funds misappropriated come into the custody of the school official honestly and in line with his official duty. The statutory provisions most common is that providing for punishment by fine or imprisonment of a public school official found guilty of malfeasance in office in regard to expenditures of public school funds. Recently enacted statutes and recent cases are taking the position that, in absence of fraud or malice, a member of a school board is not personally liable either criminally or civilly, but the liability is that of the school corporation which he represents. Public school boards are liable in the name of the district for contracted debts unless such obligations were ultra vires.

The pronounced lack of uniformity in statutory provisions of the various states indicates emphatically the need for the study and improvement of the protective measures for conserving the public secondary school funds in order that children may not be deprived of their rightful opportunities.

CHAPTER X

METHODS OF APPORTIONING PUBLIC FUNDS FOR

SECONDARY SCHOOL SUPPORT

The safe custody of public school funds and the protection of such funds from diversion into illegitimate channels are only two of several equally important problems connected with the financial support of public secondary schools. Methods of apportionment of federal, state and county aid are also important influences upon the public secondary school program.

Several questions of outstanding significance might be kept in mind in considering the constitutional and statutory provisions of the various states relative to the apportionment of financial aid from outside sources to public secondary school districts. Does the method of apportionment stimulate the local district to provide improved standards of educational opportunities? Does it make available the advantages of secondary education to an increasing proportion of the population? Does it tend to distribute the burden of financial support in proportion to the financial ability to bear such costs? Does it tend to recognize and reward effort on the part of the local school district?

The Federal Government recognizes the importance of these questions in apportioning federal aid to the vocational education courses in public secondary schools. The Federal Board for Vocational Education, which acts as the administrative agency for the Federal Government under the "Smith-Hughes Act," supervises the instruction carried on in local communities to the extent of checking by reports and inspection upon the standards of equipment, teachers, curricula, and preparation of teachers. Only a small portion of the federal funds are granted to states as such. Three million dollars annually are allotted to the states as aid for the teaching of agricultural subjects in the proportion that the rural population of each state bears to the rural population of

the United States. A similar amount for aid to trade home economics and industrial subjects is allotted to the states in the proportion which their urban population bears to the total urban population of the United States. If any portion of a state's allotment is not spent for the purpose specified, a like amount is withheld by the Federal Board from the next year's apportionment. The aid is allotted to the states, then, on the basis of the need in terms of population. It is redistributed to local districts as rewards to local effort.

The Federal Government wisely requires local or state financial participation in the support of the vocational education program of at least as much as the federal subsidies, if the state or local community wishes to share in the federal aid for such instruction. The federal aid may be used only for the training of teachers, the payment of teachers' salaries, or the proper supervision of the program.

3

The authority and duty to apportion state aid to public secondary schools is delegated to the state superintendent or commissioner of education in most of the states. In the performance of this duty the state superintendent possesses discretionary powers; and may, therefore, withhold apportionment from a school district which reports average daily attendance on a basis not authorized by law or the rules of the state board of education, or when a school district seeks an apportionment of state aid for sessions maintained at a time not authorized by law. The state superintendent of public instruction also possesses full authority in harmony with the state laws. The state treasurer may, therefore, be required by mandamus to pay out public funds in the state treasury, set aside by law for the support of public schools, upon the apportionment made by the state superintendent of public instruction. The state auditor

5

1Senate Bill 703, Sixty-fourth Congress, Feb. 23, 1917 2See key number 1473, Summary Chart XVI, post

San Francisco v Hyatt, Supt. of Pub. Instr. (1912) 163 Cal. 346, 125 P 751 "State of Washington ex rel School District No. 301 v Josephine Preston, Superintendent of Public Instruction (1915) 84 Wash. 79, 83, 87, 146 P 175 "The State of Nebraska ex rel J. M. McKenzie, J. C. Mc Bride State Treasurer, (1876) 5 Nebr. 102, 103

may also be required by mandamus, if necessary, to issue warrants to counties or local school districts in accordance with the direction and report on apportionment of the state superintendent. Public officials who handle the public school funds in their distribution from the state treasury to the local secondary school district act as agents of the state." A like decision of the Texas Supreme Court sustains the powers of the state superintendent of public instruction by issuing a writ of mandamus against the state comptroller to compel him to draw his warrant on the public school funds in accordance with the superintendent's certificate of apportionment.

