Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1954-01-23
Funds for Raise
In Teachers Pay
Offer Problem
How to Garry Out
Stanley Program
Causes Concern

BY Alex R. Preston
S,cr Stcff Correspondent

RICHMOND, Jan. 23.-Most |
Of the members of the General
Assembly remained in hotels /
here today. showed under by the
blizzard that struck just before
their weekend recess.
Growing alarm had some of |
them feeling they were becom- |
ing showed under in another |
way. The enforced layover gave |
them time to absorb some Of the |
facts contained in the recon-
mendations in Gov. SANKEY'S in
augural message last Wednesday
and the $748 million budget of
his predecessor. former Gov.
Battle.
One of the chief causes Of
concern was Mr.. SANKEY'S pro-
posal to increase teachers salary
brackets without Immediately
making known where the money
is to come from.
Apprehension was felt on how
the new Governors program
could be carried out without
repeating the Byrd automatic
tax credit law, imposing higher
taxes or drawing on new sources
Of revenue.
New Levies Opposed.
Virginia will trim about 81
million of of taxpayers bills
at the end of the current fiscal
year and Gov. Stanley is opposed
to repeating the act which is
responsible for that. Outside of
a 1-cent increase in the gasoline
tax. he also is against imposing
additional levieS.
Enthusiasm that first greeted
Mr.. Stanley's teacher pay raise
plan began to evaporate with the
growing conviction that the
localities themselves might have
to take over a large share of the
cost Of the increase. i
Even those who Endorsed the
plan tempered their zeal with
the realization that the mini
mum rate for beginning teachers
will not be raised from its pres
ent $4,000 to $2.400 a year until |
the fiscal year 1878. That |
is just six months before Mr..
SANKEY'S term will end.
The program for raising the !
xySp f@r R1Hnrc I
with II years experience from |
$1,000 to $4,000 would not be
accomplished until 1866 for
those now in the maximum
bracket.
Mr.. Battle had indicated
his budget figures for teachers
salaries would provide increases
depending on what type of for
mula for the distribution of funds |
may be adopted by the LegiS-
lature.
Such a formula, worked out |
by an advisory commission ~ |
the previous Governor, has been |
suggested in a report. Mr. Battle !
did not lndorse the formula out |
right. but of the present method |
of distributing school money he
said: II am sure you will give !
the present mighty unsatisfac-
tory situation your careful con-
sideration."
Data Compiled.
Yesterday the advisory COM
mission placed on the desks of |
the lawmakers the dollars-and-
cents data on how the formula
would apply to each locality
how much each would gain or
lose compared with the existing
distribution method.
The series of complicated |
tables have been construed in .
various ways. They created a
wide division among legislators.
One set of tables, for instance. |
shows what a locality received /
in the current fiscal year and |
what it would have received out |
of the same total fund If the
suggested formula had been in
effect. Arlington, for example.
will receive 1894. 300 from the
State but would have received |
$948. 1873. or $53.288 more. under |
the proposed formula.
A second table probably is
more significant because it COM |
pares the amounts actually re-
ceived in the current year under
the existing plan with what the
locality would get next fiscal
year under the suggested for
mula. This table shows Arling-
tons current 1894, 900 compares
with $1,014.470. or $119,570 more,
during the next fiscal year.
Summary of Gains.
The tables do not show what a
locality such as Arlington would
receive next fiscal year if the
present method Of distribution
remains unchanged.
Following is a summary from
the second table showing those
localities in Northern Virginia
and the Shenandoah Valley area
that would gain under the pro-
posed formula next year:
Arlington. $119,570; Fairfax,
500. COG; Alexandria, $79, 405, and
Falls Church, $40,OO3.