COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY, TEACHERS COLLEGE CONTRIBUTIONS TO EDUCATION ^m maKffi& NO. 6 SOME HI Fiscal Aspects OF ublic Education :: :: ' EDWARD C. ELLIOTT, Ph.D. mm m PUBLISHED BY (Teacbers College, Columbia 'GlnfversftE NEW YORK j.J ; -;:' ■■-;■:■ :: . ;■• ;;■':.■';;■;•■% 2329 ott Southern Branch of the University of California Los Angeles Form L 1 This book is DUE on the last date stamped below PETE MAY % 6 1941. RSON SEMINAR Form L-9-15m-10,'25 V COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY, TEACHERS COLLEGE CONTRIBUTIONS TO EDUCATION NO. 6 SOME FISCAL ASPECTS OF PUBLIC EDUCATION IN AMERICAN CITIES BY EDWARD C. ELLIOTT, Ph.D. Associate Professor of Education, University of Wisconsin JBI34 PUBLISHED BY ZTeacbers Colleae, Columbia XHniversitp NEW YORK 190^ L-B 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 modern 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 IV. Character, Arrangement and Preliminary Ma- nipulation op Data 16 Data of expenditures for municipal maintenance and operation for 1900 and 1901 . . . . 16 Percentile tables of expenditures No. 1 (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 ^{a)-/\{h)) ... 27 Explanation of tables of frequency ... . 31 Graphical representation of variability (Figs. 1 to 10) 32 i ii Contents PAGE VI. Measurement of Variability 35 Method of probable error 35 Table of probable errors (Table 4 a) .... 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 VIII. 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 Correlation of Per Capita Expenditures . 61 Data 61 Variability of per capita expenditures (Tables 11 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 iii 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 XI. 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 : coefficient 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 group relationships (Table 22) . . . 89 Fiscal standards for education 89 Classification of cities on the basis of cost per pupil 90 •' v Contents PAGE 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 SOME FISCAL ASPECTS OF PUBLIC EDUCATION IN AMERICAN CITIES By EDWARD C. ELLIOTT, A.M. (Nebraska); Ph.D. (Columbia); Associate Professor of Education, University of Wisconsin 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 modern 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. 5^ This scientific aspect, as it concerns organized public educa- « tion, is best defined by the many and varied efforts of the day tyto 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. 1 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 1 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. 1 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 accuracy. 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 1 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. 1 I recognize the objections to the use of this term producer. 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 1 — 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 1 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 Scliools, 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, 1 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. 1 The recent well-known 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. N. 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 mould 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 Modem 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. 2 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 1 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 Government in the Unite! 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 modern 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 modern 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, 2 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 Government. 3 These revenues, in the main derived 1 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. 1 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. 2 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. 1, 1902 (Monthly Summary of Commerce and Finance of the United States, Treasury Department, December, 1902, P- 843) $i,3n>574.o59. 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 amount $1,172,798,788 was in the form of municipal bonds. 1 Goodnow, F. J., City Government 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. 2 Webster, R. H., Recent Centralizing Tendencies in State Educa- tional Administration, gives a very satisfactory exposition of the present conditions. io 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. 1 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- 1 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 n ditures 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 be made as independent as possible of other departments of municipal government, " 2 must cease to be a working principle if our modern 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. 1 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. 1 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. 1 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, 1 The last two of the series of four bulletins 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 190 1, 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 1 "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 (6)). 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 adults 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 communities. 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 modern 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 found to be of indispensable service in the realm of the biological and social sciences. Its definite application to the fiscal problem of education 1 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 1 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 : (1) police department; (2) police courts, jails, workhouses, re- formatories, etc.; (3) fire department; (4) health department; (5) hospitals, asylums, almshouses, 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. 3 1 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. 