xt7qnk364d71 https://exploreuk.uky.edu/dips/xt7qnk364d71/data/mets.xml Kentucky. Department of Education. Kentucky Kentucky. Department of Education. 1934-11 volumes: illustrations 23-28 cm. call numbers 17-ED83 2 and L152 .B35. bulletins  English Frankford, Ky. : Dept. of Education  This digital resource may be freely searched and displayed in accordance with U. S. copyright laws. Educational Bulletin (Frankfort, Ky.) Education -- Kentucky Educational Bulletin (Frankfort, Ky.), "The Responsibility of Government for the Support of Schools", vol. II, no. 9, November 1934 text Educational Bulletin (Frankfort, Ky.), "The Responsibility of Government for the Support of Schools", vol. II, no. 9, November 1934 1934 1934-11 2021 true xt7qnk364d71 section xt7qnk364d71 to adapt

;ett1e in-
national
son, and
nation."

~.I
i
(
who do
Russel], i
izen is {
1e in a I

e prop-
other; I

ndation
e elder i
sacred ‘
public ‘
Field.
|

ml the

', New

Edu- i
i
!

)3-364.
niilari
fional {
Jages i
1
Mon '
1-333. l
r II. '
i
i
i
i
_ O '

0 Commonwealth of Kentucky 0

EDUCATIONAL BULLETIN

 

 

 

 

 

THE
RESPONSIBELITY OF GOVERNMENT

For The
SUPPORT OF SCHOOLS

 

Published by

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

JAMES H. RICHMOND
Superintendent of Public Instruction

 

 

 

 

  

ISSUED MONTHLY
Entered as second-class matter March 21, 1933, at the post office at
Frankart, Kentucky, under the Act of August 24, 1912.

Vol. ll 0 November, 1934 0 No.9

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  

 

 

 

 

 PAGE(S)

MISSING

 

 .57~::"-

‘xz.

rwm .07 I ‘

 

 
  
  
 
 
 
  
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
   
  
  

RESPONSIBILITY OF GOVERNMENT
For The
SUPPORT OF SCHOOLS*

By JAMES H. RICHMOND

Superintendent of Public Instruction

The Crisis in Education

One of our most pressing social problems is to determine the
place of public education in the total picture of government. Until
the great depression hit us, most people took our schools for granted.
The majority of us gave little attention to the character and measure
of financial support extended for their operation; but when the
national income was cut in half and the weight of taxes began to bear
heavily upon us, society became tax-conscious and school-conscious.

It was comparatively easy for the government to restrict school
Support; and this was done in practically every section of America,
despite the fact that in all probability the public schools of. this nation
had given a better account of their stewardship than any other agency
of the government. People in every section of the country, some
actuated by sincere motives, others inspired by malice and selfishness,
began to inveigh against the heavy bills for education. School boards
were criticized for ambitious buiIding programs, school administra-
tors and teachers were attacked for introducing too many “fads and
frills” into the schools; and, consistent with mass psychology, most
0f the criticisms came from those who had insisted, and rightly so,
u13011 an improved school service. Today, more people are studying,
analyzing, criticizing, and defending the public schools of America
than at any other era of their development. On the whole, this is
wholesome. Thoughtful school leaders welcome public scrutiny, for
Iheb’ know better than anybody else that the schools can stand the test.
They have kept the faith, which cannot be said of all servants of
SOcicty during recent years.

\
.‘An address delivered, in the fall of 1934, before a number of state and dis-
t“Ct education associations.

P“.
3

 

 

 

 

 

  

   
  
  
 
 
 
  
  
  
  
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
  
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
  
 
   
  
 
  

It is true that education is costing more now than in former years,
but every other agency of the government is costing more—the added
cost being due primarily to public needs and demands, stimulated by
a more sensitive social conscience. Let it be understood, however,
that since one-fourth of the people of this nation are engaged in the
school business, the cost of education is not unreasonable since only
one income dollar out of every thirty-three goes to the support of.
public schools of America. Not the least cause of added school costs
has been the great increase in high school enrollments. Today, ap-
proximately 6,500,000 pupils are attending the high schools of
America, as against 3,500,000, ten years ago. During the last two
years, many additional thousands have sought admission to high
school as the direct result of N. R. A. policies prohibiting child labor.
The public is demanding complete high school facilities, our complex
social order requires them, and the youth of America is entitled to
them. Our people will never permit arrogant selfishness to rob their
children of this fundamental right and privilege of. Democracy.
Aristocracy in secondary education, as it now exists in most European
countries, is repugnant to our philosophy of life and government.

