FOREST TAXATION IN THE UNITED STATES ion 
That is, in the majority of the States the purpose of State aid came 
to be conceived as twofold: (1) to provide general tax relief and 
(2) to stimulate local effort. 
The policy of stimulating local effort through general relief funds 
was succeeded in many States by a policy of providing special funds 
to encourage local communities to provide at their own option special 
types of schools, additional studies, and other unusual educational 
facilities. 
The most important objects for which special stimulation grants 
are provided today include high schools, consolidation, instruction in 
agriculture and other vocational or trade subjects, teacher-training 
departments in high schools, school libraries, school buildings, free 
textbooks and other facilities, and the maintenance of special types of 
classes. Among the States which thus far have given only a small 
place to special stimulation-fund grants may be named Arizona, 
Arkansas, Colorado, Delaware, Florida, Idaho, Illinois, Louisiana, 
New Mexico, and Oregon. Of the States which have entered upon 
an extensive policy of stimulation may be mentioned New York, 
Minnesota, and Connecticut. 
Another form of State aid may be termed compensation grants. 
These are subsidies paid by a State to constituent political corpora- 
tions which, in making provision for certain educational facilities, 
are handicapped by adverse economic conditions. This type of 
erant borders very closely on the last type of school aid cael will 
be described, that is, equalization funds. 
During the last 15 years there has come into prominence a new 
conception of the fundamental purpose of State aid, namely, that of 
compensating for local inequalities in school revenues, school burdens, 
and educational opportunities, due to factors over which the local 
communities have little control. As a result of this new conception 
one State after another is attempting to establish an equalization 
fund or to distribute existing funds upon a basis which will take 
into consideration differences in taxpaying ability and need. The 
factors that are taken into consideration in making the distribution 
are numerous and involved and differ widely in the different States 
(158, pp. 192-200). 
There is perhaps no yardstick for determining how much of the 
cost of schools should be a local obligation and how much a State 
obligation. In the last analysis the State is responsible for all educa- 
tion, and at one time the public schools in many States derived a con- 
siderable part of their support from permanent State funds, such as 
those built up from the sale of public lands. The collapse of these 
funds in some States and their inadequacy in all of them led to an 
increasing reliance on local taxation. When the principle of local 
school support had once become established, the States withdrew 
almost completely from the picture, and the local communities have 
been required to carry the ever mounting costs. Now the States, 
after taking a long holiday, have begun to resume their responsibility. 
State responsibility for education does not mean that school 
costs should all be borne out of State funds. There are administra- 
tive and psychological reasons why the localities should continue to 
bear a considerable part of the cost of the local schools, but there is no 
logical reason why they should bear such varying portions of the 
standard costs. In 1928 the portion of the public-school costs borne 