3 Section VII, p. 46 ff. Table Showing percentages of total amount expended for maintenance and operation All cities in the United States . u o a | |rt a o V 6 6£ 3 ° -2 a beg ZB a ■d si a 5 Vh J2 1 S <8 to 3p City. c8 a B o a! ft o T3 - 3 « o to 3 >d (3 "<3 T3 u a 03 "5 S. •n 6 a! to ft a> CJ O ■d a .5 73 o ^ *o o "J to J5.8 as 3 '3 9 fa a, fa W in W 3 fa W § 1 New York, N. Y.... 10.15 .791 4.66 .924 4.66 14.9 .555 1.72 .648 2.45 2 Chicago, 111 19.30 1.460 8.30 .878 .04 31.8 .894 3.30 2.00 2.19 3 Philadelphia, Pa.. . . 14.30 2.640 5.02 1.480 2.49 17.1 1.33 2.63 .432 5.75 4 St. Louis, Mo 17.80 1.270 8.01 1.420 6.14 16.8 .453 1.29 1.12 5.72 5 Boston, Mass 8.66 6.660 6.26 .824 6.16 15.4 1.61 2.50 1.88 3.77 6 Baltimore, Md 11.20 2.770 5.84 .995 4.07 15.4 .034 3.29 .418 5.22 7 Cleveland, Ohio 8.64 1.910 9.83 1.540 2.73 23.7 1.65 .786 .694 5.15 8 Buffalo, N. Y 13.10 .406 11.00 .725 2.60 19.1 1.65 3.21 .197 5.79 9 San Francisco, Cal. . 14.80 1.980 9.88 1.660 3.82 20.9 .754 2.66 ■ .824 3.94 10 Cincinnati, Ohio. . . . 9.88 1.840 8.13 .677 3.45 17.3 1.13 .611 .696 5.56 11 Pittsburg, Pa 8.07 7.85 1.310 2.25 13.5 1.03 2.88 1.11 4.75 12 New Orleans, La. . . . 5.60 1.330 6.24 1.190 1.18 10.4 .173 .205 5.14 13 Detroit, Mich 16.00 .341 14.60 1.030 2.09 23.9 1.79 2.89 1.41 14 Milwaukee, Wis 9.32 .507 11.40 .979 .36 21.1 1.60 1.86 1.40 6.25 15 Washington, D. C . 13.00 6.790 4.60 1.350 7.50 21.7 .140 1.16 1.39 4.62 16 Newark, N. J 8.55 5.88 1.190 4.25 18.3 .713 .0937 1.27 4.37 17 Jersey City, N. J 9.94 .234 5.28 .176 .73 11.0 .763 .142 .448 3.99 18 9.77 3.770 8.96 .301 2.23 17.9 1.70 .497 4.87 19 Minneapolis, Minn. . 7.36 .537 11.20 .842 3.03 25.6 1.43 2.51 1.26 5.12 20 Providence, R. I.. . . 9.56 .120 9.41 .451 1.06 17.9 .331 1.19 1.74 8.04 21 Indianapolis, Ind.. . 9.02 .160 10.10 722 2.42 33.2 2.82 4.48 4.77 6.73 22 Kansas City, Mo.. . . 11.90 1.160 11.90 l'.960 .16 26.5 .963 2.39 .424 4.06 23 St. Paul, Minn 7.70 1.640 8.25 .377 1.00 19.0 .615 2.40 ,714 8.06 24 Rochester, N. Y 5.54 .435 6.68 1.240 3.15 16.1 .077 .787 .0997 7.87 25 7.56 .724 8.35 1.520 1.87 37.2 1.27 3.64 .831 5.88 26 Toledo, Ohio 6.96 1.870 7.57 1.040 (a) 25.9 .732 1.17 .872 5.14 27 6.85 6.67 .763 3.55 17.3 1.15 1.37 .754 28 Columbus, Ohio 7.05 1.010 9.56 1.290 .66 22.5 .522 .535 .658 3.53 29 Worcester, Mass 5.65 6.36 1.110 5.56 21.2 1.58 1.04 11.5 4.61 30 7.57 .735 9.22 .817 5.86 21.8 1.93 1.91 5.90 31 New Haven, Conn... 13.50 .967 9.78 .538 5.25 26.6 1.13 1.41 .798 5.46 32 Paterson, N. J 9.99 .299 10.10 .584 5.22 25.2 1.56 2.44 .954 6.41 33 Fall River, Mass. . . . 8.54 7.57 .933 8.22 18.1 1.01 .186 6.01 34 St. Joseph, Mo 12.60 1.250 12.90 1.680 .41 28.4 1.22 1.14 .825 35 Omaha, Neb 5.42 .739 8.11 .539 .30 25.6 1.29 1.29 1.93 5.32 36 Los Angeles, Cal. . . . 9.57 .719 9.14 .914 .29 32.7 1.39 4.08 .306 3.27 37 Memphis, Tenn 11.20 9.41 7.460 3.55 15.9 .698 .229 5.17 38 Scranton, Pa 8.05 .519 7.39 .709 48.6 1.42 .641 1.03 6.37 39 10.20 8.69 2.34 9.27 24.7 1.05 .959 1.16 6.56 40 Albany, N. Y 11.40 .461 9.92 .929 4.81 22.5 .416 2.56 .124 5.12 41 5.71 4.17 .922 4.89 21.4 .700 .928 4.30 3.25 42 Portland, Ore 4.94 .305 7.40 .320 .37 22.9 .807 .366 4.32 43 13.70 10.60 10.60 4.83 14.5 .481 1.38 .586 7.09 44 Grand Rapids, Mich. 7.94 .968 11.40 1.260 2.12 28.1 .694 2.16 .739 45 7.84 1.630 8.65 .584 1.39 32.7 1.02 .245 .258 5.19 46 8.38 .337 7.45 .743 3.24 10.6 .411 3.02 .152 2.58 47 Nashville, Tenn 10.60 .501 10.20 2.220 2.55 20.7 .310 .124 5.63 48 Seattle, Wash 5.84 .733 7.94 .934 .38 18.9 1.06 .501 .305 1.94 49 Hartford, Conn 9.24 .652 9.06 .915 6.64 24.2 .827 1 83 .591 4.31 50 9.38 6.51 .505 28.2 .528 1.77 4.67 9.08 51 Wilmington, Del.. . . 12.40 .614 5.71 1.200 .13 25.9 1.04 2.02 .526 7.06 52 Camden, N. J 13.40 .611 10.20 .476 1.35 24.7 .132 .159 ,136 9.58 53 11.20 .470 9.81 .716 2.29 21.1 .573 1.57 .942 2.65 54 Bridgeport, Conn.. . 8.27 1.070 9.98 .921 8.07 23.4 1.73 2.68 .ni;;; 7.51 55 6.14 7.18 .857 7.79 18.4 1.77 .511 . SNX 3.94 56 Oakland, Cal 12.80 1.200 11.40 1.430 .30 37.6 1.82 1.33 .673 8.62 57 Lawrence, Mass 7.33 6.68 4.950 7.83 21.2 1.48 .716 .953 4.07 58 New Bedford, Mass. 11.00 7.22 .769 5.66 20.2 1.42 1.89 .7NS 4.93 59 Des Moines, Iowa.. . 5.96 .791 9.71 1.900 .34 40.7 1.14 2.10 1.99 6.85 60 Springfield, Mass, . 5.12 7.96 .498 4.39 26.7 2.40 1.98 .409 4.89 61 Somerville, Mass.. . . 5.33 5.39 .933 3.13 25.0 1.22 .934 .839 4.76 62 Troy, N. J 11.60 14.10 .469 .444 6.60 9.96 1.340 .705 10.60 2.36 18.7 24.0 1.05 .269 .588 .466 .743 7.67 63 Hoboken, N. J 3.30 64 Evansville, Ind 9.15 .427 10.20 .499 .17 31.9 .196 .404 5.77 65 Manchester, N. H.. . 6.53 .452 13.00 1.290 3.33 18.7 .839 .sin; .59 8.96 66 Utica, N. Y 6.28 .363 10.70 1.200 2.57 24.3 1.04 .437 .706 9.53 67 9.56 1 _' 71 1 2.440 9.81 8.30 1.140 2.000 11.50 31.4 12.3 1.82 .081 1.95 1.05 .942 1 . 53 7.21 68 Charleston, S. C 4.90 (a) Less than .01. 1 Percentages obtained from data published in Bulletin 36 of No. 1 devoted to each of the municipal departments for the fiscal year igoo above 30,000 population M c . a m 8 p. ■d a V a V 43 V u . <- b p ,c+3 3 > E 0) M ,2 u ni O & O •0 c u O u p u £ 13 M u O is w "p, X, Of V s 9 u a .c -a a Q V to JO .3 ■d u nj .2 'u u 0) ft M u ni B 5 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 2.04 .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 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 12.501 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 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 IS. 70 44 2.31 2.61 2.05 19. SO 4.4G 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 10.701 51 1.57 3.77 1.09 16.70 9.49 6.541 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 60 1.62 6.09 1.89 6.29 5.73 .039 3T20 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 10.00 63 1.64 1.32 .62 IS. CO 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 10. SO 67 08 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. Br •as o rf ■gs .o.s 3 69 70 71 7 -J 73 74 75 7li 77 78 7'.) 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. (b) . . Salt Lake City, Utah San Antonio, Tex. . . Duluth, Minn Erie, Pa Elizabeth, 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, Tex 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. (b) Birmingham, Ala Little Rock, Ark Springfield, Ohio .... Galveston, Tex. (b) . . Tacoma, Wash Haverhill, Mass Spokane, Wash Terra Haute, Ind. . . Dubuque, Iowa Quincy, 111 South Bend, Ind... . Salem, Mass Johnstown, Pa Elmira, N. Y Allentown, Pa Davenport, Iowa McKeesport, Pa Springfield, 111 Chelsea, Mass Chester, Pa York, Pa Maiden, Mass Topeka, Kansas. . . . Newton, Mass Sioux City, Iowa. ... Bayonne, N. J Knoxville, Tenn Schenectady, N. Y. . Fitchburg, Mass Superior, Wis Rockford, 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 6.62 5.71 5.21 7.56 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 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 .655 .