Sacramento daily record-union., 1888-08-01
SCHOOL FUND ApPORTIoNKENr.


name"
SCHOOL FUND APPoRTI0NKENT
The revelations of the new school CEN
aus just taken in San Francisco are more
than surprising. They disclose rascally
plan to rob the State, or else reckless
neglect of duty regardless of consequences,
ither of which ought to consign the per-
petrators to the penitenLiary
Hildebrandt, the original Census Mar
shall, evidently took no new lists of census
school children, but using old returns,
added hap-hazard percentage of increase,
and made his report in eagar haste to Sc
cure his fees. He thus reported S2,693
children in San Francisco of school age.
But the census just taken to undo his ras-
cality shows that the true number of census
children is 59,713. Thus the State was,
under the Hildebrandt management, to be
robbed of the per capita allowance upon
nearly $4,000 names of children who turn
out to be myths
1t is complained by one of the San Fran
cisco journals that the more recent census
is inaccurate, since it must omit the San
Francisco children now absent in the
country. This is ridiculous. 1t is unlikely
that the Census Marshals found no trace of
these children. Their districts were very
small, and 1t was matter Of comparative
ease for the children resident in each block
to be ascertained, even if some were ont of
the city on vacation jaunts. The self
interest of the Census Marshals lie in
returning the largest possible number of
names; they are not likely, therefore, to
nit returns of family because it is "out
of town." when it is easy to ascertain the
essential facts ccncerning it. Nor is it at
all likely that the Marshals neglected to
ascertain in every block if any families
were absent when they canvassed for the
census. The probabilities, therefore, are
that the new census is very nearly correct
even the journal TO which we refer ad-
mits that at the very best, Hildebrandit's
returns were fraudulent to the extent OF
many thousands of names. The State thus
saves about $147 900 to her school fund,
and the fact is put on record that San
Francisco drew per capita allowance in
1884 upon nearly 1900 too many children
Of reported school age. The returns of that
year exceeded those of 1888 by more than
5000 names and the excess Of numbers has
been adhered to every year since then.
There is a looseness about this whole
system of taking the school census that
needs to be corrected. 1t ought to be able
to devise methods of asoertaining the num-
Der Of children Of school age upon which to
base the apportionment of school funds
that will exclude all incentive to make
false returns. Under the present system,
the more census children county can re-
port, the larger the share Of the school
fund, and hence Marshals are urged to "rake
and scrape" their district for all possible
names TO swell the list, and even the most con-
scientious of school boards have been known
to wink at the extravaganees Of Marsbsls'
reports. 1t is 4 fact that thousands of
names are returned Of children not yet five
and Of those more than seventeen years of
age, and that in many instances returns
are made fraudulent in this way without
much coneealment But let us suppose
the system of spportionment to be based
upon the mean number of children found
in actual attendance upon public schools
between given and pretty widely separated
dates. Would not the division of the
funds be as just as now, since the relation
between the number in, and those out of
school, is about the same in all communi-
ties? At least, regarding this latter state
nent Perceptions of cities should be made,
would not the attendance basis secure TO
each community, cities included, Just as
fair apportionmentf
This system would not affect the amount
of money to ne devoted to public educa-
ton per capita. We would raise precisely
- NUN anu dNNOtC on uAHCu W bAlC
public schools, but we would have an ac-
curate method Of ascertaining the need of
each county for aid from the common
fund. The system would also exclude
from competition the very large class be-
tween, say twelve and seventeen years of
age, that do not SO TO any school and will
not, and why these should be included in
an apportionment standard we are unable
to perceive. The thoughtful reader will
also see other and equally as strong rea-
sons for the proposed method of distribut-
ing the school fund upon the basis of the
demand, or the actual advantage taken of
the public bounty. IS eyinced by practical
use of the public school system