The weekly democratic statesman. [volume] (Austin, Tex.) 1871-1883, 1882-08-17

verse it. No fifteenth amendment |
to the constitution can reverse il. |
1t stands out as a great law that |
governs human nature everywhere |
aud has always governed il.
suggestions as to the school Sys-
tenn.
it is quite probable that no ques-
tion will be more generally agitated
in the coming state canvass than the |
question of a "more efficient system
of public free schools" and if this
agitation is accompanied by prac-
tical discussion of the subject some
good may be accomplished. With
view to eliciLing discussion, the
following is proposed as a remedy
to the evils of the present system.
First, the abolition of the commu-
nifty system and the substitution
therefor of the district system:
Second, an amendment to the con-
stitution giving to the various dis
tricts the same privileges of local
taxation as are now given to incor-
porated towns and cities.
In support of the first proposition
experience has thoroughly demon
strated, not only in Texas, but in
every state where it has been tried,
that the community system
is a failure. 1t has proven
great obstacle to anything like
| thorough organization OF the scho-
lastic population of the state; for
instance in territory of two miles
square there may be scholastic
population of sixty with u good and
convenient school building in the
centre, and under the present law
the numbers of that community may
reorganiZe with a dozen or more
communities if they choose, and use
their proportion of the school fund
for the erection of dozen or more
school houses. and any attempt to
maintain a school in one of these
small communities would be useless
By this practice forty or fifty
thousand children are deprived of
any of the benefits of the fund as
now administered, and it is impos-
sible to ascertain with any reason
able certainty how much money
would be required to give the scho-
lastic population of the state eight
months tuition every year.
A school tax of one per cent under
| the system now in operation would
not accomplish what is needed in a
good school system, viz: nine or ten
months tuition each year.
The amount of tax to be levied
would depend upon the estimated
expenses of revised system that
would insure eight, nine or ten
months tuition in the year. Under
the community system, which indef-
lnitely multiplies the expense, there
can be no basis for reasonable tax.
Again, the community system fails
to educate public sentiment in a
practical direction. If large and
respectable community be organized
this year, there is no assurance that
| it will be IN existence next year.
Public spirit, support aud liberality
cannot be centered upon q tempo
rarY gathering place for the scho-
lastic population of any community,
and these are essentials in building
up good schools. Changes in COM
munities result in changes of teach
ers, and this is q great obstacle to
progress in education.
The books of the different county
judges of the state will show that
the length of the sessions of the va
rious schools of the state varies from
two to eight months in the year, a
difference that is due almost exclu-
sively to the manner in which the
communities are organized. These
evils are apparent to every one who
has had any experience with the
system, about which there is no
| system.
A district system would insure
thorough organization CT all the
scholastic population of the state,
where it is possible under any cir
cumstances to maintain a school it
would insure a concentration of eff
fort towards the establishment and
maintenance of permanent school
buildings, permanent teachers, and
a systematic and Uniform method
of instruction; it would create
spirit of emulation between
districts, and with a system of local
taxation would stimulate interest
in the question of proper disposi-
ton of our public school domain,
and secure an economical and busi-
ness like disbursement of the fund.
In advocacy of the second propo-
sition, few facts will be sufficient
to show that a general state tax is
inadequate to meet the necessities
of the case,
In June, 1882, the bureau of edu-
cation, at Washington, at the re-
quest of ii. w. Blair, prepared a
statement showing, among other
things, the amount of school funds
derived from state taxation in each
state and territory, and from this
statement it appears that only six
states in the Union levy a larger
amount for school purposes than
Texas. These states are California,
which appropriates $1,3l8,209 from
an assessed state valuation of 1884,
578, ,436 4; Illinois, which appropriates
| 81 100000 from an assessed state val
uation of $786, GIG, 1874; Indiana, which
appropriates $1.456,834 from an as
sessed valuation of S727, ,815.13 New
Jersey, which appropriates 81, l,017,705
from an assessed valuation of $572,-
518, 361,.; New York, which appro-
PIRATES $2,750,000 from an assessed
valuation of $2,651 ,940, ,006, and Ohio,
which appropriates 81 $685. from
an assessed valuation of 81 ,534, &c.,
5O8. Next to these comes Texas
with a state taxation of $678,603 on
an assessed value of 1920, 1854 ,515.
These facts show that the state taxa
ton of Texas for school purposes
exceeds in proportion to population
and wealth that of any state in the
union. From this statement ii fur
ther appears that Iowa, Kansas,
Massachusetts,, New Hampshire and
Pennsylvania have no state taxation
for this purpose, but depend exclu-
sively upon what permanent funds
they have, together with local taxa
tion, and the principal revenue in
all the northern states is derived
from local taxation. There must
have been some very cogent reasons
impelling those states to the district
system and local taxation. While
these same reasons will apply to
Texas. there are other and stronger
reasons why we should adopt local,
instead OF general tax exclusively