funds to the States is the degree to which equalization among the States is accomplished. Though the distribution possibly does afford some small amount of equalization of educational opportunity, in that funds are provided on a population basis in excess of the support that presumably would otherwise be provided by the State, the program does not take into account the factor of equalization of burden among the States in any purposeful manner. This failure to equalize the burden may be clearly brought out by an analysis showing the kinds of States that obtain the largest amount of grants on each of the bases used in allotting funds for vocational education.

In that part of the program of vocational education in which funds are allotted on the basis of urban population, one-half of the total Federal appropriation to the 48 States goes to 6 States, all but 1 of which rank in the highest third of the States according to ability to support education.1 In that part of the program in which funds are allotted on the basis of nonfarm population, one-half of the total Federal appropriation goes to 7 States, all but 2 of which rank in the highest third of the States according to economic ability. In that part of the program in which funds are allotted on the basis of the total population, one-half of the total Federal appropriation goes to 10 States, only 3 of which rank below the highest third in economic ability.

The other two bases used in the Federal allotment, farm population and rural population, afford a somewhat better distribution to the States on the basis of ability. One-half of the allotment on the basis of rural population goes to 13 States, all but 5 of which are in the lower half of the list according to economic ability. One-half of the allotment on the basis of farm population goes to 12 States, all but 3 of which rank in the lower half of the list according to economic ability.

14 See Paul R. Mort, Eugene S. Lawler, and associates, Principles and Methods of Distributing Federal Aid for Education, The Advisory Committee on Education, Staff Study No. 5 (Washington: U. S. Government Printing Office, 1938), Table 10. The yield of the uniform tax plan there given was divided by the estimated number of children 5-17 years of age for each State. Estimates of the number of children 5-17 years of age were computed by taking the arithmetic mean of estimates for July 1, 1934, and July 1, 1936, obtained from the United States Office of Education.

It must be recalled that the matching provision of the Federal appropriations also produces results contrary to the principle of equalization of burden. Thus the States having the lowest per capita wealth and income must qualify for the allotment from the Federal Government by use of State and local funds in just as large an amount per capita as is demanded from the more able States.

Conclusion. It seems clear from these analyses that the bases of distributing funds to the States for vocational education needs reconsideration. The chief criticism of the present arrangement is that the funds are not distributed on an equalization basis. Though there is some measure of equalization in the population bases employed in the vocational acts, they fall far short of distributing the funds to the States according to their financial needs.

Another important difficulty is that the formula for distribution of the funds is written directly into the acts for Vocational education. This makes for inflexibility. It would be preferable for the statutes to lay down only a few general principles on which the distribution must be based, such as the requirement that the allocation must be just and fair, that it shall be based on the needs of the States, and that it shall make use of some formula based on objective data.

Authority for the actual determination of the allotments within the limits of these principles might well be assigned to the Commissioner of Education, subject to final review by the Secretary of the Department of the Interior or other department to which the Office of Education might in the future be assigned. In developing the formula for distribution the Commissioner of Education should be required to consult with a representative group of advisers. Perhaps the Council of Chief State School Officers would be suitable group to advise him in developing the distribution formula.

If Federal funds are provided for general education, and earmarking for vocational education is continued, a single agency should make the allocations for both types of funds.

Division of Support between
States and Local Communities

Of the grand total expenditures, amounting to $33,427,834,15 required in 1936 to support the Federal program of Vocational education, 29 percent came from the Federal Treasury, 26 percent from the treasuries of the States and Territories, and 45 percent from local sources. Table 14 shows for each of the 51 States and other areas the percentage of total expenditures for vocational education provided from Federal funds, from State funds, and from local funds, in the fiscal year ending in 1936.

Because of the matching requirements the expenditures from Federal sources in 1936 could not exceed 50 percent of the total. Three States provided nothing beyond the required 50 percent from State and local funds. In 23 States and Puerto Rico the Federal funds constituted 40 percent or more of the total expenditures for the program of vocational education. In 4 States the Federal funds provided less than 20 percent of the total, and in one of these States the Federal funds amounted to only 9 percent of the total.

There are only 1 State and 2 Territories in which the funds provided from State or Territorial sources in 1936 were more than half the total required for the support of the program of vocational education. In 4 other States the amount from State sources was in excess of 40 percent of the total expenditures. Fifteen States provided 10 percent or less of their totals from State funds.

15 This total includes an undistributed item of State and local expenditures of $1,665, which is not included in the total given in Table 6, p. 85.

TABLE 14.-Percentage which Federal, State, and local funds are of total expenditures for vocational education, by State, year ended June 30, 1936 1

1 Data derived from Digest of Annual Reports of State Boards for Vocational Education 1936, Statistical and Financial Tables, sec. I, Table 10.

In 1936 the burden of financing the program of vocational education fell much more heavily on the local communitites than on either the Federal Government or the States. In 1 State 80 percent of the total expenditure required was provided from local sources, and in 9 other States half or more of the total was provided from local sources. In only 2 States and in Alaska, Hawaii, and Puerto Rico was less than 25 percent provided by the local communities. In 29 States the local communities bore a larger percentage of the cost than the Federal Government.

Within the States that do not have provision for large State funds for equalizing educational opportunities, the Federal allotment for vocational education serves to increase the inequalities of educational opportunities. The local communities that have the greatest economic ability usually have the best system of general education. These are the communities that can afford to set aside funds for vocational education. Under such circumstances it seems that there is a strong tendency for the Federal funds ultimately to be used for the most part in communities that are above average in economic ability.

The States seem to have tended to limit the establishment of centers for reimbursed vocational education to the types of communities on which the allotment is based. For example, the George-Ellzey appropriations for home economics were based on rural population, and classes in this subject seem to have been established chiefly in rural areas. The allotment for vocational education in trades and industries is based on urban or nonfarm population, and such classes are typically established only in cities. As previously pointed out,16 this restriction of the program is not required in the acts and possibly is unwise socially.

Perhaps the most pronounced adverse criticism concerning the distribution of funds within the States is with respect to the service to minority groups in the population. The States maintaining segregated schools for Negroes have in general apportioned to the support of training for Negro groups less

16 See p. 103.