Equalized Valuation Per Resident Pupil 



Based on previous investigations, it would appear that grouping 

 districts according to equalized valuation per resident pupil should be 

 examined without reference to population or any other subdivision. 

 Some districts are so fortunately located as to have large amounts of 

 taxable property owned by non-residents, such as recreational facili- 

 ties, seasonal occupants, or public utilities. The addition of a few 

 million dollars of non-resident property has much more effect on the 

 small sparsely populated districts than on the larger districts. Accord- 

 ingly, the total equalized valuation of taxable wealth should have more 

 effect on appropriations per pupil among the smaller districts. 



For purposes of comparison, all one hundred and fifty-four districts 

 have been divided into seven groups according to equalized valuation per 

 resident pupil (ADM) (Table 25) . In each group there are one or more 

 high schools maintained and there are two or more districts in each 

 group having a population in excess of 1,000. A rather large proportion 

 of those districts with an equalized valuation over $30,000 per pupil, 

 have experienced a decline in population from 1950 to 1960. Districts 

 having more than $50,000 of taxable property per pupil have a much 

 smaller population and a smaller number of pupils than other groups. 

 In other words, when grouping school districts according to equalized 

 valuation there is no apparent tendency toward population predom- 

 inating any group. 



To further examine the local economy of the groups of districts, 

 the equalized valuation per pupil was related to the proportion of prop- 

 erty in farms and in resident property (Table 26) . The thirty-four dis- 

 tricts having an equalized valuation of less than $15,000 had 28.6 per- 



31 



