The labor journal. [volume] (Everett, Wash.) 1909-1976, 1922-10-13
EQUALIZATION
IN INITIATIVE 46


(By Mrs. Victor H. Malstrom, Pres
ident Washington State Parent
Teachers Association.
The need of an equalization meas
ure in the State of Washington was
very clear to the lawmakers during a
recent session of the legislature. At
that time Governor Hart, on account
of unequal school conditions, appoint
ed a commission to investigate those
conditions and to recommend ways
and means of relieving the situation.
mission have contributed to the
great deal of information concerning
the unequal educational opportunity
given children in some parts of the
state and the variation in the tax
burden for the support of the schools.
The triple system of taxation for
school money in operation in the
state gives most financial RESPONSE
bility for our schools to the small To-
cal districts. To raise one-half of
the needed money for the support of
elementary and high school education
a district property tax is levied upon
the assessed valuation of each of
these districts. The state provides
$40 per census child the county
provides $40, and, as stated above,
the other half is raised in the small
unit, the local district.
The state tax. giving US one-third
Of the money required is the fairest
method we employ. This is a uni
form tax levy upon the property of
the state as a whole. The counties
are responsible for one sixth of the
school fund. the county tax being
less equitable than the state tax on
account of the different degrees of
wealth in the 80 counties. The local
district furnishes half the education
money. and has the unfairest tax of
all. This is 50 because of the greatly
varying degrees of wealth in all the
local districts.
Some districts are rich in valuable
holdings or public service property.
Others have no public service utili-
ties, and very little property that can
earn an income for the district. The
fact that the rich district depends
upon others for patronage does not
obligate them, so far as the present
law is concerned, to spread their re-
sponsibility beyond their own district
boundary lines, excepting so far as
the small levy the state imposes for
the third of the school fund for which
the state is responsible. Some dis
tricts with high valuations have small
school population. Others with lit
tie wealth have large numbers of
school population. Others with little
wealth have large numbers of school
children. And so it is we have tax
levies in all these 2573 school dis
tricts varying from one half of one
mill in rich sections to 80 mills in
poor ones.
All the way between the rich dis
trict with its low tax, able to spend
more for education than results iusti-
fly to the very poor dictricts not able
to provide even inadequate schools
for the length of time the state
calls a legal school term, we have
districts approaching from both ex-
tremes, the state average of II mills.
Initiative 46 is a simple transfer
of responsibility from the UNEQUAL
local district basis to the fair basis.
1t would make the state responsible
for half the money for education in
stead Of for one third. That means
that a greater part is raised on
tax the same on all property within
the state. The money collected on
state wide basis means collection
where valuation is. The measure also
provides a plan of distribution that
VIII send the money where the chill
dren are
Initiative 46 is a simple re-appor-
tlonment of tax burden and is not a
raise in taxes. All are taxed accord
ing to their ability to pay. Big fl
nanciaI interests and small homes
bear equally the responsibility of the
education Of the children. Our nat
ural recommendation, public serv-
Ice corporations, railroads, power
plants are all asked to contribute
their honest share toward the edu-
cation Of the boys and girls of the
state.
Under this plan as under that now
IN force, the amount of money to be
spent for education is controlled by
the people directly or through their
elected representatives on school
boards. Initiative 46 is not an at
tempt to raise more money. 1t
shifts $3,75O.OOO from the district ba-
Sis to the state basis. That $780,
900 now costs some districts 20
mills for their share, while others
pay only half a mill. Under Initia-
tive as. that S3,75O,OOO would cost
every district-rich and poor alike
trifle over 8 mills.
1t enables the high tax district to
lower its local levy that the local
district will avail of that relief is
proved by the records of the past
year when state support was in
creased IS per census child. the to-
tai district decrease for the state
covered that amount and added 5000
600 besides. The increase in state
support from the first Of these wears
to the second was five dollars instead
Of ten because in the first, the POLO
law was was nartIv In foroa Tho