Two states provide by statute that the state comptroller shall apportion the state aid to public secondary schools. He is given discretionary powers in apportionment similar to those of state superintendents of other states. Thus a teacher, in the name of the county, was refused a writ of mandamus for the purpose of securing his own salary. This case did not decide, however, that the proper county officials might not succeed in a similar suit.10

Although it is doubtful whether the method will justify an affirmative answer to the questions propounded in the introduction to this chapter, twenty-six states still provide for state aid to be apportioned upon a basis of the number of children of school age within the school district. An early court decision held that the statutes in New Jersey at that time did not authorize the recall and reapportionment of public school funds after having been apportioned to the local district upon the basis of a false and fraudulent census report by the board of

"The State of Washington on the Relation of T. J. Tanners, as Treasurer of Jesferson County, v Neal Cheetham, State Auditor, (1900) 23 Wash. 666, 667, 63 P 552

"School City of Terre Haute v Harrison School Township of Vigo County (1915) 184 Ind. 742, 751, 752, 112 N. E. 514; School City of Terre Haute of Vigo County v Honey Creek School Township of Vigo County et al (1916) 184 Ind. 754, 112 N. E. 518

Jernigan, County Treasurer, v Finley, Comptroller, (1896) 90 Texas 205, 38 S. W. 24

'See key number 1500, Summary Chart XVI, post

10 E. A. Yost, Executor, v James L. Gaines, Comptroller, (1882) 78 Tenn. 466, 458 11See key number 1475, Summary Chart XVI, post

trustees. 12 A recent court decision in Utah, however, shows that means are now being used to prevent any such unjust apportionment by directing the state superintendent of public instruction to correct erroneous apportionments when apportioning school funds for the subsequent year. 13

Average daily attendance as a basis of apportionment seems to serve better as a reward to effort in providing educational advantages. Sixteen states include this basis as a method of apportionment of state aid. 14 Such apportionments are made on the basis of average daily attendance upon public schools only. According to a recent Missouri decision, if the state apportionment is based upon erroneous reports from local districts, the correction is to be made in the subsequent year's apportionment. 15 Nine states also use average daily attendance as a basis for state aid to evening schools, 16 while five states use a similar method in aiding part-time continuation schools. 17 A ruling by the California State Board of Education, which interpreted one two-hour session attendance upon evening classes as equivalent to one-half a day's attendance for purposes of state aid, has been sustained by the California Supreme Court.18

One of the most significant statutory provisions of the states relative to bases of apportionment of state aid is that providing for a special equalization fund to aid local districts that are poor in property valuation and other sources of revenue. 19 The Supreme Court of North Carolina supported this statutory provision in a 1919 decision. 20 Other significant bases of apportionment of

1 The Inhabitants of the Township of Morris, in the County of Morris, v AmsiCarey, Silas H. Arnold, and Lewis H. Johnson (1859) 27 N. J. 377, 387 19Board of Education of Alpine School Dist. Utah County, et al v Board of Education of Salt Lake City et al (1923) 62 Utah 302, 219 Pac. 542, 543.

14See key number 1483, Summary Chart XVI, post

15State ex rel Consolidated School District No. 9 Bates County et al v Lee, State Superintendent of Schools (1924) (Missouri Supreme Court) 262 S. W. 344, 346 18See key number 1485, Summary Chart XVI, post

17See key number 1503, Summary Chart XVI, post

18Board of Education of the City and County of San Francisco, Petitioner, V Edward Hyatt, as Superintendent of Public Instruction, Respondent, (1912) 163 Cal. 346, 352, 125 P 751

19See key number 1487, Summary Chart XVI, post

20Board of Education of Alamanoe County v Board of Commissioners of Alamanoe County (1919) 178 N. C. 305, 100 S. E. 698-700