£826 M4M $B b7 bbE GIFT OF 8C61 12 WP IVd •sojg pjo^.^BO OCT 8 1914 ^l)t ai0mnt0ntDealtl) of itlaesachusetts REPORT OF THE BOARD OF EDUCATION IN AC- CORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF CHAP- TER 70, RESOLVES OF 1911, IN THE MATTER OF THE SUPPORT OF PUBLIC EDUCATION; IN- CLUDING ALSO REPORT REQUIRED UNDER CHAPTER 39, RESOLVES OF 1912, RELATING TO THE PAYMENT OF TRANSPORTATION EXPENSES OF PUPILS RE- SIDING IN TOWNS NOT MAINTAINING HIGH SCHOOLS AND ATTENDING HIGH SCHOOLS IN OTHER TOWNS OR CITIES BOSTON WEIGHT & POTTEE PEINTIKG CO., STATE PEINTEES 18 Post Office Square 1912 : ®l)e ^ommontoeoUl) of Ma05atl}U5ttX5. Eeport on Support of Public Education To the Honorable Senate and the House of Representatives. In accordance with the provisions of chapter 70 of the Re- solves of 1911, relative to an investigation of the methods now prescribed by law for the distribution of the cost of public edu- cation among the towns and cities of the Commonwealth, the Board of Education herewith reports the results of its investi- gations, and submits in accordance with the terms of the re- solve certain recommendations. The report required in accordance with the provisions of chapter 39, Acts of 1912, relating to the payment of transporta- tion expenses of certain high school pupils, is also included. Respectfully submitted, FREDERICK P. FISH, Chairman, SARAH LOUISE AR:NrOLD, ELLA LYMA:^^ CABOT, SIME0:N' B. CHASE, LEVI L. COE-Al^T, THOMAS B. FITZPATRICK, FREDERICK W. HAMILTOIST, PAUL H. HAE-US, CLi:^rTON Q. RICHMOISTD, Members of the Board of Education. zir^^^^7 CONTENTS OF REPORT PART I. Repobt of the Board of Education. pagb I. Introduction, ........... 7 II. The Support of Public Education in Massachusetts, .... 9 III. The Question of Further State Contributions towards the Support of Public Education in Massachusetts, . . . . . .13 IV. Methods of distributing State Funds, ...... 17 V. Transportation of Certain High School Pupils, ..... 20 VI. Findings and Recommendations, ....... 21 PART II. ApPENDICEa. A. Statistical Exhibit showing Principal Facts relative to School Support in the Towns and Cities of Massachusetts, ..... 24 B. Showing the Contributions out of State Revenues for the Support of Various Forms of Education for the Year 1910, . . . .52 C. Showing, by Percentages, Proportions of School Revenue derived from Various Sources, in All States, 1909-10 63 D. Taxation for Schools in Various States, ...... 55 E. History of Recent Efforts to obtain State Aid for Education in Massa- chusetts, ........... 61 F. Reasons commonly urged in Support of, and in Opposition to, Increased State Support for Public Education, ...... 62 G. Fiscal Problems relating to School Support, ..... 65 H. Methods of distributing State Aid, 67 I. The Income of the Massachusetts School Fund and Other Forms of State Aid to Public Schools, ......... 69 J. Statistics and Proposed Act, ........ 72 Paet I. - Eeport of the Board of Education. I. INTRODUCTION. The following is the text of the resolve : — Resolved, That the board of education be directed to investigate the methods now prescribed by law for the distribution between local com- munities and the commonwealth of the cost of public education in the commonwealth ; and to report thereon to the general court not later than January five, nineteen hundred and thirteen, with recommendations as to such changes and modifications in the said methods as in its opinion are demanded in the interest of economy and sound educational policy. In compliance with the foregoing resolve, the Board of Edu- cation submits herewith a general report, to which is added for the convenience of those desiring to acquaint themselves fur- ther with the subject, the following appendices : — (A) Statistical exhibit of principal facts relative to school support in Massachusetts, showing for the State as a whole and for each city and town therein — 1. Valuation of assessed property, April 1, 1910. 2. Total tax levied on property, April 1, 1910. 3. Total expenditures for support of public schools (1910- 11)- 4. School support derived from local taxation (1910-11). 5. Total aid from Massachusetts School Fund (1910-11). 6. State aid for high schools ($500 grant and tuition) (1910-11). 7. State aid towards super intendency unions (1910-11). 8. Total receipts from State (1910-11). 9. Amounts that a one-mill property tax would add to taxa- tion on the basis of the valuation of 1910. 8 10. Amounts that would be yielded by distributing the pro- ceeds of a one-mill tax on .the basis of the average membership (Plan I.). 11. Amounts that would have been distributed to certain towns and cities in 1910 if State aid had been apportioned in accordance with the provisions of Plan 11.^ 12. Average membership in schools (1909-10). 13. Valuation per unit of average membership (1909—10). 14. School support per unit of average membership from all sources (1909-10). 15. School support per unit of average membership from local tax (1909-10). 16. Tax rate for 1910. 17. School expenditures per thousand dollars of valuation (1910). 18. Eatio of school tax to total tax. 19. Length of school year (in days). 20. Median salary of elementary teachers. (B) Statistical exhibit (with discussion) of State contribu- tions for various forms of education in Massachusetts for the year 1910. (C) Statistical exhibit (with discussion) showing for each State in the Union the sources of school revenue, distributed by percentages of the total amount received by each State. (D) Brief analysis of methods of school taxation in the different States of the Union. 1 Plan II. is designed to illustrate a method of distributing State aid in such a way that communities already taxing themselves to a designated extent for the sup- port of public schools shall be assisted out of State funds to such an extent as will enable them to expend for school purposes for each pupil in average membership a stipulated sum. For example, it may be assumed that communities taxing them- selves $5 or more per thousand for public schools are making due contributions to that end, and are, therefore, deserving of assistance from other sources. In the event that the above tax does not produce a sufficient amount to enable them to ex- pend for each child in average membership a certain sum, for example, the average amount that is spent throughout the State for such purposes out of the proceeds of local taxation, the State would lend its assistance. The amounts indicated in column 11 are computed as follows: — (a) Only communities which expended for school purposes at least $5 per thou- sand of valuation have been considered; (b) the State average of expenditure for school purposes from the proceeds of local taxation are found to be, approximately, $33; (o) to such communities as were unable from the proceeds of a $5 tax to ex- pend for school purposes $33 per pupil in average membership, the State's contribu- tion was computed as the amount necessary to attain that end. (E) Brief history of recent efforts to obtain further State aid for education in Massachusetts. (F) Resume of the arguments commonly urged in favor of and against State aid for public education. (G) Brief discussion of certain problems relating to State taxation for school support. (H) Analysis of methods employed in distributing State aid to communities for school support. (I) Discussion of present methods of apportioning the in- come of the Massachusetts School Fund and other forms of State aid to public schools. (J) Statistics and proposed act relating to the payment of transportation expenses of children attending high schools in toAvns or cities other than those in which they reside. 11. THE SUPPORT OF PUBLIC EDUCATION IN MASSACHU- SETTS. The primary purpose of the above resolve was undoubtedly to secure information upon which may be based some conclu- sions as to whether or not the methods, now prescribed by law for distributing between local communities and the Common- wealth the cost of public education, should remain unchanged or should be modified. The present system, whereby almost the entire cost of public education is borne by the local commu- nity in Massachusetts, is based on the theory of local autonomy and local interest. Under conditions which formerly prevailed this system undoubtedly produced good results. The conditions have, however, changed in recent years and many persons be- lieve that modifications should be made in the historic method. An examination of the data given in Appendix A will show the extent to which the cost of public schools ^ of Massachusetts ^ Throughout this report the words " public schools " and " public education " are used in»the sense fixed by legal practice and educational administration. "Public schools " are the elementary, high and evening schools which the communities are required by law to maintain, and which are under the direction of school committees. The cost of maintaining public schools also includes the cost of supervision by prin- cipals and superintendents. Vocational schools, normal schools, county industrial schools and various other special schools are not included under the designation " public schools." 10 is borne by local taxation. In 1910-11 the total expenditure for the support of public education was $16,642,471. Of this, $15,972,219 was raised by local taxation. The State gives no financial assistance towards the support of public education in towns and cities having a valuation of more than $2,500,000. The income of the Massachusetts School Fund, amounting to about $238,000 annually, is apportioned among towns having a valuation not in excess of $2,500,000 ; and these towns are also aided by special appropriations from the treasury of the Comrnonwealth towards the payments of the salaries of school superintendents. The State also grants aid towards the provision of high school education to towns having fewer than 500 families. The data presented in Appendix A will show that in many of the smaller towns of the State the financial aid thus given by the State forms an important part of the total revenue used for school purposes. The ability of a community to support an adequate system of public schools may, in cases where little or no revenue is derived from sources other than local taxation, be measured by the proportion which valuation bears to the number of chil- dren to be educated. By this standard the towns and cities of Massachusetts differ greatly as regards their capacity to sup- port public education. The number of children to be educated is, in some communities, very large in proportion to valuation, while in other cases it is small. In column 13 of Appendix A is shown for each city and town the quotient obtained by divid- ing its total valuation for 1909-10 by the average membership of the schools for that year. The valuation of the community per unit of average membership is thus shown to have been, for the State as a whole, $8,157 ; for the city of Boston, $14,- 212 ; for Worcester, $7,075 ; and for Fall Kiver, $6,469. For only 3 cities of Massachusetts was it above $10,000, while for^ 5 it was below $5,000. In the case of towns having over 5,000 population 4 had a valuation in excess of $10,000 per unit of average membership, while in 17 such valuation was under $4,000. Formerly, conditions were more nearly uniform throughout the State as regards the distribution of taxable property in rela- I ^^ WJ 11 tion to the number of children to be educated. The general policy of requiring that each community should support its OAvn public schools was established by Massachusetts when agri- culture was the principal occupation. The decline in land values in agricultural communities and the rise of large com- mercial and manufacturing centers have resulted in the in- equalities referred to above. The question now arises as to whether the historic methods of supporting public education in Massachusetts may not require modification in order that a more uniform distribution of educational opportunities, and a more nearly equal sharing in the cost of providing such oppor- tunities, may be secured. The maintenance of public education constitutes in the State of Massachusetts as elsewhere in America the heaviest single charge upon the taxable resources of the community. Generally speaking, from 20 to 50 per cent, of all expenditures of State and local revenues are for the support of public schools. The average tax rate for all the towns and cities of Massachusetts was, in 1910-11, $17.55 per thousand dollars of valuation. Of this, $4.09 was for the support of schools. But owing to the differences in valuation referred to above, both the total tax rate and the rate for school support vary greatly among the towns and cities. These differences are set forth in columns 16 and 17 of Appendix A. There, for example, it will be seen that Boston had for the year 1910 a total tax rate of $16.40, and a school tax rate of $2.88 per thousand, while Worcester, having the same general tax rate, had a school tax of $5.15. In 7 of the 33 cities of ^ the State the total tax rate was $20 or over per thousand, while in 9 it was below the average for the State. In 16 of these cities the expenditures for school pur- poses was at the rate of $5 or more per thousand, w^hile in 3 it was less than $4. Of 70 towns having a population of over 5,000 each, 23 had a local tax rate of $20 or over, while 26 had a rate below the average for the State. Thirty-five of the 250 towns having a population of less than 5,000 had tax rates of $20 or over, while in 12 the rate was less than $10 per thousand. Eleven of the 70 towns having over 5,000 population expended for school purposes more than $7 per thousand of valuation, and 12 38 others over $5. In only 7 was the rate less than $4. In the smaller toAvns a still wider disparity is shown. Several of these expended for school purposes more than $7 per thousand of valuation, while a considerable number, because aided by the income of the Massachusetts School Fund, or for other rea- sons, expended on this account less than $3 per thousand of valuation. In considering the cost of public education in Massachusetts many factors other than those indicated by the rates of taxa- tion or expenditure for a given year must be taken into account. Many communities tax themselves heavily for the support of their public schools and for the improvement of the quality of the instruction given therein. But owing to what is, in many cases, a great disproportion between the number of chil- dren to be educated and the property of the community avail- able for purposes of taxation, such communities may find themselves unable, even after imposing heavy rates of taxation, to provide school facilities adequate to meet existing needs and the standards set forth in the laws of the State. A conspicuous evidence of this is to be found in the sal- aries paid to teachers. In the seventy-fifth annual report of the Board a special statistical study was presented showing the salaries of the teachers of Massachusetts, distributed by cities and tovnis and also by position held. The salaries paid to ele- mentary teachers constitute the most satisfactory index of com- munity effort in the direction of attracting and retaining teachers. Eeference to the figures given in column 20 of Appendix A will show that in Boston the '' median " salary ^ of elementary teachers was, in 1910-11, $936; in Worcester it was $700; while in Gloucester it was $500. Among the tovnis and cities of Massachusetts teachers' salaries vary greatly, as is shovni byj the study noted above. Low salaries do not always signify inability on the part of the community to pay higher ones. ^Nevertheless, it is true ^ By " median " salary is meant the middle salary in a group of salaries arranged in order from the lowest to the highest. The " median " amount does not differ greatly from the average. This method of pi-esenting briefly the significance of a large number of figures now has general approval. 13 that there are many communities which are endeavoring to maintain good schools, as indicated by their rates of expendi- ture for school purposes, but which are unable to pay salaries sufficient to hold their best teachers. Brockton had a school tax rate of $6.11 in 1910, while the median salary paid to its ele- mentary teachers was $675 ; in Everett these figures were, respectively, $6.50 and $650; in Marlborough, $5.92 and $575; in Adams, $7.67 and $500; and in Southbridge, $5.16 and $480. On the other hand, examination of the figures in Appendix A will show that in many of the towns and cities of Massachu- setts valuation is large in proportion to the number of children for whom school facilities must be provided. Such communities can easily pay such salaries as will attract to them teachers of superior ability. On the other hand, so-called " poor towns " — i.e., towns hav- ing a low valuation in proportion to the number of children to be educated — may not be able to make sufficient provision for the right quality of normal public school work, not to speak of the newer educational opportunities, such as manual training, household arts, drawing, agriculture, etc. They cannot under- take the establishment of vocational schools of which they are often in peculiar need. Because of the burdens of school taxa- tion, progressive citizens in such communities find it difficult to sustain public interest in good schools. An attitude of resent- ment towards new measures in education often develops under these conditions. III. THE QUESTION OF FURTHER STATE CONTRIBUTIONS TOWARDS THE SUPPORT OF PUBLIC EDUCATION IN MASSACHUSETTS. It is the opinion of many persons interested in the promotion of public education in Massachusetts that an educational policy, suited to present conditions as regards the distribution of popu- lation and taxable property in the Commonwealth, would re- B quire that the State should contribute financial aid towards the H support of public education to many communities now obliged 14 tion. The State now gives substantial assistance, as noted above, towards the support of schools in communities in which valuation does not exceed $2,500,000. But an examination of the d-ata given in Appendix A (see especially columns 13 and 17) will show that it is not alone towns of small valuation which are in need of revenues additional to those which are to be raised bj local taxation, if satisfactory school facilities are to be provided; many towns of large valuation and some cities find the demand for school accommodations and instruction so great as seriously to tax the resources available for providing these facilities, even after appropriations have been made for this purpose from local revenues to an extent which results in taxation that seems excessive. Partial support of education by the State and a special tax for the purpose have been discussed for many years in Massa- chusetts. In Appendix E is given a brief account of various attempts since 1870 to secure a " mill '' tax for school purposes. In Appendix F are summarized the familiar arguments for and against State aid to public education. Massachusetts occupies a somewhat peculiar position among the States of the Union, and also in comparison with foreign countries, as regards State aid to public education. In Appen- dix C is shown for each State in the Union the distribution of the cost of public schools. It there appears that in every State in the Union other sources of school revenue besides local taxa- tion are drawn upon to meet the cost of public education; but it also appears that in Massachusetts local taxation is the source of school support to an extent greater than is the case in any other State. In the earlier stages of their history most of the States fol- lowed the policy still found in Massachusetts of imposing upon the local community the chief, if not the entire, responsibility for providing school revenues. This