Some Fiscal Aspects of Public Education in American Cities By Edward Charles Elliott, A.M. Submitted in Partial Fulfilment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the Faculty of Philosophy Columbia University 1905 'x^ j/ _ jm. LB 2829 .E5 Copy 1 Some Fiscal Aspects of Public Education in American Cities By Edward Charles Elliott, A.M. Submitted in Partial Fulfilment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the Faculty of Philosophy Columbia University 1905 /V^' CONTENTS PAGE I. Introduction i Twofold aspect of present educational thought . i The scientific aspect of education i The economic aspect of education 2 Organized education as a producer and con- sumer of social energy 3 Public education and public taxation .... 5 Summary • . 6 Aim of present study 7 II. Public Education and the American City . . 7 Public education and the scope of modem muni- cipal needs and activities 7 Increased importance of municipal fiscal prob- lems 8 State control of municipal education .... 9 Fiscal isolation of municipal education ... 10 Unity of municipal life 11 III. Basis and Method of Investigation .... 12 Financial statistics of cities 12 Method of statistical treatment 15 TV. Character, Arrangement and Preliminary Ma- nipulation OF Data 16 Data of expenditures for municipal maintenance and operation for 1900 and 1901 . . . . 16 Percentile tables of expenditures No. i (1900) and No. 2 (1901) 18 Transformation of gross itemized expenditures to a percentile basis 26 Variability of Expenditures 26 General statement 26 Tables of frequency (Tables 4(a)-4(/t)) ... 27 Explanation of tables of frequency 31 Graphical representation of variability (Figs, i to 10) 32 iii iv Contents PAGE VI. Measurement of Variability 35 Method of probable error 35 Table of probable errors (Table 4A) .... 36 Method of deviation from central tendency . , 36 Table of deviations (Table 5) 38 Coefficient of variability 40 Table of medians, average deviations, standard deviations, and coefficients of variability (Table 6) 40 Relationships of variabilities 40 VII, Causes of Variability 41 Influence of population 42 Influence of geographical location 44 Influence of municipal environment .... 46 Influence of the mode of classification of public accounts and of systems of accounting ... 46 Influence of state subsidies for education ... 50 Influence of distribution of functions .... 52 Influence of economic wealth 53 Influence of methods of revenue and expendi- ture administration 54 Influence of municipal personality and ideals . 54 Conclusion 55 VIIL Relationships between Items of Expenditure 56 Implications of the variability 56 The Pearson coefficient of correlation .... 56 Existing relationships (Table 10) 57 Significance of relationships 58 Graphical representation of relationships (Fig. 11) 60 IX. Variability and Correl.a.tion of Per Capita Expenditures 61 Data 61 Variability of per capita expenditures (Tables II and 12) 62 Graphical representation of per capita varia- bility (Figs. 12 to 16) 65 Pearson coefficients of per capita correlations (Table 13) 66 Contents v PAGE X. Supplementary Study of the Variability and Correlation OF Municipal Expenditures 67 Data of municipal expenditures for 1902 and 1903 67 Selection of cities 71 Preliminary arrangement of data 71 Percentile table of average payments for general and municipal service expenses (Table 14) . 72 XL Supplementary Study of the Variability and Correlation of Municipal Expenditures (continued) 75 Tables of frequency (Table 15) 75 Surfaces of frequency (Figs. 17 to 28) . . . . 77 Measurement of variability; probable error . 81 Table of probable errors (Table 16) .... 81 Measurement of variability: deviation from central tendency 81 Table of deviations (Table 17) 82 Measurement of variability : coef!icient of varia- bility 83 Table of medians, average deviations, stand- ard deviations, and coefficients of variability (Table 18) 83 Causes of variability 84 Relationships of variabilities: coefficient of correlation 84 Table of Pearson coefficients of correlation (Table 19) • . . . 85 XII. Relationships of-the Different Standards of Expenditures for Education .... 85 Classification of cities on the basis of percentile school expenditures 85 Tables of group relationships (Tables 20(a), 20(6), 21) 86 Classification of cities on the basis of per capita school expenditures 89 Tables of g-roM/? relationships (Table 22) ... 89 Fiscal standards for education 89 Classification of cities on the basis of cost per pupil 90 vi Contents VAGB Valuation of the different standards .... 90 Relationship of the different standards ... 90 Value of percentile standard 91 Table of rankings (Table 23) 92 Value of per capita standard 95 Value of cost per pupil standard 96 Ranking according to weighed values .... 98 XIII. General Conclusions 98 Bibliography 100 Afterword 102 Personal Statement 102 Some Fiscal Aspects of Public Education in American Cities I. Introduction Twofold Aspect of Present Educational Thought. — There are at the present time two well-defined tendencies in our public educational thought and activity, which may be designated as the scientific and the economic. At the outset, it may be well to anticipate the possible obscureness or confusion arising from the use of these terms, possessing, as they do, meanings of both variable content and application. The Scientific Aspect of Education. — The so-called scientific spirit is as old as modem science, and its invasion of the field of educational activity has been as extended and as rapid as those sciences, fundamental and cognate to education, have developed to act as guides and leaders for the advance. This scientific aspect, as it concerns organized public educa- tion, is best defined by the man)'- and varied efforts of the day to evaluate the results of educational endeavor; to measure in terms of some standard unit the relation between effort and result; to give to education, in a degree at least, some of the exactitude and precision which have grown up within the physical, biological, and social sciences. It has, as it were, assumed three phases. On the one hand is the child; on the other, the teeming and multiplex super-organism of society; between, stands the school as an adapting institution. Each of these primary elements of the educational process has been, and 2 Some Fiscal Aspects of Public Education is being, subjected to that searching inquiry, criticism and judgment characteristic of the scientific attitude, in order that there may be wrought into the structure of the organiza- tion, curricula, and aim of the school the established funda- mental principles of human development and social efficiency. Every concrete study and investigation of the ever-changing and developing physical, mental, moral, and social capacities of the child; every attempt to define and estimate the working efficiency of the practices of the school, by means of more adequate standards; every measurement of the results of the school in terms of those values established in the social medium; every critical interpretation of the educational method and organization — the number and frequency of these during re- cent years furnish ample evidence of the ceaseless and ever- spreading scientific activity that seeks a rational purpose beneath educational practices and ideals, which, too frequently in the past, have been grounded in tradition, prejudice, or social inertia.^ The Economic Aspect of Education. — The application of the word "economic" to education may appear to be of doubtful validity or propriety. The materialistic elements and biased political associations of the word seem to have prevented its in- trusion into the terminology of education ; yet there are ample reasons to warrant the belief that there is soon to be developed a definite field of knowledge to which may be applied, with aptness as well as precision, the term "economics of education." In a wide sense, the scientific aspect of education is inclusive of the economic aspect. Economics as a science, and in its broadest significance, comprehends the laws of the correlation and conservation of social energy. In this sense, all applica- tions of scientific method to each of the threefold phases of public education have a final economic aspect ; for every series of ' The argument here is not at all concerned with the doubtful discus- sion as to the existence of a "science" of education. Any attempt to establish a completer individuality for educational knowledge is likely to end in specious contention. However, the application of scientific method to the problems of education is another and different matter. Through this means will the problems be carried toward a rational, logi- cal, and unbiased solution. Indeed, by it also, the problems themselves will become more clearly defined as the study of the appropriate phe- nomena progresses. Some Fiscal Aspects of Public Education 3 observations upon the workings of the developing mental, bodily or moral organization of the learning child, every alteration of administrative system and every revision of curricula have as a goal the influencing and improvement of the conditions under which the educational process may take place with the least of retardation, and with a minimum of waste of effort or energy. This is necessarily true if such observations are conducted above the plane of mere scientific dilettanteism, and if suggested ad- ministrative and instructional changes are posited as results of rational inquiry. In its larger meaning, too, all education — especially all schemes for national public education, representing as they do the supreme conscious effort of peoples for the conservation and correlation of their social forces and for the perpetuation of their social traditions — has a definite economic significance. As the wealth, enlightenment, ideals and progressive character of peoples are determined in a large measure by their opportunities for education, so are their opportunities for education fixed by the material and ethical elements of their existence.^ Public Education as a Producer and Consumer of Social Energy. — As an instrumentality for the development of individual wholeness, for effecting the amalgamation and cohesion of di- verse racial and cultural elements into a national unity, and for directing social energy towards social progress, we of the United States have doubted but little the total productiveness of our plan of education. Our faith has been instinctive rather than rational, for we have always lacked any definite standards by means of which its individual or social results could be tested with any degree of accurac3^ Qualitatively, through the roughly and ill constructed sub- jective standards of public opinion, it has been assumed that every investment of public funds in public education yielded an immeasurable dividend in the form of an enlightened, moral, and efficient citizenship. Quantitatively, these dividends are almost impossible of measurement. Aside from the rather inadequate standards, established by statistical investigations of the illiteracy, crime, 1 Seager, H. R., Introduction to Economics, pp. 233 ff., gives a short, yet definite, exposition of the reciprocal relation of education and economic condition. 4 Some Fiscal Aspects of Public Education poverty, and earning capacity of our population, we have had no gauges with which to determine in any exact or satisfactory manner the amount of those elements of culture and worth, entering into individual and social values, which could be traced back to the influence of public education. This has been necessarily so, and there will perhaps always be a total absence of standard values in estimating the larger effectiveness of public education. For the forces generated and directed by organized education cannot be subjected to those modes of measurement applicable to physical forces which display a constancy and universality foreign to the activities of educa- tion, functioning as these latter do under the widely varying conditions of race and individual capacity, and of economic state and class ideals which arise in natural consequence of our democracy and freedom of competition. On the other hand, the recognition of this phase of the economic aspect of the educational process, as a problem, is the first condition for the application of a scientific method for its solution. As our knowledge of the mental and physical capaci- ties of individuals increases, and as our recognition of social necessities is expanded, we shall be enabled to accommodate and direct educational effort toward the largest, most economi- cal and efficient ends. Throughout whatever recognition and knowledge we have had in the past of the values derived from public education, and in most of the enthusiastic efforts to increase these values, the school has been viewed almost entirely as a producer ^ of social efficiency. While not entirely disregarded, the thought of public education as a consumer of social energy has not yet been developed in a manner likely to give a clear and accurate notion of its economic cost. The vast and increasing expendi- tures for the support of public education are, however, directing more and more the attention of publicists and those charged with the administration of the affairs of the public schools to the necessity of the possession of more reliable and accurate knowledge concerning the cost of this education we have established. > I recognize the objections to the use of this term prodticer. Its real meaning will, I think, be readily comprehended. Its use enables me to carry out what seems to be a valuable analogy from economic science. Some Fiscal Aspects of Public Education 5 While the real cost of public education is, in some respects, as difficult of accurate measurement as are its results, there are certain objective phenomena by the measurement of which a more or less accurate statement of the consuming capacity of the public schools can be made. Even when limited to the amount of public money devoted to public education — and this by no means represents the total cost of such education^ — our present- day notions of the cost of education are of a crude and inac- curate kind. It might be said in all truth that we do not know how much we are paying for public education, in spite of the overwhelming mass of apparently reliable information and statistics. The commonplace of "millions spent" and "millions spending" has benumbed our economic sense, and that clown of statistics — the average — has been made to perform grotesque antics to please and win the applause of both the unthinking and those inspired with ulterior motives. Whenever doubt has arisen concerning the effective working of our educational plan, its shortcomings have been felt in an indefinite and vague manner. Not infrequently reforms are attempted through the transformation of the mode of legal and administrative control, or by means of remodelled cur- ricula. In the main, however, one or the other of two stand- ard remedies is generally proposed to-day to remove any recognized weaknesses of the plan and to provide for its rapidly expanding activities and functions: better prepared and more able teachers, and a more generous and adequate support. In our present social conditions the application of the first of these is recognized as being conditioned by the second. "More money" has become the banner word of those who, either through honesty of conviction or an unweening enthusiasm, hope to have realized within, and from, the public school those ideals and results consistent with its primary importance as a conservator of national efficiency .2 Public Education and Public Taxation. — However well- grounded in our American polity the idea of public taxation for > See Giddings, F. H., The Legal Aspect of Compulsory Education, Proceedings, National Educational Association, 1905, for pertinent sugges- tions regarding the real social and economic cost of compulsory education. 2 See Eliot, C. W., More Money for the Public Schools, for a virile and timely statement concerning this point. 6 Some Fiscal Aspects of Public Education the support of public education has become, perhaps the present most fundamental condition of the growth and efficiency of this distinctly American institution is the question of the rational limitation of the amount of public money to be devoted to it. This question is assuming a wider public interest each year. Aside from the increased demands for support due to mere numerical growth, the extension of the recognized function of the public school, and the numerous well-directed efforts to improve its effectiveness through the provision of more ade- quate facilities, have served to increase many-fold the financial burdens necessary to the institution and success of the reforms. To say that the burden has been borne ungrudgingly by the people would be a mere commonplace. To assume that twice the burden could be borne might be presumptuous. The influence of persistent bodies of teachers,^ who have come to the realization of the idea that justice and adequacy of teachers' salaries and of school support will come only through justice and equality in taxation, and of certain definite studies and investigations 2 of the financial conditions surrounding the public schools in various parts of the country, has stimu- lated both professional and public activity regarding the prob- lem of the financial support of the public schools. Summary. — The dominating aspects of educational thought and activity to-day may be characterized as the scientific and the economic. Broadly speaking, the first of these is inclusive of the second. The economic aspect is becoming, however, more and more specialized and separable from the scientific. ' The recent well-loiown campaign of the Chicago Teachers' Federa- tion is an example of such activity, perhaps the most unique in American educational history. 2 Committee on Taxation as Related to Public Education. Appointed at the meeting of the National Educational Association, Minneapolis, 1902. {Proc. N. E. A., p. 312.) Final report submitted at meeting of National Educational Association, July, 1905 (86 pp.)- Committee on Salaries, Tenure, and Pensions of Public School Teachers in the United States. Appointed at the meeting of the National Educa- tional Association, Boston, 1903. {Proc. N. E. A., 1903, p. 308.) Pre- liminary report. {Proc. A^ E. A., 1904, pp. 370 ff.) Final report submitted at meeting of National Educational Association, July, 1905 (458 pp.). Report of Committee on Taxation and Teachers' Salaries. Indiana State Teachers Association, 1904 (126 pp.). Some Fiscal Aspects of Public Education 7 In the life of a people an organized system of public education may be viewed as a producer of social efficiency and as a con- sumer of social energy. The most important problem before American education to-day is that of adequate support. There it needed, however, fuller and better knowledge of the actual consuming capacity of public education before the present sup- port can be intelligently increased. Aim of the Present Study. — The form of all education, and of all public education in particular, is cast in a moiild of social ideals. In turn, it acts to shape new ideals of new generations. The influence and social value of these ideals cannot be readily subjected to a process of scientific measurement. On the other hand, it is possible to state in more or less exact terms some of those characteristics which mark contemporaneous public edu- cation as a consumer of social energy, valuing social energy in terms of the amount of public funds given over to the support of public education. It is toward this economic aspect of education that the following study will be devoted, particularly as concerns the fiscal position of public education in American cities. II. Public Education and the American City 1 Public Education and the Scope of Modern Municipal Needs and Activities. — Undoubtedly, the most significant social phe- nomenon of the last half century has been the concentration of population in urban centres. ^ As a direct product of modern industrial development, the city has given rise to a multitude of new and unsolved social and political problems. Without un- due exaggeration it may be said that the social and political problems of the nation are becoming localized in those of the cities. Among these problems, not the least in far-reaching and fundamental importance is that of public education. How > The most satisfactory study we have upon this topic is Rollins, Frank, School Administration in Municipal Government, in Columbia University Contributions to Philosophy, Psychology, and Education, vol. xi.: see also Goodnow, F. J., City Governm.ent in the United States, Chap. XL, pp. 262-273. 2 See Weber, A. F., The Growth of Cities in the Nineteenth Century, Columbia University Studies in History, Economics, and Public Law, vol. xi., for a comprehensive treatment of this subject. 