.
Junior High
School
* Current
Capital
expenditures
outlay
Total
1929
$52,698,673
$12,723,295
$65,421,968
$191.79
$46.31
$238.10
1930
57,048,963
14,330,858
71,379,281
192.14
48.26
242.40
1931
•60,272,831
14,310,290
74,583,121
188.87
44.84
233.71
1932
60,041,587
8,352,781
68,394,368
178.16
24.78
202.94
1933
52,843,509
4,130,649
56,974,158
148.18
11.58
159.76
1934
52,098,141
3,403,038
55,501,179
140.80
9.20
150.00
1935
54,295,144
6,789,496
61,084,640
148.31
18.55
166.86
1936
57,633,216
13,717,786
71,351,002
151.24
36.00
187.24
1937
61,132,578
18,843,591
79,976,169
153.53
47.33
200.86
1938
67,147,767
12,812,356
79,960,123
157.79
30.10
187.89
72
Current Expend
✓ i A A r J A V s y s - > y s y / l A / A i / V A a ^ / v ■A/U - < A y
-*_rt ’
Outlay-
1929
SEC
-4
-j—
i
73
The total expenditures per A.D.A. were $88.10 less in 1934, the low point, than in 1929 and in 1938 were $50.31 less than those of 1929. On the secondary level expendi.'Jy: _ . ( . ;.,V ( .. tures per A.D.A. decreased sharply at the beginning of the economic depression.
They recovered somewhat from the depths
of 1934, but by 1938 they had failed to regain the pre depression level by rather a wide margin. Junior college expenditures increased but were less per A. D. A.. paradox.
The junior college presented an interesting
Expenditures in 1938 were over twice those of 1929.
At the same time the average daily attendance was over three times that of 1929.
As a result, the expenditures per pupil
had decreased; the current expenditures were $73.19 lower and the total expenditures were $86.89 less.
The peak of
capital outlay was reached in 1937 as contrasted to the low point in 1930.
Table XI together with Figure 8 show the
trend. The peak in capital outlay expenditures in 1931-32 was brought about by the purchase of the original buildings for Los Angeles Junior College.
It began operating in 1931-
32 and the initial capital outlay amounted to $690,088. Its total expenditures that year were $1,357,020.
The peak
in capital outlay in 1936-37 was caused by building programs at three schools.
Los Angeles spent §728,620, Glendale
spent $314,970, and
Sacramento spent $377,220.
This accounted
for $1,420,810 of the total of $1,670,741, or approximately 85 per cent. All education expenditures per A.D.A. were reduced. '' V - •‘ ’ •' ; 1,"T ^ ' - ' l:Tl*111 i '■ ■*, -i *W V During the ten-year period from 1929 to 1938 district expendi tures per pupil in average attendance were lowered. They dipped down during the years of the economic depression. The schools made drastic retrenchments particularly in the realm of capital outlay during the leanest years.
Although
expenditures per pupil inclined upwards during the last three years, they failed to reach the 1929 level at the end of the decade, and with the exception of the elementary level, were greatly reduced.
•.
75 TABLE XI JUNIOR COLLEGE DISTRICT EXPENDITURES PER A.D.A.
Year
Current expenditure
1929 1930 1931 1932 1933 1934 1935 1936 1937 1938
$1,765,638 2,247,015 2,439,132 3,298,434 3,227,345 3,203,547 3,132,947 3,325,428 3,573,037 3,910,567
Capital outlay 1
303,732 239,189 381,094 1,111,011 571,003 600,285 828,950 921,139 1,670,741 647,328
Expenditure per 1929 1930 1931 1932 1933 1934 1935 1936 1937 1938
$244.62 262.26 239.32 210.18 171.70 187.06 176.94 190.18 199.68 171.43
$42.07 26.75 37.39 70.80 30.37 35.05 46.82 52.68 93.37 28.37
Total $2,069,360 2,476,204 2,820,225 4,409,446 3,798,348 3,803,832 3,961,897 4,246,567 5,243,778 4,557,895 D •A. $286.69 288.01 276.71 280.98 202.07 222.11 223.76 242.86 293.05 199.80
A.D.A. 7, 218 8,568 10,192 15,693 18,796 17,126 17,706 17,486 17,894 22,811
Expend
Capital
JUNIOR
COLLEGE
DISTRICT
EXPENDITURES
FIGURE 8 7
PER
A.