plan has been of late years greatly modified in nearly all the States. The sale of school lands enabled many western States to accumulate funds, the income from which is now distributed among counties and dis- tricts for school purposes. Some of these same States and other States, not possessing school funds, established years ago fixed I 15 rates of State taxation, the proceeds of which are distributed so as to supplement local taxation as a means of supporting public schools. (See Appendix D.) As shown by the table in Appendix C, the revenues for the support of public education in Massachusetts in 1909-10 were derived as follows: from permanent funds, 1.1 per cent, of the total school revenue; from State taxation, .9 per cent. ; from local taxation, 96.8 per cent. ; and from other sources, 1.2 per cent. The table also shows that in all the New England States, except Massachusetts, a considerable State tax is now levied, the proceeds of which are used to aid local communities in providing adequate public instruction. The State tax for this purpose in Maine provided in 1909-10 over 35 per cent, of all school revenues ; in New Hampshire, Y per cent. ; in Vermont, 1 6 per cent. ; in Ehode Island, over 6 per cent. ; and in Connect- icut, over 12 per cent. In foreign countries the support of public education has, for many years and to a constantly increasing extent, been assumed by the larger administrative areas. In Great Britain and Ire- land the national government through regular parliamentary appropriations supplies from 55 to 60 per cent, of the cost of school maintenance ; in France, almost-the entire cost of public education is now met from national funds, while in the several German States contributions of revenue from national sources provide in every case a considerable portion, and in some in- stances more than half of the cost of all forms of publicly sup- ported education. The national governments in these foreign countries, in assuming more of the cost of public education, have been actuated not only by the conviction that in no other way could adequate school facilities be supplied in the poorer localities, but also by a recognition of the far-reaching importance of State supervision and the consequent higher standards of edu- cational efficiency which follow as an inevitable corollary to State contribution. The Board is of the opinion that the efficiency of the public school education of Massachusetts would be increased if the Commonwealth were to assume a larger part of the burden of 16 its support, primarily aiding those localities which cannot main- tain good schools by means of local taxation alone. The fact that the funds for this purpose would come in large part from the richer communities, is not a conclusive argument against such a policy, since every portion of the State has a definite and vital interest in the well-being, including the opportunities for education, of every other portion of the State. Moreover, the supervision of public school education of the State, which would inevitably follow a larger contribution from the State treasury, ought to result in the maintenance of more uniform and higher standards of education. As a practical matter, the assumption by the Commonwealth of a larger portion of the cost of public school education cannot be considered except in connection with fundamental questions of State taxation with which the Board is not officially con- cerned. If aid is to be given by the State to public schools, the necessary money must be supplied. The extent to which the State will assume such an additional burden depends upon the will of the people, acting through the Legislature, to supply the means. Massachusetts owns no public land, as do many western States, the proceeds of which may be so invested as to produce a perpetual income for school purposes. ISTew York, ^ew Jer- sey, Pennsylvania and other States are able, as is shown in Appendix G, to utilize revenues derived from indirect taxa- tion, wholly or in part, to defray State contributions for public school purposes. The Board cannot undertake to indicate to what extent and in what directions sources of revenue other than direct taxation are available in Massachusetts, in the event that the Legislature seeks to provide additional financial assist- ance to communities for the support of public schools. It is to be hoped that the facts and figures of the report her©! presented will lead to full discussion and will aid in bringing about a consensus of opinion as to the policy to be adopted. The problems of taxation, and especially the extent to which the State is able or willing to increase its burdens in this re- gard, are so fundamental that the Board deems it inexpedient to make final and definite recommendations until these ques- tions shall have received further consideration. 17 In Appendix A are found some suggestions on the general subject to which attention is respectfully called. In this connection, it is important to note that the Common- wealth now contribui;es approximately $2,000,000 annually to the support of various forms of education. In addition to the amounts contributed to the support of public schools, as de- scribed above ($238,000 from the income of the Massachusetts School Fund, and $149,000 aid for high schools and for super- intendents' salaries), there was expended by the Common- wealth, in 1910, nearly $400,000 for normal schools; over $300,000 for higher technical and agricultural education; nearly $50,000 for vocational education of secondary grade; and over $750,000 for the education of defectives and delin- quents. (See details in Appendix B.) It is reasonable to expect that the amounts to be expended in aiding vocational education will materially increase during the next few years. The Legislature will have before it proposals for the establishment of a retirement system for teachers which, if adopted, will probably call for aid from the treasury of the Commonwealth. IV. METHODS OF DISTRIBUTING STATE FUNDS. The methods that may be employed in distributing among local communities any contributions made by the State towards the support of public education must exert a profound influence on the quality and general administration of such education. The experience of other countries and other States demon- strates that financial aid provided by national or State gov- ernments towards meeting, in whole or in part, the cost of carrying on a public activity so essentially local in its nature as public education, may be so administered as to stimulate local eifort and at the same time equalize in a considerable degree, as among different communities, both the burden of taxation for school purposes and also the provision of educa- tional opportunities. For this reason, therefore, the Board presents herewith a brief discussion of certain principles which, in its opinion, should be applied in any legislation making further provision 18 for State aid to public education in Massachusetts. (Appen- dix H.) The experience of States other than Massachusetts supplies many suggestions in this matter. It was' formerly the custom in southern States to distribute among communities the pro- ceeds of a State tax for schools in approximately the propor- tions of the contributions of the several communities. In western and north-central States, where the State funds first available for educational purposes were derived, not from State taxation, but from the income of funds created through the sale of public lands, it was long customary to distribute State aid among communities on the basis of the total number of children in such communities, as shown by the school census. In recent years better methods than those indicated above have been established in nearly all the States of the Union. Two principles are now regarded as of primary importance: (a) State aid shall be so distributed as to contribute towards an equalization of educational opportunities and of the cost of maintaining the same among different communities; and (h) State aid shall be so distributed as to place a premium on local effort, both as regards supporting the public schools and as regards maintaining the quality of the work done in them. Absolute equality in these respects is not . attainable ; neverthe- less, the various methods of providing and distributing State funds for educational purposes described in Appendices D and H do in large measure lead to such results. The methods employed in Massachusetts in distributing the financial aid given now by the Commonwealth to small towns conform in several important respects to^ these principles : (a) State aid is given to towns not required by law to maintain high schools, when these, nevertheless, undertake that responsi- bility; (&) small communities, unable to maintain high schools, are given financial assistance towards the payment of high school tuition for pupils sent elsewhere to obtain necessary high school education; (c) in order that expert supervision may, be provided in all towns the State pays a portion of the salary of each superintendent of schools in towns having a valuation of 19 $2,500,000 or less; {d) the income of the Massachusetts School Fund is distributed to towns of a valuation not in excess of $2,500,000 in proportions varying in part according to the relation which the school tax bears to the total tax levied in such towns. The Board is of the opinion that the present methods of dis- tributing the income of the Massachusetts School Fund are not wholly in accord with sound educational policy. (See Appendix I.) It will undoubtedly prove desirable in the near future to modify the system now employed, in order further to stimulate local effort and more nearly to equalize local burdens. But, in the event that the Legislature can provide for further State aid for public education, it is of fundamental importance that the principles employed in distributing such assistance should be entirely sound. Attention is especially called to two different systems already employed in whole or in part in sev- eral States. The first and simplest method of distribution is that which involves the apportionment of State funds to communities in proportion to the average membership in the schools. The aver- age membership in the schools is, except in rural communities having many single-room schools, a fair measure of educational need. This method of distribution operates as an inducement to the community to encourage large and regular school attend- ance. As a means of illustrating this method of distribution, the Board presents in Appendix A, in columns 9 and 10, exhibits for each city and town of the Commonwealth, showing what burden a mill tax would have imposed if based on the valuation of 1910, and what the proceeds of such a tax would have con- tributed to each community if distributed on the basis of aver- age membership in the schools for 1909-10. It is obvious that such a method of distribution involves the apportionment of State aid to all communities, even though these may be abundantly able to support their schools without State assistance. But it is a method now employed in many States, and appeals to many administrators as being equitable and effective. In its detailed application, special provision 20 must be made for rural communities having many single-room schools. In practice, too, additional provision is usually made in States using this system for special additional aid to very poor communities, and to communities inaugurating new and expensive types of education, as in agriculture. A method of distributing State funds for the support of public education, which is designed in a direct and positive fashion to stimulate local endeavor, and partially to equalize educational opportunities, is the following: State funds avail- able for this purpose are distributed only to such communities as shall already have levied a stated tax for school support; and to these in such a way as to enable all of them to expend for the education of each pupil in average membership at least equal sums. In column 11 of Appendix A are given, by way of illustration, the amounts which the State would have con- tributed to certain towns and cities in 1911 if it had distributed aid in accordance with these principles: (a) that only towns and cities that had for the preceding year expended for school support at least $5 for each thousand of valuation should be entitled to such assistance; and (h) that the sum which each town or city should receive from the State would be the differ- ence between the proceeds of a $5 tax on each thousand dollars of local valuation and the amount obtained by multiplying the average attendance in the schools for the previous year by the average per capita expenditure (derived from local taxation) for school support throughout the State in that year. V. PROVisio:sr for the transportation of certain HIGH SCHOOL PUPILS. There was before the Legislature of 1912 a bill providing that the State should reimburse towns not required to main- tain high schools, which should pay for the transportation of pupils to high schools in other towns and cities. This bill was referred to the Board for consideration and report. The Board recommends that legislation be enacted containing the following provisions : — 21 (a) All towns not maintaining high schools shall pay all necessary amounts, not exceeding $1.50 per week, required to transport properly approved pupils to high schools in other towns or cities, in the same manner that they are now required to pay tuition charges incurred on behalf of such pupils (chap^ ter 537, Acts of 1911). (h) Towns which, during any preceding school year, ex- pended out of the proceeds of local taxation for the support of public schools not less than $4 and less than $5 per thousand of valuation for that year shall be entitled to reimbursement from the Commonwealth of one half of all amounts so expended for transportation; and towns so expending not less than $5 per thousand dollars of valuation shall be entitled to reimburse- ment in full. The Board believes that the enactment of such legislation would be in accordance with the policy already established by the Commonwealth in providing for free secondary education in small towns. In Appendix J will be found a table giving approximately the probable cost to the State of the adoption of the plan here proposed. There is also submitted a proposed act giving effect to the Board's recommendations. VI. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS. The Board respectfully submits, in response to the resolve quoted at the beginning of this report, its findings and recom- mendations, as follows : — 1. In Massachusetts it has long been the established policy that the cost of supporting the regular public schools should be borne by the local community. The State gives financial assist- ance for public school purposes to towns having a valuation not in excess of $2,500,000, and to all towns and cities maintaining approved vocational schools. The State furthermore expends large sums for the education of defectives and delinquents, for the training of teachers, and for the partial support of higher technical and agricultural education. 22 2. There is in Massachusetts a considerable number of towns and cities having a relatively low valuation in proportion to the number of children to be educated which receive no finan- cial aid from the State towards the support of public educa- fion. These communities find it hard to meet the necessary cost of public education out of the proceeds of local taxation. It is probable that in some of these communities conditions of industry and population are changing in such a way that in the future the burden of maintaining adequate school facilities will be relatively greater than it is at present. In these cases the historic method of supporting public education is and will be^ in Massachusetts, unsatisfactory. Notwithstanding that the Commonwealth, by legislation and otherwise, aims to promote fairly uniform standards of efficiency in public education, be- cause of limited resources these towms are unable to conform to such standards except at the cost of excessive taxation. 3. The Board is of the opinion that sound educational pol- icy on the part of the Commonwealth, looking to the mainte- nance of an efficient system of public schools throughout the Commonwealth, requires that a number of towns and cities, not now in receipt of financial assistance for the support of public education, should be so assisted, if the financial resources of the Commonwealth permit the necessary expenditures for that purpose. The Board recognizes that there are involved, in pro- posals for further substantial contributions by the State to the support of public education, fundamental questions of State fiscal policy not within its purview. The Board is convinced that the practice of other States and countries, in distributing the cost of supporting public education between the local com- munity and the State or nation, is sound in principle and has produced good results, in that through State supervision higher standards have been established and maintained, and poorer communities have been enabled to offer better educational facili- ties. 'No sacrifice of local interest need be involved. The Board refers the entire subject to the General Court as worthy of careful consideration. 4. In the event that the Commonwealth finds it feasible to provide contributions out of State revenues towards the support 23 of public education additional to those now made, the Board is ready to submit to the General Court alternative plans, whereby such contributions could be so employed as to assist the communities now most heavily burdened, while at the same time providing for proper encouragement of local effort and for suitable supervision of expenditures, to the end that the highest efficiency may result. The Board regards it as inex- pedient to suggest such plans in detail until the entire subject has received further consideration. 5. The Board is of the opinion that the requirement that the income of the Massachusetts School Fund shall be apportioned only among towns having a valuation not exceeding $2,500,000 is in accordance with sound educational policy. But the Board is convinced that a system of apportioning that income to the various tovms entitled thereto can be devised whereby the needs of the several communities can be more equitably met than is the case at present, and whereby greater effort on the part of many such communities can be encouraged. The Board submits no specific recommendations to this effect at the present time, believing that the larger question of State aid to communities of over $2,500,000 valuation should first receive attention; but the Board holds itself in readiness to make detailed recom- mendations affecting the apportionment of the income of the Massachusetts School Fund when called upon to do so. 6. The Board recommends that legislation be enacted requir- ing that tovms not maintaining high schools shall be required to pay, as provided in the bill submitted in Appendix J, the expenses incurred in transporting pupils to high schools in other towns and cities; and that provision be made whereby, under certain conditions indicated above, such towns may be reimbursed in whole or in part for expenditures so incurred. Y. If the present Legislature desires more specific recom- mendations on any subject treated in this report the Board will promptly make the same. It may be in a position to submit such further recommendations on its own initiative to a succeed- ing Legislature. 24 PART II. APPENDICES. Appendix A. Statistical Exhibit showing Principal Facts relative TO School d lad < 1 -2 11 3 1^1 cj P"'^ o O 00 00 > H H 1 2 3 MASSACHUSETTS $3,907,892,598 $68,589,376 $16,642,471 00 Cities. 