AN ANALYSiS OF SELECTED ASPECTS
OF THE PUBLIC SCHWL FINANCE
SYSTEM IN MICHIGAN

Thais {or the Degree of Ph. D.
MICHIGAN STATE UNWERSiTY
Jeung Rhee
1961

 

W4 Lillie WWW/ii I

850 2670

This is to certify that the
L j;- .: jhe'sii Entitled.
"‘”Zh”in5t§?is‘o€ Selected ASpects
- of-the.Pubiic School Finance System
in Michigan

r.—... - _.. ._ 9.. . ._ ‘

_ ».. . ,
_,. .. .. v . no. «9 '-

presented by

Jeung Rhee

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

_Eh.D.._ degree in Mn

Dr. Donald J. Leu

'}

\
( «_ ').I’ 1,111,: - ._,“‘ (K—
F‘\ e

#4" e L.
Major profeésor

Date August 3, I961

 

0-169

LIBRARY

Michigan State
University

 

PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record.
TO AVOID FINES return on or before date due.

DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE ll

Eli“: 5 PM
' 2'" v in

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

J

 

MSU Is An Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution
cMMuns-od

“ii

_._: a.”

 

ABSTRACT

AN ANALYSIS OF SELECTED ASPECTS
OF THE PUBLIC SCHOOL FINANCE
SYSTEM IN MICHIGAN

by Jeung Rhee

I. The Purpose

 

This study proposed to examine quantitatively selected
aspects of the state public school finance system in Michigan.
More specifically, the main purposes of the study were:

1. To analyze quantitatively the differences in each
of the selected financial and educational factors among
selected groups (types) of K-12 school districts classified
in terms of financial need, ability, and effort.

2. To identify the general relationships between each
of the selected financial and educational factors and each of

the three variables of financial need, ability, and effort.

II. Methodologyp

1. The basic data of this study were derived from the
Annual Reports for 1959-60 and the answers to the Special
Questionnaires sent to the State Department of Public In-

struction from the 535 K—12 school districts in Michigan.

Jeung Rhee
2. (a) Twenty-two groups (types) of school districts
comprising 520 K-lZ school districts were selected.

(b) Five financial factors and five educational
factors were chosen for the purpose of statistical analysis.

(c) The statistical method deemed appropriate for
examining the differences of the selected factors among the
22 different types of school districts was the analysis of‘
variance.

(d) The Spearman rank correlation coefficient tech-
nique was employed in order to identify the general re-
lationships between the differences of each of the selected
factors and each of the three variables of financial need,

ability, and effort.
III. Results

1. All null hypotheses of no significant differences
among group means of each of the selected factors were re-
jected by the F tests at the .05 level of significance;
that is, the differences of each of the ten selected factors
did, in fact, differ significantly.

2. The tests of the significance of differences among
group means of each of the selected factors by use of the "t"
at the .01 level of significance revealed that:

(a) The least number of significant differences

re:

 

 

existed
the tote

total nu

existed .
the totaj

receipts.

differenc

tnan that

the .10 a
(
in each 0
was eithe
U
relatiOns?

and eduCa‘

(c

a

lh‘JQISe .‘

 

Iv
' Conc‘
\:

The n

ClusiOns .

 

Jeung Rhee
existed in educational factor 2, that is, the proportion of
the total number of teachers holding certificates to the
total number of the teaching staff.

(b) The greatest number of significant differences
existed in financial factor 5, that is, the proportion of
the total amount of general fund property taxes to the total
receipts.

(c) Generally viewed, the total number of significant
differences of the selected educational factors was much less
than that of the selected financial factors.

3. The Spearman rank correlation coefficient tests at
the .10 and .02 levels of significance indicated that:

(a) The most contributive variable to the differences
ixteach of the selected financial and educational factors
was either financial need or financial ability.

(b) Financial effort did not have any significant
relationships with the differences of the selected financial
and educational factors.

(c) The directions of the relationships, positive or

inverse, differed according to the factors observed.

IV. Conclusions

The findings of the present study led to the following con-

clusions:

Jeung Rhee

1. Observed in terms of the ideals of equal educational
opportunity, the present Michigan State Aid Formula is far
from being sufficient or adequate.

2. More effective measures of school district reorgani-
zation and more positive ways of adjusting the disparity in
financial ability are necessary to attain the ideals of
equal educational opportunity.

3. Further investigations need to be conducted to find
out if the existing policies and practices of "participation
millage" requiring local effort and initiative, under the
present Michigan State Aid Formula, really do provide an
effective basis for the sound development of public school

education in Michigan.

AN ANALYSIS OF SELECTED ASPECTS
OF THE PUBLIC SCHOOL FINANCE

SYSTEM IN MICHIGAN

By

Jeung Rhee

A THESIS

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

College of Education

1961

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The writer wishes to express his sincere appreciation
and gratitude to those who have contributed to the development
and completion of this study, which was initiated as a
university project.

Special acknowledgement is due to Dr. Donald J. Leu,
the chairman of the doctoral committee, who has given the
writer constant encouragement, direction, and patient counsel
at every step throughout the study.

Grateful appreciation is extended:

To other members of the doctoral committee, Dr. Fred J.
Vescolani, Dr. John X. Jamrich, Dr. James W. Costar, and
Dr. Wesley R. Fishel, who gave many valuable suggestions and
advice.

To Dr. Karl T. Hereford, Dr. Stanley E. Hecker, and Dr.
James H. Stapleton for their suggestions and guidance con-
cerning the theoretical framework, data treatment, IBM com-
PUtation process, and statistical analysis of the study.

To Dr. Elwood P. Lawrence, Dr. Donald W. Urquidi, other
faculty members, his fellow graduate students, and Mrs. Jean
NiCholas, who gave generously of their time and effort.

To the State Superintendent of Public Instruction and his

Staff. the members of the Michigan State Legislature, and

ii

 

 

 

 

I Hinged]

the Michigan Education Association for their understanding
and helpful assistance in the collection of the data and
the development of the study.

To the Korean Foundation and to the Board of Trustees
of Michigan State University for their financial support,
which made the completion of the study possible, and for
granting an education fellowship and scholarships during
the writer's period of study at the University.

Finally, the writer is deeply indebted to his wife,
Byong Seon, and his children, Jea In, Yeong, and Hong, and to
Dr. and Mrs. Raymond A. Olson and Mr. and Mrs. Harry L.
Kitselman, for their inspiration and understanding during

the writer's stay in the United States.

iii

 

Mi

Su

III, CLAs
In:

C12

C15

 

 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

CHAPTER PAGE
I. INTRODUCTION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Statement of the Problem. . . . . . . . . . 1
Definition of Terms Used. . . . . . . . . . 4
Procedures. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Delimitations of the Study. . . . . . . . . 9

Organization of the Study . . . . . . . . . 10
Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
II. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE. . . . . . . . . . . 12
Local Control of Education and Equal

Educational Opportunity . . . . . . . . . 13

Public School Finance and the Quantity
and Quality of Education. . . . . . . . . 31
Michigan State Aid Formula. . . . . . . . . 42
Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
III. CLASSIFICATION OF THE SCHOOL DISTRICTS. . . . 62
Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
Classification by Need. . . . . . . . . . . 64
Classification by Ability . . . . . . . . . 69
Classification by Effort. . . . . . . . . . 73

smary O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 7 8

iv

 

 

:1;
.-

.3?

Ar

 

CHAPTER PAGE

IV. DESIGN OF THE STUDY . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79

Selection of the School Districts . . . . . 79

Selection of Financial and Educational

Factors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80
Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83
Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87

V. ANALYSIS OF SELECTED FINANCIAL FACTORS . . . 88
Analysis of Financial Factor 1 . . . . . . 89
Analysis of Financial Factor 2 . . . . . . 95

Analysis of Financial Factor 3 . . . . . . 100
Analysis of Financial Factor 4 . . . . . . 104
Analysis of Financial Factor 5 . . . . . . 109
Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113
VI. ANALYSIS OF SELECTED EDUCATIONAL FACTORS . . 119
Analysis of Educational Factor 1 . . . . . 119
Analysis of Educational Factor 2 . . . . . 124
Analysis of Educational Factor 3 . . . . . 129
Analysis of Educational Factor 4 . . . . . 134
Analysis of Educational Factor 5 . . . . . 139

Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 144

CHAPTER PAGE
VII. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND SUGGESTIONS . . . . 150
Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150
Conclusions and Suggestions . . . . . . . 154
BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 156

APPENDICES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 161

vi

 

F I
a.
Eu

III.

V,
VI
1‘7 T

s
O

‘

)

I1?I‘

a :
*0

Fe:

Per

”1

Ma;

 

 

 

 

TABLE

II.

III.

IV.

VI.

VII.

VIII.

LIST OF TABLES

Per Cent of Support from State and Federal
Funds, 1890 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Per Cent of Support from State and Federal
Funds, 1956 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Major Kinds of State Aid Funds for Elementary
and Secondary Schools in Michigan in 1947-
48 and in 1957-58 . . . . . . . . . . . .
Need Distribution of the 535 K—12 School
Districts in Michigan . . . . . . . . . . .
Ability Distribution of the 535 K-12 School
Districts in Michigan . . . . . . . . . . .
Effort Distribution of the 535 K-12 School
Districts in Michigan . . . . . . . . . . .
Classification of the 535 K—12 School
Districts in Michigan in Terms of Need,
Ability, and Effort . . . . . . . . . . . .
The 22 Selected Groups of K-12 School
Districts Classified in Terms of Need,

Ability, and Effort . . . . . . . . . . . .

vii

PAGE

29

30

53

66

7O

74

77

81

TABLE

IX.

XI.

XII.

XIII.

XIV.

XVII.

The 22 Selected Groups of School Districts

Arrayed in Order of the Group Averages

of Need, Ability, and Effort. . . . .

Summary: Analysis of Variance of Financial

Factor 1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Comparison of Annual Current Expenditures

Per Pupil (in tables of "t"). . . . .

Summary: Analysis of Variance of Financial

Factor 2. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Comparison of the Average Salaries of

Teachers (in tables of "t") . . . . .

Summary: Analysis of Variance of Financial

Factor 3 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0

Comparison of the Proportion of the Capital

Outlay Budget in Relation to the Total

Expenditures (in tables of "t") . . .

Summary: Analysis of Variance of Financial

Factor 4. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Comparison of the Proportion of the Total

State Revenue Receipts in Relation to

the Total Receipts (in tables of "t")

viii

PAGE

90

91

92

96

97

101

102

105

107

TABLE

XVIII.

XIX.

XXII.

XXIII.

XXIV.

PAGE

Summary: Analysis of Variance of Financial

Factor 5. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110
Comparison of the Proportion of the Total

General Fund Property Taxes in Relation

to the Total Receipts (in tables of "t"). . 111
The Groups Having the Largest Difference in

Each of the Five Financial Factors. . . . . 116
Tests of the Significance of Rank Corre-

lation Coefficient on Each of the

Selected Financial Factors and Each

of the Three Variables of Need, Ability,

and Effort. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117
Summary: Analysis of Variance of Educational

Factor 1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121
Comparison of the Proportion of the Teachers

Holding M. A. Degrees or Above to the Total

Teaching Staff (in tables "t"). . . . . . . 122
Summary: Analysis of Variance of Educational

Factor 2. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125
Comparison of the Proportion of Teachers

Holding Certificates to the Total Number

of Teaching Staff (in tables of "t"). . . . 127

ix

{HES

 

TABLE PAGE
XXVI. Summary: Analysis of Variance of Educational
Factor 3. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 130
XXVII. Comparison of the Proportion of the Secondary
Teachers Teaching in Subjects Outside of
Certified Major and Minors to the Total
Number of Secondary Teaching Staff
(in tables of "t"). . . . . . . . . . . . . 132
XXVIII; Summary: Analysis of Variance of Educational
Factor 4. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135
XXIX; Comparison of the Proportion of Teachers
Receiving Over $7,000 Annual Salary to
the Total Number of Teaching Staff
(in tables of "t"). . . . . . . . . . . . . 136
XXX. Summary: Analysis of Variance of Educational
Factor 5. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 140
XXXI. Comparison of the Pupil-Teacher Ratio
(in tables of "t"). . . . . . . . . . . . . 141
XXXII- The Groups Having the Largest Difference
in Each of the Five Educational Factors . . 146
XXXIII; Tests of the Significance of Rank Correlation
' Coefficient on Each of the Selected Educa—
tional Factors and Each of the Three Varia-

bles of Need, Ability, and Effort . . . . . 148

LIST OF FIGURES

FIGURE PAGE

1. A Theoretical Frame of Reference for

Classifying the School Districts in

Terms of Need, Ability, and Effort . . . . 65
2. Need (Membership) Distribution (535 K-12

School Districts in Michigan . . . . . . . 67
3. Ability (SEV per Pupil) Distribution (535

K-12 School Districts in Michigan . . . . 71
4. Effort (Tax Rate) Distribution (535 K-12

School Districts in Michigan) . . . . . . 75

xi

I. APPENDIX A

Table

A-I

A-II

A-III

A-IV

IT—VI

LIST OF APPENDICES

Page
RELATED DATA . . . . . . . . . . . . 161
Group Averages of the Membership
of the 22 Types of School
Districts. . . . . . . . . . . . . 162
Group Averages of the State
Receipts of the 22 Types
of School Districts. . . . . . . . 163

Group Averages of the Total General

Fund Property Tax Receipts of the

22 Types of School Districts . . . 164
Group Averages of the Total

Receipts of the 22 Types

of School Districts. . . . . . . . 165
Group Averages of the Total Current

(Operating) Expenditures of the

22 Types of School Districts . . . 166
Group Averages of Total Capital

Outlay Expenditures of the 22

Types of School Districts. . . . . 167

xii

Table Page

A—VII Group Averages of the Total Expen-

ditures of the 22 Types of

School Districts . . . . . . . . . 168
A-VIII Group Averages of Total Amount of

Salaries of Teachers of the 22

Types of School Districts. . . . . 169
A-IX Group Averages of the Number of

Teachers of the 22 Types of

School Districts . . . . . . . . . 170
A-X Group Averages of the Number of

Teachers Holding M. A. or

Above Degrees of the 22 Types

of School Districts. . . . . . . . 171
A-XI Group Averages of the Number of

Teachers Holding Certification

of the 22 Types of School

Districts. . . . . . . . . . . . . 172
4A-XII Group Averages of the Total Number

of Secondary Teachers Teaching

in Subjects Outside of Certified

Areas of the 22 Types of School

Districts. . . . . . . . . . . . . 173

xiii

Table Page
A-XIII Group Averages of the Number of
Teachers Receiving Over $7,000

Annual Salary in the 22 Groups . . . . . 174

II. APPENDIX B THE SPECIAL QUESTIONNAIRES . . . . . . 175
Part I General Information . . . . . . . . . 176
Part II Elementary School Information . . . . 182
Part III Secondary School Information . . . . . 184

xiv

CHAPTE R I
I NT RODUCTI ON
I. Statement 9f_the Problem

In the United States, there are two concepts that have
been considered to be the bases that formulate the educa-
tional policies and school finance systems among states:
namely, the concept of "local control of education" and the
concept of "equal educational opportunity." With the two
concepts, there have been evolved the diversity of educa-'
tional systems and policies and the variety of financial
practices among states. Thus, the state aid formulas vary
widely among states.‘ '

In Michigan, the state aid funds are distributed in ac—
cordance with the assumptions held concerning the relation—
ships among the variables of financial need, ability, and
effort among school districts.1 In fact, the policies and
practices of (1) the "gross allowance" on the basis of
membership, (2) the "participation millage" on the basis of
local effort, and (3) the "deductible millage" on the basis

of ability, are the main elements that, along with other

 

1The State of Michigan, Sections 8, 10, 11, 15, and 35 of
the State Aid Act of 1959-60. (Act Number 312 of the Public

Acts of 1957, as amended.)

measures, characterize the present system of financing
Michigan public schools. These policies and practices can
be called the reflections of the concepts of equal edu—
cational opportunity and local control of education. The
results of the Michigan public school finance system are,
therefore, supposedly expected to be in accordance with the
concept of local control of education and the ideals of
equal educational opportunity.

However, the actual results have been the object of
much concern to the people of Michigan. It has often been
pointed out that the Michigan public school financial system
is still far from being adequate, and a number of new pro-
posals have been suggested each year by different groups
with different interests and purposes. In this connection,
one of the continual endeavors of paramount importance
should be the critical examination and true understanding of
the financial and educational differences existing among
school districts.

With these considerations in mind, the present study
purports to examine quantitatively selected aspects of
the State public school financial system in Michigan. More

specifically, the study seeks:

1. To identify and to classify all twelfth grade
school districts in Michigan, in terms of

financial need, ability, and effort.2

2. To analyze quantitatively the differences in
each of the selected financial and educational
factors among selected types of K—12 school
districts classified in terms of financial

need, ability, and effort.

3. To identify the general relationships, in terms
of Low, Medium, and High concepts,3 between each
of the three variables of financial need, ability,
and effort and the differences in each of the
selected financial and educational factors among

different types of school districts.

4. Insofar as the evidence warrants, to suggest a
set of frames of reference for further investi-
gations that would be useful in improving the
present financial planning in Michigan, in the

light of the results of the analyses.

See: The Definitions of Terms used.

As to the criteria of Low, Medium, and High, see: Chap-
ter III, Classification of the School Districts.

II. Definition g£_Terms Used

 

Public schools. Public schools, as used in this study,
refer to the Michigan public elementary and secondary
schools in school districts which maintain grades of kinder-
garten through twelfth. Those schools which are fully sub-
sidized from federal or state funds, and whose programs are

under federal or state supervision, are excluded.

School district. A school district is a quasi-municipal
corporation created by the Michigan state legislature for the
purpose of operating and maintaining public schools having
grades of kindergarten through twelfth, and whose boundaries
are not necessarily related to those of other local units of

government.

Type (2; category) 2f_school district. Type or cate-

gory of school district as used in this study is defined as

 

4References: (a) Michigan State Aid Act 1959-60 pp, 91;,
(b) Don Orth Tatroe, unpublished Doctoral dissertation, "A
Critical Examination of the State Aid Formula for Support of
Michigan Public Schools," Michigan State University, 1958,
pp. 6-7. (c) Merton James Turck, Jr., unpublished Doctoral
dissertation, "A Study of the Relationships Among the Factors
of Financial Need, Effort, and Ability in 581 High School
Districts in Michigan," Michigan State University, 1960, pp.
6-8. (d) Stanley E. Hecker, Your Michigan School Costs,
Michigan State University, 1960 (34pp.).

the representative characteristics common to a group of
school districts classified in terms of the three criteria--
Low, Medium, and High--in each of the three variables of

financial need, ability, and effort.

Public school finance system. The revenue and dis-
bursement system utilized by the state to support its ele-

mentary and secondary schools.

State aid Q£_SChOOl support. The distribution of the
money collected by the state on a state-wide basis to local

school districts in accordance with a statutory formula.

Financial need. The total resident membership, ex-

pressed in number of pupils of a school district.

Financial ability. The State Equalized Valuation (SEV)
expressed in dollars of a school district divided by the
total resident membership including resident pupils attend-

ing any public schools.

Financial effort. The total tax rate (allocated and
voted), which includes taxes for Operation, Building and
Sites, and Debt Retirement, expressed in mills levied in
a public school district for the purpose of financing the

public schools.

Membegship. Membership as used in this study is de-
fined as the number of pupils--registration plus receipts by
the Superintendent of Public Instruction in the Michigan
child accounting system--enrolled in the public school from

kindergarten to twelfth grade.

Pupil and school children. Pupil is defined as a child
in membership in a public school, and school children are

defined as children in membership in any school.

spate equalized valuation. The final appraisal of the
worth of the real and personal property in the school dis-

trict for tax purposes by the Michigan Tax Commission.

Mill. The value of a tenth of a cent or a thousandth
of a dollar. The term is used as a unit of local property

taxation.
III. Procedures

The following are the main points and the steps of the

procedures of this study.

Data. The basic data of this study are derived from the

 

Annual Reports for 1959-60 and the answers to the Special

7
Questionnaires,5 sent to the State Department of Public In-
struction from the 535 twelfth grade school districts in
Michigan. These data furnished for this study most of the

necessary information for its statistical analyses.
3

Review pf_the literature. A review of the literature on
educational administration, school finance, and other re-
lated topics was made. The presentation of the review of
the literature in this study is rather brief, but it is in-
tended to present basic points of consideration in inter-
preting the original data and the results of the statistical

analyses made.

District g1assif1gation criteria. On the basis of the
examination of the data of the 535 twelfth grade school
districts, three comparative classification criteria——Low,
Medium, and High—-in each of the three variables of financial

need, ability, and effort are established.

Classifgcation pf the school districts. The 535 school
districts are classified, applying the 27 classification
categories created by the combinations of the three criteria
in each of the variables of financial need, ability, and

effort.

 

5See Appendix B.

8

Selection pf the schoo1_districts. Since it is not the
major purpose of this study to show the characteristics
of one or two school districts particularly, the five types
(categories) of school districts which have less than five
school districts are excluded from further statistical
analysis in this study, thus eliminating four school dis—
tricts.

In addition, 11 school districts, including the Detroit
school system, are eliminated because of the incomplete
data available at the time of the study and because of the
unique size of the Detroit school districts. J

Therefore, the main analysis of this study in effect
deals with the 22 types of school districts, comprising the

remaining 520 school districts.

Selection p; financial and educational factors. After
several consultations with finance experts and profesSOrs of
educational administration and school finance at Michigan
State University, five financial factors and five educational

factors were selected from the data available.

Analysis. To determine statistically the significance
of the differences of financial and educational factors

between and among different types of school districts in

..___.__._..-—

Midhice
In orde

Low, Her

(Ii-"113

 

}_l

Michigan, the techniques of analysis of variance are employed.
In order to observe the general relationships, in terms of
Low, Medium, and High concepts, between each of the three
variables and the differences in each of the selected factors,

Spearman's rank correlation method is employed.

Conclusion. On the basis of the results of the fore-
going analyses, a summary and conclusions, and suggestions

for further investigations are made.

IV. Delimitations pf the Study

 

This study is delimited in the following ways:

1. The major data of this study were derived from
the Annual Reports for 1959-60 and the answers
to the Special Questionnaires furnished by the

535 twelfth grade school districts in Michigan.

2. The main analyses of the study deal with the 22
different types of school districts, comprising
the 520 school districts. Hence, any individual

school district is not the object of this study.

3. This study treats the selected financial and
educational factors. Thus, this study does not

intend to be comprehensive in itself.

10

4. The analyses are basically quantitative rather

than qualitative.

V. Organization pf the Study

 

This study is organized into seven chapters. Follow-
ing this introductory chapter, in Chapter II, the review of
the literature is presented. The chapter presents some
basic discussions on the topics of "local control of edu-
cation" and "equal educational opportunity," "school finance
and the quantity and quality of education," and the "Michigan
State Aid Formula." They are brief, but it is intended to
indicate some of the major issues in American education and
school finance today. The classification of the school
districts is presented in Chapter III. Chapter IV presents
the design of the study. The differences of financial
factors among different types of school districts in Michigan
are analyzed in Chapter V, and the differences of educational
factors in Chapter VI. Chapters V and VI consist of the
major analyses of this study. Chapter VII attempts to pre-

Sent an overall summary and conclusions of the study.

VI. Summary

The presentation, as a whole, reflects an attempt on

like part of the writer to submit the facts that might be

._._»

conduci'

 

 

finance

planting]
establis
first re
Standing

Si‘idieS

 

to be Du:

to Share

ll

' conducive to the future improvement of the public school
finance system in Michigan. It is believed that any proper
planning of financing public school education, to achieve
established goals and the ideals of educational opportunity,
first requires objective examinations and unbiased under-
standings of the related facts. There have been a number of
studies in this direction. Nevertheless, the search is yet

to be pursued. In this connection, the present study attempts

to share the contribution in meeting this demand.

 

‘ t
“F q 5
'° 5:-

'4‘». -

‘ I
Afl"n§,. ‘ f‘
:““‘"cb.'.-

 

 

 

12

CHAPTER II
REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

An effort was made to review the literature concerning
the issues of: (1) local control of education and equal
educational opportunity, (2) school finance and the characé
teristics of education in terms of its quantity and quality,
and (3) Michigan State Aid Formula. Clearly it was not pro-
posed in this effort to cover extensively all the issues of
educational administration and school finance. Rather, it
was specifically intended to consider the said issues on the
grounds that:

l. The two concepts of local control of education
and equal educational opportunity are the funda-
mentals which set the tone and the course of all
aspects of education and its system in the United
States.

2. The inquiry into the level of school expenditures
in relation to the quantity and quality of edu-
cation would give a sound general basis for
considering the quantitative differences of fi-
nancial and educational factors among school
districts having different needs, abilities, and

efforts.

13
3. The questions posed in this study are directly
related to the results of the Michigan State Aid
Formula.

Thus, the purpose of this review is to clarify some of
the fundamental issues and principles in American educational
administration and school finance systems, and to establish
a background for analyzing the factual differences of finan-

cial and educational factors among school districts in

Michigan.

I. Loca1.Control p§_Education and

Equal Educat1ona1 Opportunity

General yigy, Since the Federal Constitution of the
United States includes no reference to education, the idea
that education lies within the province of state function de-
rives from the Tenth Amendment of the Constitution. This
amendment was an attempt to restrict the power of the nation-
al government.1 Thus, as it is usually stated, education is

a state function, not a federal function. But a state's

 

1"The powers not delegated to the United States by the
Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are re—
served to the States respectively, or to the people."
ifhis amendment is important in that it distinguishes be—
tween.the delegated powers of the national government and
‘the reserved powers of the state government. See: Alfred
De Grazia, The American Way pf Government (New York: John
‘Wiley'and.Sons, Inc., 1957), p. 76.

14
constitution commonly charges its legislature with the duty
of setting up an adequate system of public education. The
conclusion from this is that public education is a function

. . . . 2 . .
of state legislative respon51b111ty. Public school f1-
nance systems are operated within this frame of reference.
While, in legal terms, each state (state legislature)
has always possessed the supreme authority concerning edu-
cation, none has developed a wholly state-administered
school system.3 For instance:

It is uniformly held that there is no inherent
power in school districts to levy taxes. That is to
say, school taxes are state and not local in nature.
This result follows logically from the concept that
education is a state and not a local function. How-
ever, as a matter of general practice in the United
States, the power to levy taxes is delegated to the

districts u2der legislative and constitutional re-
strictions.

 

2Robert R. Hamilton and Paul R. Mort, The Law and Pub-
lic Education (second edition; Brooklyn: The Foundation
Press, Inc., 1959), p. 16.

3For purposes of determining their general powers and
obligations, school districts are unquestionably quasi-
corporations, but for purposes of constitutional or stat-
utory interpretation, they are not infrequently held to
be municipal corporations which enables the localities to
regulate and administer their own local concerns. As for
this point, see: Newton Edwards, The Courts and the Pub-
lic Schools, The Legal Basis p§_School Organization and
Administration, Revised edition (Chicago: The University
of Chicago Press, 1955), pp. 54-5.

 

4 . -
Hamilton and Mort, pp, Clt., pp. 166-7.

15

Thus, decentralization in American education and school
finance systems exists between the federal and the state
governments, and between the state and school districts.

It must be noted here, however, that the centralist's argu-
ments are not defunct; and, one of the ever-present issues

in American educational administration and school finance
has been the matter of centralization versus decentraliza-
tion. This issue of centralization versus decentralization
in educational administration is closely related to the is-
sue of attaining the ideals of equal educational opportunity.
The importance of these two issues lies in the fact that the
two ideals, "local control of education" and "equal educa-
tional opportunity," are often conflicting. As Burke point-
ed out, a state, in attempting to promote both equality of
educational opportunity and freedom in education through
decentralization must recognize that these two ideals are
conflicting.5 As this writer observes, one of the real
struggles the American people have been experiencing in sup-
porting public school education has been for the values placed
'upon the concept of decentralization in education and school

finance system. It has been said by many that provincialism

¥

5Arvid J. Burke, Financing Public Schools 1p_the United

States, Revised edition (New YOrk: Harper and Brothers,
Publishers, 1957), p. 565.

 

 

 

cation
to rev

tive s;

1::-

unique
1330?. l:

fliCti:

16
or localism inheritedvdththe idea of decentralization is
responsible for many of the existing inequalities in edu—
cation. To make the problem clearer, it seems appropriate
‘to review some of the related issues in general administra-

tive system and school finance.