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 .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 1.53 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 (6) No data for school expenditures. 1 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 30,000 population •a a •a a c a a ."2 J3 c« c , a! 0, O 5?+-' o « W w "o o X, o u H 5s to 0! J> Js £.52 3 a V M •d a 5C! a CL, u o V in 60 3 "3 a 'o '3 6b c '3 5 "o a i o .001 .01 .32 .61 .002 .30 .02 .71 .55 .11 1.06 .62 .51 1.05 .05 1.25 .57 .84 1.06 1.59 .71 .31 2.37 1.32 3.18 1.09 .07 .61 2.06 1.98 .09 .07 .05 .71 .10 .05 .04 .12 .10 .001 .08 .02 .23 .13 1.01 .1-1 .05 .08 .11 .05 .01 .18 .17 26.47 1 7.03 2 14.60 3 8.70 4 1 N . 1 5 13.20 6 10.00 7 13.60 8 32.80 9 7.90 10 16.70 11 43 . 80 12 17.10 13 15.50 14 16.83 15 10.20 16 11.10 17 16.90 18 16.00 19 9.93 20 13.20 21 24.10 22 17.69 23 26.10 24 17.20 25 12.70 26 9.50 27 11.65 28 4.60 29 24.90 30 10.10 31 17.20 32 15.00 33 44 . 50 34 23.90 35 17.30 36 9.99 37 16.10 38 10.88 39 12.05 40 18.90 41 7.54 42 9.65 43 17.28 44 6.37 45 12.24 46 7.07 47 14.71 48 8.32 49 11.30 50 S.95 51 7.37 52 8.18 53 11.20 oi 11.46 55 12.20 56 6.75 57 6.84 58 16. 2C 59 8.34 60 22.72 61 9.98 62 1 4 . .->! 63 10.21 64 8.56 65 23.4- 66 21.71 67 9. OS 68 Labor, September, 1902. 23 Table Showing percentages of total amount expended for maintenance and operation All cities in the United States e " c 1 c si City. 0) B H C3 a (D E | a! a 03 a! - be th c '2 13 o a "3 s* c a "3 a, a, •a V o "> o o o rt - * Q in u nl a, u to 'S i=5 u 69 14.17 .01 12.45 2.91 2.90 (b) 1.41 .79 5.99 2.47 70 Salt Lake City, Utah. 5.11 .71 5.45 .67 1.26 33.49 .72 .99 .44 3.95 1.86 71 San Antonio, Tex. . . . 8.78 8.19 2.78 1.34 20.12 2.37 .63 3.27 72 Duluth, Minn 4.11 1.38 8.72 .60 1.32 24.02 .85 .86 .86 2.34 .38 73 6.96 11.26 .40 .14 11.91 5.41 1.51 1 42 4.17 31.12 26.69 1.53 .83 .46 8.42 4.77 1.23 74 Elizabeth, N. J 75 Wilkesbarre, Pa 9.44 .28 9.66 .86 38.80 .13 1.92 10.80 76 Kansas City, Kans. . . 9.53 .95 7.31 4. IS 21.20 .31 .'23 .73 6.03 2.45 77 Harrisburg, Pa 6.83 4.47 5.68 .06 35.20 .77 .22 7.54 .76 78 Portland, Me 6.10 8.76 .61 5.14 20.10 .88 .61 3.55 5.40 2.74 79 Yonkers, N. Y 9.68 1.04 5.86 2.95 .69 24.90 .53 2.85 .46 4.77 2.04 80 Norfolk, Va 7.29 .01 5.52 3.17 1.48 6.96 .18 1.15 2.32 1.96 4.23 81 Waterburv, Conn 9.77 1.13 8.21 .63 42.49 .65 .89 1.58 5.40 2.30 82 Holvoke, Mass 6.11 9.26 .84 6.38 24.89 .76 .94 .39 3.81 1.07 83 Fort Wayne, Ind 8.78 15.34 1.32 30.71 1.40 2.92 .59 7.99 2.89 84 Youngstown, Ohio . . . 10.73 .72 8.49 1.52 3.2S 34.93 .69 .37 1.17 5.88 4.86 85 7.79 8.22 1.53 9.28 7.12 3.39 3.45 3.86 18.24 19.70 .28 .48 .70 3.17 4.25 86 1.85 87 Akron, Ohio 8.52 .75 10.86 .01 2.12 44.16 2.44 .44 .39 7.20 1.37 88 8.36 7.88 1.26 .66 10.72 7.19 4.28 .64 3.41 19.08 34.00 .75 .58 .61 .13 .02 .24 5.12 4.30 2.27 89 2.08 90 6.43 6.13 .61 .56 35.66 .33 11.02 2.29 91 4.46 .43 8.23 .95 .08 33.41 1.25 .02 .70 3.91 .96 92 Brockton, Mass 6.6S 8.61 1.65 6.16 22.10 1.05 1.83 5.14 1.09 93 Binghamton, N. Y.. . 6.54 .41 5.98 1.29 2.99 35.30 .43 .72 .59 10.20 2.38 94 11.02 1.05 10.11 1.47 4.26 17.91 .18 .87 4.58 .32 95 Pawtucket, R. I 7.03 5.79 3.23 20.30 1.08 .36 1.67 5.01 2.16 96 Altoona, Pa 6.36 .25 8.75 .71 32.20 1.11 5.99 1.79 97 Wheeling, W. Va 8.39 1.42 9.65 .95 .52 21.54 1.15 .21 2.20 98 Mobile, Ala 13.86 .40 8.60 .71 3.57 16.48 .65 .98 6.59 1.77 99 Birmingham, Ala 10.90 3.44 9.28 .85 1.41 12.30 .99 .14 4.18 100 Little Rock, Ark 15.54 14.44 .97 3.99 38.41 1.82 .54 101 7.31 1.06 6.78 .84 2.37 27.53 1.00 2.09 .40 8.94 102 8.80 11.30 4.20 6.19 21.10 .30 .04 .52 103 5.04 .39 6.72 .60 .43 23.49 .73 .98 1.86 104 Haverhill, Mass 5.73 8.50 .63 6.91 21.28 1.09 1.28 .55 6.36 .80 105 6.59 1.10 12.28 .99 1.36 28.73 .56 1.04 .29 2.03 .93 106 Terra Haute, Ind 7.54 .24 9.96 1.94 .11 34.51 2.09 .52 .29 6.83 3.10 107 7.63 8.87 .48 .32 25.92 .29 1.30 6.62 3.77 108 7.65 1.97 10.31 1.29 29.93 1.57 2.28 .82 7.19 1.50 109 So. Bend, Ind 6.90 11.00 .22 26.70 1.50 .96 .73 6.58 6.20 110 Salem, Mass 6.97 6.39 2.66 8.59 21.18 1.34 1.14 .58 6.68 1.05 111 7.92 .27 4.57 .50 46.80 .69 1.12 8.26 3.65 112 Elmira, N. Y 7.44 11.50 1.62 2.18 27.60 .42 1.42 2.28 7.92 .79 113 5.58 8.04 .79 39.74 8.46 .65 114 Davenport, Iowa. . . . 7.65 7.30 1.32 43.80 .11 2.16 .53 2.79 2.80 115 McKeesport, Pa 10.15 9.71 .95 30.48 .87 .44 5.92 2.61 116 Springfield, 111 8.60 1.15 11.90 .60 28.20 .79 .59 6.04 3.69 117 Chelsea, Mass 5.32 5.21 2.54 8.02 18.86 .59 .21 .67 4.22 .75 118 9.90 6.22 1.78 36.90 .99 .79 8.92 .40 119 York, Pa 10.18 6.85 1.94 .14 37.69 .16 11.32 120 Maiden, Mass 5.96 6.03 1.20 7.01 28.10 1.73 .24 .12 5.27 121 7.81 .67 8.75 2.95 .54 31.67 1.88 1.69 .42 2 42 122 6.76 5.39 1.78 4.24 18.92 1.52 .38 .40 5.53 2.21 123 5.19 .35 6.72 1.20 27.99 .59 .28 1.68 3.96 1.52 124 Bayonne, N. J 8.48 .16 2.84 1.33 .68 lis.:::; .87 .51 6.45 1.37 125 Knoxville, Tenn 8.67 8.79 .69 3.54 19.93 9.59 126 Schenectady, N. Y. . . 7.52 .39 7.56 5.71 2.67 20.57 .15 1.11 8.75 1.83 127 Fitchburg, Mass 6.99 6.23 .92 9.28 22.35 1.39 .54 1.02 6.35 .98 1 5JX 6.34 5.69 .56 .56 9.19 9.94 2.17 .65 3.35 .39 29.24 36.06 1.04 2.19 .24 .43 1.25 2.95 7.21 4.55 129 Rockford, 111 3.26 130 Taunton, Mass 8.66 .22 5.92 .87 7.17 25.02 1.27 .25 .74 1.74 1.83 131 Canton, Ohio 7.24 .86 11.04 1.25 .99 33.35 .72 .72 2.10 7.79 132 Butte, Mont 11.75 1.49 7.59 2.43 34.70 2.36 .05 4.47 2.08 133 Montgomery, Ala 11.45 7.84 2.76 .46 10.26 5.54 5.80 13 1 Auburn, N. Y 6.97 .52 7.15 1.06 5.73 27.99 .69 10.45 2.62 135 Chattanooga, Tenn. . 12.31 13.26 5.38 2.53 17.85 .20 1.59 .16 2.41 1.87 136 E. St. Louis, 111 10.47 .80 8.71 1.59 25.64 1.86 .82 5.15 12.62 137 Joliet, 111 11.98 12 . 23 1.87 .84 27 . 62 1.59 2.25 .59 6.86 2.86 1 Percentages obtained from data published in Bulletin No. 42 of the Department of (b) No data for school expenditures. 