Sacramento daily record-union. [volume] (Sacramento [Calif.]) 1875-1891, 1880-03-27
THE PROPOSED SCHOOL LAW.
The Hardships It Will Entail upon School
Districts

Districts.
EDS. RECORD UNION: The proposed
school law, Senate Bill No. 399, in its method
of apportioning school funds, will work a
great hardship upon the schools of every large
district in the State. 1t is supposed by the
trainers of this bill that every district will
have money enough to maintain schools an
equal length of time. Moneys are appor-
toned at the rate of $500 to every teacher,
so pupils being the basis on which the num-
Der of teachers is computed. The average
district has about 40 census pupils, there
being more districts having less number
than there are having greater number.
Now, then. it is proposed to apportion $500
to 40 pupils in the average district, and but
$500 to the exact eighties Of the large district.
Toillustrate Petaluma, in this county, has 953
census pupils dividing 953 by so gives IL
and remainder of 70. This would give to
Petaluma II teachers, which would make the
apportionment for the city $4,000. Santa
Rosa would receive $1,000; Healdsburg,
50, 900, and so on. Of every so census pupils
in each of these cities from 90 to 65 attend
the schools.
Now, if we consider that $500 is sufficient
to pay teacher and provide the incidentals
of school, can any teacher in creation do
justice to Go pupils? Six thousand dollars
for our city is just one-haf enough; Sc, 500
for Santa Rosa is just one-half enough. The
man who drew this bill, without doubt,
thought when he reduced the basis of 100 CEN
sus pupils per teacher to so census pupils per
teacher, that he was approaching somewhat
nearer Just basis. But the bill also changes
50-the number of census pupils district
must have to receive the pro rata distribution
of all surplus-to &c. By this change the
revenue of large districts is again reduced, so
that the result in our county makes no
material difference.
In what had to say before the Assembly
Committee on Education, based my CON
clusion not alone upon the schools of this
county, but had a tabulated list of every dis
trict in Alameda, Santa Clara, Tehama, Tu-
lare and Sonoma counties, while l had also
most of the districts of many other counties.
1t cannot but be patent to every legislator
who will investigate the matter, that an APP
portionment of $500 to an average district of
40 pupils 80 or 80 of whom go to school, is
just double the ratio received by large dis
trict wherein the sos get just the same
amount, 60 or 65 of whom go to school.
Now proposed that the basis of apportion-
ment be made 60 instead of so. This would
give 10 Tile larger ulSbrlCIS d dIuOuHI
to maintain their schools just as long as the
smaller ones without taking cent from the
smaller districts. Ii there exists any fear
that some districts of from rs to 80 pupils
would receive too much, there is saving
clause in the bill that provides that all sur
plus to the credit of district shall be reap
portioned at the beginning of the next year.
Besides this. district having 80 census
pupils is just as much entitled to have
| two teachers as one having 95. /
would not be understood as favoring
a reduction of funds of the smaller districts,
but I would be understood as favoring an
equal chance to the larger ones.
The people of this city and Of Santa Rosa
are much exercised over the prospective re-
| duction of school facilities, and they would
| be all over the State did they know the re-
suit of this proposed law. Some say that
counties must raise more money. This will
only increase the injustice, because whatever
is left over after apportioning $500 to each
| teacher will be SO divided up among the
many districts having over thirty census
pupils, that the county would have to raise
much more than is needed In the smaller dis
| tricts, in order that the larger ones be put
| upon anything like an equal footing.
NJ E. G. MUNpAY
Petaluma, March "a, 1880.