Table Of ContentEQUITY IN STATE SCHOOL SUPPORT
A D issertatio n
Presented to
the Faculty of the School of Education
U niversity of Southern C alifornia
In P a rtia l F ulfillm ent
of the Requirements fo r the Degree
Doctor of Education
by
Lionel De Silva
March 1942
UMI Number: DP25696
All rights reserved
INFORMATION TO ALL USERS
The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted.
In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript
and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed,
a note will indicate the deletion.
Dissettalort Ryfeiisteng
UMI DP25696
Published by ProQuest LLC (2014). Copyright in the Dissertation held by the Author.
Microform Edition © ProQuest LLC.
All rights reserved. This work is protected against
unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code
ProQuest LLC.
789 East Eisenhower Parkway
P.O. Box 1346
Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346
,
This dissertation written under the direction
of the Chairman of the candidate’s Guidance
Committee and approved by all members of the
Committeej has been presented to and accepted
by the Faculty of the School of Education in
partial fulfillment of the requirements for the
degree of Doctor of Education.
Dean
Guidance Committee
Osman R. Hull
Chairman
W. a. Campbell
C. C. Crawford
A. S. Raubenheimer
M. M. Thompson
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
G rateful acknowledgment is made to the many who con
trib u ted towards making th is study p o ssib le. Among these are
o ffic ia ls of the State of C alifo rn ia, who generously supplied
data not o rd in a rily obtainable, and who offered valued advice
and c ritic ism s.
P a rtic u la r mention must be made of the assistan ce
given by DeWitt Krueger, Chief, D ivision of Research and Sta
t i s t i c s , S tate Board of E qualization, who furnished much data,
and made valuable suggestions fo r methods of estim ating tax
re tu rn s •
Others who helped m a teria lly , were W alter E. Morgan,
A ssistan t Superintendent, S tate Department of Education;
M arguerite N. K eeler, A ssistan t S ta tis tic ia n , Franchise Tax
Commissioner; S. Gundelfinger, Statem ent Analyst, D ivision of
Insurance; James M. C arter, D irector, D ivision of Motor Vehi
cles; and Floyd Clouse, Chief Accounting O fficer, Office of
the C on tro ller.
Acknowledgments would not be complete w ithout recogni
tio n of the stim ulation and wise counsel of Dr, Osman R. Hull,
under whose guidance th is study was done. Whatever contribu
tio n th is study makes, can be a ttrib u te d to the wisdom of th is
good teacher, not only during the course of the in v estig atio n ,
but through years of graduate study.
Thanks must also go to Dr. D. Welty Lefever, who, while
not a member of the Committee, contributed helpful advice and
c ritic ism .
L astly, c re d it must go to my w ife, Helen, without whose
encouragement th is study would never have begun.
Lionel De Silva
March 1942
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER PAGE
I. THE PROBLEM........................... 1
II. THE SUPPORT OF EDUCATION IN CALIFORNIA....................... 23
I II. THE TAX BURDEN IMPOSED BY ALTERNATIVE
PLANS OF SUPPORT.............................. 72
IV. THE TAX-PAYING ABILITY OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTIES. ................................................................... 104
V. FISCAL ADEQUACY OF SELECTED TAXES ................................. 153
VI. THE RELATIVE EQUITY OF ALTERNATIVE
PLANS OF SUPPORT........................................................................ 175
VII. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS.......................................................... 199
/BIBLIOGRAPHY.............................................................................................................. 213
APPENDIX A................................................................................................................... 218
APPENDIX B................................................................................................................... 220
LIST OF TABLES
Taxes and License Fees C ollected fo r
General Fund Purposes, 1937-38 • • • • • • •
R etail Sales and Use Tax C ollected by
Counties, 1937-38................................................................... 34
Rate Schedule of Personal Income Tax • • • • . 36
Personal Income Tax Collected by
Counties, 1937-38................................................................... 38
Estim ated Bank and Corporation Income
Tax C ollected by Counties, 1937-38 • • • . • 45
Estim ated Alcoholic Beverage Fees and
Taxes Collected by Counties, 1937-38 . . . . 52
Rate Schedule of Inheritance Tax • • • • • • • 53
Inheritance Tax C ollected by
Counties, 1937-38................................................................... 55
D istrib u tio n of Classes of Insurance
in C alifo rn ia, 1937. • • • • • • • • • • • • 58
Estim ated Insurance Premium Tax
C ollected by Counties, 1937-38 • • • • • • • 60
Estim ated Motor Vehicle f,In L ieu1* Tax
C ollected by Counties, 1937-38 ............................... 62
Estim ated Motor T ransportation Tax
C ollected by Counties, 1937-38 ............................... 64
Amount and Percentage of Total Taxes
Paid by Counties, 1937-38. . . ............................... 67
V
LIST OF TABLES (continued)
TABLE PAGE
