314 MISC. PUBLICATION 218, U. 8. DEPT. OF AGRICULTURE 
taxes increased during this period from $16,700,000 in 1919 to $35,- 
700,000 in 1926, or 114 percent (4, pp. 92-98). 
In Tennessee the State contribution for education increased, for a 
period, slightly faster than local support. Between 1924 and 1928 
State aid increased from $2,897,478 to $3,644,877, or 26 percent, 
whereas local taxes for education during this period increased from 
$10,917,961 to $13,449,556, or 23 percent (4, p. 106). 
In New York the increase in State aid has been very marked, rising 
from $5,564,260 in 1915 to $69,244,869 in 1928, an increase of 1,144 
percent. During this period local school taxes increased from $60,- 
317,062 to $194,113,754, or 222 percent (4, p. 103). 
Only in New York, among the States mentioned here, has the State 
assumed a perceptibly larger share of the total school cost, and even 
in New York the absolute increase in State aid has not been as great 
as the absolute increase in local school taxes. In none of these 
States—and they are perhaps representative—was there an actual 
reduction in the amount of local school taxes. Of course in very 
recent years local school taxes have been reduced almost everywhere, 
but not usually as a result of increased State aid. It is possible that 
the State aid has kept the tax rate from rising as high as it would 
have risen otherwise; but that is not necessarily the case, for the in- 
crease in local expenditures has been partly a result of the stimulus 
of State aid. In 1918 the State was bearing 25 percent or more of 
the cost of schools in 15 States; 10 years later this was true of 16 
States (162, pp. 35-36). The main purpose of State aid for schools 
has not been to give general tax relief but to improve the quality of 
education. 
Neither has State aid for roads generally resulted in a reduction of 
local taxes. In Minnesota, State aid for roads increased between 
1917 and 1927 only 19 percent, whereas county road taxes increased 
152 percent (4, p. 120). In New York, State aid for town roads in- 
creased 22 percent between 1924 and 1928, whereas town highway 
taxes increased 187 percent. In the same period State road aid to 
the counties of New York increased only 1 percent, whereas county 
highway taxes increased 44 percent (4, p. 127). In Texas payments 
from State funds declined slightly between 1927 and 1928, while the 
share of the cost borne by the counties increased sharply (4, p. 130). 
OTHER EFFECTS 
Even though State aid does not appear to have resulted in any 
general reduction in local taxes, the device has probably succeeded 
in accomplishing the purposes for which it was designed—namely, 
to improve the quality of local services and to equalize to some 
extent the tax burden. Most observers agree that it has been an 
important factor in the improvement of both schools and roads. It 
has probably been less successful in equalizing taxes. However, this 
goal has been approximated in States like New York, where, after a 
district has levied a certain maximum tax, the State pays the remain- 
ing cost of meeting a minimum school standard, and where similarly 
town road taxes are essentially equalized. 
Despite the rapid growth and seeming popularity of State aid, it 
must be recognized as a palliative. The roots of the trouble are an 
improper distribution of governmental functions and a needless 
