The citizen. [volume] (Berea, Ky.) 1899-1958, 1919-02-13
A BETTER FINANCIAL SYSTEM
FOR KENTUCKY SCHOOLS
lContinued from last week.l


fails. A county receives fixed sum
per pupil regardless of attendance
or quality of instruction received,
and there is no premium placed
upon a heightened term.
In regard TO the third aim, our
system is absolutely Ineffective as
in the second.
What does a study Of the best
theories and practices in other
states suggest as TO correcting these
faults2
For the first there may be intro
duced the plan of apportioning a
part Of the fund upon the basis OF
the teachers employed, a method
used in many states. suppose, for
example, apportionments should be
made as follows: For each elemen-
tary teacher employed in a one
teacher rural school, graded
school, or city school, 500; for each
elementary teacher in rural con-
solidated school, $50; and for each
full-time high school teacher, 500.
This would be an advantage to a
thinly settled rural district would
encourage consolidation, and in
many sections make high schools
possible where they are not now.
According to conditions as they ex-
listed in 1861, this would result
as follows:
To elementary teachers not
in consolidated schools. 81 POS, 200
To elementary teachers in
consolidated schools .... $4,000
To high school teachers. $4,000
Total. 81 49, 700
The amount per teacher would not
be fixed, of course, but subject to
change by the State Board to what
ever amount seemed best.
Subtracting this sum from the
total school fund for the year, So
Si2,375.Oi, we have balance of 81
352,575.0i remaining to be distribute
ed. This balance should be divided
into two equal parts Of si,i76, 1882,
TO be apportioned TO counties in the
following manner:
One-half on the basis Of the aggre-
gate daily attendance. This would
be done by requiring teachers to
report at the end of each school
year the actual number Of days at
tended by each child enrolled in
school. The sum of these days in
attendance would give the aggregate
daily attendance for the district,
and from these would be obtained
the aggregates for the county and
State. The amount distributed upon
this basis would be divided by the
aggregate daily attendance for the
State, and each county obtain as
many of the equal parts as it had
days of aggregate attendance. By
this method any county could in
crease the amount of money it re-
ceived from the State by increasing
attendance and frightening the
term. Many states now use the
methods described above.
The remaining portion Of the
school fund should be made to stim-
ulate local effort for payment OF
teachers. AS a State, we are very
liberal with our schools, there being
but few states doing more than we
do, but we most pitifully fail in local
support. During the school year Of
1861 there was paid TO elementary
teachers in rural and graded schools
from the State fund, s3,i47,542 70,
and from county funds, St60,377 go.
In other words, local communities
paid FIVE cents out of each dollar
expended for the teaching of their
children. Is il strange that our
people should look upon the school
fund as a free gift and use it with
too little sense Of responsibility?
AS to the method of apportion-
ment which will stimulate local ef-
fort TO the best advantage, we have
at least partial precedent in recent
legislation in one of our Southern
states. Since 1915 Alabama has paid
from the state fund $1,000 TO each
county levying one mill Of local
tax for payment of teachers; $1,000
for twO-mill, and 5000 for three
mill levy. This places a premium
upon local effort, but it possesses
one fundamental defect. Counties
are not the same size. In Kentucky
they vary from Pike with more than
800 square miles. TO Robertson with
little more than 100 square miles.
AS means Of utilizing the Alabama
method, but correcting the defect
mentioned, the following scheme is
proposed:
The money remaining after
the appointments described above