The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1908-10-08
The BARNES LAW,
Covering County High Schools Is
Criticized.

To the Editor of the State Journal:
Through your paper to the voters
and taxpayers of Kansas.
In many counties of the state the
Barnes High school law" has been
submitted to be voted upon next
month. Probably not one voter in
five knows it has been submitted; and
not one in ten knows its meaning.
1t seems our duty to examine the
provisions of this law md vote accord
ing to our best judgment.
The Barnes high school law. briefly
stated, authorizes county commission
ers to levy a county tax of from l to
mills Gold assessment) for the ex-
elusive support of high schools. The
money so collected to be paid to teach
ers who teach nothing but high school
branches; distribution made accord
ing to average daily attendance.
1 am inclined to give our law MAX
ers credit for doing the best they
know. Am also inclined to give my
fellow teachers credit for asking for
laws which seemed to them fair and
impartial. But it seems to me they
all looked at but one side of this
measure.
In this brief shall attempt to state
only few of the objections I should
offer in a discussion.
To illustrate: In this (Osage) county
about $4,000 was collected and d.
vided; but before the distribution was
made the supreme court decided that
the proposition did not carry. The
money was all paid back to tax pay
ers; but no better example can be CIV
en-. Levy was 2 mills. This was to
have been given to five or six town
schools, making an average of about
$4,000 for each.
We farmers consider this not only
unjust, but enormous, outrageous.
Farmers are willing to educate their
children. They, however, do not like
to pay such high tuition.
When a youth has a thorough edu-
cation in the branches required to
make him a useful and prosperous
citizen, the parents or guardian and
the student should be left to decide
If he is to go higher-what. when
and where. And since the tuition is
the least expense, majority of them
prefer one of our we'll established
schools; of which we have so many.
One of the main objections to the
measure is this: County high schools
are responsible for the present con-
ditions of our lower grades. Children
are rushed through the branches re-
quired to make them useful and pros
porous citizens and compelled to take
unimportant branches at a tender age.
ITO go upstairs is to reach the
goal" This has been practiced so
long our schools are top heavy"
Why? Because, as you already OBJ
serve, the greater the number in high
school the more money received.
Finally. our good men who made
laws for public schools and estab-
lished our state schools, never intend
ed to have them chained together
suggest the following for the con-
sideration of our legislature:
Repeal the county high school law;
authorize a county school tax and a
township school tax, leaving our in
dependent district system as it now
stands.
Let the county and township levies,
combined, be sufficient to support
public schools not less than four and
not more than five months. The ra-
ito should be, approximately. as two
County is to three (township.)
Township levies not uniform. APP
portion county tax according to school
population; the township tax accord
ing to number of teachers required.
Make it the duty of districts to levy
sufficient, when added to other levies,
to support a school not less than seven
and not more than eight months.
Authorize the several district clerks
in each township to constitute board
Of education with somewhat similar
powers given to and duties required
of city boards.
Let one of the duties of township
boards be to look after the higher
education" Yours truly,
JABEZ ADAMS, JR.
Lyndon, Kan, Oct 6, 1908.