1 Boston, 1,393,765,423 23,249,628 4,061,432 31 2 Worcester, 141,212,607 2,398,444 731,467 27 3 Fall River 92,488,520 1,793,183 442,319 89 4 Lowell, 79,844,448 1,618,135 377,788 98 5 Cambridge, 110,796,735 2,280,334 509,665 68 6 New Bedford 83,906,051 1,648,704 350,890 09 7 Lynn, 72,648,640 1,509,524 328,322 76 8 Springfield, 119.081,778 1,932,250 547,491 37 9 Lawrence, 65,446,007 1,118,842 289,413 41 10 Somerville, 66,376,338 1,271,328 371,222 63 11 Holyoke 49,862,240 876,336 248,590 46 12 Brockton, 43,353,741 913,480 265,464 67 13 Maiden, 40,491,384 773,580 220.449 73 14 Haverhill 32.929.962 651,513 191.482 50 15 Salem 33.525,900 643,633 155.730 48 16 Newton 73.587.510 1,389,961 319,415 00 17 Fitchburg, 30,122,175 587,018 139,927 26 18 Taunton, 22,780,761 464,052 134,423 27 19 Everett, 27,777,700 568,486 181,015 80 20 Quincy, 32,456.380 668,299 153,573 35 21 Chelsea 25,720,100 593,832 146,775 50 22 Pittsfield 24,979,745 494.149 141,967 00 23 Waltham 26,104.365 453,359 109,327 00 24 Chicopee, 13.309,680 272,532 89,167 36 25 Gloucester, 23,739,498 451,916 112,936 50 26 Medford, 23,683,100 510,257 • 134,042 89 27 North Adams, 16,459.242 320,049 93,190 58 28 Northampton, 14,754,111 252,786 83,061 36 29 Beverly, 35,643,475 552,608 125,848 51 30 Melrose, 16,463,865 328,378 93,670 43 31 Woburn, 11,491,511 236,297 64,812 91 32 Newburyport, 15,242,057 275,239 51,581 28 33 Marlborough, Towns over 5,000 Population. 10,423,083 235,280 61,995 33 34 Brookline 108,634,000 1,372,897 218,771 94 35 Revere, 17.719,612 400,249 102,071 50 36 Leominster, 12,398,235 252,053 74,060 70 37 Attleborough, 16,896,725 288,675 77,095 51 38 Westfield 9,459,029 166,481 73,958 86 25 PART II. APPENDICES. Appendix A. Support in the Towns and Cities of Massachusetts. So i'§ §s . ss g %h Is 11 .-IS 41 m ft.2 a c QO 3 i|3 1.11 .1 1% 1° ill M < to CZJ H o 4 5 6 7 8 9 $15,972,219 00 $238,748 00 $68,368 00 $83,556 90 $390,672 90 13,907,893 4,016,063 11 _ _ 1,393,765 727,097 82 - - - 141,212 433,588 40 - - — - 92,488 377,788 98 - - - - 79,844 502,829 48 - - - - 110,796 347,154 69 _ « _ _ 83,906 326,606 45 - - - - 72,648 530,955 92 - - - - 119,081 289,413 41 - - - - 65,446 370,363 04 - - - 66,376 247,934 50 _ _ _ 49,862 265,029 67 _ - - - 43,353 218,454 07 - - - - 40,491 190,412 00 - - - - 32,929 155,730 48 - - - - 33,525 319,375 00 _ _ _ _ 73,587 139,298 01 - - - - 30,122 129,993 41 - - - - 22,780 180,563 65 - - - - 27.777 153,474 00 - - - - 32,456 146,439 51 _ _ _ _ 25,720 141,967 00 - - - — 24,979 109,210 40 - - - - 26,104 89,082 86 - - - _ 13,309 112,936 50 - - - - 23,739 133,564 78 _ _ - _ 23,683 91,755 58 - - — - 16,459 81,123 17 - _ - _ 14.754 125,848 51 - - - - 35,643 93.670 43 - - - - 16,463 63,264 05 _ _ _ _ 11,491 48,502 65 - - - - 15,242 61,676 91 - ~ - - 10.423 218,771 94 _ _ . _ 108.634 101,911 32 - - -. _ 17.719 73,025 68 - - - _ 12,398 76,276 87 _ _ _ _ 16.896 65.257 56 ~ — - - 9.459 26 PART II. APPENDICES. Appendix A. Statistical Exhibit showing Principal Facts relative to School •32 |i "5 c .2 S'^ 3 >xi 32 MASSACHUSETTS, Boston, . Worcester, Fall River, Lowell, . Cambridge, New Bedford, Lynn, Springfield, Lawrence, Somerville, Cities. Holyoke, Brockton, Maiden, . Haverhill, Salem, . Newton, . Fitchburg, Taunton, Everett, . Quincy, . Chelsea, . Pittsfield, Waltham, Chicopee, Gloucester, Medfield, North Adams, Northampton, Beverly, . Melrose, . Woburn, Newbury port, Marlborough, Towns over 5,000 Population. Brookline, Revere, Leominster Attleborough, .... Westfield 10 $791,400 69 161,052 99 115,376 V9 92,611 32 124.802 55 80,812 98 83,823 09 103,360 56 66.432 14 99.462 75 50,025 93 70,144 44 57,062 97 44,401 14 37.339 89 61,849 75 32,514 03 35,265 90 52,148 34 48,339 30 37,081 65 36,960 60 25,210 68 22,717 05 37.912 86 33,345 24 24,331 05 21,784 79 25,912 77 24,613 50 23,411 07 15,470 19 19,174 32 30,423 90 28,164 30 17,140 68 18,972 57 18.318 90 $9,361 00 74.845 00 70.071 00 30,888 00 16.921 00 30,310 00 74,361 CO 23,035 00 26,350 00 17.941 00 17,200 00 15,231 00 18.335 00 38.278 00 26,293 00 26,575 00 8.102 00 27,615 00 12 479.069 98,067 19.957 14,297 11.476 15.465 10,014 10,387 12,808 8,232 12,325 6,199 8.692 7.071 5.502 4,627 6,425 4.029 4,370 6.462 5.990 4,595 4,580 3.124 2.815 4.698 4.132 3.015 2,697 3,211 3,050 2.901 1,917 2,376 3,770 3,490 2.124 2,351 2,270 13 $8,157 26 14.212 38 7,075 84 6.469 08 6,957 52 7,164 35 8,378 87 6,994 19 9.297 45 7,950 20 5,385 60 8,043 69 4,988 03 6,726 40 5,985 09 7,245 71 11,453 31 7,476 34 5,212 99 4.298 62 5,418 00 6,597 00 5,454 00 8,035 00 4,799 00 5,053 00 5,731 00 5,459 00 6.470 00 11,100 00 5,430 00 3,961 00 7,950 00 4,433 00 28.815 00 5.077 00 5,837 00 7.187 00 4,166 00 27 PART II. APPENDICES. Appendix A Support in the Towns and Cities of Massachusetts — Continved. mpport per of average rship from all (1909-10). support per of average irship from X for 1909-10. for 1910. s i s >> "2 V 03 !h00l 1 unit membe local ta X lis |3 CO CO H & rt s 14 15 16 n 18 19 20 133 42 $32 07 $17 55 $4 03 .24 187 - 40 52 40 05 16 40 2 88 .18 191 $936 00 34 73 34 63 16 40 5 15 .31 200 700 00 27 41 26 72 18 70 4 69 .25 190 660 00 32 84 32 28 19 60 4 73 .24 184 700 00 32 75 32 25 20 10 4 54 .23 192 700 00 31 05 30 80 19 00 4 14 .22 193 700 00 30 16 30 07 20 00 4 50 .22 190 700 00 39 79 38 94 15 80 4 46 .28 191 750 00 33 47 33 47 16 40 4 42 .27 183 650 00 29 71 29 71 18 50 5 58 .30 182 700 00 38 87 38 87 17 00 4 97 .29 195 650 00 28 70 28 61 20 30 6 11 .30 184 675 00 31 01 30 81 18 50 5 40 .29 184 675 00 31 96 31 70 19 00 5 78 .30 190 650 00 32 66 32 66 18 50 4 65 .25 184 650 00 48 03 48 03 18 60 4 34 .23 189 750 00 34 63 34 19 18 80 4 62 .25 194 680 00 30 70 29 70 19 50 5 71 .29 186 600 00 27 90 27 86 19 80 6 50 .33 180 650 00 24 08 24 03 20 00 4 73 .24 185 600 00 29 83 29 82 22 40 5 69 .25 182 700 00 28 30 28 30 19 00 5 68 .30 195 620 00 34 45 34 39 16 80 4 18 .25 187 650 00 28 95 28 90 19 50 6 69 .34 191 520 00 23 54 23 54 18 40 4 76 .26 195 500 00 32 02 31 91 21 00 5 64 .27 184 700 00 30 26 29 95 18 80 5 57 .30 190 532 00 30 06 29 28 16 50 5 50 .33 193 550 00 36 34 36 34 15 20 3 53 .23 200 650 00 31 57 31 57 19 40 5 69 .29 183 650 00 22 21 21 75 19 80 5 51 .28 181 600 00 24 23 22 48 17 50 3 18 .18 181 550 00 25 86 25 85 21 70 5 92 .27 187 575 00 51 07 51 07 12 50 2 01 .16 196 850 00 30 04 30 02 22 00 5 75 .26 186 575 00 34 91 34 31 19 50 5 89 .30 185 570 00 31 36 31 10 16 50 4 51 .27 189 582 00 30 63 27 07 16 70 6 90 .41 185 520 00 28 Statistical Exhibit showing Principal Facts relative to School 'Or^ s for blic 1^ £aH ■3" % It 1 III 3 3-5 Cj ft'-' > H H Towns oveb 5,000 Population -Con. 1 2 3 39 Peabody $11,091,050 $239,593 $58,270 57 40 Hyde Park 14,638,575 286,332 68,455 82 41 Gardner 8,245,905 191,517 52,464 10 42 Clinton 8,439,912 197,284 55,725 24 43 Milford 9,331,470 166,400 43,836 16 44 Adams 6,204,433 126,430 48,630 84 45 Framingham 11,962,940 222,286 63.631 22 46 Weymouth, 7,929,074 189,264 57,674 36 47 Watertown, 14,423,061 269,671 60,952 72 48 Southbridge 5,972,897 141,138 31,158 91 49 Plymouth, 11,275,792 218,426 53,655 87 50 Webster 7,789,770 83,717 30,152 43 51 Methuen, 7,198,034 146,197 41,643 13 52 Wakefield 9,380,540 198,401 60,185 12 53 Arlington, 11,887.267 244,481 69,784 00 54 Greenfield 10,130,382 184,778 50,082 54 55 Winthrop, 13,195,300 246,050 55,359 21 56 Amesbury 6,247,477 118,196 29,007 80 57 Natick, 8,221,600 169,071 52,734 04 58 North Attleborough 7,732,240 160,394 41,802 09 59 Danvers, 6,470,425 129,368 44,005 43 60 Winchester 12,758,750 225,246 60,170 82 61 Dedham, 13,328,702 233,825 60,762 73 62 West Springfield 7,319,159 121,560 40,502 65 63 Northbridge 4,594,600 81,968 34,025 10 64 Ware 4,814,775 81,458 34,055 08 65 Palmer, 4,364,687 74,422 34,950 30 66 Athol 4,643,701 99,910 32,029 60 67 Easthampton, 5,961,261 120,558 25,233 92 68 Middleborough, 4,644,805 101,250 34,540 29 69 Braintree, 6,265,880 131,985 44,777 57 70 Saugus, 5,510,516 125,342 40,720 01 71 Norwood, 14,033,280 134,196 47,953 32 72 Milton 26,689,650 321,660 76,821 08 73 Bridgewater 3,467,827 63,637 30,591 69 74 Marblehead, 8,785,944 197,540 34,613 82 75 Andover 6,737,207 114,817 38.363 94 76 Whitman, 4,994,721 119,346 34.399 11 77 Stoneham, 5,055,916 109,192 31.792 36 78 Rockland 4,226,125 100.683 29,661 86 79 Montague 4,222,955 82,212 34,415 69 80 Hudson 3,843,615 83,617 27,747 08 81 Spencer 3,535,697 74,555 23.858 21 82 Concord, 7,319,263 107.941 41,537 09 83 Maynard, 3,933,417 67,000 23,660 41 84 Stoughton, 3,554,988 83,042 20,786 16 85 Swampscott, 11,187,540 170.995 33,108 01 86 Great Barrington 6,030,715 77,839 31,635 74 87 Reading, 5,896,884 119,597 35,507 75 88 Ipswich, 4,785,508 78,870 22,378 11 89 Grafton, 2,739,365 54,714 23,085 45 90 Winchendon 4,184,305 99,681 32,141 52 91 Blackstone 2,315,410 46,287 18,746 41 92 Franklin, 3,938,655 69,788 25,719 99 93 Belmont, 6,516,525 125,388 31,280 48 29 Support in the Towns AND Cities of Massachusetts — Continued. "2 il §S . g ^h 2o "o ^ S ""■ a.2 g lii i n 11= •2 Is SS3 3 a 111 2 .2* ¥ M < CO M H o 4 5 6 7 8 9 $58,110 57 _ _ _ _ $11,091 68,455 82 - - - - 14,638 51,584 20 - - - - 8,245 55,725 24 - - - - 8,439 43.153 06 - - - - 9,331 47,562 41 _ _ _ _ 6,204 62,786 03 - - - - 11,962 57,563 36 - - - - 7.929 60,952 72 - - - - 14,423 30,846 91 - - - - 5.972 53,637 62 _ _ _ _ 11,275 30,152 43 - - - — 7,789 38,891 56 - - - - 7,198 58,043 37 - - - - 9,380 67,300 23 - - - - 11,887 49,372 36 _ - _ _ 10,130 55,359 21 - - — - 13,195 28,398 60 - - — - 6,247 51,647 02 - - _ _ 8,221 41,802 09 - - - - 7,732 42,407 43 _ _ _ _ 6,470 59,583 37 - - - - 12,758 58,240 51 - - - - 13,328 37,731 14 - - - - 7.319 33,949 10 - - - - 4,594 33,665 81 _ _ _ _ 4,814 34,155 08 ~ _ _ 4.364 30,169 61 - - _ _ 4,643 23,837 98 - - - _ 5.961 31,986 67 - - - - 4,644 43,377 54 _ _ _ _ 6,265 39,982 59 - - _ _ 5,510 47,746 82 - - - _ 14,033 76,821 08 - - _ _ 26,689 21,951 05 - - $625 00 $625 00 3,467 34,613 82 _ _ _ _ 8,785 34,490 03 - - - _ 6,737 33,373 61 - _ _ _ 4,994 31,473 21 - _ _ _ 5,055 29,276 60 - - - - 4.226 33,354 89 _ _ _ ^ 4,222 27,184 08 _ _ _ _ 3,843 23,393 35 - _ _ _ 3,535 34,354 57 _ _ _ _ 7,319 23,660 41 - - - - 3,933 20,606 16 _ _ _ _ 3,554 33,108 01 - _ _ _ 11,187 30.317 74 _ _ _ _ 6,030 33,151 40 - - _ _ 5,896 20,120 90 - - - - 4,785 22,137 95 _ _ 937 50 937 50 2,739 24,377 04 - _ 4,184 17,620 19 Sl,126 22 _ _ 1,126~22 2,315 24,907 08 _ _ _ 3,938 31.064 87 - - - - 6,516 30 Statistical Exhibit showing Principal Facts relative to School =3 >> 1 6 "^2 iT3.2 Oj CI S §5>. S 1 s ©^ 52 w 1 Sw u Ss c|1 a ^ •32 II Hi ^ m <1 t> Towns over 5,000 Population — Con. 10 11 12 13 39 Peabody $17,019 63 $14,142 00 2,109 $5,258 00 40 Hyde Park 14,485 65 - 1.795 8,155 00 41 Gardner 14,114 43 16,492 00 1.749 4,714 00 42 Clinton, 15,462 12 21.033 00 1,916 4,404 00 43 Milford 15,292 65 - 1,895 4,924 00 44 Adams, 13,936 89 25.971 00 1,727 3,592 00 45 Framingham 17,156 82 10,348 00 2.126 5,626 00 46 Weymouth, 17,406 99 31,536 00 2.157 3,675 00 47 Watertown 13,291 29 - 1.647 8,757 00 48 Southbridge 9,336 99 8,321 00 1.157 5,162 00 49 Plymouth 16,357 89 _ 2.027 5,562 00 60 Webster 6,794 94 - 842 9,251 00 51 Methuen, 13.694 79 20,011 00 1.697 4,241 00 52 Wakefield 17,762 07 25,733 00 2.201 4,261 00 53 Arlington, 15,671 94 4,651 00 1,942 6.121 00 54 Greenfield 13,654 44 _ 1,692 5,987 00 55 Winthrop, 13,242 87 - 1,641 8,041 00 56 Amesbury, 7,037 04 - 872 7,164 00 57 Natick 14.001 45 16,150 00 1,735 4,742 00 58 North Attleborough, .... 10.644 33 4,867 00 1,319 5,862 00 59 Danvers, 11.983 95 16,655 00 1,485 4,357 00 60 Winchester, 13,299 36 1,648 7,741 00 61 Dedham 13,468 83 - 1,669 7,986 00 62 West Springfield 13,468 83 18,482 00 1,669 4,385 00 63 Northbridge, 11,572 38 24,352 00 1,434 3,204 00 64 Ware 8,957 70 12,560 00 1,110 4,337 00 65 Palmer, 9.627 51 17,549 00 1.193 3,658 00 66 Athol 9,643 65 16.220 00 1,195 3,885 00 67 Easthampton, Middleborough 8,344 38 - 1,034 5,765 00 68 10,378 02 19,218 00 1,286 3,627 00 69 Braintree, 11,491 68 15,667 00 1,424 4,400 00 70 Saugus, 12,217 98 22,412 00 1,514 3,639 00 71 Norwood 13.113 75 — 1,625 8,635 00 72 Milton, 6,899 85 - 855 31,215 00 73 Bridgewater 6,593 19 9,626 00 817 4,244 00 74 Marblehead, 9,546 81 _ 1,183 7,426 00 75 Andover, 9,409 62 4,793 00 1,166 5,778 00 76 Whitman, 10,119 78 16,412 00 1,254 3,983 00 77 Stoneham, 9,159 45 12,180 00 1,135 4,454 00 78 Rockland 9,094 89 16,061 00 1,127 3,749 00 79 Montague 9.167 52 16,378 00 1,136 3,717 00 80 Hudson, 8,731 74 16,491 00 1.082 3.552 00 81 Spencer, 6,464 07 8,658 00 801 4,414 00 82 Concord 8.142 63 _ 1,009 4,013 00 83 Maynard 6,577 05 7,230 00 815 4.826 00 84 Stoughton, 6,811 08 10,082 00 844 4,212 00 85 Swampscott, 6.157 41 - 763 14,662 00 86 Great Barrington 8.110 35 3,015 00 1,005 6,000 00 87 Reading, 9.422 76 9,064 00 1,168 5.048 00 88 Ipswich 6,157 41 - 763 6.271 00 89 Grafton 6.722 31 13,794 00 833 3.288 00 90 Winchendon, 8,005 44 11,816 00 992 4.218 00 91 Blackstone, 9.353 13 26,672 00 1,159 1.997 00 92 Franklin, 7,787 55 12,155 00 965 4.081 00 93 Belmont 6,843 36 848 7.684 00 31 Support in the Towns and Cities of Massachusetts — Continued. »§i=i 1 S a So- s§ 3 c3 M lilf port p averai ip fro >i 1909-1 d OS 1 1 School sup] unit of membershi sources (19( sup; t of bershi taxfo i s ft k S-2 lb _, 03 School u n i mem local 1 ^ p ^1 1^ 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 J26 35 $26 28 J20 80 $5 24 .25 196 $550 00 40 11 40 09 19 00 4 68 .25 181 600 00 29 20 29 14 22 20 6 26 .28 178 475 00 27 45 27 45 22 60 6 60 .29 186 551 00 21 87 21 87 17 00 ' 4 62 .27 184 500 00 26 08 26 08 19 50 7 67 .39 185 500 00 29 72 29 30 18 00 5 25 .29 181 600 00 26 53 26 53 23 00 7 26 .32 188 550 00 35 55 35 55 18 20 4 23 .23 182 650 00 23 05 22 70 22 40 5 16 .23 194 480 00 25 20 25 19 18 80 4 76 .25 194 575 00 34 92 33 85 10 00 3 87 .39 191 460 00 23 74 22 77 19 50 5 40 .28 179 500 00 24 65 23 67 20 50 6 19 .30 174 525 00 33 53 33 03 20 10 5 66 .28 190 675 00 27 65 27 20 17 60 4 87 .28 190 500 00 34 14 34 14 18 20 4 20 .23 189 650 00 31 57 31 57 18 00 4 55 .25 183 462 00 31 40 31 40 19 80 6 28 .32 183 600 00 29 15 29 15 20 00 5 41 .27 182 550 00 28 79 28 05 19 20 6 55 .34 181 625 00 33 21 32 76 17 30 4 67 .27 190 675 00 34 86 33 54 17 20 4 37 .25 190 650 00 23 13 21 65 16 00 5 16 .32 187 475 00 23 36 23 26 16 60 7 39 .45 190 462 00 29 77 29 65 16 00 6 99 .44 184 600 00 24 14 23 57 16 00 7 83 .49 185 440 00 25 92 24 96 20 50 6 50 .32 186 418 00 23 98 22 81 19 50 4 00 .21 180 414 00 25 64 24 51 20 80 6 89 .33 186 418 00 28 44 27 90 20 40 6 92 .34 188 500 00 23 98 23 59 22 00 7 26 .33 185 500 00 27 41 27 24 9 20 3 40 .37 184 600 00 62 01 52 01 11 90 2 88 .24 183 700 00 38 42 28 93 17 50 6 33 .36 182 380 00 27 37 27 37 22 00 3 94 .18 182 559 00 32 69 29 56 16 50 5 12 .31 186 525 00 25 12 24 28 23 00 6 68 .29 191 600 00 27 70 27 46 20 70 6 23 .30 188 500 00 25 08 24 82 22 80 6 93 .30 188 600 00 30 01 28 33 18 60 7 90 .42 181 478 00 24 76 24 29 20 70 7 07 .34 184 500 00 30 20 29 65 20 00 6 61 .33 185 475 00 41 26 33 92 14 30 4 69 .33 188 615 00 29 45 29 45 16 00 6 02 .38 173 575 00 24 48 23 65 22 20 5 80 .26 174 463 00 43 46 43 46 15 00 2 96 .20 190 615 00 29 99 28 67 12 30 5 03 .41 183 456 00 31 29 29 54 19 70 5 62 .29 162 500 00 22 32 21 41 16 00 4 20 .26 189 420 00 27 88 26 73 19 00 8 08 .43 174 387 00 30 60 22 04 23 00 5 83 .25 165 475 00 17 24 16 33 18 80 7 61 .40 200 390 00 27 16 26 14 17 00 6 32 .37 182 469 00 35 87 35 52 18 80 4 77 .25 182 600 00 32 Statistical Exhibit showing Principal Facts relative to School o m < 1 3 o > H Il5 sal O to 00 97 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 Towns over 5,000 Population — Con. North Andover, Abington, West bore ugh, Wellesley, Orange, . Mansfield, Easton, . Fairhaven, Amherst, Need ham, Chelmsford, Towns under 5,000 Population. Hingham, Ludlow, Lexington, South Hadley, .... Walpole Canton Monson, Millbury, Barnstable, Uxbridge, * Dartmouth, Provincetown, .... Randolph, Dudley, Rockport, Warren, Lee, Wareham, Foxborough, Templeton Tewksbury, Williamstown, Dalton, . Hardwick, Agawam, Medfield, Dracut, . East Bridgewater, Oxford, . Leicester, Falmouth, Sutton, . North Brookfield, Lenox, Nantucket, Barre, Pepperell, Westport, Westford, Holbrook, 14,937,732 3,052,120 3,244,158 15,105,766 3,704,710 4,279,189 5,769,731 3,338,358 3,877,639 6,105,316 4,419,940 7,881,510 3,989,672 7,826,980 2,900,057 5,402,570 4,541.955 1,888,815 2,354,356 6,140,270 2,993,290 4,553,725 2,158,146 2,307,400 1,881,930 3,426,665 1,903,759 2,209,633 5,063,895 2,414,965 1,622,167 1,467,341 3,592,401 4,186,172 1,910,260 1,968,680 1,598,192 2,471,131 2,087,387 1,966,325 2,456,551 8,751,671 1,318,036 1,652,393 6,726,052 3,528,780 2,050,496 2,254,705 1,820,050 1,932,232 1,476,108 $99,105 74,466 61,183 184,057 73,724 74,830 61,342 72,099 70,622 112,671 68,899 103,233 79,619 147,779 58,949 83,804 34,347 41,286 85,110 51,855 67,657 51,549 53,589 29,746 64,101 39,094 52,487 83,684 54,767 35,542 22,710 71,993 59,967 25,686 33,396 23,876 47,216 40,367 36,964 49,708 91,142 23,117 28,062 102,871 61,691 32,639 42,963 38,105 32,319 31,114 827,272 26 28,997 02 17,993 68 43,809 43 27,592 18 23,248 02 30,975 56 42,022 09 21,946 04 34,109 36 25,490 63 30,870 00 26,484 80 34,559 73 23,803 45 28,254 37 21,824 87 16,412 01 19,323 66 31,814 68 20,001 84 23,964 85 16,470 69 17,055 13 12,992 04 17,151 23 17,019 76 16,577 17 21,412 73 15,527 55 12,507 31 9,279 93 20,870 78 19,093 14 14,651 88 10,686 10 8,217 89 19,052 30 14,504 09 16,267 40 16,960 23 25,856 36 10,187 04 11,168 24 29,309 02 11,660 34 15,465 64 17,221 11 11,434 65 14,923 60 11.923 74 33 Support in the Towns and Cities op Massachusetts — Continued. II i1 2lS -as . III i 2 g ll 1 ' < 02 cc H o 4 5 6 7 8 9 $27,260 47 _ ~ - - $4,937 28,028 52 _ $625 00 $625 00 3,052 17,746 81 - - - - 3,244 43,809 43 -■ - - - 15,105 27,592 18 - - - - 3.704 21,944 09 _ _ - - 4,279 23,766 75 - — - - 5,769 19,537 50 - - 833 34 833 34 3,338 19,873 94 - - — - 3,877 33,198 61 - - - - 6,105 25.269 86 - - - - 4,419 28,647 30 _ . 7,881 25,375 29 - - - - 3,989 34.559 73 - - - _ 7,826 22,655 66 - - 937 50 937 60 2,900 27,574 61 - - - " 6;402 21,596 87 _ _ _ - 4,541 13,721 79 $1,201 22 - 875 00 2,076 22 1,888 17,841 90 • 863 41 - 750 00 1,613 41 2,354 28,322 03 - - - - 6,140 17,604 80 _ - 750 00 750 00 2,993 23,258 05 _ _ _ _ 4,553 14,620 66 863 41 - 871 22 1,734 63 2,158 14,808 42 863 41 - 500 00 1,363 41 2,307 11,278 65 1,201 22 - 416 67 1,617 89 1,881 17,151 23 - - - - 3,426 14,401 13 1,201 21 _ 1,000 00 2,201 21 1.903 14,672 18 863 41 - 600 00 1,463 41 2,209 21,253 23 - - - - 5,063 13,787 20 863 41 - 625 00 1,488 41 2,414 10,852 89 938 42 - 625 00 1,563 42 1,622 6,435 16 1,201 21 $950 00 250 00 2,401 21 1,467 20,227 07 - - - - 3,592 18,972 14 - - - - 4,186 12,814 28 938 41 - 500 00 1,438 41 1,910 9,277 68 1,201 22 - 493 42 1,694 64 1.968 6,178 30 938 41 500 00 312 50 1,750 91 1.598 17,075 30 1,126 22 - 500 00 1,626 22 2,471 12,817 16 863 41 - 583 34 1,446 75 2,087 14,227 06 1,201 21 - 500 00 1,701 21 1,966 15,361 23 863 41 - 625 00 1,488 41 2,456 25,340 64 _ _ _ _ 8,751 8,303 19 1,201 21 - 625 00 1,826 21 1,318 9,279 09 938 41 - 625 00 1,563 41 1,652 28,809 02 - — - - 6,726 11,660 34 - - - 3,528 13,326 84 1,201 22 _ 500 00 1,701 22 2,050 15,407 90 1,126 21 - 625 00 1,751 21 2,254 9,955 88 938 42 - 500 00 1,438 42 1,820 13,097 39 1,201 21 _ 531 25 1,732 46 1.932 10,515 22 938 41 ~ 416 67 1,355 08 1,476 34 Statistical Exhibit showing Principal Facts relative to School a! |i 21 d) OS rt g QQ "5 a O MC- pa 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 Towns over 5,000 Population — Con. North Andover, Abington, Westborough, Wellesley, Orange, . Mansfield, Easton, . Fairhaven, Amherst, Needham, Chelmsford, Towns under 5,000 Population. Hingham Ludlow, Lexington, South Hadley Walpole Canton, . Monson, . Millbury, Barnstable, Uxbridge, Dartmouth, . Provincetown, Randolph, Dudley, . Rockport, Warren, . Lee, Wareham, Foxborough, Templeton, Tewksbury, Williamstown, Dalton, . Hardwick, Agawam, Medfield, Dracut, . East Bridgewater, Oxford, . Leicester, Falmouth, Sutton, . North Brookfield, Lenox, Nantucket, Barre, Pepperell, West port, Westford, Holbrook, 10 S6,924 06 7,448 61 5,761 98 7,384 05 8,061 93 6,722 31 8,070 00 6,770 73 7,117 74 15,671 94 6,544 74 7,101 60 6,020 22 6,657 75 7,133 88 4,769 37 5,285 85 6,092 85 6,068 64 6,6j0 03 5.519 88 7,658 43 6,697 42 3,123 09 6,472 14 4,704 81 4,954 98 5,229 36 4,640 25 4,833 93 1,597 86 6,343 02 5,604 79 3,002 04 3,583 08 2,146 62 4,341 66 4,527 27 4,511 13 5,197 08 4,591 83 3,575 01 3,018 18 5,092 17 3,550 80 3,236 07 4,398 15 3,502 38 3,316 77 4,051 14 11 $3,629 00 15,199 00 7,342 00 14,447 00 6,094 00 10,997 00 9,721 00 33,561 00 4,668 00 4,673 00 14,672 00 1,568 00 12,175 00 13,145 00 12,392 00 20,527 00 11,763 00 3,366 00 9,336 00 9,724 00 9,217 00 6,905 00 11,657 00 7,978 00 2,726 00 5,399 00 8,078 00 8,617 00 8,792 00 8,029 00 4,082 00 2,983 00 6,715 00 5,222 00 3,903 00 9,186 00 12 858 923 714 915 833 1.000 1,942 811 746 825 884 591 655 755 752 829 684 949 706 387 802 583 614 648 575 599 786 697 372 444 266 538 561 559 644 569 443 374 631 440 401 545 434 411 502 13 $5,755 00 3,306 00 4,543 00 16,509 00 3,708 00 5,137 00 5,769 00 3,978 00 4,396 00 3,143 00 5,449 00 8,956 00 5,348 00 9,487 00 3,280 00 6,238 00 7,685 00 2,883 00 3,118 00 8,165 00 3,610 00 6,657 00 2,274 00 3,268 00 4,862 00 4,272 00 3,264 00 3,598 00 7,814 00 4,199 00 2,708 00 7,410 00 4,570 00 6,292 00 5.135 00 4,433 00 6,008 00 4,593 00 3,720 00 3,517 00 3,814 00 15,380 00 2,977 00 4,418 00 10,659 00 8,019 00 5,113 00 4.136 00 4,193 00 4,701 00 2,940 00 I 35 Support in the Towns and Cities of Massachusetts — Continued. port per average ip from (1909-10). port per average ip from )r 1909-10. o 11 11 2 1 1 1 ^1 o.'