The free lance. (Fredericksburg, Va.) 1885-1926, 1905-04-06
LOCAL OR CONGRATULATIONS
FOR SCHOOLS.

Senator \. +. Thomas. oil Lynch
burg. to our mind strikes the key
note of the educational situation IN
Virginia. i'm letter TO President Al
derman. of the university OF Nu-
ginia. commenting upon the latter ;
address delivered in Richmond some
DAYS AGO. Mr.. Thomas agrees with
President Aldermanthat moremoneN
will be necessary to carry ont TN"
proposed educational reforms IN \W-
pinia. but takes issue with him that
the necessary funds should be raised
bv local taxation only. Senator
Thomas then proceeds 10 demon
state by an example. which this
paper has frequently used rs apph-
cable to this immediate section. the
utter impoSSibility of anywhere near
equalizing The advantages OF educa-
tional facilities 10y local taxation
alone. He gives the conditions now
existing in Lvnchburg as compared
with the surrounding untryadis-
tricts. and thesame comparisons will
be found to prevail as 10 every city
in the State and the surrounding
country as follows:
The assessed values of Lynchburg
are Sl2.44O. BOB. 1t has school
population OF 6.1Sj. Ii eXpendS for
public education S43.O9j.3S. or
$685. per capita OF school popula-
ton. The average pay OF itSteachers
is 5000 per month, Its school
term is ten months. Its tOtaleXpen-
diture for schools is BIZ mills on
its assessed valuation. II is reputed
to have the best system OF public
schools in the State. From the same
eminence one turns TO look across
the river over Il wideeXpanSe OF poor
land, dotted here and there with
humble cottages. This is Amherst
County. Its assessed valuation l.
$1.97S.120. Ii has a school pOpu-
lation OF sob. 1t eXpends for
public education 81 {, 43j.32 or -. lG
per capita OF school population. The
average pay OF its teachers Is S2l.9l
per month. Its school term is J.21
months. Its total expenditure for
schools is S.Sl mills on its assessed
valuation. Its schools are poor and
many OF its people are uneducated.
To advise pOOrcOuntry districts to
educate their children by local taxa
ton is like advising a drowning man
to save himself by swimming. Would
it not be more practical to pitch him
plank? The fact that some other
States have marked success with
local taxation is no proof that II
F. would give satisfactory results in
Virginia. The conditions are dit
ferent. Ii the wealth We're fairly well
distributed over the State it would
make little difference whether the tax
was local or general. In Virginia the
wealth is largely cOngested in the
cities-eighteen cities. with about
II per cent. OF the school populations
have nearly hall the wealth OF the
State. Thus the burden Ofeducating
eighty-seven per cent. of the school
population is left upon the counties
of the State which have something
more than hall the wealth. The case
is even worse than this would show.
because much OF this wealthis in rich
counties. leaving il large number OF
poor counties that. under the Con
stitutiOnal limitation on the tax. are
unable to get the money to educate
their children. The local taX remedy
is inadequate to meet the needs oil
the case. Would it not be better to
commit ourselves to the principle
that the property of the State shall
educate the children oil the State?
There snO objection to local taxation
but the State appropriations should
be increased until every child iii the
State has an opportunity to acquire
a primary education Onlythe State
can gather the money where the
wealth is and distribute it according
TO school population.