8 Some Fiscal Aspects of Public Education to organize and administer a scheme of public education which will provide an adequate training and instruction, both in kind and amount, for the children of the cities, has become, and is yearly becoming more so, a paramount social issue. Education, however, presents but one of the problems of modem municipal life. Not only are the children to be edu- cated; property and life must be protected against crime, fire, and disease ; an ample and uncontaminated water supply must be maintained; ease and safety of communication must be established; the needy, the unfortunate, and the dependent must be provided for ; a social responsibility for the cultural wel- fare of all individuals must be recognized; above all, has come the demand for a form of administrative control at once responsive to the public mind and likewise efficient and conscious of a personal responsibility. Thus there have developed, co-ordinate with education, the almost equally important requisites of municipal life — efficient administrative systems, police and fire departments, courts of justice, jails and workhouses, health and inspection departments, street, sewer, lighting and water departments, hospitals, parks, and gardens — the list might be expanded many-fold, so extended have become the needs and the scope of modem municipal life and activity. Increased Importance of Municipal Fiscal Problems. — For the satisfaction of its local needs the municipal corporation has been enabled' to utilize, with few exceptions ^ and with numerous re- strictions, ^ the right of local taxation conferred upon it by the state. The history of most American cities might be reflected in an account of their financial and taxing experience. Their life, prosperity, and intensive development have been bound up in the official wisdom and honesty employed in the use of their public funds. The corollary of the expansion of municipal life has been the remarkable increase in municipal revenues, expenditures, and debts, the latter to-day exceeding in magnitude those of the Federal Govemment.^ These revenues, in the main derived » For example, the prohibition against local taxation for public educa- tion as has existed in several southern states. 2 Minimum and maximum tax levies, limitations in the taxation of corporate and franchise values, etc. 3 Aggregate of interest and non-interest bearing debt of the United Some Fiscal Aspects of Public Education 9 from direct taxation, have laid upon property as the chief sub- ject of taxation a burden which causes even the enthusiast to hesitate in his demands for the continued expansion and inten- sion of those social activities that are already, or that are thought fit to be, subject to public control and utilization. Committed as we are in this democracy to a system of public education supported almost entirely from local taxation, the solution of the educational problem, in its final analysis, has become largely a matter of adequate financial support. State Control of Municipal Education. — The American city has not developed independent of state legislation and govern- ment control.^ In fact, under the. influence of perverse political methods, on part of city and state alike, the American^city has been brought under state domination. "Local autonomy" has become a figure of speech in many respects. However, it is over education that the authority of the state has been exer- cised with increasing force. ^ In the financial, as well as the political history and development of cities in America, educa- tion has held a somewhat peculiar position. In American polity, education has always been considered as a social activity, the ultimate control and administration of which was properly a state function. This has been and necessarily needs to con- tinue to be a foundation principle of our educational scheme. Partly as a heritage of our early semi-ecclesiastical control of education, and partly as a result of an early untutored political experience in the direction of educational affairs, local educa- tional jurisdictions have grown up independent of the municipal jurisdictions, and frequently, when territorially coincident with States Government Dec. i, 1902 (Monthly Summary of Com,merce and Finance of the United States, Treasury Department, December, 1902, P- 843) $1,311,574,059. Total debt obligation of cities (160) in United States, above 25,000 population, at close of fiscal year 1902 (Bulletin No. 20, 1905, United States Bureau of the Census) $1,312,268,324. Of the latter amoiuit $1,172,798,788 was in the form of municipal bonds. 1 Goodnow, F. J., City Governm,ent in the United States. Chap. IV., The Position of the City in the United States, pp. 69-88; Chap. V., State Control of Cities. Also his Municipal Problems, Chap. II, pp. 27-32, 63-89. » Webster, R. H., Recent Centralizing Tendencies in State Ediica- tional Administration, gives a very satisfactory exposition of the present conditions. lo Some Fiscal Aspects of Public Education the municipality, possess powers and authorities apart from the local civil administrative system. Thus the study of education, as a municipal activity, has been rendered extremely difficult. Especially complicated has become the fiscal aspect of educa- tion. In many states, boards of education in cities possess the power to levy and collect taxes, and to expend their funds wholly independent of the municipal authority. The most important element in this complication has been the system of state subsidies of local education, which has grown up coincident with the extension of the control of the state over all education within its borders. The state subsidy, con- structed as an instrument for the encouragement of the de- velopment of public education, and for the equalization of educational opportunity, serves in many respects to hide from our view the exact nature and extent of local adaptation and responsibility for support of public education. ^ Through a combination of the influences arising from the special character of education itself, through the frequently demonstrated necessity of removing educational control from the rule of partisan politics, and through the exercise of the control of the state through its subsidies, there has been in the cities of most of our states a tendency toward the isolation, either artificial, or real and legal, of education in the field of municipal activity. In general this isolation in the past has been a necessity for the development of public education amid the ofttimes antagonistic political, social, or religious forces. Fiscal Isolation of Municipal Education. — One of the chief supplementary results of this administrative isolation of public education in cities has been a sort of fiscal isolation. Statistics relative to the cost of education have been eagerly sought by those interested in this economic aspect of educational adminis- tration. Nowhere has any careful attempt been made to deter- mine the true fiscal position of education in our cities, by which is meant the relation which educational revenues and expen- > The complex systems for the support of public education in force in most of our states have rendered extremely difficult the obtaining of a correct notion regarding the relation between the state and local support. The statistics of the receipts of public schools of cities, compiled annually by the United States Commissioner of Education, wherein it is sought to differentiate state, county, and local receipts (Table VIII., pp. 1446-1458 of the Report for 1903) are exceedingly inaccurate and misleading. Some Fiscal Aspects of Public Education ii dittires bear to those other revenues and expenditures deemed essential to the conditions of municipal life. The determination of these relationships appears to be a prerequisite to a more exact knowledge of educational finance itself, as well as to the extension of our present ideas relating to the social position and economic importance of the public school in the newer conditions of urban life. Unity of Municipal Life. — There is growing to-day, though, a new conception of the place and function of education within the organic life of the municipality. The central notion of this later concept is that of the unification of the various forces which go to make up the municipal life, and of the elimination of those forces tending to disintegrate the essential elements of the wholeness of the community life. This thought of unity is, as yet, in the nature of an ideal. Prevailing political methods, traditional prejudices, and social inertness must be overcome and a keen sense of civic obligation developed be- fore this unity can be realized. The doctrine which says that, "one of the chief dangers which menaces the security of our citizenship and the high purposes of the American state, in my judgment, is the mingling of municipal and educa- tional functions," i or that "while the state must accomplish its work for education largely through municipal agents, it must also prevent, so far as possible, any mixing of local politics with educational interests. To this end the development of education must he made as independent as possible of other departments of municipal government,"'^ must cease to be a working principle if our modem city life is to attain that efficiency demanded and desirable for real social progress. Education, although primarily of state concern, is none the less a municipal responsibility, the complete realization of which will come only when it has been assigned its proper place within the scope of the whole municipal life. > Draper, A. S., Function of the State Touching Education, in Ed. Rev., XV. (1898), p. 109. 2 Rollins, Frank. Op. cit., p. 18. The italics are mine. In one sense the first statement of the quotation is true. It is difficult, however, to find justification from the arguments adduced for the general conclusions which Dr. Rollins reaches regarding the absolute supremacy of the state over municipal education. 12 Some Fiscal Aspects of Public Education III. Basis and Method of Investigation At the commencement of this study, the two factors of most importance to be determined were the basis upon which, and the method by which, the investigation was to be conducted. The first would define the scope and variety of the data sub- jected to analysis, a matter of no small significance in this par- ticular case. Through the latter, it was desired to get beyond the unsatisfactory and limited conclusions attached to current observations of the financial aspect of municipal school ad- ministration. Financial Statistics of Cities. — As the initial aim was to ob- tain a view of public education in cities through the perspective of their total fiscal activity, the first requisite was to obtain the statistical data reflecting this activity. This was thought to be contained in the ordinary official municipal reports. Without much difficulty there were obtained the annual financial reports of 120 of the 156 towns and cities in the states of New York, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, Ver- mont, New Hampshire, and Maine, possessing over 8000 popu- lation, according to the Census of 1900. This particular territory was selected because of its approximate homogeneous character, and because of the recognized custom of most of the towns and cities contained therein of issuing for distribution annual reports covering the scope of the various municipal activities. The promptness and courtesy of the various officials to whom the requests for information were sent are partial evi- dences of the high plane of official responsibility maintained in these cities. This was notably true in the case of the towns and cities of Massachusetts. A preliminary survey of the total number of reports dis- closed the superficial and unsatisfactory character, at least for the intended purpose, of the financial data contained in most of them. They varied in excellence from the complete detailed statements of the work and financial operations of each city de- partment, as for example those of Cambridge, Springfield, New- ton, Boston, Manchester, and Rochester, to a bare enumeration of the municipal expenditures, listing the warrants in the order in which they were paid by the city treasurer, together with the amount and name of the payee. The only common term of the Some Fiscal Aspects of Public Education 13 reports seemed to be the effort to display official honesty in the handling of public moneys. Some two hundred hours were spent in a thorough examina- tion of twenty of the best and most complete of the reports. However, the variation in the completeness, and in the systems of classification, accounting, and reporting of municipal receipts and expenditures, presented very many obstacles to a satis- factory comparative study on the basis of the financial data con- tained in even these reports. Recourse was now had to the financial information con- cerning cities published in the bulletins of the United States Department of Labor.i This statistical data had been gath- ered in compliance with an act passed during the second ses- sion of the Fifty-fifth Congress, by which, "the Commissioner of Labor is authorized to compile and publish annually, as a part of the Bulletin of the Department of Labor, an abstract of the main features of the official statistics of the cities of the United States having over 30,000 population." 2 In the intro- duction to the first report issued under the provisions of this act, September, 1899, the then Commissioner of Labor, Carroll D. Wright, has given an insight into the difficulties attendant upon the gathering of the statistics published : The act of Congress . . . apparently contemplated a compilation of the official statistics of the various cities of 30,000 population and over from data to be furnished to the Com- missioner of Labor by the cities themselves, such as, for in- stance, were included in their official annual reports, etc. Steps were taken, therefore, to obtain such reports from the officials of the various cities, and many reports were promptly received. In a number of instances, however, no reports were received, even though repeated efforts were made to secure them. In some cases the Department was informed that no printed reports were available, while in other cases no reply whatever was re- ceived in answer to its requests. An examination of the reports received showed that very few facts were reported uniformly by all of the cities, and that even the important financial state- ments were presented in so many different forms as to preclude such classification of the various items as seemed necessary for a satisfactory comparison. » No. 24, September, 1899; No. 30, September, 1900; No. 36, Sep- tember, 1901; No. 42, September, 1902. 2 Bulletin No. 24, United States Department of Labor, September, 1899, p. 625. 14 Some Fiscal Aspects of Public Education It was believed that in order to be valuable for comparison and for other purposes the various items relating to the govern- mental, financial, and other conditions of these cities should be reported uniformly and accurately. Even had the Department been furnished with the reports for all of the cities within the limits of the investigation, the many difficulties encountered in a tentative effort with the reports already received led to the conclusion that uniformity and accuracy could be secured only by sending the special agents of the Department to the cities for the data desired. A schedule of inquiries was accordingly prepared and the work taken up by the agents of the Depart- ment at once. The utmost interest in the investigation was manifested in nearly every city by the officials who were visited, and they gave freely their time in compiling the data desired and in every way assisted the Department in the work. In many cases the methods of bookkeeping in vogue made a uniform classification of financial items, as called for by the schedules of the Department, very difficult and required much time and labor. Under the provisions of the above mentioned act, four annual bulletins of the statistics of cities were issued by the Depart- ment of Labor, the last one being distributed in September, 1902, and containing the data for the year 1901. Upon the creation of the Department of Commerce and Labor as a cab- inet department in 1903, the work of gathering and publishing these municipal statistics was transferred to the permanent Bureau of the Census. The data presented in Bulletins 36 and 42 of the Department of Labor, issued in September of 1901 and 1902, respectively, have been made the basis of the first portion of this study. ^ The last two of the series of four biilletins were selected because of their evident superiority in completeness and accuracy over the first two. The reasons for selecting these data are as follows. First, aside from the incomplete and otherwise unsatisfactory statistics of a similar nature presented in the publications of the Tenth and Eleventh Censuses, they comprised the only source of either moderately complete or fairly reliable material such as it was 1 This study was begun and completed before the data of the financial operations of cities for 1902 and 1903, published in Bulletin 20, Bureau of the Census (September, 1905), became available. The recent and more complete data gathered by the Bureau of the Census has been made the basis of the second portion of the study. See Sections X. and XI. Some Fiscal Aspects of Public Education 15 necessary to employ in the present instance. The almost over- whelming obstacles and prohibitive expense preclude the gather- ing of data of this variety and scope through individual effort. Second, because they pertained to all of the cities of the indicated population class, an element altogether too frequently disre- garded, especially in comparative educational statistics. There is also a secondary reason for subjecting such data as these to a critical examination; for by such examination their value or uselessness for scientific purposes may be demonstrated. Municipal statistics, even when gathered through the agency of the Federal Government and with undoubted motive of making a valuable contribution to municipal and economic sciences, should be subjected to some process of interpretation beyond that of mere gross and doubtful comparisons, if the final and more valuable purpose is to be attained. 1 Method of Statistical Treatment. — Apart from the details of treatment recorded in the following pages, it is desired to em- phasize here the two fundamental principles underlying the method pursued. The first is the principle of inclusion. That is, with the data for 1900 and 1901, all cities possessing 30,000 or more population have been included. 2 The immediate aim has been to present some of the fiscal aspects and relationships of education in the American city, regarded as a type. The second is the principle of relativity. In more than one way has public education become isolated as a social institution ; and this has been the more so with such of the features as are usually presented by financial statistics. The statistics of public school enrolment or attendance of any particular city, for > "No attempt has been made to interpret and compare the statistics here presented. In this respect the Bureau again follows the precedent of the Department of Labor. But it is believed that after the inquiry has been carried on for a longer period and the methods of collecting the statistics further perfected, the time will be ripe for a study of the data, which may lead to reliable and interesting comparisons and deductions." — (Bulletin 20, Bureau of the Census, 1905, p. 4.) 2 This is not wholly true, inasmuch as three of the 135 cities were necessarily excluded from consideration, owing to partial or total absence of essential data. An adequate note of these exceptions appears in the proper place, see pp. 20 and 24 (Foot note (b)). No attempt has been made to select cities for study on the grounds of any presupposed or real, positive or negative, excellence, either educational or otherwise. 