*sJi m :hool sup unit of membersh local tax fc u J w ihool su unit c members all source a 1 •II 11 m m 1 H rt § 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 $30 84 $30 77 $19 50 $5 52 .28 186 $500 00 30 37 29 13 23 30 9 18 .39 185 600 00 25 41 25 11 18 10 5 47 .30 174 500 00 46 39 46 39 12 00 2 90 .24 181 600 00 26 82 26 82 19 00 7 45 .39 178 396 00 27 67 26 97 16 80 5 13 .31 190 465 00 31 33 23 89 10 10 4 12 .41 188 525 00 48 15 24 17 20 80 5 85 .28 192 500 00 24 09 21 15 17 50 5 13 .29 186 450 00 33 53 33 03 18 00 5 44 .30 192 512 00 29 68 28 16 15 00 5 71 .38 187 475 00 31 96 30 20 12 80 3 63 .28 200 550 00 33 05 30 87 19 40 6 36 .33 191 480 00 42 31 41 96 18 50 4 42 .24 184 600 00 25 59 . 24 28 19 50 7 81 .40 183 437 00 32 35 32 09 15 00 6 10 .34 192 550 00 34 83 34 48 19 00 4 76 .25 200 550 00 25 83 21 88 17 00 7 26 .43 183 410 00 24 20 22 13 16 50 7 58 .46 175 389 00 41 70 37 56 13 50 4 61 .34 178 495 00 23 09 20 50 16 50 5 88 .36 175 378 00 31 57 30 49 14 40 5 11 .35 175 450 00 18 67 16 58 22 70 6 77 .30 185 375 00 24 35 22 17 22 30 6 42 .29 184 466 00 30 61 27 13 14 80 5 99 .40 177 380 00 21 23 21 23 18 00 5 01 .28 184 413 00 30 41 25 01 19 30 7 56 .39 176 400 00 26 27 23 34 22 59 6 64 .29 182 437 00 31 12 , 29 31 16 00 4 20 .26 176 414 00 26 79 23 84 21 90 5 71 .26 180 432 00 20 40 17 24 20 50 6 69 .33 171 360 00 42 66 30 67 14 80 4 39 .30 194 480 00 27 23 26 70 19 50 5 63 .29 175 418 00 28 53 26 99 13 90 4 53 .33 187 475 00 38 06 33 23 12 50 6 71 .54 176 418 00 26 26 23 06 16 00 4 71 .29 184 444 00 29 94 22 09 14 30 3 87 .27 193 450 00 33 19 30 06 18 40 6 91 .38 190 480 00 25 49 21 34 18 40 6 14 .33 174 396 00 28 95 25 58 17 90 7 24 .40 176 414 00 28 93 22 94 19 50 6 25 .32 176 432 00 41 60 40 69 10 20 2 90 .28 176 486 00 22 95 18 81 16 50 6 30 .38 168 324 00 28 74 23 76 16 00 5 62 .35 182 432 00 31 56 30 77 15 00 4 28 .29 178 520 00 25 54 25 54 17 00 3 30 .19 176 400 00 34 17 29 20 15 00 6 50 .43 182 436 00 27 22 24 79 18 20 6 83 .38 184 418 00 24 68 21 34 20 00 5 47 .27 174 360 00 33 07 28 73 16 00 6 78 .42 181 396 00 22 49 19 45 20 00 7 12 .36 183 428 00 Statistical Exhibit showing Principal Facts relative to School r" o ' "H 2aH •s ft -goS fl^ < Ih i |S8 > H H Towns under 5,000 Population — Con. 1 2 3 145 Somerset, $1,449,166 $23,198 $8,211 52 146 Ayer, 2,178,250 39,269 11.926 52 147 Billerica 2,510,865 42.905 12.727 77 148 Holliston 1,645,179 31.191 10,800 25 149 Medway, 1,487,795 32,831 11,271 95 150 Manchester 15,238,265 129,642 23,815 40 151 Cohasset, . . . , . 8,901,725 90,491 19,378 62 152 Norton, 1,303,500 25.432 11.270 87 153 Scituate 4.657,690 79.682 18,047 75 154 Bourne, ■ . 4,890,375 67,713 15,920 67 155 Lancaster, 4,390,832 45,094 15.599 55 156 Hopkinton, 1,559,215 37,334 13,431 98 157 Kingston, 1,615,840 25,565 12,847 14 158 Auburn, 1,308,000 22,701 9,604 74 159 Seekonk 1,365,165 19,958 6,875 85 160 Wilbraham, 1,128,985 13,530 9,541 46 161 Hanover, 1,514,440 29,171 10,233 17 162 SharoTi, 2,785,025 61,082 12,852 75 163 Groveland, . . " . 1,163,476 26,802 10,591 91 164 Dighton, 1,155,196 17,218 9.180 83 165 West Bridgewater 1,342,167 18,148 9,519 99 166 Deerfield 1,883,975 24,350 10,318 97 167 Wayland 2,840,162 39,862 15,643 76 1 1,089 59 168 Brookfield. 1,291,803 26,672 169 Merrimac 1,327,514 31,595 10,744 37 170 Hopedale, 5,927,840 38,550 14,228 50 171 Groton, 3,963,406 40,840 12,260 17 172 Douglas 1,274,876 19,835 8,033 53 173 Holden 1,645,039 26,929 11,815 92 174 Shirley 1.196,126 20,784 7,618 88 175 Acton, 2,206,625 28,841 12,862 85 176 Williamsburg, 994,319 19,065 9,369 97 177 Harwich, Ashburnham, 1,381,945 25,355 8,989 34 178 1,026,869 24,138 8,308 97 179 Weston, 6,924,245 78.701 21,027 76 180 Hull, 7,018,860 107.879 12,238 75 181 Upton, 1,125,681 23.619 8,845 19 182 Belchertown 931,590 17.123 8.298 45 183 Charlton, 1,340,151 18,220 8,679 90 184 Avon, 971,975 21,170 9,059 82 185 Rehoboth 923,006 17.184 7,600 20 186 Hadley Hatfield, 1.459,807 22,736 11,666 97 187 1,527,903 23,272 6,310 87 188 Swansea, 1,687,130 23,628 8,637 11 189 Georgetown 1.037,145 20,736 8.042 98 190 Sturbridge, 1,099,080 19,796 8,964 88 191 Shrewsbury, 1,744,303 28,347 9.843 79 192 Stockbridge, 4,065,945 60,004 16,115 82 193 Dennis, 1,306,805 23,345 8.179 95 194 Wilmington 1,522,801 24,875 11,722 88 195 Hanson, . 1,255,095 24,595 7,033 45 196 Sheffield 958,615 17.701 8,583 36 197 Townsend, 1,325,830 21,752 9,892 64 198 Hamilton 4,014,048 40,311 11,828 18 199 Southborough, 1,949,283 21,536 13,826 35 ■ 37 Support in THE Towns and Cities of Massachuseits - - Continued. si 855 ^1 is 1 1 11= lis OQ a -m lis 42 .2* ll 1^ ill M < CQ O! H o 4 5 6 7 8 9 $6,794 86 $938 42 _ $416 66 $1,355 08 $1,449 10,762 61 863 41 - 500 00 1,363 41 2,178 11,226 47 863 41 _ 500 00 1,363 41 2.510 9.047 40 938 41 - 500 00 1,438 41 1.646 9,112 39 938 41 - 600 00 1,438 41 1,487 23,815 40 _ _ _ - 16,238 19,338 22 - - - - 8,901 9,473 82 1,201 21 - 375 00 1,676 21 1,303 17,950 75 - - - - 4,667 15,268 67 - - - - 4,890 15,599 55 _ _ _ _ 4,390 10,932 26 1,201 22 - 750 00 1,951 22 1,559 10,866 34 1,201 22 - 600 00 1,701 22 1,616 7,813 87 938 41 $652 50 625 00 2,216 91 1,308 4,866 80 938 41 255 00 416 67 1,610 08 1,366 6,581 72 1,201 21 387 60 454 54 2,043 26 1,128 8,766 15 938 41 416 67 1,365 08 1.614 11,594 36 - 500 00 260 00 760 00 2.786 9,045 58 1,201 22 600 00 1,701 22 1,163 7,551 02 1,201 22 - 500 00 1,701 22 1.166 7,919 10 1,201 21 20 00 416 66 1,637 87 1.342 8,610 37 1,201 22 - 609 63 1,710 85 1.883 13,029 30 863 42 - 676 00 1,538 42 2.840 9,161 29 1,201 22 - 625 00 1,826 22 1,291 8,832 58 780 73 - 500 00 1,280 73 1,327 14,181 00 _ _ _ _ 5.927 11,999 67 - - - - 3,963 5,913 56 938 41 500 oq 600 00 1,938 41 1,274 9,911 70 1,201 22 _ 625 00 1,826 22 1,646 5,999 59 938 41 500 00 250 00 1.688 41 1,196 11,286 63 1,201 22 _ 343 75 1,544 97 2.206 6,411 88 1,088 42 175 00 625 00 1,888 42 994 7,253 13 938 41 - 535 72 1,474 13 1,381 6,846 70 1,038 41 - 416 67 1,455 08 1,026 21,027 76 - - - - 6,924 12,238 75 _ « _ _ 7,018 6,878 77 938 42 - 312 60 1,250 92 1.126 5,554 79 1,088 41 - 900 00 1,988 41 931 6,261 05 1,201 22 500 00 626 00 2,326 22 1.340 6,506 74 1,088 41 500 00 333 33 1,921 74 971 4,871 90 1,351 21 371 85 500 00 2.223 06 923 6,695 91 938 41 500 00 555 55 1,993 96 1,459 5,067 18 780 73 - 462 97 1,243 70 1,527 6,229 72 938 42 723 75 416 67 2.078 84 1,587 6,356 48 938 41 - 375 00 1,313 41 1,037 7,376 46 938 42 70 00 500 00 1.508 42 1,099 7,658 73 1,201 21 500 00 357 15 2.058 36 1.744 16,115 82 - - - - 4.065 6,671 59 938 41 - 625 CO 1,563 41 1,306 9,129 09 1,201 21 500 00 333 34 2,034 55 1,522 5,385 43 780 73 387 00 416 67 1,584 40 1,255 6,267 95 1,088 41 500 00 650 00 2,238 41 958 7,713 87 938 42 - 625 00 1,563 42 1,326 11.828 18 - - - 4,014 11,330 16 1,201 21 500 00 357 15 2,058 36 1,949 38 I Statistical Exhibit showing Pkincipal Facts relative to School n t-H 1! :i s-S^ c3 ss g3>. d1 I ^8 3 «^ ^ 1 ^1 s-s ^^1 «.2^ ^^ fl © C5 9 a lis ■32 it 11 Hi Ah OQ < > Towns under 5,000 Population — Con. 10 11 12 13 145 Somerset $3,917 81 - 483 $3,000 00 146 Ayer 3,647 64 - 452 4,819 00 147 Billerica 3,647 64 - 452 5,555 00 148 HoUiston, 3,784 83 $7,252 00 489 3,507 00 149 Medway, 3,760 62 7,943 00 466 3,192 00 150 Manchester 3,905 88 _ 484 3,148 00 151 Cohasset 3,494 31 - 433 20,558 00 152 Norton 2,598 54 4,111 00 322 4,048 00 153 Scituate 3,776 76 - 468 9,952 00 154 Bourne, 2,638 89 - 327 14,955 00 155 Lancaster, 2,396 79 _ 297 14,783 00 156 Hopkinton, 3,542 73 6,692 00 439 3,551 00 157 Kingston 3,381 33 5,752 00 419 3,856 00 158 Auburn, 3,244 14 6,726 00 402 3,253 00 159 Seekonk, 2,695 38 334 4,087 00 160 Wilbraham, . . . . 1,791 54 1,686 00 222 8,085 00 161 Hanover, 3,106 95 5,135 00 385 3,933 00 162 Sharon, 2,921 34 _ 362 7,693 00 163 Groveland 3,445 89 8,276 00 427 2,724 00 164 Dighton 2,590 47 4,818 00 321 3,598 00 165 West Bridgewater, 2,977 83 5,467 00 369 3,637 00 166 Deerfield 2,5^2 05 315 5,980 00 167 Wayland 2,784 15 - 345 8,232 00 168 Brookfield, 2,792 22 4,963 00 346 3,733 00 169 Merrimac, 2,889 06 5,179 00 358 3,708 00 170 Hopedale, 3,308 70 _ 410 14,457 00 171 Groton, 2,727 66 _ 338 11,725 00 172 Douglas, Holden, 2,606 61 - 323 3.946 00 173 3,478 17 5,998 00 431 3,816 00 174 Shirley 1,614 00 730 00 200 5,980 00 175 Acton, 2,493 63 _ 309 7,141 00 176 Williamsburg, . • . 3,139 23 7,867 00 389 2,556 00 177 Harwich 2,622 75 3,820 00 325 4,252 00 178 Ashburnham, 2,808 36 6,354 00 348 2,950 00 179 Weston 2,437 14 - 302 22,927 00 180 Hull, 1,702 77 _ 211 33,264 00 181 Upton, 2,598 54 5,001 00 322 3,495 00 182 Belchertown, 2,913 27 7,258 00 361 2,580 00 183 Charlton, 2,800 27 - 347 3,862 00 184 Avon, 3,163 44 8,081 00 392 2,475 00 185 Rehoboth, 2,388 72 5,153 00 296 3,118 00 186 Hadley 2,469 42 - 306 4,770 00 187 Hatfield 2,065 92 _ 256 5,968 00 188 Swansea, 2,251 53 - 279 5,760 00 189 Georgetown, 1,364 51 4,484 00 293 3,539 00 190 Sturbridge, 2,227 32 3,613 00 276 3,982 00 191 Shrewsbury, 2,316 09 - 287 6,077 00 192 Stockbridge 2,671 17 - 331 12,283 00 193 Dennis, 2,299 95 2,875 00 285 4,585 00 194 Wilmington, 3,082 74 4,996 00 382 3,960 00 195 Hanson 2,211 18 _ 274 4,580 00 196 Sheffield, 1,961 01 3,229 00 243 3,944 00 197 Townsend, 2,421 00 3,275 00 300 4,419 00 198 Hamilton, 2,437 14 - 302 13,258 00 199 Southborough 2,533 98 617 00 314 6,207 00 39 Support in the Towns and Cities of Massachusetts — Continued. per jrage mall per 3rage rom 9-10. 11 1 i pport »f av( hip fro 1909-10 o -1^ 1 School su unit c members sources (1 School su unit < members local tax o 1 <5g Pi it 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 $16 74 $14 07 $15 00 $4 69 .31 181 $368 00 27 00 23 33 17 20 4 94 .29 186 456 00 27 47 25 77 16 50 4 47 .27 194 500 00 25 83 22 50 18 00 5 50 .31 172 360 00 24 41 20 93 21 00 6 12 .29 176 396 00 46 83 46 83 8 40 1 56 .19 190 650 00 45 32 45 22 10 00 2 17 .22 200 600 00 34 54 29 15 18 40 7 27 .40 187 418 00 38 02 37 80 16 80 3 85 .23 195 500 00 44 61 42 89 13 60 3 12 .23 178 468 00 48 03 46 62 10 00 3 55 .36 187 456 00 32 93 27 79 23 00 7 01 .30 180 456 00 29 12 23 98 15 00 6 72 .45 184 418 00 20 71 15 70 16 40 5 97 .36 180 376 00 21 13 15 02 13 70 3 56 .26 175 396 00 41 69 31 66 11 00 5 83 .53 181 418 00 26 54 22 79 18 40 5 79 .31 187 410 00 31 75 28 81 21 50 4 16 .19 183 600 00 24 22 19 83 22 00 7 77 .35 172 404 00 28 96 23 99 14 00 6 54 .47 177 396 00 24 33 20 57 12 60 5 90 .47 182 446 00 33 61 28 81 12 25 4 57 .37 174 360 00 42 10 35 08 13 60 4 59 .34 194 500 00 32 04 26 56 19 70 7 09 .36 182 396 00 26 47 22 35 22 80 6 65 .29 183 380 00 35 15 35 03 6 25 2 39 .38 177 522 00 35 71 35 06 10 00 3 03 .30 180 432 00 24 55 18 38 14 60 4 64 .32 179 396 00 26 15 21 20 15 70 6 03 .38 181 413 00 39 01 28 14 16 50 5 02 .30 185 500 00 47 31 42 17 12 50 5 11 .41 185 494 00 23 52 14 41 18 00 6 45 .36 182 324 00 27 02 22 10 17 50 5 25 .30 167 340 00 23 35 19 11 22 50 6 67 .30 172 387 00 66 86 66 86 11 20 3 04 .27 180 600 00 55 08 55 08 15 25 1 74 .11 194 000 00 26 98 20 19 20 00 6 11 .31 172 360 00 22 41 14 44 17 20 5 96 .35 161 305 00 25 31 17 44 12 70 4 67 .37 169 323 00 22 24 16 78 20 60 6 69 .32 185 407 00 20 78 18 65 17 50 5 28 .30 178 324 00 35 78 19 48 14 80 4 59 .31 176 361 00 24 38 18 75 14 50 3 32 .23 176 360 00 27 91 19 64 14 20 3 93 .28 172 350 00 25 93 20 14 18 70 6 13 .33 172 468 00 32 11 25 35 17 00 6 71 .39 190 380 00 27 19 27 19 15 60 4 39 .28 176 348 00 47 77 46 82 14 50 3 96 .27 192 563 00 26 99 21 60 17 00 5 11 .30 175 383 00 28 93 23 08 15 65 5 99 .38 178 494 00 23 45 17 61 18 90 4 29 .23 184 418 00 32 40 23 13 17 50 6 49 .37 183 294 00 31 20 24 29 15 60 5 82 .37 178 396 00 28 31 26 75 9 80 2 95 .30 190 525 00 39 50 32 07 10 50 5 81 .55 179 432 00 40 Statistical Exhibit showing Pkincipal Facts relative to School I-- d it ■| .13 §t < ft-g? 3 o Ill > H H Towns under 5,000 Population — Con. 1 2 3 200 Rutland, $781,217 $14,653 $6,238 67 201 Wrentham 1,280,907 25,262 9,892 19 202 Colrain, 707,540 13,323 7,806 45 203 Marshfield 1,957,325 33,313 9,287 09 204 Raynham, 773,724 7,506 6.527 00 205 Northborough 1,391,342 21,926 9,716 55 206 Bellingham, . . . . . 906,645 16,209 8,557 29 207 Acushnet, 919,310 16,362 7,289 50 208 Duxbury, 2,298,394 35,496 10,598 64 209 Sandwich 1,026,325 18,608 9,048 94 210 Ashland 1,251,434 22,475 10,186 83 211 Carver 2,109,745 30,688 8,090 98 212 Salisbury, 907,870 14,226 6,009 96 213 Northfield 1,405,428 23,710 8,609 63 214 Essex, . 1,182,585 19,026 7,994 35 215 Buckland 723,540 15,394 7,675 26 216 Chatham, 1,216,460 21,833 7,376 48 217 East Longmeadow, .... 735,020 14,470 9,433 87 218 Cheshire, 804,902 14,909 8,160 27 219 Shelburne, . . ' . 1,242,773 25,703 8,924 87 220 Newbury, 1,263,620 13,400 7,405 84 221 Huntington, 670,530 14,583 7,851 16 222 West Newbury, 1,074,178 17,521 7,948 15 223 Freetown, 908,925 14,395 6,828 33 224 Marion, 4.984,680 58,048 7,015 99 225 Sherborn 1,391,343 18,272 6,383 67 226 Yarmouth 2,215,025 28,645 9,314 70 227 Norwell 1,059,040 16,784 9,968 66 228 MiUis 1,102.381 18,825 7.300 02 229 Lunenburg, 1,159,319 18,119 7,047 87 230 Plainville 821,947 17,278 8,984 82 231 Chester, 755,559 15,835 8,310 25 232 Rowley, 918,629 12,653 6,463 25 233 Sterling, 1,167,265 17,777 7,214 60 234 Westminster, 861,290 14,552 6,215 22 235 Pembroke, 954,061 14,936 7.589 35 236 West Brookfield 910,061 17.142 6.223 19 237 West Stockbridge, 480,480 10,842 6.090 18 238 West Boylston, 827,040 8,274 10.236 83 239 Westwood, 2,950,355 34,918 11,885 99 240 Mattapoisett, 1,694,249 18,281 6.566 90 241 Bedford 1,363,230 26,511 6.634 87 242 Conway, 719,625 14,030 6,703 87 243 Littleton 1,136,923 16,913 9,145 40 244 Clarksburg, 270,739 6,781 4,397 49 245 Tisbury 1,578,386 18,058 6,111 45 246 Edgartown, 1,030,720 19,469 5,038 53 247 Nahant, 8,225,248 74,739 8.820 59 248 Lincoln, 3,473,934 35,409 8.896 54 249 Topsfield, 1,589,319 16,379 4.941 30 250 Erving, 918,172 14,919 6,008 16 251 Lakeville 820,925 11,077 5,836 54 252 Middleton 818,072 10,330 5,812 69 253 New Marlborough, 765,010 15,109 5.775 94 254 Sudbury, 1,317,440 23,317 9.518 03 41 Support in THE Towns AND Cities of Massachusetts — - Continued. Is 11 l'= a-2 a s !l II 11^ ill in §5 1 1° S.-S hi IIS M^" < w CQ H O 4 5 6 7 8 9 S4,313 57 $930 73 $500 00 $312 50 $1,743 23 781 7,156 75 938 42 500 00 375 00 1,813 42 1,280 4,763 98 1,088 41 1,185 00 500 00 2,773 41 707 7,862 07 780 73 - 416 66 1,197 39 1,957 4,617 71 1,351 21 465 00 250 00 2,066 21 773 7,411 44 938 41 500 00 357 15 1,795 56 1,391 6,139 59 1,351 22 568 85 416 66 2,336 73 906 4,688 51 1,088 41 1,095 00 208 33 2,391 74 919 9,561 58 863 41 - 416 66 1,280 07 2,298 7,249 76 1,201 21 500 00 562 50 2,263 71 1.026 7,396 30 1,201 22 600 00 500 00 2,201 22 1,261 6,067 90 780 73 - 500 00 1,280 73 2,109 4,577 81 1,088 41 174 00 250 00 1,512 41 907 6,306 54 938 41 500 00 600 00 1,938 41 1,405 6,236 00 S38 41 600 00 600 00 1,938 41 1.182 4,753 03 930 73 1,434 00 375 00 2.739 73 723 6,105 20 1,201 22 - 401 78 1.603 00 1,216 4,896 74 1,088 41 3,005 00 378 78 4,472 19 735 5,468 55 1,351 22 460 00 376 00 2,186 22 804 6,576 02 938 41 500 00 375 00 1,813 41 1.242 , 5,602 62 1,201 22 117 00 250 00 1,568 22 1,263 ' 5,325 00 1,351 22 500 00 431 03 2,282 25 670 5,659 29 1,201 21 500 00 375 00 2,076 21 1,074 4,569 00 1,351 22 386 21 750 00 2,487 43 908 6,391 27 - - - - 4.984 5,230 82 780 73 _, 250 00 1,030 73 1.391 6,464 01 863 42 - 432 70 1,296 12 2,215 7,520 20 1,351 21 500 00 416 66 2,267 87 1,059 5,331 61 1,088 41 500 00 312 50 1,900 91 1,102 5,256 52 938 41 600 00 375 00 1.813 41 1,159 7,262 19 1,351 21 500 00 250 00 2,101 21 821 4,841 78 1,088 41 500 00 620 00 2.208 41 765 4,024 90 1,088 41 1,252 00 375 00 2.715 41 918 4,995 83 938 42 500 00 500 00 1,938 42 1,167 4,626 80 1,088 42 68 00 600 00 1,656 42 861 5,356 66 1,088 41 600 00 416 67 2.005 08 954 4,242 99 1,088 42 380 37 375 00 1,843 79 910 3,110 11 1,626 21 398 70 454 55 2,479 46 480 8,307 31 1,351 21 500 00 375 00 2,226 21 827 11,342 80 - - 312 50 312 50 2,960 5,475 25 1,201 22 _ 208 33 1,409 65 1,694 4,786 76 675 61 472 00 437 50 1,585 11 1,363 4,376 90 1,351 22 500 00 350 87 2,202 09 719 6,762 18 1,201 22 500 00 250 00 1,951 22 1.136 1,325 09 1,205 73 390 00 416 66 2,012 39 270 4,188 22 780 73 500 00 312 60 1.593 23 1,578 3,507 80 780 73 500 00 250 00 1,530 73 1,030 8,820 59 - - - _ 8,225 8,853 72 - - _ _ 3,473 3,884 53 780 73 - 125 00 905 73 1,589 4,007 74 1,088 41 171 88 460 52 1,720 81 918 3,666 84 1,351 22 1,050 38 375 00 2,776 60 820 3,610 14 1,351 22 600 00 250 00 2,201 22 818 3.708 53 1,088 41 500 00 475 00 2,063 41 766 7,566 57 938 42 500 00 375 00 1,813 42 1,317 42 Statistical Exhibit showing Principal Facts relative to School ©13.2 § & • if •ss ^B>> P-i 1 ^§ 3»^ O 3T3 1 Q »-< t, 62 o|1 i% S^ I 1 ^•1^ ^^ o| is| t3. Ph m < > Towns under 5,000 Population — Con. 10 11 12 13 200 Rutland $1,686 63 $2,992 00 209 $3,737 00 201 VVrentham, l,90i 52 1,388 00 236 5,427 00 202 Colrain, 2,251 53 5,672 00 279 2,535 00 203 Marshfield i . 1,864 17 - 231 8,473 00 204 Raynham, . - 1,630 14 2,801 00 202 3,830 00 205 Northborough 2,525 91 3,374 00 313 4,445 00 206 Bellingham, 2,380 65 5,205 00 295 3,073 00 207 Acushnet, 1,363 83 982 00 169 5,439 00 208 Diixbury • . 2,195 04 - 272 8,449 00 209 Sandwich, 2.318 55 3,615 00 265 3,872 00 210 Ashland, 2,356 44 3,381 00 292 4,282 00 211 Carver 1,654 35 - 205 10,291 00 212 Salisbury, 1,977 15 3,550 00 245 3,705 00 213 Northfield 2,275 74 - 282 4,983 00 214 Essex, 2,299 95 3,495 00 285 4,149 00 215 Buckland 1,622 07 3,018 00 201 3,599 00 216 Chatham, 2,001 36 2,104 00 248 4,905 00 217 East Longmeadow, .... 2,703 45 7,380 00 335 2,194 00 218 Cheshire 1,872 24 3,636 00 232 3,469 00 219 Shelburne 1,589 79 291 00 197 6,308 00 220 Newbury, 1,549 44 _ 192 6,581 00 221 Huntington, 2,429 07 6,583 00 301 2.227 00 222 West Newbury, 2,001 36 2,814 00 248 4,331 00 223 Freetown, 1,936 80 3,380 00 240 3,787 00 224 Marion, 1,275 06 - 158 3,154 00 225 Sherborn 1,436 46 _ 178 7,816 00 226 Yarmouth, 1,654 35 - 205 10,805 00 227 Norwell 1,856 10 2,295 GO 230 4,604 00 228 Millis 2,001 36 - 248 4,445 00 229 Lunenburg, 1,775 40 - 220 5,269 00 230 Plainville 1,638 21 2,594 00 203 4,049 00 231 Chester, . 