Richmond times-dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1914-current, 1921-03-22
TIL ESD AY. MARCH ..
i Difference in Figures

a1HHEs TIMES DISPATCH IL committed ir-
revocably to the broad proposition that
sRichmond school teachers are entitled to
ssnndard salaries. More than that they
fnust receive them If the school system is
snoi tn deteriorato. To that proposition. we
Eake ii. the whole city. its various organi-
cations and citizens generally. also is com
omitted. 1t is opposed only by a compara-
stively few. who have permitted their minds
stO become warped through constant and
tS0rcrseaious guarding OF their pocketbooks.
~ The Chamber OF Commerce is not cX-
Sccpted II also is committed to The prin-
Ycipic of better salaries for the teachers. al
NhCugh. unfortunately. the impression has
ssained ground that it Is opposing them.
Such an impression has been created in
ssoIne quarters because OF the chambers
stand against increased taxation for that
spurpo However. a careful reading OF
Tits committees report TO the Council III
nance Committee discloscs nothing mimi
Z gal to the higher salaries proposal 1t
smerely points out n method OF school re-
arcnchment whereby. the chamber believes
sthe increased salaries can he paid on, of
fhe present appropriation without adding
z TO the general tax burden.
- Whether the chambers suggestion is
Sound. or whether i, constitutes IA menace
.sta the school system is a matter that the
Y Council, working in cooperation with the
I fhamber and the school authorities, must
\ determine after analysis of the figures both
1 Sides To the controversy are prepared 10
submit.
~ Briefly, the chamber would increase The
Il focal teacher load to 3S2 pupils per
Feacher, its figures showing that to be the
Ayera &c load OF other cities il has inves-
Higated. Richmonds load now, us the
4 chamber complies it. is only 30.7 But the
Feachers quickly antt mplia,ically dispute
4 fhe chambers gmf-es. contending that the
beverages have not been fairly computed
and, therefore, the conclusion is erroneous
YAccording 10 their compilations Richmond's
fAacher load is 3G.I, practically the same
as that OF other cities i'll the same class
fi THESE are the figures that the Council
smust reconcile, and We are very sure If
4 fwill go about the business carefully. with
/ q mind aituned To safeguarding Richmond's
fntorests, hut al the same time sympathetic
5wtth all that is fair 10 the schools
sf@ 1t Is fact generally recognized and
adopted and this Council viii bear in
smind-that the smaller the teacher load
Hhe better the results TO tie pupils. Work
bRng on that established theory. the trend
EHn all cities now is smaller classes ana th.
Figures Sc, by the chamber az the average
(which Richmond should ADOPT. is consid-
i terably higher than tina, recognized as the.
ipne at which the most effective work can
be done consistent with reasonable econ
Pmy. While economy in the schools is ms,
q Hs essential as in other departments OF the
q icity, Richmond cannot AFFORD to take a
q Back ward step in their administration ana
pr an increase in the teacher load for INC
81 sake OF saving few thousands of dollars
would impair their efficiency We are con-
B Hdcnt the Council Will not sanction it,