24 No. 2 {Continued) devoted to each of the municipal departments for the fiscal year igoi » above jo,ooo population ■n o .19 3.17 -.90 .74 .13 1.15 .04 1.45 .62 1.57 .15 .40 1.30 1.56 .74 .12 .74 2.54 1.39 1.68 .06 1.44 .08 .37 .87 2.31 .09 6.63 2.55 13.40 3.95 2.81 5.65 10.30 2.94 8.05 6.85 2.94 5.12 3.60 2.00 2.47 2.22 8.54 5.89 4.79 6.40 5.71 2.55 12.60 4.52 1.08 3.67 4.78 .23 9.52 7.22 5.89 11.73 5.48 3.83 7.37 2.90 2.29 7.06 3.03 6.08 8.40 2.28 6.50 4.30 3.15 2.56 2.11 4.20 4.82 7.77 10.97 7.65 12.45 8.06 1.15 6.74 5.28 8.57 22.45 6.23 7.06 .66 6.59 6.61 7.47 13.59 11.75 6.81 1.28 2.60 1.49 .13 .55 3.77 3.77 2.16 1.99 .31 2.69 .36 .73 2.49 .13 1.26 .95 .54 1.95 4.03 .65 .47 1.32 .61 .89 .47 1.29 1.38 .44 1.39 .79 7.25 1.82 .18 1.01 1.88 1.31 .57 .62 .24 .52 1.65 1.34 2.48 1.29 25.57 21.31 22.16 28.12 8.69 26.92 6.56 25.84 12.80 11.90 19.50 29.45 14.50 11.77 6.43 7.93 22.32 18.44 5.69 23.29 13.50 9.90 24.92 14.40 4.30 18.99 26.60 13.80 5.99 13.35 28.91 2.79 13.06 20.00 32.69 21.23 26.41 5.30 17.70 17.58 12.10 9.42 12.80 5.65 13.52 5.08 8.98 13.80 8.71 12.80 9.70 8.60 16.00 25.37 23.63 20.13 28.56 12.70 16.58 8.33 17.47 12.43 6.66 30.85 7.60 18.30 3.40 4.60 4.73 3.62 14.17 6.44 6.58 7.52 4.11 3.51 6.59 6.17 4.84 8.64 7.04 6.11 10.37 6.81 2.55 6.58 6.11 9.02 7.66 11.66 8.29 4.77 6.47 4.69 3.46 2.87 5.31 9.11 6.18 11.00 8.64 6.99 2.38 6.19 1.72 5.38 2.35 12.91 6.22 9.98 5.11 10.49 15.36 6.81 6.23 3.48 .09 .it; 18.25 5.19 4.99 5.14 9.91 .12 .43 .35 4.07 6.32 .04 2.31 .12 1.47 .02 1.33 .08 .40 22 !43 .03 .49 1.39 .31 .27 .39 .03 .20 .28 1.41 .45 .70 1.16 .29 .36 1.25 1.41 .11 2.39 .39 1.59 .60 .38 .70 .83 .07 .23 .05 .08 .02 .31 .48 1.36 .67 .05 .02 .04 .11 .0!) .07 .89 1.14 .55 .06 3.51 1.00 1.12 .79 .45 1.46 1.05 .32 1.42 .51 .54 .08 .41 .07 1.25 .35 .55 1.18 2.88 1.48 1.22 .46 .91 .23 .03 .28 .07 .04 11.30 11.14 13.50 12.22 10.09 11.60 10.80 16.72 11.00 22.00 9.84 22.01 1.33 24.64 9.99 10.76 19.29 16.29 14.14 10.59 10.20 8.50 10.06 12.90 17.40 18.89 11.50 16.10 9.84 12.07 15.55 10.07 9.23 10.10 8.32 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 11.361104 10.43 |105 22.50J106 13.85 107 13.52 108 10.40 109 16.36 110 10.80 111 21.60 112 6.61 113 17.91 114 18.21 115 12.60 116 35.47 117 15.70 118 7.28 119 13.54 120 13.08 121 10.79 122 9.05 123 23.55 124 13.46 125 12.03 126 8.29 127 17.06 12S 6.95 129 9.63 130 10.31 131 16.95 132 6.67 133 14.17 134 12.99 135 18.39 136 8.58 137 Labor, September, 1902. 25 26 Some Fiscal Aspects of Public Education Before subjecting to interpretation the gross amounts of expenditures for 1900 and 1901 for the various items, certain minor corrections of these amounts were made, with the aid of the explanatory notes accompanyng the tables. Wherever an amount not properly belonging to the municipal accounts, as, for instance, expenditures in which the city acted as agent of the county in fulfilling some function of county government, had been included in the gross expenditures, such amounts were deducted. Wherever an amount properly belonging to the municipal budget had not been included, it was added to the amount of the gross expenditures. These additions were practically all due to amounts expended by state and county upon public schools. The total number of corrections was very small — not over six or eight on either of the two tables. Transformation of Gross Itemized Expenditures to a Percentile Basis. — The first operation was to transform the gross itemized expenditures to a percentile basis. This process, even by the use of indispensable labor-saving devices, was of necessity a long and tedious one. These transformed percentile amounts are contained in Tables 1 and 2 (pages 18-25) an( i form the immediate basis for the operations which are described later on. The primary advantage of making comparisons on a per- centile basis rather than on one of gross or per capita amount consists in placing, as it were, all cities whether large or small in the same category, thus giving a definite series of comparable statistics for the city as a type. The apparent disadvantage consists in a chance of placing the so-called expensive, efficient, and well-governed city in the same class with the parsimonious and possibly inefficient and undesirable community. For ex- ample, one of two cities of about equal size might have a budget of twice the amount of the other ; it might spend twice as much as the other on its schools, fire, health, street, and police de- partments. On the percentile basis these two cities would be placed on an equality. The necessary provisions for correcting this disadvantage will be explained as the occasion renders it necessary in the interpretation of the results. V. Variability of Expenditures General Statement. — Even a superficial examination of the tables, giving the itemized percentile expenditures, discloses a Some Fiscal Aspects of Public Education 27 remarkable range in the percentile amounts in the identical municipal departments of the different cities. This variability is not confined to cities of great differences in population or location. Even within a comparatively small population or territorial group, a wide divergence in the percentile distribu- tion of the total amount of the budget among the various items is prominent. The percentile expenditures assembled from the data of Table 1, and given in Table 3 are illustrative of this divergence. The cities concerned were selected at random. Cities 7, 8, and 9 are cities of from 350,000 to 400,000 population, located re- spectively in the eastern, central, and extreme western portions of the country. Cities 36, 37, and 38 are respectively eastern, southern, and western communities, and are each of approxi- mately 100,000 population. Cities 81, 95, 120, and 126 are New York or New England cities of from 30,000 to 50,000 population. Table No. 3 Typical examples of variability of percentile expenditures. Statistics for year igoo. (Read across) City No. 1 7 8 9 3 a 37 38 81 95 120 126 Police Department, Courts, Jails, etc . . 10.55 13.51 16.78 10.28 11.20 8.57 9.92 6.80 5.23 11.13 Fire Department 9.83 11.00 9.88 9.14 9.41 7.39 7.66 5.40 5.39 6.36 Health Department . 1.54 .72 1.66 .91 7.46 .71 .71 2.58 1.82 Hospitals and Chari- ties 2.73 2.60 3.82 .29 3.55 2.62 6.35 2.37 23.70 19.10 20.90 32.70 15.90 48.60 39.50 17.70 21.90 24 50 Libraries and Mu- 1.65 1.65 .75 1.39 .70 1.42 .24 .99 1.53 61 Parks .79 3.21 2.66 4.08 .23 .64 .24 .11 1.23 .17 .69 .20 .82 .31 1.03 1.18 1.46 1.42 1.48 Municipal Lighting.. 