If the Federal Government should adopt the policy of granting aid to the States for the purpose of equalizing educational opportunity, it would seem that some precaution should be taken to insure an equitable distribution of the funds with respect to geographical areas and population elements within the States. those areas that probably have the greatest need and certainly have the least ability." During the past quarter of a century there has been a definite and unmistakable tendency on the part of the States to adopt policies designed to equalize educational opportunity to a greater or less degree. It is true, nevertheless, that a relatively small number of States have systems of State aid which equalize educational opportunity and the burden of school support to a degree that seems to be socially desirable. In most States, counties having a high ratio of children to adults, a low plane of living, and a low assessed valuation per child receive, as a rule, more State aid than counties having a light educational load, a high plane of living, and a high assessed valuation. But even so, when State distributive funds are added to the amount which could be raised by a uniform tax levy, the poorer counties, in the great majority of instances, fall markedly below the richer counties in the amount available per child of school age. There is reason to believe, moreover, that assessed valuation imputes to the poorer counties ability which, on the basis of income, they do not possess. If this is true, the ability of poor counties to finance education may be exaggerated by a measure based on a uniform tax rate and the State distributive fund. Although an increasing number of States are developing reasonably acceptable plans of equalization, it appears, nevertheless, that State aid in the majority of States is not so distributed as adequately to equalize educational opportunity. In general, State-administered school funds do not appear to be equitably distributed between the rural and urban areas or between the richer and poorer counties. Although there is an increasing number of exceptions, the majority of States are not, at present, distributing their own funds in a manner that could be recommended for the distribution of Federal funds. 7 It is to be noted that several States, particularly California, Delaware, New York, Ohio, and Indiana, which have extensive equalization or State-supported programs, are not included in this study. If the Federal Government should adopt the policy of granting aid to the States for the purpose of equalizing educational opportunity, it would seem that some precaution should be taken to insure an equitable distribution of the funds with respect to geographical areas and population elements within the States. |