A_theoretica1 frame pf_reference. The United States is
unique among the nations of the world in the emphasis placed
upon local control of education. While education is a state
function, in every state the financing of the schools is a
joint enterprise of the central state government and the
local school districts. Local initiative and participation
are encouraged. In other countries much more authority is
wielded by central ministries and bureaus. National in—
terests and centralization of authority in other countries
range downward from Russian totalitarian practices. Yet
even in democratic England the national ministry of educa-
tion possesses immense power over the borough and county
school systems, and considerable authority over private
schools. The American concept of school administration does
not seem to carry much weight in other countries. In this
connection, a fresh way of looking at the matter seems to
be a theoretical approach to the administrative system in

the context of technological development and social change.

17

It has been advocated by many political scientists that
as a society becomes more and more industrialized the ad-
ministrative structure tends to be more centralized, with
a tendency toward dispersal in its structure as well as in
its function within each level of administration. This
general tendency was suggested by Riggs' model, for instance.6
Theoretically, defining any administrative system as those
activities of any organization having to do with its allo-
cation of goods and services,7 it can reasonably be concluded
that in an agrarian society administrative systems tend to
be more decentralized and concentrated, and that in an in-
dustrialized society, the administration tends to be more
centralized and dispersed. This theoretical model has been

evidently true in most of the administrative systems in the

 

6 . . .
Fred W. Riggs, "Agraria and Industr1a--Toward a Typo-

logy of Comparative Administration," in William J. Siffin
(ed.), Toward the Comparative Study pf_Pub1ic Administration
(Bloomington, Indiana: Indiana University Press, 1959),
pp.86-7. By dispersal, here, the writer refers to, for in-
stance, the functional fragmentation or specialization of
government of each level, as seen in innumerable special-
purpose, goal-oriented agencies ofboth the "line" and "aux—
iliary" types. This functional specialization of admini-
stration would naturally have its structural effects.
However, the problems here have to do not with geographic
coordination. Therefore, the term dispersal must not be
confused with the concept of decentralization. By the

same token, the term concentration must not be mixed with
the idea of centralization. See: e.g., ibid., p. 45.

7Ibid., p. 26.

18
United States. In an educational system, however, even after
the development of a highly industrialized civilization, the
change has been very slow. Educational administration in
the United States went through a long period of struggle, and
never took a centralized pattern, even though it has been
securing from the federal government and the state the aid
or services requisite for its survival in a complex indus-
trial economy. In the main, modern American educational
administration can still be characterized as being decentral-
ized and dispersed, following the Riggs‘ model. It seems
almost clear that this situation in American education has
been mainly because of the ideological belief the American
people have been holding, the belief which has been held
throughout the tremendous technological development and
social change. The American belief placed in. the decen-
tralized pattern of the educational system has well stood
the test of time and experience.

In this connection, Ogburn observes:

The various parts of modern culture are not chang-
ing at the same rate, some parts are changing much more
rapidly than others; and since there is a correlation
and interdependence of parts, a rapid change in one
part of our culture requires readjustments through
other changes in the various correlated parts of cul-

ture. . . . The extent of this lag will vary according
to the nature of the cultural material, but may exist

19

for a considerable number of years.

Toynbee also observes that:

The pace of the material elements in culture such as
technology is more rapid than that of non-material
(spiritual) elements.

If Riggs' theoretical model of an administrative system
in the context of technological development and social
change is an acceptable one, and if the observations by
Ogburn and Toynbee are right, it might well be said, theo-
retically at least, that the American administrative system
of education is still in a transitional stage, subject to
change toward centralization.

It seems that although most of the cultural factors
and trends have been evident for a considerable period,
there has been limited educational response to many of them.
This point of view is supported by the findings of research
as to the adaptability of education:

School change is distressingly slow. Although the
rate differs under varying conditions, apparently it
takes some 50 years from the identification of a need

to the development of adequate means for meeting it by
some societies. A second 50 year span is required for

 

8
W. F. Ogburn, Soci§1_Change (New York: B. W. Huebsch,

Inc., 1922), pp. 200-1.

9A. J. Toynbee, A_Study p§_History (Oxford University
Press, 1954), III, pp. 106-345. Toynbee's main theme is
that technical or material elements are more rapidly adapt-
ed than ideological (spiritual) factors.

20

general diffusion of the new practice. Some societies
apparently never make the specific adaptation.lo

As far as we can reasonably predict at present, it is
unlikely that centralism will be prevalent in American edu-
cation in the near future. If decentralization should con-
tinue indefinitely, however, some of the potent theories
that have been propounded by many in the field of social
sciences will have to be re-examined at least in part. If
any change toward centralization should come, the pace would

undoubtedly be slow.

Imp1igations for educational equality. According to
available data, a trend toward centralization seems to exist
both in federal-states relationships and in state-local
relationships. For example, in the administration of wel-
fare, social security, and highway construction, there seems
to be a strong shift away from control and support by many

small administrative units to control and support by state

 

10 . . . .
Philo T. Fernswarth, Adaptation Processes 1p_Public

Schgg1 Systems (New York: Columbia University, 1940); and
Walter Cocking, Regional Introduction p§_Educational Practices
1p_Urban Schoo1_Systems pf ppp_gp;ted States (New York:
Columbia University, 1951). Although these studies were

not necessarily concerned with the matter of administrative
systems as such, the results of the studies may well be re—
lated to the very system of educational administration and
school finance.

(Prflii’ -'

 

claim *

H

growth

 

 

21

agencies. The advocate of strong state control of education
holds that his View is in harmony with this trend. While
various interpretations are offered as to the causes of these
trends, expansion and centralization of government appear to
be associated with industrialism and technology. Some people
claim that the trends are merely a rational response to the
growth of interdependence, the increase in the pressures
which fall upon the individual in an industrial as opposed to
an agrarian economy. This vieWpoint claims that fundamental
changes in the economy, such as the relatively rapid increase
of income and other forms of taxable capacity besides tangible
property, and the differences in fiscal capacity of states
and localities under modern conditions, have made it neces-
sary that state and federal tax agencies play a larger role
in raising revenue for essential public services. From

the standpoint of education, the conviction that adequate
educational opportunities should be available to all children,
the mobility of the population, and the great inequalities in
the financial ability to support schools are potent factors
on the side of the centralist. The slow progress character-

istic of extreme localism, as reported by Mort and Cornell,11

 

11
Paul H. Mort and F. G. Cornell, American Schools La

Transition (New York: Bureau of Publications, Teachers
College, Columbia University, 1941), pp. 405 ff.

22

support this argument. Commenting on the possible culmination
of the centralized trend Morrison argues:

The logic of the enlarging political and fiscal unit
evidently tends toward the State itself becoming the
unit, comprehensive of all schools in respect to both
control and financial support. At that point the local
instrumentalities of the State disappear, and the govern-
ment of the state assumes the burden of maintaining and
governing and administering its school system, in an
executive as well as in a legis1ative and judicial sense.

One of the strongest arguments comes from Kochnower:

In the past ten years or so our country has attempted
with increased vigor and'dedication to improve the edu-
cational opportunities offered to youth. Yet the lag
between the goal and the actuality remains considerable.
I submit that our efforts have been largely fruitless
because of a fragmentation of authority, a scattering of
resources so that no one cohesive plan of action has
materialized. . . . It is reasonable to assume that the
local district, confused by a myriad of choices, will
cling desperately to the comfort of the familiar. Be-
cause of the difficult and time-consuming problem of
evaluation and the lack of centralization, the develop-
*ment of new proqrams will be slow and costly. . . . Are
most our frustrations the result of the great emphasis
we place on decentralization and on autonomy for the
local school district? . . . If so, then let a central
agency or regional agencies be instituted—-free from
political dominatiOn, to be sure--but let there be
direction. . . . If, as is generally agreed, the future
wellbeing of our nation, its position in the world, and
the peace and progress of this planet are related to the
mobilization of our educational resources, let us not
commit this mobilization to chance.13

 

2

Henry Clinton Morrison, American Schools, A Critical
Study pf Our School System (Chicago: University of Chicago
Press, 1943), p. 276.

William Kochnower, "The Case for Centralization," in
Phi Delta Kappan, 15:9 (Bloomington, Indiana: Phi Delta
Kappa, June, 1961), pp.393~4.

m E

23

Calling for effective federal support, Johnston states:

State and local funds for education are mortgaged to
the hilt. But still more money is needed. It is here,
on the federal level, where the support of our school
system has been most neglected and from where support
must inevitably come. . . . We can afford the education
we need. . . . Our economy has the capacity. . . . The
choice we must make, therefore, is whether education
will rank high or low in our scale of priorities. The
issue is not one of ability. The nation has this ability.
The issue is one of educational vision and of willingness
to match this vision with appropriate fiscal action.

Furthermore, such action would be an investment paying
handsome returns in individual satisfactions and national

wellbeing.l4

Johnston did not necessarily imply federal control;
however, there are those who advocate in principle an in-
crease in the amount of federal participation in and control
of education in the states. They contend that the same
social and fiscal factors which have broughtatcentralization
trend in other spheres apply to education and should result
in similar responses. In general, education is subject to
many of the influences leading toward centralization which
have affected other spheres of the culture; and it seems

that centralism claims to be more closely siding with the

idea of equal educational opportunity.

 

14 . .
Eric Johnston, former PreSident of the U. S. Chamber

of Commerce, "Financing Tomorrow's Schools," American Ag:
sociation p£_School Administrators (Washington, D.C.: The
Association, 1960), pp. 9 and 19.

24
The majority of citizens, however, including educators,
are generally agreed that local control and administration
of education are desirable. The sentiments have been ex-
pressed by the Educational Policies Commission as follows:
Centralization in the control, administration, and
financing of education is very apt to lead to a mediocre
school system and a lack of progressive development of
the program of public education. With well—developed
local units for the administration of schools, it is
certain that some communities will develop leadership
which will be effective in improving education. . . .
Most of the great reforms in education have originated
in the schools of some local community; they were not
decreed by central authority.15
The advocate of local control fears that regimentation
and bureaucracy will result from centralization, that edu-
cation will lose its dynamic character and become stagnant.
Major emphasis is almost universally placed upon the im-
portance of retaining and fostering local initiative, in-
terest, and support. The localist would not, as a rule,
deny state or federal financial aid or research and advisory
services, but he would want this assistance extended with no
strings attached. A typical expression of this stand would

be:

Hallmark of freedom is diversity. Federal concern
about education must be one which recognizes local

 

5 . . . . .

Educational PoliCies CommiSSion, The Structure and
Administration p§_Education ;p_5merican Democracy (Washing-
ton, D.C.: National Education Association, 1938), p. 79.

25

control. We do not want our educational standards
established either in Washinton or, for that matter,
in the state capitol, and made absolutely uniform for
all of the people and all of the students in all of
the schools."16

Defending the decentralist's position, Burke even strong-
ly advocates that differences in educational opportunity
resulting from decentralization are unavoidable and should
not be eliminated. He propounds that the objective of
central finance is not the removing of inequalities in edu-
cational opportunities. In a summary of his book, he states:

Inequalities cannot be removed even in a state-
operated school system. Inequalities caused by the
able, vigorous, and willing communities raising their
standards and improving their programs constitute the
most powerful force for improving educational oppor-
tunities in all school systems. Centrally directed
improvements are slow-moving at best and hardly lead
to a balanced improvement of the whole school pro-
gram. . . . Within limits, central finance can be used
to aid in the enforcement of state minimum standards,
but this is a dangerous policy to pursue in a de-
centralized structure. . . . The test of state
equalization policy is the adequacy of programs avail-
able at the lowest end of the scale of ability levels
in the state. . . . However, in lifting education at
the bottom of the scale, a state must be certain that
it is doing everything possible to enable other
localities to move as far as possible toward providing
the kind of education required in our type of civili-
zation.l7

 

16Richard M. Nixon's reply to the question of the fed-

eral government's role in support of education, Phi Delta
Kappan, XLI:8 (Bloomington, Indiana, Phi Delta Kappa, May,
1960), p. 349.

l7Arvid J. Burke, pp, cit., pp. 586-9.

 

 

IT!

26
Burke's stand described briefly above appears to be

commendable, when we consider the ideological values and the
traditions that have been prevalent in American education.
However, there seems to be a serious dilemma in his argu-
ments. That is, one may well ask if his state will really
be able to enhance the real adequacy of educational programs
available for the poorer districts, while it is doing every-
thing possible to enable the wealthier districts to move as
far as possible? What are the sound standards of the ade-
quacy of educational proqrams for the poorer districts as
compared with those of the wealthier districts? It is not
an easy task for a state to maintain the adequacy of educa-
tional services in the poor districts without raising money
through levying of taxes on the more wealthy parts of the
state for expenditures in poorer sections. Yet, wealthy dis-
tricts themselves may not be fully satisfied with their own
school programs. Thus, the very ideals of local control of
education might hamper the sound total advancement of educa-
tional standards in a state. It may be the case that while
the arguments from the standpoint of social justice and the
various interpretations of the very concept of democracy would
never end, the factual unfavorable inequalities in education
among school districts having differences in ability continue

to exist, so long as the people cling to the idea of local

me

_ "no

 

 

 

 

 

‘7

F\‘
t“c\. In
:3 . .
“but

27

control of education in its original form. Nobody would deny
Burke's arguments that inequalities cannot be removed even

in a state-operated school system. But too much gap between
the wealthy districts and the poor districts, or too many
unfavorable inequalities among school districts within a state,
would be untolerable even for many decentralists.

Available research data reported so far reveal that there
are extensive areas where the children never can have ade-
quate school facilities, and that it may be too long a time
before poor districts attain the benefits of the ideals of
equal educational opportunity. It has generally been agreed
that in order to provide anything like equal educational op-
portunities, the poorer districts must bear a burden many times
greater than that of the richer districts.

One of the outcomes of this situation has been the sincere
efforts to reduce the number of small school districts, on
the assumption that financial abilities are closely related
to sizes of school districts. But it may often happen that
districts lying next to each other having about the same number

of pupils differ greatly in assessable property.

The implications of the foregoing discussions and of the
situation for educational equality can be summarized as follows:
1. Any change in education and school finance systems

is subject to social change, based on both the

me

It

 

 

 

 

28

technological advancement and the ideological
values held by the people.

2. Although decentralism has been prevalent so far,
a trend toward centralization seems to exist
today in American education and school finance.
The states that introduced tax-supported education
in the eighteenth century depended largely on
local support; those that introduced tax—
supported education during the first half of the
nineteenth century gave somewhat more impetus to
support through state aid; those that initiated
their public school systems in the latter half
of the nineteenth century went still farther in
state support, as shown in Tables I and II.18

3. Judging from the present situation, for a long
period to come the functional approach appears
to be the most productive method of effecting a

compromise between the two schools of thought--

centralism and decentralism. For some aspects

 

18
Paul R. Mort, Walter C. Reusser, and John W. Polley,

Public School Finance, Its Background, Structure and Opera-
tion, Third edition (New York: McGraw—Hill Book Company,
Inc., 1960). PP. 196-219. Note, in Tables I and II, the
posture of the several states like Alabama, Georgia, Cali-
fornia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tenessee, and Texas
in regard to state support that had already been established
by 1890.

 

 

 

.1 _.(__p._

~<._..~A~..~..~

A~2< ELL/FEW. FRONTQ

L'. H m‘HMN <P~s

LIKAOANHNNOW LNO

.SZEU ~3an

29

.oma .m

 

.U amm .aflm.MM .uuoz

"Eonm UQDOSOe

 

ou Uo>oE o>m£ ca
302 .>XUsucox
exp ou mcESHoo m

.moHHomoumu Hmnmfln 0D po>oE m>mn Eonu mo m
oco pompflnn w>m£ pomcmno o>mn umnu mwumum Hm exp mo 0 maco

“mofluomoumu oHoE Ho
.mnomoumo ommucoouom Honmflfl m

“whomoumo Macao cocfimuou o>m£ om umxmmunoz can .ocflmz .MHchHH> .homuob
“anomoumo ommucoouom Hm3oH m on co>oE o>ms moumum o>Hm Mano .Am+V”fi%WH
cmmflnoflz “AH+V unmfln 03D on GESHOU H mamamflsoq “AHIV puma onu ou GESHOU
H Uo>oE mm: wxosucox ..m.o .pofluom mfizu CH omcmco moumoflocfl momofluconmm EH Hogans oge
.HoumH whee» mo whomoumo oEmm ecu EH Haow oumum opp umflu moumoflpcfl xmfluopmm ed

 

OH

AH-V mncnmua>

a mmxoa

a oommmccoe

s mcflaoumo .m
a MCHHOHMU .Z
Amrv momuoh 3oz
nary hxooucom

a MACHOMHHMU

a mamuoow

« mEman¢

R flmub

« mom>oz

AH+V Haaemmflmmez
. camasnmz

AHIV mean:

AH+V mamamflooq

a MQMHUGH

AH+V mmmcmxud

NH

« aflmcoomfiz
Am+v mflcflmnfi> .3
* comouo

AH+V oaco

e muoxmc .z

AH+V xnow 3oz
AHIV mxmmunoz

e Husommflz

a muomoccflz

Am+v mcHHon
AN+V oHMBmHoQ

* usuauooccoo

Ha mHMDOB

AH+V ucoEHw>

¥ muoxma .m

AH+V UcmHmH opogm
Am+v cecm>ammccmm
« mHHSmQEmm 3oz
lmHv amassoflz
AH+V muuomssucmmmz
AH+V memcmx

* m3oH

AH+V meccaaaH
Aa+v OUMHOHOU

 

 

sow cane mnoz

valom

$0.7m:

xma cusp name

1' I‘ll
llllf'l

omma .mQZDm AdeQmm 02¢ mfififim 20mm Bmommbw m0 BZMU mmm
RH mam4B

 

awWMVH

.TQZDL .HSEEQE..~ QZ< weer/NET. Squire EKOLADW LO H.240 -§~
. I! 'l. "A

.1. H H u.-.HM.~ <.H.

3O

 

 

 

 

.hma ..uflo amm .aflm.lw .uuoz "Eoum UmDODOa
ma ma ma e mamuoe
Admflmmwmmfiz
memcmxum
mEQOam
mafiaoumo .m
magnoow
oommoccoe mu0moccflz ccmHmH ooocm
casemufl> .3 comouo homumh Boz
mEoanxo macflmufl> Camcoumflz
mcwaoumo .z >XUoucox ucofiuw>
moflHon anus muoxmo zuuoz
oHMBMHoQ mecm>ahmccom HHSOmmHS
mememflsoq ocmamumz muuomsnommmmz
OUflxoz 3oz MCMHUEH ocflmz
mmxoe OHSO mmmcmx
cmaflnoaz maneosz mnocHHHH muoxmc Epsom
mcm>oz mcmpcoz osmoH oHHQmQEmm 3oz
coumcwcmmz Mao» 3oz OUMHOHOO mxmmunoz
manpoweamu MGONHH¢ uoowuooccoo MBOH
whoa Ho Rom xmvrom Xmmrma Rma cmnu mmoA

 

@mma

J17

I
[I

«HH

I. III.
I! I!

mflmdfi

I

.mQZDm A<mMQmm QZ< WB<Bm 20mm Hmommbm ho BZMU mmm

 

 

 

31

of administration and services, the state should
be chiefly or solely responsible; for other
aspects, the school districts should be respon-
sible. The Federal government may exert its
effective assistance for implementing the ideals
of educational equality, without having unneces-
sary strings attached.

4. While reducing the number of small school dis-
tricts is important and necessary, it alone
does not settle the dilemma involved in the
great disparity in the distribution of finan-
cial ability.

5. Mere emphasis on equalities in a quantitative
sense alone would not be productive or sound
for the attainment of the ideals of equal edu-

cational opportunity.

II. Public School Finance and the Quantity and Quality

p£.Education

One of the considerations with which any study of
school finance systems must be concerned, is related in one
way or another to the question of the relationships between
the expenditure levels and the quantity and quality of edu-

cation. In this regard, the present study is not an exception.

m e

f;
Ii

 

 

 

 

32

The qualitative analysis as such is not the main pur-
pose of the present study. However, the main inquiries
Inadea in this study are not necessarily unrelated to the
general assumption that the public school financial system
and the characteristics of educational services in terms of
the quantity and quality are related. Even though the
qualitative analyses are not particularly intended, the
underlying considerations of the main inquiries of this
study do not necessarily exclude the possible expectations
that the quantitative analyses of properly selected financial
and educational factors would be correlated to the quali-
tative aspects of education and school finance. Therefore,
it seems necessary to review briefly the appropriate litera-
ture.

It is apparent that there are three parts which any
modern school finance system must take into consideration:
(1) the quantity and quality of education, which reflect its
educational philosophies, objectives, policies, and definite
programs; (2) the expenditures, which are the translation of
its accepted educational policies into proposed spending;
and (3) the revenue, which proposes means for meeting the
costs of the education. The three parts are mutually inter—
dependent. They must be balanced and integrated. Therefore,

any consideration of one part naturally involves the

 

fer a

. Ether—DEV

 

33
considerations of the other two. To get an integrated school
financial system or to get a balanced budget, there must
naturally be the circular process of considerations and dis-
cussions. However, the underlying crucial questions must be
these: What are the relationships between the school ex-
penditures and the characteristics of educational services
in terms of quantity and quality? How important is the
school finance in relation to the quantity and quality of
education? Simply stated, would more spending mean better'
educational returns?

Since variations that exist among school districts in
educational programs and expenditures generally reflect the
influence of many factors, the questions mentioned above are
not simple and easy to answer. The analysis of expenditure
levels relative to educational returns is indeed complex.
However, it is not without some agreement. Many experts in
finance and school administration generally agree that there:
exists a positive relationship between the quantity of education
andthe expenditures. As to the quality of education, as
related to cost, despite considerable differences of opinion,
the strong relationships are also generally recognized by
many. For instance, Johns and Morphet, after calling at-
tention to certain conditions under which there are no neces-

sary relationships between cost and quality, point out:

 

m 3

watt FI‘

34
l. The quality of education provided in the school
systems where expenditures are low is far less

satisfactory than that in systems where expendi-
tures are above the national average.

2. Even in the higher expenditure level school
systems, there seems to be strong relationship
between expenditures and quality of education.

. . . As expenditure levels increase, expendi-
tures seem to have more of the characteristics
of a productive investment for the nation.

If the statements by Johns and Morphet are acceptable,
it is a justifiable assumption that other social, economic,
and educational conditions being equal, the educational
expenditures in any school district will generally be in-
creased, except in a limited number of cases, owing to either
one of the following situations:

1. When the quantity of education needs to be
increased, while trying to maintain at least
the same standard of educational quality.

2. When improvement of the quality of education is

desired,while trying to maintain at least the

same quantity of educational services.

 

l9
Roe L. Johns and Edgar L. Morphet, Financing the Pub-

lic Schools (Englewood Cliffs, N. J.: Prentice-Hall, Inc.,
1960), pp. 13-5. Also, William P. McLure, "Let Us Pay for
the Kind of Education We Need," Report of a Study prState
and Loca1_Suppo£p pf Mississippi Schools (University of
Mississippi, Bureau of Educational Research, 1948); and Paul
R. Mort, ”Cost-Quality Relationship in Education," in R. L.
Johns and E. L. Morphet (eds.), Problems and Issues ip_Public
School Finance (New York: Bureau of Publications, Teachers
College, Columbia University, 1952), pp. 13-4.

35

In general, while increasing the cost might not neces-
sarily add to the quality of education, increasing the
quality is likely to add somewhat to the cost; and increasing
the quantity of education in terms of both the number and the
size of educational services would require increased cost.

It must be admitted that insufficient data are available at
present to demonstrate conclusively the relation of various
expenditure levels to the character of educational services.
Nevertheless, the existing research findings seem to strongly
indicate that the quality of an educational program corre-
lates markedly with the level of support and the character of
financial management.

The research in this field began as far back as 1920.
Ayres' study in 1920, Norton's research in 1926, and Ferrell's
study in 1936 are the earlier studies which indicate the fact
that there is a high degree of positive relationship between
the level of expenditure and the quality of educational
services. Many later studies, such as Grimm's study in 1938,
Mort and Cornell's study in 1938, the other studies, includ-
ing Woollatt's study, that were completed before 1950 and
- were reviewed in detail in "Problems and Issues of Public

. 20
School Finance," the research conducted by the New York

 

20
Lorne H. Woollatt, The Cost-Quality Relationship pp
the Growing Edge (New York: Bureau of Publications, Teachers

36

State Education Conference Board in 1954, and Bloom and
Statler's study in 1957, all confirmed the earlier findings
which have been cited above.2

Admittedly, the definition and measurement of educa-
tional quality are just in their beginning stages of develop-
ment, and the school is one environmental factor influencing
educational performance along with other factors such as the
home, church, press, radio, television, and other cultural
elements. We know that the outcome of schooling is affected
by native ability and scholastic aptitude on the part of the
students themselves. Nevertheless, the facts reported by
the researches so far shed considerable light on the in-
quiries concerning the relationships between the levels of
school finance and the characteristics of educational ser-

vices.

 

College, Columbia University, 1949); R. L. Johns and E. L.
Morphet (eds.), Problems and Issues 1p Public School Finance,
pp, cit., Chapter 2.

1Some of the results of these researches were pre-
sented in summary form, in National Education Association,
Bpseagch Bul1etin (April, 1959), 37:2, pp. 41-4. Also, for
full citation on the research and for other details see:
National Education Association, Committee on Tax Education
and School Finance, Does Better Education Cost More?
(Washington, D.C.: The Association, 1959). The original
report was prepared for the Committee by John K. Norton.

m e

 

37

A high degree of correspondence between the level of
expenditure and the characteristics of educational services
may readily be discerned at the extremes, but less clearly
within a broad middle category. There is no guarantee, of
course, that a high expenditure level alone will produce
superior educational results. But, if it is accomplished by
other essential ingredients of good leadership and administra-
tion, there is a high probability of good returns.

In this connection, some of the generally agreeable
assumptions, as pointed out by Burke, are as follows:

1. An adequate expenditure level by itself will
not assure adequate educational returns because
of the influence of other factors, especially
those affecting management. However, it in-
creases the probability of good returns, assum-
ing that other essential ingredients are present,
and that arbitrary factors limiting efficiency
such as small districts are not.

2. The level of expenditure maintained over a long
period of time has the greatest effect upon
educational returns. Results of high quality
can be attained occasionally and temporarily on
inadequate expenditure levels, but sufficient
support is essential to the continued attainment
of adequate returns.

3. Differences in average expenditure levels for a
large random sample of school districts, or
smaller samples, not unduly weighted by such
factors as unsatisfactory districts, sparsely
settled areas, and areas with high living
standards and living costs, generally mean
differences in educational opportunities and
educational returns.22

 

22Arvid J. Burke, pp, cit., pp. 137—9.

38
Summarizing the findings of the researches, Mort

Reusser, and Polley conclude:

l. Regardless of the method of measuring quality,
a relatively strong relationship holds through
all levels of expenditure as yet experienced in
public education, from the lowest as exemplified
by Mississippi, through the middle group as
exemplified by west Virginia, Maine, Rhode
Island, Illinois, and Pennsylvania, to the
highest as exemplified by New York and New
Jersey.

2. The relationship appears to be an accelerating
one. Those who spend more tend to add to the
range of education, on the one hand, and on the
other, to do a better job of focusing the needs
of children and young people throughout the
range of ability.23

These writers all seem to have been saying that good
education needs more money, provided the money is wisely
spent. These claims seem to be in accordance with the fact
that in modern education, as in other fields of human activi—
ties, almost everything in the way of goods and services is
bought and paid for. Thus, it follows that school finance is
one of the most effective determining factors in the road of
achieving goals and ideals of education. Hewever, one of the

crucial issues has always been in the question of how the

 

23Mort, Reusser, and Polley, pp, cit., p. 81. The authors
give a good list of references on the subject, pp. 88-9.

39

money should be collected and distributed, on what basis,
and for what. In this regard, we note that there are some
introspective positions to the whole idea that more school
expenditures would promise better educational returns. For
instance, Eurich states his point of view as follows:

The current emphasis upon "doing something about
education" often leaves the impression that if only
more money were available our educational problems
would be solved. Actually, however, we have spent
more money on education in recent years, yet the
general situation has deteriorated. . . . The major
question confronting the nation in regard to education
is simply this: Will we try to solve our education
problems by approapriating more money to do more of
the same things in the same ways we have been doing
them in the past in our schools and colleges, or will
we try to find more effective, more efficient and
more economic procedures?

