The people's voice. [volume] (Helena, Mont.) 1939-1969, 1953-03-20

In recent days many question
have been asked regarding the statu
of the public school foundation pro
gram for the next biennium as I
result of action by the 33rd Legisla
tive Assembly.
The increase in foundation SEIZED
ules, while not sufficient to NEE
rising costs and increasing enroll
ment, represents a considerable i'm
provement over what was proposed
in weakening amendments by Rep
O'Connor. Mrs. Reeds house educa-
ton committee, in line with requests
by school people, proposed an aver
age increase of 10 per cent in the
program. AS finally approved by
the assembly, an increase of approx
mately 9 per cent was put into the
law. This increase applies only to
the next biennium as a result of
house approval of a time-limiting
amendment by Rep. Omholt.
Herewith in greater detail is the
background behind the introduction
of HB 112, the fight to save its con-
tents, and how it finally emerged
from the legislative mill, as written
up at our request by one thoroughly
conversant with the needs of Montana
elementary and secondary schools
EDITOR.
After two years of study by COM
mittee of the Montana School Board S
Association, and leading educators in
this State, it was deemed necessary
to the continuance of a sound edu-
cational program in Montana, that
the Foundation Program schedule,
designed in 1947, would have to be
increased in order to meet increased
costs and enrollments in the public
schools of the State, and to provide
proper equalization.
A bill was prepared by the School
Board Association, and endorsed by
the Montana Education Association,
the American Federation of Teach
ers and others, which provided for
an average increase of 10 per cent,
ranging from 10 per cent to 80 per
cent in different sized schools, MAX
ing total overall increase for the
State of $4,058,941.
This does not mean that the
legislature was requested for an
a d d t ona appropriation of
$4,058,941, but rather that the
schedule for financial support of
the school districts, which is borne
approximately one-third by the
districts, one-third by the county
and one-third by the state, would
be increased from the present to-
tai of $21, 338,853 to $25, 397.79.
During the 1928 school year,
the local districts had to Cough up"
a total of $2,630,000 in special
levies, beyond and above the Founda-
ton Program as proposed in 1947,
and enacted into law in 1949 This
was also in addition to the 80 per
cent permissive levy above the
Foundation Program allowed by the
1851 session. This obviously indi-
Gates that the Foundation Program
schedule was unrealistic, and in
need of adjustment.
The original proposal of the house
committee in introducing
House Bill 112 would have provided
for meeting the needs of almost all
Of the school districts in the State
without the necessity of voting spe-
cial levies above the Foundation
Program.
0'CONNOR AMENDMENT WOULD
HAVE NULLIFIED
INTENT OF lib 112
The "O'Connor A m n m t. {
would have cut the proposed in
crease from $4,058,O0O (21 to 25 {
Der cent increase) to $1,147,000 6
,er cent increase), practically multi
'ying the purpose of the original {
House Bill 112, and continuing the {
necessity for special levies in many {
If the poorer school districts, and