The producers news. [volume] (Plentywood, Mont.) 1918-1937, 1926-08-20

tive rhetoric-when their mask is torn
anywhere is nothing left but the
same old brazen program of taxing
rural people for the enrichment of
city schools.
They tell us there is an emergency
in Montana education; that crisis is
upon us; that we have reached the
parting of the roads; that 1926 is a
crucial year. In all this they are I'M
Willingly correct. For 55 years the
counties of yMontana have taxed the
wealth of the farmer, often to the
very point of cOnfiscation; and in the
false .guise of equalizing education
they have dumped the resulting funds
right into the lap of the city schools.
1t is not necessary to import the Cal
lfornia process. We already have it
in full blast.
This year, in the annual division of
county school funds, Anaconda re-
celved IN excess of $4,000, while the
same boost for our needy rural
schools was about S13O each. In the
recent division of state school money,
Anaconda received $4,000, while
| these same deserving rural districts
went home with 500 each. 1t is this
process itself that has created the
crisis. When the division of present
county and state school funds is rec
titled, the crisis will pass away.
But our slogan-singing city educa-
tors are not even content with the
ugly thing as it now exists. In their
determination to wiring still more
from the taX-ridden farmers and to
pour still more into the city schools,
they have devised the so-called teach
er and attendance scheme of distribu-
ton. This is their cureall that is des-
tined to bring about complete and
lasting equalization.
Let us see. With unblushing dupli-
city the executive council of our state
education Association. a little coterie
of eight city educators, with salaries
ranging from three thousand up to
ten, has branded the census basis of
apportionment as "unsound in theory,
unjust in principle and unreliable in
practice" But what is the real i'm
port of their salve of cribbed phrase
ology? Do they concede that the
cities are hogging too much? Net a
bit of it. Do they mean that the rural
schools are getting too little? Not
on your life. 1t is their demand for
the teacher-attendance scheme that
lets the cat out of the bag. This
plainly indicates just why they are
not satisfied with the census basis.
AS everybody knows, the state
school income fund is apportioned ac-
cordlng to the school census; but the
inheritance tax is apportioned on the
teacher attendance basis. Let us see
how they work. A few days ago the
county superintendent pu b Ii S h
their annual financial statements. The
law cOmpels this. The reports fol
Lewis and Clark and Sweetgrass
!. counties have just reached me. Here
are just few of the significant fig
ures:
In these two counties, under the
census apportionment of the state in
come fund, Helena and Big Timber
received S22,422, while 20 of the
weakest and most deserving rural dis
trlctS in the two counties were turn
ed away with average apportionment!
of just $50.
At the same time, under the teach
er-attendance apportionment of tn,
state inheritance tax, Helena and Biz
Timber received S672, while the sam,
20 rural districts were sent hom
without a dollar.
This is the essence of the tw,
methods of distribution. The on
guarantees to the weaker and NOR
deserving rural schools at least a few
pennies from the abundance in tn
state treasury; the other gives then
nothing at all. This explains the at
titude eff the city educators.
The published reports of the count,
! superintendent demonstrate t h a
while the census basis of apportion
ment is unspeakably bad for all tn
weakest rural schools, the teacher-at
tendance basis is infinitely worse.
Respectfully submitted,
w. J. HANNAH.
Rig ITinnhn1. Mon