Education First a Local Responsibility

- Education was first recognized as a parental responsibility, and
was so considered by the English Common Law. For reasons that
fire well understood by students of history and sociology, the Church
In the early stages of our social development assumed responsibility
for the education of our children. Later, when society began to
develop an educational conscience, local districts were constrained to
tax themselves for school support. For a number of years practically
the only taxes raised for the schools were secured from local sources,
and even today in most of our states the major burden of the school
support rests upon local communities. Sparsity of population, an
agrarlan state of society, lack of good roads, and a simple social order
made this type of school support feasible and satisfactory.

A little over a century ago the great prophet-evangelist of public
education, Horace Mann, began his work of building a state school
SB’Stem. Prior to his time much academic recognition had been given
to the state’s responsibility for education, but little had been done
about it; even after some state school systems began to function in a
feeble manner, the public schools were looked upon as pauper schools
and were generally referred to as “common” schools.

The State’s Responsibility for Education

But pressure of economic forces compelled the states to assume
an active responsibility for the support of public education. Our

 

 

 

 

 

  

0‘.

nation was making great industrial strides. These changes brought
children into industry. Labor protested against this because of the
cheap competition of child labor; society rebelled against it because
of the injustice of a system that would tie immature children to the
wheels of industry. Moreover, labor began to demand educational
rights for their children which, up to this time, had been extended
only to the well-to-do and socially prominent. Industrial leaders
were insisting upon better trained people in their organizations. All
of these demands, actuated by whatever motives, compelled society
to strengthen, enlarge and dignify the public school. Education
became more than a local responsibility; it was definitely recognized
as a fundamental obligation of the state. Compulsory attendance
laws were passed, teaching standards were raised, public institutions
of higher learning were organized and supported, in part, for the pur-
pose of training teachers for the schoolroom, who, in turn were to
train children for democratic citizenship. The culmination of
society’s interest and responsibility for its children is reflected in the
Children’s Charter, adopted by President Hoover’s White House
Conference. ~

 

As I have already stated, the major part of public school support
still comes from the local communities, but there is a definite trend
toward larger state support. The more progressive states are taking
seriously their constitutional mandates imposing upon them the re-
sponsibility for guaranteeing equality of opportunity in a public
school system for all the children. Glaring inequalities of wealth
within the bounds of a particular state, brought about by industrial
development, which tends to concentrate wealth in certain sections,
have made it imperative for the state to share to a greater degree in
the expense of public education. In Kentucky, and this is true to a
greater or less degree in every other state, certain local districts levy
the maximum school tax permitted by law and yet receive only a
fractional part of the per capita support for the education of their
Children that other more favored communities obtain from levying the
mlnimum tax. Such inequalities are un-democratic and detrimental
t9 the best interests of society. Frequently, the wealthier communi-
ties object to the state underwriting a larger part of the educational
lull on the ground that these particular communities are taxed to aid
in the education of the children in the other sections of the state. This
is true, but let it be understood that the more fortunate communities
are continually receiving new leadership from the less favored sec-
thns and are securing the trade from these sections, without which
those wealthier areas could not prosper. In the city of Louisville,
where I hold my citizenship, thousands of other Kentuckians have
(rpme to live, and it is to the best interests of that city that the educa-
tional facilities of every section of the State be such that these adopted

 

 

.*.
5

 

 

 

  

.—.

sons of Kentucky ’s metropolis may be equipped to serve Louisville to
the greatest advantage. Furthermore, Louisville owes her wealth, in
part, to the outlaying sections of Kentucky and adjacent areas in other
states, without which the city could not prosper and grow. Lord
Macaulay, in fancy, pictured the London of the dim, distant future,
where an artist from another civilization may be seen reclining against
the crumbling pillars of London Bridge, sketching the sad ruins of
Saint Paul’s Cathedral. Build a wall around Louisville, or any other
city, place on top of that wall a sign—“Thou Shalt Not Enter”, and
in a few months that great city will become the desolate habitat of
bats and owls, as drear and dead as Macaulcy’s fanciful picture of
Britain’s metropolis.

