The people's voice., 1958-11-21


schools are unified under one boars
of education, they should be financed
from the same funds under a unified
budget. The artificial separation OF
elementary and secondary schoo
funds leads to unnecessary fisca
complications.
3. When school districts are con.
solidated, the indebtedness of the
former districts should be assumed
by the newly formed consolidated
district and serviced from a uniform
tax levy upon all taxa BILE property in
the newly formed district. Since the
existing debts were usually incurred
to construct school plants available
to all children in the newly formed
district, it is proper that the citizens
of the entire district should contribute
toward the retirement of these debts.
4. The per cent debt limit i'm
posed upon school districts should be
based upon the valuations of school
districts as equalized in accordance
with ratios of assessed to true value
of taxable property in each county,
promulgated by the State Tax Com
mission. The present state-imposed
debt limit does not provide uniform
protection to taxpayers, but rather
depends upon the varying practices
of the several county assessors.
S. With the adoption of the revised
school foundation program recon-
mended in this report, the SO per
cent limitation upon the States con-
tribution to a county's school founda-
ton program should be repealed. This
provision has been defended in the
past as a safeguard against excessive
state payments to counties in which
property is assessed at a low rate.
Recommended changes in the founda-
tion program adequately protect
against this possibility.
6. The public school foundation
program should be financed from
state contribution and county wide
tax. This district tax contribution to
the foundation program should be
eliminated. District taxes should be
used for "permissive" and "voted"
extra levies only.
z. The foundation program repre-
senting the minimum public school
need of county should be computed
by combining three allotments: CD
a teaching unit allotment, CD pupil
and (3) pupil transporta-
tion allotment. By combining these
three allotments it is possible to OBJ
tain an objective measure of basic |
school needs which is equitable to
both urban and rural counties. The
total of these allotments would re-
place the present graduated scale of |
per pupil allowances.
8. The number of teaching units |
allotted to a county should equal the
number of certified persons employed |
during the current year, provided the
number so allotted should not exceed |
the number needed as determined by
oupil-teacher ratio standards estab-
ished by the State Board of Educa-
ton. The survey staff has not pro-
posed a schedule of pupil-teacher
'dClOS 1OI CillS purpose since III re-
CARDS the formulation of such sched-
lle an administrative matter. How
ever, the staff believes that the State
Board of Education should accept
current practice as the starting point
n establishing pupil-teacher ratio
standards.
9. The allotment per teaching unit
hould be fixed by law. On the basis
If information available to the sur
,ey staff at the time of the survey,
t is recommended that these allot-
nents be $4,000 for each elementary
eaching unit and $3,700 for each
high school teaching unit.
10. To compute the total pupil al
otment for a county the average
lumber belonging in elementary and
econdary schools during the preced-
ng year should be multiplied by ap-
rates fixed by law. On the
,asis of information available at the
ime of the survey, it is recommended J..