2,186 97 6,168 00 271 2,778 00 232 Rowley, 2,025 57 _ 251 3,659 00 233 Sterling, 1,775 40 - 220 5,305 00 234 Westminster, 2,106 27 4,308 00 261 3,299 00 235 Pembroke 1,517 16 1,434 00 188 5,074 00 236 West Brookfield 1,323 48 - 164 5,549 00 237 West Stockbridge, 1,275 06 2,814 00 158 3,041 00 238 West Boylston, 1,735 05 2,960 00 215 3,846 00 239 Westwood, 1,533 30 - 190 15,528 00 240 Mattapoisett, 1,517 16 _ 188 9,011 00 241 Bedford 1,170 15 - 145 9,401 00 242 Conway, 1,694 70 3,335 00 210 3,426 00 243 Littleton 1,839 96 1,844 00 228 4,986 00 244 Clarksburg 1,565 58 - 194 1,395 00 245 Tisbury, . . . . 1,581 72 _ 196 8,052 00 246 Edgartown, 1,331 55 - 165 6,246 00 247 Nahant, • 1,436 46 - 178 46,209 00 248 Lincoln, ....... 1,113 66 - 138 25,173 00 249 Topsfield, 952 26 - 118 13,468 00 250 Erving, 1,492 95 - 185 4,963 00 251 Lakeville, 1,154 01 - 143 5,740 00 252 Middleton, 1,145 94 - 142 5,761 00 253 New Marlborough, .... 1,420 32 - 176 4,346 00 254 Sudbury, 1,549 44 " 192 6,861 00 43 Support in the Towns and Cities of Massachusetts — Continued. per rage om -10). per rage om -10. 11 s 1 •ig pport if avei bip f r s (1903- pport if avei hip f r for 1909 o l! 1. 1 "o^ o 5 eg Il _, OS School u n i mem j all so School u n i mem local =3 ll 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 $28 05 $18 92 $18 00 $5 52 .31 172 $374 00 40 52 30 45 19 00 5 59 .29 188 491 00 25 53 15 20 17 50 6 73 .38 166 324 00 39 25 33 23 16 50 4 02 .30 177 432 00 30 08 17 71 8 60 5 97 .69 185 470 00 25 50 22 44 15 00 5 33 .37 174 514 00 28 44 22 22 17 00 6 77 .40 174 378 00 42 14 26 44 17 00 5 10 .30 181 380 00 37 30 35 39 15 00 4 16 .28 182 400 00 31 89 24 03 17 40 7 06 .41 176 400 00 34 19 27 29 17 20 5 91 .34 178 399 00 33 50 20 71 14 25 2 88 .20 196 360 00 23 01 16 10 14 60 5 04 .35 173 360 00 28 94 21 01 16 30 4 49 .28 180 378 00 28 69 21 76 15 30 5 27 .35 177 385 CO 35 74 20 06 20 00 6 57 .33 176 396 00 30 97 24 73 17 10 5 02 .29 171 252 00 25 80 13 44 18 50 6 66 .36 176 396 00 31 59 22 16 17 50 6 79 .39 180 437 00 4158 29 77 20 00 5 29 .26 176 424 00 36 03 25 91 10 00 4 43 .44 182 418 00 27 59 14 73 20 50 7 94 .39 174 333 00 31 64 23 23 15 50 5 27 .34 183 370 00 25 78 18 50 15 00 5 03 .34 172 418 00 43 54 37 35 11 50 1 28 .11 174 504 00 32 47 25 98 12 70 3 76 .30 180 402 00 48 20 33 42 12 50 2 92 .23 174 450 00 41 07 30 67 15 00 7 10 .47 191 418 00 27 54 19 99 16 50 4 84 .29 179 396 00 31 35 23 33 15 00 4 53 .30 179 432 00, 46 08 34 78 20 00 8 34 .42 187 456 00 • 29 57 17 28 20 00 6 41 .33 175 360 00 22 22 13 37 13 00 4 38 .34 168 378 00 30 81 19 11 14 50 4 28 .30 178 288 00 23 42 16 71 16 00 5 37 .34 162 245 00 39 36* 27 42 15 00 5 61 .37 183 370 00 38 35 25 76 18 00 4 66 .26 180 396 00 38 43 19 54 21 00 6 47 .31 184 418 00 47 88 38 29 9 20 10 04 .28 188 500 00 53 51 46 60 11 60 3 84 .33 194 537 00 36 14 30 41 10 50 3 23 .31 187 542 00 44 93 31 05 19 00 3 51 .18 182 462 00 31 75 21 56 18 60 6 08 .33 165 297 00 38 66 28 83 14 28 5 95 .42 189 432 00 21 14 7 90 23 00 4 89 .21 177 432 00 26 43 20 50 11 00 2 65 .24 175 450 00 30 46 25 01 18 20 3 40 .19 176 360 00 48 96 48 96 900 1 07 .12 185 600 00 64 18 63 01 10 00 2 55 .26 186 550 00 35 95 27 53 10 00 2 44 .24 200 440 00 33 71 23 10 15 50 4 36 .28 177 414 00 41 95 26 39 12 80 4 47 .35 179 418 00 40 59 21 14 12 00 4 40 .37 184 507 00 35 39 23 77 19 00 4 85 .26 162 259 00 46 69 35 55 17 20 6 74 .33 191 456 00 44 Statistical Exhibit showing Principal Facts relative to School 'S'^" d 1^ < n *s U, -goS If- •< i sal 3 3-3 03 ft^ O DO 00 > H H Towns under 5,000 PopuiiATioN — Con. 1 2 3 255 Hinsdale §579,361 $10,995 $6,693 47 256 Stow, 1,024,669 13,947 7,747 86 257 Rochester, 723,445 8,481 5,439 88 258 Longmeadow, 1,459,370 18,835 7,639 55 259 Oak Bluffs 1,845,825 37,506 5,197 95 260 Orleans, 683,995 10,897 6,367 76 261 Hubbardston, 687,593 12,333 5,330 95 262 North Reading, 736,410 11,586 6,803 43 263 Sunderland, 507,773 7,696 6,310 84 264 Harvard, 1,363,803 16,302 7,107 18 265 WeUfleet. .... . . 1,081,720 22,270 4,954 08 266 Southwick 744,680 12,508 5,705 47 267 Wenham, 2,567,975 23,174 6,816 43 268 Charlemont, 519,264 12,009 6,290 14 269 Berkley, 402,847 5,719 4,676 98 270 Russell 813,100 12,739 5,780 56 271 Norfolk 872,702 13,702 6,293 47 272 Ashfield 652,944 12,609 6,164 34 273 Becket 540,831 9,744 5,840 61 274 Lanesborougb 546,184 8,997 4,713 71 275 GiU 475,357 7,834 4,298 67 276 Lynnfield 994,791 12,511 4,719 31 277 Berlin 591,680 7,002 5,590 36 278 Ashby y Mendon 528,557 9,249 6,302 48 279 701,445 10,352 6,006 19 280 Enfield 692,250 12,262 6,219 67 281 Southampton, 491,737 9,032 4,443 20 282 Brimfield 552,888 7,135 4,788 96 283 Whately, 459,445 8,546 3,727 00 284 Tyngsborough 579,803 7,996 4,922 68 285 Princeton, 1,135,366 16,674 6,398 52 286 Dover, 5,467,126 16,832 10,477 40 287 Royalston, 602,051 11,497 5,622 14 288 Granville 483,412 7,657 4,329 08 289 Bolton, 583,597 8,004 5,947 06 290 Granby, 522,615 7,975 6,195 42 291 Petersham, 935,813 16,489 8,460 66 292 Bernardston 461,776 8,252 5,318 68 293 Dana, 401,717 8,627 4,937 06 294 Leverett, 325,213 5,918 3,976 96 295 Boxford, 1,424,995 11,773 3,944 40 296 Blandford 550,579 9,151 3,826 74 297 Boylston, 493,764 5,627 5,504 77 298 Truro 379,135 7,555 3,356 42 299 Richmond, 394,488 8,747 3,836 79 300 Hampden 391,220 5,813 4,553 08 301 New Salem, 357,410 7,514 5,716 79 302 Cummington, 325,057 6,187 4,232 40 303 Brewster, 681,560 9,963 4,872 65 304 Egremont, 498,014 5,362 2,598 54 305 Burlington 695,383 10.245 3,760 32 306 Worthington, 356,765 6,733 3,714 55 307 Sandisfield 362,397 7,938 2,850 58 308 Plympton, 387,629 5,993 2,576 77 309 Oakham, 371,508 5,374 2,668 10 t 45 Support in THE Towns and Cities of Massachusetts — - Continued. S=L ifl -as Sfl a ^^ £S -§3 ^-H ^•s 2 s >i*^ 1 4| 5-? -5 ■2S2 1 1° OT3 PA ^MB :2S^ I&5 %s^ S < OQ m ^ o 4 5 6 7 8 9 $4,069 66 $1,351 22 $417 60 $431 04 $2,199 86 $579 4.775 43 1.351 21 500 00 375 00 2,226 21 1,024 2,730 14 1.088 41 960 00 375 00 2,423 41 723 5,210 49 938 41 - 189 41 1,127 82 1,459 4,270 28 150 00 - 312 50 462 50 1,845 3.862 50 1,351 21 500 00 178 57 2,029 78 683 3,918 00 1,088 41 257 00 250 00 1,595 41 687 3,504 33 825 61 1,973 75 83 33 2,882 69 736 3,707 01 1,551 21 637 50 238 13 2,426 84 507 5,772 12 1,201 22 250 00 1.451 22 1,363 3,846 01 675 61 _ 189 39 865 00 1,081 2,609 70 1,088 42 670 00 437 50 2,195 92 744 5,758 08 _ - 500 00 500 00 2,567 3,105 14 930 73 500 00 351 56 1,782 29 519 1,865 28 1,288 41 753 00 250 00 2,291 41 402 4,067 50 1.088 41 435 50 344 83 1.868 74 813 4,630 01 1,088 41 178 13 312 50 1.579 04 872 3,112 63 1,088 41 500 00 462 96 2.051 37 652 3,649 50 1,088 41 1,103 00 310 00 2.501 41 540 2,774 08 1,088 41 736 20 416 67 2.241 28 546 1,945 00 1,288 41 419 25 250 00 1.957 66 475 3,280 70 825 61 530 00 125 00 1.480 61 994 2,712 46 1,351 22 980 00 178 55 2.509 77 591 4,058 58 1,351 22 500 00 250 00 2.101 22 528 3.640 41 1.351 22 500 00 416 66 2.267 88 701 3,341 06 1,088 41 729 40 350 00 2.167 81 692 2,275 20 1,130 73 790 00 312 50 2.233 23 491 3,448 38 1,351 22 - 375 00 1,726 22 552 1,902 02 1,130 73 225 00 151 37 1,507 10 459 4,037 68 1,351 21 900 00 83 33 2,334 54 579 5,159 81 938 41 _ 250 00 1,188 41 1.135 9,887 08 - - _ 5.467 2,904 46 1,088 41 409 00 250 00 1,747 41 602 2,460 67 1.288 41 315 00 375 00 1,978 41 483 3,068 00 1,288 41 500 00 250 00 2,038 41 583 3,878 36 1.351 22 500 00 312 50 2,163 72 522 6,083 70 1.351 21 500 00 250 00 2,101 21 935 2,466 49 1.288 41 500 00 231 48 2,019 89 461 2,898 10 1,363 41 514 20 328 95 2.206 56 401 1.844 74 1.551 22 145 00 328 95 2,025 17 325 2,549 35 675 61 _ 250 00 925 61 1.424 2,544 96 300 00 500 00 301 72 1.101 72 550 3,137 97 1,551 22 536 00 125 00 2.212 22 493 1,823 63 1,130 73 40 00 189 39 1.360 12 379 2.070 83 1,205 73 324 00 397 73 1,927 46 394 1,806 39 1,288 41 1,610 00 227 27 3.125 68 391 2,715 15 1,626 22 500 00 526 32 2,652 54 357 1,502 02 1,205 73 862 00 370 37 2,438 10 325 3,341 94 1,088 41 500 00 192 30 1.780 71 681 1,701 70 1,288 41 405 00 227 27 1.920 68 498 2.767 42 930 73 _ 187 50 1,118 23 695 1.525 15 1,130 73 420 00 312 50 1,863 23 356 1.604 22 1,205 73 _ 312 50 1,518 23 362 1,239 60 1,025 61 215 00 166 66 1,407 27 387 821 99 1,025 61 685 00 187 50 1,898 11 371 46 Statistical Exhibit showing Principal Facts relative to School ^^■\ 1— 1 a • oi f 2 §1^ 1 s s •s|1 •&.! a^ s. I 00 ^ 15 11 III £"^ m -< ;> Towns under 5,000 Population — Con. 10 11 12 13 255 Hinsdale $1,638 21 $3,804 00 203 $2,853 00 256 Stow 1,581 72 196 5,227 00 257 Rochester, 1,154 01 _ 143 5,059 00 258 Longmeadow, 1,057 17 - 131 11,140 00 259 Oak Bluffs 1,581 72 - 196 9,417 00 260 Orleans 1,549 44 2,921 00 192 3,562 00 261 Hubbardston, 1,525 23 2,802 00 189 3,638 00 262 North Reading, 1,121 73 - 139 5,298 00 263 Sunderland 1,081 38 1,887 00 134 3,789 00 264 Harvard, 1,016 82 126 10,823 00 265 Wellfleet, 1,121 73 _ 139 7,782 00 266 Southwick 1,162 08 _ 144 5,171 00 267 Wenham, 1,178 22 - 146 17,602 00 268 Charlemont, 1,501 02 3,543 00 186 2,791 00 269 Berkley, 1,355 76 168 2,397 00 270 Russell 1,250 85 1,050 00 155 5,245 00 271 Norfolk 1,323 48 1,052 00 164 5,321 00 272 Ashfield 1,436 46 178 3,668 00 273 Becket ' . 1,081 38 1,722 00 134 4,036 00 274 Lanesborough, 1,041 03 1,527 00 129 4,234 00 275 Gill, 1,041 03 _ 129 3,685 00 276 Lynnfield, 831 21 - 103 9,658 00 277 Berlin 1,218 57 _ 151 3,918 00 278 Ashby 1,032 96 1,584 00 128 4,129 00 279 Mendon, 1,210 50 1,445 00 150 4,676 00 280 Enfield, 1,234 71 _ 153 4,524 00 281 Southampton 1,089 45 - 135 3,642 00 282 Brimfield, 1,250 85 2,355 00 155 3,566 00 283 Whately, 742 44 - 92 4,993 00 284 Tyngsborough, 936 12 933 00 116 4,998 00 285 Princeton 1,137 87 _ 141 8,052 00 286 Dover 831 21 — 103 53,078 00 287 Royalston, 1,137 87 - 141 4,269 00 288 Granville, 1,145 94 2,271 00 142 3,404 00 289 Bolton 928 05 880 00 115 5,074 00 290 Granby, 960 33 1,317 00 119 4,391 00 291 Petersham, 1,202 43 242 00 149 6,280 00 292 Bernardston, 968 40 1,655 00 120 3,848 00 293 Dana 887 70 1,625 00 110 3,651 00 294 Leverett, 1,041 03 2,632 00 129 2,521 00 295 Boxford 694 02 _ 86 16,569 00 296 Blandford, 750 51 _ 93 5,920 00 297 Boylaton 1,008 75 1,660 00 125 3,950 00 298 Truro, 1,049 10 - 130 2,916 00 299 Richmond 653 67 703 00 81 4,870 00 300 Hampden, 928 05 _ 115 3,401 00 301 New Salem, 911 91 1,944 00 113 3,162 00 302 Cummington, 1,000 68 - 124 2,621 00 303 Brewster 637 53 - 79 8,627 00 304 Egremont, 645 60 - 80 6,225 00 305 Burlington, 589 11 _ 73 9,525 00 306 Worthington, 750 51 - 93 3,836 00 307 Sandisfield, 774 72 96 3,774 00 308 Plympton, 581 04 _ 72 5,383 00 309 Oakham 807 00 ~ 100 3,715 00 47 Support in the Towns and Cities of Massachusetts — Continued. ss^sd- « a So- 2§ B { i port p avera ip fro (1909-H port p avera ip fro )r 1909-1 o 2 51 |o i ^1 ft"o-« S a'^-c^ IH M m cS -JS 3 ° £ S <2 ® o zj "S^ lb II ihool u n i mem all so ihool uni mem local las ■ll •4 !>. 02 m H s Ph § 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 $30 05 $20 05 $17 85 $7 02 .39 190 $405 00 40 00 24 85 13 00 4 66 .36 183 396 00 36 64 20 20 11 00 3 77 .34 179 405 00 55 87 36 63 12 50 3 57 .29 185 525 00 26 43 24 24 20 00 2 31 .12 176 405 00 32 69 20 08 15 00 5 65 .38 182 425 00 28 97 19 85 17 00 5 70 .34 173 359 00 37 16 14 29 15 00 4 79 .32 181 399 00 45 62 27 37 14 00 7 30 .52 177 396 00 56 67 43 69 11 50 4.23 .37 182 494 00 33 79 27 48 20 00 3 56 .18 188 418 00 39 76 24 59 16 00 3 50 .22 180 333 00 44 60 37 19 8 80 2 24 .25 178 456 00 33 45 16 26 22 00 5 98 .27 169 330 00 22 21 8 98 13 00 4 63 .36 180 360 00 32 48 19 83 15 10 5 00 .33 184 375 00 ' 37 24 25 63 15 00 ~ 5 31 .35 177 450 00 36 03 19 24 18 50 4 77 .26 187 255 00 39 87 18 57 17 00 6 75 .40 175 360 00 34 87 20 02 15 50 5 08 .33 172 365 00 30 21 15 05 15 50 4 09 .26 180 396 00 43 74 23 66 12 00 3 30 .28 194 550 00 36 12 17 25 11 00 4 58 .42 175 360 00 46 53 30 53 16 50 7 68 .47 176 396 00 40 09 25 28 14 00 5 19 .37 170 414 00 39 70 23 47 17 00 4 83 .28 180 369 00 31 99 15 81 17 40 4 63 .27 175 324 00 25 66 15 06 12 10 6 24 .52 178 418 00 45 67 19 72 17 50 4 14 .24 180 351 00 48 06 29 62 13 00 6 96 .54 189 430 00 41 90 33 29 14 25 , 454 .32 169 334 00 67 52 54 49 3 00 1 81 .60 192 625 00 40 06 21 11 18 40 4 82 .26 178 404 00 27 92 14 93 15 00 5 09 .34 175 315 00 43 55 20 04 13 00 5 26 .40 186 418 00 49 99 29 30 14 50 7 42 .51 177 360 00 55 24 38 77 17 20 6 50 .38 187 400 00 42 61 19 16 17 00 5 34 .31 178 348 00 47 61 20 07 20 50 7 21 .35 177 387 00 33 73 17 56 17 00 5 36 .32 177 360 00 39 35 23 85 8 00 1 79 .22 188 361 00 38 49 13 56 16 00 4 62 .29 155 340 00 42 80 23 69 10 CO 6 36 .60 182 446 00 24 36 11 54 19 00 4 81 .21 190 418 00 42 58 20 38 21 50 5 25 .24 185 361 00 31 79 12 45 14 00 4 62 .33 174 369 00 49 78 23 99 20 00 7 60 .38 167 288 00 34 62 12 00 18 00 4 62 .26 164 323 00 50 40 34 86 14 00 4 90 .35 • 185 405 00 34 28 22 01 10 00 3 42 .34 187 450 00 53 24 33 15 14 20 3 98 .28 183 475 00 39 27 16 01 18 00 4 27 .24 170 324 00 30 92 16 79 21 00 4 43 .21 168 306 00 28 62 14 26 14 60 3 20 .22 182 437 00 25 82 9 04 13 60 2 21 .16 160 330 00 48 Statistical Exhibit showing Principal Facts relative to School '^^ o 0-- o its 1 > 1 M &S "rt 1^-^ "3 ft-t o O =0 M > ^ H Towns undek 5,000 Population -Con. 1 2 3 310 Carlisle, $477,197 $6,535 $3,466 04 311 Halifax, 617,373 9,231 3,270 56 312 Chesterfield 319,969 5,751 3,343 85 313 Eastham, 477,015 5,072 3,734 75 314 Savoy, 185,515 4,367 2,786 63 315 WendeU 295,110 6,200 3,284 80 316 Otis, 262,216 4,995 2,812 75 317 Warwick 442,450 6,647 4.930 82 318 Pelham 286,450 3,816 2,555 59 319 Hancock ^ 305,224 4,482 2,378 48 320 New Braintree, 400,689 5,176 3,081 27 321 Rowe 194,599 4,535 2,642 57 322 Greenwich, 245,003 3,668 2,615 63 323 WestTisbury, 584,433 3,478 2,640 38 324 Phillipston 283,695 5,396 2,580 89 325 Hawley, 188,419 4,076 3,056 86 326 Westhampton, 241,838 3,829 2,680 48 327 Paxton, 339,490 5,278 2,762 76 328 Dunstable 355,709 5,227 3,212 28 329 Plainfield 183,073 3,423 2,835 12 330 Windsor 288,853 5,040 3,577 14 331 Florida, 196,206 4,170 2,306 21 332 Monterey, 320,803 4,055 2,594 04 333 Tyringham, 356,217 4,644 2,196 90 334 Leyden, 171,802 3,274 2,411 70 335 Middlefield 197,337 3,716 3,474 25 336 Heath 179,792 3,264 2,453 53 337 Wales 285,355 3,491 2,350 02 338 Prescott, . . , 194,175 2,648 2,605 82 339 Boxborough, 266,005 3,604 3,114 83 340 Chilmark, 357,450 3,951 1,675 83 341 Goshen, 183,530 3,433 2,360 14 342 Washington, 292,271 5,117 2,575 20 343 Alford, 188,110 2,805 2,401 99 344 Mashpee 226,280 4,876 1,546 52 345 Shutesbnry, 290,525 4,501 1,567 13 346 Monroe, 167,683 2,732 2,245 81 347 Peru 145,081 2,898 2,603 99 348 Montgomery 151,887 2,106 1,868 04 349 Tolland 204,658 3,381 1,236 84 350 Gay Head, 45,751 498 1,382 57 351 Gosnold, 709,115 3,204 654 47 352 Holland, 107,725 1,803 1.073 70 353 Mt. Washington, 98,150 1,870 1,336 64 354 New Ashford, 52,575 1,056 885 56 49 Support in the To"v\t^s and Cities of Massachusetts — Continued. ^1 4i 1.2 B 2 gT3 r4 • IIS ^1 Hi a^^" < M M H O 4 5 6 7 8 9 SI, 693 46 $1,205 73 $292 00 $125 00 $1,622 73 $477 2,194 80 930 73 - 166 67 1,097 40 617 1,531 94 1,288 41 - 312 50 1,600 91 319 1,789 63 1,288 41 352 00 133 93 1,774 34 477 1,100 00 1,363 41 140 50 301 73 1,805 64 185 1,277 72 1,W61 200 00 328 95 1,629 56 295 1,182 90 1,363 41 100 00 250 00 1,713 41 262 2,793 41 1,551 21 352 3? 250 00 2,153 58 442 614 98 1,025 61 213 50 250 00 1,489 11 286 816 33 1,130 73 36 00 347 22 1.513 95 305 1,183 36 1,288 41 420 00 375 00 2,083 41 400 683 58 1,205 73 242 00 195 31 1,643 04 194 905 33 1,130 73 644 10 131 58 1,906 41 245 957 55 1,088 42 — 187 50 1,275 92 584 1,192 76 1,130 73 153 00 125 00 1.408 73 283 1,009 68 1,363 41 45 00 273 44 1,681 85 188 910 30 1,288 42 300 00 187 50 1,775 92 241 1,200 00 1,288 41 289 00 125 00 1,702 41 339 1,484 22 1,551 22 110 00 125 00 1,786 22 355 913 50 1.363 41 293 00 231 48 1,887 89 183 1,517 78 1,288 42 113 70 301 73 1,703 85 288 927 99 575 00 105 00 156 25 836 25 196 1,377 18 1,130 73 405 00 250 00 1,785 73 320 1,396 90 500 00 150 00 150 00 800 00 356 794 00 1.363 41 250 00 1,613 41 171 1,244 86 1,551 22 225 00 222 50 1.998 72 197 964 82 1,288 41 73 00 117 19 1,478 60 179 871 42 1,130 73 187 50 1.318 23 285 1,100 74 1,288 41 176~00 263 15 1,727 56 194 824 42 1,288 41 516 00 250 00 2,054 41 266 442 24 1,288 41 _ 125 00 1,413 41 357 589 15 1,288 41 160 00 185 19 1,633 60 183 1,025 94 1,288 42 96 00 97 50 1,481 92 292 560 00 1,130 72 54 00 170 45 1,355 17 188 452 33 1,205 73 80 00 125 00 1,410 73 226 327 67 500 00 _ 131 58 631 58 290 515 24 1,205 73 315 00 156 25 1,676 98 167 754 91 1,363 41 260 20 215 50 1,839 10 145 423 06 1,288 41 50 00 172 42 1,510 83 151 200 00 1,288 42 - 125 00 1,413 42 204 120 00 575 00 _ 62 50 637 50 45 75 00 300 00 _ 300 00 709 346 25 1,025 61 _ 62~50 1,088 11 107 65 76 1,100 61 - 125 00 1,225 61 98 60 03 575 00 - 69 45 644 45 52 50 Statistical Exhibit showing Peincipal Facts relative to School n a !i s'S-S S m ^ "SS S2>. S I -Q§ 3 g^ Hi .4 * hi •11 II III Ph w < > Towns under 5,000 Population — Con. 10 11 12 13 310 Carlisle $637 53 _ 79 $6,040 00 311 Halifax, 532 62 - 66 9,353 00 312 Chesterfield 637 53 _ 79 4,050 00 313 Eastham, ... , . 572 97 _ 71 6,718 00 314 Savoy 613 32 SI, 583 00 76 2,440 00 315 Wendell 500 34 _ 62 4,759 00 316 Otis 726 30 - 90 2,913 00 317 Warwick, 911 91 1,519 00 113 3,915 00 318 Pelham, 605 25 _ 75 3,819 00 319 Hancock 597 18 - 74 4,124 00 320 New Braintree, 637 53 _ 79 5,072 00 321 Rowe, 669 81 _ 83 2,344 00 322 Greenwich, 427 71 _ 63 4,622 00 323 West Tiabury 51fi 48 - 64 9.131 00 324 Philhpston 605 25 - 75 3.782 00 325 Hawley, 637 53 1,667 00 79 2,385 00 326 Westhampton 685 95 _ 85 2,845 00 327 Paxtcn 613 32 _ 76 4,466 00 328 Dunstable 597 18 _ 74 4,807 00 329 Plainfield 459 99 - 57 3,211 00 330 Windsor 702 09 1.431 00 87 3,320 00 331 Florida 613 32 _ 76 2,582 00 332 Monterey 468 06 - 58 5,531 00 333- Tyringham, 371 22 - 46 7,743 00 334 Leyden, 484 20 - 60 2,863 00 335 Middlefield 782 79 2,226 00 97 2,034 00 336 Heath 298 59 326 00 37 4,859 00 337 Wales 584 76 _ 68 4,196 00 338 Prescott, 476 13 977 00 59 3,291 00 339 Boxborough, . . . 411 57 51 5,215 00 340 Chilmark, 209 82 _ 26 13,748 00 341 Goshen, 419 64 - 52 3,529 00 342 Washington, 338 94 - 42 6,957 00 343 Alford 363 15 _ 45 4,180 00 344 Mashpee, 338 94 - 42 5,387 00 345 Shutesbury, 274 38 _ 34 8,544 00 346 Monroe, 419 64 - 52 3,224 00 347 Peru, 306 66 529 00 38 3,817 00 348 Montgomery, 266 31 33 4,602 00 349 Tolland 161 40 - 20 10,232 00 350 Gay Head, 266 31 _ 33 1,386 00 351 Gosnold, 88 77 _ 11 64,465 00 352 HoUand 112 98 - 14 7,694 00 353 Mount Washington 129 12 - 16 6,134 00 354 NewAshford, 129 12 - 16 3,285 00 H 51 Support in the Towns and Cities of Massachusetts — Concluded. port per average ip from (1909-10). support per t of average bership from tax for 1909-10. o 2 i s 1 I sup t of bersh urces i of 03 -S lb « =5 8ci§ 2 .2| 1" laS-S |sS^ g |a^ "cS +3 J^ ^S S m H M p^ § 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 $43 31 $25 05 $13 00 $3 55 .27 178 1389 00 45 69 25 93 14 60 3 56 .25 174 432 00 43 98 19 29 17 00 4 79 .28 176 340 00 51 79 20 48 10 00 3 75 .38 172 450 00 39 29 16 53 22 00 5 93 .27 160 357 00 46 01 17 59 20 00 4 33 .22 179 348 00 29 54 17 98 18 00 4 51 .25 160 256 00 43 16 24 15 14 50 6 31 .44 180 400 00 36 88 8 74 12 50 2 15 .17 180 396 00 32 65 12 83 13 SO 2 67 .19 172 384 00 36 23 16 71 12 25 2 95 .24 175 360 00 34 62 13 11 22 00 3 51 .16 165 330 00 44 62 17 92 14 00 3 70 .26 179 423 00 43 17 10 13 5 50 1 64 .30 174 405 00 33 87 15 72 18 30 4 20 .23 182 296 00 37 11 U 17 20 50 5 36 .26 163 303 00 30 27 13 25 15 00 3 76 .25 168 272 00 40 91 19 90 15 00 3 53 .24 176 370 00 46 60 26 92 14 00 4 17 .30 180 412 00 44 27 16 12 17 50 4 99 .28 165 297 00 36 43 17 53 16 60 5 25 .32 160 320 00 27 41 7 60 20 00 4 73 .24 162 364 00 42 82 18 47 12 00 4 29 .36 180 420 00 44 97 11 37 12 50 3 92 .31 176 333 00 35 03 15 25 18 00 4 62 .26 162 340 00 37 53 11 52 18 00 6 31 .35 172 355 00 66 52 22 40 17 00 5 37 .32 170 340 00 35 82 12 39 11 50 3 05 .27 170 414 00 40 61 13 84 12 60 5 67 .45 178 360 00 58 19 18 43 12 80 3 10 .24 180 360 00 69 90 42 85 10 40 1 24 .12 171 495 00 45 29 16 25 18 00 3 21 .18 165 346 00 59 37 25 90 17 00 3 51 .21 176 380 00 46 89 13 33 14 00 2 98 .21 194 531 00 41 94 25 28 20 80 2 00 .10 172 ' 93 00 45 05 16 18 15 00 1 13 .08 178 378 00 36 95 12 65 15 20 3 07 .20 180 324 00 58 54 18 79 19 00 5 20 .27 180 410 00 56 95 19 78 13 00 2 79 .21 170 350 00 69 52 34 52 16 00 98 .06 180 403 00 43 14 2 67 8 68 2 62 .30 174 500 00 55 68 6 81 4 39 11 .03 180 600 00 65 98 22 33 16 00 3 21 .20 180 468 00 72 82 23 00 18 50 67 .04 193 494 00 55 78 4 18 19 00 1 14 .06 185 540 00 52 Appendix B. Showing the Contributions out of State Revenues for the Sup- port OF Various Forms of Education for the Year 1910. To towns (Massachusetts School Fund), $238,749 To towns (high schools and superintendency unions), . . . 