5.15 5.79 3.94 3.27 5.17 6.37 5.18 4.51 4.63 7.12 1.20 2.98 2.70 6.49 3.06 1.85 2.01 1.61 1.86 6.42 Other Street Expen- ditures 1.99 4.02 3.13 5.91 10.30 2.06 2.24 4.60 10.90 6.01 Garbage removal 1.50 1.86 .82 .43 1.65 .52 1.63 .24 Interest on debt. . . . 14.40 10.90 .25 4.89 18.60 8.06 12.60 25.00 8.12 16.10 5.89 5.86 4.56 19.50 5.31 12.30 Electric-Light Plants Docks and Wharves. .76 .76 Ferries and Bridges. 2.25 .18 .10 2.35 .69 .08 .47 .45 .23 .67 .65 .01 .70 1.36 .02 Other items 15.10 15.40 32.50 19.40 10.60 12.30 12.20 8.56 20.60 2.92 Total 100.06 100.00 99.79 99.88 99.96 100.12 99.89 100.08 100.12 100.02 Tables of Frequency. — The data of Table 4 present the so- called tables of frequency for certain items of expenditure, for which complete and fairly reliable information was given in the 1 For names of cities, consult Table 1, pp. 18-21. 28 Some Fiscal Aspects of Public Education original tables for all, or approximately all, of the cities. These items were selected for study because they pertained to im- portant municipal functions, and also because the original data, from which the percentile data were developed, presented these expenditures in a clear manner, free from apparent admixture with other items. Table No. 4 Tables of frequency. Percentile expenditures for maintenance and operation All cities in the United States above 30,000 population Fiscal years 1000 and igoi Per cent. 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 9,9, (a) Police Department. Frequency. Frequency. 1900 Below 1 2 3 13 15 23 14 16 3 8 6 4 3 1 1 1 1901 2 10 24 19 22 14 7 10 2 6 1 1 1 1 Average. 1900-1901 2 3 10 19 17 22 13 6 9 3 4 1 1 1 1 Police Department, Police Courts, Jails, Workhouses, Reformatories, etc. Frequency. Frequency. Average. 1900-1901 1900 1 4 15 13 16 22 17 10 8 4 10 5 1 4 2 1 1901 1 9 21 16 23 15 11 16 6 6 4 3 2 1 1 1 1 §2 o g .■a & ■cSP pri Total, 114 120 112 133 137 +3 (e) Fire Department. Street Lighting. 5 co *c 06 1 1 1 5 2 2 1 1 1 7 12 S^ 3 2 14 9 4 5 5 7 25 24 t^co 5 16 12 14 25 33 goo _ 6 17 16 14 20 24 2 ©I •g§3 C G fl y « fe <1> 03 ft 4*0 h V V « j) u s o > a. CO *> Total, 132 136 132 30 Some Fiscal Aspects of Public Education Table No. 4 (Continued) Tables of frequency. Percentile expenditures for maintenance and operation All cities in the United States above 30,000 population Fiscal years igoo and igoi Per cent. (g) Health Department. Frequency. Frequency. 1900 1901 (fe) Parks. Average. Frequency. Freqm 1900-1901 1900 1901 Below . 1 1 1 2 2 .1 1 1 10 8 .2 2 3 3 9 12 .3 4 1 2 2 5 .4 9 4 8 6 1 .5 9 4 7 6 5 .6 6 14 11 5 5 .7 14 10 8 3 6 .8 8 15 10 5 6 .9 15 12 11 8 10 1.0 5 4 9 2 3 1.1 4 7 8 4 4 1.2 9 6 3 5 1 1.3 7 8 5 4 6 1.4 3 3 6 2 5 1.5 2 5 4 3 3 1.6 4 4 9 4 1.7 3 3 6 2 1.8 6 2 2 4 2 1.9 2 5 2 3 2 2.0 2 3 1 1 2 2.1 1 3 1 2.2 2 1 5 2.3 2 1 1 4 2.4 1 1 2 2 1 2.5 3 1 1 4 2.6 1 1 2 3 1 2.7 2 2 1 2.8 2 3 3 2.9 1 4 1 3.0 1 1 1 3.1 1 1 3.2 1 2 3.3 1 1 1 3.4 1 1 2 3.5 3.6 1 2 3.7 1 1 3.8 3.9 4.0 1 1 4.1 1 1 4.2 2 1 4.3 4.4 1 1 Also: Also: Total, 114 121 at 5.8 1 at 5.3 1 " 5.6 1 " 5.7 1 " 7.2 1 " 8.4 1 Total , 126 136 126 1900-1901 S.2 r— « cd u q +3 a d a 03 cd m >^' +J CD -t-> y^3 rt 73 3 O •r* O a C5 "3 > 1-1 4J c c O cd c CD '<& CD O CD W CD Ih s 0) en CO 93 ca Ih ■6 £ „ >, +J "c3 u CO S Z W +a ft u CD X +a eg > CD C CD U -3 c .4 U +a O +-■ H HH CD CD O — ft -t-> Cfl %s e CD 6« 3 'Q 2 c c CD a cd •d CJ r^ Some Fiscal Aspects of Public Education 31 Explanation of Tables of Frequency. — Table 4(a) contains the facts of the distribution of the percentile expenditures for the police department. Column 1 gives the range of percentile ex- penditures; column 2 gives the number of cities, in accordance with the statistics of Table 1, spending any certain per cent, of their gross expenditures for the maintenance and operation of the police department for the year 1900. 1 Column 3 gives similar information for the year 1901; column 4 represents the average percentile expenditures for the years 1900 and 1901. The totals are of the number of cities for which information is given for any year. Thus the first line of Table 4(a) would read as follows: In 1900, one city spent 2 % 2 of its gross expendi- tures for maintenance and operation upon its police depart- ment; no city spent this per cent, in 1901; and there were no cities with an average percentile expenditure of 2 % for the police department. The fourth line of this table would read as follows: In 1900, 13 cities each spent 5 % of their gross ex- penditures for municipal maintenance and operation for the maintenance and operation of police service; in 1901, 10 cities each spent this per cent. ; according to the average of the two years, 10 cities spent this per cent. Table 4 (a) does not contain the data for all the cities. This was due to the fact that many cities do not separate in their accounts the expenditures for the police department from those incurred by reason of jails, police courts, etc. The data for this combined item are presented in Table 4(6). The remaining divisions of the table are similar in nature to division (a) and need no further explanation. Graphical Representation of Variability. — Figures 1 to io, pp. 32-34, represent diagrammatically the tables of frequency. In the case of those items for which an average percentile expen- diture has been calculated, the diagrams reflect the numerical facts of this average. Where no average has been calculated 1 Throughout these explanations the year 1900 has reference to the data contained in the Bulletin 36 of the Department of Labor, published in September, 1901; the year 1901, to Bulletin 42, published in Sep- tember, 1902. 2 Throughout all the tables of frequency, any percentile figure must be read to mean from that figure to the next higher one. Thus 2 % really means a point between 2 % and 3 %; 3 %, a point between 3 % and 4 %. etc. 3 4 3 4 PIG. 1. £Z3=i-../ 08 11 22 nil F I G. 2. Ln "as" W i -H. 18 FIG. S. 2 3 83 14 ru n F I G. 4. m n n 2 S tD 33 I Surfaces of Frequency— Percentile Expenditures Fig. i. Police Department, Police Courts, Jails, etc. Median, 8.8. (Heavy line) 1900, (jotted line) 1901. Fig. 2. Police Department. Median, 8.2. Average of 1900 and 1901. Fig. 3. Fire Department. Median, 8.3. Average of 1900 and 1901. Fig. 4. He alth Department. Median, 1.03. Average of 1900 and 1901. 