XIV. Measures of Average Cost of Education
in C alifornia ........................................ 75
XV. Number of Elementary Schools, D is tric ts and
Average D aily Attendance by Counties, 1937-38 77
XVI. Number of High School D is tric ts and Average
D aily Attendance by Counties, 1937-38. • • 81
XVII* Estim ated Cost of Minimum Program, 1937-38 • 85
XVIII. Property Tax Rates Required fo r Support of
Minimum Program under Plan A .......................... 88
XIX. Amounts Contributed by Counties fo r Support
of Minimum Program under Plan A.......................... 92
XX. S tate Apportionments by Counties, 1937-38. . 95
XXI. Property Tax Rates Required fo r P a rtia l
Support of Minimum Program under Plan B. . 96
XXII. Amounts Contributed by Counties fo r
Support of Minimum Program under Plan B. . 98
XXIII. Amounts Contributed by Counties fo r Support
of Minimum Program under Plan C.......................... 101
XXIV. Summary of Evaluation of Taxes fo r
A b ility Index......................................................................... 137
XXV. Estim ated Returns of Selected Taxes
by Counties • • • • • . • • • • • • • • • 140
XXVI. Returns of C aliforn ia Inheritance Tax,
1934-35 to 1939-40 ................................... 144
LIST OP TABLES (continued)
Total and Percentage of Estim ated Returns
of Selected Taxes by Counties • • • • • • • 150
Total Estim ated Returns of Selected Taxes • . 157
Estim ated Returns of Supplementary
S tate Taxes . • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 166
Total Estim ated Returns of Selected and
Supplementary Taxes . . • • • • • • • • • • 171
E qditable Tax Burdens of Counties fo r
Support of Minimum Program. • • • • • • • • 177
Equity Ratios fo r Counties under
A ltern ativ e Plans of Support..................................... 179
Amount of Tax Burden S hifted, Plan A. . . . . 181
Amount pf Tax Burden S hifted, Plan B. . . . . 184
Amount of Tax Burden S hifted, Plan C. • . . . 186
D istrib u tio n of Equity R atios, A ll Counties . 187
Equity R atios of Counties Ranked
According to Tax-Paying A b ility . . . . . . 190
D istrib u tio n of E quity Ratios of Wealthy
Counties. • • • • • • . • • • • • • • • • • 193
D istrib u tio n of E quity Ratios of Poor
Counties. • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 194
CHAPTER I
THE PROBLEM
The American educational scene has w itnessed a long
struggle to make schools u n iv ersal and fre e . Prom the f i r s t
b a ttle s fo r the establishm ent of tax support and the
elim ination of ra te b i l l s , there has been a continuous
e ffo rt to tra n sla te into r e a lity the fundamental American
p rin cip le of eq u ality of opportunity,
A democratic so c ie ty holds as e sse n tia l to its
perpetuation and extension, the p rin cip le th a t a ll children
should have equal opportunity to develop th e ir a b ilitie s
fo r individual and so cial purposes. In order to implement
th is id eal, i t has been necessary to accept a c o rre lativ e
p rin cip le as e sse n tia l to the re a liz a tio n of eq u ality of
opportunity* This basic p rin cip le is th at each c itiz e n sh a ll
contribute to the support of public education in proportion
to his a b ility to do so, and without regard to d ire c t measur
able b en efits which may or may not accrue to him by so doing*
No less in education than in other areas of so cial,
e n te rp rise , has there been th is growing b e lie f which has
flowered from the v isio n ary conviction of e arly colonists*
Today, more than ever, we accept the p rin cip le th at we must
tax w ealth, wherever i t is, to educate children wherever
they are. For once the p rin cip le th at education is a so cial
re s p o n sib ility was accepted, people were confronted w ith the
2
r e a lity of finding means to make i t p o ssible. There has thus
continued both in the e ffo rts of educational th e o rists and in
the le g is la tiv e h a lls, the search fo r some formula of school
support which would re a liz e the goal of equal educational
opportunity.
As lo cal ju risd ic tio n s began se ttin g progressively
higher standards fo r the education of child ren , the costs of
education rose, w ith the re su lt th a t in creasin g ly the
c o rre lativ e p rin cip le of payment fo r education in proportion
to a b ility to pay was v io lated . Poor school d is tr ic ts were
required to bear a re la tiv e ly heavy tax burden in order to
fu rn ish ch ild ren some measure of e q u a lity in educational
opportunity w ith the children in w ealth ier d is tr ic ts .
As a re s u lt of gross d is p a ritie s in the burden im
posed upon the various subdivisions of the s ta te , and with
only a modicum of eq u ality of educational opportunity pro
vided, there have been developed various p attern s of school
financing, larg ely defining the proportions of the cost of
the educational program which should be borne by the sta te
and by the lo cal u n its . An impetus to solving the problem
was given by the study of New York S tate by S trayer and Haig,
who established p rin cip le s fo r the eq u alizatio n of educational
opportunity and school s u p p o r t . I n general, the various
^George D. S tray er, J r ., and Robert M. Haig, The F i
nancing of Education in the S tate of New York, Report of the
Educational Finance Commission, (New York: The MacMillan
Company, 1923). p. 174