1 6 Some Fiscal Aspects of Public Education instance, are not valuable in themselves as social statistics, unless there is known also the number of adiilts in the commun- ity and the number of pupils who do not attend school or who attend schools other than public schools. A statement of the salary standards of public school teachers in the different cities of the country has no particular meaning, unless accompanied by some notion of the standards maintained in other pro- fessional work and of the standards of living in the various commimities. Thus, too, with the data of educational ex- penditures as a whole. Our entire list of concepts regarding these factors has been formulated by viewing educational activity almost entirely apart from the other essential activities of modem municipal life. In view of the present development and increasing demands of public education in American cities, there is need for some scientific study of its cost in relation to that of other municipal functions. The use of the Pearson Coefficient of Correlation for stating these relationships as they have been found to exist may, by some, be thought to savor somewhat of over-refinement. In reply to this anticipated objection it may be said that it is owing to the lack of the application of the more refined statistical methods to the data of educational organization and practices that has rendered both useless and misleading much of the so-called statistical material. The use of such a factor as the Pearson Coefficient has been foimd to be of indispensable service in the realm of the biological and social sciences. Its definite application to the fiscal problem of education i may mark a step in advance and provide us with an efficient instrument for testing the validity or falsity of our present notions and standards. IV. Character, Arrangement, and Preliminary Manipu- lation OF Data Data of Expenditures for Municipal Maintenance and Oper- ation for igoo and igoi. — Tables XX. and XXII. of Bulletins 36 and 42, respectively, of the United States Department of Labor contain the expenditures for maintenance and operation of the > The adequacy of the Pearson Coefficient in this respect has been admirably demonstrated by Dr. George D. Strayer in his recent study, "City School Expenditures," Teachers College Record, Vol. VI., pp. 107— 209. Some Fiscal Aspects of Public Education 17 governmental activities of the 135 ^ American cities possessing a population of 30,000 or over according to the Census of 1900. These expenditures are classified under the following headings : (i) police department; (2) police courts, jails, workhouses, re- formatories, etc.; (3) fire department; (4) health department; (5) hospitals, asylums, alm'shouses, and other charities; (6) schools; (7) libraries, art galleries, museums, etc.; (8) parks and gardens; (9) sewers; (10) municipal lighting; (11) street cleaning; (12) street sprinkling 2; (13) other street expendi- tures; (14) garbage removal; (15) interest on debt; (16) waterworks; (17) gas-works: (18) electric-light plants; (19) docks and wharves; (20) ferries and bridges; (21) markets; (22) cemeteries, (23) bath houses and bathing pools and beaches; (24) other items. Accompanying the tables are numerous notes in reference to peculiar characteristics or ar- rangements of the data for particular cities. Naturally, in view of the difference in size, location, and standards of municipal life of the various cities, the expendi- ture for each of the above items is not to be found for every city. It was not possible, for example, in many cities to separate the expenditures for the police department from those for police courts, jails, etc.; in some, jails and police courts are maintained at county or state expense. Many include ex- pense for garbage removal under health department, or possibly under streets; many keep no separate accounts for street cleaning, street sprinkling, sewers, etc., all of these items being included in a general item of street expenditures. However, a close examination of the tables revealed a sufficient degree of completeness in the items with which it was desired to work. For statistical purposes, and even for a clear insight into the financial operations of cities, the system of classification em- ployed in the arrangement of these data is open to serious ob- jection. This whole subject of accounting and classification of public revenues and expenditures, at least as far as such in- vestigations as this are concerned, is taken up at length and in greater detail in a later section.^ J Bulletin 42 contains 137 cities. The 135 cities common to both bulletins were selected in order to give data for two years for all cities considered. 2 In Bulletin 36 items 11 and 12 are included as one item. ■^ Section VII, p. 46 ff. Table Showing percentages of total amount expended for maintenance and operation All cities in the United States City. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 62 53 54 55 56 67 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 66 66 67 68 New York, N. Y.... Chicago, 111 Philadelphia, Pa. . . . St. Louis, Mo Boston, Mass Baltimore, Md Cleveland, Ohio Buffalo, N. Y San Francisco, Cal . . Cincinnati, Ohio .... Pittsburg, Pa New Orleans, La.. . . Detroit, Mich Milwaukee, Wis Washington, D. C. . Newark, N. J Jersey City, N. J Louisville, Ky. . . . . . Minneapolis, Minn. . Providence, R. L. . . Indianapolis, Ind.. . Kansas City, Mo.. . . St. Paul, Minn Rochester, N. Y Denver, Col Toledo, Ohio Allegheny, Pa Columbus, Ohio Worcester, Mass Syracuse, N. Y New Haven, Conn... Paterson, N. J Fall River, Mass. . . . St. Joseph, Mo Omaha, Neb Los Angeles, Cal. . . . Memphis, Tenn Scranton, Pa Lowell, Mass Albany, N. Y Cambridge, Mass Portland, Ore Atlanta, Ga Grand Rapids, Mich. Dayton, Ohio Richmond, Va Nashville, Tenn Seattle, Wash Hartford, Conn Reading, Pa Wilmington, Del. . . . Camden, N. J Trenton, N. J Bridgeport, Conn. . . Lynn, Mass Oakland, Cal Lawrence, Mass New Bedford, Mass. Des Moines, Iowa.. . Springfield, Mass.. . . Somerville, Mass. . . . Troy, N. J Hoboken, N. J Evansville, Ind Manchester, N. H.. . Utica, N. Y Peoria, 111 Charleston, S. C 10.15 19.30 14.30 17.80 8.66 11.20 8.64 13.10 14.80 9.88 8.07 5.60 16.00 9.32 13.00 8.65 9.94 9.77 7.36 9.56 9.02 11.90 7.70 6.54 7.56 6.96 6.85 7.05 5.65 7.57 13.50 9.99 8.54 12.60 5.42 9.67 11.20 8.05 10.20 11.40 5.71 4.94 13.70 7.94 7.84 8.38 10.60 5.84 9.24 9.38 12.40 13.40 11.20 8.27 6.14 12.80 7.33 11.00 5.96 5.12 5.33 11.60 14.10 9.15 6.53 6.28 9.56 12.70 .791 1.460 2.640 1.270 6.660 2.770 1.910 .406 1.980 1.840 1.330 .341 .507 6.790 .234 3.770 .537 .120 .160 1.160 1.640 .435 .724 1.870 1.010 .735 .967 .299 1.250 .739 .719 .519 .461 .305 .968 1.630 .337 .501 .733 .652 .614 .611 .470 1.070 1.200 .791 .469 .444 .427 .452 .363 2.440 4.66 8.30 6.02 8.01 6.26 6.84 9.83 11.00 9.88 8.13 7.86 6.24 14.60 11.40 4.60 5. 6.28 8.96 11.20 9.41 10.10 11.90 8.25 6.68 8.35 7.57 6.67 9.56 6.36 9.22 9.78 10.10 7.57 12.90 8.11 9.14 9.41 7.39 8.69 9.92 4.17 7.40 10.60 11.40 8.65 7.45 10.20 7.94 9.06 6.51 5.71 10.20 9.81 9.98 7.18 11.40 6.68 7.22 9.71 7.96 6.39 6.60 9.96 10.20 13.00 10.70 9.81 8.30 o ^ X .924 .878 1.480 1.420 .824 .995 1.540 .725 1.660 .677 1.310 1.190 1.030 .979 1.350 1.190 .176 .301 .842 .451 .722 1.960 .377 1.240 1.520 1.040 .763 1.290 1.110 .817 .538 .584 .933 1.680 .539 .914 7.460 .709 2.34 .929 .922 .320 10.60 1.260 .584 .743 2.220 .934 .916 .505 1.200 .476 .716 .921 .857 1.430 4.950 .769 1.900 .498 .933 1.340 .705 .499 1.290 1.200 1.140 2.000 4.66 .04 2.49 6.14 6.16 4.07 2.73 2.60 3.82 3.45 2.25 1.18 2.09 .36 7.60 4,25 .73 2.23 3.03 1.06 2.42 .16 1.00 3.15 1.87 (a) 3.55 .66 5.56 6.86 5.25 6.22 8.22 .41 .30 .29 3.65 9.27 4.81 4.89 .37 4.83 2.12 1.39 3.24 2.55 .38 6.64 .13 1.35 2.29 8.07 7.79 .30 7.83 6.66 .34 4.39 3.13 10.60 2.36 .17 3.33 2.57 11.50 14.9 31.8 17.1 16.8 16.4 16.4 23.7 19.1 20.9 17.3 13.5 10.4 23.9 21.1 21.7 18.3 11.0 17.9 25.6 17.9 33.2 26.5 19.0 16.1 37.2 25.9 17.3 22.6 21.2 21.8 26.6 26.2 18.1 28.4 25.6 32.7 15.9 48.6 24.7 22.6 21.4 22.9 14.5 28.1 32.7 10.6 20.7 18.9 24.2 28.2 25.9 24.7 21.1 23.4 18.4 37.6 21.2 20.2 40.7 26.7 25.0 18.7 24.0 31.9 18.7 24.3 31.4 12.3 '►J .555 .894 1.33 .453 1.61 .034 1.65 1.65 .754 1.13 1.03 .173 1.79 1.60 .140 .713 .763 1.43 .331 2.82 . 963 .615 .077 1.27 .732 1.15 .522 1.58 1.93 1.13 1.56 1.01 1.22 1.29 1..39 .698 1.42 1.05 .416 .700 .481 .694 1.02 .411 .310 1.06 .827 .528 1.04 .132 .573 1.73 1.77 1.82 1.48 1.42 1.14 2.40 1.22 1.05 .8.39 1.04 1.82 .081 1.72 3.30 2.63 1.29 2.50 3.29 .786 3.21 2.66 .611 2.88 .206 2.89 1.86 1.16 .0937 .142 1.70 2.51 1.19 4.48 2.39 2.40 .787 3.64 1.17 1.37 .535 1.04 1.91 1.41 2.44 .186 1.14 1.29 4.08 .229 .641 .959 2.56 .928 .807 1.38 2.16 .245 3.02 .501 1 83 1.77 2.02 .159 1.57 2.68 .511 *1.33 .716 1.89 2.10 1.98 .934 .269 .588 .196 . 866 .437 1.95 1.05 .648 2.00 .432 1.12 1.88 .418 .694 .197 .824 .690 1.11 1.41 1.40 1.39 1.27 .448 .497 1.26 1.74 4.77 .424 .714 .0997 .831 .872 .754 .658 11.5 .798 .954 .825 1.93 .306 1.03 1.16 .124 4.30 .366 .586 .739 .258 .152 .124 .305 .591 4.67 .526 .136 .942 .863 .888 .673 .953 .788 1.99 .409 .839 .466 .743 .404 .59 .706 .942 1.53 2.45 2.19 6.75 6.72 3.77 5.22 5.15 5.79 3.94 5.56 4.75 5.14 6.25 4.62 4.37 3.99 4.87 5.12 8.04 6.73 4.06 8.06 7.87 5.88 5.14 3.53 4.61 5.90 5.46 6.41 6.01 5.32 3.27 5.17 6.37 6.66 5.12 3.25 4.32 7.09 5.19 2.58 5.63 1.94 4.31 9.08 7.06 9.58 2.65 7.51 3.94 8.62 4.07 4.93 6.85 4.89 4.76 7.67 3.30 6.77 8.96 9.53 7.21 4.90 (a) Less than .01. '■ Percentages obtained from data published in Bulletin 36 of i8 No. 1 devoted to each of the municipal departments for the fiscal year igoo above jo,ooo population 4^ « o a o 'crt jj rt > bo M p. > O a "p. i •d .P "•a u3 m 2 o 1 o 1 o tl) •c +^ o s '0 ■ c OS m o 1 1 o 1 o Q 01 pin 1 B u o 4.10 1.84 1.04 13.12 3.22 .656 .360 .067 .048 33.69 1 3.02 1.50 2.25 6.73 6.36 1.54 .101 1.030 .017 .054 7.27 2 1.63 3.59 2.96 10.90 7.79 .024 5.210 .023 .495 19.40 3 3.32 3.57 2.15 8.66 6.70 .660 .379 .073 14.50 4 2.67 7.32 3.16 11.10 6.47 2.040 .142 .332 .572 12.40 5 2.67 2.19 2.22 20.10 3.62 .056 .286 .069 .054 19.50 6 1.20 1.99 1.50 14.40 5.89 2.250 .450 .648 15.10 7 2.98 4.02 1.86 10.90 5.86 .756 .179 .230 .001 .01 15.40 8 2.70 3.13 .25 .096 32.50 9 3.29 1.68 .42 28.90 7.85 .080 .445 .221 7.83 10 2.47 4.25 1.40 12.40 4.65 .382 .757 .288 30.80 11 2.94 .26 2.49 14.70 48.20 12 4.69 11.50 1.79 8.64 3.60 3.34 .589 .070 1.71 13 5.16 3.80 4.80 9.22 4.46 .078 1.720 .325 15.80 14 3.48 6.42 1.14 8.43 3.32 .651 .134 .020 14.10 15 2.54 1.38 8.37 6.96 .415 .121 35.70 16 1.47 2.99 23.20 8.96 .073 30.70 17 3.60 5.59 17.60 4.91 .279 17.90 18 5.90 2.03 12.90 3.74 .365 16.30 19 1.73 5.57 .698 20.50 2.64 .636 .626 17.90 20 5.36 1.54 2.53 7.72 .18 .301 .632 11.80 21 4.41 1.15 .94 12.00 8.48 .238 .088 11.50 22 4.34 3.36 .88 22.50 3.47 2.730 12.80 23 3.10 1.89 2.69 21.80 2.58 .595 1.120 24.20 24 4.18 .952 .52 7.60 .017 .382 17.40 25 2.53 4.79 .81 21.10 4.81 1.24 1.380 .513 .626 11.30 26 2.73 5.53 1.59 14.00 12.50 4.21 .170 .321 20.70 27 3.96 .82 .81 21.10 6.91 .020 .451 18.50 28 2.90 8.72 .70 14.90 2.56 .020 11.50 29 5.01 3.66 4.05 15.20 5.52 1.610 .275 .077 .283 8.63 30 6.45 3.89 .39 10.50 .772 12.40 31 4.60 5.09 2.78 12.30 12.50 32 2.54 7.17 2.01 8.29 9.66 1.380 18.30 33 2.46 4.81 15.80 5.58 .206 10.70 34 1.62 2.52 20.20 .148 24.90 35 6.49 5.91 .82 4.89 19.40 36 3.06 10.33 18.60 .756 2.350 .668 10.60 37 1.85 2.06 .43 8.06 .694 12.30 38 2.35 2.21 1.41 13.70 6.38 .709 8.09 39 2.49 2.27 .03 16.60 9.23 .377 .118 10.70 40 2.79 7.06 2.49 14.70 3.37 2.360 .826 .061 19.90 41 3.18 1.00 .36 27.00 3.66 23.00 42 4.20 14.50 5.87 .145 .837 11.00 43 3.69 .68 .44 7.50 8.93 2.22 .154 .373 1.950 18.70 44 2.31 2.61 2.05 19.80 4.46 1.580 .669 7.02 45 2.81 3.36 1.62 30.90 3.14 11.90 .292 .497 .717 7.60 46 1.62 6.81 3.74 20.60 6.82 .343 7.17 47 .854 2.05 .06 20.30 7.14 .181 .035 30.60 48 4.72 13.6 1.87 13.10 4.59 .835 .422 .181 2.61 49 2.26 3.84 2.83 8.37 8.32 .157 13.50 50 2.35 3.34 4.18 13.50 9.27 .038 10.70 51 1.57 3.77 1.09 16.70 9.49 6.54 52 2.43 2.11 1.46 20.10 7.46 15.10 53 3.48 6.19 3.28 9.12 .575 13.00 54 1.55 6.21 2.61 15.40 4.68 2.190 19.60 55 6.94 2.64 3.39 .429 9.44 56 2.38 5.48 1.37 13.00 7.22 .371 1.300 13.60 57 1.10 5.51 2.24 16.90 4.45 .624 .168 2.89 .071 11.90 58 2.24 1.46 4.59 1.950 1.24 .151 16.90 59 3.43 3.32 1.80 11.10 3.94 22.20 GO 1.62 6.09 1.89 6.29 5.73 .039 31.20 61 9.86 .63 4.55 7.92 8.65 .013 .041 .040 .096 10.40 62 1.61 .25 .48 8.49 21.10 .475 .203 ] . f M t 63 1.64 1.32 .62 18.60 7.14 .111 .077 .311 11.40 64 2.15 12.20 2.68 13.10 3.88 1.980 9 . 50 65 4.00 1.72 1.73 3.15 .328 .065 29.10 66 2.62 3.53 5.15 .12 3.84 8.89 25.4 .021 1.440 .056 17.20 IC SO 67 68 the Department of Labor, September, 1901. 19 Table Showing percentages of total amount expended for maintenance and operation All cities in the United States City. 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 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 Savannah, Ga. (6) . . Salt Lake City, Utah San Antonio, Tex. . . Dnluth, Minn Erie, Pa EH^.abeth, N. J Wilkesbarre, Pa Kansas City, Kas — Harrisburg, Pa Portland, Me Yonkers, N. Y Norfolk, Va Waterbury, Conn.. . Holyoke, Mass Fort Wayne, Ind — Youngstown, Ohio . . Houston, Te.K Covington, Ky Akron, Ohio Dallas, Tex Saginaw, Mich Lancaster, Pa Lincoln, Neb Brockton, Mass Binghamton, N. Y... Augusta, Ga Pawtucket, R. I Altoona, Pa Wheeling, W. Va. . . . Mobile, Ala. (6) Birmingham, Ala Little Rock, Ark Springfield, Ohio .... Galveston, Tex. (6).. Tacoma, Wash Haverhill, Mass Spokane, Wash Terra Haute, Ind. . . Dubuque, Iowa Quincy, 111 South Bend, Ind.. . . Salem, Mass Johnstown, Pa Elmira, N. Y AUentown, Pa Davenport, Iowa McKeesport, Pa Springfield, 111 Chelsea. Mass Chester, Pa York, Pa Maiden, Mass Topeka, Kansas. . . . Newton, Mass Sioux City, Iowa. ... Bavonne, N. J Kno.tville, Tenn Schenectady, N. Y. . Fitchburg, Mass Sviperior, Wis Rockiord, 111 Taunton, Mass Canton, Ohio Butte, Mont Montgomery, Ala. . . Auburn, N. Y Chattanooga, Tenn.. 4.81 8.82 3.38 7.09 8.63 9.49 7.93 7.37 5.51 9.41 7.42 8.79 6.34 8.24 11.40 8.91 7.54 7.49 7.99 6.84 7.42 3.74 5.96 7.83 12.40 6.79 6.68 6.88 12.20 13.10 6.25 2.79 5.41 6.55 8.33 7.94 7.87 7.67 6.22 8.54 8.86 4.49 7.48 8.59 9.28 7.33 9.55 9.84 5.23 9.15 10.40 6.57 4.37 5.37 8.14 6.46 11.60 9.98 5.09 10.60 .609 1.470 .661 .131 1.230 .741 1.040 .124 1.130 .512 .996 .149 .831 1.100 .757 .614 .480 .899 .006 .336 1.200 3.870 1.230 .245 .716 1.250 3.290 .288 .929 .615 .451 .078 .735 .509 .572 .187 1.560 6 u _2 0) - 3 _m O ■a a 5.18 7.45 9.43 11.80 3.97 10.30 6.71 5.35 6.81 3.04 6.07 7.66 9.17 13.90 8.85 10.00 7.67 13.20 7.67 6.77 6.85 7.75 8.22 6.32 12.30 5.40 7.79 8.56 9.45 13.90 6.38 4.34 8.52 11.50 10.80 8.65 10.40 10.60 5.43 4.90 14.90 9.37 7.36 10.10 12.20 7.03 5.19 7.61 5.39 8.27 5.38 6.38 2.00 9.77 6.36 5.56 7.25 8.64 5.48 8.28 12.40 7.21 5.99 11.20 .722 1.220 .596 1.290 .055 .871 5.820 .809 .269 1.890 2.590 .714 .599 .909 1.840 3.390 1.890 .789 .072 .682 .977 1.010 1.820 1.680 .790 1.240 2.370 2.610 .495 .260 .580 1.310 .975 .448 1.380 .308 2.950 .481 1.620 .747 2.030 1.380 .555 2.210 .905 .412 2.580 2.570 1.810 1.030 .626 .615 1.820 1.070 1.390 .645 .737 .874 3.090 2.460 .858 4.390 TO OJ il .86 2.11 1.16 .01 3.16 .06 4.81 .52 1.98 6.24 2.32 4.07 4.04 3.63 3.86 .03 6.85 2.40 6.14 2.62 1.20 3.06 5.71 6.55 1.32 2.13 7.57 3.14 10.60 .17 6.35 3.01 .52 2.21 2^37 6.99 .66 .40 6.51 1.18 .55 4.60 2.15 30.5 22.1 21.2 32.2 20.7 39.7 27.7 33.8 17.2 23.5 6.8 39.5 27.2 28.7 35.7 17.9 19.8 30.4 17.6 35.1 33.0 34.9 20.3 37.1 17.6 17.7 34.1 25.1 13.7 .34.1 28.5 10.9 21 3 20!9 35.8 28.8 26.9 32.3 20.0 45.6 22.6 36.9 39.6 30.8 29.5 25.5 34.6 36.3 21.9 35.8 16.1 27.2 22.8 18.2 24.5 21.7 23.1 34.9 23.5 31.7 38.6 7.41 23.9 15.0 .864 .677 2.00 .347 .623 .441 .197 .236 .428 1.40 .392 .678 .236 1.03 1.69 .368 .993 1.19 1.15 .356 2.31 .380 1.75 1.75 1.08 1.19 .328 1.02 1.53 1.30 1.37 .571 .822 .612 1.78 .572 1.84 1.54 .345 2.37 .581 .05 .904 2.18 1.51 .824 1.41 4.48 .232 .881 2.22 1.34 .236 .963 2.81 1.19 .443 .835 .602 .136 .023 .933 .111 .440 2.56 .629 1.24 .484 .545 .362 1.47 1.75 .979 1.25 1.78 .929 .275 1.77 .187 1.23 1.89 .438 .33 .169 .584 .249 .249 .691 1.52 .165 .005 .67 .648 2.21 1.93 .116 1.01 .502 1.91 1.18 .351 .661 .584 .414 .776 .349 .035 .296 .361 1.14 1.42 1.01 1.46 .207 .626 .058 .784 .952 .797 1.13 .219 .402 1.33 .461 .866 .696 .979 .778 .361 .355 .577 .472 3.89 1.42 .345 4.57 1.53 .037 1.48 1.18 .594 .476 .725 1.89 .275 .351 .536 3.77 1.15 2.40 8.28 4.31 10.50 6.25 7.87 3.99 7.11 2.76 5.18 4.02 7.32 6.65 2.05 3.10 7.99 4.95 5.91 11.20 4.82 4.03 11.20 5.45 4.51 6.31 5.09 8.65 6.00 1.72 6.39 6.79 7.36 6.48 6.50 8.43 9.49 8.08 6.76 5.72 6.56 5.92 8.86 11.90 4.63 .04 4.45 4.36 6.84 9.52 7.12 6.05 1.94 7.68 1.83 6.98 4.37 4.90 8.14 10.3 (6) No data for school expenditures. ' Percentages obtained from data published in Bulletin 36 of 20 No. 1 {Continued) devoted to each of the municipal departments for the fiscal year igoo ' above jo,ooo population •d ■d M c ^ a a) o C3 C "•a 11 (D ft X o (D o > o e 0) u o C O ID 1 1 O CS ■p. •a 'u o > i -d a 1 o P ."2 -d c a 1 1 1 Si a 6 m 1 pq 6 69 5.78 1.48 1.19 21.60 6.25 1.12 14.10 70 4.05 8.38 2.37 21.10 .352 18.80 71 .78 2.48 27.90 2.93 2.56 .99 .015 19.50 72 1.14 3.34 4.02 6.99 1.12 8.69 22.70 7.03 11.60 .215 2.280 .532 10.60 30.00 11.20 73 74 75 2.46 2.31 24.10 1.490 .029 11.90 76 1.23 5.08 14.90 7.51 3.560 12.20 77 1.68 6.21 .47 14.20 2.57 33.90 78 3.45 3.26 3.21 19.20 5.74 .058 .329 15.10 79 4.20 2.43 30.30 6.05 .098 .922 24.90 80 2.01 2.24 1.65 12.60 4.56 12.20 81 2.43 2.13 2.69 14.80 4.94 .831 .058 16.20 82 2.51 2.87 1.88 10.00 8.15 .328 10.20 83 5.58 .33 9.87 5.29 .097 10.00 84 .58 11.50 2.89 25.70 .065 .997 .011 15.10 85 6.33 .93 18.80 6.50 .073 21.10 86 7.76 6.92 .590 18.00 87 2.65 4.95 .09 21.60 6.61 20.50 88 1.89 2.81 .06 15.10 7.65 1.460 .591 10.50 89 2.41 4.52 .72 11.20 10.60 10.90 90 2.26 2.39 23.80 7.03 1.39 8.03 91 2.55 18.7 1.74 13.90 2.47 .421 10.70 92 3.08 5.60 .09 6.15 7.79 9.01 93 .82 1.14 1.02 22.30 3.56 .277 1.58 11.90 94 1.61 4.60 .52 25.00 19.50 .701 8.56 95 1.85 4.34 14.40 7.66 .524 .324 14.60 96 1.41 2.21 1.77 6.24 10.40 19.0 4.95 .148 .105 .414 .218 8.41 97 98 5.51 2.76 24.26 .264 .591 18.40 99 2.98 3.06 4.31 22.20 100 12.50 .64 12.90 5.91 1.700 .297 .081 3.96 101 102 3.06 65.70 2.69 5.10 .116 3.24 103 4.41 6.29 1.45 13.50 3.72 .291 .066 17.10 104 2.05 5.14 24.80 2.39 .671 19.90 105 3.78 1.95 1.45 5.77 1.42 17.20 106 3.67 4.48 .63 19.40 4.23 .045 .212 13.20 107 1.44 4.31 .81 20.90 .048 .341 11.30 108 3.24 2.25 13.90 9.31 .072 .661 9.56 109 1.64 6.95 .47 8.90 5.47 .315 .083 1.03 23.50 110 3.94 2.92 10.80 13.10 111 .55 7.38 .06 9.11 1.22 1.58 17.00 112 .36 5.31 .86 11.90 14.2 7.67 113 4.73 2.55 .85 4.74 .074 1.58 16.80 114 2.84 2.92 7.51 9.56 20.20 115 3.18 2.38 15.20 5.59 2.47 9.73 116 2.72 6.08 1.94 14.60 3.84 10.40 117 .39 7.20 4.52 .79 3.12 14.10 5.92 .085 12.90 19.90 118 119 1.86 10.9 1.63 8.12 5.31 .078 1.36 20.60 120 2.11 6.76 14.20 3.32 .412 16.70 121 3.10 9.95 .82 22.00 1.74 .019 19.90 122 1.45 5.01 1.53 22.00 5.36 2.410 .057 15.20 123 1.19 1.61 10.8 1.06 16.90 28.40 2.54 35.30 11.40 124 125 6.42 6.01 .24 16.10 12.30 .475 2.92 126 2.43 7.55 .51 14.80 7.16 1.41 14.70 127 3.68 1.06 19.40 .078 35.40 128 2.84 9.15 .57 8.98 10.60 .114 7.07 129 1.76 6.95 8.31 .22 15.10 13.80 4.89 7.41 5.66 .169 .523 16.10 11.91 130 131 8.15 2.05 .57 7.89 7.11 132 4.77 1.82 26.20 14.10 .365 .717 19.50 133 1.66 3.53 1.12 6.61 6.44 .972 .168 30.00 134 1.41 2.94 1.74 17.90 .087 20.10 135 the Department of Labor, September, 1901. Table Showing percentages of total amount expended for maintenance and operation All cities in the United States City. 1 6 P. .2 u a e 4-> a u Chicago, 111 16.55 15.88 1.11 6.48 7.40 5.76 .85 1.31 .06 3.69 36.85 17.37 .94 1.34 3.41 2.35 1.27 1.43 2.13 6.46 2.22 3 Philadelphia, Pa 1.67 4 St. Louis, Mo 18.38 1.33 8.82 1.77 7.57 17.51 .42 1.32 1.12 6.72 1.50 5 Boston, Mass 8.01 5.16 5.87 .92 5.51 13.07 1.22 1.91 1.80 3.60 1.61 tt Baltimore, Md 12.71 1.61 6.69 1.24 4.07 18.61 .54 2.73 .53 4.30 2.73 / Cleveland, Ohio 8.69 2.42 10.15 2.06 2.99 26.17 1.72 1.62 1.04 5.39 1.30 « Buffalo, N. Y 13.52 .41 11.75 .81 2.31 19.81 1.68 3 41 .19 5.99 2.45 9 San Francisco, Cal. . . 13.39 2.75 11.17 1.14 4.38 19.80 .80 2.83 1.07 4.32 3.03 10 Cincinnati, Ohio 8.93 2.14 7.59 .69 3.83 18.12 1.38 .73 .52 5.48 3.75 11 Pittsburg, Pa 9.07 10.34 1.59 2.73 15.60 2.33 3 01 .82 5.66 4.69 12 New Orleans, La 5.38 .86 6.20 1.04 1.39 11.12 .23 .26 .88 5.03 2.44 VA Detroit, Mich 13.36 .28 13.72 1.03 1.39 21.44 1.26 2.68 .90 3.98 14 Milwaukee, Wis 9.17 .97 12.15 1.14 .26 20.49 1.77 1.42 2.58 5.63 2.95 15 Washington, D. C... 11.54 4.62 4.47 1.19 6.83 19.84 .15 1 37 2.30 4.13 2.96 16 Newark, N. J 11.24 1.07 8.37 1.97 3.28 21.79 1.06 .12 1.87 5.71 3.65 17 Jersey City, N.J 11.71 6.70 .23 .79 13.90 .87 .31 .58 4.48 1.87 18 Louisville, Ky 9.86 3.83 8.28 .29 2.36 18.48 1.67 .54 5.44 3.92 19 Minneapolis, Minn. . . . 7.36 1.15 11.05 .84 3.06 25.03 1.43 2.33 .71 5.26 1.39 20 Providence, R. I 10.70 .15 10.30 .73 1.14 21.40 .64 1.36 2.09 8.40 1.73 21 Indianapolis, Ind 9.93 .15 10.70 .92 2.24 32.70 1.57 3.60 .63 6.62 3.27 22 Kansas Citv, Mo 9.30 .92 9.03 1.15 1.52 20.20 1.03 3.60 .82 2.87 3.30 23 St. Paul, Minn 7.55 1.48 8.18 .43 1.01 23.93 .64 2 33 .68 5.47 6.19 24 Rochester, N. Y 6.12 .48 7.43 .86 2.69 16.98 .13 1.05 .11 7.72 2.79 25 Denver, Col 8.49 .59 8.22 1.35 1.84 35.93 1.28 3 71 1.05 4.86 2.20 2t> Toledo, Ohio 7.02 1.36 7.40 .89 .02 25.33 .69 2.85 .80 4.92 2.83 27 Allegheny, Pa 8.41 8.98 .95 4.57 22.13 1.93 1.72 .76 2.75 28 Columbus, Ohio 6.94 1.91 9.95 1.08 .89 23.55 .62 .65 .54 4.23 4.05 29 Worcester, Mass 6.33 7.09 1.32 5.82 21.90 1.01 .95 9.85 5.16 1.78 3U Syracuse, N. Y 6.00 .59 7.66 1.37 4.43 17.87 1.16 1.33 4.83 3.56 31 New Haven, Conn 13.59 1.46 9.88 .54 5.41 26.34 .95 1.49 1.36 6.02 2.76 32 Paterson, N. j- 10.01 .28 9.78 .67 4.45 25.48 1.14 1.62 .91 7.08 2.79 33 Pall River, Mass 8.64 7.62 1.58 9.09 20.20 .94 .11 6.19 1.44 34 St. Joseph, Mo 6.79 1.00 6.79 .19 1.88 17.73 .86 .99 .02 .04 .99 35 Omaha, Nebr 6.32 .75 8.18 .58 .65 27.16 1.16 1.42 1.48 5.55 1.59 36 Los Angeles, Cal 8.37 .51 8.48 .90 .98 33.75 1.29 4.20 .57 4.88 2.41 37 Memphis, Tenn 11.10 1.00 7.26 3.71 15.40 .56 .32 .34 5.40 1.11 38 Scranton, Pa 7.64 .49 7.50 1.12 41.40 1.30 ,56 1.06 6.14 2.09 39 Lowell, Mass 9.69 8.46 .86 7,66 23.58 1.17 .80 .88 6.61 2.01 40 Albany, N. Y 10.77 .45 9.78 1.15 4.91 20.25 .66 3.10 1.02 6.20 .85 41 Cambridge, Mass 5.95 4.22 .85 6.65 20.38 .96 .99 4.42 3.39 1.39 42 Portland, Ore 5.59 .57 8.40 .59 .46 28.00 1.33 .62 5.18 4.09 43 Atlanta, Ga 12.15 10.11 8.48 5.13 14.32 .60 1.16 .69 6.48 44 Grand Rapids, Mich. . 8.19 1.32 11.84 1.60 1.48 29.43 .74 2.26 .68 4.23 45 Dayton, Ohio 9.36 1.46 7.93 .91 2.26 33.70 1.11 .29 .21 5.58 1.95 46 Richmond, Va 8.27 .33 7.34 .72 3.40 9.83 .05 .54 .79 2.71 2.72 47 Nashville, Tenn 10.85 .59 10.80 1.62 2.88 20.60 .61 5.75 H 48 Seattle, Wash 7.64 .84 8.68 1.31 .76 23.56 1.67 1.77 1.05 2.96 1.51 49 Hartford, Conn 8.29 .42 7.97 .79 5.51 26.45 .75 2.28 .97 4.01 3.01 50 Reading, Pa 7.52 6.08 .70 30.70 .61 2.01 4.83 10.10 2.17 51 Wilmington, Del 12.20 .46 5.44 .76 .01 29.10 1.05 1.59 1.31 6.81 2.02 52 Camden, N. J 11.02 .72 10.30 .74 1.27 28.90 .23 1 ,84 .54 10.00 1.80 53 Trenton, N. J 11.00 .35 9.12 .84 2.26 27.80 .71 1.86 .57 6.95 1.90 54 Bridgeport, Conn 8.79 1.05 9.67 .61 8.72 23.00 1.59 2.45 1.08 7.13 3.58 55 Lynn, Mass 6.61 7.93 .97 9.02 19.52 1.16 .74 .77 4.39 .69 66 Oakland, Cal 8.94 1.05 10.50 1.96 .31 40.90 2.14 .72 .59 8.74 2.40 57 Lawrence, Mass 8.03 7.34 1.81 8.81 22.93 1.46 .88 2.13 4.49 1.08 58 New Bedford, Mass.. 11.14 7.73 2.97 6.68 23.08 1.37 2.26 .75 5.14 1.46 59 Des Moines, Iowa... . 