News and citizen. [volume] (Morrisville, Vt. ;) 1881-current, 1884-02-28
Eor What Reason.

The town system of schools is used
exclusively in several States, has
been used for many years, is approved
by the people who have tried it and
by educators everywhere, because 1t
furnishes better schools and secures a
more equal distribution of both school
burdens and school privileges. This
system has been tried in Vermont and
experience has proved that 1t is Of
benefit to all, because all have better
schools, and it is of especial benefit
to the poorer districts, because they
get more schools and better schools,
and pay less money.
Why is such a system not adopted!
We say, partly because the people
who would be most benefited ty it
refuse to examine it and to be guided
p by the facts. The people of the poor
er districts argue that their schools
would be taken away BY the town
system, but it does not work so where
the system is in use. More than
twenty thousand people in Vermont
use the town system, and among them
all, not one school that there was need
of has been suspended. The same
people argue further that they can
run their own schools better than any
town committee, but the fact is, they
do not run them so well. In towns
where the people of the back districts
voted against the town system on its
first adoption, they have, after fair
trial, voted for the system, because
their schools were better and their
school taxes were less. Again these
people argue that under the town sys-
tenn there would be high school in
the principal village, and the whole
town would have to support it. This
does sometimes happen, but even then
the back districts pay less than they
did with the district system, they have
more and better school at home than
they had with the district system, and
they have the right, to send their
children, when fitted, TO the high
school, free Of tuition. So in every
way the town system is better for the
poorer and remote parts of town.
The adoption of the town system
is parity prevented by the people of
the richer districts, who, under the
district system, can have good schools
and all they want of them, with much
less than the average school tax.
Some of the people in these districts
are unwilling to share equally with
their poorer neighbors in the support
of schools. They pay equally with
the rest of the town for the support
of paupers, aad for roads and bridges,
and town buildings, and for the SER
vice of town officers, but for the sup
port of schools they have never paid
as high taxes as others of their towns
men, and they are unwilling now to
do so. The doctrine Of equal rights
and equal burdens for all does not
suit them.
Partly, also, the abolition of the
school districts is hindered by people
of the richer districts who say, the
new system is better and we are ready
to adopt it, and take our share of the
burden with the rest as soon as the
people to be most benefited are ready
to let US help them, but we do not wish
to encounter opposition and hatred for
the chance to pay more money for the
advantage of those who will oppose
and hate US. OF course this is natural.
1t is not quite pleasant to be kicked by
the people one assists. But is it safe
10 allow Tue CulluIeu VI pOIGlOu vi
the town to grow up in ignorant rude
ness? As matter of self protection
is it not imperative on the towns to
take possession of the schools for the
better training of their future citizens ?
Two years ago Massachusetts abol-
ished the few districts remaining with
in her borders. Last March the peo-
pie of Middletown, VT, after a ten
years trial, decided a vote of ninety
to twenty-five to retain the town sys-
tenn. What towns will come next
into the line of progress?