The public ledger. [volume] (Maysville, Ky.) 1913-1968, 1921-11-04
THE TWO
SCHOOL AMENDMENTS
A Letter From j. Virgil Chapman,
State Supervisor Of Rural Schools,
Concerning Proposed Changes.
Editor, Lexingtn Herald:

concerning proposed ChhnRes.
Editor, Lexingtn Herald.
There has been so much misinfor-
nation in regard to tn eproposed Con-
stitutional Amendments, desire to
submit few facts which / trust will
throw some light upon the history of
this movement. My purpose in max
ing this statement is not so much to
present an argument in favor of their
adoption as to correct two erroneous
Impressions First, that they orig
mated within the last year or twi;
second, that they are of political ORR
gin.
Both of these impressions seem to
have been create deliberately, if not
maliciously, by those who should, and
possibly do, know better. They are
absolutely without basis of truth or
reason. Let us turn on the search
light M
AMENDMENT NO. 2.
(School Funds)
DR.. Robert ]. Breckenridge, eminent
minister and profound scholar, State
Superintendent Of Public Instruction
in Kentucky about 1850, in discussing
the basis of apportionment of school
funds, objected to the distribution on
the sole basis of school population
and declared: Such a principle Of
distribution is evil and wrong" He
maintained that at least part Of the
state funds should be appartioned on
the basis of attendance. This" he
stated, would encourage people to
make an effort instead of giving them
bounty for Indifference and neglect"
Many of our wisest statesmen and
greatest educators have entertained
similar views, and none of the leading
educational states today would think
of distributing state school funds as
our Constitution provides.
The Kentucky Educational Associa-
ton, through its Legislative" and
other committees, has for years con-
tended for a change in the method Of
distribution.
In 1911, as shown on page 3v of K.
E. A. proceedings, the committee on
statistics recommended a different
system of financing our public schools
"a careful study revealed the start
ling truth that our school fund is be-
ing wasted and that something must
be done to make the fund count for
more than ii now does" the declared.
a.. We became convinced that per
capita distribution of school funds is
unwise, inequitable and unjust, and
that an effort to correct this system
is our plain line of duty. go. That the
per capita system is not wise because
1t furnishes no inventive to teachers
and community to do things for them
selves" The committee urged diff
ferent basis of apportionment so as to
equalize opportunities and stimulate
citizens to further progress. (Not the
double purpose Equalization and
stimulation)
In 1915 X. E. A. proceedings, under
the head, How to Finance a State
School System" We find the following
statement: The purposes Of a state
fund at to equaliZe the opportunities
of education in various counties and
10 offer as nearly as possible equal
opportunities -. to every child in the
state" The committee shows that the
present system fails of its purposes
and declares: There is nothing in
this method of districltion ION the
basis of school population, to stimu-
late attendance" II is a kind of pen
sion to the counties and has a ten
dency to lessen the efforts OF the
county to build up an effective school
sytem."
At the 19l9-2O-21 sessions of the
Kentucky Educational Association, as
well as at several state conferences of
the county superintendent of Ken
lucky, the school people of the state
assembled in these meeting unani-
mously endorsed the provision en-
braced in the proposed amendment to
section 1856 of the state Constitution.