 

 

Only in the matter of school support do our states insist that local
communities bear the major part of the tax load. In building roads,
no such policy is adhered to. Roads are built where they are needed,
without regard to the financial ability of the particular section through
which they go. As a matter of fact, in Kentucky, the best roads are
usually found in the poorest sections of the state, due to the fact that,
before a liberal road building program was inaugurated, only the more
favored sections were able to build good roads. If it is a sound gov-
ernmental policy to build good roads where they are needed, why is it
“0t 6(1ually as sound to establish good schools where they are needed?
The financial maxim in road building is “Get the money where the
money is and build the roads where they are needed”. Let us adopt
this philosophy for the schools—“Get the money where the money is
and spend it where the children are”.

 

 

. Another fundamental reason for the necessity of the state assum-
mg the greater measure of educational support is the declining ade-
quacy of the real estate tax. When ours was an agrarian nation, this
tax, in all probability, was the fairest that could be imposed upon the
P80ple, but now that more than fifty percent of our people. are urban,
and since the major portion of our wealth is represented in industrial,
financial and transportation enterprises, such a basic tax is not only
Inadequate but eminently unfair. It is not right to impose upon
fal‘mers and small home owners the major burden of school support.
Other forms of taxation that should take, and are, in part, taking the
Dlace of the real estate tax, can only be levied by the state, thus
making it not only desirable but necessary that the state extend
greater support not only to the schools but to other governmental
agencies as well.

Thus far, I have endeavored to show you that at the outset the
responsibility for the education of our children was left to the parents,
apt'ually assumed, in most instances, by the church; later, local po-
htlcal units began to tax themselves for this purpose, and finally the

°__——o
6

 

 

 

 

 

‘.\

____———————————-7

 

   
  
 
  
 
 
 
 
  
  
 
 
 
 
 
  
  
 
 
 
 
  
  
 
  
  
  
   
 
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  

states, by constitutional mandate, took over in principle, at least,
the social obligation for a public school system. Briefly, I pointed
out the gradual change in the attitude of the states, which has been
reflected in an enlarged state school support, made necessary by
flagrant inequalities in the wealth of the various sections of the state.

 

The Federal Government’s Responsibility for Education

But the responsibility for public education does not end with
the state. The federal government cannot escape its obligation in
this matter. We are citizens of the United States. Our people have
a common destiny and the welfare and happiness of one section is
dependent, in a large measure, upon the welfare and happiness of
every other section. The same inequalities of wealth exist among
states as are to be seen in the various sections of a single state. The

‘ twelve ablest states in the Union have three times the per capita
wealth of the twelve poorest states, which means that if the latter
exert the maximum effort in support of their schools, they can only
do one-third as much asthe ablest states. The existence of such in-
equalities is unfair and tin-democratic.

The persistent attitude of the federal government in usurping
the whole field of taxation is making it increasingly difficult for the
states to secure adequate revenues for the support of their govern-
mental agencies. Last year, Kentucky paid more taxes into the fed-
eral treasury than were collected for all state and local purposes com-
bined. Moreover, the wealth of many sections of America is being
poured into a few financial centers. The swollen fortunes in New
York, the piled-up billions in Wall Street, represent the thrift and
wealth of every other section of America. It is only fair that part
of the taxes realized from this wealth should go back to the states
from which much of it originated. This can only be accomplished
by federal taxes, and, as a matter of fact it is being partially dis-
tributed in this way. Why should the schools be denied a share in
this distribution? Other agencies are not overlooked—roads for
instance.

The federal government has disregarded state lines in many of
its projects—Boulder Dam and the Tennessee Valley Authority, for
example. These worthwhile enterprises are made possible only by the
taxes of all the people despite the fact that only restricted areas will
directly profit by them. The same is true with river and harbor im-
provements. If it is a sound governmental policy to build dams, to
drain rivers, to improve harbors, to build roads and to establish .8.
new social and economic order in East Tennessee, and I agree that It
is sound, why is it not equally as desirable to extend educational op-

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

'1

 

 

  

  
 
 
  
  
 
  
 
 
 

portunity with an even hand to the children of America, regardless
of where they live? for, after all, the United States of America is
made up of people, not things, and these people are shifting from
locality to locality, and from state to state. Only a fractional part
of our citizens are now living in the locality or state in which they
were born and reared. State boundary lines are becoming fainter and
fainter. Good roads, and other improved transportation facilities,
the radio, and our complex social and economic relations, transcend-

ing all state boundary lines, very definitely impose upon the nation, ' -‘ '

as a whole, the responsibility for seeing to it that the children of
America, without regard to state lines, are trained to function as
good citizens in the country whose destiny soon will be in their hands.
What better type of social insurance can the federal government take
out than that represented in a sound program of public education—e,
a program not supported in full by the national government, but one
in which the federal government has had a legitimate part.