32 F I G. 5. If tJ j^J [L a 6 LnJ in 17 M —t— 24 inn 48 J~l Fia 6. ri D_L" 6 9 r^ J. 25 Ul in 46 J! n OIL nrulr rU f i a 7. Jin M tb 6 9 24 o 48 Surfaces of Frequency — Percentile Expenditures Fig. 5. Schools, 1900. Fig. 6. Schools, 1901. Fig. 7. Schools, average 1900 and 1901. Median, 23.6. Median, 24.96. Median, 24.3. 33 1 V fi a. 8. [ IV M 0] .6 V) ULn i_n h 25 fl n L A H Ln i„ f i a 9. n Lr 0) 7 10 17 Jb nn n n n 4A FIG. 10. 1 Surfaces of Frequency — Percentile Expenditures Libraries, Art Galleries, and Museums, 1901. Median, 1.01. Fig. Fig. 9. Parks and Gardens, 1900 Fig. 10. Municipal Lighting, 1900 Median, 1.04. Median, 5.5. 34 Some Fiscal Aspects of Public Education 35 the frequencies of both years are presented, the heavy con- tinuous line representing the frequencies for the first year, and the broken line the frequencies for the second year. In the case of the expenditures for schools the three sets of frequencies are represented separately. The horizontal distance represents in every case the per cents., while the vertical distance represents the number of cases. These graphical representations enable one to comprehend at a glance some of the more significant characteristics of the tables of frequencies, which are often concealed from the un- accustomed observer in the distribution series of Table 4. VI. Measurement of Variability In their present distributed and graphically represented con- dition, the measures entering into the tables of frequency merely give us an index to the principal, gross facts, viz., the spread of the measures. That is, we know that, of the cities studied, some spend 3 %, some 4 %, some 5 %, and so on, until we find one city spending 18 % i of its total expenditures for the main- tenance of its police service (Table 4(a)) . If the expenditures for the police department, police courts, jails, etc., are placed in a single amount, this variation is found to be from 4 % to 22 % of the gross total (Table 4 (6)). For schools, we find it to be from 6 % to 46 % of the gross total (Table 4 (e)). These facts, while perhaps interesting enough in themselves, give us but a partial insight into the true condition of affairs. As they now stand, they do not enable us to describe with any exactness the character of the different variabilities, nor to state any of the definite relations which may exist between the different items of expenditure. There are at least three methods of attaining some definite and comparable measures of the variability. Method of the Probable Error. — By the first method, the ex- treme cases, i.e., those very high and those very low, may be excluded. Excluding in this manner from our tables of fre- quency the low 25 % and high 25 % of the cases under each 1 It is evident that the figures in the column of average percentile expenditures are more reliable, and more nearly indicative of the real measures, than the percentile expenditures for any one year, hence wher- ever possible in these explanations the average figures have been used. 36 Some Fiscal Aspects of Public Education item, there would remain a middle 50 %. It is evident that the limits of this middle 50 % of the cases give a truer measure of the variability of the group of cities in any single item of expenditure than the limits within which all the cases lie. This is particularly true with such items as schools, li- braries, health, and parks, in which a wide range of variability is exhibited. Actually performed, and calling the new limits + and — P. E. (Probable Error), the following table of results would be found: Table 4a Table of measures of variability of percentile expenditures for maintenance and operation. All cities in the United States above jo,ooo population. Fiscal years igoo and iqoi 50 % of the cases lie between 2 P. E. Police Department (average) 6 . 93 % and 9.82% 1 . 89 Police Department, Courts, Jails, etc. (1901) 7.43 Fire Department (average) 6.72 Municipal Lighting (1901) 4. 39 Libraries, Museums, etc. (average) . . .66 Health Department (average) 7 Parks (1901) 54 Schools (average) 19 . 65 Interest on Debt (average) 8 . 84 In other words, while the cities in 1901 exhibit a variability of 19 % (from 4 % to 23 %) in their expenditures for police de- partment, courts, jails, etc. (Table 4 (&)), one half of these cities lie within a variation of but 3.5 % (from 7.5 % to 11 %). Also while the average percentile expenditures for two years of 132 cities for schools exhibit a variability of 40 % (Table 4 (e)), one half of these cities lie within a variation of but 11 % (from 19.65 % to 30.58 %). Although, from the data at hand, it would be entirely correct to say that, among American cities having 30,000 or more population, the expenditures for schools varied from 6 % to 46 % of the total expenditures for maintenance and operation, such a statement would be manifestly unfair as de- fining the essential characteristics of the group. Method of Deviation from Central Tendency. — The second method of measuring the variability of expenditures in any item is by means of the amount by which each member of the group of cities deviates from some central tendency, such as the average or the median. The median is the point above and 11.22 3.79 9.70 2.98 6.72 2.33 1.40 .74 1.6 .9 1.90 1.36 30.58 10.97 19.15 10.31 Some Fiscal Aspects of Public Education 37 below which 50 % of the cases lie. By reason of its lack of ambiguity and less likelihood of being influenced by extreme cases, the median is preferable to the average under conditions such as the present. Table 5 contains the medians, and the deviations from the medians, of the average percentile expenditures for 1900 and 1901, for the eight indicated items. The first line of the table contains the average median expenditure for the designated items. That is to say, one half of the cities spent more than 8.20 % of their total expenditures for police service; one half of the cities spent less than 8.20 %. The average median ex- penditure for schools was 24.31 %; and so on. Opposite the number of each city is placed the amount by which the