The citizen., 1919-02-20


small levy, would receive but sc
cents for each dollar paid. This
seems fair, for the state would be
paying in proportion to willingness
and not in proportion TO wealth.
In order TO make clear the work
ing of this three-fold method of ap-
portioning the State fund the dis
tribution is presented below in full
for Washington county with 4
wealth of s6,0OOOOO and an area of
300 square miles, and for Jackson
county with wealth of s2,0O0,00O
and an area of 1886 square miles.
Assuming levy of one mill for
Washington county and three mills
for Jackson county, the result would
be as follows:
Washington County School Funds
From state by present apportion-
ment, s23, 1884.
From State by proposed appor-
tionment:
rs elementary teachers, s7,50000
3 high school teachers, 10000
For aggregate daily at
tendance Of 370,640 days
at 27 cents per day -. SIC. .007 %
For tax levy, mill .....3 3,ii6.59
Total from State. e. .s2i ,223.87
From local tax ........... 100000
Total for teachers ... .s27, ,223S7
Jackson County School Funds
From State from proposed appor-
tionment, s23,37i.25.
For 7S elementary teachers s 10000
For attendance on aggre-
gate of $4,000 at 27 cents
per day ................. f0,7f6.30
For tax levy of mills 80. i3,266.36
Total from state ...... S3i 1890
County tax, 3 mills ....... 100000
lbJdl SCHool lullu ...... .oOf ,io-.UO
One point merits consideration yet
in regard to this third method OF
appOrtiOnment. At the outset, many
counties might fail TO levy tax, in
which case, they would receive none
OF this part Of the state fund. II
should be provided that, while no
tax would mean no benefit, the coun-
ties levying tax would not be able
TO obtain the whole of this portion
of the state fund This could be
prevented by assuming i-mill levy
for counties making no levy, the sum
so credited TO the county failing TO
levy a tax TO be turned into the I
general school fund for the follow
ing year. That is, county with an
area factor of would have assigned |
to it the minimum appOrtionment
of times $i,i05.53, equals s4,42ii2,
but because il made no tax levy, this /
amount would go into the next years
school fund. II might be well, also.
to fix a maximum rate Of tax to be
considered in this method of ap-
portionment, say 4 or mills.
II Eiay be objected TO this scheme
that it will work TO the disadvantage
OF the uneducated community and
in favor OF the educated community.
This might be true 10 a limited de-
gree at the outset, but we must re-
member that the distribution is 10
counties, and there are no counties
so ignorant as a whole that a cam
paign for local tax will not soon be
inaugurated il il is seen that failure
10 levy such a tax will be followed
by definite loss 10 the community.
BY the operation OF this plan a poor
community which is willing TO tax
itself for schools will secure much
more money from the State than II
pays itself, Sooner or later this fact
will appeal 10 the citizens OF such
counties and they will levy the re-
quired tax. In fact last school year
80 OF the poorest counties in the
State levied tax as follows:
Seven levied less than 20 cents.
Twenty levied 20 cents.
Five levied more than 20 cents.
The same number OF the richest
counties OF the State levied as fol-
lows:
Fourteen levied less than 20 cents.
Fourteen levied 20 cents.
-Four levied more than 20 cents.