ystem
has been given a fair trial, as for example in Minnesota, it has
resulted in two great advantages: (1) it has encouraged the local
community to freer expenditure of their own money for school purposes,
since the contribution of the State is conditioned on the amount
expended by the district. This is an important achievement, since it
serves to train the community to the idea of more liberal local
taxation for school purposes, and it is probable that the greater part
of the support of our schools will continue to come from this source.
Another advantage of state aid is (2) that it serves to equalize
educational opportunities, and hence to maintain a true educational
democracy. Wealthier localities are caused to contribute to the
educational facilities of those less favored, and a common advancement
thereby secured.

While the theory of state aid to rural education is wholly defensible,
and while it has worked well in practice, yet there is one safeguard
that needs to be considered. It is manifestly unfair to ask the people
of towns and cities to help pay for the support of the rural schools
through the medium of the State treasury except on condition that the
patrons of the rural schools themselves do their fair share. Mr. "A,"
living in a town where he pays twenty mills school tax, ought not to be
asked to help improve Mr. "B's" rural school, while Mr. "B" is himself
paying but ten mills of school tax. The farmer is as able as any one
else to pay a fair rate of taxation for his school, and should be
willing to do so before asking for aid from other taxation sources.
Rural education must not be placed on the basis of a missionary
enterprise. State aid should be used to compensate for the difference
in the economic _basis_ for taxation in different localities, and not
for a difference in the _rates_ of taxation between localities equally
able to pay the same rate.

* * * * *

We may conclude, then, that while neither the rural school nor the
community has been fully aware of the possibilities for mutual
helpfulness and cooeperation, yet there are many hopeful signs that both
are awakening to a sense of responsibility. Federal and state
commissions have been created to study the rural problem, national and
state teachers' associations are seeking a solution of the rural school
question, and, better still, the patrons of the rural schools are in
many places alive to the pressing need