6.84 5.96 10.90 .49 .36 36.70 1.52 4.07 1.58 6.65 2.28 60 Springfield, Mass 5.81 8.37 .61 4.94 30.92 2.57 1.90 1.14 5.73 2.14 61 Somerville, Mass 6.38 6.26 .78 3.93 28.39 1.62 .92 .98 5.62 1.51 62 Troy, N. Y 11.02 .44 6.34 1.96 8.77 21.18 .23 .64 8.21 10.46 63 Hoboken, N. J 13.06 .41 9.99 .81 1.85 22.51 1.02 .54 .69 3.31 1.93 64 Evansville, Ind 8.61 .28 10.08 .37 .38 29.26 .28 .67 4.68 2.58 65 Manchester, N. H.. . . 7.23 .44 14.06 2.05 3.28 19.90 .84 .83 .66 9.42 1.37 66 Utica, N. Y 6.38 .37 11.65 2.03 2.63 26.04 .94 1.07 .59 9.66 3.56 67 Peoria, 111 9.12 2.15 8.98 .86 3.28 28.68 1.58 4.10 .75 5.02 2.42 68 Charleston, S. C 14.78 7.94 1.96 10.66 12.76 .08 1.54 1.19 4.49 2.46 * Percentages obtained from data published in Bulletin 42 of the Department of 22 No. 2 devoted to each of the municipal departments for the fiscal year igoi above jo,ooo population -d ui oi .S .S 'u & a a 0) ^« o > o E W) aj .Q o a o u o j 1 .£? o 3 f •d 1 o Q 1 ■d a 1 1 'u S 8, 4J 1 o 1 1 i > u 1 ■a B .2 'u 0) o 1 O ^^ 0)^ Total, 114 120 112 133 137 cX 22s (c) (d) Jg 06 Fire Department. Street Lighting. 1 1 1— 1 1 5 2 P30 2 1 1 1 7 12 a-' 3 2 14 9 4 5 5 7 25 24 C* . 6 17 16 14 20 24 (U ti 7 21 23 23 13 10 ^ a> 8 18 28 23 10 9 rH eg 9 20 17 22 5 3 -J" 3 10 13 15 12 2 5 -g.^Srt 11 9 11 8 3 2 j3 "T) S +* 12 4 4 4 g 13 4 2 1 rt 14 15 2 2 1 3 Total, 132 137 132 130 133 Some Fiscal Aspects of Public Education 29 Table No. 4 {Continued) Tables of frequency. Percentile expenditures for maintenance and opera- tion. All cities in the United States above 30,000 population Fiscal years igoo and iqoi ie) (/) Schools. Libraries, Museums, Art Galleries. Per cent. Frequency. Frequency. Average. Per cent. Frequency. Frequency. Average. 1900 1901 1900-1901 1900 1901 1900-1901 6 1 1 1 Below .1 4 2 7 1 .1 3 4 8 1 .2 2 3 9 1 .3 9 2 10 3 1 2 .4 6 3 11 1 1 .5 7 7 12 1 2 2 .6 8 11 13 2 2 1 .7 5 9 14 1 1 3 .8 6 8 —1 o 15 5 2 1 .9 2 6 16 3 2 2 1.0 11 10 is 17 10 6 8 1.1 7 7 18 7 6 6 1.2 4 6 T^ 1—1 19 3 9 8 1.3 4 6 20 21 7 11 10 10 8 7 1.4 1.5 5 4 3 9 22 6 5 5 1.6 4 3 li'^ 23 7 7 ■ 7 1.7 6 4 24 6 3 9 1.8 3 2 ^".o 25 8 6 10 1.9 2 1 cS'' 26 4 6 6 2.0 1 1 •U'S fe y 2 fe d 5 P 27 3 7 3 2.1 2 28 29 6 1 8 5 5 3 2.2 2.3 2 2 30 31 3 4 4 2 3 2 2.4 2.5 1 1 1 32 4 2 2 2.6 33 3 5 4 2.7 ag P. 34 5 4 5 2.8 1 35 4 4 4 36 2 4 5 Total, 107 112 > 4^ -g 37 38 3 1 1 2 1 2 39 3 2 O^ P- 40 1 1 41 1 §-^2 42 8^1 43 44 45 1 1 O 46 1 1 47 48 1 Total, 132 136 132 # 30 Some Fiscal Aspects of Public Education Table No. 4 {Continued) lables of frequency Percentile expenditures for maintenance and o^omt^n.. All ctttes ^n the United States above 30,000 population °t""'^'°'' Piscal years igoo and igoi Health Department. pi^w Below"; f"' "t'^' '^ ^"«-%er-.teS-: '1 1 , ^ 2 2 o ^ 10 10 8 i 233 9 12 •3 4 1 •4 9 4 2 25 8 6 1 ^ 9 4 7 Re •I 14 10 •8 8 15 10 5 5 8 3 6 .9 15 12 11 2.5 3 1 5 6 ;-J 4 7 8 I t -X }1 9 6 3 5 { 2§ 1-3 7 8 5 4 J §-• 2 5 J-4 3 3 6 ;•? ^ 4 ^ ^ ^ -gs IS 2 S 3 6 2 "^i" . 19 2 II ^ .2 ^Z^ 2:0 III II Sil i-2 ? i 3 ? Sil 2-3 2 0? \ I ^"-^ 2.4 1 1 i i ^ ceo OK i 1 2 2 1 -.2 c 1 4 8-^2 2-6-1 12 % ^ flS 2.7 02! ^ U^ li ? 2 2 ^ ^ ||g on \ 4 1 -SSS 3-0 1 1 1 - ^1^ %\ 10 J go-g 11 ? 1 2 i i^a 3.4 11 no ^-^ "^ ?R 2 ^c!3 3-6 12 ^S« 3-7 1 1 ^^S 3.8 Of) "S^^ 3.9 n ^-^"^ 4.0 ? ? ^^g, 4.1 n 1 i-"^ 3oo A o H 1 1 o a ^ 11 g ' g ^ ^"'^' ^^^°i Service transfers are transactions between two departments, offices, or accounts of a city in which one performs some service for another and receives pay or credit therefor. 2 Excluded from the statistics for 1902 and 1903. See Sections X and XI, pp. 67 ff. Some Fiscal Aspects of Public Education 49 The item "interest on debt" is a confusing one. In most American cities, with the constant increase of the bonded debt, it is becoming of more importance each year. The amount of this element causes its definite localization in the system of classification of municipal expenditures to be of prime signifi- cance. Even of more import is its differentiation into amounts chargeable to the various municipal activities. Economists and fiscal experts are not of one opinion regarding its exact position in the system of fiscal classification. However this may be, in this study the whole amount of interest paid on debt has been treated as properly belonging to the ordinary ex- penditures for maintenance and operation. As to differentiation, the problem assumes a more difficult aspect. A bonded debt is generally incurred for a definite pur- pose — water, streets, schools, etc. The interest on this debt then very properly belongs as a charge against the department or purpose for which the debt was created.^ Systems of municipal accounting have not as yet made provisions for such a logical division of payments; hence, ordinarily the interest payment is regarded as a separate item. For the most part, and in the majority of cities, bonded debt has been incurred through three principal branches of municipal activity — streets, water, and schools. In the present study, the only one of these entering into the conclusions is schools. To have included the interest on the school debt as a portion of the expenditures for the mainten- ance and operation of schools would have tended to increase the amount of these expenditures, and hence, also, probably to in- crease the size of the correlations developed between the ex- penditures for education and expenditures for other activities. Without doubt, some of the variability exhibited by the ex- penditures for education in the different cities is due to the in- clusion or exclusion of the amount of interest paid upon the > It is pertinent to note here that the report of the Committee of the National Educational Association on Uniform Financial Reports {Pro- ceedings National Educational Association, 1897, pp. 344-352) excludes the interest on debt as an item of current expenditure entering into the cost of education. The argument for this exclusion (p. 348) seems to be of a specious nature, economically considered. On the other hand, the schedules of the United States Commissioner of Education, prepared for the reporting of expenditures for public education in cities, include the item of interest on debt among current and incidental expenses. 50 Some Fiscal Aspects of Public Education bonded debt for schools. The inclusion would, unless a careful discrimination had been exercised in collecting the statistics, have taken place most likely in the case of those cities whose public school corporations possess administrative and financial autonomy. The influence of this inclusion is a chance one and may temporarily be disregarded. Properly speaking, the entire gross amount of the expendi- tures for municipal maintenance and operation should also be differentiated into amounts chargeable to certain definite or special departments. If this were accomplished, there would be no "other" or "miscellaneous" expenditures, which too fre- quently merely acts as a reservoir for lassitude, incompetence, or carelessness in the conduct of financial operations.^ At least, the item could be made to serve as a restriction to over-classifica- tion and not act in the way it does now, as a hindrance to the obtaining of a clear notion of the actual cost of maintaining im- portant branches of the mimicipal governmental machinery. ^ What do we know, for example, concerning the cost of maintain- ing the various general administrative departments of cities, of the cost of the collection of taxes, etc.? In the present case there may be, in some instances concealed within the item of "other" expenditures, amounts properly belonging to definite departments. Any errors arising from such wrong inclusion are unavoidable ; but as they are of a purely chance nature their in- fluence upon the conclusions regarding the entire group will probably not be large. Influence of State Subsidies for Education. — That the amount of money received by cities from other jurisdictions — state or county — for the support of specified activities may exercise some influence upon the variability of expenditures in different cities has, in the past, been accepted without question. The exact character of this influence, whether positive, negative, or neutral, has not been determined in any conclusive manner. As this subsidizing is most general in the case of education, the extent of this influence may be considered of some moment in > See Table 9, in which are distributed the cities according to the percentile amount of undifferentiated expenditures. 2 In the statistics for 1902 and 1903, subjected to study in Sections X. and XL, the item for " miscellaneous " and " other expenditures " has been practically eliminated. Some Fiscal Aspects of Public Education 51 this investigation. To what degree is this plan of granting sub- sidies conducive to a corresponding proportional increase in the expenditure of funds derived from purely local sources ? Table No. 9 Tables of frequency. Unclassified percentile expenditures for maintenance and operation. All cities in the United States above 30,000 population. Fiscal years igoo and igoi Per cent. 1900 1901 1 1 1 2 2 3 1 ? 4 1 1 5 ? 6 6 1 6 7 8 6 8 5 10 9 5 12 10 15 18 11 13 11 i2 8 10 13 5 9 14 5 5 15 8 4 16 5 ^1 17 7 9 18 6 5 19 7 1 20 8 21 1 \ 22 I I 23 2 3 24 3 n 25 26 2 27 28 29 1 9 30 o 81 1 ? 32 1 1 33 .2 R 34 ^1 35 ^ one case at 43 9 one case at 48 ^ ^^^ case at 44 _ Total, 133 137 Unfortunately, no reliable data exists relative to the ratio of state and local support of education in cities.^ Neither is such J What might be comprehensive and reliable sources of such data, viz., the reports of the United States Commissioner of Education, are most untrustworthy in this respect. 52 Some Fiscal Aspects of Public Education information readily obtainable for any large number of cities. The whole question can best be solved by eliminating from the present consideration the possible positive or negative effect of the state subsidy. Consequently, all the expenditures for educa- tion within any city, irrespective of the sources of the revenues from which such expenditures are made, have been treated on the same plane. For in spite of other influences, which may be exercised by the state subsidy, from a purely fiscal standpoint, ever)'- city soon begins to regard the income from state or county in the same light as that derived from local sources. If the state subsidy be too large it may decrease the local feeling of financial responsibility to a point far below that necessary for the complete social efficiency of public education. If the state sub- sidy be inappreciable, or nothing at all, local responsibility may be stimulated to a very high degree. At least, such is the work- ing principle of the current state subsidies. At any rate, from a statistical point of view, the raising of the question here points to an unsolved problem in educational administration. The present day practices founded on the principle of the equaliza- tion of educational opportunity between the communities within any state may in reality be unjust and operate in a direction con- trary to that anticipated.^ Influence of Distribution of Functions. — The form in which the several governmental functions are distributed and con- trolled v/ill act as an important influence upon the variability of expenditures. Properly to describe this form necessitates replies to three questions. (a) How far does the state, or county, or other civic au- thority, assume direct responsibility for the support of specific functions? For example, courts, care of defective, delinquent, and criminal classes, public education, parks, water supply? In some states, the state or county bears all or part of the expense of the support of such activities in the cities; in others, the cities themselves must directly assume these expenditures. (b) How far do the citizens of any community, in an indi- > An investigation pointing to the truth of this statement has been conducted by Professor EUwood P. Cubberley, of Leland Stanford Junior University. See General taxation for education and the apportionment of school funds. Teachers College, Columbia University, Contributions to Education, No. 2. Some Fiscal Aspects of Public Education 53 vidual capacity, pay for the performance of functions which would be assumed by the municipal government in another locality? For example, removal of garbage, sprinkling and lighting of streets, public education, public libraries and parks, police service, etc.? (c) How far have the cities in question been granted the authority or assumed the responsibility for the performance of those functions with which we are concerned ? This of course is the result of the process of subtracting from those activities, which might be considered as falling within the scope of municipal control, those whose support is assumed by the state or retained by the private individual. In any one to one comparisons of the expenditures of cities, the differentiation of function as between the municipality and other civil jurisdictions on the one hand, and between the mu- nicipality and private assumption on the other, must receive due consideration in the derivation of any valid conclusions. There is also a necessity in such a study as this to give weight to the influence of this distribution of function. Too much im- portance must not however be attached to this influence. What is being attempted here is some view of the character and rela- tionships of municipal fiscal activity. In just how far such character and relationships reflect administrative and civic efficiency is a somewhat different problem. Influence of Economic Wealth of Municipalities.^ — The wealth of any city may rightfully be supposed to be the largest factor in determining the amount of money devoted to public purposes. Other things being equal, the rich city has a proportionately greater potential source of income for public purposes than the poorer city, and thereby is enabled to extend and multiply its activities in a manner best calculated to satisfy its local needs. It is able to do much with comparative ease, while the poor city must make many sacrifices to accomplish even less. As has been indicated in an earlier section, the influence of the wealth of the community has been partially eliminated owing to the reduction to a percentile basis of the factors of determination. We are » See Harris, W. T., Some of the Conditions which Cause Variation in the Rate of School Expenditures in Different Localities, Proc. Dept. of Superintendence, National Educational Association, 1905, pp. 45-63, for some of the broader aspects of this particular topic. 54 Some Fiscal Aspects of Public Education measuring according to a relative rather than an absolute stand- ard. Nevertheless, this element of superior resources is one which should enter into any complete discussion of the extent of the development of the various municipal activities. In a later sec- tion an attempt has been made to trace some connection between educational expenditures and the taxable wealth of the com- munity. Influence of Methods of Revenue and Expenditure Adminis- tration. — The influence of the revenue and expenditure methods upon the variability of expenditures is a complex one. The modes of taxation, the limitation by the states of the rate of taxation for general or special purposes, the isolation of special forms of revenue for special purposes (excise tax for schools), the exercise of more than one local tax authority over the same territorial jurisdiction (as is frequently the case with local school revenues) , are some of the causes on the side of revenue likely to produce a wide variation in the expenditures for any particular item. The control of expenditures, whether by some centralized body or by a series of more or less independent boards having fiscal authority over certain departments, presents another class of variability producing influences which are intimately bound up with the prevailing political and administrative systems. Influence of Municipal Personality and Ideals. — The pre- viously enumerated influences likely to produce, either acting singly or in combination, the observed variation in the percent- age of municipal expenditures devoted to definite purposes are, with the possible exception of the secondarily acting influence of methods of accounting, those largely without the direct and immediate control of cities themselves. A city does not deter- mine its location; its population and its wealth expand or shrink from forces rarely subject to definite direction ; the author- ity of the state, through administrative control or limitation of fiscal activity, is exercised in an arbitrary manner. Is there not some sphere in which the city acts in a self-determining manner as regards the particular aspects of its activity here being dis- cussed? Lacking somewhat perhaps in definiteness, it is put forth at this point as a predication, that the greatest influences upon the variability are the intangible personality and ideals of the city. In these two words may be concentrated the probable Some Fiscal Aspects of Public Education 55 effects of all of the other influences. It cannot be maintained that, as is the location, population, kind of state supervision, method of taxation, or manner of administrative direction, so is the city. Neither, perhaps, could the contention be upheld that, as a city spends its money, so is the city. It might be said with greater chance of ready acceptance, that, as are the citizens so is the city. However, the happiness, contentment, civic capacity, and ethical standards of a community are not capable of measurement, beyond that by the use of varying subjective standards. It may be possible, though, to obtain, through such an objective standard as the character of its expenditures, some index of the personality and ideals of its people. A municipality is seldom economical in the expenditure of its revenues. It is far more often either parsimonious or ex- travagant. The recognition of the principle of expediency is much more frequent than that of real worth, or of final utility. The cost of public service is doubled because of the price often paid to mediocrity, or on account of the tribute levied under a system of political feudalism. And this price is paid by reason of civic inertia and impotence, or because the standards of good service are not known. The social income is spent ac- cording to standards that were or are, and not according to standards that ought to be. A city is not a machine, and any description of the forces that make for progress or otherwise must keep in mind that human beings make up, and human minds direct, municipal affairs and set up civic standards. The final aim of the study will be to gain some insight into the per- sonality and ideals of the American municipality as these are revealed to us through some of the aspects and relationships of its fiscal activity. For it is here perhaps that the character of this personality and of these ideals is best exhibited. Conclusion. — The phenomenon of variability is a constant one, if cities are subject to the law that governs all other social institutions. This variability may be due, as we have seen, to a large number of causes. ^ Before attempting to analyze the con- nection which may exist between the causes and the variabilities, some of the more important relationships of these variabilities will be pointed out. ' There may be other minor causes leading to this variability. I have stated what seem to me to be the ones most likely to be influential. 56 Some Fiscal Aspects of Public Education VIII. Relationships between Items of Expenditure Implications of the Variability. — In the previous discussion ^ concerning variability, the question was raised as to the probable relationships which might exist between the various items of expenditure. Do the cities that spend a larger proportion than is ordinary of their total expenditures for the maintenance and operation of public schools also spend a larger proportion than is ordinary for libraries, for street lighting, for police service, for protection of health, etc.? Or does a proportional large expenditure for education mean that this is accomplished at a sacrifice of the support of such other activities? In other words, does proportional generous support of education con- vey any information concerning the character of the munici- pality regarded as a whole ? If the existence of certain relation- ships can be demonstrated, then in general, a new basis of municipal worth and efficiency might be established. The Pearson Coefficient of Correlation. — It will be recalled that a brief mention was made in the preceding section ^ of the use of the Pearson Coefficient of Correlation as a method of measure- ment for determining the exact nature of these relationships. Divested of its mathematical terminology this coefficient is a measure of the general relation of a deviation of the amount of one item of expenditure in a city from the typical amount of that item (i. e., median, mode, or average), to the deviation exhibited by the same city of the amount of some other item of expenditure. A mere comparison of the variabilities of two items of expendi- ture within a group of cities might enable one to infer the exist- ence of a relationship, especially if the relationship were a strong one and the tables did not contain so many cases as to preclude ready inspection and comparison. No amount of such inspec- tion and one to one comparison, as has been suggested, would enable one to give a definite value to the relationship. The Pearson Coefficient ^ is the agency by which we attain » Pp. 40-41. 