151,925 To normal schools, 378,641 To vocational schools, 46,170 To schools for deaf, 117,858 To schools for blind, 35,009 To schools for defectives and cripples, 369,341 To schools for delinquents, 235,385 To higher technical education, 316,741 The foregoing table illustrates the activity of the State in providing aid for certain special forms of education. The proceeds of the Massachusetts School Fund are applied exclusively to towns of a valuation not exceeding $2,500,000, and without reference to the number of children to be educated. High school aid is given in the form of an annual grant of $500 to towns that voluntarily maintain high schools, when not required to do so by law. Aid is also given to pay the tuition expenditures of small towns sending their children outside the town for education. The State contributes $750 towards the support of a superintendent and $500 towards teachers' salaries in unions required by law to have such superintendents. The annual outlay for vocational schools is expected to increase substantially within the next few years. The Legislature of 1911 provided for an annual appropriation of $100,000 to the Massachusetts Institute of Technology; while the Legis- lature of .1^12 increased the appropriation made for the use of the Worces- ter Polytechnic Institute. A few minor forms of State assistance (for ex- ample, the maintenance of classes in certain prisons and the payment of tuition for State wards domiciled in towns and cities) do not appear in the above table. In comparison with other States, it is probable that Massachusetts will not be found to contribute more relatively for these special forms of educa- tion than other States. Western, southern and north central States fre- quently maintain State universities. Large State schools for delinquents, for defectives and for orphans are found in many States. Almost every- where the training of teachers is now accepted as a State function. 53 Appendix C. Showing, by Percentages, Proportions of School Revenue derived FROM Various Sources, in All States, 1909-10. Taken from the Report of the Commissioner of Education, Washington, for 1911. Per CENT. OF WHOLE REVENUE DERIVED FROM — States. Permanent Other funds State tax. Local tax. and rents. sources. 1 2 3 4 5 United States, 3.2 14.9 72.1 9.8 North Atlantic division. .7 11.6 76.7 11.0 South Atlantic division, 1.2 30.8 60.8 7.2 South central division, . 7.6 36.0 48.6 7.8 North central division, 4.7 10.0 74.7 10.6 Western division. 3.9 16.5 73.7 5.9 North Atlantic division: — Maine, 1.3 35.2 61.8 1.7 New Hampshire, 7.0 88.2 4.8 Vermont, . 3.3 16.6 77.3 2.9 Massachusetts, . 1.1 .9 96.8 1.2 Rhode Island, . 1.9 6.7 90.9 .5 Connecticut, 1.9 12.1 80.6 5.4 New York, .6 9.0 87.0 3.4 New Jersey, .1 17.6 66.9 15.5 Pennsylvania, . - 16.6 59.7 24. 7» South Atlantic division: — Delaware, . 6.9 26.8 64.4 2.9 Maryland, . 1.2 38.0 60.8 District of Columbia - 50. 0» 60.0 _ Virginia, . 1.0 38.1 51.7 9.2 West Virginia, . 2.0 17.0 72.0 9.0 North Carolina, _i 9.0 88.0 3.0 South Carolina, - 3.9 83.9 12.2 Georgia, . 2.0 51.0 29.6 17.4 Florida, 2.6 11.0 83.3 3.2 South central division: — Kentucky, -1 63.0 40.0 7.0 Tennessee, 2.9 13.0 67.1 17.0 Alabama, . 4.7 69.4 24.0 1.9 Mississippi, 10.1 45.1 40.7 4.1 Louisiana, 2.8 22.5 57.8 16.9 Texas, 16.2 41.0 38.9 3.9 Arkansas, . 1.5 33.8 59.2 5.5 Oklahoma, * 15.8 -i 76.0 8.2 North central division: - Ohio, 1.0 9.2 82.7 7.1 Indiana, . 4.5 16.5 71.6 7.4 Illinois, 2.4 2.8 78.8 16.0 Michigan, . 2.5« 38. 6« 51.9 7.0 Wisconsin, 1.7« 14. 1« 65.7 18.5 Minnesota, 6.1 14.7 59.9 19. 3« Iowa, 7.5 0.0 81.1 11.4 Missouri, . 6.9 12.5 80.6 _ North Dakota, . 19.7 .8^ 75.0 4.5 South Dakota, . 14.9 - 78.2 6.9 Nebraska, . 8.4 .5» 75.1 16.0 Kansas, 6.1 _ 93.8 .1 Western division: — Montana, . 6.7 — 87.9 5.4 Wyoming, . 19.5 - 77.5 3.0 Colorado, . 2.3 - 86.4 11.3 New Mexico, 7.8 _ 85.2 7.0 Arizona, . 7.4 78.4 14.2 Utah, 4T3 22.5 73.2 _ Nevada, . - 35.0 51.1 13.9 Idaho, - 14.0 79.4 6.6 Washington, 7.0« 21.4« 64.8 6.8 Oregon, 6.9 — 80.0 13.1 California, 1.7 26.4 69.8 2.1 > Included in column 3. » Includes receipts from bond sales. ' Federal appropriation. * Statistics of 1908-09. Included in column 2. Based on approximate. For high schools only. To aid weak districts. 54 The foregoing table exhibits, when 'interpreted broadly, prevailing prac- tices relative to the distribution of the cost of public education. Caution should be exercised in drawing from it specific conclusions, since many facts not here presented should be known in order to render exact comparisons and inferences possible. It is evident that in most of the States of the Union it has become cus- tomary to assist local communities toward the support of schools by means of contributions derived either from State taxation or from the income of permanent funds. No other State in the Union devolves upon the local com- munity so large a proportion of the support of its public schools as Massachusetts. Maine contributes over 35 per cent, of the cost of public education out of the proceeds of State taxation; Vermont, New Jersey and Pennsylvania contribute over 15 per cent. ; and, with the exception of Kansas, all the States of the north central division receive at least 17 per cent, of the cost of public education from State revenues or sources other than local taxation. A similar condition holds throughout the western division. It must be remembered that in many of the States contributions from the State are so distributed as to equalize educational burdens on the one hand and educational opportunities on the other. In the north central and western States, systems of distributing State funds have become compli- cated and finely balanced, with a view to obtaining the above results. In the southern States, in some cases, the taxes collected by the State are still returned to each community somewhat in proportion to receipts from such communities, hence less is accomplished in the way of equalizing burdens and opportunities. Certain facts regarding State aid are not revealed by the foregoing table. The contributions made by Massachusetts out of the income of the Massachusetts School Fund and out of taxation are for the benefit only of communities having a valuation of $2,500,000 or less. The communities having a greater valuation receive absolutely no assistance from the State towards the support of public schools. Furthermore, in many of the west- ern and north central States the territorial unit of school maintenance is often the county, which, being a larger area than the town, and representing more varied conditions as regards distribution of population and wealth, makes possible greater equalization of educational burdens and opportunities, even by means of local taxation. 55 Appendix D. Taxation for Schools in Various States. From Bulletin of Bureau of Education, Washington, dated January, 1911. Alabama. — State school tax, 3 mills. An additional appropriation of $67,000 is made annually to aid in the construction of rural schoolhouses. All poll taxes are retained in the several counties for school purposes. Counties may levy special tax of not over 1 mill if approved by three fifths of those voting at election. Arizona. — Territorial school tax, .3 mill. County tax not less than 5 nor over 9 mills. Trustees of school districts shall levy a district tax if territorial and county funds are not sufficient to maintain schools six months. Longer term and tax therefor determined in district meeting. Bonds and tax to pay same may be voted in district meeting. Arkansas. — State school tax, 3 mills. District meeting may levy tax of not over 7 mills. California. — State tax for elementary schools, sufficient to produce $7 for each child between five and seventeen. County tax, not over 5 mills, and not less than sufficient to produce, with receipts from State, $550 for each teacher. District taxes (determined by majority at election) not over 7 mills for building and not over 3 mills for other school purposes. Special taxes for high schools. Colorado. — No State tax for education except for higher institutions. Compulsory county tax, not less than 2 nor more than 5 mills. Special school tax certified by district school board to county commissioners, and levied in and credited to the district concerned; maximum, 15 mills in third class districts. Connecticut. — State grant from general funds, $2.25 for each child ; aid to weak districts. School districts may levy taxes and borrow money for school purposes. Towns may abolish the school districts and assume direct control of the schools. Towns must levy and expend a school tax of 4 mills in order to receive a share of the State apportionment. Delaware. — Legislative appropriation for schools must be not less than $132,000 annually. Each district in Newcastle and Kent counties must raise a minimum of $100, and each district in Sussex County must raise at least $60, by taxa- tion. District meetings may, by majority vote, determine to raise a greater sum, either by taxation or by subscription. Florida. — State school tax, 1 mill. County tax must be not less than 3 nor more than 7 mills. Districts may vote tax (by majority), not over 3 mills. Georgia. — The Legislature makes annual appropriations from general 56 funds. Receipts from poll taxes are devoted to schools. Amount in 1908- 09, $2,203,128. Maximum county tax, 5 mills; two-thirds of those voting at election must approve. Maximum district tax, 5 mills j two-thirds of those voting at election must approve. Idaho. — County tax, not less than 5 nor over 10 mills. District meeting, or election (majority), may vote not over 15 mills. Boards of trustees of independent districts may levy not over 20 mills. Illinois. — State appropriation, $1,000,000 annually. Directors of each district may levy 1% per cent, for educational and % per cent, for building purposes; no election necessary. Majority voting at special election may authorize issue of bonds for sites and buildings. Indiana. — State school tax, 13.6 mills; poll tax, 50 cents. Local tuition tax, 5 mills, and 25 cents on each poll. Special school rev- enue tax (local), 5 mills, and $1 on each poll; may be used for any school purpose, but for salaries and tuition only when tuition funds are exhausted. Special tax to pay bonds, not over 2.5 mills. loiva. — No State school tax. District (township) meeting may vote a tax, not over 10 mills, for sites, buildings, bonds and libraries. Meetings of subdistricts may vote to raise a greater amount of schoolhouse tax than was voted by the meeting of the school township; maximum of both, 15 mills. Tax for contingent and teachers' fund is determined by the board of directors of the school town- ship, and must not exceed $20, including State apportionment, for each person of school age (five to twenty-one) for teachers, and $7 for each person of school age for contingencies, and $5 per scholar for transporta- tion of pupils; $270 for the teacher and $75 for contingencies may be levied in subdistricts in which these sums exceed the limits before named. Kansas. — No State school tax. Annual district meeting may vote school tax not exceeding 3.5 mills, but this limit may be raised by affirmative vote of three fourths of those voting at a special election. If district meeting fails to vote a school tax, county officers make the estimate and levy. County high school tax, % mill. Limit of levy in cities, 6 mills. Kentucky. — State school tax, 26.5 mills. County school tax not over 2 mills and poll tax $1. Districts may vote tax (majority) not to exceed 2.5 mills. Graded school districts may le\7- tax not to exceed 5 mills and $1.50 per capita if favored by majority voting at election. Louisiana. — State school tax, 2 mills ; tax on inheritances devoted to schools. Compulsory parish (county) tax not less than 3 mills. Special school district taxes may be levied or bonds issued by majority vote. Poll tax of $1 is a parish school tax. Maine. — State school taxes: 1.5 mills, known as the "mill tax; " and 1.5 mills, known as the " common school tax." Every town shall raise and expend for schools at least 80 cents for each inhabitant. Maryland. — State school tax, 1.5 mills. Minimum county tax for schools, 1.5 mills; maximum actually levied, 4.66 mills. 57 Michigan. — Proceeds of certain taxes on corporations are devoted to schools under the name "Common school interest fund; " amount in 1908- 09, $5,199,041. One mill tax is annually levied by township supervisor, and the several amounts received are apportioned to districts in which they are respec- tively raised. District school board determines amount necessary to be raised in addition to district tax for teachers' wages and incidental expenses. District meeting determines tax for schoolhouses and for general purposes. Minnesota. — State school tax, 1 mill. " County tax " of 1 mill is apportioned to the districts, returning to each the amount raised in that district. Common school districts may vote tax not over 15 mills for the support of schools and 10 mills for buildings; under certain conditions the latter may be increased to 25 mills. In inde- pendent districts maximum tax for buildings is 8 mills. Mississippi. — Legislative appropriations are made for schools ; amount in 1908-09, $1,208,984, Poll taxes are returned to the counties in which they are raised, for the use of schools. Any county or separate school district may levy tax for schools. No tax in excess of 3 mills shall be levied without the consent of the majority of the taxpayers. Annual elections are not necessary. "When rate of tax is once fixed by vote, it shall so remain until changed by another election. Missouri. — One third of the ordinary revenue of the State is devoted to schools; amount in 1908-09, $1,377,320. District school directors certify amount required for schools, and the necessary taxes are levied by county courts. Maximum in large cities, 6 mills, and in other districts, 4 mills. For buildings, rate may be increased by two thirds vote of qualified electors. Montana. — The State school tax formerly levied has been discontinued. Each county must levy school tax of 4 mills. Board of school trustees of each district may levy a special tax of not over 10 mills. NehrasTca. — There is now no State school tax, but appropriations are made from general funds ($75,000 in 1909) to aid weak districts. Annual district meeting votes school tax, not over 25 mills; the county board levies it. If district meeting fails to vote tax, county superintendent estimates the amount necessary, and county clerk levies the same. Annual meeting may vote additional tax of 10 mills for buildings, and an additional tax for high schools. Tax to pay bonds may also be additional. Nevada. — State school tax, .6 mill. Boards of county commissioners shall levy county tax of not less than 1.5 nor more than 5 mills. Distript board of school trustees shall levy tax suffi- cient, with State and county funds, for six months of school. District tax for schoolhouses and for longer school term may be levied upon approval of majority of electors. Neiu Hampshire. — Eeceipts from certain taxes upon banks, loan and trust companies, etc., form the "literary fund," and as such are distributed to towns for maintenance of schools. A legislative appropriation of $80,- 000 annually is principally to aid weak districts, to encourage the employ- ment of normal graduates, to encourage professional supervision and to aid high schools. 58 The selectmen of each town shall assess annually upon the polls and ratable estate taxable therein a sum equal to $750 for every dollar of the public taxes apportioned to such town. The school board of each district shall estimate the amount required for supplies and miscellaneous purposes, and the selectmen shall raise by taxation the sum required. Any district may raise money for sfehools in addition to the sum required by law. Money for buildings shall be raised only in a lawful meeting of the district. New Jersey. — Certain receipts from taxes upon railroads are apportioned to the counties for school purposes; amount in 1908-09, $2,254,509. The Legislature shall annually appropriate for schools from general funds not less than $100,000; the sum appropriated was $1,031,437 for 1908-09, but only $100,000 for 1909-10. A tax ("State school tax") shall be levied, which, with last-named appropriation, shall equal a tax of 2.75 mills. Ten per cent, of this tax is known as a " reserve fund," and is apportioned by the State Board of Education; amount in 1908-09, $405,136. Special appropriations amounting to $203,100 were made by the Legislature for 1908-09. Ninety per cent, of the "State school tax" of 2.75 mills is returned to the respective counties from which it came, and that tax is to that extent a compulsory county tax. District meetings may levy special district taxes for buildings and current expenses, including salaries, and also taxes to pay bonds. New Mexico. — " The territorial tax " of 3 mills is a compulsory county tax. District school directors may levy tax of not over 5 mills without election, or from 5 to 15 mills with approval of majority voting at special election. New YorTc. — Annual appropriations are made by the Legislature from general funds; amount applicable to the public school system in 1908-09, $5,155,460. District meeting may vote tax for schoolhouses, w^ages and general school purposes. North Carolina. — The Legislature makes appropriations from general funds; amount in 1908-09, $234,398. Compulsory county tax, 1.8 mills. Special county tax from .1 to .5 mill and from 3 to 15 cents per capita. Special tax may be voted in cities, towns and school districts, not to exceed 3 mills, by vote of majority at election. North Dakota. — The Legislature makes an annual appropriation ($45,000) to aid high schools. County taxes, 2 mills, and $1 per capita, were formerly paid into the State treasury, but are now retained in the several counties. The district school board shall levy a district tax of not over 30 mills, but 20 mills additional may be levied to pay judgments. Ohio. — State school tax, 2 mills. Each board of education of a city, village, township or special district fixes the rate of taxation to be levied for all school purposes; maximum, 12 mills; may be increased 5 mills by majority vote of electors. The levy in city school districts shall be not less than 6 mjlls. There are other taxes for specific purposes, such as manual training, compulsory education, high schools, etc. OTclahoma. — State tax, .25 mill. 59 Maximum county levy, 1 mill for common schools and 1 mill for high schools. District levy, 5 mills for support of schools, which may be in- creased to 10 mills by majority vote at election; and 5 mills for building. Oregon. — No State school tax. County court must levy tax to produce at least $7 for each child of school age (four to twenty). District tax, at least 5 mills. Pennsylvania. — The legislative appropriation for schools is larger than in any other State; amount applicable to the public schools in 1908-09, $7,262,500. The school directors, or controllers, of every district determine the amount of school tax which shall be levied on their district. Building tax, if any is required, must be levied at the same time and in the same manner as the ordinary school tax. Limit for ordinary school tax, 13 mills. Bliode Island. — Legislative appropriations