Referring to the Soviet education, he stated:

Since Russia successfully launched its satellites,
the American public has become more deeply concerned
with its long-standing educational deficits. The Soviet
educational system is repeatedly pointed to as one which'
has provided the basis for Russia's impressive scientific
progress, so we are urged to spend more in supporting of
education in order to compete. But we should learn from
the Russian attitude, which gives top priority to edu—
cation not only in discussions, but in action. . . .
About 50 per cent of the university graduates in Russia
go into teaching, and there is no teacher shortage. In
the U. S. we have difficulty attracting even 20 per cent
of ou§4college and university graduates into teaching.

 

24 . . . . .
A1Vin C. Eurich, "Money Isn't Everything," in CruCial

Issues ;p_Education (Henry Ehlers and Gordon C. Lee [eds.],
New York: Henry Holt and Company, 1959), pp. 246-9.

40

Despite his seeming opposition, what Eurich really
stresses is concerned about the ways and means of spending
money for education to meet the historical challenges of the
Unites States and the world of today. In effect, few seem
to really oppose more spending for good education, in theory
at least.

As to some important factors that should be taken into
account in interpreting expenditure facts, Burke summarizes
as follows:

1. Differences in educational needs resulting from
population and community characteristics.

2. Variations in willingness to support schools
arising from values placed upon education,
standards, and confidence in the schools and
their management.

3. Differences in ability to support schools.

4. What do the states achieve? Are the results
consistent with their abilities, their burdens,
and their efforts?26

A review of the literature indicates that school ex-

penditure levels and the quantity and quality of education-

al services are strongly related, provided that other

 

25Arvid J. Burke, pp, cit., p. 139.

6National Education Association, "The State and Educa-
tion," N.E.A. Research Bulletin, 36:1 (February, 1958),
pp. 24-9.

{Ht

41

essential ingredients are favorably presented; and that the
essential factors that should be taken into consideration in
interpreting expenditure facts are: (1) need, (2) ability,
(3) effort, (4) community characteristics, and (5) oper—
ational efficiency. However, the only factors which can
quantitatively be measured with reasonable accuracy are the
financial need, ability, and effort. Some important elements
of social, economic, and cultural aspects of the community
characteristics may well be represented in the financial
need, ability, and effort, but not all. Operational ef-
ficiency, such as leadership function and quality, is the
one which is most difficult to measure with any reasonable
accuracy.

Therefore, it must be contended that one of the possible
and the most proper ways of analyzing the quantitative as-
pects of financial systems, attempting to get some reason-
able indications of the quality of education, is to consider
dbjectively the measurable factors altogether in some proper
Wayu There can be many variations of approaches in analyzing
the financial system according to the different purposes.

With these understandings in mind, in this study, it is
Specifically intended: (l) to consider the school districts
in terms of financial need, ability, and effort; and (2) to

find the actual quantitative differences of the selected

42

financial and educational factors among different types of
school districts classified on the basis of the three variables
of financial need, ability, and effort. (3) to identify the
general relationships between each of the three variables

and the differences of each of the selected financial and edu-
cational factors among different types of school districts.

A qualitative analysis as such is not particularly intended,
however. The comprehensive qualitative considerations of the
financial system will require additional studies utilizing
instruments of quality measurement. This is beyond the scope

of the present study.

III. Michigan State Aid Formula

General yipy, The first constitution of Michigan made
in 1835, contained five sections relative to schools and
education. The provisions were unusual in several particu-
lars, as Edmonson pointed out:

1. The provision that education should be an inde-
pendent department of state government with its
own head had not previously been provided for
in the constitution of any other American com-
monwealth. Michigan, in its constitution of
1835 was the first state to make provisions
for the office of Superintendent of Public In-
struction.

2. A second provision that was new in the develop—
ment of constitutional provisions for education
was the section providing for the forfeiture of

frnii

43

state financial aid in case of failure to main-
tain a school for the required constitutional
period of three months.

3. A third provision of great importance related to
the establishment of a permanent state fund for
the support of the school. By this provision
the school lands ceased to be considered as
granted to local units and became part of a
state fund.27

The striking constitutional modification of the require-
ment that the schools must be free was made in 1850. It
provided free education for at least three months. A tuition-
free education was provided in the Constitution of 1908.28
Since then, many modifications and improvements have been
made.

Succinctly stated, today it is generally held in Michigan
that the goals of a free, democratic society cannot be
achieved without an adequate and comprehensive program of
universal education, and that the educational programs of
any school district can best be determined by the people

living in that school community, with financial or technical

assistance from the state and federal levels. The two

 

7James Bartlett Edmonson, The Legal and Constitu-
tional Basis pf_p_State School System, Ap_Ana1ysis p: gm;
Constggptional Provisions, Laws, and the Supreme Court
Decisions Affectipg_the School System pf_the State p:
Mich1qan (Bloomington, Illinois: Public School Publish-
ing Company, 1926), pp. 3-5.

281bid., pp. 6-10.

44

concepts of local control of education and equal educational
opportunity are clearly pointed out, for instance, in "A
Statement of Basic Philosophy Regarding Public Education in
Michigan," published by the Department of Public Instruction
in 1960.29 Thus, the idea of "state-local partnership" be-
comes the most outstanding characteristic throughout the
provisions of Michigan State Aid Formula. The policies and
practices of gross allowance on the basis of need, deductible
millage on the basis of ability, and participation millage
on the basis of effort are differentiated forms of imple-
menting the state-local partnership concept which is, in
effect, the combination of the two ideals of local control
of education and educational equality. Clearly stated, then,
the organization of school finance in Michigan, its ad-
ministration, its enforcement and supervision, and the
necessary changes made in it from time to time are matters
which are carried forward as a shared responsibility and
with a junction of effort of the State and its units of
local school districts.

Concurrent implementation of the two ideals is not an

easy task, however. In fact, many of the problems, issues,

 

29 . . -
The State of Michigan, The Department of Public In-

struction, A_Statement p£_Basic Philosophy Regarding Public

Education 1p_Michigan (Lansing, Michigan: The Department,
1960), p. 1.

45

and criticisms concerning financial and educational differ-
ences among school districts have been arising from the very
fact that the State has the responsibility for free education
for all through the twelfth grade, while it recognizes the
basic principles of local control of education. It is un-
deniable that finance is a critical determinant and an
important instrument of control over the educational activi-
ties. Yet, it has been evident that the economic and social
changes, enhanced by technological advancement and indus-
trialiZation, tend to make the disparity of wealth distribu-
tion among school districts wider, thus making the potentiality
of educational differences among school districts greater.
Therefore, the degree of controlling capacity or coordinating
opportunities over financial matters on the part of the

State in relation to those of local communities becomes the
most fundamental element for consideration in achieving the
ideals of equal educational opportunity. These consider-
ations are carefully taken into account in the present
Michigan State Aid Formula. Some basic points relating to
the State Aid Formula will be reviewed briefly in the next

few pages.

 

Main sources pg revenue. The three fundamental aspects

of any school finance system are: (a) the educational

46
services desired, (b) the expenditures necessary to support
the educational programs, and (c) the possible revenue
sources. Any decision on the school district budget must
go through the circular process of considerations related
to the adequate balance of the three aspects. Needless to
say, the most significant basis of the whole process is
the educational programs desired. But, from a financial
point of view, the final determinant for the whole process
is the possibility of income or receipts. In the cases that
the estimated possible income from the revenue sources is
not sufficient to finance the desired educational programs,
the means to obtain additional income from the same sources
must be devised, or the educational programs must be cut
back to fit the total funds available.30

At first the public schools in Michigan were supported
mainly from three sources: (a) revenue from land granted to
states and territories by the Federal government, (b) ter-
ritorial and township taxes, and (c) fees levied on each
family in proportion to the number of children sent to

school.31

 

0 . . . . .
Henry H. Linn, (ed.), School BuSiness Administration
(New York: The Ronald Press Company, 1956), pp. 138-42.

3 . . . . . .
1William H. Roe, FinanCing Michigan's Schools (East
Lansing, Michigan: Michigan State University, 1958), p. 3.

47

Today, in Michigan, the main sources of revenue to op-
erate schools are state funds and local funds. Local tax
funds to support public education come entirely from local
property taxation. State tax funds are obtained from state-
wide taxes, such as the sales tax, corporation franchise tax,
and taxes on cigarettes and distilled spirits.32 Some money
for local schools comes from Federal funds, but generally
less than 4 per cent. A recent study indicated that in
1958-59 the local property taxes provided 56.7 per cent,
State tax sources provided 39.4 per cent, Federal-State
funds provided 0.5 per cent, and other sources provided 3.4
per cent of the total monies (including the costs for capital
outlay expenditures) available for public elementary and
secondary education in Michigan.33

Since the State Aid plans are based on the taxation
system, it is a matter of paramount importance to understand
the legal nature of the taxes for public education. It is
universally held that education is a state and not a local
function. Therefore, funds collected in the local districts

for educational purposes are state funds and may be expended

 

321n this regard see Sections 1, 2, 21, 23, and 27 of

Article X (Finance and Taxation), Michigan Constitutional
Provisions.

33Stanley E. Hecker, pp, cit., pp. 3-5.

48
in any manner the legislature determines to be for the best
interest of the whole state, subject only to constitutional
restrictions. The constitutionality of legislation designed
to raise money through levying of a tax on the more wealthy
parts of the state for expenditure for school purposes in
poorer sections has frequently been questioned. It has been
urged that such legislation deprives the citizens of property
without due process of law, that it violates the constitu—
tional inhibition against unequal taxation and that it con—
stitutes taxation for a private purpose. All these contentions
have been overruled by the courts and the validity of the
laws established.

The courts' attitude has tremendous implications for the
future prospect of implementing the ideals of equal educational
opportunity. In this connection, Edwards explains:

The right of the state to require that taxes col-
lected in one school district be expended in another

has been challenged in a number of cases. But the

courts are agreed that public education is in no sense

a local or municipal function. It is a state functionr

and school taxes are state taxes, even though they may

have been levied and collected by the local district.

It is clear, then, that the legislature, in order to

equalize educational opportunities, may provide for a

state-wide school tax and distribute the proceeds

therefrom to the various districts of the state upon
such bases as may seem wise, provided only that the

mode of distribution adopted be made to apply to all
districts in the same class or category.3

 

4 .

3 Newton Edwards, The Courts and the Public Schoolg, The
Legal Basis p§.§phoo1 Organization and Administration, pp, cit.,
pp. 174—5. ,

49

Commenting on the same matter, Garber, in his Yearbook

of 1955 states that:

A tax for educational purposes is, in reality, a tax
for a state purpose, because education is a state func-
tion. It is a tax levied for a public or governmental
purpose, and a taxpayer may not object because he gets
no direct benefit from it. In commenting on this, a
New Hampshire court said: "A school tax seldom bears
a direct relationship to the benefits received by each
taxpayer and this is particularly true in the case of
corporations, nonresidents and childless taxpayers."35

Membership. The amount of state funds that each district
in Michigan receives is determined by the combined considera—
tions of need (membership), ability (wealth), and effort
(local tax rate voted and levied). The size of the member-
ship gives the most fundamental basis for all operations of
State Aid Formula, however.

The number of pupils is determined by counting pupils
on the fourth Friday after Labor Day. The State Aid Act of
1959-60 (unchanged for 1960—61) provides as follows:

All pupils to be counted in membership shall be at
least 5 years of age on December 1, and under 20 years
of age on September 1 of the school year. . . . "Full-
time membership" shall be construed as all membership
in kindergarten to twelfth grade for those actually

enrolled in regular daily attendance on the foggth
Friday following Labor Day of each year. . . .

 

35Lee 0. Garber, The Yearbook p£_School Law, 1955

Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania, 1955), p. 45.

3
6The State of Michigan, Section 12 of the State Aid
Act, 1959-§0.

50

In order to be eligible to receive state aid under
the provisions of this act each school district shall,
by the superintendent of each district through the
secretary of each board, on or before the seventh Fri-
day after Labor Day of each year, file with the county
superintendent of schools a certified and sworn copy
of the enrollment for the current school year. In case
of failure to file such sworn and certified copy on or
before the seventh Friday after Labor Day, state aid
under the provisions of this act sha117be withheld from
the defaulting school district. . . .

Gross allowance and deductible millage. The present
Michigan school aid program providing for $205 per pupil with
3-1/4 mills deductible was approved by the legislature on
August 29, 1959. The previous three years' state aid mea-
sure was $190 per pupil with 2-3/4 mills deductible.

The new state aid measure was a compromise between

a House bill asking for $210 per pupil with 3.5 mills

deductible and a Senate version calling for $200 per

pupil with 3 mills deductible. The Senate vote of

23-2 followed an earlier 81-4 approval by the House.

The new state aid program makes the deductible mill-
age factor the same for all districts, including Detroit.

39

Previously Detroit had a deductible millage of 2-1/8 mills.

Since the deductible millage is an equalization factor designed

 

37 . . . .
The State of Michigan, Section 35 of the State Aid Act,

1959-60.

 

8Michigan Education Association, Michigan Education Jour-
nal, 37:3 (September 15, 1959), 165—6.

391t should be noted, however, that Detroit was also re-
sponsible for financial support to Wayne University during this
period.

51

to compensate for depressed revenue-raising powers of "poor"
districts, the new state aid program seems to be a partial
success in promoting more equal educational opportunity.

The State Aid Act provides its foundation plan for
equalizing financial burden of public school education as
follows:

To every school district in the state, except as
otherwise provided in this act, there shall be ap-
propriated where the same is required to meet the
provisions of this act, a sum which, when taken with
the amount of the apportionment from the primary
school interest fund, plus a sum equal to 3-1/4 mills
on the valuation of the property in the district will
equal a sum obtained by computing the number of pupils
at $205.00 each in membership, plus the amount allo-
cated for transportation. . .and the amount allocated
for tuition. . . .

According to this provision, each child enrolled in
a public school is guaranteed a minimum expenditure of funds
for his education through allocating $205 of state funds per
pupil. This gross allowance method of diStributing state
funds is clearly proposed to partially equalize the burden
of supporting public school education in districts of all
sizes throughout the state, so far as the foundation pro-
grams are concerned. The amount equal to 3-1/4 mills on the

valuation of the property in the district is deducted from

the gross allowance, and this is called deductible millage.

 

40 . . . .
The State of Michigan, Section 8, State Aid Act pf 1959-

 

92-

i’ ".i ;

 

 

 

 

52
The practice of deductible millage is the realization of the
measures of relative local ability to finance education as
factors in determining the amount of state funds distributed
to individual districts.

The two policies of gross allowance and deductible
millage set no specific purposes for the expenditure of the
money, recognizing the importance of exercising local judgment
in the use of state funds available for the purpose of public
school education. They are designed to equalize the finan-
cial burden of supporting the foundation level of education
in the school districts. These two policies constitute
the general—purpose equalizing system of distributing state
funds in Michigan. About 41 per cent of the total state aid
funds were distributed on the general-purpose equalizing
basis in 1947-48, and 77 per cent in 1957-58 as shown in
Table III. The table indicates that more than 90 per cent
of the state aid funds are distributed to the public school
districts by way of general purpose bases. The increase in
appropriation of larger proportions for general rather than
special purposes implies that the State legislature is rely-
ing more upon boards of education for the wise expenditure’
of available funds than formerly was the case. Also, the
allocation of larger proportions as equalizing funds rather

than flat grants implies that the legislature is seeking to

H i

 

 

 

53

0N om
.Ammma .mnmsunom .woflmmo OGADCHHQ quECHm>OO .m.D ”aoumcflnmmzv Hem .oz Hmasouwu

 

 

£58.26 Hoosom .283 mm. coausnanumac page mpmpm .soflmusem mo muflmo .ms 95 AS

 

L can “omrmaa .mm .Amema .Hfloszoo ona “ommoflcuv coeumosom >Hmocoomm can meuame
ream 030:5 rod 3359mm 98 .aoflmmrumafisea 8033236 93 H a A. .23
IWNm Hoosom oumum uzofiorzwnom one .Houuoufln .ommso .m mAUEMHm .musoECHo>oo mumum
mo Aflocsoo on» AHV “HOeoocouomoH anon LDH3 come we oHQmu one Any .mcfluflamswo
can umHm .ooguofi an “amaoomm can Hmuocom .omomusm an "oocflfiuouoo mum mucoauoaam
£UHQB ma moonuoe can mcoausnfiuuwflo mg» no monomusm Mn pofimwmmmao on smo menu
.mmm3 Hmuo>om CH oofimammmao on Dames mGOHusQfinume pcsm mumum nmsonuam Amy

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

He
. . . . mmma
m m e m o H 0 up A m ma m m Ibmma
. . . mema
H e m o o A He H m cm m NH rhvma
omm meson omm meson 0mm meson omm mocsm
rucoo mo lucoo mo rucoo mo lusoo . «0
them .02 ruom .oz them .02 them .02
mpcsm mccsm meson mossm nocsm
usmum umam mcfluflamsvo maflnwamsvo ucmnm umam mo
omomuom omomusm omomusm omomhom .ot
defloomm ramwoomm flamenco Hmuocoo Hmuoa Meow

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

mmlhmma ZH 92¢ m¢lh¢ma ZH ZdOHEUHZ ZH
mqoomvm MMdGZOUWm QZ< Hadfizmzmqm mom mQZDh QH€ madBm ho mQZHM MObfiz

HHH mqm<9
HG

54
improve the effectiveness of the state funds in raising the
lower expenditure levels. The trend toward general purpose
and equalizing support of education in Michigan has been in
accordance with that of the nation,42 and has been interpreted
as the policy to reduce the unfavorable financial and educa—

tional differences among school districts.

Ppgticipation millage. A minimum uniform effort must be
made on the part of the individual school district to obtain
its state share. In this regard, the State Aid Act provides
as follows:

No school district, except those coming under
the provisions of Section 20 of this Act shall be
allotted or paid any sum under the provisions of this
act in any year unless it has voted to raise and there
has been levied in the fiscal year in which allotment
is made, at least a 6 mill tax on the state equalized
valuation of the property within the district, for the
purposes included in the operation cost of the dis-
trict as defined in Section 14 of this Act, and has
certified such fact to the superintendent of public
instruction. If the district does not levy at least
an 8 mill tax for the above purposes, the amount
allotted or paid shall be reduced to an amount which
bears the same proportion to the total amount allotted
or paid as the actual levy bears to 8 mills.43

This system is commonly referred to as a participation

millage. Millage that local districts must levy in order

 

42 . . . .
The U. S. Office of Education, State Fund Distribu-

tions pp_Local School Systems, pp, cit., pp. 2, 9, and 10.
4 . . . .

. 3The State of Michigan, Section 35 of the State Aid

Act, 1959-60.

55
to participate in state support has been raised one mill.
Previously only seven mills levied was required for full
state aid and it prorated, if less, to a minimum of five
mills. Summarily described, in order to obtain its state
share, the individual district must have an operation tax,
including the 3—1/4 mills, of at least 6 mills. To obtain
all of the calculated state funds, the operation tax must
be at least 8 mills. Although it is a matter of discussion
if these provisions do carry much impact upon the sound deve-
lopment toward educational equality, the main point of this
provision is in its emphasis upon local initiative and the
increment of effort required of local districts to attain
partnership status with the state in the support of a mini-
mum foundation program, irrespective of the membership size
or the local financial ability.

There are other provisions similar to those of parti-
Cipation millage described above, requiring local effort to
Obtain state financial assistance, such as the "distressed—
school-district-aid" provisions and the constitutional
arrangement for the "school bond loan program."

The state may extend additional (above the partner-
Ship $205) aid if a district is comparatively poor (below
$9,000 SEV) and levies a total school district tax in ex-

Cess of 20 mills. The State Aid Act provides:

56

A school district experiencing financial hardship
and eligible to receive additional aid under the pro-
visions of section 6 of this act shall meet all the
following conditions: (a) The total tax rate levied
in the district for operating and debt retirement pur-
poses for the fiscal year in which such additional aid
is allowed shall be at least 20 mills on the state
equalized valuation of the district. . . .44
Thus, a district meeting the conditions prescribed in

the Act may apply for the additional aid. The amount of aid

ranges from $5 to $2 per resident pupil membership. This is

called the "hardship-aid" or the "distressed-school—district-
aid."

Since the state gives financial aid for operation,
maintenance, salaries, etc., but not for the cost of build-
ings and sites, the costs of constructing and equipping
buildings and providing sites are borne entirely by property
taxation at the local level. In the cases that the burden
on the part of the school district is unbearable because of
the lack of taxable—property resources, the state may borrow
money needed for the local school district. The constitutional
Provision in this regard is as follows:

The state may borrow from time to time such amounts
as may be required but not to exceed an aggregate of
$1000,000,000.00, pledge its faith and credit and issue
its notes or bonds therefor, for the purpose of making

loans to school districts for the payment of principal
and interest on school bonds heretofore or hereafter

 

44The State of Michigan, Section 15, State Aid Act, 1959-

 

57
issued for acquiring, constructing, enlarging, im-
proving and equipping school buildings and sites and
for the funding or refunding of obligations incurred
for l or more of the aforesaid purposes. . . .After
a school district shall have received such a loan or
loans from the state, it shall thereafter levy each
year not less than the said 13 mills until the amount
loaned has been repaid and any tax collections in any
year over and above the minimum requirements for
principal and interest shall be used towards the re-
payment of such loan or loans. . . .45
This constitutional provision specifies that if a
school district levies a local property tax of 13 mills to
buy sites and construct buildings, and if this 13 mills is
not sufficient, the state will extend state funds to be re-

paid in order that the district may obtain the necessary

facilities.

IV. Summary

Hitherto, the literature concerning the issues of local
control of education and equal educational opportunity,
the relationships between school finance and the quantity
and quality of educational services, and the Michigan State
Aid Formula has been reviewed. The purpose of the review
was to clarify some of the fundamental issues and principles
in American educational administration and school finance

systems, and to establish a frame of reference in

 

45 . . . .
The State of Michigan, Section 27, Article X of the

Michigan Constitution.

 

58

comprehending the factual differences of financial and edu-
cational factors among different types of school districts
in Michigan.

It has been understood that the two concepts of local
control of education and equal educational opportunity are
the fundamentals which set the tone and the characteristics
of education and public school finance systems in the United
States. Since the two concepts are often conflicting, con-
current implementation of the two ideals is not an easy task
in many cases. Thus, the issue of centralization versus de-
centralization comes into the picture. In this regard, the
functional approach appears to be the most productive method
of effecting a compromise between the two extremes of cen-
tralism and decentralism. It would be the best hope for
both modifying the traditional decentralists' view of school
district independence and forestalling those unwholesome and
undemocratic results which, as many people fear, a strong
state centralization might produce.

It has also been understood that money by itself will
not create excellence in school finance systems or in edu-
cational services. Yet, sufficient money and effective
finance systems are expected to enhance the better chances
of obtaining, maintaining, and increasing the quantity and

quality of education. Generally stated, the differences in

59

financial ability to support public school education tend to
increase the potentiality of unfavorable differences in the
quantity and quality of educational services among school
districts.

In the final analysis, the purpose of school finance in
a democratic society is to maintain and enhance the equality
of educational opportunities. An ultimate test of financial
systems, policies, and practices in a democratic society,
then, is the soundness of educational conditions in each
school district, regardless of its geographical location, its
community size, or its financial ability. The answers to
the questions of "what are the sound educational conditions?"
are conditioned by the social demands and are determined
according to the value concepts held by the people.

In Michigan, the philosophy has been accepted that the
state must pay a major share of the cost of educating its
children. This goes without question. A look at the State
Aid plans in effect shows that Michigan has taken steps that
are intended to assure reasonably adequate educational
opportunities for all children in properly organized school
districts. However, this indication does not necessarily
mean that the present Michigan State Aid Formula is, in
itself, entirely adequate or sufficient to provide satis-

factory educational opportunities for all children of the

60

state. There have been substantial evidences that Michigan
has not found yet the best plan for financing its public
school system. In fact, the inequality of taxability in

the different sections is becoming increasingly notice-

able as has been reported by a few studies; and the problems
arising from the disparity of ability distribution as re-
lated to the quantity and quality of educational services
among school districts have not yet been settled. The obser-
vation is warranted that while it would be rather absurd to
assert that the quality of the best programs should be reduced
to produce a negligible improvement in the others, it would
also be difficult to justify the wide unfavorable differences
existing between the educational programs of the poorest and
the privileged districts.

One of the basic keys for attaining the ideals of equal
educational opportunity lies probably in the reformation of
the taxation system so as to obtain an actual increase of
school revenue, along with effective measures of school dis-
trict reorganization. The state should be making continuous
examinations of what is happening in local operations, and
the level of support should be adjusted to keep pace with the
improvement and progress possible at any time. Unbiased ex-

aminatioms of the situation and true understandings of the

61

factual differences existing among school districts should

precede other efforts in this direction.

62

CHAPTER III

CLASSIFICATION OF THE SCHOOL DISTRICTS

I. Introduction

One of the most clearcut bases of classifying the
public school districts in Michigan is either by the popu-
lation of inhabitants, according to the Federal census, or
by the number of children between the ages of 5 and 20, as
certified by the superintendent of public instruction.
The former basis is applied in organizing the second class
school districts, and the latter basis is applied in organ-
izing the fourth, the third, and the first class school dis-
tricts. While the classification of school districts in
terms of either the population of inhabitants or the num-
ber of pupils would have many advantages for general govern-
mental administration, this system of district classifica-
tion does not seem to carry by itself much meaning in con—
sidering the effects of the state school aid programs.

Hewever, besides the vantage points in administrative

convenience, one of the general assumptions behind the

 

1The State of Michigan, The General School Laws, 1960
(340.21, 340.52, 340.102, 340.142, and 340.182, The numbers
refer to the 1948 Michigan Complied Laws.) (Lansing, Michi-
gan: Speaker-Hines and Thomas, Inc., 1960).

63

practice of classifying the school districts on the basis
of the population of inhabitants or of the number of school
age children seems to have been that financila need (member-
ship) does have direct relationships with financial ability
and effort. In this connection, one recent study, conducted
by Turck, concluded that there is undoubtedly a relationship
between the size of the membership and the taxable wealth,
and that there is a tendency for a school district, as it
increases in the size of membership, to expend more effort
(tax rate) for the support of its program, even though there
appears to be no consistent relationship between the ability
of a high school district and its effort.2

In the light of the assumptions held in Michigan's
school aid policies and judging from the results of the
said study, it can reasonably be contended that even though
each of the three variables may be an individually inade-
quate basis, when they are taken altogether as a criterion,
they can provide a sound basis of classifying and grouping
the school districts for the purpose of analyzing the ef-
fects of the financial system in Michigan.

With these considerations in mind, and on the basis of
the examination of the data, three comparative classifica-

tion criteria--L (Low), M (Medium), and H (High)--in each

 

1
Merton James Turck, Jr., pp, cit., pp. 112-3.

fr:

 

kc)

64
of the three variables of financial need, ability and ef-
fort are established in order to classify the school districts.
Thus, in theory, there can be 27 classification cate-
gories created by the combinations of the criteria in each
of the three variables of financial need, ability, and ef-

fort, as shown in Figure 1.

II. Classification py_Need

An examination of the membership distribution among
the 535 K-12 school districts, including the Detroit School

District, revealed the following facts:

1. Total membership 1,451,703
2. Median 1,128
3. Mean 2,713
4. Standard Deviation 12,663

The examination of the data, as shown in Table IV and
Figure 2, clearly indicated that the membership distribu-
tion was highly uneven. Approximately 74 per cent of the
total districts have less than 2,000 membership. More than
91 per cent of the total districts have less than 5,000
membership. Looking at the situation in another way, a
group of less than 10 per cent of the districts holds nearly
60 per cent of the total membership. In short, there are

many small school districts.

r .1 i

 

flu: ~=r:.

 

 

65

FIGURE 13

A THEORETICAL FRAME OF REFERENCE FOR CLASSIFYING THE
SCHOOL DISTRICTS IN TERMS OF NEED,
ABILITY, AND EFFORT

 

 

 

Classification N. A. E.
number (membership) (SEV per pupil) (millage)

1. L L L
2. M L L
3. H L L
4. L L M
5. M L M
6. H L M
7. L L H
8. M L H
9. H L H
10. L M L
11. M M L
12. H M L
13. L M M
14. M M M
15. H M M
16. L M H
17. M M H
18. H M H
19. L H L
20. M H L
21. H H L
22. L H M
’ 23. M H M
24. H H M
25. L H H
26. M H H
27. H H H

 

3 .-.
N. represents Need; A., Ability; E., Effort;
L. represents Low; M., Medium; and H., High.

