Montgomery County sentinel. [volume] (Rockville, Md.) 1855-1974, 1955-06-02

Pegging the cost per pupil al
the present level disregards the
wishes of the people of the Coun-
ty expressed at the polls in elect
ing a new School Board, the mem
bers of which ran on a platform
of providing better school services.
II disregards the need for increas-
ing teachers salaries and proVid-
ing additional facilities and serv-
ices where the school system is be.
low State or other accepted stand
ards. 1t disregards entirely the
fact that, although Montgomery
County stood fourth in median
family income and third in educa-
tional levels of its citizens among
all comparable suburban commu-
mites in the entire United States,
it nevertheless stands 18th among
II comparable areas in the sum
which it spends each year for pro
viding education for each child in
its public school system.
The budget requested by the
Board of Education for minimum
adequate school services, next year
with median expenditure of $3.50
per pupil for the II comparable
communities in the United States.
1t compares with $4,000 for Arl-
ington County.
The fallacy of the County Man
ayers recommended budget is
that it is constructed backwards.
1t does not begin as a budget
should with the services that the
people should have and determine
what they will cost. 1t begins with
the conclusion that there shall be
no increase in the tax rate and
then works back to see how Sc
we're the cuts in services must be.
Fortunately, viewer, the
people of the County can have the
reasonable minimum requested by
the Board of Education at a tax
rate no higher than the rate
which existed in the County two
and three years ago.
1t remains for the parents and
other forward looking citizens of
the County to make clear to the
members of the County Council
that they do not want the children
of the County to be cheated of the
educational opportunities which
they deserve.
Philander P. Claxton, Jr.
Chairman, Legislative Committee
Montgomery County Council of
Parent Teacher Associations.
May 81, 1855
Editor,
Montgomery County Sentinel:
Dear Sir:
The school budget recommen.
dations of new County Manager
M. L. Reese seem to me to be
unrealistic in terms of the facts
about the county's school situa-
ton.
I In studying Mr.. Reese's budget
requests, 1 find that they incor-
porate some remarkable innova-
tons in county management and
planning. 1 believe Mr.. Reese
should be given due recognition
for these imaginative moves in
administration.
1 do not believe, however, that
the manager had sufficient time
to study the school situation
thoroughly before presenting the
school budget. 1t is my guess
that Mr.. Reese, desiring to hold
the line on the tax rate, cut from
the school budget whatever
amount was necessary to do this.
1 believe Mr.. Reese is on the
weakest of ground in arbitrarily
setting a school population figure
lower than that carefully arrived
at by a year of study by the
Board of Education, and by set
ting a per-pupil expenditure fig
ure and saying that he is using
it to arrive at his budget.
Amounts of money needed can
not be arrived at in this way, any
more than they can be arbitrar-
lily setting a tax rate.
All of us who are county tax
payers sympathiZe with economy,
but we also know that there are
considerations involving the well
fare of the county which trans
cend a few cents on the tax rate.
Montgomery's position in the
hiring of sufficient new teachers
and in retaining the ones we have
is very serious. These aren't
enough teachers to go around.
If other communities offer bet
ter pay in the early years of
teaching las they do now, we
will not get those teachers and
we will lose more of the ones we
have.
Therefore l consider it the
primary essential of this years
budget that all teachers be put
on the salary scale adopted last
year.
Anything less than this would