Newark post. (Newark, Del.) 1910-1969, 1916-07-12
STATE BOARD OF EDU-
CATION TO THE PUBLIC
REINFORCEMENT OF Pay
ment For NONRESIDENT
Pupils


pupils in each county for whom
the state appropriates money to
pay tuition in town High Schools,
is too low. as more than $50 pu-
pills would like to use such an OPP
portunity. The State must either
appropriate more money for this
purpose and raise the limit to 800
or $50 or the money now appro-
priated among the students on
some basis other than the present
which fixes twenty cents day
as the pay to a town High School
for a nonresident pupil. The
effort to increase the appropria-
ton has been made and failed. It
may fail again. Therefore, some
plan should be devised to meet
the difficulty if the appropria-
ton cannot be increased. Three
plans have been advanced to meet
the need.
First, the State Grange meet
ing favored an increase of the
appropriation from $4,000 (the
present annual appropriation to
$4,000. Admit to town High
Schools all who are qualified and
wish to go, then apportion each
county's share of the appropria-
ton (one-third) among all the
children admitted in that county.
Thus if $50 can be paid for, as
now, with S7,333.33, the state pay
ing the full twenty cents a day,
the state will be able to pay only
twelve Of fifteen cents a day when
the number of pupils is increased
to $50, as might easily be the
case under a new plan Who
should pay the difference between
the twenty cents day allowed by
the law and the twelve or fifteen
cents appropriated by the state?
The State Grange favored having
the parents of the children who
go to school make the extra pay
ment. This is one plan.
Second, it is advocated that the
home school district should pay
that part of the cost not provid-
ed for by the state appropria-
ton. otherwise this proposal is
just like number one.
Third, since the money appro-
priated for these nonresident
pupils comes out of the State
Treasury, and therefore does not
include local tax money, it has
been proposed that the entire
state appropriation for High
School children of the state,
without regard to whether they
live in the town or in the coun-
try. What the state does for one
child it should do for all. There
fore, if the state intends to en-
courage High School education,
it should do the same thing for
the town child as it does for the
rural child. The state appro-
priation apportions on this basis
would become smaller for any
child, but would be fairly and
equally given toward the educa-
ton of every child. Thus the
towns would receive special help
ward running their high
schools so that all children might
secure a High School education.
The difference in the cost to nom
resident pupils must here too be
paid, either by the parents or by
the district of residence of the
pupil.
High School Appropriations in
other states are all made on the
latter basis, since paying for
some and not paying for others is
showing special favors or extend
ing special privileges to some.
This change would tend to
build up High Schools in rural
communities, since each commun-
ity would then get help toward
the maintenance of it's High
School, not only by the attend
ance of nonresident pupils, hut
also from the attendance of home
pupils. 1t would not be unfair to
the town High Schools, since it
gives them something substan-
tial in place of the pay from non
resident pupils, namely pay for
the attendance of their own pu-
pills. Temporarily, some Of the
town High Schools would get
more than in the past, since the
new plans all make provision for
more pupils, the state paying
part and the home or the home
district the other part.
This change involves much dis
cussion and will require very
careful consideration. Some tt
ter plan than any here prop ed
NAV come out of the discussion.