Arizona republican., 1915-03-10
Where the People
 May Have Hearing
ARIZONA'S PER CAPITA SCHOOL
 COST
litor of The Republican,

To the Editor of The Republican,
 Sir:
 We notice that Arizona's per capita school cost is being unfavorably com
 pared with New Mexico's. From her latest school report We find that in New
 Mexico 133 teachers receive less than $200; 605 teachers less than $500; and only 3S9 teachers receive over $500 an nually. The report further shows that the average monthly salary for teach CTS in New Mexico is $59.S2, while in
 Arizona for the same year the average monthly salary is S95.66. (How easily we could reduce our per capita cost by
 simply paving Arizona teachers New
 Mexico salaries).
 The state superintendent of public
 instruction of New Mexico in his re- port urges his state to increase the minimum term of school from to [
 months. New Mexico has a months Arizona an s months minimum term of school. tHere again it can be seen that a great reduction in our per capita cost could easily be made by cutting q few months off of our required school ternD
 But Arizona has free text books New Mexico has not. Arizona has state aid for industrial education. New Mexico has not. Cut out our annual $10O, 900 free text book expense, and our annual S2500 state aid for each high school. and this together with the reduction we might make in teachers salaries and length of school term would prob ably gor far towards putting Arizona s per capita school cost on an equal l footing with New MexIco's.
 The above comparisons speak for themselves. They throw light on the question Of expenditure. They indicate where much of our school money has gone. accounting partially dargely per taps) TOT the difference between Ari- zona's and New Mexco's per capita school cost.
 The comparisons are not used in a disparasing way against our nciGhbor state. they are used in defense of our own state and of our own schools which have We feel been misunderstood and uniustly criticised by some of our own people. High per capita school i cost does not always indicate waste. and especially is this true in n state I like ours where so many adverse con- ditions prevail. High per capita school cost may be q sign of prosressiveness and that is exactly what it is with us | 1t stands for a progresSivness that has been operating school system at a ! q 1 mt ta hItt AarI1i inh in, l cry hindrance has been pushing our i schools to the front
 When we thing of our per capita school cost we should also think of ef- | ficient and well paid teachers; of stan | dard eight months school terms. se- l cured for our many small isolated l schools as well as for our few large ] ones: and we should not lost sight of | the fact that in securing these and oth
 CT up-to-date essentials impartially for l all our schools it is bound to cost con | siderable in q state like ours of big distances and sparse and scattered population.
 Then again during territorial times as we all know, Arizona got behind a little in school matters as well as in other things. She did not then have the incentive to go ahead that she has had since she became state. She "mosied' along took things easy and at last handed over to the state some dr. linquencies, and the state has been spending a small fortune settling for these territorial arrears: spending an nually thousands of dollars fixing up long neglected school houses. replacing broken down equipment. etc: and all this and more has helped to increase and determine our per capita school cost
 AriZona's school system and the way it is operated are not nfallible (but where can you find infallibiity or eX-
 pect to find it in any school system or
 in the operation of any school system
 in any stateO But taking into con-
 sideration all that Arizona has lately
 been doing for her schools. after mak-
 ing due allowance for all her deficien-
 cies, must we not to be fair admit that she has done exceedingly well, situated as she is in q world of imperfections?
 C. o. CASE.