 

1*“

t iriu.

{5115‘

 

‘V-

NEED DISTRIBUTION OF THE 535 K-12 SCHOOL
DISTRICTS IN MICHIGAN

TABLE IV

66

 

 

 

Classification Membership Number Of
districts
Low . . . 1-999 239
Medium . 1,000-1,999 156
2,000-2,999 41
3,000-3,999 32
4,000-4,999 19
High . . 5,000-5,999 8
6,000-6,999 6
7,000-7,999 4
8,000-8,999 5
9,000-9,999 3
10,000-10,999 3
11,000-ll,999 4
12,000-12,999 5
l4,000-14,999 l
l7,000-17,999 2
l9,000-l9,999 2
21,000-21,999 1
22,000-22,999 l
24,000-24,999 l
26,000-26,999 1
37,000-37,999 l
283,000-283,999 l

 

67

Aooo.H CH uHflDv @002

6.543210987654321
222222.2111111111

10

987654321

 

 

43

88 87098

22 33322

RENT
mNH.H
MHF.N
m@®.NH

.trrIL rli FIHILIIrIIIIrILIIFII

 

L

 

”sweeps
"gems

"coHpMH>oQ pumpcmum

Acmmasoaa an muoauumac Hoosom «Hus mmmc
onesmHmech memmmmmzmac cmmz

N mmDUHm

_

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ON

cs

00

cm

OOH

ONH

ova

00H

omH

oom

CNN

Gem

Number of School Districts

1’ Fl.

 

 

68

With these facts, and considering both the pr0portion

of the number of school districts and the distribution of
membership among school districts, the following classifi-

cations were made.

Low (small). Each school district included in this
category has less than 999 membership. The average member-
ship is 564. In this category, 239 school districts, with

a total membership of 134,832, are included.

Medium. Each school district included in this cate-
gory has 1,000 to 4,999 membership. The average membership
is 2,057. In this category, 248 school districts, with a

total membership of 510,181, are included.

High (large). Each school district included in this
category has more than 5,000 membership. The average mem-
bership is 16,815. In this category, 48 school districts,

with a total membership of 807,140, are included.

These classification boundaries seem to be appropriate
for the purpose of this study, under the present Michigan
condition. In this connection, it is interesting to note
that the low classification criterion is in accordance with
Conant's observation. Defining high schools with a gradu-

ating class of under 100 as "too small," Dr. Conant said

69
about 30 per cent of Michigan's schools fall in this classi-

fication.

III. Classification py_Abi1ity

The examination of the ability distribution among 535
K-12 school districts, including the Detroit School District,

shows the following facts:

1. Median 8,817
2. Mean 10,277
3. Standard deviation 5,764

The examination of the data, as shown in Table V and
~Figure 3, indicates that the disparity of wealth distribu-
tion among school districts is great. To compensate for
this situation the Michigan State Aid Act contains hardship
aid provisions. According to Section 15 of the Act, there
are four categories under which districts may be entitled
to receive additional aid: namely, the districts having a
state equalized valuation of $3,0000r less; the districts
having a state equalized valuation of at least $3,001 but“
less than $5,001; the districts having a state equalized

valuation of at least $5,001 but less than $7,001; the

 

4 . . . . . . . .
Michigan Education Assoc1ation, Michigan Education
Journal, 36:15 (April, 1959), p. 447.

70

 

 

H mam.m¢uooo.mv
H mom.m¢uooo.ov
H mmmtmenooo.mv
H mmm.o¢rooo.o¢
H mmm.mmuooo.mm
H mmm.~muooo.mm
m mmm.mmuooo.m~
N mmm.m~rooo.mm m mmH.mHuooo.MH
m mom.e~rooo.s~ am mmm.mHnooo.mH
mm mam.HHuooo.HH
H mam.mmnooo.m~ He mom.oHuooo.0H
H mmm.¢~-ooo.¢~ we mmm.mrooo.m
H mmm.m~uooo.mm em mam.mrooo.m
H mmm.m~nooo.- we mmm.nrmmm.s . .asHpmz
m mam.H~uooo.H~
a mmm.o~uooo.om
m mmm.mHuooo.mH mm «mm.nrooo.s
m mmm.mHuooo.mH om mmm.muooo.e
m mmm.aHrooo.sH om mam.mrooo.m
0H mmm.oHuooo.oH om mmm.¢.ooo.v
om mmm.mHuooo.mH m mmm.muooo.m
om mam.eHuooo.¢H m mmm.~rooo.~
NH mmm.ermmH.mH . :mHm H mmm.HuH . . . 30H
muoflnumfip coflumo muofiuumwp coaumo
Ho .02 HHasa “we >mm -HuHmmmHo mo .02 HHmsm Hem >mm -HmHmmmHo

 

> MAM4B

Z¢GHEUHZ ZH mBUHmBmHQ AOOEOm NHIM mmm mma m0 ZOHBDMHMBwHQ NBHQHmfi

 

Hoo.ooo.Hm cH uHasc EHHHHnm

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

09876543104 98
s444444444aunw22mnmmmnnmmmnmmmnmumgsves4321
rln 1 rlH, FILfiAHHshHHHHsJ _ m _ H . +,. . , . o
.1 1.0H
T. 13
: om
rt .mm
l lion
.mm
aHm.mm “amHems
. . .1 ow
new OHW .cmmz
vos.mw "coHpmH>mc enmocmum :1 . me
u.om
I: 11 . mm
1 oo
HammHsoHa cH mpoHnuch Hoosom mHus mmmv mo
onesmHmemHn HHHmsm mum >mmv weHHHma
1 as
m mmaon I: ma

 

Number of School Districts

72
districts having a state equalized valuation of at least
$7,001 but less than $9,001 on the basis of its resident
pupil membership. If these categories of school districts
can be considered as one of the bases in considering the
definition of poor school districts, it is noteworthy that
there are 277 K-12 school districts which have less than
$9,000 SEV on the basis of their resident pupil membership.

In this connection, Hecker observes:

The "average” Michigan school district has approxi-
mately $15,000 SEV per pupil. A district would be con-
Sidered relatively "poor" if it had less than $10,000 per
pupil and relatively "wealthy"'if'it had over $25,000 per
pupil.5

If this observation should be applied, there are only
15 K-12 school districts which can be classified as wealthy
districts; and there are 321 K—12 school districts which
can be classified as poor districts.

With these facts, the criteria were established for the
purpose of this study,as follows:

pr, Those school districts that fall beyond one-half
standard deviation below the mean of the dispersion of fi-
nancial ability are included in this category. This cate-
gory in effect includes about the lower one-third of the

ability distribution. Each school district included in

this category has a SEV (state equalized valuation) per

 

5Stanley E. Hecker, pp, cit., p. 17.

73

pupil of less than $7,394. There are 177 school districts,

and the average SEV per pupil is $5,790.

Medium. Those school districts that fall within the
range of one-half standard deviation below and above the mean
of the dispersion of financial ability are included in this
category. Each school district included in this category has
a SEV per pupil of $7,395 to $13,158. There are 250 school

districts, and the average SEV per pupil is $9,723.

‘gigp, Those school districts that fall beyond one-half
standard deviation above the mean of the dispersion of fi-
nancial ability are included in this category. This category
in effect included about the upper one-third of the ability
distribution. Each school district included in this category
has a SEV per pupil of $13,159 or more. There are 108 school

districts, and the average SEV per pupil is $18,911.

IV. Claspif1cation py_Effort

The examination of the effort distribution among the 535
K-12 school districts, as shown in Table VI, and Figure 4,
indicated the following:

1. Median 16.10 mills
2. Mean 16.97 mills

3. Standard deviation 4.69 mills

EFFORT DISTRIBUTION OF THE 535 K—12 SCHOOL
DISTRICTS IN MICHIGAN

 

—~—7
‘1

TABLE VI

74

 

 

 

Classification Millage No. 9f
districts
Low . . . . . 1.00-7.00 0
8.00-8.99 18
9.00—9.99 4
10.00-10.99 12
11.00-11.99 20
12.00-12.99 38
13.00-13.99 56
14.00-14.62 41
Medium . . . 14.63-14.99 l7
15.00-15.99 46
16.00-16.99 48
17.00-17.99 36
18.00-18.99 42
19.00-19.32 11
High . . . . 19.33-19.99 l4
20.00-20.99 22
21.00-21.99 24
22.00-22.99 23
23.00-23.99 10
24.00-24.99 16
25.00-25.99 12
26.00-26.99 6
27.00-27.99 8
28.00-28.99 7
29.00-29.99 l
30.00-30.99 2
34.00-34.99 l

 

75

HmHHHa EH pHasv shoppe

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

64208642086420
3 3 .3 as 2 Hz or 2 2 .1 11 11 1 .1 0
.[.jm~ O
full-1 F
bH
ll:
mH
am
full
F1 [1 Eu
em
mHHHs 0H.oH “:mems
.mm
mHHHe sm.oH names .11 IL
.ov
mHHHs mo.v "coHHMH>ec eumpcmpm
me
T...
1r!
.om
AcmmHnon :H muoHuuch Hoonom «Hrs mmmc :1 m
.m
onepmHmech Assam xmev excess rt
goo
v mmpon

Number of School Districts

With these facts, the criteria are set,as follows:

ppy, Those school districts that fall beyond one-half
standard deviation below the mean of the dispersion of fi-
nancial effort are included in this category. This cate-
gory in effect includes about the lower one-third of the
effort distribution. Each school district included in this
category levies less than a total of 14.62 mills. There
are 189 school districts and the average millage is 12.39

mills.

Medium. Those districts that fall within the range of
one-half standard deviation below and above the mean of the
dispersion of effort are included in this category. Each
school district included in this category levies a total of
14.63 to 19.32 mills. There are 200 school districts in

this category, and the average millage is 16.76 mills.

gpgg, Those school districts that fall beyond one-half
standard deviation above the mean of the dispersion are
included in this category. This category in effect includes
about the upper one-third of the ability distribution. Each7
school district included in this category levies a total of
19.33 or more mills. There are 146 school districts in this

category, and the average millage is 23.17 mills.

77

TABLE VII

CLASSIFICATION OF THE 535 K-12 SCHOOL DISTRICTS IN MICHIGAN,
IN TERMS OF NEED, ABILITY, AND EFFORT

 

—— ——
-—-—— f

Classification

 

 

 

Number of Need Ability Effort
number . .
N. A. E. districts average average average
1. L L L 35 552 5,591 12.15
2. M L L 11 1,637 6,204 12.25
3. H L L 0 -- - --
4. L L M 39 650 5,733 16.75
5. M L M 27 1,968 6,356 16.78
6. H L M 0 -- -- --
7. L L H 32 514 5,299 23.53
8. M L H 27 2,000 5,827 24.36
9. H L H 6 9,936 6,463 26.98
10. L M L 53 615 9,701 12.32
11. M M L 42 1,850 9,968 12.51
12. H M L 1 8,270 11,863 14.50
13. L M M 33 590 9,424 16.65
14. M M M 59 1,715 9,907 16.66
15. H M M 2 11,988 11,279 16.83
16. L M H 13 496 9,362 22.47
17. M M H 34 2,386 9,378 22.44
18. H M H 13 7,814 9,811 22.71
19. L H L 21 496 17,921 12.16
20. M H L 20 2,275 19,276 12.72
21. H H L 6 13,924 17,139 13.26
22. L H M 12 323 18,392 16.70
23. M H M 19 2,614 22,287 17.02
24. H H M 9 43,654 18,482 17.27
25. L H H 1 461 15,471 22.26
26. M H H 9 3,314 17,173 21.39
21, H H H 11 12,480 17,927 22.25
Total 535

General Mean 2,713 10,277 16.97

78

V. Summary

According to the criteria thus established, the 535
K-12 school districts, including the Detroit school Dis—
trict, were grouped into 27 theoretical categories. It
was found that there were no school districts which be-
longed to the two theoretical categories (classification
numbers 3 and 6). The result is shown in Table VII.

An examination of the data clearly indicated that a
high degree of disparity exists among school districts in
each of the distributions of membership, ability, and ef—
fort. Summarily stated, many of the K-12 school districts
in Michigan are still small and poor. For the total group
of the 535 K-12 school districts, the membership average
is 2,713; the ability (SEV per pupil) average is $10,277;
and the effort average is 16.97 mills.

From these classified groups of school districts, the
22 groups are selected for the purpose of the analyses, as

described in Chapter IV.

79

CHAPTER IV
DESIGN OF THE STUDY

The present study is based on a design that made possi—
ble the comparison of the differences in each of the selected
financial and educational factors among different types of
school districts, and the identification of the general rela-
tionships between the differences and the three variables of

financial need, ability, and effort.
I. Selection 9£_the School Districts

Table VII indicates that the two classification cate—
gories (classification numbers 3 and 6) have no school dis-
tircts. The two categories (classification numbers 12 and
25) have only one school district, respectively, and one
category (classification number 15) has only two school
districts. These five categories (types) of school dis-
tricts are eliminated from the analyses that will be made
hereafter. They lack the representative characteristics as
types of a group of school districts in Michigan.

In addition, 11 school districts, including the Detroit
School District, are excluded because the data from these
school districts were incomplete or unsatisfactory for the

purpose of this study. The Detroit School District was

80

eliminated because of its uniqueness in size, its 283,340
membership being nearly 20 per cent of the total membership
in Michigan's K-12 school districts, and because of the in-
complete data furnished. Thus, the 22 groups (types) of
school districts, comprising the 520 K—12 districts, are
selected.

For the total group of the 520 selected K-12 school dis-
tricts, the membership average is 2,142; the ability (SEV
per pupil) average is $10,229; and the effort average is
16.99 mills. The summarized information, in terms of need,
ability, and effort of the selected 22 groups of school dis—

tricts is shown in Table VIII.
II. Selection g§_Financia1 and Educational Factors

A tentative list of financial and educational factors
was developed and revised by the writer's committee chairman
and the writer himself. Then a questionnaire containing the
list of financial and educational factors was sent to ten
school finance experts and professors of educational admin-
istration and school finance at Michigan State University,
asking them to rank the factors in order of their importance
for the purpose of the analyses of this study. The returns
were reviewed, and five financial factors and five educa-

tional factors were selected.

81
TABLE VIII

THE 22 SELECTED GROUPS OF K-lZ SCHOOL DISTRICTS, CLASSIFIED
IN TERMS OF NEED, ABILITY, AND EFFORT

1’

 

 

J
L

 

 

t

 

 

 

C1a881fication Number of Need Ability Effort
numbe£f_ districts avera e avera e average
N. A. E. g g (mills)
1. L L L 34 557 5,560 12.27
2. M L L 11 1,637 6,204 12.25
4. L L M 39 650 5,733 16.75
5. M L M 25 2,024 6,366 16.90
7. L L H 32 514 5,299 23.53
8. M L H 27 2,000 5,827 24.36
9. H L H 5 9,974 6,687 26.77
10. L M L 53 615 9,701 12.32
11. M M L 40 1,879 10,034 12.66
13. L M M .33 590 9,424 16.65
14. M M M 58 1,721 9,927 16.70
16. L M H 13 496 9,362 22.47
17. M M H 34 2,386 9,378 22.44
18. H M H 13 7,814 9,811 22.71
19. L H L 21 496 17,922 12.16
20. M H L 20 2,275 19,276 12.72
21. H H L 6 13,924 17,139 13.26
22. L H M 10 333 18,053 16.59
23. M H M 19 2,614 22,287 17.02
24. H H M 8 13,693 18,423 17.34
26. M H H 8 3,134 16,877 21.44
27. H H H 11 12,480 17,927 22.25
Total 520
General Mean 2,142 10,229 16.99

82

Selected Financial Factors

1. The annual total current expenditures per pupil.

2. The average salary of the teaching staff.

3. The percentage of the capital outlay budget in

relation to the total amount of expenditures.

4. The percentage of the total amount of state revenue
receipts in relation to the total receipts.
The total receipts as used in this study include
the following:

a. The total general fund balance of July 1,
1959.

b. The total revenue receipts.

c. The total non-revenue receipts.
The state receipts include the following:

a. Primary fund.

b. School Aid for 1959—60.

c. Delinquent State Aid.

d. Aid to hardship districts.

5. The percentage of the total amount of general fund
property taxes (revenue receipts) in relation to the

total receipts.

83

Selected Educational Factors

1. The percentage of the number of teachers holding
Master's degrees or above to the total number of

the teaching staff.

2. The percentage of the total number of teachers
holding provisional, permanent, or life certifi-

cates to the total number of the teaching staff.

3. The percentage of the number of secondary teachers
teaching in subjects outside of certified majors
and minors to the total number of the secondary

teaching staff.

4. The percentage of the number of full-time teachers
receiving over $7,000 annual salary to the total

.number of the full-time teaching staff.

5. The pupil-teacher ratio.

III. Analysis

The significance of differences among means of selected
factors in the 22 types of school districts is tested by an

analysis of variance technique.

84

General Question

Are there true (significant) differences among the
means of each of the selected financial and educational

factors in the 22 groups of school districts?
. . , 1
Statistical Analysis

1. Statistically, the analysis of each of the finan-
cial and educational factors involves a test of
the null hypothesis--that there are no true differ-
ences among the means of the 22 groups (types) of

school districts.

2. To test whether differences among means are signi-
ficant, the F test is used. A .05 level of signi—
ficance is established for rejecting the null hy-

pothesis.

 

1References: (a) Henry E. Garrett and R. S. woodworth,
Statistics ip_Psychology and Education (New York: Longmans,
Green and Company, 1958), pp. 276-308 and 372-5; (b) Allen
L. Edwards, Statistical Methods for the Behavioral Sciences
(New YOrk: Rinehart and Company, Inc., 1957), pp. 315-65:
(c) Wilfrid J. Dixon and Frank J. Massey, Jr., Introduction
32 Statistical Analysis (New YOrk: McGraw-Hill Book Company,
Inc., 1957), pp. 139-88; (d) George W. Snedecor and William
G. Cochran, Statistical Methods Fifth edition (Ames, Iowa:
The Iowa State College Press, 1959), pp. 190-2 and 237-90;
and (e) Sidney Siegel, Nonparametric Statistics for the
Behavioral Sciences (New YOrk: McGraw—Hill Book Company,
Inc., 1956), pp. 202-13 and 284.

85

3. When the F test rejects the null hypothesis, the "t"

test is used in order to determine those means which

contributed to the differences.

 

2The following are the points for special consideration
and the steps taken in testing the differences.

(a) The 22 groups are unequal in their sizes.

(b) In each factor analysis, the number of potential dif-
ferences will be:

22 (22 - l)/2 = 231

(c) A general formula for calculating standard error of
the difference between any two means in analysis of variance
is:

l 1
SE=SD —+—
D w N N
1 2
where SED is the standard error of the differences between
any two means, SDw is the within-groups standard deviation,
and the N and N are the sizes of the groups being compared.

1 2
Since "t" = mean difference/SED
mean differences = "t" x SED
therefore, D.01 - t .01 x SED

where D.01 is the value of significant difference, when the

difference is tested by the "t" at the 01 level.

(d) The means of any two groups are said to be signifi-
cantly different at the .01 level of significance, if they
differ by more than:

|I--I

1- +
1 2

(e) Hence, for each factor analysis, a table of values
of D.01 values for all 231 combinations of two means is es-
tablished. Another table of mean differences is derived for
each factor analysis, and these differences are judged to
be significant if they exceed the corresponding value in

t .
he D.01 table

D.01 = t .01 x SD‘w

Z
Z

86
Differences between pairs of means are held to be
significant at the .01 level, if they exceed an
amount determined by the method given in the foot-

note 2.

4. In order to identify the general relationships, in
terms of Low, Medium, and High concepts, between
each of the three variables of financial need, abil-
ity, and effort and the differences of each of the
selected factors, Spearman's rank correlation method
is employed.3 The rank correlation coefficients are
tested at the .10 and .02 levels of significance

(two—tailed tests).

 

(a) This is a nonparametric method.

(b) The rank correlation tests will be the tests of
the null hypotheses of no significant relationships between
each of the selected factors and each of the three variables
of financial need, ability, and effort.

(c) Spearman's rank correlation coefficient (r ) is
given by: S

 

6 EN :12:
r = 1 - i=1
3 N(N2-1)

In our cases, N = 22, the number of groups; where
the di '8 are differences in ranks of each of the 22 groups
among 1the two measurements whose rank correlation is being
calculated.

87

IV. Summary

The 22 groups (types) of school districts, comprising
tflu3520 K-12 school districts, were selected. Five finan-
cial factors and five educational factors were chosen. The
statistical tool identified as appropriate for analyzing
differences among the means of the 22 groups of each of the
10 selected factors was the analysis of variance. Differen-
ces among the means of the 22 groups will be tested by the
F ratio and the "t" test. The Spearman's rank correlation
coefficient technique was identified as an appropriate sta-
tistical method for identifying the general relationships
between the differences of each of the selected factors
among different types of school districts and each of the

three variables of financial need, ability, and effort.

f “i

 

CHAPTER V
ANALYSIS OF SELECTED FINANCIAL FACTORS

In this chapter, the five selected financial factors
are analyzed. An analysis of variance technique is employed
in order to test the significance of differences among means
of each financial factor. The distribution of differences,
the largest differences, and the total number of differences
that are significant at the .01 level of significance, are
examined. An inspection of the differences among means of
the groups 1, 14, and 27 will be a matter of particular
interest because the three groups have typical characteris-
tics.1 In order to identify the general relationships, in
terms of Low, Medium, and High concepts, between the five
selected financial factors and the three variables of finan-
cial need, ability, and effort, Spearman's rank correla-
tion technique is employed. The tests of significance of
rank difference coefficient will be at the .10 and .02 levels
of significance.

For the purpose of this analysis, first, the types of

districts are ranked from highest to lowest on the bases of

-‘

1Note: Group 1 (L L L) holds the low categories of all
three variables of financial need, ability, and effort;
group 14 (M M M)holds the medium categories; and group 27
(H H H) holds the high categories. See: Table VIII.

89

the group averages of need, ability, and effort, as shown

in Table IX; and the group mean distribution table of each
selected factor is arranged from highest to lowest, so that
each group has a rank for each factor. All results of the

analyses are presented in summarized forms.

1. Analysis 9: Financial Factor 1

Factor. The annual current expenditures per pupil.

Null hypothesis. There are no significant differences

among the 22 group means of financial factor 1.

Analysis g£_variance. A summary of the analysis of
variance is shown in Table X.
Conclusion: The null hypothesis is rejected and,
therefore, it is concluded that the 22 group means
of financial factor 1 do, in fact, differ signifi-

cantly.

Tests g£_gifference§_by_use gf_"§f. A summary of the

 

results of the "t" tests is presented in Table XI.
A close inspection of the mean differences shows the

following:

TABLE IX*

90

THE TWENTY-TWO GROUPS OF SCHOOL DISTRICTS ARRAYED
IN ORDER OF THE GROUP AVERAGE OF NEED,
ABILITY, AND EFFORT

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Need A'bilityfi—_—-__:====::rf:::===q
3,3222. $3,252... 252:; Rank
Highest 21 l 23 1 9 l
24 2 20 2 8 2
27 3 24 3 7 3
9 4 22 4 18 4
18 5 27 5 16 5
26 6 19 6 l7 6
23 7 21 7 27 7
17 8 26 8 26 8
20 9 ll 9 24 9
5 10 14 10 23 10
8 11 18 11 11
ll 12 10 12 4 12
14 13 13 13 14 13
14 17 14 22 14
4 15 16 15 13 15
10 16 9 16 21 16
13 17 5 17 20 17
l 18 2 18 ll 18
7 l9 8 19 10 19
19 20 4 20 l 20
16 21 l 21 2 21
Lowest 22 22 7 22 19 22

 

 

 

 

 

*NOte:

This table is derived from Table VIII.

91

TABLE X

SUMMARY: ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
OF FINANCIAL FACTOR l

 

 

 

Source of Sums of Mean squares
. . df . SD
variation squares (variance) w
Among the 21 817,179 38,913.28
means
Within 498 835,495 1,677.70 40.96
groups
Total 519 1,652,674
" u = 38,913.28 _
P 1,677.70 23.19

df = 21 and df = 498‘

ll
[.1
U1
\0

H
l-‘
\D
I-'

"F" at .01

Ho: rejected

 

92

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.Nm.OHmw ma
muUAHumflp Hoonom ONm How mmmuw>m $39 any

N ooN Ha

.HfiH ma mucwuwmmav m th mN

ucmoflmflcmwm mo Hones: amuoa Any v cam on

. H HmN ¢m
.wuchHmwcmflm m owN SN

mo Hm>mH Ho. msu um unuoflmflnmfim oH mmm mm
mum museum pmumuflccfl mo manmE Va HmN mm
cww3umfl mmocwHGMMHp “map mwumofians any h NmN Nm
HH gmN ov

y a ma NOm mm

a van m

x a a s * s x a « SH HNM vm
« s e s « s s s x * ON mmm ON
* a a s s s s s x s 0H mmm MH
* s s s x s s s s a ma mvm ma
a * a e e s x s a s a ma mmm AN

a s x a x a s s k * HN mom 0
s k x a s s * ¥ * x « s s s s MN mmm ma

* t a s a s e x e a s k a a s NN mom OH

x s a a x s s « ¥ « s x a s s * 0N Now m

* a a a s s a a « s s x a s a # GN hdfi m
s t s a s s s a s s * ¥ * s s s i hN MN¢w HH

5N @N 0N NN MN HN ma ma 0H ON SH m ma HH 5 vH OH m H w m N .OG saw: .2

macho
H0855 adonw
A:u= mo mmaflmu :Hv

AHmDm mmm mmmDBHDzmmxm BZfiMMDU

HN Wflmda

A¢D22< ho ZOmHm<m£OU

93

1. Distribution of
Mean Differences

Frequency
More than $151 4
101-150 42
52-100 70
1- 50 115
Total 231

2. Largest difference is between group 27 and group

2 (difference: $163).

3. Total number of differences that are significant

at the .01 level of significance is 141.

4. Differences among means of the groups. 1. l4. and
27:
a. Group 27 vs. group 1: significant.
b. Group 27 vs. group 14: significant.

c. Group 1 vs. group 14: not significant.
Variables contributing tg_the differences.

1. Need
a. r = 0.3970.
s
b. significant at the .10 level, but not at
2
the .02 level.

2 . . . . .
(a) Sidney Siegel. anparametric Statistics for the
Behavioral Sciences, 92, cit., p. 284.

94
c. Positive relationship.
2. Ability
a. r = 0.7934.
s
b. Significant at the .10 and .02 levels.

c. Positive relationship.

3. Effort
a. r = 0.2174.
s
b. Not significant at the .10 and .021evels.

c. Positive relationship.

4. Conclusion
a. It is clear that there is a high positive
relationship3 between financial ability and

financial factor 1.

 

(b) For a two-tailed test, a coefficient will be signifi-
cant at the .10 level if it exceeds 0.359 or is less than
-0.359. A coefficient is significant at the .02 level if it
exceeds 0.508 or is less than -0.508.

3The degrees of relationships are defined in the fol-

lowing terms: If the rank correlation coefficient is
' ‘ .80 and up: very high relationship ' '
.50 to .80: substantial relationship
.30 to .50: some relationship
.20 to .30: slight relationship
.00 to .20: practically no relationship.

95
b. There is some positive relationship between
the need variable and financial factor 1.
c. A slight positive (but not significant)
relationship is found between financial

factor 1 and effort.

5. Therefore, it must be interpreted that the most
contributive variable to the differences in the
annual current expenditures per pupil is finan-

cial ability. The relationship is positive.
II. Analysis 9f_Financial Facto; ;
Factor, The average salaries of teachers.

Null_hypo§hesis. There are no significant differences

among the 22 group means of financial factor 2.

Analysis Q§_variance. The result is shown in Table
XII.
Conclusion: The null hypothesis is rejected.
Therefore, it is concluded that the 22 group

means of financial factor 2 differ significantly.

Tests of differences by use of "t". The results are

shown in Table XIII.

