Evening star., 1949-11-17
What Arlington Spends
On Its Public Schools
To tho Editor of The Star:

Because The Star consistently gives such
complete and fair news and editorial cover
age of events in Arlington, believe you will
be willing to publish certain clarifying COM
ments on your recent editorial entitled
Arlington Board Upset."
The Star editorial said: "The School
Board - was given 47.s3 per cent Of the
total tax dollar"
This statement is incorrect. Also, as 1t
appears with other statements in the edito-
RIAL believe it is misleading to the reader
in that it implies that Arlington is spending
a higher proportion Of tax income for
schools than is spent for public education
in comparable communities.
Let us examine the facts. It Is true that
the schools of Arlington this year will re-
ceive 4783 per cent Of revenue from per-
sonal property and real estate taxes in
Arlington. However. the personal property
and real estate collections do not represent
the total tax dollar In the county. That
tax dollar actually includes income from
business license taxes and from county auto
mobile tag sales. These two taxes are used
for general county purposes and should be
considered when the proportion of school
expenses to general county expenses is dis
cussed. When the business license and
county automobile tax are included in the
total tax dollar of the county, the schools
of Arlington receive only 43 per cent Of that
sum, an amount considerably less than the
figure mentioned by The Star.
Also, Arlington residents paid 81 $50 900
in State income taxes last year and $116,-
900 in taxes on Intangible property such as
stocks and bonds. These items, together
with the State capitation tax. are collected
by the County Treasurer but. by law, are
forwarded by him directly to the State.
Many taxpayers may not know that none
of this money is spent through local chan
nels. It can come back to the community
where 1t was paid only when appropriated
by the State Assembly.
Implication that Arlington is spending too
much local revenue for schools has no basis
in fact. In all communities, schools Of
necessity are among the most expensive Of
local government functions.
Arlington's improved schools today may
seem expensive to some people who were
accustomed in the past to having the county
maintain these schools on . low financial
level, far below that Of similar communities.
As recently as two years ago. report just
issued by the Virginia Auditor of Public
Accounts shows Arlington was spending only
1886 per capita on school maintenance and
operation. This was next to the lowest figure
for any county or city in Virginia.
Although Arlington now substantially has
improved its public education standards, it
still Is not spending disproportionate
amount for schools. Arlington has the high
est per capita income of any county In Vir-
ginia. It has a high level of education
among the adult population, and it well can
afford to pay as much as other enlightened
communities to educate its children
ELIZABETH P. CAMPBELL,
Vice Chairman, Arlington County School
Board.
Editors Note: It is correct that money
collected from income taxes and certain
other sources is not spent through local
channels. These receipts go into the
general fund and the Legislature then
appropriates funds for the local commu-
mites. For the year 1949-50 the State
will provide $43.19 for each pupil in daily
attendance in the public schools. It is
estimated that this will bring back to
Arlington $442, 1000. The counties receive
for schools 81 of each $3.50 capitation
tax that Is paid. This brings close to
$25,000 year to Arlington. It is true
that Arlington ranks low in the State on
per capita" basis Of expenditures for
school maintenance and operation. If
more relevant basis-the expenditure per
pupils taken, Arlington spends $163.74,
and is exceeded by none Of the 100 coun-
ties In this respect. It Is exceeded by five
cities: Roanoke, with $200.65; Richmond,
$196.51: Norfolk, $19309: Hopewell,
$180.99, and Alexandria, $177.63)