2 p 41 3 The following references to the Pearson Coefficient of Correlation are given: Pearson, Karl, Grammar of Science, chapter on Correlation; Thomdike, E. L., Educational Psychology, pp. 26 Jf.; Thomdike, E. L., Theory of Mental and Social Measurements, pp. 121 ff.; Spearman, C, The Proof and Measurement of Association between Two Things, Ameri- can Journal of Psychology, XV., 1904, pp. 72-101. Some Fiscal Aspects of Public Education 57 this expression of exactness. This Coefficient of Correlation is a figure so calculated from individual records as to give the degree of relationship between two items which will best account for all the separate cases in the group. In other words, it expresses the degree of relationship from which the actual cases might have arisen with least improbability. It has possible values from + 100 %, through zero, to — 100 %. That is to say, in the present situation, a coefficient of correlation of 100 % between any two items of expenditure, such as schools and street lighting, would posit that the city which spent the largest proportion of its total expenditures for maintenance and operation of education, also spent the largest proportion for street lighting; and that, if the cities were ranked in order according to the proportion spent for education, and then in the order according to the proportion spent for street lighting, the two rankings woiild be identical; that the position of any city with reference to the others in one item of expenditure would be the same for the other item (both being reduced to terms of the variabilities of the percentile ex- penditures as units to allow comparison). On the contrary, a coefficient of — 100 per cent, between schools and street light- ing would mean that the city which spent the largest propor- tion for education spent the lowest proportion for street lighting; that the best city in our percentile ranking in educa- tion would be the lowest in the percentile ranking for street lighting. A coefficient of -f- 62 % would mean that (comparison being rendered fair here, as always, by reduction to the vari- abilities as units) any given station for one item would, on the whole, imply 62 hundredths of that station for the other. A coefficient of — 62 % would, of course, mean that any position above the central tendency for one item would, on the whole, mean a position below the central tendency for the other item equal to 62 hundredths of the amount the first was above the central tendency.^ Existing Relationships. — Table 10 presents the coefficients of correlation between certain items as they have been found to exist by use of the Pearson formula. The three columns give the amount of the coefficients for the two different years, and those derived from the average of these two years. » This explanation has been adapted largely from Thomdike's Edu- cational Psychology, p. 26. 58 Some Fiscal Aspects of Public Education Table No. 10 Table of Pearson coefficients of correlation. Percentile expenditures for main- tenance and operation for the fiscal years igoo and igoi. All cities in the United States above jo,ooo population 1900 1901 Average of 1900 and 1901 Schools with — Police Department Police Department, Courts, etc Fire Department Health Libraries and Museums Parks Street Lighting Interest on Debt Other Expenditures Street Lighting Department with Police Department Fire Department with Police Department, Courts, etc + .0256 - . 0459 + .203 - . 0243 + .279 + .031 + .354 -.149 -.15 + .065 -.205 + .315 + .065 + .336 -.069 - . 0679 + .0969 -.0145 + .293 + .0156 + .344 -.482 -.288 + .0685 + .139 These particular items of expenditure were selected from the other items because there is, in all probability, less likelihood of variation and inequalities arising with them from confusion of accounts. While this element is not an entirely negligible quan- tity and perhaps never will be as long as there are differences in men and cities, it is assumed that the data collected and pre- sented in our original tables reflect the approximately true na- ture of these particular expenditures in American cities. Significance of Relationships. — Remembering the possibility of a Pearson coefficient varying in value from plus i.oo through zero to minus i.oo, the small size of the coefficients in Table lo ^ may appear to be without significance. That is, a coefficient of — .067 for police department, courts, jails, etc., may be without any readily ascertained meaning. It must, however, be kept in mind that a large percentile expenditure in any one direction leaves a correspondingly less amount to be distributed among the other activities. Hence, the plus correlations between schools and the four items indicated in Table 10, viz., fire, ' Throughout this explanation and interpretation the coefficients referred to are always the average coefficients for the two years' ex- penditures. The average figure is self-evidently a more reliable one. Some Fiscal Aspects of Public Education 59 libraries and museums, parks and street lighting, are demonstra- tions of certain tendencies of a significant nature. They indi- cate that there are some activities which bear a definite fiscal relation to each other, and these relationships undoubtedly re- flect certain more or less constant characteristics of municipal expenditures. The large positive correlation between the support accorded to public education and that accorded to libraries is what might be inferred. A generous attitude toward each is largely the re- sult of the existence of the same cultural forces operative in any community producing certain municipal ideals. In a like manner, the positive coefficient of correlation be- tween expenditures for schools and those for street lighting is indicative of similar forces at work. It is here recognized that the cost of street lighting may bear no direct proportional rela- tion to the amount of lighting done, inasmuch as the cost is subject to a variety of influences, such as compactness of the community, wise or unwise contracts with private lighting com- panies, the proximity of the city to sources of natural power, etc. Having in mind these restrictions, it is still permissible to con- clude that, in general, the city which is willing and able to give more than the ordinary (median) percentage of its total expen- ditures for public education, is also willing to give considerably more than the median amoiuit to the lighting of its streets. The large minus correlation between schools and interest on debt is significant and worthy of special attention by those who see danger in the marked tendency of American cities to increase their bonded obligations to the legal maximum. The remaining correlations with schools, while small, are in- dicative of relations of an interesting nature. Apparently there is an inclination of cities to appropriate somewhat less than the normal proportion of their expenditures for police and health protection and slightly more than the normal for fire protection and parks as their educational expenditures rise above the normal percentile amount. To be of the most value, the expenditures for each municipal department should be correlated with those for every other department. Especially should the relations between school expenditures and the expenditures for all other chief mtmicipal departments be evaluated. The relation which the cost of 6o Some Fiscal Aspects of Public Education FIG. 11. 4.0 S i.es 1.16 1.01 1.82 .80 15J37 SI. 63 25.79 80.87 85.66 4.0.89 Explanation of Figure ii. — The diagram relates to the average percentile expenditures for 1900 and 1901, for the items indicated, in the 55 cities possessing a population of 30,000 to 50,000, according to the census of 1900. The numbers on the diagram were derived as follows: The 55 cities were arranged in the order of their ascending percentile expenditures for public schools. Thus arranged, they were then divided into six groups, each of the first five groups having ten cities, and the sixth group having five cities. The averages of the percentile expenditure for two years for each of the indicated items were then calculated, and the following results obtained. Average Percentile Expenditures for Public Fire Street Health Schools Department Lighting Department Group 1 15.27 8.14 4.02 (9)> 1.63 (7)> 2 21.62 7.20 5.63 (9)> 1.87 " 3 25.79 7.76 5.04 1.15 4 30.87 9.87 6.39 1.01 " 5 35.66 8.50 7.67 1.32 " 6 40.89 8.14 6.85 .80 Hence, if the expenditures for public schools be represented, according to scale, on a horizontal line, the general relation of the expenditures for each of the other items may be shown by a broken line, drawn to a scale, in accordance with the direction of the deviation of expenditures for the specified group of cities. > Figures in parentheses indicate number of cities for which data were available. Some Fiscal Aspects of Public Education 6i general administration bears to that of educational administra- tion and supervision; the relation of the cost of the various elements that enter into the maintenance of streets ; these and many other salient and evident interdependencies must be deter- mined before we shall be able to reach any absolute conclusions regarding the proportion of the social income which should be devoted to this or that essential purpose. Once determined, these relations may afford certain standards which would remove the more important items of expenditure at least from the realm of mere expediency. The complete set of these correlations would give a clear insight into the fiscal and perhaps the socio- logical characteristics of the American city. Until we have, however, better means by which to differentiate more sharply between the various items of expenditure, such work will be impossible; yet its accomplishment is a very necessary comple- ment to that of establishing the very much needed standards for municipal and educational fiscal policies. In Figure No. ii (p. 60) an attempt has been made to give a diagrammatic representation of the character of the relation- ships expressed by the Pearson coefficients. IX. Variability and Correlation of Per Capita Ex- penditures It has been thought both advisable and necessary for any adequate treatment of the present phase of the fiscal position of education in cities to develop and point out relationships upon other than the basis of percentile expenditures. Data. — For the following portion of the study the same general data were utilized as in the preceding sections. The tables of per capita expenditures ^ for the maintenance and operation of certain municipal departments as published in the Bulletins of the Department of Labor for 1901 and 1902 were selected as the chief basis. Variability of Per Capita Expenditures. — An inspection of » These tables were derived by dividing the expenditures for the various items by the figure representing the population : according to the official census of 1900, for the expenditures given for 1900, and according to the estimated population of January i, 1902, for those of 1901. For a criticism of this last procedure, see Proceedings of National Municipal League, 1904, p. 253. 62 Some Fiscal Aspects of Public Education Tables ii and 12 discloses the same wide variability in the per capita expenditures for the various items as was pointed out in the case of the percentile expenditures. The evidence afforded by this range of per capita variabilities is here adduced to lend force to the conclusions arrived at from the study of the vari- abilities of the percentile expenditures. The wide range of the total per capita expenditures as dis- played by Table ii(^) is an index of the extreme variability of municipal fiscal operations. That this variability is not pro- duced alone by the commonly supposed increased cost of main- tenance and operation as the cities increase in population and extent is confirmed by the evidence presented in Table 12. Table No. 11 Tables of frequency. Per capita expenditures for maintenance and opera- tion. All cities in the United States above 30,000 population. Fiscal years igoo and igoi (a) Police Department, Police Courts, Jails, Workhouses, Reformatories, etc. Expenditure. Frequency. Frequency. 1900 1901 (0) Fire Department. Expenditure. Frequency. Frequency. 1900 1901 $ .30 2 $ .20 1 1 .40 4 4 .30 3 3 .50 6 5 .40 5 4 .60 6 8 .50 4 5 .70 15 12 .60 8 11 .80 11 13 .70 11 11 .90 21 15 .80 16 13 1.00 8 20 .90 18 19 1.10 10 9 1.00 10 13 1.20 9 10 1.10 12 15 1.30 8 7 1.20 11 12 1.40 5 5 1.30 10 8 1.50 4 4 1.40 6 6 1.60 5 2 1.50 6 7 1.70 1 3 1.60 1 2 1.80 3 3 1.70 3 1.90 3 3 1.80 3 4 2.00 2 1 1.90 3 1 2.10 4 4 2.00 2.20 ; 1 1 2.10 1 2.30 1 2.20 1 2.40 2.50 Total, 132 136 2.60 1 2.70 1 2.80 2.90 3 3.00 3.10 1 3.20 2 3.30 1 3.40 3.50 1 Total, 132 136 Some Fiscal Aspects of Public Education Table No, 11 {Continued) 63 Tables of frequency. Per capita expenditures for maintenance and opera- tion. All cities in the United States above 30,000 population. Fiscal years igoo and igoi (.c) id) ie) Schools. Street Lighting. Total. Jxpenditure. Frequency. Expenditure. Frequency. Expenditure. Frequency. 1900 1901 1900 1901 1900 1901 ; .80 1 $ .10 2 $ 4 1 1 1.00 1 5 .20 6 5 5 3 2 1.20 3 2 .30 3 4 6 4 4 1.40 3 5 .40 14 21 7 6 10 1.60 1 1 .50 17 15 8 9 15 1.80 5 4 .60 21 19 9 15 10 2.00 8 9 .70 20 26 10 13 22 2.20 6 9 .80 13 10 11 14 3 2.40 11 10 .90 13 12 12 10 12 2.60 17 8 1.00 6 8 13 7 13 2.80 9 16 1.10 4 2 14 8 10 3.00 9 9 1.20 2 15 9 8 3.20 9 14 1.30 1 1 16 8 10 3.40 14 14 1.40 1 17 5 5 3.60 15 4 1.50 1 1 18 6 3 3:80 2 5 1.60 1 19 3 4.00 6 6 1.70 2 20 2 4.20 2 2 21 3 4 4.40 3 3 Total, 125 126 22 1 1 4.60 2 4 23 1 4.80 1 24 5.00 1 25 5.20 2 1 26 6.40 4 27 5.60 1 28 5.80 29 6.00 1 30 1 31 2 Total, 132 136 32 33 34 35 1 Total, 132 136 The probable causes of the variability of the municipal ex- penditures, discussed at length in Section VII, will be recalled here. Whatever may be the extent of the influence of any, or all, of the causes, it cannot be assumed that the municipality spending $4 per year in the maintenance and operation of its various departments represents the degree of municipal efficiency of one devoting $36 for these purposes; nor that municipal economy is recognized equally in cities spending $5 and $25 per inhabitant in fulfilling their municipal functions. 64 Some Fiscal Aspects of Public Education Table No. 12 Tables of frequency. Total per capita expenditures for maintenance and operation according to population groups J All cities in the United States above 30,000 population. Fiscal years igoo and igoi Groups — I II III IV Frequency. Frequency. Frequency. Frequency. 1900 1901 1900 1901 1900 1901 1900 1901 J 4 1 1 5 3 2 6 1 1 3 4 7 1 2 6 7 8 1 2 4 5 4 8 9 1 1 5 4 9 6 10 2 7 10 6 10 11 2 3 1 5 2 3 12 2 4 1 2 4 3 3 3 13 1 1 2 4 2 5 2 4 14 2 6 3 3 2 1 15 3 1 2 2 1 5 4 16 1 3 1 1 5 6 17 1 1 1 4 2 1 18 2 2 2 2 1 19 2 4 1 |20 1 1 21 2 1 22 1 1 23 1 24 25 26 27 28 1 1 29 30 1 31 2 32 33 34 • 35 1 36 1 Total, . 19 19 19 19 39 40 55 59 Figures 12-16 represent diagrammatically the data assembled in the tables of frequency. Pearson Coefficients for Per Capita Relationships. — It is, how- ever, from the Pearson coefficients of correlation that we ob- tain a further notion of the relationships that exist between certain of the elements of municipal expenditures. The details of the explanation of the meaning of Table 13 need not be given here, as they are similar to those given in the general > See Table No. 8, p. 45, for grouping of cities. FIG. 12 .so :io 1.04^ tso 2£iO 3.30 c=L FiG.ia. I JZO ,&0 .so 1J50 iX-0 2J30 mn "U FIG.14. ^ LOO Ji.OO a. 87 4jao &ao PIG. 15. Ln q: 3E ZLr ::3 .80 .4M> eO U)0 1.60 Surfaces of Frequency — Per Capita Expenditures, 1901 Fig. 12. Police Department, Courts, Jails, etc. Median, $1.04. Fig 13. Fire Department. Median, 1.00. Fig. 14. Schools. Median, 2.97. Fig. 15. Street Lighting. Median, .69. 65 66 Some Fiscal Aspects of Public Education F I G.16. 4.oa ^ I ri S3.00 Surfaces of Frequency — Per Capita Expenditures, 1901 Fig. 16. Total for Municipal Maintenance and Operation. Median, $12.30. explanation of the meaning of the Pearson coefficient and in the explanation of the percentile correlation. They signify on the whole that the cities spending above the median amount per capita on public education will spend only such an amount above the central tendency as is indicated by the degree of relationship expressed by the coefficient. Table No. 13 Table of Pearson coefficients of correlation. Per capita expenditures for maintenance and operation. All cittes in ths United States above jo,ooo population. Fiscal years igoo and igoi Schools with — 1900 1901 Police Department, Courts, etc + . 232 + . 319 Fire Department + .444 + . 389 Street Lighting + . 333 . + . 361 Assessed Valuation of Real and Personal Property . . + . 45 The last correlation of those given in the preceding table, though somewhat uncertain in value, is indicative of one thing, namely, that while there is a decided tendency, on the part of those communities possessing a large amount of economic wealth subject to taxation, to spend a large per capita amoimt on education, these commtmities do not, in proportion to their in- creased wealth, spend a proportionately increased amount on education. Any accurate or valid conclusion regarding the influence of the amount of tax-producing property must include a consideration of the relation which the different sources of the Some Fiscal Aspects of Public Education 67 municipal income bear to one another. This would be es- pecially necessary for all of those cities deriving any large amount of revenue from sources other than the general property tax. Real value of property as distinguished from assessed value would be a far better basis for a correlation figure which would give the relation between potential and actual support of the various municipal activities under a regime of general property taxation. The correlation is presented here not be- cause it stands for any definite condition of things, but primarily to indicate the possibility of representing in a concrete manner the relation between the potential and the assumed responsibility of cities for the development and support of public education. X. Supplementary Study of the Variability and Cor- relation OF Municipal Expenditures ^ Data of Municipal Expenditures for igo2 and 1903. — Under the title of Payments for General and Municipal Service Ex- penses by Departments, Offices, and Objects,^ the Bureau of the Census has presented the data of the expenditures for maintenance and operation of the various municipal depart- ments for the fiscal years 1902 and 1903, for the 163 cities of the United States possessing a population of 25,000 and over. For an extended exposition of the sources and character of this data reference is made to the introductory text, accompanying the statistics of cities. It is sufficient here to call attention to a few special features of the financial statistics which distinguish them from others of their kind, especially those presented in the reports of the Department of Labor, and which give to them a significant value for the present purpose. For the first time in the actual practice of gathering and presenting on a large scale municipal financial statistics, an effort has been made to differentiate the mtinicipal activities and to adopt a terminology in harmony with the theory and principles of modem public finance. As far as this study is concerned the most important > I desire at this time to make an acknowledgment of my deep ob- ligation to Mr. L. G. Powers, Chief Statistician, Bureau of the Census, for his assistance in rendering accessible to me, before the distribution of the official report, the data upon which this portion of the study is founded. 2 Table 21, Bidlehn 20, Bvireau of the Censtis (1905), pp. 204-293. 