96

TABLE XII

SUMMARY: ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
OF FINANCIAL FACTOR 2

 

 

Source of Sums of Mean squares

. . df . SD
variation squares (variance) w
Among the
means 21 232,516,876 11,072,232.19
Within
groups 498 320,964,938 644,507.90 803.17
Total 519 553,481,814

. u z 11.0721232.19 :
F 644,507.90 17°18

df = 21 and df = 498

1 2
"F" at .05 = 1.59
"F” at .01 = 1.91

Ho: rejected

 

97

 

 

 

.mmm.¢w mA mquHumAO h OOAO NM
Aoonom omm may now mmmum>m one ADV A mmAg gm
MA Ammv MM
.OAA mA mmocwHTMMAG OA hfifig mm
acmogmgcmfim no “mass: Hmuoa inc 4 Hmew mm
OA AOm¢ AN
.mochAMAcmfim mo Hm>ma go. way mm moms 63
um unmoAMAcmAm mum masonv N Snug AA
OwumoAOCA mo mammfi cmm3umfl a a m NOhfi MN
mmucmumMMHc umnu mmumUAocH4 Ame 6H mesa ma
* * ¢A mmhfl Om
* s a m MMOO SN
a a s a « AA ommfi Ow
« a a s t * NA NOAm OM
« s s a a s * ON Nme ON
* a x a s * ON AhMm m
s s a a a s a * MN NAvm OA
4 a a a x « m ommm m
a x a s a a x s s x x x s x mA Mhmm MA
* s « s .a s a a a a a a a a s x * vN MONO m
s x a s a s k s a x x a x x s a a x « 5N gAmo AA
a s a s a a « x a a a s a s s s a a t s * AN mMAmw 0
AN SN vN mA m MN ON ON NA AA m vA OA m N NN MA w OA MA A 5 .OG
msouw 2mm: .z

Hogan: msomm

 

 

 

A=u= mo mmanmu cfiv
mmmmomma mo mmHm¢q<m mommm>m mus mo zomHmamzoo

H H HN nun—”mama.

 

 

98

 

 

11. Distribution of
Mean Differences
Frequency
More than $3,001 14
2,001-3,000 22
1,001-2,000 43
l-l,000 152
Total 231
2. Largest difference exists between group 21 and
group 7 (difference: $3,990).
3. Total number of differences, significant at the
.01 level of significance is 116.
4. Differences among means of groups 1, l4, and 27.
a. Group 27 vs. group 1: significant.
b. Group 27 vs. group 14: significant.
c. Group 14 vs. group 1: significant.
Variables contributing 1:2 the differences.
1.- Need
a. r = 0.8961.
s
b. Significant at the .10 and .02 levels.
c. Positive relationship.
2.

Ability

a. r = 0.5935.
s

99
b. Significant at the .10 and .02 levels.

c. Positive relationship.

Effort

a. r = 0.3636
s

b. Significant at the .10 level, but not at the
.02 level.

c. Positive relationship.

Conclusion

a. There is a very high positive relationship
between financial factor 2 and need.

b. There is a substantial positive relation-
ship between financial factor 2 and ability.

c. There is some relationship between financial

factor 2 and effort.

Therefore, it must be interpreted that the most
contributive variable to the differences in the
average salaries of the teachers is financial
need, the sizes of the school districts. The

relationship is positive.

100

III. Analysis 9f Financial Factor 3

 

 

Efiactor. The percentage of the capital outlay budget

in relation to the total expenditures.

b¢ull hypothesis. There are no significant differences

 

mmarig; the 22 group means of financial factor 3.

Analysis 2;“ variance. Table XIV shows the result of
the analysis of variance.
Conclusion: The null hypothesis is rejected
and it is concluded that the 22 group means of

financial factor 3 are significantly different.

(Pests 25 differences by use 2f it". The results are

 

surrunarized in Table XV.

1“. Distribution of
Mean Differences

Frequency
More than 3.01% 6
2.01-3.00 27
1.01-2.00 90
.01-1.00 108
Total 231

Largest difference is between group 21 and group

18 (difference: 3.24%).

101

TABLE XIV

SUMMARY: ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
OF FINANCIAL FACTOR 3

 

 

 

 

 

Source of Sums of Mean squares
. . df . SD
variation squares (variance)

 

Among the

 

meariss 21 338 16.095
Within
9r0ti£>s 498 2,703 5.427 2.33
Total 519
n u = 16.095 :
F .5T427 2.965
df1 = 21 and df2 = 498
"F" at .05 = 1.59
"F" at .01 = 1.91

Ho: rejected

102

 

 

OA mM.A MA
0 ov.A m
XSA.M mA mAOAHumAp SN m¢.A AA
Aoonum ONm mg» Mom mmmum>w 0:9 on AN Mm.A O
sN mm.A m
.mN mA mwocmHmMMAp SA MO.N gm
ucmoAMAsmAm mo Hones: Amuoe AQV m m¢.N MN
AA mm.N os
.mUGMUAMAcmAm mo Am>mA Ao. may ON oo.M m
um unmoAMAcmAm mum mmsoum m So.M SN
OmymoAOcA mo mamme cmm3umn s MA.M OM
mmocmHmMMAO umnu mmumoAOcH« Amv S mA.M NN
* 0A MN.M mm
ON OM.M ON
OA AM.M MA
MN SM.M MA
4 s «A Mv.M Om
N MS.M AA
* k s s * MA NA.¢ MM
* a « NN ON.¢ 0A.
« a a a s s a « s A Om.¢ ¢M
« « a s a s a MA XNO.¢ AN
0A A NN MA N «A MN OA ON CA S g m ON AA m SA gN AN SN OA .0:
msouw saw: .2

 

Hones: QSOHO

 

 

 

A:U.: MO mmHQNU GHV
mmMDBHQmeXm ANBOB Mme OB

 

 

zoESE 2H .5an >350 .2526 a; mo zermomomm a; mo 282528

>K flqmda

 

103
The total number of differences that are signifi-

cant at the .01 level of significance is 29.

Differences among groups 1, l4, and 27.
a. Group 1 vs. group 27: significant.
b. Group 1 vs. group 14: not significant.

c. Group 14 vs. group 27: not significant.

‘Jariables contributing tg_the differences.

1.

 

Need
a. r = -0.8046.
s

b. Significant at the .10 and .02 levels.

c. The relationship is inverse.

Ability

a. r = 0.0870.
s

b. Not significant at the .10 and .02
levels.

c. Positive relationship.

Effort
a. r = -0.5325.
s
b. Significant at the .10 and .02 levels.

c. Inverse relationship.

 

 

104
4. Conclusion
a. There is a very high inverse relationship
between financial factor 3 and need.
b. There is practically no relationship
between financial factor 3 and ability.
c. There is a substantial inverse relation-

ship between financial factor 3 and effort.

5. Therefore, it is interpreted that the most con-
tributive variable to the differences in the
proportion of the capital outlay budget in relation
to the total expenditures is financial need. The
relationship is inverse; that is, the small
school districts seem to spend more money for
capital outlay expenditures out of their total

money available.

IV. Analysis 9£_Financial Factor 4

 

Factor. The percentage of the total state revenue

receipts in relation to the total receipts.

Null hypothesis. There are no significant differences

 

among the 22 group means of financial factor 4.

AEELY§1§.2£.variance. As presented in Table XVI, the

null hypothesis is rejected and, therefore, it is concluded

105

TABLE XVI

SUMMARY: ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
OF FINANCIAL FACTOR 4

 

 

 

Source of df Sums of Mean squares SD
variance squares (variance) w
Among the
means 21 41,120 1,958.095
Within
groups 498 34,077 68.427 8.27
Total 519 75,197
1 958.095
II N = _i =
F 68.427 28.615
: : 4
df1 21 and df2 98
.'F" at .05 = l. 59

0!
('1'
O
H
II
H
KO
H

II F"

H6: rejected

106
that the 22 group means of financial factor 4 do, in fact,

differ significantly.

Tests 9§_differences by_use gf_"t". Summarized re-

sults are shown in Table XVII.

1. Distribution of
Mean Difference

Frequency
More than 30.01% 6
20.01-30.00 53
10.01-20.00 62
.01-10.00 110
Total 231

2. Largest difference exists between group 27 and

group 1 (difference: 33.99%).

3. Total number of differences which are significant

at the .01 level of significance is 151.

4. Differences among the means of groups 1, l4, and
27:
a. Group 1 vs. group 27: significant.
b. Group 1 vs. group 14: significant.

c. Group 14 vs. group 27: significant.
Variables contributing t9_the differences.

1. Need

107

 

*SS.Om mA mpUAHu

 

 

ImAO ONm wnu Mom mOmum>m one ADV SN mO.mN AA
ON Om.AM m
.AMA mA mocmumMMAO MN SM.NM OA
AcmkoAsOAm mo Hones: Amuoe Any ON OM.NM m
NN OO.SM OA
mUCMUAMAcOAm mo Am>wA AO. mnu AN SO.SM O
um unmoAMAsOAm mum museum « « OA OA.OO AN
OwumoAccA mo mamme cmm3umn * « ON O0.00 ON
mmocmu0MMA6 umnu mwumvocH« Ame * 4 T 4 mA Mm.mv MA
* s a & OA Om.mO MA
* a a « x * SA mA.OO OM
* a a s s a s s s « OA OO.Am mm
a s s s a a s a a x MA OO.Nm MM
« « s s a a a a s s « AA mN.Mm OO
s a s s s a « a a x a OA OM.Om Mm
« s ¥ * a s s s s O O0.00 m
a s a « a s a s s a s m SM.Om SN
* a s a « s r a s a s a s O m0.0m OM
x s a a a a s a s a a a s S MN.mm NM
s s k s a a a s t a a a a s N O0.00 AA
* s s a a a « s s « s a s a s m OO.AO ON
a s % s k s s a a a a a t ¥ s a A XOO.NO OM
N S O O O OA AA MA OA SA OA mA ON OA AN NN ON MN ON SN .OG
macho 2mm: .2

Hones: QDOHO

 

 

 

 

 

 

A:u: mo mmAQmu :AV

mBmHmumm A4909 awe OB

 

 

 

ZOHBfiAmm ZH mBmHmOmm MDZm>mm NB<Bm AflBOB Mme m0 ZOHBMOmomm HEB ho ZOmHmdmzcu

HH>N mAm<B

108
a. r = -0.2761.
s
b. Not significant at the .10 and .02 levels.

c. Inverse relationship.

Ability
a. r = -O.8814.
s
b. Significant at the .10 and .02 levels.

c. Inverse relationship.

Effort
a. r = -0.1011.
s
b. Not significant at the .10 and .02 levels.

c. Inverse relationship.

Conclusion

a. There is a slight inverse relationship ( but
not significant) between financial factor 4
and need.

b. There is a very high inverse relationship
between financial factor 4 and ability.

c. There is practically no relationship between

financial factor 4 and effort.

Therefore, it must be interpreted that the most
contributive variable to the differences in the

Pr0portion of the total state revenue receipts in

109
relation to the total receipts is financial
ability. The relationship is inverse, that is,
the poor school districts receive more state aid.
This fact clearly reflects the policies of de-
ductible millage in the Michigan State Aid

Formula.

V. Analysis 9f Financial Factor 5

 

Factor. The percentage of the total general fund

property taxes in relation to the total receipts.

Null_hypothesis. There are no significant differences

among the 22 group means of financial factor 5.

Analysis Q§_variance. Table XVIII presents the re-
sults of the analysis of variance.
Conclusion: Since the null hypothesis is rejected,
it is concluded that the 22 group means of finan-

cial factor 5 do differ significantly.

.Iéélé 2i differences by use 9; "t". Table XIX shows

the summarized results of the tests.

1‘

110

TABLE XVIII

SUMMARY: ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
OF FINANCIAL FACTOR 5

 

 

 

 

Source of Sums of Mean squares
. . df . SD
variation squares (variance) w
Among the
means 21 44,535 2,120.714
Within
groups 498 29,469 59.174 7.69
Total 519 73,004
" u = 24120.714 :
F 59.174 35°84

df = 21 and df = 498

w

rt-
0
Ul

ll

l-‘
U1
KO

II F"

II
P
KO
H

"F" at .01

H : rejected
0

111

 

 

 

A OS.OA OM
4.3.3 3 8.03036 A4 36A SM
Aoosom omm 0:» “om wmmum>m 0:9 Ave N OO.SA AA
m NM.OA ON
.OOA mA mmocwumMMAU S A0.0N NM
samuAmAcmAm 40 4402:: A4009 Age 4 4 m so.mm am
4 4 4 4 OA SA.ON mm
.mochAmAcmAm mo Am>mA Ao. 0:» 4 4 4 4 mA m4.mm mm
04 unmUAMAcmAm mum mmsoum 4 4 4 4 4 AA mm.mm ow
UwfimoAOGA «0 mcmwfi Gmm3umfl 4 4 4 4 4 4 OA OO.SN mm
mmocmuomon 0mg» mmumoAch4 Ame 4 4 4 4 m om.om m
4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 SA OS.OM OM
4 4 4 4 4 4 OA mm.OM MA
4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 OA O0.0M AN
4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 mA OO.SM MA
4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 NN OS.OM OA
4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 AN Mm.OM O
4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 ON ON.NO ON
4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 ON mm.NO m
4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 SN OM.OO AA
4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 ON M0.00 w
4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 MN XO0.00 O
MN ON SN ON ON AN NN mA OA OA SA O OA AA MA OA m S m N O A .OG
Queue saw: .2

A0355: asouo

 

 

 

 

 

 

A4»: mo mmAnmu cAO
memAmomm A4909 may 09 zoAamqmm 2H

 

 

mmXfiB Mammmomm QZDh Admmme ANBOB MIR m0 ZOHBMOmomm NEE m0 ZOOHm<WEOU

NHX mflmflB

l.

112

Distribution of
Mean Differences

Frequency
More than 30.01% 12
20.01-30.00 39
10.01-20.00 87
.01-10.00 9;
Total 231

Largest difference is between group 23 and group

1 (difference: 33.21%).

Total number of differences that are significant

at the .01 level of significance is 160.

Differences among means of groups 1, l4, and 27.
a. Group 27 vs. group 1: significant.
b. Group 27 vs. group 14: significant.

c. Group 14 vs. group 1: significant.

Variables contributing t2 the differences

 

lNeed
a. r =0.5370.
s
13. Significant at the .10 and .02 levels.

c. Positive relationship.

Ability
a- r = 0.8842.
s

b. Significant at the .10 and .02 levels.

113

c. Positive relationship.

3. Effort
a. r = 0.1914.
s

b. Not significant at the .10 and .02 levels.

c. Positive relationship.

4 . Conclusion

a. There is a substantial positive relation-
ship between financial factor 5 and need.

b. There is a very high positive relationship
between financial factor 5 and ability.

c. There is practically no relationship

between financial factor 5 and effort.

5. Thus, it is interpreted that the most contributive
xxariable to the differences in the proportion of
‘the total general fund property taxes in relation
tzo the total receipts is ability. The relation-

ship is positive.

VI. Summary

The Significance of differences among the means of each of
the selected five financial factors in the 22 types of

school distzricts was tested by the F ratio and the "t" test.

114
The contributive variables to the differences of each of
the selected five financial factors were generally identified
by the tests of the significance of rank correlation coef-

fiCients.

1. The results of the analysis of variance were presented

in Tables X, XII, XIV, XVI, and XVIII in summary forms.

2. The results of the tests of differences by use of
"t" were presented in Tables XI, XIII, XV, XVII, and XIX.

The total number of differences that were significant
at the .01 level of significance was:

(a) 141, in financial factor 1.
(b) 116, in financial factor 2.
(c) 29, in finanCial factor 3.
(d) ’151, in financial factor 4.
(e) 160, in financial factor 5.

The least number of significant differences existed in
financial factor 3, the percentage of capital outlay budget
in relation to the total expenditures. In each of the other
financial factors, more than half of the 231 potential dif-
ferences were judged to be significant at the .01 level
0f significzance. The greatest number of significant differ-

ences existed in financial factor 5, the proportion of the

115
total general fund property taxes in relation to the total

receipts.

3. The groups having the largest difference of each
Selected financial factor are shown in Table XX, with
reference to the group averages of the three variables of
financial need, ability, and effort. Table XX seems to

reveal the general picture of the relationships in terms of
Low, Medium, and High concepts, between the selected five
finaxmcial factors and the three variables; that is, ability
and Iieed seem to be the highly contributive variables to the
differences of the selected factors, while effort seems to
have jlittle relationship with the differences. Also, the
examinations of the differences among means of groups 1, l4.
and 27 revealed the general direction of the relationships
of each Of the selected financial factors with the three
variables of need, ability, and effort, as follows:
(a) Positive relationship, with financial factor 1.
(b) Positive relationship, with financial factor 2.
(c) Inverse relationship, with financial factor 3.
(d) Inverse relationship, with financial factor 4.
(e) .POSitive relationship, with financial factor 5.
These general observations were further confirmed by

the investigations of the rank differences of each selected

i' H

 

TABLE XX

THE GROUPS HAVING THE LARGEST DIFFERENCE
OF EACH OF THE FIVE FINANCIAL FACTORS

116

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

. d'ff Differ-
number Groups haVing the largest i erence ence
Financial Group 27 (H H H) and Group 2 (M L L) $163
Fa
°t°r 1 N. 12,480 N. 1,637
A. $17,927 A. $6,204
E. 22.25 mills E. 12.25 mills
Financial w (H_HL) and Group 7 (L L H) $3,990
Fa°t°r 2 N. 13,924 N. 5.14
A. $17,139 A. $5,299
E. 13.26 mills E. 23.53 mills
Financial Group 21 (H H L) and Group 18 (H M H) 3.24%
Fa 0
Ct r 3 N. 13,924 N. 7,814
A. $17,139 A. $9,811
E. 13.26 mills E. 22.71 mills
Financial Group 27 (H H H) Group 1 (L L H) 33.99%
and -————
Factor 4
N. 12,480 N. 557
A. $17,927 A. $5,560
E. 22.25 mills E. 12.27 mills
Financial Group 23 (M H M) Group 1 (L L L) 33.21%
Factor 5 "-——‘ and
N. 2,614 N. 557
A. $22,287 A. $5,560
E. 17.02 mills E. 12.27 mills
NOte: Figures under each group indicate the average

values of Need, Ability, and Effort for that group.

represents Need; A, Ability; and E, Effort.

N

117

.QASmcoAumAWH mmnm>sA mmumoAccA 4 AGO
.pmumoAOCA Aw>mA any um ucmoAMAcOAm no: mA uconAmmmoo umnu mmumUApcA x on
.OmumoApcA mAm>0A mnu um unmoAMAcOAm mA uconAmmmoo was» mmumoAOcA O Any

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

amommm oz<..weAAAm< .Ommz
mo mmAm<Hm<> mummy mus mo moms oz< mmoeo<m A<AozmzAm

omeomqmm mme mo mo¢m zo BZMAOHmmmoo ZOAEMAmmmoo xz<m mo mozaoAmAzoAm was so memes
Axx mamas

 

.usonAmmmoo GOAAMAmHHoo xcmn cmfiummmm 0:9 "mm Amy "muoz
0>A0Amom x x «AmA.o o o ~4mm.o o o oemm.o m 000044
AMAUachm
mmum>cA x x 4AA6A.ou o o ieAmm.ou x x 4Aonm.ou a 4000mm
AMAUGMGAM
mmum>cA o o 4mmmm.o- x x owmo.o o o 4ovom.ou m 4000mm
AMAUcmsAm
0>A0Amom x o ommm.o o o mmam.o o o Aomm.o m 400044
. AmAUcchm
0>A0Amom x x anAm.o o o ammh.o x o onmm.o A 4000mm
AMAocchm
mm m
-ckoMAmu «0. 0A. mo. oA. mo. oA.
mnw mo mocmoAMAchm mu moamuMMACOAm mu mUCMUAMAGUAm mu
GOAuuquO mo mAm>mA mo mAm>mA mo mAm>mA
Amumcmo unommm muAAAnm 6mmz
H E

 

118

factor and each of the three variables. The results of the

tests of the significance of rank correlation coefficients

on each of the selected financial factors and each of the

three variables of need, ability, and effort are shown in

Table XXI.

(The most contributive variables to the differences of

sac}: of the selected financial factors were:

(a)

(b)

(C)

(d)

(e)

Ability, in financial factor 1: a high positive

relationship.

Need, in financial factor 2: a very high posi-

tive relationship.

Need, in financial factor 3: a very high in-

verse relationship.

Ability, in financial factor 4: a very high
inverse relationship.

Ability, in financial factor 5: a very high

positive relationship.

Thus,, in view of the foregoing results of the analyses,

it seenm: apparent that financial effort does have very

little suffect upon the existing differences of the selected

financial factors among the 22 types of school districts in

Michigani

119

CHAPTER VI

ANALYSIS OF SELECTED EDUCATIONAL FACTORS

This chapter is devoted to the analyses of the five se-
lected educational factors. For an analysis of variance, a
hypothesis for each factor analysis is stated in null form,
and the significance of differences among means of each factor
is tested by the F ratio and the "t" tests according to the
formula and the procedures as described in Chapter IV. The
distribution of differences, the largest differences, the
total number of differences that are significant at the .01
level of significance, and the differences among means of
the groups 1, l4, and 27 are examined. In order to identify
the general relationships between the five selected educa-
tional factors and the three variables of financial need,
ability, and effort, the significance of the rank corre-
lation coefficients is tested at the .10 and .02 levels of
significance. All results of the analyses are presented in

summarized forms.

I. Analysis p§_Educational Factor 1

Factor. The percentage of the teachers holding M. A.

degrees or above to the total number of teaching staff.

 

._. I.

120

Null hypothesis. There are no significant differences

among the 22 group means of educational factor 1.

Analysis pf variance. A summary of the analysis of
variance is presented in Table XXII.

Conclusion: The null hypothesis is rejected;

 

therefore, it is concluded that the 22 group means
of educational factor 1 do, in fact, differ signifi-

cantly.

Tests 0 difference§_py_use p£_"t". Table XXIII shows

a summary of the results of the "t" tests.

1. Distribution of

Mean Differences Frequency
More than 20.01%. 27
10.01-20.00 72
l.01-10.00 80
0.01- 1.00 g;
Total 231

2. Largest difference is between group 24 and group

7 (difference: 24.28%).

3. Total number of differences that are significant

at the .01 level of significance is 112.

4. Differences among means of the groups 1, l4, and

27.

TABLE XXII

SUMMARY: ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
OF EDUCATIONAL FACTOR l

121

 

Source of Sums of Mean squares

 

 

. . df . SD
variation squares (variance) w
Among the
means 21 17,276 822.666
Within
groups 498 26,469 53.151 7.29
Total 519 43,705

4 4 = 822.666 =

F 53.151 15.478
dfl = 21 and df2 = 498
"F" at .05 = 1.59
"F" at .01 = 1.91

H6: rejected

 

 

.E.

 

122

 

 

 

*mm.M mA muUAHumAU S NN. NM
Aoosum 0mm 0:0 000 mmmnm>m 009 on 0A mm. MA
O ON. OM
.NAA mA mooCmH0MMAU OA OM. Mm
0:00A0AcmAm mo uwnesc A4009 Ase mA m4. mm
A Om. OM
.mocmoAMAcmAm mo A0>0A Ac. 0:0 N 46. AA
0m 0:00AMAGOAm mum mmsoum m OO. MN
UmumoAOGA mo mammfi Gwm3uwfl AA OO. OO
mmocmeMMAU umgp mmAMUAUCH4 Amv OA OA.A AN
NN Om.A OA
m Om.A SN
OA ON.N mm
SA OM.O OM
4 4 4 4 4 4 4 ON mS.O ON
4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 O Om.MA m
4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 AN S0.0A O
4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 mA N0.0A MA
4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 MN AA.mA OA
4 4 4. 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 ON mm.mA m
4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 SN SN.NN AA
4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 ON XO0.0N m
ON SN ON MN mA AN O ON SA OA O NN OA AA m N A MA OA O OA S .OC
maono cmmz .z

 

Hones: Omaha

 

 

 

 

 

A40: mo mmAnm0 cAO
mmaem ozAmoama A<eoe are oa

m>0m¢ m0 mmmmwmfl .<.2 OZHQAOE mmmmodfifi HEB m0 ZOHBmOQOm HEB m0 ZOmHm<mZOU

HHHXX mAm<B

Variables contributing pp_the

1.

a. Group 27 vs. group 1: significant.
b. Group 27 vs. group 1: significant.

c. Group 14 vs. group 1: not significant.

Need

a. r = 0.8351.
s

b. Significant at the .10 and .02 levels.

c. Positive relationship.

Ability

a. r = 0.6827.
s

b. Significant at the .10 and .02 levels.

c. Positive relationship.

Effort

a. r = 0.2614.
s

b. Not significant at the .10 and .02 levels.

c. Positive relationship.

Conclusion

a. There is a very high positive relationship
between educational factor 1 and need.

b. There is a substantial positive relation-

differences

123

ship between educational factor 1 and ability.

124

c. -There is a slight positive (but not
significant) relationship between edu-

cational factor 1 and effort.

5. Therefore, it is interpreted that the most contri-
butive variable to the differences of the propor-
tion of the teachers holding M. A. degrees or above
to the total number of teaching staff is financial
need. The relationship is positive.m This fact im-
plies that large school districts attract more

teachers who have higher (and probably better)

training.
II. Analysis p§_Educational Factor 2

Factor. The percentage of the teachers holding certifi-

cates to the total number of teaching staff.

Null hypothesis. There are no significant differences

among the 22 group means of educational factor 2.

Analysis pf_variance. The result of the analysis of

variance is shown in Table XXIV.

Conclusion: The null hypothesis is rejected. Therefore,
it is concluded that the 22 group means of

educational factor 2 differ significantly.

125

TABLE XXIV

SUMMARY: ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
OF EDUCATIONAL FACTOR 2

 

==

 

 

 

Source of Sums of Mean squares
. . df . SD
variation squares (variance) w
Among the
means 21 91,604 4,362.095
Within
groups 498 285,475 573.243 23.94
Total 519 377,079
" u : 4,362.095 :
F 573.243 7°609

df = 21 and df = 498
"F" at .05 = 1.59

"F" at .01 = 1.91

Ho: rejected

 

126

Tests pf_differences py use of "t". The results are

 

shown in Table XXV.

1.

Distribution of

Mean Differences Frequency
More than 20.01% 1
10.01-20.00 46
1.01-10.00 165
0.01- 1.00 19
Total 231

Largest difference exists between group 18 and

group 5 (difference: 21.85%).

The number of differences that are significant at

the .01 level of significance is 1.

Differences among the groups 1, 14, and 27.
a. Group 27 vs. group 14: not significant.
b. Group 27 vs. group 1: not significant.

c. Group 14 vs. group 1: not significant.

Variable§.contributingpp_the differences

1.

Need

a. r = 0.4387.
s

b. Significant at the .10 level but not at the
.02 level.

c. Positive relationship.

127

 

 

.XOO.AO mA mquHAMAO m NO.NS ON

Aoozom ONO 0:» How mOmnm>m one on O OM.OS SN
MA m0.0S MM

.A mA mmocmeMMAO OA MM.OS Om
ucmoAMAcOAm mo HmAEDG Amuoa ADV AA O0.0S OO
OA AS.OS AN

.wosmoAmAcOAm mo Am>mA AO. may OA OM.OO MA
um unmkoAsOAm mum mmsouO O Am.OO OM
OmumoAOGA mo momma omm3pmn OA NO.AO MO
mmocmumOMAU 0m£0 moumoAOcH4 Amy A OO.AO OM

SA OA.NO OM

MN NM.MO OA

S OO.MO NM

ON ON.OO O

N OO.mO AA

O O0.00 m

ON OM.OO ON

SN MS.SO AA

AN S0.00 O

ON MO.AO O

NN OO.NO OA

4 OA nRSSOO MA

OA NN ON AN SN ON O N ON S MN SA A OA O OA OA AA OA MA O m .0:

msouw cum: .2

 

HmAEoc moouo

 

 

 

 

 

A:u: m0 mmAQmu GAO
OEBO UZHmOAfimB m0 mmmfiDZ 455508 MFA. OH.

OMBdonHBmmu OZHQAOE mmmmUOHB HEB m0 ZOHBMOQOMQ HEB m0 ZOOHMdmZOU

>XX mAm<E

128
Ability
a. r = 0.4274.
s

b. Significant at the .10 level but not at the

.02 level.
c. Positive relationship.
Effort

a. r = 0.1406.
s
b. Not significant at the .10 and .02 levels.

c. Positive relationship.

