Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1913-03-27

' reason OF snort SCfooi N'"''
lose by reason of short schoel year a.
| low average attendance, ana TWO ''',
| lose by excessive valuation Itd''"
| has two that lose from low attenu""e'
four that lose from short Schoot Ne"',
and five that lose from both causes an"
| one that loses from oVer-NaIual'""
| Kennebec has four that lose from l'N
| average attendance: six that lose from
| short school year and four that lose
| from both causes. Knox has seven that
| lose from short school year; two tIla'
| lose by reason of low average attend
| ance. and short school year. and one
! that loses by GENERALIZATION in summer
| property Lincoln has one that
| loses by low average attendance
one that loses by short school
! year. and five from both meth
| DDS oxford has i that lose
| from short school year: nine that
| lose from low average attend
| ancc and short school year, and
| one from oyer-valuation. Penobscot has
| three that lose from low average attend
| ance: 10 that lose by reason of short
/ school wear, and seven that lose by rea-
! son of both causes, and one that loses by
| reason of GENERALIZATION. PiscataquiS
! has four which lose by reason of short
! school year. and three which lose by rea-
| son of low attendance and short school
| year Sagadahoc has one that loses by
reason of low average attendance; three
| which lose by reason of short school
year; three which lose for both causes;
! and one which loses from generalization.
| Somerset has three which lose from low
4 nd ylh
reason of short school year; and three
which lose from both causes. Waldo
has two which lose from low average at
tendance. eight from short school year;
| and one which loses from both causes
| Washington codnty has two which lose
| from low average attendance; four which
| lose from short school Year and two
| which lose from both causes. York coun-
| ty has four which lose from low aver
| age attendance; seven which lose from
| short school year; one which loses from
| both causes; and two whict. lose from
| oVer-valuation
| The aggregate attendance method puts
! a bounty of nine cents per day upon the
| attendance of every child in the public
| school; and it is important that in con-
Quoting our public schools we try TO save
| all the waste we can. II costs no more
| to run a school with 50 pupils than it
does with 10. The Russell Sage pamphlet,
| which several of YOU have already re-
| ceived has this to say about the waste
of low production: states which pro-
| vide schools and neglect to keep them
filled, waste a considerable part of their
! revenues. y school with an average at
| tendance of 10 pupils costs nearly as
much as one with an attendance OF 40
y mill equipped TO grind 1890 bushels oil
wheat per day will make very expensive
| flour if it has to run all day on 100 BUSH
| els. Economic reasons, We're there no
others, are sufficient justification for
compulsory attendance laws. True econ
| omy in public school administration con-
sists in increasing production rather tan
| in cutting down expenses
Now | have heard it rumored that the
State superintendent of schools does not
believe in this method. For that reason
| have obtained from him a statement in
his own handwriting which is to this Ell
| feet; 1.-The principle underlying an ag-
eregate attendance method of dstrbut-
| ing school funds is sound and is one
that ought TO have the careful study
| of the people
| In New Jersey this method has been
| in force for some time, and | have here
a letter of which l will read part;
The state fund is divided among the
several school districts upon tue basis
of the total days attendance of All the
children in the public schools during the
year preceding that for which the APP
portionment is made. l believe this sys-
| tenn to be theoretically correct and its
| results have been most satisfactory. The
| apportionment of school moneys on the
| basis of valuation does not appear to us
| to be either logical or satisfactory. The
| ratables i'm the municipality bear no re
| latiou whatever TO the cost of maintain
ling the schools y school district having
| a million dollars worth of taxable prop
| erty may have as large school popu-
| latiol and need as many teachers as an
Other district having three million dol
| lars worth of property. and We believe
| that one district is entitled to Just as
much state aid as the other. The effect
of the law has been to increase not only
the number of pupils enrolled but also
| the regularity in attendance. Inc fact
| that every day a child is I'M school means
an appropriation by the state of from
six TO seven cents is an incentive to the
| district to see that the children are in
| school 1t is one of the best compulsory
| education laws of which l have knowl-
| edge" ~.
] Now. this method is not only recon-
| mended by the State superintendent OF
schools, by the school department OF
| New Jersey. but it IS endorsed by the
| State Grange. The State ought to oeeu-
ply the position of guardian to every
child within its limits. The immense val
uation of cities gives their pupils adj
| vantages far in excess of those of towns
and plantations. and the only correct ba-
| sis of distribution seems to be that
which returns 10 every child the same
| amount for every days attendance in the
public schools. The public welfare de-
ponds upon this course. Educate the in
| dividual and You have educated the ma
| ton. The public health is dependent in
an increasing ratio upon the increased
| intelligence of the individual. Wealth,
which is governed by earning capacity
| morality, which is governed by training;
and reproduction of species, which is
| governed by temparance. are all deDen-