68 Some Fiscal Aspects of Public Education distinction made is that between governmental and commercial functions, a distinction long ago pointed out by writers upon public finance, yet one of somewhat tardy recognition by those en- gaged in gathering and presenting the financial statistics of cities. The term governmental functions . . . includes those municipal ftmctions which are as a rule performed for all citizens alike without any attempt to measure the amount of the benefit conferred or exact compensation therefor. Most of them are essential to the existence and development of government and to the performance of the governmental duty of protecting life and property and of maintaining a high stand- ard of social efficiency. Chief among such activities are those of general administration; the protection of life, health, and property; the care of the defective, delinquent, and dependent classes; the education of the young, and the performance of other duties of a similar nature ; the purchase of lands for municipal buildings, parks, and streets; the erection, equip- ment, and management of city halls and other buildings for general municipal uses; and the purchase or construction and operation of gas and electric light works for the exclusive pur- pose of lighting the streets and the city buildings, and of other structures and plants — such as printing offices, police and fire telephone systems, and bridges — for furnishing free of charge any commodit}^ or service required by the city in the common interest of all its citizens. In the same category are included the opening, grading, paving, and curbing of streets, and the construction of sewers, where such public improve- ments are made at public expense, without, in the opinion of the proper authorities, conferring upon particular individuals measurable special benefits, for which compensation is exacted by the city. To the same general group belong the making and paying of loans and the payment of interest thereon, when such loans are made in connection with the other activities and transactions before mentioned. The commercial functions of cities include those which create trade relations, industrial or semi-industrial, between the municipality and the general public, including other muni- cipalities or civil divisions. Among the transactions which arise from the exercise of such functions are those involving the loan of public money at interest, the use of public property for compensation, the sale of any commodity or article of commerce, or the performance of any work or service for pay. All these transactions involve the performance by the city of some service or the grant of some favor for special compensation, whether such service is undertaken or favor granted primarily Some Fiscal Aspects of Public Education 69 for the service to be rendered or favor bestowed, or for the revenue to be secured. None of them is essential to the ex- istence and development of the government, although they may be made to contribute to its support. Commercial functions, together with commercial and semi- commercial transactions which arise from them, may be grouped into three subclasses, here designated as municipal investments, m^unicipal industries, and municipal services. (i) Under municipal investments are included all trans- actions of municipal governments connected with the purchase, sale, or possession of real property or securities held exclusively for investment purposes, and the loan of public money to individuals, corporations, or other civil divisions. Such trans- actions are of two classes: First, those of the sinking, invest- ment, and public -trust funds in which or through which the city invests money for the sole purpose of deriving interest, rent, or other income therefrom. Second, the transactions of a more temporary character by which the city receives interest on current cash deposits and on deferred payments of taxes and special assessments. (2) Municipal industries are those activities — such as muni- cipal waterworks, gas and electric light works, and street railways — which are organized as more or less complete depart- ments or offices of cities for the purpose of furnishing economic utilities to individual citizens on such terms as may be deter- mined by considerations of public policy. These activities are generally referred to by British writers as municipal trading. They are also frequently called quasi- private industries or en- terprises. As economists use the term, a quasi-private industry or enterprise of a municipality is one in which the purpose of realizing a net income or profit controls the method of manage- ment and determines the charges, as in a private business of similar character. In this strict sense of the term there are few, if any, qtiasi-private industries or enterprises in the United States, the greater number of municipal industries established in American cities having been called into existence principally or solely to promote the welfare of the citizens. Hence the Bureau of the Census uses the term municipal industries to include not merely those properly designated as quasi-private, as defined above, but all departments, offices, or activities or- ganized by cities to furnish utilities to their citizens for a com- pensation but without regard to the question of profit. (3) Municipal services include all activities and transactions, other than such as are included in (i) and (2), which are en- gaged in by cities or by any of their independent branches or departments in the interest of the general public, but which confer measurable special benefits — or what are arbitrarily so regarded — upon particular persons, natural or corporate, for 7© Some Fiscal Aspects of Public Education which compensation is exacted. These services include the opening of streets, the construction of pavements, sidewalks, and sewers, the sprinkling of streets, and similar services, the payments for which are enforced by means of special assess- ments. To the same category belong also all services or special benefits rendered to private individuals or to other civil divi- sions under legal regulations, and paid for by fees, charges, rents, privilege rentals, and kindred remuneration.^ In the statistics presented by the bulletins of the Depart- ment of Labor these distinctions were not made, hence all ex- penditures on account of municipal investments, industries, and services have been included in the same class as those in- curred in the pursuit of the more generally recognized govern- mental functions. 2 The second important character of these statistics for 1902 and 1903 is the scheme of classification of the expenses, out- lays, and revenues of cities. ^ The so-called general expenses are those in the exercise of governmental ftmctions. In the tables the general expenses are divided into the following classes: (i) General Administration (including expenses for mayor and executive offices, legislative offices, law offices and accounts, finance offices and accounts, elections, public print- ing, etc.) ; (2) Public Safety (including expenses for courts, police department, militia and armories, fire department, de- partment of inspection, health department, etc.); (3) Public Charities and Corrections (including care of poor — in and out- side of institutions — children in institutions, lodging houses, miscellaneous charities, hospitals, prisons and reformatories) ; (4) Public Highways and Sanitation (including expenses of street paving, lighting, sprinkling and cleaning, refuse dis- posal, sewers, etc.) ; (5) Public Education (including schools » Bulletin 20, Bureau of the Census (1905), pp. 4-7. 2 For instance, the city of New York is charged with an expenditure for the maintenance and operation of the water-works system for the year 1901 the sum of $3,000,990; for construction and other capital outlay on account of the water-works system, $3,450,780; yet the re- ceipts of the water department during 1901 were $8,050,900. It is manifestly inaccurate to place these expenditures on account of the water works system in the same category as those for public education. ^ See Introductory Statement, Bulletin 20, Bureau of the Census, ( 1905), for definitions and explanation. Some Fiscal Aspects of Public Education 71 and libraries); (6) Public Recreation (including expenses for parks, gardens, baths, public celebrations and entertainments) ; (7) Other General Expenditures; (8) Interest on Municipal Obligations. While it is not the purpose here to contest the economic or statistical validity of the method of classification followed in the presentation of these statistics by the Census Bureau, and there are certain points open to criticism, the above description of their general nature has been inserted here primarily to direct attention to their increased usefulness for comparative purposes over those previously gathered by the Department of Labor, inasmuch as they reflect more accur- ately than any former statistics the fiscal activity of American cities. Selection of Cities for Study. — In this portion of the study it was deemed more expedient to make a somewhat narrower selection of cities than that followed previously. To this end the group of cities having a population of from 25,000 to 50,000 was taken. This selection was broad enough to give a repre- sentative group, inasmuch as of the 163 cities of the United States having in 1902 a population of 25,000 and over, 78, or a trifle less than 50 % of them, fell within the group chosen for study. At the same time this selection produced perhaps a somewhat greater homogeneity of conditions affecting muni- cipal expenditures than that of the group of cities previously studied. Preliminary Arrangement of Data. — By reason of the system of distributive grouping of expenditures employed by the Census Bureau, it was thought advisable for the present purpose to combine under a fairly small number of representative and comparable headings the payments recorded for general and municipal service expenses. Without interfering with the mode of differentiation of these payments as presented in the tables, the total payments for general and municipal service expenses were divided into seventeen classes, as follows: 1. Expenses for General Administration. Including ex- penses for all executive and legislative offices, law offices and accoimts, finance offices and accounts, statistical and mis- cellaneous general offices, city hall, and elections. 2. Expenses for Courts. 3. Expenses for Police Department. Including expenses TABLE Showing percentages of total payments for general and municipal service years igo2 and igoj. Cities between Cities. -"sm . QiJ . iJjj '^^j 2'H i2 ►" O o ew S fe K 1 Schenectady. N. Y 11.54 .67 11.87 9.22 140 2 Youngstown, Ohio 8.21 .05 13.41 9.92 2.56 3 Holyoke, Mass 10.32 .13 7.18 .001 10.66 2.25 4 Fort Wayne, Ind 6.83 .28 9.34 15.77 2.11 5 Akron, Ohio 6.64 .13 8.05 .09 17.00 1.04 6 Saginaw, Mich 9.24 .67 8.54 7.27 .57 7 Tacoma, Wash 6.45 .25 6.51 8.73 .82 8 Covington, Ky 11.28 1.17 10.25 9.10 1.72 9 Lancaster, Pa 7.77 1.08 7.69 .72 10 Dallas, Tex 7.66 .49 9.90 11.02 .18 11 Lincoln, Nebr 8.08 .35 4.69 8.71 .82 12 Brockton, Mass 9.37 7.44 .32 9.20 1.59 13 Pawtucket, R. 1 8.86 .07 8.10 6.81 .63 14 Birmingham, Ala 7.52 .69 12.32 .07 13.45 1.97 15 Little Rock, Ark 12.08 .90 16.78 15.05 1.96 16 Spokane, Wash 7.96 .42 5.35 10.27 1.18 17 Altoona, Pa 8.93 5.36 9.01 .83 18 Augusta, Ga 19 Binghamton, N. Y 8.69 1.19 7.62 6.79 1.28 20 Mobile, Ala 21 South Bend, Ind 7.94 .32 9.49 13.88 .29 22 Wheeling, W. Va 8.17 .12 11.22 13.47 1.47 23 Springfield, Ohio 7.88 .65 7.57 8.99 2.22 24 Johnstown, Pa 6.10 8.85 5.89 1.53 25 Haverhill, Mass 6.29 6.98 .19 9.98 .97 26 Topeka, Kan 7.52 .37 6.76 11.52 2.23 27 Terre Haute, Ind 6.37 .27 8.84 19.43 3.33 28 Allentown, Pa 7.09 6.00 9.61 2.10 29 McKeesport, Pa 9.90 11.18 10.30 3.34 30 Dubuque, Iowa 8.43 .01 8.20 10.08 .61 31 Butte, Mont 9.15 .51 13.73 12.48 1.26 32 Davenport, Iowa 6.60 .36 7.34 13.52 .87 33 Quincy, 111 5.93 .37 8.03 15.55 .36 34 Salem, Mass 7.18 8.62 .79 7.57 3.61 35 Elmira, N. Y 11.35 1.21 8.18 12.90 1.92 36 Maiden, Mass 5.09 5.94 .11 5.68 2.11 37 Bayonne, N. J 9.46 1.49 13.13 .11 2,99 .90 38 Superior, Wis 13.53 .41 6.88 18.37 2.98 39 York, Pa 6.53 8.65 9.85 1.05 40 Newton, Mass 7.67 7.73 .05 5.14 .87 41 East St. Louis, 111 8.82 1.13 8.72 9.98 .87 42 Springfield, 111 8.55 11.75 15.48 .85 43 Chester, Pa 9.24 9.30 7.10 5.22 44 Chelsea, Mass 5.78 7.92 .06 6.94 1.69 45 Fitchburg, Mass 6.37 8.31 .07 8.26 1.48 46 Knoxville, Tenn 8.10 8.07 12.38 4.33 47 Rockford, 111 5.32 .26 7.00 12.07 .67 48 Sioux Citv, Iowa 8.08 .33 6.80 7.38 .84 49 Montgomery, Ala 6.05 .42 13.07 8.10 3.05 50 Taunton, Mass 6.90 .19 8.71 .19 6.22 1.90 51 Newcastle, Pa 8.09 .08 6.75 10.75 .77 52 Passaic, N. J 8.96 1.35 6.11 .10 8.29 1.36 53 Atlantic City, N. J 7.96 .82 11.58 .01 14.25 1.67 54 Canton, Ohio 5.88 8.25 11.19 1.44 55 Jacksonville, Fla 56 Galveston, Tex 8.54 .26 9.78 12.15 1.52 57 Auburn, N. Y 9.38 1.15 7.01 10.52 .92 58 Racine, Wis 6.24 1.03 4.13 14.14 1.19 59 South Omaha, Neb 12.16 .89 7.12 9.52 1.21 60 Joplin, Mo 8.84 .60 9.89 13.85 .92 61 Joliet, 111 6.92 10.29 9.49 1.98 62 Chattanooga, Tenn 7.83 .57 12.19 15.72 3.02 63 Woonsocket R. I 6.76 .06 8.24 8.35 1.79 64 Sacramento, Cal 8.50 .85 8.90 9.66 1.12 65 La Crosse, Wis 10.45 6.91 13.39 .86 66 Oshkosh, Wis 9.88 .50 5.52 15.67 1.69 67 Newport, Ky 8.86 .26 8.53 5.26 2.56 68 Williamsport, Pa 9.42 4.97 12.48 1.13 69 Pueblo, Col 11.02 .20 8.00 6.83 2.29 70 Council Bluffs, Iowa 6.17 .77 5.96 16.73 .12 71 New Britain, Conn 5.46 .82 6.23 10.28 3.51 72 Cedar Rapids, Iowa 6.45 1.10 6.68 8.97 2.27 73 Lexington, Kv 15.66 1.01 12.03 .02 9.53 1.80 74 Bay City, Mich 14.55 .72 8.92 10.68 .24 75 Fort Worth, Tex 7.15 .30 7.62 8.78 .53 76 Easton, Pa 7.40 6.35 9.12 .40 77 Gloucester, Mass 11.37 7.88 .20 9.53 1.83 78 Jackson, Mich 9.03 .95 8.16 13.32 .91 ' For explanations concerning the derivation of this table, see p. 74. No. 14 » expenses devoted to each of the itemized purposes. Average for the fiscal 2^,000 and £o,ooo population g.2 bo ^ M i i ■go c6 S §3 ■u 1 :2" "3 1-B "is ID C o S (J CLi s (1( w J Ph O o w 4.21 4.83 7.85 10.65 21.70 .63 .24 .84 14.28 .03 1 .35 2.64 3.86 5.51 6.86 37.05 1.02 .47 8.13 2 7.82 7.02 3.90 4.39 26.66 1.36 1.23 14.. 32 3.36 3 .33 .05 4.89 8.28 6.00 33.02 1.35 3.06 8.83 4 06 3.30 7.79 8.08 1.48 37.05 1.73 .60 6.89 5 3.23 14.37 3.93 3.62 36.05 1.07 .32 12.05 6 .24 6.63 1.33 28.50 .98 2.01 1.92 35.70 7 3.10 4.44 6.41 6.11 24.70 1.20 .03 20.37 .08 8 .54 12.26 13.95 5.97 32.32 .13 8.64 .09 9 3.85 12.18 5.50 3.63 22.80 .81 .74 .29 20.85 10 .10 3.26 4.06 2.81 40.80 1.46 .02 24.77 .08 11 8.69 9.98 4.53 5.28 25.06 1.66 .40 1.24 12.81 2.62 12 .28 2.94 9.25 5.61 4.27 23.75 1.33 .47 25.06 2.61 13 .08 1.94 10.96 3.60 4.14 13.72 .04 .63 28.57 .31 14 3.88 9.03 2.27 1.71 30.30 1.21 3.48 1.18 15 1.71 8.48 1.74 1.77 29.65 .48 1.60 3.60 25.83 16 .84 8.28 5.09 2.95 38.40 20.25 .02 17 No data for schools. 18 .30 13.35 9.30 9.12 2.79 31.90 .001 1.03 6.73 19 No data for schools. 20 .31 7.61 7.35 5.22 32.30 1.13 2.15 .48 11.65 .05 21 1.68 4.88 7.84 6.12 33.67 1.71 9.15 .58 22 .05 2.81 4.00 12.43 7.98 31.90 1.38 1.96 10.23 23 .20 4.71 11.85 6.44 .001 47.05 .55 6.87 24 .05 13.62 10.40 6.61 2.31 25.76 2.24 1.71 .07 12.50 .27 25 .56 9.86 3.72 1.60 41.76 1.22 .61 12.36 26 .16 .51 2.69 7.71 5.59 39.35 .73 .49 4.41 27 .45 .10 8.19 7.45 3.39 42.88 .08 12.60 28 .30 1.20 5.96 6.23 3.79 35.43 .94 11.22 29 8.09 7.22 4.56 29.98 1.33 .45 21.02 30 .02 .84 8.71 4.08 3.55 36.35 2.79 .05 6.20 .34 31 .18 9.42 8.16 7.79 37.10 .95 3.22 4.51 32 1.96 4.79 7.13 4.20 29.56 1.52 2.69 18.05 33 .45 17.65 5.86 7.68 3.66 25.22 2.33 2.33 6.97 34 .02 3.95 9.95 8.77 2.37 25.75 .51 1.72 .02 11.33 35 6.26 9.33 4.71 3.63 27.80 2.29 .42 14.72 11.26 .61 36 .87 6.43 7.34 2.14 32.77 .87 .40 21.07 37 1.79 9.87 3.65 1.30 36.45 1.40 3.42 38 .06 .70 9.19 9.03 7.59 37.55 .12 .79 8.84 39 3.74 10.74 5.12 4.55 21.58 1.55 .65 9.43 20.69 .57 40 13.91 4.04 2.03 33.75 1.00 .05 15.66 41 .70 1.13 3.68 7.29 3.70 28.11 .93 3.34 1.57 12.85 .01 42 4.45 3.75 8.16 3.44 34.92 .80 13.75 43 .33 9.98 7.02 5.30 4.37 24.03 .92 .65 13.98 9.60 1.31 44 11.79 11.35 6.82 3.07 26.28 1.59 .82 .32 13.35 .02 45 3.59 6.39 8.37 3.52 19.75 26.54 46 .73 6.88 9.10 5.85 40.70 3.43 .26 7.68 47 .02 8.36 4.10 6.62 30.01 .68 .61 26.12 48 2.10 7.78 5.41 3.43 12.87 .30 .79 34.26 2.43 49 .35 9.52 11.23 3.09 2.36 25.75 1.66 .71 .30 17.86 3.13 50 6.97 7.95 1.17 3.67 47.25 .04 7.60 51 .15 3.86 6.90 6.82 3.98 37.77 1.50 1.77 1.31 9.76 52 .22 4.46 5.20 6.74 13.30 16.76 .54 .33 1.13 16.16 53 .32 1.19 3.53 8.69 6.92 35.79 .90 1.33 .12 14.79 54 No data for schools. 56 8.85 5.69 1.77 7.64 20.25 .31 .30 22.95 66 7.96 8.42 9.27 4.54 29.50 .62 .04 7.49 3.22 57 4.17 13.27 5.28 .21 39.20 3.03 .03 8.00 58 1.67 4.62 6.06 .18 40.17 .08 .17 16.31 59 .74 10.30 .18 44.50 1.71 .01 1.60 6.95 60 .80 .79 7.12 7.47 6.63 38.42 1.91 2.00 6.17 61 .18 7.52 3.90 6.70 5.19 17.90 .16 2.03 .17 16.85 62 5.75 10.09 5.91 3.68 20.57 .24 .09 3.15 22.27 2.99 63 .21 .36 12.60 8.05 8.39 35.30 2.46 1.20 2.33 64 .06 .06 5.23 5.79 3.17 39.27 .65 .31 6.59 7.48 65 3.74 12.93 5.62 1.56 33.57 2.26 .78 .06 6.35 66 .09 3.54 6.09 6.94 5.22 26.04 1.44 .06 35.42 67 8.09 6.24 7.56 2.25 35.94 .88 10.80 68 .46 11.50 4.04 1.61 33.27 .80 3.81 .15 12.52 3.44 69 .26 .14 5.07 4.72 2.27 42.82 1.60 2.30 11.12 70 6.30 6.19 6.04 38.26 .94 15.90 .06 71 .01 13.65 6.53 3.57 38.45 1.90 1.84 .45 8.16 72 8.64 5.38 7.82 2.60 22.30 .49 .06 12.65 .01 73 .29 9.46 4.80 33.61 1.05 .57 16.18 74 .16 1.01 10.36 1.03 .76 18.45 .89 .33 37.15 5.41 75 10.36 .39 2.60 50.87 1.15 .07 11.25 76 .18 13.38 13.39 3.80 .91 22.50 .40 13.78 77 .03 6.10 12.85 6.52 4.79 27.60 1.49 .50 7.49 .80 78 73 74 Some Fiscal Aspects of Public Education for police, department of inspection (other than health), and pounds. 4. Expenses for Militia. 5. Expenses for Fire Department. 6. Expenses for Health Department. 7. Expenses for Miscellaneous Public Safety. Not included under 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6. 8. Expenses for Charities and Corrections. Including ex- penses for poor in, and out, of institutions, children in, and out, of institutions, miscellaneous charities; expenses for hospitals, insane, prisons and reformatories. 9. Expenses for Public Highways. Including general man- agement and engineering expenses, expenses for street paving, sidewalks, bridges, snow removal and street sprinkling. 10. Expenses for Street Lighting. 11. Expenses for Public Sanitation. Including expenses for street cleaning, refuse disposal, sewers, and sewage disposal. 12. Expenses for Public Education. 13. Expenses for Libraries, Art Galleries, and Museums. 14. Expenses for Public Recreation. Including expenses for parks and gardens, baths and bathing beaches, celebrations and entertainments. 15. Miscellaneous General Expenses. 16. Expenses for Interest on Municipal Obligations. In- cluding only net corporate payments, which equal gross interest payments made to public, less the included accrued interest receipts from public. 17. Expenses for Service Transfers. Transformation of Gross Itemized Expenditures to a Per- centile Basis. — As in the former case, the first operation was to transform the gross itemized expenditures to a percentile basis. This was accomplished, though not without much tedious arith- metical labor, for the group of 75 ^ cities for the fiscal year 1902 and the fiscal year 1903. The percentile expenditures thus ob- tained were then averaged for the two years, item for item. These average percentile amounts are contained in Table 14. « Three cities necessarily omitted from the total number of cities — 78 — on account of the absence of data. Some Fiscal Aspects of Public Education 75 XI. Supplementary Study of the Variability and Cor- relation OF Municipal Expenditures — (Cont.) As with Tables i and 2, a cursory examination of the percentile amounts in Table 14 reveals a very wide range of expenses in the identical municipal departments of the different cities. This variability is perhaps all the more noteworthy when it is recalled that the percentile amounts are for cities within a very narrow population range, and is confirmatory of the previous argument concerning the relation between variability and population. ^ Table No. 15 Tables of frequency. Average percentile payments for general and municipal service expenses. All cities between 25,000 and §0,000 popidation. Fiscal years igo2 and ipoj &H CL, fe CL, Below 1 1 6 20 1 1 4 8 10 2 1 1 2 1 12 4 3 6 3 7 17 11 4 3 7 4 8 10 5 5 6 5 4 6 5 11 7 2 6 16 12 5 9 6 13 8 2 7 14 12 5 7 7 13 4 3 8 17 21 9 7 8 8 1 4 9 10 6 15 11 9 4 2 10 2 3 8 7 10 1 11 5 5 3 4 11 1 12 2 3 6 5 12 1 13 1 4 7 4 13 1 1 3 14 1 2 1 14 15 1 6 15 16 1 1 16 17 1 17 1 18 1 18 19 1 19 Total, 75 75 75 75 72 75 68 Tables of Frequency. — The data of Table 1 5 present the tables of frequency for each of the items of expenditure enumerated in Table 14, excepting courts, militia, miscellaneous public safety, general and service transfers. Expenses under these headings were given for but few of the cities, hence rendering useless for com- parative purposes the presentation of the forms of distribution. These tables of frequency are to be interpreted in the same man- ner as the similar tables in the preceding portion of the study. ^ 1 See p. 42. 2 See p. 31 ; also note 2 of p. 31. 76 Some Fiscal Aspects of Public Education Tables of frequency, service expenses. Table No. 15 {Continued) Average percentile payments for general and municipal All cities between 25,000 and 50,000 population. Fiscal years igo2 and 1903 u Below . 1 3 .1 3 ft, 13 sm Surfaces of Frequency — Percentile Payments for General and Municipal Service Expenses. Average for Fiscal Years 1902 AND 1903. Seventy-five Cities between 25,000 and 50,000 Population. Fig. 23. Schools. Fig. 24. Libraries, etc. Fig. 25. Public Recreation. Median, 32.3. Median, 1.14. Median, .61. 79 r I QL2€L n n n (T &« F IG.S7. JZL n JZ) s.os 18 17 Ul FlQi2B. nn nn is.e 37 Surfaces of Frequency — Percentile Payments for General and Municipal Service Expenses. Average for Fiscal'^Years; 1902 AND 1903. Seventy-five Cities between 25,000 and 50,000 Population. Fig. 26. Health Department. Median, 1.4. Fig. 27. Charities and Corrections. Median, 3.02. Fig. 28. Interest on Debt. Median, 12.5. So Some Fiscal Aspects of Public Education 8i Measurement of Variability; Probable Error. — Recalling the discussion in Section VI regarding the methods of determining the character of the variability exhibited by the different items, the following table will be self-explanatory: Table No. 16 Table of measures of variability of percentile payments for general and municipal service expenses. Seventy-five cittes between 2§,ooo and §0,000 population. Average of fiscal years igoz and igoj Fifty percent of the cases lie between 2 p. e. General Administration 6 . 