PUBLIC SCHOOL FINANCE 247 
receive funds to which it is not entitled, while another district 
receives a smaller amount of state aid or none at all, because 
property is more generally assessed and the assessment ratio 
is kept at a relatively high level, doés not make equalization 
almost impossible and thus defeat the object of the system. 
The general relief grants are not intended to benefit only 
the needy districts. In fact, there may be some discrimina- 
tion against the needy districts. For example, a very poor 
district with less than fifteen pupils in average daily attend- 
ance is entitled to only $25 on account of the teachers’ quota, 
while districts that maintained an averagedaily attendance in 
the preceding year of fifteen pupils or more are entitled to $50 
on account of each teacher. An offsetting factor, however, is 
that $25 to a very poor district with only a small school 
attendance may represent a larger proportion of the total 
expenses of the district than does $50 to a school district of 
the better grade. 
The pupil-days apportionment, as has been stated, depends 
largely on the residual amount in the state school moneys 
fund after certain special projects and the teachers’ quota 
apportionment have been covered. The residual amount 
varies considerably from year to year, and consequently a 
district is never certain as to the amount of funds it will 
receive until all of the other charges against the state school 
moneys have been determined. While this condition may 
constitute a handicap, it is difficult to see how it could be 
overcome without the adoption of some other system of aid 
that would not be based upon a residual dependent on a 
variety of factors. 
Although it appears that the equalization grants rest on an 
ansound basis and that the general relief grants are not made 
in accordance with needs, it would probably not be desirable 
to abolish these grants on the theory that assessed valuation 
is not a satisfactory basis for distributing state school funds. 
A school district naturally adjusts itself in accordance with 
the state distributions that it receives, and if a radical change 
were made considerable hardship would unquestionably result 
in certain instances. Nevertheless, it seems highly desirable 
that the system now in effect be analyzed by those in 
authority with a view to establishing standards as to assessed 
valuation that must be met if these aids are to be continued.