are made from general funds ; amount in 1908-09, $153,659. Towns may at any legal meeting grant and vote such sums of money as they shall judge necessary for the support of schools, schoolhouses and school libraries. No town shall receive from the State appropriation a sum greater than the amount raised for schools by taxation by such town. South Carolina. — Legislative appropriations are made from State funds to aid weak districts ($20,000) and high schools ($50,000). Compulsory county tax, 3 mills; poll tax, $1; retained in the several districts. A special district tax of not over 8 mills may be levied by majority vote at election. Tennessee. — One fourth the gross revenue of the State is set apart for education, 61 per cent, being apportioned to the counties, 10 per cent, form- ing a special fund to aid weak districts, 8 per cent, for high schools, 1 per cent, for libraries, 13 per cent, for normal schools, and 7 per cent, for the State university. Poll tax, $1; retained in the counties. Compulsory county school tax, 1.5 mills. The county court may levy district tax or submit question of taxa- tion to the voters of the district. Cities and towns may levy tax for high schools and for buildings. County courts may levy tax of 1.5 mills for county high schools. Texas. — State taxes, 2 mills, and $1 per capita. District tax, of not over 5 mills, determined by majority vote at election. TJtali. — Maximum county tax, 4 i^ills, levied by county commissioners. Special district tax of not over 2 per cent, of taxable property in district; voted by district meeting. Vermont. — State school tax, " 8 cents on the grand list." Special appro- priations are made for specific purposes. Each town shall appropriate for schools not less than one fifth the grand list of the town. District may vote taxes for the support of schools and for building. Virginia. — State taxes for schools vary with the different classes of property, but the amount appropriated for elementary schools must be equal to a tax of not less than 1 nor more than 5 mills; poll tax for schools, $1. Each county, city, town and school district may levy a school tax not to exceed in the aggregate 5 mills. County school tax, levied by supervisors, not less than .75 mill nor more than 2 mills. County supervisors shall 60 also levy tax in each district of not less than .75 mill nor more than 2 mills. Amount of levy by supervisors may be increased by popular vote (majority). Washington. — State tax, an amount sufficient, with income from other sources, to produce $10 for each child; maximum, 5 mills. Compulsory county tax, amounting to $10 for each child; maximum, 5 mills. District taxes are determined by the district board of school direc- tors, and shall not exceed 1 per cent, of the assessed value of taxable property of the district; but additional taxes, not to exceed in all 2 per cent, of such value, may be levied with approval of majority at popular election. Districts may issue bonds if approved at election. West Virginia. — State poll tax, $1. Legislative appropriation sufficient in amount to bring the sum distributed by the State to a total of $750,000. Maximum district tax for teachers, 25 mills; for building, 12.5 mills; may be increased under certain conditions; is levied by district board of education. Wisconsin. — State school tax, .7 mill; $200,000 annually appropriated from license and corporation taxes; special appropriations are made for specific purposes. District meeting may vote tax for building and for wages and for cur- rent expenses, etc. Maximum district tax, 2 per cent, of the taxable prop- erty. The county board determines the amounts to be raised for common schools in each town under the township system. Wyoming. — Compulsory county tax (called "State tax"), 3 mills, and $2 per capita. District meeting may vote a school tax of not over 10 mills. An examination of the foregoing data will show that in a large number of States there is a fixed tax levy for school purposes made on the prop- erty in the State. Even if the proceeds are not always large, the system of distribution employed is usually such as to affect at least a partial equal- ization of the burdens of school support, and a corresponding equalization of school opportunities. In many of the western States the unit of taxation for a larger part of school maintenance is the country, — an area sufficiently large to equalize in large measure variations among districts in ability to support the schools. In a number of States, such as New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, New Hampshire, Illinois and Michigan, where the system of State taxation has recently been modified in such a way that State revenues are now derived in great part from indirect taxation, the State's contribution to the support of public schools takes the form of annual grants, the amounts of which are sometimes fixed by general law. 61 Appendix E. History of Recent Efforts to obtain State Aid for Education IN Massachusetts. In 1871, the secretary of the State Board of Education, Mr. Joseph White, recommended in the annual report of the Board that a half mill tax be levied for the support of public schools, and distributed on the basis of the number of children to be educated. He pointed out that this was highly desirable in order to equalize educational advantages and to diminish the educational burden on poorer communities. He pointed out that the State imposed educational requirements on all communities and fixed the course of study, but that the richer communities were able constantly to draft the services of the better teachers, leaving poorer communities, of necessity, to have short terms and inferior teaching. For three or four years Mr. White worked hard to secure legislation establishing the half mill tax, but nothing came of his efforts. Supporters of the movement for a mill tax presented to the Legislature of 1884 a renewed demand for State assistance. The matter was referred to the next General Court, and in the following year was referred again. In 1887, it was made an issue in the fall elections. In 1888, the question was again brought before the Legislature ; it was complicated to some extent by the fact that Secretary Dickinson of the State Board was at the same time pressing his measure for district supervision. In 1895, some members of the Legislature again attempted to secure mill tax legislation, but the Legislature referred it to the next General Court. In 1896, a bill was carried through the House but defeated in the Senate. In 1897, a mill tax bill was carried through both House and Senate, but was vetoed by Governor Wolcott. The movement was revived during the gov- ernorship of Governor Crane, through whose efforts a commission was ap- pointed to investigate the whole question. This commission proposed a new scheme for the distribution of the income of the Massachusetts School Fund, wherSby the entire income of that fund was to go to the support of schools in towns not exceeding a valuation of $2,500,000 each, the normal schools, which had hitherto been partly supported by the income of the Massachu- setts School Fund, to be henceforth supported by State taxation. No recom- mendation was made by this commission in favor of a mill tax. 62 Appendix F Reasons commonly urged in Support of, and in Opposition to,"| Increased State Support for Public Education. In support of State contributions the following reasons are frequently urged: — (a) The State prescribes the scope and character of public schools. The Constitution directs that the Legislature shall " cherish the interests of literature and of science." By legislation the minimum length of school year is fixed: towns having more than 500 families are required to main- tain high schools for ten months in the year, and the subjects therein to be taught are prescribed. Legislation of 1883-86 compels the maintenance of evening schools, and, in larger places, of evening high schools. Since 1884, towns are compelled by law to furnish text-books and other supplies to every pupil, free of expense. Towns not supporting high schools are required in many cases to pay the tuition of high school children going to other towns to school; and towns not maintaining vocational schools must pay half the tuition of residents attending such schools elsewhere. Towns are also restricted, by recent legislation, in the employment of high school teachers, to persons who have been certificated by the State Board. In these and other respects the State fixes the scope and character of public instruction, thus making mandatory upon communities the meeting of the necessary obligations, irrespective of the ability of such communities to raise the necessary money for these purposes. Again, it can be urged that the State is a political unit, and that its contributions towards public education are made for the purpose of insur- ing as large a proportion as possible of adequately trained citizens. From this point of view, therefore, the State is equally interested in the education of all the children of the State, and should be especially interested in sup- plementing local communities in bringing about equality of educational opportunities. (&) The burden of the support of public education falls unequalTy on the different communities of the State. For example, a man owning $10,000 worth of taxable property must, if he live in Abington, pay a school tax of $91; in Saugus, $72; in Ashland, $59; in Williamstown, $56; in Fall Eiver, $46; in Springfield, $44; in Boston, $28.80; in Pelham, $21, and in Brookline, $20. In Abington, the above tax provides $30 for each pupil in attendance on the public schools, and enables the town to pay a median salary * to elemen- tary teachers of $600. In Saugus, these figures are $25 and $500; in Ash- 1 When the numbers representing the salaries paid a group of teachers are arranged in order from the lowest to the highest, the middle number indicates the " median" salary. It is not unlike the "average" salary. 63 land, $25 and $399; in Williamstown, $26 and $418; in Fall River, $29 and $660; in Springfield, $40 and $750; while in Pelham, the tax of $21 yields $7.40 per pupil and enables the town to pay $396 for each teacher; in Brookline, the tax of $20 yields $59 per pupil, and enables that town to pay $850 as the median salary to teachers. In former times the distribution of taxable wealth was less dispropor- tionate, owing to the fact that agriculture was more prominent as the indus- try of the people. The foregoing examples exhibit a condition of marked inequality in the provision of ed\icational opportunities. Some of the worst features of the situation are not at once apparent. The poorer towns are constantly losing their more ambitious teachers, while those of less capacity and training tend to remain, thus permanently lowering educational standards. (c) It is possible to administer State support in such a way as to stimu- late local effort and improve the quality of education. This proposition ought to need little argument. The experience of Massachusetts in promot- ing supervision throughout the rural towns and in establishing vocational schools indicates what can be done. At present, the Massachusetts School Fund can hardly be said to be distributed in such a way as to stimulate local effort. In many States of the Union the development of adequate secondary education has been largely affected by the judicious use of State aid. It is possible for a system of State aid to be so administered as to materially affect the length of school year, the regularity of the attendance of pupils, the provision of facilities for manual training and other forms of special instruction, the employment of trained teachers, the attendance of teachers on summer schools and other agencies for professional training, the provision of school libraries, etc. Hence, to the extent that the State is interested in elevating educational standards, it is able to do so by the judicious distribution of State aid of such a form as to carry with such aid a State responsibility for educational standards. (d) Competent students of the schools of the Commonwealth are satisfied that the quality of education offered in many of them is at present very unsatisfactory. While this condition may originate from other causes than lack of sufficient financial resources, none the less, where low salaries are paid to teachers it may be assumed, as a rule, that the quality of instruction offered will be inferior. The median salary of elementary teachers in Spring- field, for example, is $750; in Lawrence it is $650; in Taunton, $600; in Gloucester, $500; in Amesbuiy, $462; in Palmer, $440; in Athol, $418; in Blackstone, $390; in Grafton, $387; in Dudley, $380; in Templeton, $360; in Williamsburg, $324, and in Sterling, $288. The foregoing salaries may almost be taken as a significant index of the quality of the education offered in these towns and cities. But the quality of education offered will vary in a more marked degree than the median salaries of the teachers, because as noted before, there is a constant migra- tion of the stronger teachers away from communities in which low salaries prevail. The following arguments against further State support for public educa- tion in Masvsachusetts are often presented: — (a) Public education in Massachusetts, although in its main characteris- tics determined by State legislation, has been from the beginning supported 64 almost exclusively by local taxation. Local support and local control have resulted in the development of the public school system now existing. In many respects, public education in Massachusetts is well developed, and expenditures for school purposes are generous. Consequently, the system of support which has produced these results constitutes a sound policy for the future. (b) A more important argument against further State taxation for school purposes rests on the fact that State taxation has increased very rapidly in recent years, and threatens to become still heavier. In 1910. the State expended for general administration $13,500,000,* of which over $4,000,000 was for charities, over $1,000,000 for education, over $1,000,- 000 for militia, $1,200,000 for prisons, and over one-quarter of a million for roads. The State is increasing its appropriations for vocational educa- tion and for the support of schools for defectives and delinquents. In the near future the State may be asked to contribute more than it now does towards the professional training of teachers who have already entered service. An investigation, is being conducted this year into the matter of a teacher's retirement system. It is obvious that if Massachusetts intends to develop a comprehensive scheme for the retirement of superannuated teachers, it can only do so by means of some assistance contributed out of State funds. The shifting of teachers from community to community, and the poverty of many communities, probably precludes their contributing more than moderate amounts towards teachers' retirement. 65 Appendix G I Problems relating to State Taxation for School Support. No comprehensive attempt has been made in this report to present the facts regarding the systems of taxation found in other States. These are analyzed in the special report of the Census Bureau on " Wealth, Debt and Taxation." BeloAv are suggested a few of the many problems that are worthy of consideration >n studying the public revenue system of Massachusetts: — (a) Many States in the Union have developed sources of State revenue other than a general property tax. In Massachusetts, this tax is the chief source of State revenue; other sources are general corporation taxes, special corporation taxes, and inheritance taxes. New York, New Jersey and Pennsylvania contribute largely to the sup- port of schools out of State revenue. The money for this purpose, as well as for other forms of State expenditure, is not derived from general property taxes. The quotations below, taken from the United States Census Eeport on Wealth, Debt and Taxation, indicate sources. In New Jersey, " the State obtains its revenue from special taxes on rail and canal corporations, the franchise tax on gross receipts and capital stock of other corporations, the collateral inheritance tax, poll tax and leases of riparian lands. Taxes on real and personal property in general contribute only to the expenditures of counties and municipalities. There has been no State tax levied on real and personal property since 1884." New York " has developed a system of State taxes which makes the State government partly independent of the general property tax. Kesort to the general property tax may still be had for State revenues, but in 1912 the State ad valorem tax on general property was at the low rate of $13.01, or 1 mill on the dollar, and was levied for school purposes. The revenue from this source was less than one twenty-fourth of the entire revenue. The largest single item in the State revenues is the State liquor licenses; next comes the series of usual and special corporation taxes; then the inheritance tax, and thereafter a number of miscellaneous items, — the general prop- erty tax, as used mainly for county and municipal purposes, etc." Pennsylvania " places the burden of taxation for State purposes almost wholly on corporations, leaving the property of individuals subject to taxa- tion for local purposes only. Mortgages, bonds and certain other classes of personal property, however, pay State taxes, but three fourths of this tax is returned to the counties to relieve the burden of local taxation." (h) Massachusetts has no State Board of Equalization, and it is often claimed that property is not equally valuated in the different towns and cities. By some it is claimed that city property is valuated more highly than rural lands. This hardly seems a question into which the present report should enter, although it will probably be urged as an argument 66 against further contributions from municipalities towards the expenses of public education. (c) It is often claimed that the burden of taxation is not adequately represented by the ratio that such taxation bears to property valuation. It will be claimed, for example, that a tax of $18 on the thousand in rural communities is in reality a much heavier burden than a light tax in cities. The commissioner is unable to find any adequate discussion of this problem. It is probable that psychological elements enter. In rural communities most of the taxes are in effect direct. In urban communities, on the other hand, for the large majority of the population taxation is apt to be in effect indirect, being paid through rent and the cost of goods purchased. Here again it seems impracticable for the Board to take a position, although the problem seems to have bearing on the report under consideration. {d) It is also often asserted that a given tax rate is easily borne, and should be more acceptable in cities than in country communities, because of the greater return which comes from it, particularly for the average person. The proceeds of taxation in cities not only makes possible the support of the usual governmental agencies, but also provide lighting, fire protection, building inspection, supervision of markets, and many other forms of service which in rural communities, if available at all, must be procured at private expense. There is no doubt that representatives of rural communities will urge that a tax rate of $18 per thousand in cities is more easily to be borne than a smaller tax rate in country communities, owing to the larger returns possible from the former. 