76 % and 9 . 24 % 2 . 48 % Police Department 6.98 " 9.49 . 2.51 Fire Department 8.71 " 12.99 4.28 Health Department .87 "1.98 1.11 Charities and Corrections .79 "5.75 4.99 Public Highways 6.00 " 10.30 4.30 Street Lighting 4.10 " 7.71 3.61 Public Sanitation 2.37 " 5.22 1.85 Schools 25.75 " 37.10 11.35 Libraries .73 " 1 . 55 .77 Public Recreation .29 " 1 . 20 .91 Interest on Debt 8.13 " 15.99 5.86 Remembering the differences in the data used in deriving the percentile basis of Table i6 and of Table 4 a, and keeping in mind the difference in the grouping of the cities concerned, the two sets of P. E. are scarcely comparable. Each set of data, however, serves as an index of the wide degree of variability which exists in municipal expenses. Measurement of Variability — Deviation from Central Ten- dency. — As in the case of the statistics for 1900 and 1901, the variability of each item of expense has been measured by means of the amount by which each member of the group of cities deviates from the median of the group. The individual devia- tions, plus and minus, are reproduced in Table 17. From these individual measures it is possible to determine the character of the group variability in each item of expense in several ways. First, the average amount by which each city varies from the central tendency — in this case the median — of any item would give the average deviation, or A. D. Second, a more accurate statement of the preceding, viz., the square root of the average of the squares of the deviations from the median of any item of expense would give the so-called standard deviation for the entire group of cities. The average and standard deviations are presented in Table 18 for each of the different items of expense. Table No. 17 Medians, and deviations from medians, of percentile payments for general and municipal service expenses of cities in the United States having a population of 2^,000- §0,000. Average for fiscal years igo2 and igoj ^ d 1 2 0^ i. cd u 0, a . •0 J: X 3 s a >. "0 d "HI c S S Oh to +J Q ■3^ HI a) St ■Mi a, 3-2 •ego sit: Oh ll c 6 2 Me- Me- dian 8.08 8.16 9.98 1.40 3.02 8.19 6.43 3.67 32.30 1.14 .61 12.50 dian 1 3.46 3.71 - .76 .00 1.19 -3.36 1.34 6.98 -10.60 - .51 - .37 1.78 1 2 .13 5.25 - .06 1.16 - .38 -4.33 - .92 3.19 4.75 - .12 - .14 - 4.37 2 3 2.24 - .98 .68 .85 4.80 -1.17 -2.53 .72 - 5.64 .22 .62 1.82 3 4 -1.25 1.18 5.79 .71 - 2.97 -3.30 1.85 2.33 .72 .21 2.45 - 3.67 4 5 -1.44 - .11 7.02 - .36 .07 - .40 1.65 -2.19 4.75 .59 - .01 - 5.61 5 6 1.16 .38 -2.71 - .87 .21 6.18 -2.50 - .05 3.75 - .07 - .29 - .45 6 7 -1.63 -1.65 -1.25 - .58 - 2.78 -1.56 * -2.34 - 3.80 - .16 1.40 23.20 7 8 3.20 2.09 - .88 .32 .08 -3.73 - .02 2.44 - 7.60 .06 - .58 7.87 8 9 - .31 1.92 -2.29 - .68 - 2.58 4.07 6.47 2.30 .02 * - .48 - 3.86 9 10 - .42 1.74 1.04 -1.22 .83 4.09 - .93 - .04 - 9.50 - .33 .13 8.35 10 11 .00 -3.47 -1.28 - .58 -2.92 -4.93 -2.37 - .37 8.50 .32 - .59 12.27 11 12 1.29 - .72 - .78 .19 5.67 1.79 -1.90 1.61 -7.24 .52 - .21 .31 12 13 .78 - .06 -3.17 - .77 - .08 1.06 - .82 .60 - 8.55 .19 - .14 12.56 13 14 - .56 4.16 3.47 .57 - 1.08 2.77 -2.83 .47 -18.58 -1.10 .02 16.07 14 15 4.00 8.62 5.07 .56 .86 .84 -4.16 -1.96 - 2.00 * .60 - 9.02 15 16 - .12 -2.81 .29 - .22 - 1.31 .29 -4.69 -1.90 - 2.55 - .66 .99 13.33 16 17 .85 -2.80 - .97 - .57 * .09 -1.34 - .72 6.10 * * 7.75 17 18 * * * * * * * * * * * * 18 19 .61 - .54 -3.19 - .12 10.33 1.11 2.69 - .88 - .40 -1.13 .42 - 1.77 19 20 * * * * * * * * * * * * 20 21 - .14 1.31 3.90 -1.11 * - .58 .92 1.55 .00 - .01 1.54 - .85 21 22 .09 3.06 3.49 .07 - 1.34 -3.31 1.41 2.45 1.37 .57 * - 3.35 22 23 - .20 - .59 - .99 .82 - .21 -4.19 6.00 4.31 - .40 .24 1.35 - 2.27 23 24 -1.98 .69 -4.09 .13 1.69 2.66 .01 -3.66 14.75 * - .06 - 5.63 24 25 -1.79 -1.18 .00 - .43 10.60 2.21 .18 -1.36 - 6.54 1.10 1.10 .00 25 26 - .56 -1.40 1.54 .83 - 2.46 1.67 -2.71 -2.07 9.46 .08 .00 - .14 26 27 -1.71 .68 9.45 1.93 - 2.51 -5.50 1.28 1.92 7.05 - .41 - .12 - 8.09 27 28 - .99 -2.16 - .37 .70 - 2.92 .00 1.02 - .28 10.58 * - .53 .10 28 29 1.82 3.02 .32 1.94 - 1.82 -2.23 - .20 .12 3.13 - .20 * - 1.28 29 30 .35 .04 .10 - .79 * - .10 .79 .89 - 2.32 .19 - .16 8.52 30 31 1.07 5.59 2.50 - .14 - 2.18 .62 -2.35 - .12 4.05 1.65 - .56 ■ - 6.30 31 32 -1.48 - .82 3.54 - .53 * 1.23 1.73 4.12 4.80 - .19 2.61 ■ - 7.99 32 33 -2.15 - .13 5.57 -1.04 - 1.06 -3.40 .70 .53 - 2.74 .38 2.08 5.55 33 34 - .88 .46 -2.41 2.21 14.63 -2.33 1.25 - .01 - 7.08 1.19 1.72 - - 5.53 34 35 3.27 .02 2.92 .52 .93 1.76 2.34 -1.30 - 6.55 - .63 1.11 - -1.17 35 36 -2.99 -2.22 -4.30 .71 3.24 1.14 - -1.72 - .04 ■ - 4.50 1.15 ■ - .19 - - 1.24 36 37 1.38 4.97 ■ -6.99 ■ - .50 ■ - 2.15 -1.76 .91 -1.53 .47 - .27 • - .21 8.57 37 38 5.45 -1.28 8.39 1.58 ■ - 1.23 1.78 ■ -2.78 • -2.07 4.15 .26 * - 9.08 38 39 -1.55 .49 - .13 ■ - .35 - - 2.32 1.00 2.60 3.92 5.25 -1.02 .18 - -3.46 39 40 - .41 - .43 • -4.84 ■ - .53 .72 2.55 - -1.31 .88 - -10.72 .41 .04 8.19 40 41 .74 .56 .00 ■ - .53 * 5.72 - -2.39 ■ -1.64 1.45 - .14 - - .56 3.15 41 42 .47 3.59 5.50 - - .55 - - 1.89 -4.51 .86 .03 - - 4.19 - .21 2.72 .35 42 43 1.16 1.14 • -2.88 3.82 1.43 -4.44 1.73 - - .23 2.62 * .19 1.25 43 44 -2.30 - - .24 ■ -3.04 .29 6.96 -1.17 - -1.13 .70 - - 8.27 - 22 .04 - - 2.90 44 45 -1.71 .15 - -1.72 .08 8.77 3.16 .39 - - .60 - - 6.02 ^45 .21 .85 45 46 .02 ■ - .09 2.40 2.93 .57 -1.80 1.94 - - .15 - -12.55 * * 13.04 46 47 -2.76 - -1.16 2.09 - - .73 - - 2.29 -1.31 2.67 2.18 8.40 2.29 - - .35 - - 4.82 47 48 .00 - -1.36 - -2.60 - - .56 - - 3.00 .17 - -2.37 2.95 - - 2.29 ■ - .46 .00 13.62 48 49 -2.03 4.91 - -1.88 1.65 - - .92 - .41 - -1.02 - - .24 - -19.43 - - .84 .18 21.75 49 50 -1.18 .55 - -3.76 .50 6.50 3.04 - -3.34 - -1.31 - - 6.55 .52 .10 5.35 50 51 .01 - -1.41 .77 - - .73 2.95 - .24 - -5.26 .00 14.95 * - .57 - - 4.90 51 52 .88 - -2.05 - -1.26 - - .04 .84 -1.29 .39 .31 5.47 .36 1.16 - - 2.74 52 53 - .12 3.42 4.27 .27 1.44 -2.99 .31 9.63 - -18.02 - - .60 - - .28 2.66 53 54 -2.20 .09 1.21 .04 - - 1.83 -4.66 2.26 3.25 3.49 - - .24 .72 2.29 54 65 * * * * * * * * * * * * 55 56 .46 1.62 2.17 .12 5.83 -2.50 - -4.66 3.97 - -12.05 - - .83 - - .31 10.45 56 57 1.30 - -1.15 .54 - - .48 4.94 .23 2.84 .87 - - 2.80 - - .52 - - .57 - - 5.01 57 58 -1.84 - -4.03 4.16 - - .21 1.15 5.08 - -1.15 - -3.46 6.90 1.89 - - .58 - - 4.50 58 59 4.08 - -1.04 - - .46 - - .19 - - 1.35 -3.57 - - .37 - -3.49 7.87 - -1.06 - - .44 3.81 59 60 .76 1.73 3.87 - - .48 - - 2.28 2.11 * -3.49 12.20 .57 - - .60 - - 5.55 60 61 -1.16 2.13 - - .49 .58 - - 2.23 -1.07 1.04 2.96 6.12 .77 1.39 - - 6.33 61 62 - .25 4.03 5.74 1.62 4.50 -4.29 .37 1.52 - -14.40 - - .98 1.42 4.35 62 63 -1.32 .08 - -1.63 .39 2.73 1.90 - - .52 .01 - -11.63 - - .90 - - .52 9.77 63 64 .42 .74 - - .32 - - .28 - - 2.66 4.41 1.62 4.72 3.01 1.32 .59 - -10.17 64 65 2.37 - -1.25 3.41 - - .54 - - 2.96 -2.94 - - .64 - - .50 6.97 - - .59 - - .30 - - 5.02 65 66 1.80 - -2.64 5.69 .29 .72 4.74 - - .81 - -2.11 1.27 1.12 .17 - - 6.15 66 67 .78 .37 - -4.72 1.16 .52 -2.10 .51 1.55 - - 5.50 .30 - - .56 12.92 67 68 1.34 - -3.19 2.50 - - .27 5.07 -1.95 1.13 - -1.42 3.64 * .27 - - 1.70 68 69 2.94 - - .16 - -3.15 .89 - - 2.56 3.31 - -2.39 - -2.06 .97 - - .34 2.20 .02 69 70 -1.91 - -2.20 6.75 - -1.28 - - 2.88 -3.12 - -1.71 - -1.40 10.52 .36 1.69 - - 1.38 70 71 -2.62 - -1.93 .30 2.11 * -1.89 - - .24 2.37 5.96 * .33 3.40 71 72 -1.63 - -1.48 - -1.01 .87 - - 3.01 5.46 .10 - - .10 6.15 .70 1.23 - -4.34 72 73 7.58 3.87 - - .45 .40 5.62 -2.81 1.39 - -1.17 - -10.00 - - .65 - - .55 .15 73 74 6.47 .76 .70 - -1.16 - - 2.73 1.27 * 1.13 1.31 - - .09 - - .04 2.68 74 75 - .93 -.54 - - 1 . 20 - - .87 - - 2.01 2.17 - -5.40 - -2.91 - -13.85 - - .25 - - .28 24.65 75 76 - .68 - -1.81 - - .86 - -1.00 * 2.17 - -5.04 - -1.17 18.57 .01 - - .54 - - 1.25 76 77 3.29 - - .28 - - .45 .43 10.36 5.20 - -2.63 - -2.76 - - 9.80 * - .21 1.28 77 78 .95 .00 3.34 - - .49 3.08 *No da 4.66 ta given 82 .09 in Tab! 1.12 - le 14. -4.70 .35 - - .11 - - 5.01 78 Some Fiscal Aspects of Public Education 83 Measurement of Variability — Coefficient of Variability. — Were the question asked, which one of the items of expense varied most, no satisfactory deduction could be made based upon the different measures of variability just discussed. Does the expense for general administrative purposes vary more than the expense for police service ? that for schools more than that for libraries ? that for health more than that for fire protection ? It could not be concluded, for instance, though the expense for general administration varies in the group of cities under con- sideration from 5.09 % to 15.66 % — a difference of 10.57 % — and while the expense for police service varies from 4.13 % to 16.73 % — 3, difference of 12.65 % — that the degree of difference between the two variabilities is that represented by the difference between 12.65 % ^^^ io-57 %. or by the ratio existing between these two quantities. Neither would the declaration be sound that the difference in variability in the expense for schools and that for libraries is the difference in their gross variability or the ratio that the quantity of one variability bears to the other. Table No. 18 Table of medians, average deviations, standard deviations, and coefficients of variability. Average percentile payments for general and municipal service expenses. Fiscal years igo2 and IQ03. Cities between 2^,000 and 50,000 population Median. General Administration 8 . 08 Police Department 8.16 Fire Department 9 . 98 Health Department 1 . 40 Charities and Corrections . . 3 . 02 Public Highways 8.19 Street Lighting 6. 43 Public Sanitation 3 . 67 Schools 32.30 Libraries 1.14 Public Recreation .61 Interest on Debt 12. 50 Without entering upon the discussion of the rationale of the mathematical procedure involved, it may be said that the so-called coefficient of variability ^ does give an adequate and comparable figure which may serve as an index of the degree of 1 See Thomdike, E. L., Mental and Social Measurements, pp. 98-102, especially p. 102. Standard Average Coefficient of Deviation. Deviation. Variability. 2.06 1.54 .54 2.38 1.74 .609 3.31 2.58 .817 .997 .747 .633 4.04 2.98 1.71 2.99 2.52 .908 2.35 1.84 .725 2.43 1.78 .927 8.34 6.67 1.175 .727 .56 .524 .92 .642 ,814 7.79 5.75 1.62 84 Some Fiscal Aspects of Public Education variability to which the different items of expense are subject. Developed according to an empirical formula/ these coefficients of variability are given in the fourth column of Table 18. From these coefficients it is justifiable to say that the expense for libraries and that for general administration seems to be least subject to the influence of those conditions likely to produce variability, while the expense for charities and corrections, and interest on debt, and schools, possess, in the order named, the largest degree of variability. Causes of Variability. — The probable causes of the variability of expense discussed at length in Section VII. seem to admit of application in the present instance. Especially significant appears to be the negative influence of population alone. Of the remaining possible causes previously posited, the only one demanding special mention here is that of the mode of classi- fication of public accounts and of systems of accounting. It is believed that the efforts of the Bureau of the Census to present the data of municipal finance in a manner at once in accord with the standards of economists and of public and private finance, and admitting of some degree of comparison, have re- sulted more successfully than any other previous efforts in this direction. The care and thoroughness employed by the officials of the Census in the preparation of adequate schedules and in the collation of the data would seem to indicate that the confusion arising from the varying systems of accounting and from the differing modes of classifications of public accounts had been reduced to a point which gives the data special value for such group studies as this. Relationship of Variabilities ; Coefficient of Correlation.^ — Developed in the same manner as in Section VIII, the following coefficients of correlation given in Table 19 have been arrived at upon the basis of the average payments for municipal ex- penses for 1902 and 1903. There seems to be no need of analyzing the implication of these correlations. What was said in Section VIII regarding the meaning of these relationships finds additional proof in the r Median 2 See pp. 56 ff. for discussion of significance and mode of derivation of the coefficient of correlation. Some Fiscal Aspects of Public Education 85 character of the present coefficients. Each series presents in general the same distinguishing marks (compare Tables 10 and 19). Noteworthy is the identity of the positive correlation of the expense for schools with the expense for fire department, that for libraries and museums and that for street lighting. Table No. 19 Table of Pearson coefficients of correlation. Average percentile payments for general and municipal service expenses. Fiscal years igo2 and jgoj, all cities between 2^,000 and §0,000 population Schools with — General Administration — . 094 Police Department — . 367 Fire Department + . 088 Health Department — . 187 Charities and Corrections — . 371 Public Highways - . 000428 Street Lighting + . 246 Public Sanitation — . 246 Libraries and Museums + . 30 Public Recreation — . 054 Interest on Debt — . 541 XII. Relationships of the Different Standards of Ex- penditures FOR Education Classification of Cities on the Basis of Percentile School Ex- penditures. — The previous demonstrations regarding variability and relationships of municipal expenditures have provided us, it is thought, with a new instrumentality with which to gain an insight into the significant meanings of these expenditures. We are enabled to classify cities into groups according to their differing fiscal characteristics. Thus, it is possible to arrange all of the cities, whose expenditures have been considered, into groups according to whether they spend a large or small propor- tion of their total municipal expenditures for any particular item. Such groupings on the basis of percentile educational expenditures as have already been represented ^ give additional meanings to our coefficients of correlation and lend further significance to the phenomenon of variability. Tables 20(a), 20(6), and 21 present certain other fiscal char- acteristics of groups of cities, the members of each group being selected, in tens, from the extremes of the variability range of percentile school expenditures. Without additional comment, ' See Fig. 11, and explanation, p. 60. 86 Some Fiscal Aspects of Public Education it may be noted that the totals (averages and medians) of the various items of expenditure tend to confirm the general rela- tionships pointed out by the Pearson coefficients of correlation. Other groupings on this same basis could be made so as to in- clude all of the cities. A confirmation of the general tendencies indicated by the coefficient figures might be looked for, although, as groups were formed of cities lying close to the central ten- dencies of the expenditures, the previously marked differences in the group characteristics would tend to disappear. Table No. 20 (a) Table showing general group relationships. Selection of cities based on per- centile expenditures for schools, and made from all cities in United States having a population of 30,000 and over. Fiscal year igoi Highest ten cities in percentile school expenditures: i "o •s CO ■1 ^ "u bo OJ w C < Q c c CD g u nl a For names of cities see Table 2, pp. 22-25. Some Fiscal Aspects of Public Education Table No. 21 Table showing general group relationships. Selection of cities based on percentile payments for schools, and made from cities in United States having a population of 30,000 to 50,000. Average for fiscal years igo2 and iQOj Highest ten cities in percentile school expenditures: Si^ 1 "^1 V Q 0) K _JJ (U 2 •ce 2S C *" ?6 2 a 5 S^ 3 3 h 2 3 J2 m 2 3 S Q ^ w cu E ffi fe w CL. J pu 76 50.87 7.40 6.35 9.12 .40 10.36 .39 2.60 1.15 .07 11.25 51 47.25 8.09 6.75 10.75 .77 5.97 7.95 1.17 3.67 .04 7.60 24 47.05 6.10 8.85 5.89 1.53 4.71 11.85 6.44 .01 .55 6.87 60 44.50 8.84 9.89 13 85 .92 .74 10.30 .18 1.71 .01 6.95 28 42.88 7.09 6.00 9.61 2.10 .10 8.19 7.45 3.39 .08 12.60 70 42.82 6.17 5.96 16.73 .12 .14 5.07 4.72 2.27 1.50 2.30 11.12 26 41.76 7.52 6.76 11.52 2.23 .56 9.86 3.72 1.60 1.22 .61 12.36 H 40.80 8.08 4.69 8.71 .82 .10 3.26 4.06 2.81 1.46 .02 24.77 47 40.70 5.32 7.00 12.07 .67 .73 6.88 9.10 5.85 3.43 .26 7.68 69 40.17 12.16 7.12 9.52 1.21 1.67 4.62 6.06 .18 .08 .17 16.31 Median, 42.85 7.46 6.76 10.18 .87 .73 8.07 4.72 2.44 1.46 .13 11.19 Average, 43.88 7.68 6.94 10.78 1.08 1.63 783 4.80 2.26 1.51 .41 11.75 Lowest ten cities in percentile school expenditures : 1 21.70 11.54 11.87 9.22 1.40 4.28 4.83 7.85 10.65 .63 .24 14.28 40 21.58 7.67 7.73 5.14 .87 3.74 10.74 5.12 4.55 1.55 .65 20.69 63 20.57 6.76 8.24 8.35 1.79 5.75 10.09 5.91 3.68 .24 .09 22.27 56 20.25 8.54 9.78 12.15 1.52 8.85 5.69 1.77 7.64 .31 .30 22.95 46 19.75 8.10 8.07 12.38 4.33 3.59 6.39 8.37 3.52 25.54 75 18.45 7.15 7.62 8.78 .53 1.01 10.36 1.03 .76 .89 .33 37.15 62 17.90 7.83 12.19 15.72 3.02 7.52 3.90 6.70 5.19 .16 2.03 16.85 53 16.76 7.96 11.58 14.25 1.67 4.46 5.20 6.74 13.30 .54 .33 15.16 14 13.72 7.52 12.32 13.45 1.97 1.94 10.96 3.60 4.14 .04 .63 28.67 49 12.87 6.05 13.07 8.10 3.05 2.10 7.78 5.41 3.43 .30 .79 34.26 Median, 19.10 7.75 10.68 10.69 1.73 4.01 7.09 5.66 4.35 .31 .33 22.61 Average. 18.36 7.91 10.25 10.75 2.02 4.32 7.59 5.25 5.69 .52 .60 23.77 • For names of cities see Table 14, pp. 72-73. Some Fiscal Aspects of Public Education 89 Classification of Cities on the Basis of Per Capita School Expenditure. — In like manner Table 22 illustrates the construc- tion of groupings from the per capita expenditures which, even more than the percentile groupings, give objective evidence of the conditions predicated by the Pearson coefficients : Table No. 22 Table showing general group relationships. Selection of cities based on per capita expenditures for schools, and made from all cities in United States having a population of 30,000 and over. Fiscal year igoi Highest ten cities in per capita school expenditures : •^ S m s is G U) 1 a •1 1 "0 ft 3 p +9 6 =3" 132 $5.56 $2.12 $1.22 $ .72 60 5.53 1.04 1.50 1.03 1 5.51 3.21 1.32 .76 122 5.43 1.94 1.55 1.59 5 5.31 3.13 2.24 1.34 25 4.85 1.23 1.11 .66 41 4.67 1.37 .97 .77 61 4.64 1.04 1.02 .92 49 4.62 1.56 1.42 .72 120 4.62 .98 .99 .87 Median, $5.08 $1.46 $1.27 $ .82 Average, 5.42 1.76 1.41 .84 Lowest ten cities in per capita school ex penditures : 125 $1.49 $ .65 $ .66 $ .71 135 1.47 1.02 1.10 .20 126 1.46 .56 .53 .62 46 1.35 1.18 1.01 .37 37 1.31 .95 .93 .46 99 1.24 1.45 .93 .42 68 1.19 1.38 .74 .42 98 1.18 1.02 .62 .47 133 1.12 1.26 .86 .61 80 1.07 1.12 .84 .30 Median, $1.27 $1.07 $ .85 $ .44 Average, 1.29 1.08 .85 .44 Fiscal Standards for Education. — After all, it may be asked, what is the real significance of these relationships and groupings ? Unless they are indicative of certain positive or negative quali- ties of municipal activity, why develop them ? In the general » For names of cities see Table 2, pp. 22-25. 