Conclusion

a. There is some positive relationship between
educational factor 2 and need.

b. There is some positive relationship between
educational factor 2 and ability.

c. There is practically no relationship between

educational factor 2 and effort.

Thus, it is interpreted that the most contribu-
tive variable to the differences of the propor-
tion of the teachers holding certificates to the
total teaching staff is need. The relationship
is positive. It must be noted, however, that

ability has an almost same degree of relationship

129
with educational factor 2. Also, it seems
significant to note that the "t" tests indicated
that the number of significant differences of edu-
cational factor 2 was only 1. Thus, it seems clear
that although there are positive relationships
between the three variables and educational factor
2, the degree of differences among school districts

is not so serious.

III. Analysis pf_Educational Factor 3

Factor. The percentage of the secondary teachers
teaching in subjects outside of certified major and minors

to the total number of secondary teaching staff.

Null hypothesis. There are no significant differences

among the 22 group means of educational factor 3.

Analysis p§.variance. A summary of the result of the

analysis of variance is shown in Table XXVI.

Conclusion: The null hypothesis is rejected and,
therefore, it is concluded that the 22 group means
of educational factor 3 do, in fact, differ

significantly.

t1-

SUMMARY:

TABLE XXVI

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE

OF EDUCATIONAL FACTOR 3

130

 

Source of

Sums of Mean squares

 

 

. . df . SD
variation squares (variance) w
Among the
means 21 6,027 287.0
Within
groups 498 73,401 147.392 12.141
Total 519 79,428

n u : _g§_.Z_'_.O_.—. :
F 147.392 1'947
dfl = 21 and df2 = 498
"F" at .05 = 1.59
"F" at .01 = 1.91
H : rejected

0

 

131

Tests pf differences by use g£_[£f. The results of

 

the "t" tests are shown in Table XXVII.

1. Distribution of
Mean Differences

Frequency
More than 10.01% 24
5.01-10.00 64
1.01- 5.00 115
.01- 1.00 38
Total 231

2. Largest difference is between group 16 and group

27 (difference: 13.83%).

3. Total number of differences significant at the

.01 level of significance is 14.

4. Differences among groups 1, l4, and 27.
a. Group 1 vs. group 14: not significant.
b. Group 1 vs. group 27: not significant.

c. Group 14 vs. group 27: not significant.

Variables contributing §p_the differences.

1. Need
a. r = -0089380
5
b. Significant at the .10 and .02 levels.

c. Inverse relationship.

=1

132

 

 

 

:SOA.O mA mquuumAO SN SN. AA
Aoosum ONO 030 m0 mOmum>m was AUV ON OM. O
AN SO. O
.OA mA moocwumMMAO ON OS. O
AcMUAwAGOAm wo HmAEsc Amuoe AAV ON ON.A ON
OA SS.A MA
.mocmoAMAsOAm mo Am>mA AO. 030 AA OA.N OO
0m 0cm0AMAsOAm mum mmoouO O ON.N ON
OmumoAucA mo mommE cmm3umn MN OO.N OA
moosmummmAO unnu mmumoAOcH4 Amv OA MO.M OO
SA NA.M OM
O OO.M O
N NO.M AA
O MO.M SN
A ON.O OM
OA AN.S MO
S SO.S NM
O OM.O OM
OA O0.0 AN
4 4 4 4 4 4 MA ON.AA MM
NN OM.AA OA
4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 OA XO0.0A MA
OA NN MA OA O S OA A O N O SA OA MN O AA OA ON ON AN ON SN .0:
moouw :00: .z

Hones: asouw

 

 

 

 

W

A40. 40 mmAAm0 cAO

hm49m OZHEU¢MB MOOQZOUMO m0 mmmZDZ AOBOB mmB OB OMOZHS QZ< MOOOS QMHmHBmmU m0 mQHOBDO

d

OBUmOmDm ZH OZHNUOMB mmmmo<m9 NMOQZOUMO mmB ho ZOHBMOAOOO HEB ho ZOmHm<mZOU

HH>XX mdmda

133
Ability
a. r = -0.4670.
s
b. Significant at the .10 level but not at the
.02 level.

c. Inverse relationship.

Effort
a. r = —0.1248.
s
b. Not significant at the .10 and .02 levels.

c. Inverse relationship.

Conclusion

a. There is a very high inverse relationship
between educational factor 3 and need.

b. There is some inverse relationship between
educational factor 3 and ability.

c. There is practically no relationship

between educational factor 3 and effort.

Therefore, it is interpreted that need is the most
contributive variable to the differences of the
proportion of the secondary teachers teaching in
subjects outside of certified major and minors to
the total number of secondary teaching staff. The

relationship is inverse. This fact implies that

134
the large school districts hold many more teachers
who are qualified for their teaching in high schools,
while small school districts are pretty much limited

to maintain qualified teachers.

IV. Analysis pf_Educational Factor 4

Eactgr, The percentage of the teachers receiving over

$7,000 annual salary to the total number of teaching staff.

Null_hypothesis. There are no significant differences

among the 22 group means of educational factor 4.

Analysis pf_variance. Table XXVIII presents a summary

of the results of the analysis of variance.

Conclusion: The null hypotheSis is rejected and,
therefore, it is concluded that the 22 group means
of educational factor 4 do, in fact, differ signifi-

cantly.

Tests pf differences py use p§_"t". Table XXIX shows

the summarized results of the tests.

135

TABLE XXVIII

SUMMARY: ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
OF EDUCATIONAL FACTOR 4

 

 

 

=
Source of Sums of Mean squares
. . df . SD
variation squares (variance) w
Among the
means 21 13,352 635.809
Within
groups 498 49,313 99.022 9.95
Total 519 62,665
" N = 635.809 =
F 99.022 6'421

dfl = 21 and df2 = 498

"F" at .05 = 1.59

"F" at .01 = 1.91

Ho: rejected

 

136

 

 

 

l E III I,
Ii illii llildlillii

i=0. 00 mmApm0 cAO
mm<9m 02900409 40 400202 A4909 009 09

.XSS.OA mA mquuumAO OA M0.0 MO
Aoosom ONO 0:0 you mmmum>w one ADO OA N0.0 MA
MA MM.OA MM

.SO mA mmucmumMMAU NN O0.0A OA

AGMUAMAcOAm mo HwAESG Amuoa Any O OO.AA OM

A .OO.NA OM

.wosmoAMACOAm mo Am>mA AO. 030 N AO.MA AA
um 0:00AMAsmAm mum mODOHO O O0.0A ON
OOAMUAOGA mo mammfi Gmm3AmQ OA OA.OA AN
mmoamumOMAO umnu mmumoAOoH4 Ame O O0.0A SN

4 S O0.0A NM
4 4 4 4 4 AA O0.0A OO

4 4 4 4 4 SA A0.0A OM

4 4 4 4 4 4 OA S0.0A OO

O O0.0A O

4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 MN OS.ON OA

4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 ON O0.0N ON

4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 AN MM.ON O

4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 OA O0.0N MA

4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 ON O0.0N O

4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 SN O0.0M AA

4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 ON .XMA.AM O

ON SN ON OA AN ON MN O OA SA AA S O OA O N A O NN MA OA OA .0:

@5000 :00: .z

Augean moose

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

>m¢A<m AdDZZfl OOO.Sw mm>0 OZH>HMUMM mmmfl0<m8 ho ZOHBEOmomm WEB m0 ZOOHM<AZOO

XHNX MAQGB

137

1. Distribution of
Mean Differences

Frequency
More than 20.01% 6
10.01-20.00 87
1.01-10.00 120
0.01- 1.00 18
Total 231

2. Largest difference is between group 24 and group

10 (difference: 21.60%).

3. Total number of differences which are significant

at the .01 level of significance is 97.

4. Differences among the means of the groups 1, 14,
and 27.
a. Group 27 vs. group 1: significant.
b. Group 27 vs. group 14: significant.

c. Group 14 vs. group 1: significant.
Variaples contributing pp_the differences.

1. Need
a. r = 0.8554.
s
b. Significant at the .10 and .02 levels.

c. Positive relationship.

138
Ability
a. r = 0.5110.
s
b. Significant at the .10 and .02 levels.

c. Positive relationship.

Effort
a. rS = 0.3439.
b. Not significant at the .10 and .02 levels.

c. Positive relationship.

Conclusion

a. There is a very high positive relationship
between educational factor 4 and need.

b. There is a substantial positive relationship
between educational factor 4 and ability.

c. There is some positive (but not significant)
relationship between educational factor 4

and effort.

It is interpreted that need is the most contri-
butive variable to the differences of the propor—
tion of teachers receiving over $7,000 annual salary
to the total number of teaching staff. The relation-

ship is positive. This fact seems to imply again

139

that the large school districts hold many more
teachers receiving high salaries than small
districts do, thus possibly attracting more ex-

perienced and better qualified teachers.

V. Analysis p§_Educational Factor i

 

Factor. Pupil-teacher ratio.

Null hypothesis. There are no significant differences

among the 22 group means of educational factor 5.

Analysis p§_variance. A summary of the analysis of

variance is shown in Table XXX.

Conclusion: The null hypothesis is rejected and,
therefore, it is concluded that the 22 group
means of educational factor 5, in fact, differ

significantly.

Tests pf_differences py_use pf_"t". A summary of the

results of the "t" tests is presented in Table XXXI.

140

TABLE XXX

SUMMARY: ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
OF EDUCATIONAL FACTOR 5

 

 

 

Source of Sums of Mean squares
. . df . SD
variation squares (variance) w
Among the
means 21 2,027 96.524
Within
groups 498 10,258 20.598 4.539
Total 519 12,285
u u — M _
F 20.598 4.686
dfl = 21 and df2 = 498
"F" at .05 = 1.59
"F" at .01 = 1.91

Ho: rejected

141

 

 

.OO.ON 0A 000A900A0 ON ON.AN O
A00:om ONO 0:0 90% 0O090>0 0:9 on MN OA.NN OA
NN ON.NN OA
.NO 0A 000000000A0 0A ON.NN AN
0000AOA0OA0 mo 90AEs: A0005 AAV SN OO.MN AA
MA O0.0N MM
.00000AMAGOA0 mo A0>0A AO. 0:0 S O0.0N NM
00 0000AOA0OA0 0H0 mmsoum A O0.0N OM
U0000AOCA MO 00005 000300: OA N0.0N MA
000:0H0MMA0 00:0 00000AOGH4 Ame ON OS.ON ON
OA SS.ON MA
4 4 4 OA O0.0N MO
4 4 4 SA O0.0N OM
4 4 4 4 OA AM.ON OO
4 4 ON O0.0N O
4 4 4 4 AA OO.SN OO
4 4 4 4 4 O MA.SN OM
4 4 4 4 4 O OS.SN SN
4 4 4 O ON.ON O
4 4 4 4 4 4 4 O O0.0N ON
4 4 4 4 4 4 N O0.0N AA
4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 AN SA.OM O
AN N O O O O AA ON OA SA OA OA ON OA A S MA SN OA NN MN ON .0:
@0090 0002 .Z

 

H0AEsc 050mm

 

 

 

ilitr

 

A=0: mo 00A900 GAO

09900 0000009409000 009 00 0009000000

HNNX HAmdfi

1.

142

Distribution of
Mean Differences

Frequency
More than 10.01 7
5.01-10.00 23
1.01- 5.00 '1 142
.01- 1.00 59
Total 231

Largest difference is between group 21 and group

26 (difference: 13.92).

Total number of differences which are significant

at the .01 level of significance is 62.

Differences among means of the groups 1, l4, and
27.

a. Group 14 vs. group 27: not significant.

b. Group 14 vs. group 1: not significant.

c. Group 1 vs. group 27: not significant.

There seem to be no consistent relationships
among the three groups in relation to educational

factor 5.

Variables gpntributing pp_the differences

1.

Need
a. r = 0.2693.
s

b. Not significant at the .10 and .02 levels.

Sbi

yoneupeiq

quoip has I: quonp

4 ”0' '7:- ‘
AFL'JJIVI... 11:)
'«.r
.L ,i—l

5m'GQISF91 jnejaiamoo on ed 03

lo noijudiijaifl
asunsieiiifl 069M

10.01
00.CI~IO.€
00.8 -IO.I
00.1 ~10.

nsdj eIcM

1630?

msawjed ai sansxsiiib jespisJ

:9009193110) 03

are doidw sooneiellib 30 :sdmun isjoT

.20 Si sonsoiiinpie 30 isvai 10. ed? 35

"3
C
C
C
H
l C
9
L,
(.3
(I)
0‘
Q
U)
3
3
‘U
:1
O
B
(D
0.}
(D
U
D,
{2.
H
(3')
(.0
(+5
b-
I...)

)fz'flgla J04 :TS quorp .av 01 qUOtf ‘
i):3_-813 ion :1 qOOIp ,2v #1 QLC .

jngta ion :TS qUOTP .av 1

‘(~: I 1.5'0w Ll quoxp said: 0:: ,
’ in? W: Qflxjgd '

 

143

c. Positive relationship.

Ability

a. r = -0.4049.
s

b. Significant at the .10 level but not at the
.02 level.

c. Inverse relationship.

Effort
a. r = 0.0017.
s

b. Not significant at the .10 and .02 levels.

Conclusion

a. There is a slight positive (but not signi-
ficant) relationship between educational
factor 5 and need.

b. There is some inverse relationship between
educational factor 5 and ability.

c. There is almost no relationship between

educational factor 5 and effort.

It is interpreted that although there seems to be
no consistent general direction of the relation-
ship, the most contributive variable to the dif-

ferences of the pupil-teacher ratio is ability.

144
The relationship is inverse, that is, the pupil-
teacher ratio in the small school districts is
higher than in the large districts. The other
two variables do not seem to have much effect on
the differences of the pupil-teacher ratio among

the 22 types of school districts in Michigan.

VI. Summary

All null hypotheses of no significant differences among
means of each of the selected five educational factors
were rejected by the F test at the .05 level of significance.
The significance of differences among means of each factor
was further tested by the "t" tests. The contributive vari-
ables to the differences of each of the selected five edu—
cational factors were identified by the Spearman rank corre-

lation coefficient method.

1. The results of the analysis of variance were shown in

Tables XXII, XXIV, XXVI, XXVIII, and XXX in summarized forms.

2. The results of the tests of differences by use of "t"
were shown in Tables XXIII, XXV, XXVII, XXIX, and XXXI.
The total number of differences that were significant at

the .01 level of significance was:

145

(a) 112, in educational factor 1.

(b) l, in educational factor 2.
(c) 14, in educational factor 3.
(d) 97, in educational factor 4.
(e) 62, in educational factor 5.

The least number of significant differences existed in
educational factor 2, the proportion of the teachers holding
certificates to the total number of teaching staff. The
greatest number of significant differences existed in edu-
cational factor 1, the proportion of the teachers holding
M. A. degrees or above to the total number of teaching staff.
Clearly, the total number of significant differences of the
selected educational factors was much less than that of the

selected financial factors.

3. The groups having the largest differences of each
of the five educational factors are shown in Table XXXII
with reference to the group averages of the three variables
of financial need, ability, and effort. Table XXXII does
not seem to show any clear-cut relationships in terms of
Low, Medium, and High concepts, between the selected educa-
tional factors and the three variables. Also, the exami-
nations of the differences among means of the groups 1, l4,
and 27 did not seem to reveal the general direction of the

relationships.

TABLE XXXII

146

THE GROUPS HAVING THE LARGEST DIFFERENCE OF EACH
OF THE FIVE EDUCATIONAL FACTORS

(with references to the group averages of

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

need, ability, and effort)
Groups having the largest difference Differ-
ence
Educa— Group 24 (H H m) and Group 7 (L L H) 24.28%
;::::: N. 13,693 N. 514
1 A. $18,423 A. $5,299
E. 17.34 mills E. 23.53 mills
Educa- Group 18 (H M H) and Group 5 (M L M) 21.85%
;::::: N. 7,814 N. 2,024
2 A. $9,811 A. $6,366
E. 22.71 mills E. 16.96 mills
Educa- Group 16 (L M H) Group 27 (H H H) 13.83%
tional and
Factor N. 496 N. 12,480
3 A. $9,362 A. $17,927
E. 22.47 mills E. 22.25 mills
Educa- Group 24 (H H M) and Group 10 (L M L) 21.60%
8:22;: N. 13,693 N. 615
4 A. $18,423 A. $9,701
E. 17.34 mills E. 12.32 mills
Educa- Group 21 (H H L) and Group 26 (M H H) 13.92
;::::: N. ‘13,924 N. 3,134
5 A. $17,139 A. $16,877
E. 13.26 mills E. 21.44 mills
Note: (a) The figures under each group are the group aver-

(b) See:

ages of Need (N.), Ability (A.), and

Table VIII.

Effort (E.).

147

The tests of the significance of the Spearman rank cor-

relation coefficient at the .10 and .02 levels of signifi-

cance indicated the general relationships between each of

the selected five educational factors and each of the three

variables of financial need, ability, and effort. The re-

sults of the tests of the significance of rank differences

are shown in Table XXXIII.

The general direction of the relationships were:

(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)

Positive relationship, in educational factor 1.
Positive relationship, in educational factor 2.
Inverse relationship, in educational factor 3.

Positive relationship, in educational factor 4.
N0 consistent relationship, in educational

factor 5.

The most contributive variables to the differences of

each of the

(a)

(b)

(C)

(d)

selected five educational factors were:

Need, in educational factor 1: a very high
positive relationship.

Both need and ability, in educational factor 2:
some positive relationship.

Need, in educational factor 3: a very high in—
verse relationShip.

Need, in educational factor 4: a very high

positive relationship.

148

A0>0A

.OA:000A00A00 0000>0A 00000A00A 4 AOV

.00000A0ACOA0 mo

©0000A00A 0:0 00 0:00A0A0OA0 000 0A 0:0A0900000 00:0 00000A00A x
.00000A0A0OA0

AUO

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

mo A0>0A O0000AOCA 0:0 00 0:00A0A0OA0 0A 0:0AOAmm000 00:0 00000A00A O Any
.000A0A00000 00A00A09000 #009 00000A00A mu A0O "0002
0000000 0 x SA00.0 x 0 40000.0- 0 x m00~.0 m 000000
100009 A000A00050m
0>A00000 x x mmam.o o o 0AAm.o o 0 0000.0 0 000000
A000A00050m
0000>09 0 x 4000A.ou x o 40S00.ou o 0 4mmmm.ou m 000000
A000A0005©O
0>A00000 x x 000A.0 x o OS~0.o x o Smms.o m 000000
. A000A00000m
0>A000o0 x x 0A0~.o o o S000.o o . o Ammm.o A 000000
3 . A000A00000m
0000 . . . . . .
ucoA0mA00 mo i0A 00 0A 00 0A
0:0 00 00:00AMA00A0 m.”A 00:00A0A00Am mu 00000A0A00Am 09
00A0009A0 00 0A0>0A mo 0A0>0A 00 0A0>0A
A000000 000000 00AAAA< i 0000

 

BMOhmm QZ< .MBHAHQQ .QWNZ
m0 OMAdeM¢> HOMES NEE m0 mvdfl QZ< OMOEUCO A¢20H9¢UDQN QmBUmAmm
HEB m0 EUOO ZO BZQHUHOOQOO ZOHBOAfiMMOO Mz<m m0 NUZ¢UHhHZOHw HMS hO OBOMB

HHHNNN mAm¢H

 

149
(e) Ability, in educational factor 5: some inverse
relationship.
Thus, it seems clear that financial need and ability
do have impacts upon the differences of the selected five
educational factors, while none of the differences of the
five selected factors was affected to any significant de—
gree by financial effort. It must be recalled here that the
same general trend was also true in the differences of the

selected five financial factors.

150

CHAPTER VII

SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND SUGGESTIONS

I. Summary

Egg,purpose. The policies and practices of the "grass
allowance" on the basis of need, the "participation millage"
on the basis of local effort, and the "deductible millage"
on the basis of ability are the main elements that characterize
the present system of financing Michigan public schools, and
they are expected to be in accordance with the concept of
local control of education and the ideals of equal educational
opportunity. However, the actual differences in financial
and educational factors existing among school districts have
been the object of much concern to the people of Michigan.

With these considerations in mind, this study proposed:

1. To analyze quantitatively the differences in each of
the selected financial and educational factors
existing among different types of school districts
classified in terms of the three variables of
financial need, ability, and effort.

2. To examine the general relationships of the three
variables with the differences in each of the

selected factors.

151

The design.

1. The basic data of this study were derived from the
Annual Reports for 1959-60 and the answers to the Special
Questionnaires sent to the State Department of Public In-
struction from the 535 K-12 school districts in Michigan.

2. (a) On the basis of examination of the data from
the 535 school districts, the three comparative classifica-
tion criteria of Low, Medium, and High, in each of the three
variables of financial need, ability, and effort, were es—
tablished.

(b) Applying the 27 classification categories
created by the combinations of the three criteria in each
of the three variables, the 535 school districts were classi-
fied into 27 groups.

3. Twenty-two groups (types) of school districts com-
prising the 520 K-lZ school districts were selected, five
financial factors and five educational factors were chosen,
for the purpose of statistical analysis.

4. The statistical method identified as appropriate
for examining the differences in the selected factors among
the 22 different types of school districts was the analysis
of variance. The Spearman rank correlation coefficient

technique was employed to identify the general relationships

152
between the differences in each of the selected factors and
each of the three variables of financial need, ability, and

effort.
Results

1. All null hypothesis of no significant differences
among group means of each of the selected factors were re-
jected by the F tests at the .05 level of significance, that
is, the differences in all of the ten selected factors exist-
ing among the 22 types of K-l2 school districts in Michigan
did in fact differ significantly.

2. The significance of differences among group means
of each of the selected factors was further tested by use of
the "t" at the .01 level of significance. The least number
of significant differences existed in educational factor 2,
the percentage of the total number of teachers holding certi-
ficates to the total number of the teaching staff; and the
greatest number of significant differences existed in fi-
nancial factor 5, the percentage of the total amount of
general fund property taxes in relation to the total re-
ceipts. Generally viewed, the total number of significant
differences in the selected educational factors was much less

than that in the selected financial factors. Other analyses

153
relating to the question of the significance of differences
in each of the selected factors among the 22 types of school
districts were made, and the results were reported in sum-
marized forms.

3. The Spearman rank correlation coefficient tests at
the .10 and .02 levels of significance revealed the general
relationships of each of the three variables of financial
need, ability, and effort with the differences in each of
the selected financial and educational factors among the 22
types of school districts in Michigan. The variables con—
tributing most to the differences in each of the selected
factors, the directions of the relationships, positive or in-
verse, and other related inquiries were examined, and-the
results were presented in summary forms.

As a whole, the results of the analyses indicated that
while financial need and ability had very close relation—
ships, positive or inverse, with the differences in most of
the selected financial and educational factors, financial
effort did not have any significant relationships with the
differences in'the selected financial and educational factors.
Of all rank correlation coefficient tests concerning
the general relationships between financial effort and the

differences in each of the five selected financial factors,

154

only one test was significant at the .02 level of significance,
the test between financial effort and financial factor 3, the
percentage of the capital outlay budget in relation to the
total amount of expenditures; however, even in this case,
financial effort was not the most contributive variable to
the differences in financial factor 3. None of the differences
in the five selected educational factors was affected to any
significant degree by financial effort.

The directions of the relationships, positive or inverse,

differed according to the factors observed.

II. Conclusions And Suggestions

The findings of the present study led to the following'

conclusions and suggestions.

1. Observed in terms of the ideals of equal educational
opportunity, the present Michigan State Aid Formula
is far from being sufficient or adequate.

2. The fact that financial need and ability did have
very close relationships with the differences in
the selected financial and educational factors
clearly calls for more effective measures of school
district reorganization and more positive ways of

adjusting the disparity in financial ability among

155
school districts. Possible measures include in-
creasing the present rate of the "deductible mil-
lage" and reforming the taxation system so as to
enable the State to raise the present level of the
foundation program.

The fact that financial effort did not seem to have
much effect upon the differences in the selected
financial and educational factors seriously limits
the usefulness of the present policies and practices
of the "participation millage" under the current
Michigan State Aid Formula. Further investigations

are warranted.

156

BI BLIOGRAPHY

157
BIBLIOGRAPHY

Burke, Arvid J. Financing Public Schools in the United
States. Revised edition. New York: Harper and
Brothers, Publishers, 1957.

The Council of State Governments, Francis S. Chase, Director.
Th; EggtyeEight State School Systems, A_Study Qf_th§_
Organization, Administration, and Financing 9f_Public
Elementary and Secondary Education. Chicago: The
Council, 1949.

 

Dixon, Wilfrid J. and Frank J. Massey, Jr. Introduction §__
Statistical Analysis. New York: McGraw—Hill Book
Company, Inc., 1957.

Edmundson, James Bartlett. The Lega1_and Constitutional_grg-
visions, Laws, and the Supreme Court Decisions Affecting
thg_School System 9§_the State Qf_Michigan. Bloomington,
Illinois: Publishing Company, 1926.

Educational Policies Commission. The Structure and Administggy
tion 2£_Education in_American Democracy. Washington, D. C.:
National Education Association, 1938.

Edwards, Allen L. Statistical Methods for the Behavioral Sci—
ences. New York: Rinehart and Company, Inc., 1957.

Edwards, Alvin C. "Money Isn't Everything," in Crucial Issues
ig_Education, Henry Ehlers and Gordon C. Lee,editors. New
York: Henry Holt and Company, 1959.

Fernswarth, Philo T. Adaptation Processes in Public School
Systems. New York: Columbia University, 1940; and Walter
Cocking. Regional Introduction 9f_Educationa1.Practices
ig_g;ban School Systems Q£_the United States. New York:
Columbia University, 1951.

Garber, Lee 0. The Yearbook 9§_School Law, 1955. Philadelphia:
University of Pennsylvania, 1955.

Garrett, Henry E. and Woodworth, R. S. Statistics in_Psycholggy

 

 

and Education. New York: Longmans, Green and Company, 1958.

158

De Grazia, Alfred. The American Way pf Government. New York:
John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1957.

Hamilton, Robert R. and Mort, Paul R. The Law and Public Edu-
cation. Second edition. Brooklyn: The Foundation Press,
Inc., 1959.

Hecker, Stanley E. Your Michigan School Costs. Michigan State
University, 1960.

Johns, R. L. and Morphet, Edgar L. Financing the Public Schools.
Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1960.

and Morphet, Edgar L. editors, Problems and Issues ip
Public School Finance. Published by the National Conference
of Professors of Educational Administration, Bureau of Pub-
lications, Teachers College, Columbia University, 1952.

Johnston, Erice. Financing Tomorrow's Schools. American Associa-
tion of School Administrators, Washington, D. CJ.American
Association of School Administrators, 1960.

Kochnower, William. "The Case for Centralization," in Phi Delta
Kappan, XV:9, Bloomington, Indiana: Phi Delta Kappa,
June, 1961.

Linn, Henry H. editor. School Business Administration. New
York: The Ronald Press Company, 1956.

.McLure, William P. "Let Us Pay for the Kind of Education We
Need," Report p£_§_Study pf State and Local Support pg
Mississippi Schools. University of Mississippi, Bureau of
Educational Research, 1948.

.Michigan Education Association. Michigan Education Journal.
36:15, April, 1959.

.Morrison, Henry Clinton. American Schools, A_Critica1 Study pf
Our School System. Chicago: University of Chicago Press,
1943.

.Mort, Paul R. and Cornell, F. G. Amegican Schoolg_ip.Transi—
tion. New York: Bureau of Publications, Teachers College,
Columbia University, 1941.

159

. "Cost-Quality Relationship in Education," in Johns
and Morphet (eds.). Problems and Issues ip_Public Finance.
New York: Bureau of Publications, Teachers College,
Columbia University, 1952.

 

 

, Reusser, Walter C. and Polley, John W. Public
School Finance, Its Background, Structure, and Operation.
New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., 1960.

National Education Association, Committee on Tax Education and
School Finance. Does Better Education Cost More? Washing-
ton, D. C.: The Association, 1959.

. "The State and Education," N, E, A, Research Bul—
letin, 36:1, February, 1958.

 

. Research Bulletin, April, 1959, 37:2, 41-4.

 

Nixon, R. M. "The Federal Government's Role in Support of
Education," in Phi Delta Kappan, XLI: 8, Bloomington,
Indiana, Phi Delta Kappa, May, 1960.

Ogburn, W. F. Social Change. New York: B. W. Heubsch, Inc.,
1922.