per- centile expenditure of that city for any particular item deviates, above or below the median percentile expenditure for that item. For example, city 22 had an average percentile ex- penditure for schools of .96 % below the average median per- centile expenditure of the entire group of cities. All deviations below the median are indicated by a minus sign. All devia- tions without the sign are to be interpreted as plus. Having thus obtained the individual measures of the de- viations, it is possible to combine these measures and reach cer- tain conclusions regarding the character of the deviations for the entire group. Such group measurements would be the average amount of the deviation, i.e., the sum of all the de- viations divided by the number of each; or the limits within which lie the deviations of one half of the cities from the cen- tral tendency of any item of expenditure ; or a more accurate measure yet of this group deviation, the square root of the aver- age of the squares of the deviations of the individual measures from their median — the so-called mean square deviation, or standard deviation. As these measures are concerned more directly with the methods of calculating the group relationships, an explanation of their meaning and importance will be reserved for the section on correlation. The main observation to be made here is the necessity of utilizing some definite measures of the amount of the deviation of the expenditure for any item from the central tendency of that expenditure before it is possible to generalize concerning the characteristics of the total number of cities. Table No. 5 Medians, and deviations from medians, of percentile expenditures, for main- tenance and operation, of all cities in the United States, having a popu- lation of 30,000 and over. Average for fiscal years igoo and igoi '0 "o 6 a 1 u a •d "3 8 - a.™ > '3 (5 Median 8.20 8.85 8.27 1.03 5.52 1.05 24.31 1.02 Median 1 1.83 2.20 -3.64 - .01 -2.98 .48 - 7.25 - .38 1 2 9.73 10.36 -2.42 * -1.86 2.31 10.02 - .10 2 3 6.89 10.80 -2.88 .36 .57 1.45 - 7.07 .32 3 4 9.89 10.54 .14 .52 .68 .26 - 7.15 - .58 4 5 .14 5.40 -2.21 - .16 -1.85 1.16 -10.07 .40 5 6 3.72 5.30 -2.01 .08 - .77 1.97 - 7.30 - .73 6 7 .47 1.98 1.72 .27 - .26 .16 .63 .67 7 8 5.11 4.86 3.10 - .27 .35 2.27 - 4.85 .65 8 9 5.90 7.61 2.52 .37 -1.40 1.70 - 3.96 - .24 9 10 1.21 2.54 - .41 - .35 - .01 - .37 -6.56 .24 10 11 .37 - .28 .82 .42 - .33 1.90 - 9.76 .66 11 12 2.71 -2.36 -2.05 .08 - .45 - .81 -13.55 - .81 12 13 6.48 6.13 5.89 .00 -2.53 1.74 -14.00 .51 13 14 1.05 1.13 3.50 .02 .40 .60 - 3.54 .67 14 15 4.07 9.12 -3.74 .24 -1.16 .22 - 3.54 - .87 15 16 * 1.58 -1.15 .55 - .49 - .94 -4.26 - .18 16 17 * 2.39 -2.28 - .83 -1.30 - .82 -11.86 - .20 17 18 1.62 4.76 .07 - .74 - .38 .64 - 6.12 * 18 19 - .84 - .64 2.86 - .19 - .34 1.38 1.01 .41 19 20 2.06 1.10 1.58 - .44 2.68 .73 -4.66 - .73 20 21 1.28 .78 2.13 - .21 1.14 3.00 8.64 1.18 21 22 2.40 2.89 2.19 1.52 -2.07 1.95 - .96 - .04 22 23 - .57 .33 - .06 - .63 1.23 1.32 - 2.84 - .39 23 24 -2.37 -2.56 -1.22 .02 2.26 - .12 - 7.77 - .91 24 25 - .17 - .17 .02 .41 - .11 2.63 12.26 .26 25 26 1.21 - .24 - .79 - .70 - .50 .97 1.31 - .30 26 27 .57 -1.22 - .45 - .18 - .88 .50 .41 .52 27 28 1.21 - .39 -1.25 .15 -1.65 - .45 - 1.28 - .44 28 29 -2.21 -2.86 -1.55 .19 - .65 - .50 - 2.76 .28 29 30 -1.41 -1.40 .17 .06 1.63 .58 - 4.47 .53 30 31 5.35 5.85 1.56 - .50 .20 .41 2.16 .02 31 32 1.80 1.44 .63 - .41 1.21 .99 1.03 .33 32 33 .39 - .26 - .68 .22 .56 - .89 - 5.16 - .04 33 34 1.49 1.97 1.57 - .10 -1.69 .02 -1.28 .02 34 35 -2.33 -2.23 - .13 - .48 - .10 .31 2.05 .21 35 36 .77 .73 .54 - .13 - .96 3.10 8.92 .32 36 37 * 2.30 1.33 * - .25 - .77 - 8.66 - .38 37 38 - .35 - .50 - .83 - .12 .72 - .44 20.69 .34 38 39 1.75 1.90 .20 .57 1.05 - .16 .17 .09 39 40 2.89 2.69 1.58 .00 .12 1.77 - 2.93 - .48 40 41 * -3.02 -4.08 - .15 -2.21 - .08 - 3.42 - .18 41 42 -2.94 -3.15 - .37 - .58 - .78 .03 1.14 * 42 43 * 4.07 2.08 * 1.25 .73 - 9.90 - .47 43 44 - .13 .35 3.35 .40 -3.29 1.67 4.46 - .30 44 45 .40 1.29 .02 - .29 - .15 - .83 8.89 .05 45 46 .13 - .17 - .88 - .30 -2.89 .74 -14.09 - .65 46 47 * 2.42 2.23 .89 .15 * - 3.66 - .56 47 48 -1.26 -1.32 .02 .09 -3.08 .09 - 3.08 .35 48 49 .57 .45 .25 - .18 -1.37 1.01 1.02 - .23 49 50 .25 - .40 -1.98 - .43 4.06 .85 5.14 - .45 50 51 4.10 3.98 -2.70 - .05 1.40 1.26 3.19 .03 51 52 4.01 7.29 1.98 - .43 4.25 - .87 2.49 - .84 52 53 2.90 2.66 1.19 - .21 -2.12 .67 .14 - .37 53 54 .33 .74 - .02 - .27 1.78 1.52 - 1.11 .65 54 55 -1.82 -2.97 - .72 - .12 -1.37 - .41 - 5.35 .45 55 56 2.67 3.14 2.88 .66 3.14 - .02 14.94 .96 56 57 - .52 -1.17 -1.26 3.35 -1.25 - .24 -2.24 .45 57 58 2.87 2.22 - .80 1.84 - .50 1.03 - 2.74 .38 58 59 -1.80 -1.76 2.03 3.39 1.21 2.04 14.39 .31 59 60 -2.73 -3.38 - .11 - .48 - .22 .95 4.50 1.47 60 61 * -3.00 -2.45 - .18 - .34 - .11 2.38 .40 61 62 3.11 2.86 -1.80 1.62 2.40 - .79 - 4.37 * 62 63 5.38 5.15 1.70 - .28 -2.23 - .48 - 1.05 .02 63 64 .69 .37 1.87 - .60 - .31 - .80 6.27 * 64 65 -1.32 -1.53 5.29 .64 3.65 - .19 - 5.01 - .18 65 66 -1.87 -2.16 2.90 .59 4.06 - .29 .85 - .02 66 67 1.14 2.78 1.22 - .03 .58 2.48 5.74 .63 67 68 5.54 4.57 - .15 .95 - .84 .25 -11.78 - .93 68 * No data given in Tables 1 and 2. 38 Table No. 5 {Continued) Medians, and deviations from medians, of percentile expenditures, for main- tenance and operation, of all cities in the United States, having a popu- lation of 30,000 and over. Average for fiscal years iqoo and igoi >, °3 6 2 c I a a *o ft ■tf.il OJ fti H> - A 4> 5 3 .«oo o°" ft B u ca a V •a a ft c I u. a a> •d X si H a "B 3 w C O •a u a c u ai ft X. 1 a a w ■ ■83 U 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 $ 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 1 See Table No. 8, p. 45, for grouping of cities. PIG. 12. .80 .70 1.04 UX> 9J0O 3.30 FIG. 13. .90 .60 ljOO LAO fUO FIG.14 nJ u 1.00 fcjOO B.97 4.00 FIG. 15. l-h. Z3 r M uo .£0 .00 60 LOO 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 __ PI G.16. 