The great depression and the resultant recovery program have
impelled the federal government to disregard state lines. In this
connection, let me call to your attention the programs of the C. C. C.,
the P. W. A., Federal Housing and Emergency Education. It usually
takes adversity to inaugurate policies which are no less essential in
prosperity than necessary in distress. It appears that the federal
government finds nothing inconsistent in subsidizing the above-named
projects, but at the same time is reluctant to give much concern to
the education of our children. What political Moses on a constitutional
Sinai has received a Divine mandate, commanding our national gov—
ernment not to intrude in the field of education? Frankly, there have
been more specious vaporings concerning this particular point of
national policy than has been the case with any other fundamental
problem presented to the federal government for its consideration.

As a matter of fact, the federal government has already estab-
lished the precedent for educational support. The Northwest Ordi-
nance, passed nearly a century and a half ago, specifically recognized
the responsibility of the government for the education of the children
of the Northwest Territory. For three—quarters of a century it has
been subsidizing our land grant colleges, and soon after the close of
the Civil War, it established, and still maintains, Howard University
fer Negroes. Moreover, vocational education for a number of years
has been financed, in part, by the federal government. I believe in
vocational education and I commend the government for this support,
but if it is consistent for the federal government to underwrite special
aspects of an educational program, it certainly is not inconsistent for
that same government to aid in the support of the larger and more
fundamental program of general education.

 
 
 
  
 
 
  
 
 
 
  
 
 
  
 
 
  
 
  
 
 
 
  
 
  
  
  
 
  
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  

 

  
 
 
  
 
 
  
 
 
 
  
  
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
  
 
 
  
 
  
  
 
 
  
  
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 

Of course, the opponents of federal aid insist that such subsidies
carry with them federal control, but the point is not well taken. Fed-
eral control has not resulted from aid extended to the land grant
colleges or our vocational schools. Certainly, it is true that the fed-
eral government sets up certain standards which must be met by these
schools before money is released for their support, and these standards
have resulted in a greatly improved service; but no effort has ever
been made to control them. Local boards of education regulate these
colleges and schools and will continue to do so. Even if some federal
bureau should presume to intrude in the matter of control, Congress,
sensitive to the wishes of the people, would not permit it. The “bogey
man” of federal control no longer alarms thinking people.

State lines are constantly being ignored by the federal govern—
ment. Public works enterprises, transportation regulations, radio
policies, and the like, disregard state boundaries, and yet when it
comes to the education of our children the national government pre-
sumes to take the obsolete position that all matters pertaining to edu-
cation must be left to the states.

Again, we must not forget that we are citizens of the United
States. In times of war, this fact is impressed upon all of us, being
called upon to bear its burdens and sorrows; in times of peace the
federal government should not be indifferent to its obligation to safe-
guard the interests and promote the general welfare of all. Let our
national motto, “E Pluribus Unum”, mean what it says—from among
many, one. In historic Arlington, overlooking the Potomac, and with-
in the Shadows of the Capitol’s dome, sleeps the Unknown Soldier.
We know not from. what state he came. He may have hailed from
Massachusetts, whose “embattled farmers fired the shot heard around
the world”; he may have come from Texas, the Lone Star State, that
cherishes the glories of a Houston, a Travis and a Crockett; he may
have first seen the light in my own State of Kentucky, that gave to
the world The Great Emancipator; but even if we do not know whence
he came, we do know whom he served. He served America, all of
America, and he died for America, and We know also that this same
America has a responsibility to all the children of all the states, for
Ours is a common hope and a common destiny. I believe in the New
Deal, and to the full extent of my ability, am helping to make it a
success. It ought to succeed; but no governmental policy that fails
to give a square deal to the children of America can possibly succeed.
Consequently, this New Deal must concern itself with the problems
of education. It has already exhibited some interest in this matter,
and has extended a measure of emergency aid to the schools; but

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  

 

more must be done—a permanent policy for aid to education must ‘,
be adopted. Trained and enlightened citizenship holds out the only i
lhope for the future and that basic training has been obtained, and ~
must continue to be secured from that great agency of democracy,

the Public School.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 ,, II _::I
U ,, Orr:

4.71"} I l»1{ {:41 ll...lu&./ .|l.(||1.l£

A by ‘ ‘ (I ’IXIIV‘klf‘IJ “ .llUrl ‘v I [2/1