D.
A
Outlay
Debt service has been excluded.
Although debt service
has been excluded from this study, Table XII v/as included to give an idea of the amounts that are spent for interest on bonds,
A tax is levied on the district by the county •; . r > ' •' r l l . 4, . = ‘ ■, ‘ * - • officers for the payment of interest and redemption of bonds. •V
‘ . ', ~
...
r
.
•:
A ' ' *
* ■'
■-
i
.'*■
’
*
r ^
..
.
While levied on the district this tax produces no revenue for the district, AMOUNTS OF E DUG AT I(IFAL HJNDS FROM iHEIR VARIOUS SOURCES The "Keesling
Reportt,J- v/as investigated as well as
Tax Digest reports but both were found to be incomplete.
It
was necessary to go directly to the California State Depart ment of Education in Sacramento to secure complete data from original sources. The governing board of the school district sets up and approves the budget.
This budget includes an itemized state
ment of estimated expenditures and receipts.
After the anti
cipated revenues from outside sources have been estimated, the balance necessary to meet the budget is calculated.
The
calculation determines the tax rate unless it must be reduced to fall within the tax limitations.
Francis V. Keesling, Chairman, Interim Committee of Twenty-five of the California Conference on Government and Taxation, Report on Public School Systems of California. No. 75 (Sacramento, California: 1937)’.
TABLE XII
DISTRICT FUNDS EXPENDED FOR BOND INTEREST1
Year
Secondary*5
Elementarya
Junior
Total
78,000*
$10,838,208*
4,780,000*
76,000*
10,859,095*
5,900,446*
4,770,000*
74,000*
10,744,446*
1931-32
5,726,706*
4,768,000*
72,000*
10,566,706*
1932-33
5,493,138
4,767,000
70,894
10,331,770
1933-34
5,237,706
4,600,000
68,603
9,906,835
1934-35
5,579,720
4,941,243
77,470
10,598,433
1935-36
5,126,614
4,459,176
70,181
9,655,951
1936-37
5,075,981
4,542,367
96,620
9,714,968
1937-38
4,816,445
4,259,089
88,519
9,164,058
1928-29
$5,978,208*
$4,782,000*
1929-30
6,003,095*
1930-31
$
College
1 Taken a
from
data
in
Tax
D i g e s t , March,
Including
Kindergarten
Including
Junior
High.
by
California
* Estimated
the
and
excluding
1940. Junior
High.
Taxpayers’ Association.
\6!
07V.7/ 21132V fWM// 99793 023 102029 178 IS 6/6 377 97,86/ 292 968 371611. 15L51 22707 7/639 1905 161997 39.02 7/868 2/Ml22 U.3/5 89/ 7591.61 2971/3 5J 236879 12069/ u m i U 7m i 15/56 / 7323 109591 9958/0 1778/9 /572 67/ L sm i 926/12 8/72,08 9582 62 0/28/ 01 696// 992 9199
Los Angeles Madera Marin Mariposa Mendocino Merced Modoc Mono Monterey Napa Nevada Orange Placer Plumas Riverside Sacramento San Benito San Bernardino San Diego San Francisco San Joaquin San Luis Obispo San Mateo
mm
Santa Clara Santa Cruz Shasta Sierra Siskiyou Solano Sonoma Stanislaus Sutter Tehama T rinity Tulare Tuolumne Ventura
Kina'.) c ~Tafc)Ium 92
C