2a n 4jOO 1850 SKW» afl * 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 cities 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 amount on education, these communities 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 1 Data of Municipal Expenditures for 1902 and 1903. — Under the title of Payments for General and Municipal Service Ex- penses by Departments, Offices, and Objects, 2 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 municipal activities and to adopt a terminology in harmony with the theory and principles of modern public finance. As far as this study is concerned the most important 1 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, Bulletin 20, Bureau of the Census (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 functions 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 commodity 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, municipal industries, and municipal services. (1) 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, quasi-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 (1) 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 expenses devoted to each of the itemized purposes. Average for the fiscal 25,000 and 50,000 population gs ■2d rt.2 to — w c u c 3 rt to <0 £ Xj ns S D.5 a> 52 a to « 8J H "33 ■o u aj 1* "is u c a *J to a o, a a, w J a, 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 .06 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 2.52 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 15.65 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 25.54 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 34.25 2.43 49 .35 9.52 11.23 3.09 2.36 25.75 1.66 .71 .30 17.85 3.13 50 5.97 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 15.16 53 .32 1.19 3.53 8.69 6.92 35.79 .90 1.33 .12 14.79 54 No data for schools. 55 8.85 5.69 1.77 7.64 20.25 .31 .30 22.95 56 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 .55 .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 .05 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 1.50 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 15.18 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 .08 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 1 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. 1 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. 1 Table No. 15 Average percentile payments for general and municipal All cities between 2 §,000 and 50,000 population. Fiscal years 1002 and IQ03 Tables of frequency, service expenses. V U .0 3 fi O ft. E cx, Below 1 1 6 O 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 15 present the taoles 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. 2 1 See p. 42. 2 See p. 31 also note 2 of p. 31. 76 Some Fiscal Aspects of Public Education Table No. 15 {Continued) Tables of frequency. Average percentile payments for general and municipal service expenses. All cities between 25,000 and §0,000 population. Fiscal years 1002 and 1003 V v CD U U .0 3 a - to u > 6 2 "o .a Hi to c I CD u CO ft a W£ . QJ I/> C H tl rt 5j ,0 Q a di u V d S 1 h ft 0) a u 2 s - aj aj fti-i V . QS 11 a, 111 46.8 8.26 7.05 12.80 4.57 8.18 87 44.16 7.20 3.21 5.69 10.86 9.27 114 38.80 2.79 9.02 5.08 7.30 7.65 81 42.49 5.40 7.48 14.50 8.21 10.90 38 41.40 6.14 9.81 7.43 7.50 8.13 56 40.90 8.74 8.17 3.26 10.50 9.99 113 39.74 8.46 4.95 13.52 8.04 5.58 75 38.80 10.80 12.22 6.56 9.66 9.71 100 38.41 4.99 6.43 2.79 14.44 15.54 119 37.69 11.32 7.77 9.70 6.85 10.18 Median, 41.15 7.73 7.62 6.12 8.12 9.85 Average, 41.42 7.41 7.61 8.13 8.79 9.51 Lowest ten cities in percentile school expenditures: 37 15.40 5.40 14.43 17.60 10.00 11.10 43 14.32 6.48 8.74 12.31 10.11 12.15 17 13.90 4.48 6.76 27.61 6.70 11.71 5 13.07 3.60 11.65 15.49 5.87 13.17 99 12.30 4.18 7.36 28.91 9.28 14.34 68 12.76 4.49 6.64 25.66 7.94 14.78 12 11.12 5.03 3.69 18.60 6.20 6.24 133 10.26 5.54 8.80 30.85 7.84 11.45 46 9.83 2.71 8.02 29.78 7.34 8.60 80 6.96 1.96 11.80 29.45 5.52 7.29 Median, 12.53 4.49 7.06 28.26 7.59 11.58 Average, 11.99 4.39 8.49 23.63 7.68 11.08 1 For names of cities see Table 2, pp. 22-25. Some Fiscal Aspects of Public Education 87 Table No. 20 (6) Table showing general group relationships. Selection of cities based on percentile expenditures for schools, and made from, all cities in United States having a population of 30,000 and over. Fiscal year igoi Second highest ten cities in percentile school expenditures: O i A "0 A to a ! U QJ-W ac ■A <0 w£ . +* *> bo 8 w.S co5.£f < 5 O a w S s a B a rt O, Q 3 .0 . b i/i B u O, a ■a **-i "o 3 Q ■u O 2 V 6 -C ■3° u u 2 w Oh s W 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 expenditures : 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 1 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 municipal 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 1, 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 1 Vol. II, Table 7, pp. 1798-1809, Statistics of Population and School Enrollment and Attendance in Cities over 8,000 Population, 1 899-1 900; 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 "o 0" is <» *£ C OS Jig .tJ=3o> PlfllH ai a> a a, OS Eos 30s ^2 u & C gp* O 00 as 9 > ■d 3 'S a 3 Pi 13 a 1 ■o.So Total Expenditures. Maintenance and Operation. Per Capita Rank. 1 122 6 4 282 15 111 3 2 30 25 20 235 10 29 73 3 113 87 83 902 103 104 36 4 115 90 80 900 101 106 37 5 119 4 7 285 16 109 2 6 120 104 66 882 97 110 40 7 66 70 52 602 61 65 66 8 96 56 64 680 72 92 26 9 88 24 6 278 14 86 21 10 110 57 87 826 93 101 17 11 125 88 24 634 63 112 12 12 130 125 50 885 99 47 13 64 71 51 596 60 63 69 14 86 93 90 901 102 84 65 15 79 19 25 340 22 77 20 16 102 33 28 443 32 98 13 17 127 105 108 1109 119 113 10 18 105 96 104 1018 114 51 19 53 32 72 562 56 52 49 20 106 20 10 322 20 100 8 21 23 54 33 373 28 22 96 22 49 64 32 450 34 48 71 23 97 82 89 885 100 93 46 24 117 34 38 526 48 108 6 25 9 7 11 94 2 9 63 26 50 68 101 809 90 49 75 27 111 89 70 839 94 102 41 28 74 58 40 522 46 73 50 29 82 9 22 301 19 80 7 30 78 22 61 527 49 76 25 31 48 39 53 478 39 47 57 32 56 72 88 768 84 55 79 33 104 75 75 808 89 99 39 34 40 129 98 957 109 39 132 35 54 26 29 331 21 53 48 36 25 11 30 233 9 24 56 37 118 127 114 1187 122 111 38 1 55 41 372 27 1 126 39 58 48 19 355 24 57 52 40 75 52 56 586 58 74 44 41 84 5 18 273 13 82 5 42 71 84 34 564 57 70 68 43 123 122 128 1252 126 72 44 41 61 82 675 70 40 78 45 26 46 36 370 26 25 85 » For names of cities, see Table 1, 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 a OS w *l . "o.a> J3 "3 a CD nJ O , *£©' rt to jsa> > fH ct> b 6 £ £-; bo *JtJiH w C a) S 15 .ti.-SOJ O V u a CUW .05 u H •a £ '3 A! a w I