Riggs, Fred W. "Agraria and Industria--Toward a Typology of
Comparative Administration," in Siffin, William J. (ed.),
Toward the Compggative Study p§_Pub1ic Administpgtion.
Bloomington, Indiana: Indiana University Press, 1959.

Roe, William H. Financing Michigan's Schools. East Lansing,
Michigan: Michigan State University, 1958.

Snedecor, George W. and Cochran, William G. Statistical
Methods. Fifth edition. Ames, Iowa: The Iowa State
College Press, 1959.

Siegal, Sidney. Nonparametric Statistics for the Behavioral
Sciences. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., 1956.

The State of Michigan. State Aid Act p§_1959-60. (Act #312
of the Public Acts of 1957, as amended by Act #267, 1959).

The State of Michigan, The Department of Public Instruction.
A_Statement pf_Basic Philosophy Regarding Public Education
ip Michigan. Lansing, Michigan: The Department, 1960.

160

The State of Michigan. The General School Laws, 1960
(340.21, 340.52, 340.142, and 340.182, the numbers
refer to the 1948 Michigan Compiled Laws.) Lansing,
Michigan: Speaker-Hines and Thomas, Inc., 1960.

Tatroe, Don Orth, "A Critical Examination of the State
Aid Formula for Support of Michigan Public Schools."
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Michigan State
University, 1958.

Toynbee, A. J. A_Study‘_f History. Oxford University
Press, 1954.

Turck, Merton James, Jr. "A Study of the Relationships
among the Factors of Financial Need, Effort, and Ability
in 581 High School Districts in Michigan." Unpublished
doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University, 1960.

Woollatt, Lorne H. The Cost;guality Relationship pp_the
Growing Edge. New York: Bureau of Publications, Teachers

College, Columbia University, 1949.

 

The United States Office of Education. State Fund Distri-
butions pp Local School Systems. Circular No. 561,
Washington: United States Government Printing Office,

February, 1959.

161

APPENDIX A

RELATED DATA

162
TABLE A-I

GROUP AVERAGES OF THE MEMBERSHIP OF THE

E

22 TYPES OF SCHOOL DISTRICTS

 

 

District
c::::6:l- 212::Ici: Elementary Secondary Total
number
1 34 293.38 264.03 557.41
2 11 944.18 693.18 1637.36
4 39 369.03 280.90 649.93
5 25 1175.76 847.96 2023.72
7 32 291.38 222.53 513.91
8 27 1264.26 736.19 2000.45
9 5 6618.60 3355.20 9973.80
10 53 339.06 275.83 614.89
11 40 1047.50 831.73 1879.23
13 33 335.67 254.79 590.46
14 58 988.40 732.79 1721.19
16 13 268.15 227.46 495.61
17 34 1454.53 931.38 2385.91
18 13 5020.08 2793.54 7813.62
19 21 252.33 243.67 496.00
20 20 1265.60 1009.60 2275.20
21 6 7852.50 6071.00 13923.50
22 10 178.80 153.80 332.60
23 19 1591.11 1023.37 2614.48
24 8 8451.63 5241.25 13692.88
26 8 1851.00 1283.38 3134.38
27 11 7575.09 4904.82 12479.91
Total 520 1274.36 867.57 2141.93

M

TABLE A-II

GROUP AVERAGES OF THE STATE RECEIPTS OF THE

22 TYPES OF SCHOOL DISTRICTS

 

 

 

DlétFICt. Number of Group
classification . .
districts average
number
1 34 $117155.97
2 11 320960.82
4 39 133365.49
5 25 398873.72
7 32 108683.66
8 27 424212.37
9 5 2016427.00
10 53 120166.15
ll 40 349986.65
13 33 117171.45
14 58 323086.76
16 13 98568.08
17 34 445390.21
18 13 l455362.77
19 21 91457.76
20 20 357126.10
21 6 2280257.50
22 10 61637.90
23 19 376716.95
24 8 2335817.50
26 8 505198.88
27 11 1986014.00
Total 520 $386753.88

I

163

TABLE A-III

GROUP AVERAGES OF THE TOTAL GENERAL FUND

PROPERTY TAX

RECEIPTS OF THE 22 TYPES OF SCHOOL DISTRICTS

 

District

 

 

. . . Number of Group
claSSification . .
districts average
number

1 34 $31484.59
2 11 88516.55
4 39 38354.08
5 25 131495.68
7 32 38249.75
8 27 176222.07
9 5 1165147.20
10 53 54015.66
11 40 172725.48
13 33 58403.03
14 58 178666.05
16 13 61423.15
17 34 322479.26
18 13 1287498.85
19 21 81208.24
20 20 404641.85
21 6 2403283.83
22 10 58399.90
23 19 770813.42'
24 8 2816561.75
26 8 780441.38
27 11 3628648.18
Total 520 $341030.15

 

 

164

H-

165

TABLE A-IV

GROUP AVERAGES OF THE TOTAL RECEIPTS OF THE
22 TYPES OF SCHOOL DISTRICTS

 

 

-DIItIlCt. Number of Group
claSSification . .
districts average
number
1 34 $188844.50
2 11 523913.18
4 39 232613.44
5 25 675980.00
7 32 187266.84
8 27 762795.15
9 5 3722632.20
10 53 221981.09
11 40 662368.30
13 33 232562.61
14 58 635652.40
16 13 212375.69
17 34 1006085.06
18 13 3472270.92
19 21 230888.52
20 20 943250.85
21 6 5910193.00
22 10 160014.30
23 19 1358251.32
24 8 6564529.50
26 8 1583428.25
27 11 7282848.00

 

Total 520 $923351.03

 

166

TABLE A-V

GROUP AVERAGES OF THE TOTAL CURRENT (OPERATING) EXPENDITURES
OF THE 22 TYPES OF SCHOOL DISTRICTS

 

District

 

.1 .. . . Number of Group
claSSification . .
districts average
number

1 34 $157757.26

2 ll 425634.45

4 39 182219.00

5 25 541437.16

7 32 145415.44

8 27 579104.44

9 5 3137655.00

10 53 176493.70
11‘ 40 549890.75
13 33 176340.42
14 58 503332.10
16 13 160592.69
17 34 779122.79
18 13 2715974.85
19 21 173419.62
20 20 780744.65
21 6 4985337.00
22 10 120545.40
23 19 1061157.47
24 8 5202340.?5
26 8 1242472.75
27 11 5351473.00

 

Total 520 $726681.39

 

 

H

167

TABLE A-VI
GROUP AVERAGES OF TOTAL CAPITAL OUTLAY EXPENDITURES

OF THE 22 TYPES OF SCHOOL DISTRICTS

 

 

District Number of Group
classification districts average
1 34 ’ $7682.00
2 11 18527.55
4 39 6947.28
5 25 16078.44
7 32 5464.22
8 27 21235.15
9 5 52674.00
10 53 7153.08
11 40 15797.23
13 33 8841.82
14 58 20329.83
16 13 7255.92
17 34 19701.79
l8 l3 49051.38
19 21 9292.43
20 20 23962.40
21 6 97266.50
22 10 6086.10
23 19 39822.11
24 8 94926.38
26 8 49285.63
27 ll 84614.55

 

Total 520 $19602.25

 

 

168

TABLE A-VII

GROUP AVERAGES OF THE TOTAL EXPENDITURES OF THE
22 TYPES OF SCHOOL DISTRICTS

 

District

 

 

. . . Number of Group
claSSification . .
districts average
number
1 . 34 $187484.21
2 11 518781.45
4 39 230372.36
5 25 669259.88
7 32 182576.38
8 27 758261.78
9 5 3645576.00
10 53 221389.23
ll 40 661705.30
13 33 230738.21
14 58 625664.59
16 13 213428.08
17 34 1008418.91
18 13 3449760.23
19 21 224006.29
20 ~ 20 934456.70
21 6 ' 5607396.83
22 10 155691.60
23 19 ' 1270178.53
24 8 6434016.88
26 8 1584732.13‘
27 11 7009327.64
Total 520 $904487.44

 

TABLE A-VIII

169

GROUP AVERAGES OF TOTAL AMOUNT OF SALARIES OF TEACHERS

OF THE 22 TYPES OF SCHOOL DISTRICTS

 

 

 

DlétFlCt. Number of Group
class1fication . .
districts averages
number
1 34 $93594.09
2 11 267317.45
4 39 107225.21
5 25 342888.40
7 32 85672.88
8 27 362316.30
9 5 2040423.80
10 53 104650.43
11 40 351843.98
13 33 105509.00
14 58 316824.64
16 13 91016.62
17 34 478312.00
18 13 1788681.69
19 21 100364.48
20 20 488649.80
21 6 3215223.50
22 10 67163.70
23 19 650521.42
24 8 3262376.75
26 8 774074.88
27 11 3311613.27
Total 520 $455196.77

 

w

170

TABLE A-IX

GROUP AVERAGES OF THE NUMBER OF TEACHERS OF THE
22 TYPES OF SCHOOL DISTRICTS

 

 

 

__

0.:_—

District
ciziigfil— 322::1ci: Elementary Secondary Total
number
1 34 9.94 12.00 21.94
2 11 27.82 28.73 56.55
4 39 11.92 12.08 24.00
5 25 37.16 33.96 71.12
7 32 9.66 10.44 20.10
8 27 40.81 32.33 73.14
9 5 224.80 134.80 359.60
10 53 10.89 12.49 23.38
11 40 35.43 33.98 69.41
13 33 11.27 11.73 23.00
14 58 33.74 32.21 65.95
16 13 9.54 9.38 18.92
17 34 50.21 43.03 93.24
18 13 177.85 126.54 304.39
19 21 9.05 12.86 21.91
20 20 45.65 44.30 89.95
21 6 263.83 152.17 416.00
22 10 6.60 8.10 14.70
23 19 56.79 47.42 104.21
24 8 295.88 174.63 470.51
26 8 77.75 65.88 143.63
27 11 246.27 175.27 421.54
Total 520 43.40 35.26 78.66

GROUP AVERAGES OF THE NUMBER OF TEACHERS HOLDING M. A. OR

TABLE A-X

ABOVE DEGREES OF THE 22 TYPES OF SCHOOL DISTRICTS

 

 

 

 

District
ciziigfil- 322::1ci: Elementary Secondary Total
number
1 34 .38 2.26 2.64
2 11 1.09 6.82 7.91
4 39 .41 2.10 2.51
5 25 3.48 7.24 10.72
7 32 .59 2.63 3.22
8 27 4.15 7.15 11.30
9 5 23.80 49.00 72.80
10 53 .47 1.87 2.34
11 40 2.83 10.53 13.36
13 33 .39 2.00 2.39
14 58 3.69 10.38 14.07
16 13 .23 1.85 2.08
17 34 5.68 13.68 19.36
18 13 28.92 51.46 80.38
19 21 .33 2.57 2.90
20 20 6.90 18.35 25.25
21 6 39.50 68.17 107.67
22 10 .20 1.20 1.40
23 19 10.74 17.47 28.21
24 8 51.25 83.13 134.38
26 8 13.63 28.50 42.13
27 11 60.00 123.36 183.36
Total 520 5.93 12.90 18.83

 

 

 

 

 

 

171

172

TABLE A-XI

GROUP AVERAGES OF THE NUMBER OF TEACHERS HOLDING CERTIFICATES
OF THE 22 TYPES OF SCHOOL DISTRICTS

 

 

 

District
ciziiiil- 3222::CE: Elementary Secondary Total
number
1 34 6.79 10.91 17.71
2 11 18.64 28.27 46.91
4 39 8.79 10.95 19.74
5 25 23.08 29.20 52.28
7 32 7.28 9.41 16.69
8 27 31.00 27.30 58.30
9 5 172.40 130.40 302.80
10 53 8.83 10.87 19.70
11 40 25.00 27.35 52.35
13 33 7.21 10.42 17.63
14 58 25.52 27.55 53.07
16 13 6.31 8.08 14.39
17 34 43.50 34.68 78.18
18 13 165.23 123.23 288.46
19 21 7.43 10.43 17.86
20 20 38.65 39.00 77.65
21 6 249.00 143.00 392.00
22 10 5.00 8.30 13.30
23 19 49.74 45.37 95.11
24 8 289.13 148.38 437.51
26 8 63.75 55.38 119.13
27 11 233.27 227.82 461.09
Total 520 36.52 32.63 69.14

173

TABLE A-XII

GROUP AVERAGES OF THE TOTAL NUMBER OF SECONDARY

TEACHERS TEACHING IN SUBJECTS OUTSIDE OF

CERTIFIED AREAS OF THE 22 TYPES OF

SCHOOL DISTRICTS

 

 

.DlétFICt. Number of Group
claSSification . .
districts average
number

1 34 .56

2 11 1.09

4 39 .90

5 25 .68

7 32 .56

8 27 .89

9 5 5.40

10 53 .60
11 4O .60
13 58 .81
16 13 1.23
17 34 1.35
18 13 2.38
19 21 .81
20 20 .55
21 6 1.17
22 10 .80
23 19 1.74
24 8 1.25
26 8 .38
27 11 .55

 

Total 520 .92

 

 

174

TABLE A—XIII

GROUP AVERAGES OF THE NUMBER OF TEACHERS RECEIVING
OVER $7,000 ANNUAL SALARY IN THE 22 GROUPS

 

 

 

 

District
ciziigfil- S:::::C:: Elementary Secondary Total

number
1 34 .12 .12
2 11 .36 .36
4 39 .05 .05
5 25 .04 .40 .44
7 32 .06 .06
8 27 1.26 1.19 2.44
9 5 30.40 19.60 50.00
10 53 .08 .08
11 40 .18 .78 .95
13 33 .09 .09
14 58 .34 1.22 1.57
16 13 .08 .08
17 34 2.21 3.50 5.71
18 13 21.38 23.38 44.76
19 21 .29 .29
20 20 3.00 6.15 9.15
21 6 22.33 29.17 51.50
22 10 .20 .20
23 19 10.74 10.89 21.63
24 8 54.63 49.63 104.26
26 8 7.63 13.75 21.38
27 11 63.09 43.09 106.18
Total 520 4.15 4.19 8.34

175

APPENDIX B

THE SPECIAL QUESTIONNAIRES

(Parts I, II, and III)

 

FL

 

 

2'
.l
I'll-l

PART I
GENERAL INFORMATION

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1 7 6
This Section to be Completed by ALL School Districts
County ........ ; Legal Name of District .................................................................................
Mailm' ' g Address of District ..................................................
Township Number ; Act Under Which District is Organized (Circle One)
lst Class 2nd Class 3rd Class 4th Class Primary Special
1. Check Grade Range Operating in 1959-60:
Less than K-6......._...-, K-6--........., K-7.--,....---, K-8---..--..-.-, K-9, K-lO, K-ll.....-------, K-l2 ............ , Closed ............ , Other .........................
Check organizational plan. If more than one, check that which is most prevalent
K6—6 ......... , K63-3Mm, K6—3 ..... ......, K8—4.---..---.--, K6-2—4. ....... .., Other ................ .
I. MEMBERSHIP IND CENSUS INFORMATION
1.
Entire District Membership Entire District Membership Preliminary Membership
Grade for 1958-59 for 1959-60 Report for 1960-61
Elementary Secondary Elementary Secondary Elementary Secondary
K XXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXX
l XXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXX
2 XXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXX
3 XXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXX
4 XXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXX
5 XXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXX
6 XXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXX
7
8
9 XXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXX
10 XXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXX
1 l XXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXX
l2 XXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXX
Other
Subtotal
Part time
2.
TOTAL
MEMBERSHIP
3.
Non-Resident Pupils
Included Above
4.
Resident ils Sent to
Other Publ Schools
5.
Resident At
Nos-Pummtlzm
6.
Number of Districts
Pupils to this Dim 'ctwn‘
7.
Number of Districts to which
this District send Pupils

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

8. If this is a “sending" district, has the “receiving” district indicated a calendar date after which pupils will not be received?
Yea... No.1.-- If “Yes," what is this date?
9. Number on school census, May 31, 1960, 5-19 inclusive ..................................................
Number on school census, May 31, 1960, 0-4 inclusive ...................................................

 

 

 

10. Number of pupils initially enrolled by grades in non-public schools located within the district: (Use Sept. 30, 1960 count date.)
K ,1 ,2 ,3 ,4 ,5 ,6 ,7 ,8 ,9 ,10 ............ ,11 ............. ,
lZ-............., Other.--.......---..-, Total

 

Pagel

H

A. MEMBERSHIP ANO CENSIIS INFORMATION—Concluded

11. Number of teachers in non-publlo schools located within the district:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Elementary (K-6) or K-8) Secondary (7-12)
12. Number of Membership days in public schools in 1959-60:
a. Elementary ............ days
b. Secondary ............. days
Number of Attendance days in public school in 1959-60:
0. Elementary ............ days
d. Secondary ............. days
c. Number of full-time pupils on full-day schedule ............................................ pupils
f. Number of full-time pupils, other than kindergarten, on half-day schedule ..................... pupils
g. Number of hours spent per day in school by full-time elementary pupils ....................... hours
b. Number of hours spent per day in school by full-time secondary pupils ........................ hours
3. SCHOOL PERSONNEL

1. Give total number of each type employed by the district:
a. Superintendents... . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..i j. Teachers: (K-6). . . . . .. . . ... . . . . . ..
b. Ass’t Supts. or Bus. Mgrs.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . (7-12) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . --..
c. Elementary Principals... . . . . . . . . . . .. k. Nurses... -
(1. Secondary Principals... . . . . 1. Secretaries and Clerks - -- -
e. Elementary Supervisors and Consultants ............................. m. Maintenance Personnel. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . -.,.
f. Secondary Supervisors and Consultants. . . ........................... 11. Plant Operation Personnel. . . . . . . . . -_
g. Librarians. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0. Transportation Personnel. . . _ _
h. Guidance Personnel. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . p. Attendance Officers” -
i. Psychologists” . q. Other Personnel... . . .

2. Number of persons filling listed positions a through 3 (above) not returning for 1960-61 school year“ ... .... _

C. SITES AND FACILITIES

1. This portion to be completed by primary districts only:
a. Number of classrooms... . .-,-i
b. Is furnace segregated from rest of building? ..................................................... 3 es ............ "No.11“---
0. Is there running water? ................................. Y es N0 Flush Toilets? Y es ............ No--..........
d. What1sthe51tesize? .. . ----Acras
e. General condition of building (underline) Excellent Good Fair Poor

2. This portion to be completed by all districts other than primary:

ELEMENTARY
Name Site‘ Enrollment Name Site‘ Enrollment
Size on Site Size on Site

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(Use additional sheets, if necessary)
Page 2

I"Express site size to the nearest acre.

 

._..4.-—-...___..

SITES AND FACILITIES—Concluded

JUNIOR HIOH‘

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Name Site Enrollment Name Site Enrollment
Size on Site Size on Site
SENIOR HIGH
Name Site Enrollment Name Site Enrollment
Size on Site Size on Site
‘In case of combined junior-senior high, please list as senior high school.
B. FINANCIAL INFORMATION
I. Valuation and Tax Mllleges 1959-60 1960-61
a. State Equalized Valuation ....................... S S S
(1) Approximately what percent of the above valu-
ation is residential or farm? .................. % % ..... %
b. State Equalized Valuation per Pupil (Divide SEV
by total resident membership including resident
pupils attending any public schools) .............. 3 S 8
(per pupil) (per pupil)
c. School District Tax Rates: (On SEV)
(1) Operation Allocated ........................ mills ....... mills ................................ mills
(2) Operation Voted ........................... mills ......... mills ................................ mills
(3) Operation Levied ........................... mills ......... mills -mills
(4) Blinding and Site Voted ...... . .............. mills ................................ mills ................................ mills
(5) Building and Site Levied .......................... mills ..... mills ................................ mills
(6) Debt (0) Retirement Voted ................... mills mills ................................ mills
(7) DBbt (0) Retirement Levied ................................................ mills mills mills

Page 3

 

 

O. FINANCIAL INF ORIATION—Contlnuod

(1. Local Tax Rates Other Than School Districts:

County: (On SEV)
(1) Operation Allocated ......................
(2) Operation Voted .........................
(3) Operation Levied .........................

(4) Debt(s) Voted ...........................
(5) Debt(s) Levied ..........................

(6) Special Education:
Construction
Voted .................................
Levied ................................

Operation

Voted .................................
Levied ................................

e. Clty(loo) or Village(s): (On SEV)
(1) Average Operation levied .................

(2) Average Debt Levied .....................

f. Township Levy: (On SEV)
(1) Average Operation Voted ..................

(2) Average Debt Levied .....................

1958—59

mills
mills
mills

mills

mills

mills

mills

mills

mills

mills

mills

mills

mills

1959-60
mills
mills
mills

mills

mills

mills

mills

mills

mills

mills

mills

mills

mills

3. Approximately what percent of school membership resides in above city(ies) or village(s)? ...........

2. Fiscal Information
a. GENERAL FUND BALANCE
(1) Total General Fund Balance (Beginning of year)
(210) ..................................... S

b. REVENUE RECEIPTS
(1) General Fund Property Tax (220) ............ S
(2) State Receipts (231, 232, 233, 235, 238) .......

1958—59

l”

19:39—60

1960-61
mills
mills
mills.

mills.
mills

mills
mills

mills

mills

.... mills
---- -

mills.

m ills

mills

 

1960-6 1
(estimated)

 

(3) Federal—State Receipts (237) .................

 

 

(4) Federal (Public Law 874) ...................

 

 

(5) Other Receipts .............................

 

 

(6) TOTAL REVENUE RECEIPTS. . . . . . . . . . . . 3

c. NON -REVENUE RECEIPTS
(1) Total N on-Revenue Receipts (280) ........... 35
d. GRAND TOTAL
(210 +Total Revenue Receipts +280) ............. 3

e. DISBURSEMENTS
(1) Administration (310) ....................... S

4m

l”

1”

 

(2) Instruction (320) ...........................
(a) Salaries (323) ..........................
(b) Tuition (326) ..........................
(3) Operation (330) ............................

.....................

................................

................................

 

....s»...-

O. FINANCIAL INFORMATION—Continued

2. Fiscal Information—Continued 1958-59 1959—60 1960-61
(estimated)

 

(4) Maintenance (340) .........................
(5) Fixed Charges (350) ........................

(a) Interest on Short Term Loans (353) ...... .. .-,,
(6) Auxiliary Services (360) .....................
(7) Capital Outlay (370) ........................ .
(8) Supplementary Disbursement (380) ........... . __

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

f. GRAND TOTAL .............................. S S S

 

g. BALANCE (At end of year) ..................... S ............. S....-----.. 3-...

 

 

 

3. Building and Site Fund
(1) Building and Site Property Tax Receipts (420). . . . S 3 3
(2) Interest on Investments ........................ .
(3) Public Law 815 .............................. ._ ...........

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

4. Debt Retirement Fund
(1) Debt Retirement Property Tax Receipts (620). . . . 3 S
(2) Interest on Investments (640) ................... , ' ...........

 

 

S. Fleeel Detail for im-Go
210 Total General Fund Balance on July 1, 1959 .................................................. 8 ........................................
REVENUE RECEIPTS:
221 Current Tax Collections .............................................. 3
222 Delinquent Tax Collections ...........................................
227 Interest on Delinquent Taxes ......................................... .-
Total General Fund Property Taxes ..................................................

 

 

 

State Revenues
231 State Primary Fund ................................................. S
232 State School Aid 1959—60 .............................................
Driver Education Reimbursement .....................................
Tuition Aid .........................................................
Transportation Aid ..................................................
Special Education Aid ...............................................
235 Hardship School Aid .................................................
Other State Revenues ................................................
Total State Revenues .....................................................................

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Federal-State Revenues
237 Vocational Education
Total Federal-State Revenues ........................................................ .....

Federal Revenues

Title III and Va (N DEA) ............................................ 3

Public Law 874 .....................................................
Total Federal Revenues .............................................................. s .......................................

 

 

Revenue from Services
241 Tuition ........ . ................................................... S
242 Transportation ......................................................
Revenue from County Special Education Tax ...........................
Other ..............................................................
Total Revenue from Services ......................................................... $
Other Revenue Receipts .............................................................
GRAND TOTAL REVENUE RECEIPTS .............................................. 3

Page 5

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

D. FINANCIAL INFORMATION—Continued

5. Fiscal Detail For lfl-fl—Continued

280 Non-Revenue Receipts:

281 Short Term Loans ................................................... S

282 Sale of Property .....................................................

283 Collection on Loans to Revolving Funds ...............................

285 Transfers from Building and Site or Debt Retirement ....................

287 Revolving Fund Receipts .............................................

289 Other N on-Revenue Receipts .........................................
Total Non-Revenue Receipts ......................................................... S
GRAND TOTAL (Revenue and Non-Revenue) ........................................

 

 

 

 

 

 

Total of 200 Series (Balance plus GRAND TOTAL) .................................... 3

300 GENERAL FUND DISBURSEMENTS
310 Administration:

311 Salaries of Board of Education .................................... S
312 Salaries of Superintendent and Assistants ...........................
313 Salaries of Business Administrators ................................
314 Clerical Salaries .................................................
315 Administrative Supplies and Expenses .............................
316 Census and Compulsory Attendance ...............................
317 Elections .......................................................
319 Other Administrative Expense ....................................

Total Administration Disbursements ................................................. 3

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

3‘20 Instruction:
321 Salaries of Supervisors ........................................... S
322 Salaries of Principals ................ . ...........................
323 Salaries of Teachers .............................................
324 Clerical Salaries .................................................
325 Teaching Supplies and Expenses ..................................
326 Tuition Expense .................................................
327 Textbooks ......................................................
328 School Library ..................................................
329 Other Instruction Expense .......................................
Total Instruction Disbursements .................................................... 3

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

330 Operation of School Plant:
331 Wages ......................................................... 3
333 Fuel and Utilities ...............................................
335 Operating Supplies and Expense ..................................
339 Other Operating Expense .........................................
Total Operation Disbursements ...................................................... S

 

 

 

340 Maintenance of School Plant:
341 Maintenance of Grounds ......................................... 3
342 Maintenance of Buildings ........................................
343 Maintenance of Furniture and Equipment ..........................
349 Other Maintenance Expense ......................................
Total Maintenance Disbursements ................................................... S

 

 

 

350 Fixed Charges:
351 Rent .......................................................... S
352 Insurance ......................................................
353 Interest on Short Term Loans ....................................
359 Other ..........................................................
Total Fixed Charges Disbursements .................................................. 3

 

 

 

Page 6

 

D. FINANCIAL INFORMATION—Continued

5. Fiscal Detail for “flow—Continued
360 Auxiliary Services:
361-1 Transportation Salaries ......................................... 3
361-2 Other Transportation Expense ..................................
363 Revolving Fund Deficits ..... . ...................................
364 Health Service ..................................................
365 School Recreational Activities ....................................
369 Other Auxiliary Expense .........................................

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Total Auxiliary Service Disbursement ............................................... 3
Total Current (Operating) Expenses (Sum of Items 3i I through 369) .................. 1.:

 

370 Capital Outlay:
371 Grounds ....................................................... 3
372 Buildings ......................................................
373 Furniture and Equipment ........................................
374 Transportation Equipment .......................................
379 Other Capital Outlay ............................................
Total Capital Outlay Disbursement. ................................................ S

 

 

 

 

 

 

Total Disbursement. 3” through 319 ................................................ S

 

Reconciliation to Cash Disbursements:

(This item to be omitted by ALL primary districts. Also by other districts
if they report only receipts and expenditures received or paid out in the fiscal
year.)
Deduct: Items distributed to current year budget expenditures, for which
the cash was disbursed in a prior period, and items unpaid at the close of the
fiscal school year.

From Inventories ..................................................... 3

From Prepaid Budget Accounts .........................................

 

 

 

From unpaid warrants ................................................. 3
Total Net Disbursement ............................................................ S

 

380 Supplemental Disbursements:

381 Short Term Loans ............................................... 3

383 Loans to Revolving Funds .......................................

385 Transfers to Building and Site Fund, or Debt Retirement Fund .......

387 Revolving Fund Disbursements ...................................

388 Community Services .............................................

389 Other Supplemental Disbursements ................................
Total Supplemental Disbursement .................................................. 3

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

GRAND TOTAL—GENERAL FUND DISBIIRSEIENTS .............................. 3

 

210 General Fund Balance on June 30, 1960
Cash Balance:

211 General Operating Fund. ........................................ 3
212 Primary Fund ..................................................
213 State School Aid Fund ...........................................
214 Library Fund ..... . .............................................
217 Revolving Funds ................................................
219 Other General Fund Balance .....................................
Investments: (Type and Purchase Price)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

a-..“ ....................................