67 Appendix H Methods of Distributing State Aid. State taxation for public schools should be as nearly automatic as possible, and to this end many of the States have provided by statute for a fixed rate of school taxation, usually referred to as the mill tax. The real significance of such a system of taxation is to be found chiefly in the methods employed in distributing the proceeds among local communities. (a) In some of the southern States the State acts merely as a taxing body and distributes back to communities substantially the proceeds of the levies made under State taxation. The tax in this case becomes simply a compul- sory local tax for the support of schools. This method of distribution is less cormnon now than formerly. (&) In many of the States the proceeds of State taxation for school pur- poses are distributed on what is known as the census basis (that is, the num- ber of children in the community as shown on the school census), which in a sense is the simplest expression of need of school facilities. Where, as in a State like Massachusetts, there is taken an annual school census, this system of distribution could be made practically automatic. Some of the objections urged against it are that it does not serve as a stimulus to local effort in any direction, and also, it takes no account of the heavier burdens of school support, due to the larger number of separate schools required in sparsely peopled Communities. (c) A more recent system of distributing the proceeds of State taxation has been based on the average membership in the schools. This puts a premium on full attendance and on the regularity of attendance. In other respects it is open to the same criticism as that made against the method of distribution on the census basis. {d) The State of Washington and some others distribute the proceeds of State taxation on a basis determined by total attendance made, found by multiplying the days school has been in session in the year by the average membership. It is evident that this puts a premium not only on full attend- ance and on regularity of attendance, but also on the length of school year. In the Washington scheme there is a further proviso that every school shall be credited with at least a fixed minimum of attendance, equal, perhaps, to three thousand days, thus guaranteeing to remote rural schools a share in the State apportionment which is to a degree unaffected by the smallness of the enrolment of such a school. (e) Another system of recent development is that found in Connecti- cut, where each local community must previously have levied a given mini- . mum tax for the support of schools; after which the State's contribution being utilized to bring the level of support up to a fixed amount for each child in average attendance during the preceding year. This system of distri- 68 bution acts as a stimulus to the local community, and also recognizes that when the local community has made a fair contribution towards school sup- port it becomes the duty of the State to assist by providing a sufficient sum to equalize educational opportunities. (/) In an ideal scheme of distributing the State's money, probably all the foregoing and some other methods should be taken into account. For example, some of the State revenue should be used to further the professional training of teachers, after entering service, since this is a responsibility which local communities will be least likely fully to meet. If a system of retire- ment is made obligatory throughout the State, the revenues of the Common- wealth might be employed in a measure to assist in its execution. Some States now use a portion of the State revenue to encourage the different types of special education in the same way that Massachusetts is using State funds to further industrial, agricultural and household arts training. The State might give further assistance in certain cases by inspection. In New York, for example, there is a division of the State departments empow- ered to approve plans for school buildings. This division in its operation has done much to promote rural school architecture. 69 Appendix I. The IxcoiiE of the Massachusetts School Fund and Other Forms OF State Aid to Public Schools. (a) As a means of contributing to the support of rural education, Massa- chusetts has set apart a fund of $5,000,000, the income from which (amounting to about $238,000) is distributed to towns in accordance with the terms given below (chapter 456 of the Acts of 1903) : — 1. An outright grant is made as follows : — (1) Five hundred dollars to every town whose valuation does not exceed $500,000. (2) Three hundred dollars to every town whose valuation is between $500,- 000 and $1,000,000. (3) One hundred and fifty dollars to every town whose valuation is between $1,000,000 and $2,000,000. (4) Seventy-five dollars to every town whose valuation is between $2,000,- 000 and $2,500,000. (5) Seventy-five dollars extra to every town under $500,000 valuation whose tax is $18 or more per thousand. 2. The remainder of the fund is distributed to towns whose valuation does not exceed $2,500,000 as follows : — (1) To towns whose school tax is not less than one third of its total tax, a proportion expressed by one third. (2) To towns whose school tax is not less than one fourth of its total tax, a proportion expressed by one fourth. (3) To towns whose school tax is not less than one fifth of its total tax, a proportion expressed by one fifth. (4) To towns whose school tax is not less than one sixth of its total tax, a proportion expressed by one sixth. In 1912 these proportions amounted to approximately: — For the first class, . . . $1,009 For the second class, 757 For the third class, . 605 For the fourth class, 504 It may be questioned whether the above scheme of distribution is in all respects based on sound principles. In operation, it gives to a few towns more money than they actually need for school purposes, while in other cases com.munities are enabled to conduct their schools on a smaller outlay from local taxation than is just or desirable. In a few respects the plan of dis- tribution is good. For example, additional assistance is given in certain cases where the local rate of taxation is $18 or more per thousand. Again, recognition is given to those towns in which the rate of taxation for school 70 purposes is large in proportion to the rate of taxation for general purposes. Another commendable feature is that the law requires that as a condition of sharing in the income of the Massachusetts School Fund towns shall have complied with all laws relating to public education, to the satisfaction of the Board of Education. On the other hand, the system of distribution does not adequately recog- nize local need. It is true that in general the cost per capita of education in a sparsely settled community will be greater, than in a more thickly settled one; nevertheless there are numerous exceptions. But the total cost of educa- tion in a town whose valuation is less than $1,000,000 should not be greater than that in a community whose valuation may be $1,500,000. The plan now employed gives largest aid to towns of lowest valuation and presum- ably of smallest population. An examination of the totals in Appendix A will show that in three towns in receipt of State aid (Mount Washington, Gosnold and Tolland) the local rate of taxation for school purposes is less than $1 per thousand of valuation; in six others the local rate is less than $2 per thousand valuation; while in a large number of cases the rate of taxation for school purposes is much less than $4.25 per thousand of valua- tion, the average rate for the State. A number of towns, such as Florida, Gay Head, Goshen, Gosnold, Greenwich, Hancock, Heath, Holland, Leyden, Mashpee, Monroe, Montgomery, Mount AVashington, New Ashford, Peru, Plainfield, Prescott, Shutesbury, Tolland, Washington, West Tisbury and Westhampton, receive more for the support of schools from the State than they contribute from local taxation. The method of distributing the income of the Massachusetts School Fund should be modified in such a way that, while local need is recognized, local effort should be stimulated. It seems not unreasonable that as a condition of sharing in this income, each town should tax itself for school purposes to an extent approximately equal to the average taxation for that purpose throughout the Commonwealth. In other words, it might be made a first condition of sharing in this form of State aid that the town shall have ex- pended for school purposes during the preceding year an amount equal to at least $4 (or the State average) per thousand dollars of valuation. Provision might furthermore be made whereby towns which, in proportion to local need, seem to receive for school purposes of State and local funds an exces- sive sum, might well have their State's contribution reduced, perhaps by action of the Board of Education. If towns under $2,500,000 valuation were alike as regards distribution of population, it would be a comparatively easy matter to frame a satisfactory method for the distribution of the funds, based on the number of children to be educated. But such a method would not give adequate recognition to the fact that in many rural towns single room schools in isolated communities must be maintained at large expense per unit of average membership, A school having 10 or fewer children in attendance may cost approximately as much to maintain as a school having from 30 to 40. Consequently, measures must be adopted to permit of some flexibility in the system of distributing State funds. The most effective method to be employed in distributing the income of the Massachusetts School Fund seems to involve the following prin- ciples: (1) Only towns having a valuation of $2,500,000 or under should share in the income of such fund. (2) No town should share in the income 71 of such a fund until it had appropriated for school purposes during the preceding school year, out of the proceeds of local taxation for the support of schools, not less than $4 per thousand dollars of valuation for that year. (3) All towns entitled thereto under the terms of the preceding sections should receive such an amount as, added to the proceeds of local taxation, amounting to $4 per thousand, would produce an amount equal to the product obtained by multiplying the number of children in average membership for the preceding year by the average expenditures throughout the Common- wealth, derived from local taxation, per unit of average membership, with the further provision that in each case the total amount thus made avail- able should be equal to at least $250 for each separate school maintained with the approval of the Board of Education. (4) The remainder of the income of the Massachusetts School Fund might be distributed among towns entitled thereto under the provisions of sections 1 and 2, in propor- tion to average membership in actual attendance for the preceding year. Some inequalities would undoubtedly remain after the foregoing pro- visions had been complied with. In several States a sum of money is set apart to be distributed by the State authorities to meet cases of actual necessity, arising either from a low local valuation or through other exi- gency which no uniform plan can meet. Formerly, the Board of Education was authorized to distribute out of this income an amount not exceeding $2 per week, to be added to the salaries of certain approved teachers. It may be that a revival of this practice would improve local school conditions. (&) State Aid for High School Education. (Sections ^ and 3 (as amended) , chapter 42, 'Revised Laws, and chapter 427, Acts of 1908.) — The law com- pels communities having 500 or more families to maintain high schools. Communities having fewer than 500 families may maintain high schools and receive from the State as assistance the sum of $500 annually. It is provided, however, that this $500 grant shall not be made if the town valuation averages larger for each pupil in average membership than the corresponding average for the Commonwealth. The State also assists towns having fewer than 500 families by paying the whole or part of the tuition of pupils who are sent away to high schools of other towns. The town pays the tuition and the State reimburses the town. A town whose valuation is less than $1,000,000 receives all of its tuition, and a town having a valuation of more than $1,000,000 receives half of the tuition. Both of these methods of assisting small communities seem to operate with good results. (c) Contributions towards the Salaries of Superintendents. (Sections 40- 48, chapter 42, 'Revised Laws.) — In order to promote the development of supervision, the State provides that towns shall form unions for the purpose of employing a superirttendent. Each union thus formed is entitled to a grant from the State of $1,250, of which $750 is intended to be used towards superintendent's salary, and $500 to assist in paying the salaries of teachers. The minimum salary for the superintendent is set at $1,500, and each town contributes in proportion to the amount of service given to the town. The State's contribution is distributed among the towns in the same proportion. The special form of State assistance, being accompanied by State super- vision (through certification) of the superintendents employed, is effective. No change is suggested at the present time. 72 Appendix J. Statistics relative to the Payment of Transportation Expenses OF Pupils, as called for by Chapter 39, Resolves of 1912. In accordance with the provisions of the resolve referred to above, there is submitted below statistics showing estimated amounts required for the payment of the transportation expenses of high school pupils attending high schools in towns and cities other than those of their residence, under the provisions of section 3 (as amended) of chapter 42 of the Revised Laws. The index figures after the amounts in the last column show the amounts that in certain cases would be reimbursed in whole or in part in the event that legislation were enacted according to the principles set forth in the proposed act given below. Table showing estimated Cost to the State for Transportation Ex- penses OF Children attending High Schools in Towns or Cities Other than those in which they reside (for 1910). Estimated Estimated amount Town. cost per Number of State re- pupil per of pupils. imbursement week. for 40-week year. Acushnet, $0 50 15 ?3C0 00 « Alford, 1 50 1 60 00 Becket, 50 17 340 00' Bedford, 25 25 125 00 Bellingham, ........ 50 33 660 00 « Berkley 25 13 130 00 » Berlin, 25 26 260 00 » Blandford 1 50 9 540 00 Boxborough 50 13 260 00 Bo5d3fx)n, 50 13 260 00 > Buckland, 50 4 80 00' Burlington, 25 11 110 00 Carlisle 1 50 7 460 00 Cheshire, 50 32 640 00 » Clarksburg, 50 9 ISO 00 » Colrain, 50 29 580 00 « Cummington, 1 50 19 1,140 00 » Dana, 1 50 12 720 00' Dunstable, 1 50 3 180 00« Eastham, 1 50 11 680 00 East Longmeadow, 25 33 330 00 « Egremont 100 ' 9 300 00 Enfield, 1 50 21 1,260 00* Erving 1 50 12 720 00* Florida, I 50 3 180 00 « Freetown, 50 15 300 00 1 Gill, .1 50 2 120 00 » Goshen, 1 50 5 300 00 Granville 1 50 7 460 00 « Greenwich, 1 50 15 900 00 • Tax rate for school purposes, $5 or more per thousand dollars of valuation. » Tax rate for school purposes, over $4 and less than S5 per thousand of valuation. (See Ap- pendix A.) 73 Table showing estimated Cost to the State for Transportation Ex- penses, ETC. — Concluded. Estimated • Estimated amount Town. cost per Number of State re- pupil per of pupils. imbursement week. for 40-week year. Hampden, $0 25 20 $200 00 » Hancock 1 50 I 60 00 Hawley 1 60 1 60 00 Heath 1 50 2 120 00 » Hinsdale 50 5 100 00 1 Hinsdale 25 9 90 00 Hubbardston 1 50 7 420 00 • Lakeville 25 17 170 00 « Lakeville 50 3 60 00 Lanesborough 50 22 440 001 Leverett, 1 50 4 240 00 > Lynnfield, 25 22 220 00 Mashpee 1 50 2 120 00 Middlefield 1 50 4 240 00 ' Middleton, 50 24 480 00 » Monroe, 1 50 7 420 00 Monterey, 1 50 9 540 00 « Montgomery, 1 50 1 60 00 New Braintree 1 50 12 720 00 Newbury, 25 13 65 00* Norfolk 50 8 160 00 > North Reading 25 42 420 00 » Oakham, ^ . 1 50 17. 1,020 00 Otis ■ . . . 1 50 2 120 00' Paxton, 1 50 6 360 00 Pelhara 50 7 140 00 Peru, 1 50 6 360 00 « Phillipston 1 50 4 240 00 « Plainfield 1 50 8 480 00 « Plympton, 50 5 100 00 Prescott 1 50 5 300 00' Princeton, 1 50 1 60 00 » Ravnham, ........ 50 17 340 00' Rehoboth, 1 50 14 840 00 > Richmond, 1 50 9 540 00* Rochester, 1 50 14 840 00 Rowe 1 50 6 360 00 Rowley 1 50 31 1.860 00 « Royalston, 1 50 12 720 00 » Russell, 50 11 220 00' Salisbury, 25 16 160 00 ' Savoy, 1 50 5 300 00 1 Southampton 50 18 360 00 « South wick 50 15 300 00 Sturbridge, 50 5 100 00 Sunderland. . 50 19 380 00 ' Tewksbury 25 36 360 00 « Truro 1 50 1 60 00 « Tyngsboro 25 15 150 00 ' Tyringham, 1 50 3 180 CO Warwick 1 50 9 540 no » Washin<4ton 1 50 2 120 00 Wendell, 1 50 5 300 00' West Brookfield, . 25 30 300 00' Westhampton, 1 50 5 300 00 Westminster 50 3 60 00' West Stockbridjre, 1 50 11 660 CO ' Whatelv, 50 5 100 00« Wilbraham 50 14 140 00' Williamsburg, 50 7 140 00' Windsor, 1 50 4 240 00' Worthington, 1 50 7 420 00 » Totals (90 towns) - 1,069 832,590 00 1 Tax rate for school purposes, $5 or more per thousand dollars of valuation. 2, Tax rate for school purposes, over $4 and less than $5 per thousand of valuation. (See Ap- pendix A.) 74 In connection with the above table, of the 173 towns under 500 families (according to the United States census of 1910) — 46 towns receive the $500 grant for high school. 24 towns have a valuation per pupil in excess of the State average, and are not, therefore, entitled to reimbursement. 13 towns did not avail themselves of the benefits of the law, having in many cases academies in town or high schools. 90 towns receive reimbursement of high school tuition expenditures and should pay transportation expenditures. Proposed Act. An Act providing for the Payment by Towns for the Transporta- tion OF Pupils to Outside High Schools. Be it enacted, etc., as follows: Section three of chapter forty-two of the Eevised Laws, as amended by chapter four hundred and thirty-three of the acts of nineteen hundred and two and chapter five hundred and thirty-seven of the acts of nineteen hun- dred and eleven, is further amended by the addition of the following para- graph: A town of less than five hundred families or householders, in which a public high school or public school of corresponding grade is not main- tained, shall through its school committee, when necessary, provide for the transportation of any child who resides in said town and who, with the pre- vious approval of the school committee of his town, attends the high school of any other town or city, and shall pay for the expense of said transporta- tion a sum not exceeding one dollar and fifty cents per week during the time of actual attendance of such child in the high school. If any town fails to provide such transportation, it shall be liable in an action of contract, to the parent or guardian of a child who has been furnished with such transportation for such amounts as the parent or guardian has paid for the same. A town which has expended for the support of its public schools for the preceding year from the proceeds of local taxation an amount not less than four and less than five dollars per thousand dollars of valuation shall receive from the treasury of the commonwealth one half of the amount actually expended for transportation under the provisions of this act; and a town which has expended from the proceeds of local taxation for the support of its public schools for the preceding year an amount equal to at least five dollars per thousand of valuation shall receive from the treasury of the commonwealth the entire amount actually paid for transportation under the provisions of this act. ! THIS BOOK IS DUE ON THE LAST DATE STAMPED BELOW ^, ANIN#IAL FINE OP 25 CENTS WILL BE ASSESSED FOR FAILURE TO RETURN THIS BOOK ON THE DATE DUE. THE PENALTY WILL INCREASE TO 50 CENTS ON THE FOURTH DAY AND TO $1.00 ON THE SEVENTH DAY OVERDUE. ^■^■':' Sii ■ -:,.t, .. ,,,., .i-v.w 1 LD21-100m-7,'40 (6936s) UNIVERSITY OF CAIylFORNTA IvIBRARY