90 Some Fiscal Aspects of Public Education attempt to make a reply to this, we are led to discern if possible the relationships which may exist between the different expen- diture standards in current usage. In this the effort will be confined to the different standards of educational expenditures, inasmuch as these are the factors which are of most concern in the present instance. Classification of Cities on Basis of Cost per Pupil. — The or- dinarily accepted standard for effort in the support of public education is the amount expended according to the number of pupils educated; in general, the annual cost per pupil educated, based on average daily attendance. This seems to be, of course, the sound basis. If expenditures are in any way re- lated to efficiency and excellence and opportunity, then the actual amount of money devoted to each pupil attending school is the most essential fiscal fact. A city does not educate in its public schools all of the population, hence a rating on the basis of expenditure per capita of population would not be entirely sound, except in so far as the number of children in cities bore a constant relation to the total population. Even the number of children in a community is scarcely an index of the number of pupils in the public schools. Many within the age limit do not attend school for one reason or another. Private and parochial schools tend to reduce the number of pupils actually in the public schools. Valuation of Different Standards. — In spite of this apparent proof of the validity of the cost per pupil basis, it is here thought that each of the several classifications, percentile, per capita and per pupil, has a special value in estimating potential mimicipal effort and actual educational opportunity afforded in any city. The difficulty has been in actual administrative practice, not in the lack of recognition of these different standards, but in the assignment of an adequate value to each. Relationship of Different Standards. — Before suggesting any method by which this possible value may be attached to each of these standards, it is necessary to determine in some way just what relations these different standards bear to one another. Are they totally independent, or does the knowledge of one give any information concerning the others? To present the prob- lem in a more definite manner, Table 23 has been constructed. The first three columns of the table (omitting the column giving Some Fiscal Aspects of Public Education 91 the index numbers of the cities) give the rankings of the 135 cities above 30,000 population, for the fiscal year 1900 according to the three standards which have been indicated. The rankings of the first column were obtained by arrang- ing the cities according to their percentile expenditures for education, giving to the city that spent the highest percentage, of its total expenditures, for education rank i, to the city that spent the second highest percentage rank 2, etc. In a similar manner, the cities in column two were ranked according to their per capita expenditures. The figures for column three were obtained in an arbitrary yet uniform manner, from the data published in the report of the United States Commissioner of Education for 1899-1900,1 by dividing the combined ex- penditures for teaching and supervision, and current and inci- dental expenses, by the average daily attendance. As this data is gathered by the Commissioner of Education directly from the school superintendents, it is, without doubt, fairly reliable. From a casual inspection of these columns one might easily infer the existence of a positive correlation between columns two and three. That such a mutual relationship is present is indicated by Figure 29. It is of such a direct and conclusive nature that no attempt was made to measure its exact amount by the Pearson coefficient. The relations between columns one and three and one and two are of a neutral or slightly negative character. This is demonstrated graphically in Figures 30 and 31, which represent the relations as they exist between the cities of from 30,000 to 50,000 population. Value of Percentile Standard. — In view of these negative or neutral relationships between the rankings according to the percentile standard and those according to the other two, what estimate may be put upon this standard? It serves indeed, as we have already seen, as a means of determining with consider- able accuracy the exact fiscal position of public education in its relation to other municipal activities. These relationships enable us to state specifically certain characteristics of fiscal » Vol. II, Table 7, pp. 1798-1809, Statistics of Population and School Enrollment and Attendance in Cities over 8,000 Population, 1 899-1900; Table 10, pp. 1832-1841, Statistics of Expenditures of Public Schools of Cities over 8,000 Inhabitants in i8gg-igoo. 92 Some Fiscal Aspects of Public Education Table No. 23 Rank of cities in the United States above 30,000 population in accordance with expenditures for education - ^ " oi (1 B.05 -a 5 Sow 5o.c o 3e2 •a'22 u'^ V-. "O "a-So o.a;-t;aj o «auo. ^-c ^ S S^ S W.S « a J ^^^ J J 282 15 111 3 2 30 25 20 235 10 29 73 ? 113 87 83 902 103 104 36 4 115 90 80 900 101 106 !? 109 2 110 40 f 119 4 7 285 16 109 6 120 104 66 882 97 I oi li K ^^2 61 65 66 8 96 56 64 680 72 92 26 9 88 24 6 278 14 Sfi 91 }? 110 57 87 826 It ill \\ 11 125 88 24 634 63 112 12 12 130 125 50 885 99 1? 13 64 71 51 596 60 63 69 14 86 93 90 901 102 84 65 If 79 19 25 340 22 77 on 16 102 33 28 443 32 17 127 105 108 1109 119 98 13 113 10 51 49 100 8 22 96 48 71 93 46 108 6 9 63 49 75 102 41 18 105 96 104 1018 114 II 53 32 72 562 56 52 20 106 20 10 322 20 21 23 54 33 373 28 22 49 64 32 450 34 23 97 82 89 885 100 24 117 34 38 526 48 26 9 7 11 94 2 26 50 68 101 809 90 28 74 58 40 522 46 73 50 29 82 9 22 301 19 It 7 30 78 22 61 527 49 76 25 47 57 55 79 99 39 39 132 53 48 24 56 111 1 126 31 48 39 53 478 39 32 56 72 88 768 84 33 104 75 75 808 89 34 40 129 98 957 109 35 54 26 29 331 21 36 25 11 30 233 9 37 118 127 114 1187 122 38 1 55 41 372 27 39 58 48 19 355 24 57 '^2 40 75 52 56 586 58 74 II ti ?f of 18 273 13 82 5 f2 71 84 34 564 57 70 68 S 123 122 128 1252 1§6 ^ ?1 44 41 61 82 675 70 40 78 45 26 46 36 370 26 25 85 » For names of cities, see Table i, pp. 18 ff. Some Fiscal Aspects of Public Education 93 Table No. 23 {Continued) Rank of cities in the United States above 30,000 population in accordance with expenditures for education 1 gg 1 yg rs 1 P.05 0,00 •a a; ■d (U cii c> Total Expenditures. Maintenance and Operation. Per Capita Rank. 46 129 123 125 1252 127 45 47 90 114 122 1232 125 49 48 98 78 16 510 43 94 43 49 62 17 1 180 4 61 27 50 42 101 118 977 112 41 112 51 51 108 99 921 105 50 113 52 59 103 107 962 111 58 100 53 87 115 109 1064 115 85 103 54 69 99 102 927 106 68 86 55 101 35 44 527 55 97 14 56 8 10 13 111 3 8 70 57 85 81 71 768 85 83 85 58 93 36 43 509 42 90 22 59 3 12 65 367 25 3 88 60 47 3 23 218 8 46 11 61 52 8 49 373 29 51 18 62 100 100 45 725 78 96 59 63 63 63 39 510 44 62 60 64 29 66 58 546 54 28 106 65 99 113 35 712 76 95 76 66 61 67 60 623 62 60 64 67 32 47 54 475 38 31 82 68 126 128 132 1296 132 81 69 No data 70 34 13 55 382 31 33 54 71 76 111 119 1080 118 101 72 83 18 14 290 17 81 15 73 28 86 42 524 47 27 115 74 91 110 112 1072 117 88 90 75 4 85 96 743 80 4 124 76 43 79 124 446 107 42 92 77 22 76 85 697 74 21 116 78 112 31 31 472 37 103 9 79 67 16 5 207 7 66 23 80 132 131 120 1257 128 29 81 6 27 21 198 6 6 108 82 44 14 12 190 5 43 42 83 38 102 97 867 96 37 114 84 15 73 91 699 75 15 119 85 107 106 116 1112 120 62 86 95 109 47 752 81 83 87 35 60 59 545 53 34 89 88 108 119 123 1188 123 84 89 16 40 105 687 73 16 95 90 24 121 79 806 88 23 130 ' For names of cities, see Table i, pp. i8 ff. 94 Some Fiscal Aspects of Public Education Table No. 23 {Continued) Rank of cities in the United States above jo,ooo population in accordance with expenditures for education S ° Pi S . 8 .OS euoo J > •0 ^■5 C 3 t/i rt a; £•- c Expenditures, .intenance and leration. Per pita Rank. 2 2a .Sf 'Z 3soc5 91 18 65 84 651 67 18 110 92 92 49 69 676 71 89 28 93 10 41 78 533 51 10 104 94 109 116 127 1201 124 77 95 114 59 15 480 41 105 19 96 21 107 111 917 104 20 127 97 57 92 73 755 82 56 87 98 No data 99 124 130 129 1283 130 107 100 20 112 115 951 108 128 101 39 80 100 818 91 38 99 102 No data 103 128 50 46 636 65 114 4 104 81 44 37 479 40 79 32 105 89 51 9 376 30 87 35 106 13 28 48 350 23 13 91 107 37 74 92 758 83 36 98 108 46 117 103 958 110 45 123 109 27 97 62 655 69 26 121 110 94 45 27 458 36 91 24 111 2 91 93 741 79 2 129 112 73 69 106 883 98 72 61 113 11 98 110 866 95 11 125 114 5 21 74 443 33 5 102 115 33 95 94 821 92 32 117 116 36 77 95 778 86 35 105 117 55 42 81 641 66 54 53 118 19 94 67 655 68 19 122 119 12 118 121 983 113 12 131 120 77 15 8 239 11 75 16 121 14 43 86 587 59 14 97 122 116 2 2 254 12 107 1 123 45 53 77 634 64 44 67 124 72 23 17 298 18 71 30 125 103 126 131 1143 121 118 126 60 120 117 1065 116 59 120 127 80 37 26 451 35 78 31 128 70 29 57 512 45 69 34 129 17 62 113 785 87 17 109 130 68 30 63 541 52 67 38 131 31 38 76 556 55 30 80 132 7 1 3 32 1 7 33 133 131 132 126 1288 131 55 134 65 S3 68 719 77 64 74 135 121 124 130 1264 129 93 > For names of cities, see Table i, pp. 18 ff. Some Fiscal Aspects of Public Education 95 practices in cities. Alone, the percentile standard of expenditure tellsjus to just what extent it is necessary for the municipality to support education, or to what extent the municipality is willing to support education, or to what extent it is able to 13B FIG. S0.> 35 4ft PEE* PlJPIli 65 65 76 85 105 116 1S5 13$ support education. Necessity, willingness, and ability may represent different things entirely. The percentile expendi- ture may be comparatively low, yet the per capita and cost per pupil expenditures high (compare city 122 in the tables). In this case the possible number of pupils may be compara- tively low and the general resources of the community com- paratively high. In either case, it would be necessary to make use of the per capita or cost per pupil rankings and standards. Value of Per Capita Standard. — The closeness with which this standard approximates that of the cost per pupil in any > See p. 9 1 for explanation. 96 Some Fiscal Aspects of Public Education city might be indicative, in general, of the extent to which the facilities for public education were utilized by all of the children of the community. Any great divergence would indicate some cause which led to an unbalancing of the normal proportion of children and adults in the population, or it might indicate a non-attendance of pupils upon the public schools. Value of Cost per Pupil Standard. — Without entering upon any detailed discussion as to the validity of the method by Table No. 24 Table of frequencies. Expenditure per pupil for schools. Derived from data contained in report of the United States Commissioner of Education, 1899-1900 All cities above All cities between Cost per pupil. 30,000 population. 30,000 and 50,000 population. $11 1 12 13 1 1 14 2 2 15 4 2 16 3 1 17 3 2 18 1 19 3 3 20 6 3 21 8 3 22 12 7 23 7 2 24 16 10 25 5 2 26 12 2 27 5 3 28 7 1 29 9 30 5 ; 2 31 5 '] 1 32 6 3 33 2 34 3 2 35 36 1 37 1 1 38 2 1 39 1 1 40 41 42 1 Total, 132 55 which this factor should be derived,, and assuming that, in general, a high cost per pupil is indicative of a high standard of opportunity for education, it may be asserted that, in rank- ing cities in accordance with their fiscal policy toward educa- 56 FIG 30^ 59 6:0 40 3>5 us 10 PBB PUPIL a 10 10 SO 85 30 30 40 4A 60 5S FIG 31^ PKJ6 OAPCTIA. POPCrLATIOR S 10 10 20 26 30 8 40 4S 60 S6 I See page 91 for explanation. 97 98 Some Fiscal Aspects of Public Education tion, the greater weight should be given to this factor. In the present rankings a small number of discrepancies may have arisen by ranking some cities too high, owing to such causes, as, for instance, an extraordinarily high expenditure for secondary education, which would tend to raise the cost per pupil rank above that obtaining in reality by the average expenditure for all pupils. Rankings According to Weighted Values. — Columns four and five of Table 23 are suggested as a possible method by means of which communities could be given a financial rank for their educational expenditures, by assigning certain values to the three previously discussed standards. Column four was de- veloped by assigning a value of two to the rankings of column one, a value of three to those of column two, and a value of five to those of column three. The cities were then ranked in accordance with these weighted values, to the lowest value being given the first rank. The plan here followed is one that might be adapted on a more extended scale, including, for in- stance, such items as the percentage of the total amount ex- pended for education devoted to the salaries of teachers, the proportional amounts devoted to elementary and secondary education, and so forth. By reason of the generally low posi- tion of the southern cities, a ranking according to the weighted values is given in column six of Table 23, excluding the southern cities. In the last column of this table all of the cities are ranked in accordance with their total municipal expenditures on the per capita basis. The relation between the per capita expendi- tures for education and the per capita total expenditures, as determined by the Pearson formula, gave a result of -|- -56. This coefficient is to be interpreted as meaning that, as the general municipal expenditures increase, the expenditures for education do not increase at the same rate. In this respect this coefficient seems to indicate a similar tendency to that de- rived from the relation between the amount of school ex- penditures and the assessed valuation of property in cities. 1 XIII. General Conclusions Aside from the detailed results of this study recorded in the preceding chapters, it seems pertinent to gather together here > See page 66. Some Fiscal Aspects of Public Education 99 some of the larger and wider aspects of the method used and of the results obtained. The validity of the application of such a statistical method as that employed cannot, I believe, be questioned. The study of the financial statistics of education, through the medium of large groups of cities needs no further justification, if such statis- tics are to be raised above the plane of mere one to one com- parison of cities and are to be utilized for general scientific conclusions. The study of the expenditures for public education with reference to the expenditures for other municipal activities should be extended until the relationships between all of these different expenditures can be defined and their meaning fully understood. As cities increase in size, and the extent, number, and importance of municipal fimctions increase, thus bringing a greater burden to the sources of the municipal income, there will develop a greater necessity for a knowledge and understand- ing of these relations, both for a fuller recognition of the essential conditions of municipal life and for a better comprehension of the legitimate claims of public education for a more generous support. The finances of public education in a municipality cannot be studied apart from the finances of other activities any more than the public school as an institution can be studied in isolation from its social environment. The wider consideration of this important matter will lead to two much-desired results. First, there would be a tendency toward the breaking down of that social and administrative isolation of the public schools which now obtains in so many communities. The idea of the unity of the mimicipal life and institutions brought forward in the introduction of this study will be furthered only when the mutual dependence of the social activities within that life is realized. Without doubt there is a grave danger in not having the public schools of all cities safeguarded against the attacks of vicious politics and self-seeking prejudices. But politics and prejudices of this sort exist in a greater or less degree in every community. Merely to keep the public schools free from their influence is not to protect the remaining elements of the muni- cipal life. Each of these elements possesses a potential power for education. Each should be entitled only to such proportion loo Some Fiscal Aspects of Public Education of the public revenue as is demonstrated by its efficiency and importance within the municipal economy. Second, there would result a broader conception of the eco- nomic importance of education, which would -serve to supple- ment a rational treatment of those fundamental and far-reaching problems of financial support at present confronting the educa- tional activities in most American cities. The fiscal relation- ships that have been pointed out are of the variety demanded for a correct discrimination of the rightful quantity of- public sup- port to which each of the municipal activities is economically entitled. BIBLIOGRAPHY 1. Bulletin, United States Department of Labor, No. 24, September, 1899, Statistics of Cities. Washington, 1899. 2. Bulletin, United States Department of Labor, No. 30, September, 1900. Statistics of Cities. Washington, 1900. 3. Bulletin, United States Department of Labor, No. 36, September, 1901, Statistics of Cities. Washington, 1901. 4. Bulletin, United States Department of Labor, No. 42, September, 1902. Statistics of Cities. Washington, 1902. 5. An Introduction to the Theory of Mental and Social Measurements. Edward L. Thomdike. New York, 1904. 6. Educational Psychology. Edward L. Thomdike. New York, 1903. 7. Statistics and Sociology. Richmond Mayo-Smith. New York, 1896. 8. Introduction to Economics. Henry Rogers Seager. New York, 1904. 9. The Growth of Cities in the Nineteenth Century. Adna Ferrin Weber. Studies in History, Economics, and Public Law, Columbia Uni- versity. New York, 1899. School Administration in Municipal Government. Frank Rollins. New York, 1902. The Centralization of Administration in New York State. John A. Fairlie. New York, 1898. Ptiblic Administration in Massachusetts: The Relation of Central to Local Activity. Robert Harvey Whitten. New York, 1898. 13. Municipal Problems. Frank J. Goodnow. New York, 1897. 14. City Government in the United States. Frank J. Goodnow. New York, 1904. 15. Municipal Administration. John A. Fairlie. New York, 1901. 16. The American City: A Problem in Democracy. Delos F. Wilcox. New York, 1904. 17. American Municipal Progress. Charles Zueblin. New York, 1902. City Government in the United States. Alfred R. Conkling. New York, 1895. Some Fiscal Aspects of Public Education loi 19. More Money for the Public Schools. Charles W. Eliot, New York, 1903- 20. Our Schools, Their Administration and Supervision. William Esta- brook Chancellor. Boston, 1904. 21. Proceedings of the Cohtmbus Conference for Good City Government attd Fifth Annual Meeting of the National Mtinicipal League, No- vember 16-18, 1899. Clinton Rogers Woodruff, Editor. Phila- delphia, 1899. 22. Proceedings of the Milwaukee Conference for Good City Government and Sixth Annual Meeting of the National Municipal League. September 19-21, 1900. Clinton Rogers Woodruff, Editor, Philadelphia, 1900. 23. Proceedings of the Rochester Conference for Good City Government aiid Seventh Annual Meeting of the National Municipal League, May 8-10, 1 90 1. Clinton Rogers Woodruff, Editor. Phila- delphia, 1 90 1. 24. Proceedings of the Chicago Conference for Good City Government and the Tenth Annual Meeting of the National Municipal League, April 27-29, 1904. Clinton Rogers Woodruff, Editor. Phila- delphia, 1904. 25. Reports of an Investigation Concerning the Cost of Maintaining the Public School System of the City of New York by the Department of Finance (Investigations Division). New York, 1904. 26. Uniform Municipal Accounting; Minutes of a Conference held in the City of Washington, November ig and 20, igoj, under the Au- spices of the United States Bureau of the Census. Washington, Government Printing Office, 1904. 27. Wealth, Debt and Taxation, Municipal Finance: Instructions to Clerks and Special Agents. Department of Commerce and Labor, Bureau of the Census, 1904. 28. Salaries of Teachers. J. B. Clark. Columbia University Quarterly, I: III— 121. 29. Statistics of Cities Having a Population of over 2^,000, 1902 and 1903. Department of Commerce and Labor, Bureau of the Census, Washington, 1905. AFTERWORD It is fitting at the conclusion of this study for me to express my gratitude to those whose assistance has made its accomplish- ment possible. To Dean James E. Russell of the Teachers Col- lege, Columbia University, for suggesting the importance of such a study, and to Professor Edwin R. A. Seligman of the Faculty of Political Science of Columbia University for much helpful ad- vice during the progress of the investigation, am I under deep obligations. By Mr. Le Grand Powers, Chief Statistician of the I02 SoiJie piscal Aspects of Public Education Division of Wealth, Debt and Taxation, of the United States Census Bureau, for much valuable information regarding the collection of the original data utilized; by Professor S. T. Dut- ton of the Teachers College, Columbia University, for his interest in the study; and by Dr. F. A. Cleveland of New York City for many useful hints regarding the nature of municipal accounts, have I been placed imder a lasting debt. For the opportunity of making an extended observation of current municipal re- ports, I am indebted to the auditors and treasurers of a large number of cities, especially to these officers of New England and New York cities. In this connection, too. Dr. James H. Can- field, Librarian of Columbia University, has given me timely aid in the collection of municipal reports from many other cities. Much kindly assistance has been rendered me by Miss Elizabeth G. Baldwin and Miss Anna E. Scudder of the Bryson Library, Teachers College. Without the inestimable and painstaking assistance of Miss Jeanette F. Seibert, Assistant in Psychology in the Teachers College, in the lengthy and laborious work in- volved in the arithmetical and tabulating operations, the study would have been beyond the limits of my energy and patience. It is, however, to Professor Edward Lee Thorndike of the Teachers College, Columbia University, that I must acknowl- edge my greatest debt. His interest in the problems developed during the course of the investigation, and the constant, kindly criticism of the work, especially as regards the statistical method employed, have caused me to be keenly sensible of the gratitude I ov/e him. It is the inspiration derived from his scientific attitude toward all social and educational problems that has given my work whatever merit it may possess. PERSONAL STATEMENT The author of this study was born in Chicago in 1874. He received his elementary and secondary education in the public schools of North Platte, Nebraska; was graduated from the University of Nebraska with the degree of bachelor of science in 1895; master of arts, 1897. He was a Fellow (Teaching) in Chemistry at the University of Nebraska, 1895-1897; instructor in science, High School, Leadville, Colorado, 1897-98; and superintendent of city schools, Leadville, Colorado, 1 898-1 903. Some Fiscal Aspects of Public Education 103 He was a student at Columbia University, 1903-1905; and at University of Jena, summer semester, 1905; assistant in educa- tional administration, Teachers College, Columbia University, 1903-1904; Fellow (Teaching) in Education, Teachers College, Coltimbia University, 1904-1905. LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 021 324 808 n