 

 

 

Total General Fund Balances on June 30. ISSO ....................................... 3
TOTAL OF 300 SERIES—GENERAL FIIND DISIIIRSEIENTS PLUS
BALANCES ON JUNE 30. I960 ............................. 3

 

Page?

D. FINANCIAL INFORMATION—Continued
S. Fiscal Detail for ISSS-SO—Continued

400 BUILDING AND SITE FUND RECEIPTS
410 Building and Site Fund Balances on July 1, 1959 Cash Balance:
411 Cash on Deposit ................................................ S
Investments: (Type—Purchase Price)
8

 

 

Total Balances on July I. l959 ....................................................... s

420 Revenue from General Property Tax Receipts ...................... S
421 Current Tax ....................................................
422 Delinquent Tax .................................................
427 Interest on Delinquent Taxes .....................................
Total of tan—Building and Site Property Tax Receipts ................................ S

 

 

 

430 Grants ...............................................................................

 

440 Insurance Settlements .................................................................

 

450 Sale of District Bonds .................................................................

 

482 Sale of Property ......................................................................

 

485 Transfers from General Fund or Debt Retirement Fund ....................................

 

490 Other Receipts ........................................................................

 

Total Building and Site Fund Receipt (Account 2| through 490 Inclusive) .......... 3

Total Building and Site Fund Receipt Plus Balances on July I. i959 (Total Available Funde—
Sum of July I Balances Plus Total of All Receipt) ........................................... S

500 BUILDING AND SITE FUND DISBURSEMENTS
570 Capital Outlay:
571 Grounds ....................................................... S
572 Buildings ......................................................
573 Furniture and Equipment ........................................
579 Other Capital Outlay ............................................
Total—Capital Outlay Disbursement ................................................ S

 

 

 

585 Transfers to General Fund or Debt Retirement Fund ......................................

 

 

590 Other Building and Site Disbursements ..................................................
Total—Building and Site Fund Disbursement (Sum of Account 5" through 590) ..... s

410 Building and Site Fund Balances on June 30, 1960 Cash Balance:
411 Cash on Deposit ................................................ S
Investments: (Type—Purchase, Price)

 

 

Total Building and Site Fund Balances on June 30. l960 .............................. 3

Total Building and Site Fund Disbursements Plus Balances on June 30, i960 (Sum of Account
500 Series Plus June 30. last) Balances). .................................................... S

General Fund Balance 6-30-60:
(a) Cash Balance ................................. 3
(b) State Aid due not received .....................
(c) Other revenues due not received ................
(d) Prepaid Expense ..............................
(e) Total General Fund Balance .................................... 8
(f) Accounts Payable 6-30-60 ......................
(g) Short Term Loans outstanding 6-30-60 ...........
(h) Interest Payable 6-30—60 .......................

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Page 8

D. FINANCIAL lNFORIATIDN—Cencluded

S. Fiscal Detail ter Into—Concluded
(i) Sdaries earned not paid 6-30-60 ................. S
(j) Total Current Liabilities ....................................... S
(k) Net General Fund Balance (e-l) .............................................. S

 

 

 

1. Building and Site Fund:
(a) Balance including investments 6-30-60 ........... S
(b) Total unpaid obligations 6-30—60 ................

 

 

 

(c) Net Building and Site Fund Balance (a-b) .................... . ............... 3

S. Debt Retirement Fund:
(a) Bonds outstanding 6—30—60 ..................... 3
(b) Interest required to maturity ...................
(c) Total Debt Retirement Obligation ............................... 3
(d) Debt Retirement Fund Balance including investments 6-30-60 ......
(e) Net Debt Retirement Fund Obligation (o-d) .................................. 3

 

 

 

 

 

 

9. Bus Notes outtandlng 040-60 ............................................................... S

E. EDUCATIONAL SERVICES AND FROGRAIS OF TOTAL SCHOOL DISTRICT

General Information
a. In-eervice education (check) Yes N o
(1) Board of Education Policies:
(a) Has the board adopted a policy for in-service education? ...........................................
(b) Is there a specific budget amount for in-service education? ..........................................
(0) Does the board policy provide “released time” for in-eervice activities? ...............................
((1) Does the board provide salary increments for participation in the following activities:
1. College credit courses .......................................................................
2. Travel ....................................................................................
3. Outside work experience .....................................................................
4. Local workshops (non-credit) ................................................................
(e) Does the board provide substitute teachers for stafi' who participate in certain in-eervice activities? ......
(2) Elements of existing in-service programs: (check)
(a) Pro-school conference ..........................................................................
(b) Mid-year conference ...........................................................................
(c) Post-school conference .........................................................................
(d) Shortened school day for teachers’ meetings ......................................................
(e) Week-end conferences ..........................................................................
(f) Summer conferences ...........................................................................
(g) Employment of teachers during the summer for curriculum improvement .............................
(h) Local workshops:
1. Credit. ...................................................................................
2. Non-credit ................................................................................
(i) Orientation program for new teachers ............................................................
(j) Meetings and conferences sponsored by professional organizations (away from home):
1. Local only .................................................................................
2. Regional ..................................................................................
3. State .....................................................................................
4. National ..................................................................................
(k) Visits to other schools and classrooms:
1. Within the district .........................................................................
2. Other districts .............................................................................
(1) Visits to business and industrial establishments:
1. Within the community ......................................................................
2. Outside the community. . ...................................................................
(m) Use of outside consultants ......................................................................
(n) Is a professional materials library maintained for stafi? .............................................

Pass 9

 

E. EDUCATIONAL SERVICES AND PROGRAMS OF TOTAL SCI'IOOL DISTRICT—Continued

General Information—Continued

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(3) Total days in 1959-60 teachers were reimbursed for in-service education ............................. .. ..................... days
(4) What amount of money was spent in 1959—60 by the board for in-service education? .................. S
(5) For how many days were pupils dismissed for teacher in-service training? ........................... ..... ................ ..days
(6) Total number of teacher-days used for in-service training which occurred on other than school days . . . . ........................ days
b. Special education services:
(1) Physically Handicapped Program
Service Provided by: (Check) Estimated
Number of Number of Number of Estimated
Type of Cooperates Estimated Pupils in Pupils uated Per Pupil
Physical Handicap District with Cooperates Tuition Paid to Does Program Needing This o'I‘ime Cost
Alone Another with Other Not 1959-60 Program Teachers
District County Districts Provide 1959-60
Deaf and Hard of
Hearing
Blind and
Partially Seeing
Crippled
Speech Defective
Physically Handicapped
(Teacher Counsellor)
Homebound Teacher
(2) Mentally Handicapped Program
Service Provided by: (Check) Estimated
Number of Number of Number of Estimated
Type of Cooperatee Estimated Pupils in Pupils Equated Per Pupil
Mental Handicap District wit Cooperates Tuition Paid to Does Program Needing This Full-Time Cost
Alone Another with Other Not 19533.60 Program Teachers
’ trict County Districts Provide 1959-60
Type A
Type B
Tyne C
School Diagnostician
Visiting Teacher
c. Experience of total stafi' (1959-60)
Number of Elementary Staff Number of Secondary Staff

Years of Experience

 

Total Experience

Experience this System

Total Experience

Experience this System

 

Beginning Teacher. . .
Second Year. . . . .....

3 to 4inclusive. . ..

5 to 9 inclusive. . ..
10 to 14 inclusive. . . .
15 to 19 inclusive. . . .
20 or more ..........

e

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

e

 

 

 

. .- -----_-----..—.

 

Page 10

 

 

E. EDUCATIONAL SERVICES AND PROGRAMS OF TOTAL SCI'IOOL DISTRICT—Continued

General Information—Concluded
(1. Curriculum planning

(1) Have locally prepared curriculum guides or courses of study been provided in the system to provide direction
in the various areas of instruction? (Please check)
(a) Guides exist for all areas of instruction ...............................
(b) Guides exist for most areas of instruction ........................................
(c) Guides exist for some areas of instruction .............................
(d) Guides exist for few areas of instruction ..............................
(e) Guides do not exist. . . . .........................................................

(2) How many “all-school” curriculum committees have functioned in 1959—60?. . .

 

(3) How many equated full-time subject area consultants to teachers are available?

 

Number Available to:
Subject Area (List) On School Stafi' County 0500

Elementary Secondary

 

 

 

 

 

..............

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

..--.-.-..... .-..- ...............................

 

 

 

 

.........................

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(4) Are the following district-wide services available? If so, what percent of person’s time is devoted to this service?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Provided?
Service Percent of time
Yes No

Guidance Coordinator ........ %

Audito-Visual Coordinator . . . . %

Library Coordinator .......................... %

(5) Audio-Visual
Number Available in: Number Available in:
Material and Equipment Material and Equipment

Elementary Secondary Total Elementary Secondary Total
16 mm films ................ Other: (specify)
Film strips . . . . .............
Phonograph records ..........
Tapes ......................
Motion picture projectors ..... .
Film strip projectors .........
Opaque projectors ...........
Record players ..............
Tape recorders ..............
Radio ......................
Television set ............... , ...........................................................................

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

E. EDUCATIONAL SERVICES AND PROGRAMS OF TOTAL SCHOOL DISTRICT—Concluded

General Information—Concluded
d. Curriculum planning—Concluded

(a) Describe briefly the extensiveness and eflectiveness of the use of this equipment‘

(6) Summer School

(a)

(b)

(o)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Is it general policy for the school district to make provision for summer school attendance by students

 

who desire it? .................................................................................
Did the district operate a summer school during the past summer, excluding driver education? ..........

 

 

1. If so, did the instruction provide for remedial or make-up work? .................................
2. Did the instruction provide for program enrichment (science, languages, art, etc.)? .................

 

3. Did the instruction provide for courses the pupil was unable to take during the regular school year
and advance in grade or credit? ..............................................................

 

 

 

4. Did the pupils attending pay tuition or a fee? .................................................

a. If so, did this fee pay for (check one):
Less than 25% of the operating cost ........................................
25% to 49% of the operating cost .........................................
50% to 74% of the operating cost .........................................
75% to 100% of the operating cost .........................................

Driver Education

Offered only in summer .....................................................................
Ofi'ered in summer and during school year .....................................................
Offered to non-public school students only in summer ...........................................
Ofi’ered to non-public school students in summer and during school year ...........................
Number of students (1959-60) .................................. ..-..........--.....

QPPP!‘

Page 12

Yes

 

No

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

PART II

182

ELEMENTARY SCHOOL INFORMATION
This Section to be Completed by ALL Schools

 

County..._ .................

1. a. Number of elementary principals devoting full-time to supervision ...............................
b. Number of elementary principals devoting less than full—time but more than half-time .............
c. Number of teaching principals other than (b) ..................................................

d. Total ...............................................................................

2. Level of academic training of above principals:

3. Number of above principals holding elementary provisional, elementary permanent, or life certificates. . .

4. Number of equated full-time clerical personnel employed in elementary principals’ offices ...............

.......................... Legal Name of District

 

 

 

 

 

Level

Number

 

Ph.D. or Ed.D ..........................
Masters +30 semester hours ..............
Masters ...............................
Bachelors ..............................

Less than Bachelors .....................

 

 

 

 

 

 

5. Level of academic training of elementary teaching staff:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Level Number
Ph.D. or Ed.D ......................................................
Masters ...............................
Bachelors ..............................
Less than Bachelors .....................................................

 

6. Number of elementary teaching staff holding elementary provisional, elementary permanent, or life certificates

7. Salary distribution of elementary teachers: (Full time only)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Total Annual Number of: Total Annual Number of:
Salary Reported Total Salary Reported Total
Men Women Men Women

89,000—and over... $5.000—5,499 ......

8,5m—8,999 ...... 4,500—4,999 ......

SAID—8.499 ...................................... 4.000—4,499 ......

7,500—7.999 ...... 3.500—3,999 ......

ION—7,499 ...... 3.000—3.499 ......

6,500—6,999 ...... Lessthan3,000.... .....

6.000—6.499 ......

5,500—5.999 ...... Totals .......

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Page 1

8. Instructional program
a. Classroom organization for instruction
(1) How many elementary pupils (exclusive of kindergarten) are on part-time or double shifts? ......

 

(2) Number of classrooms in school system enrolling the following number of pupils:

 

Number of Grade
Students per
Classroom K 1 2 3 4

 

Oi
0’3
q
00

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

24—25 ...............

 

Under 24 ............. . . .......................

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(3) Exceptional pupils (gifted, slow learners)
(a) Intellectually gifted:

Number of children involved

Describe special provisions by various subject areas made for intellectually gifted:

 

(b) Slow Learners: (Other than mentally retarded who are provided for under Special Education programs)
Number of children involved
Describe special provisions by various subject areas made for slow learners:

 

Page 2

 

8. Instructional program—Concluded
b. Facilities, materials and equipment

(1) Number of elementary school buildings (units) operated by the district .......................

 

(2) Number of elementary school buildings (units) which have the following rooms available during

school day:

(a) Multi-purpose room . ...............................................................
(b) Library ...........................................................................

1. Number of these elementary school buildings (units) which have library facilities ........
Number of library books available for elementary pupils. . ...........................
Number of equated full-time elementary librarians. .................................
How many of these librarians have 15 semester hours or more of library science training?. . .
Does an adequate library exist in the community which is available to students? .........

92‘5”.”

(3) (a) Board policy for supplying pupils with material:

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes .....

No-.-.-...-..

 

Supplied at Board Expense: (Check)

 

Indigent
Only

Some Elem.
Grades

All Elem.
Grades

None

If at Board Expense,
Total Board
Expenditure

 

Textbooks .....................
Workbooks ....................
Art Material ...................

Shop Material .................. _

Home Economics ...............
Music .........................
PhysicalEducation..............
Paper, Pencils, Ink, Etc ..........

TOTAL .................

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

......................

....................

 

 

........

 

 

 

 

 

 

XXXXXXXXX

 

 

 

 

 

(b) Give the total amount collected in elementary pupil fees in 1959-60 for all items listed above 8

c. Personnel services

( 1) Cumulative record

(a) Does the elementary school maintain a cumulative record for each pupil? ...........................
(b) Are intelligence and achievement test scores recorded? ...........................................
(c) Do these records follow the child to high school? ................................................
(d) Do these records follow the child to other districts? ..............................................
(e) Are intelligence test scores available to and regularly discussed with parents? .......................
(f) Are achievement test scores available to and regularly discussed with parents? ......................
(2) Are physical examinations currently required of all children entering kindergarten? ......................

(3) Guidance personnel

(a) Number of equated full-time guidance personnel assigned to elementary level ..............

(4) Testing Program

(a) Summary of testing program:

During the 1959-60 school year were the following kinds of tests administered.

v

............

............

............

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes

No

Grades Tested

Name of Tests

 

Intelligence tests ................
Achievement tests ...............
Scholastic Aptitude ..............

eeeeeeeee

 

 

eeeeeeeee

 

 

 

 

 

 

Page3

County

PART III

184

SECONDARY SCHOOL INFORMATION
This Section to be Completed ONLY by those School Districts Operating Grades Above the Eighth

[This section pertains to all pupils enrolled in grades 7-12 (provided district
Operated grades above the 8th) regardless of organizational pattern]

 

1. a. Number of secondary principals devoting full-time to supervision .................................
b. Number of secondary principals devoting less than full-time but more than half-time ...............
c. Number of teaching principals other than (1)) ..................................................

2. Level of academic training of above principals:

3. Number of above principals holding secondary provisional, secondary permanent, or life certificates .....
4. Number of equated full-time clerical personnel employed in secondary principals’ oflices ................

...... Legal Name of School District

 

 

 

 

 

Level

Number

 

Ph.D. or Ed.D ..........................

 

 

Masters +30 semester hrs ................
Masters ...............................

 

Bachelors ..............................

 

 

Less than Bachelors ..................... .

5. Level of academic training of secondary teaching stafi' :

6. Number of secondary teaching stafi‘ holding secondary provisional, secondary permanent, or life certificates

7. Teaching Load

a. How many secondary teachers do not have a period for student conferences and preparation?
(1) Is this predominantly among junior or senior high school teachers? Indicate which ......

b. How many teachers have preparation in more than 3 diflerent subjects? ...................

c. How many teachers are teaching in subjects outside of certified majors and minors? .........

 

 

 

 

Level

Number

 

Ph.D. or Ed.D ..........................

 

Masters . ..............................

 

Bachelors ..............................

 

 

Iess than Bachelors .....................

 

8. Salary distribution of secondary teachers: (Full time only)

 

Junior High Senior High

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Total Annual Number of: Total Annual Number of:
Salary Reported Total Salary Reported Total
Men Women Men Women

$9,000—and over $5,000—5,499 ......

8,500—8,999 ...... 4,500—4,999 ......

8,000—8,499 ...... «1,000—4,499 ......

7,500—7,999 ...... 3,500—3,999 ......

7.000—7,499 ...... 3,000—3,499 ......

6,600—6.999 ...... Lessthan3,000....

(5,000—6.499 ......

5,500—5,999 ...... Totals .......

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Page 1

9. Instructional program
a. Classroom organization for instruction
(1) How many secondary pupils are on part-time or double shifts? ...............................

 

(2) Number of secondary classes enrolling the following number of pupils:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Grade Total Grade Total
Number of Pupils Number Number of Pupils Number
7-8 9-12 of Classes 7-8 9-12 of Classes
40 and over‘ ....... .- . - 15—19 ...........
3.5—39 ............ 10—14 ...........
30-34 ............ . 5— 91* ..........
25—29 ............ Less than 51' .....
20—24 ............

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

‘ and 1’ Please list the particular subjects having classes with these enrollments.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(3) Exceptional pupils (gifted, slow learners)
(a) Intellectually gifted:

Number of youth involved

Describe special provisions by various subject areas made for intellectually gifted:

(b) Slow learners: (Other than mentally retarded who are provided for under regular special education programs)
Number of youth involved

Describe special provisions by various subject areas made for slow learners:

Page?

 

9. Instructional program—Continued
b. Curriculum—Current course offerings.

(Add courses not listed on blank lines.)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Check if Check if Number of Periods Number of Number of
Offered for Re uired Semesters Offered Per Students Equated
Graduation (for Week Enrolled Full-Time
Credit Graduation 7-8 9-12 Teachers

Commercial Courses: XXXXXX XXXXXX XXXXXX XXXXXX XXXXXX XXXXXX XXXXXXX
Bookkeeping ................ XXXXXXX
Business English ............. XXXXXXX
Business Law ................ .. XXXXXXX
Cooperative Training Program ............................... XXXXXXX
Office Machines .............. XXXXXXX
Office Practice ............... _ XXXXXXX
Shorthand .................. XXXXXXX
Typing ..................... __ XXXXXXX
XXXXXXX
XXXXXXX
XXXXXXX
XXXXXXX
XXXXXXX
XXXXXXX

Total Curricular Area. . XXXXXX XXXXXX
Fine Arts XXXXXX XXXXXX XXXXXX XXXXXX XXXXXX XXXXXX XXXXXXX
Art ........................ XXXXXXX
Band ....................... XXXXXXX
Boys Glee Club .............. XXXXXXX
Girls Glee Club .............. XXXXXXX
Ensemble ................... xxxxxxx
MixedGleeClub............. XXXXXXX
Music Appreciation .......... XXXXXXX
Orchestra ................... XXXXXXX
XXXXXXX
XXXXXXX
XXXXXXX
............ XXXXXXX

Total Curricular Area. . XXXXXX XXXXXX
Language Arts and/or English: XXXXXX XXXXXX XXXXXX XXXXXX XXXXXX XXXXXX XXXXXXX
English ..................... XXXXXXX
Creative Writing ............. XXXXXXX
Debating ................... XXXXXXX
Journalism .................. xxxxxxx
Remedial English ............ XXXXXXX
General Speech .............. XXXXXXX
XXXXXXX
XXXXXXX

Total Currlcular Area. . XXXXXX XXXXXX

 

9. Instructional program—Continued
b. Curriculum—Current course offerings. (Add courses not listed on blank lines.)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Check if Check if Number of Periods Number of Number of
Offered for Re uired Semesters Offered Per Students E uated
Graduation (for Week Enrolled F ~Time
Credit Graduation 7-8 9-12 Teachers

Foreign Languages: XXXXXX XXXXXX XXXXXX XXXXXX XXXXXX XXXXXX XXXXXXX
French ..................... XXXXXXX
German .................... XXXXXXX
Latin ....................... XXXXXXX
Spanish ..................... - ................................ XXXXXXX
........................................ XXXXXXX
......... XXXXXXX
........................ XXXXXXX
................. XXXXXXX
XXXXXXX

Total Curricular Area. . XXXXXX XXXXXX
Mathematics: XXXXXX XXXXXX XXXXXX XXXXXX XXXXXX XXXXXX XXXXXXX
First Year Algebra ........................................ XXXXXXX
Advanced Algebra ........... XXXXXXX
Plane Geometry ............. ............................................ XXXXXXX
Solid Geometry .................................................................... XXXXXXX
General Mathematics... . . . . . . .- .............. XXXXXXX
Remedial Mathematics .............................................................................................. XXXXXXX
Trigonometry ....................................... XXXXXXX
--___ ................................................ XXXXXXX
................................................................................................................... XXXXXXX
............................... XXXXXXX
_ _. . ._ ............................................................................................... XXXXXXX

Total Curricular Area. . XXXXXX XXXXXX
Physical Education: XXXXXX XXXXXX XXXXXX XXXXXX XXXXXX XXXXXX XXXXXXX
Boys ................. . ................................................................ XXXXXXX
Girls ................................................................................................ XXXXXXX

Total Curricular Area. . XXXXXX XXXXXX
Science: XXXXXX XXXXXX XXXXXX XXXXXX XXXXXX XXXXXX XXXXXXX
Biology ..................... . ............ XXXXXXX
Advanced Biology ........................................... XXXXXXX
Chemistry ......................... XXXXXXX
Applied Chemistry ........... . ........... XXXXXXX
Physics ............................... XXXXXXX
Applied Physics or Electronics ....................................... XXXXXXX
................................................ XXXXXXX
...... XXXXXXX
XXXXXXX
XXXXXXX
...... XXXXXXX
........................ XXXXXXX
.. XXXXXXX
XXXXXXX
XXXXXXX

Total Curricular Area. . XXXXXX XXXXXX

Page 4

 

#L' .. u .___--.-.-

9. Instructional program—Continued
b. Curriculum—Current course offerings—Continued

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Check if Check if Number of Periods Number of Number of
Offered for Re uired Semesters Offered Per Students Equated
Graduation or Week Enrolled mill-Time
Credit Graduation 7-8 9-12 Teachers

Social Studies: XXXXXX XXXXXX XXXXXX XXXXXX XXXXXX XXXXXX XXXXXXX
American Problems .......... XXXXXXX
Civics ...................... XXXXXXX
Economics ................................................. XXXXXXX
Geography .................. . XXXXXXX
Government ................................. XXXXXXX
Psychology .................................................. XXXXXXX
Sociology ................... -. XXXXXXX
United States History ........ XXXXXXX
World History ...................................... XXXXXXX
XXXXXXX
.......... XXXXXXX
...... XXXXXXX
...... XXXXXXX
XXXXXXX
XXXXXXX
XXXXXXX

Total Curricular Area. . XXXXXX XXXXXX
Vocational: XXXXXX XXXXXX XXXXXX XXXXXX XXXXXX XXXXXX XXXXXXX
Agriculture .................. _ ________________ XXXXXXX
Mechanical Drawing ......... .. XXXXXXX
Driver Education ................................... XXXXXXX
Health and Safety ........... XXXXXXX
Homemaking ................................................. XXXXXXX
XXXXXXX
........... XXXXXXX
....... XXXXXXX
_ XXXXXXX
General Shop: XXXXXX XXXXXX XXXXXX XXXXXX XXXXXX XXXXXX XXXXXXX
Auto ..................... XXXXXXX
Electrical ...................................................... XXXXXXX
Farm ..................... XXXXXXX
General ................... XXXXXXX
Machine .................. XXXXXXX
Metal ................... XXXXXXX
Print ..................... XXXXXXX
Wood .................... xxxxxxx
XXXXXXX
...... XXXXXXX
XXXXXXX

Total Curricular Area. . XXXXXX XXXXXX
Cooperative Training Program: XXXXXX XXXXXX XXXXXX XXXXXX XXXXXX XXXXXX XXXXXXX
XXXXXXX
XXXXXXX
XXXXXXX
XXXXXXX
..... XXXXXXX

Total Curricular Area. . XXXXXX XXXXXX

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Total number of units of credit required for graduation. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Averagelengthofclaaperiod7through 12..........

Papa

9. Instructional program—Continued
0. Facilities, materials and equipment
(1) Number of secondary school building (units) operated by the district ........................

 

(2) Number of secondary school buildings (units) which have the following rooms available during
school day:

(a) Gym .....................................

(b) Swimming pool ............................

(c) Library ...................................

1. Number of these secondary school buildings (units) which have library facilities .........

Number of library books available for secondary pupils ..............................

Number of equated full-time secondary librarians ...................................

How many of these librarians have 15 semester hours or more of library science training?. .

5. Does an adequate library exist in the community which is available to students? ........ Yes .......... N o------....

 

 

 

 

 

 

259°.”

 

(3) Board policy for supplying pupils with materials:
(a) Supplied at Board Expense (Check)

 

Indigent Some All If at Board Expense,
Only Secondary Secondary None Total Board
Grades Grades Expenditure

 

 

Textbooks .....................
Workbooks ....................
Art Material .........................
Shop Material ..................
Home Economics ...............
Music .........................
Physical Education .............
Athletics ....................... .

‘1‘

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Paper, Pencils, Ink, Etc ..........

 

 

TOTAL ................. XXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXX

4*

 

 

 

 

 

 

(b) Give the total amount collected in secondary pupil fees in 1959—60 for all items listed above. . 3

 

10. Pupil Personnel
a. Number of graduates of public secondary schools operated by the district during the school year 1959—60
b. How many of the above 1959-60 graduates are enrolling in junior colleges, colleges, or universities?. . .
c. How many of the above 1959-60 graduates are enrolling in other types of schools (business colleges,

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

trade schools, etc.)? .........................................................................
d. How many of the above 1959-60 graduates are on active duty with the armed forces? ...............
3. Number of pupils enrolled who dropped out of school in various grades and in various school years:
Yeans Grade Enrolled Dropped Out
1956-57 9th
19:37-58 10th
1958-59 11th
1959-60 12th

 

 

 

 

 

Pageo

 

 

11. Student Activities
Indicate the approximate number of pupils involved and check primary means of financing the following activities, if provided:

 

Activity

Number
of
Pupils

Financed Primarily by: (Check)

 

Taxes

Pupfl
Fees

Sales and
Drives

Admission
Charge

 

1. Participation in the organization, management and control of the

school

a.
b.

Prensa-a

H.
a

Student associations .......................................
Student council ...........................................

Student senate ............................................ ..

Executive committees .....................................

Student cabinet ........................................... 4

Board of control ..........................................

Student congress .......................................... _.

Squad patrols ............................................
Monitors ................................................

Other .................................................... _

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2. Drives and Community Activities

reverence-99'?

Clean-up and paint-up week ................................
Health week ..............................................
Anti-litter week ...........................................
Education week ...................................... . .....
Safety week ..............................................
Community chest campaign ................................

School bond campaign ..................................... .
Junior association of commerce ............................. ..
Junior booster club ........................................ ..

Conservation club .........................................
Other ...................................................

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

3. Religious and Social Welfare Clubs and Organizations of Relief

a.
b.

r-r-r-p-anpap

Hi-Y ....................................................

Girl Reserves ............................................. -.

Religious education groups .................................

. Boy Scouts ...............................................

Girl Scouts ...............................................
Campfire Girls ............................................

Thrift Club .............................................. -

Junior Red Cross .........................................
Social service club ........................................
National safety club ......................................
Student CARE group .....................................
Other ...................................................

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

4. Athletics—Varsity and Junior Varsity

8.

99'?

3"?

F'Q‘

yrs-"r-

Football .................................................
Basketball ...............................................
Baseball .................................................
Track ...................................................

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

‘5..- r . 1..; ..,: la, L: .4? g 1 ’1 l L t
' ‘. l U ‘ . x 2‘ . l. . .i l
tau-agaj “vs- .. I

. IV

E NIUWM-

Q. --

E"; r fi‘w_.__._.______.-u