i COMPARATIVE OF THS COST Of OPSi/ifXSU TUB

mmht. aisH schools of cotxiw amrr mmin A m

AfTIZli QES/S^IKH LSOISMf 101

i?paoviSDt

SlFSe^ru or'"fa#1 P»imFt.iaerj|:JJ ol s&-aeatio»

raauate se

4 COMPARATIVE STUDY 0? THK COST OF OPERATING THE

RURAL HIGH SCHOOLS OF COLLI!! COUNTY BEFORE AND

APT EE GILKER-AiaaW LEG I SLAT I OH

THESIS

Presented to the Graduate Council of tit®

North Texas Stat© College in Partial

Fulfillaent of the Requirements

For the Degree of

MASTER OF SCIENCE

By

18014,2 Woodrow W. Pinkerton, B. 3.

Westminster, Texas

August, 1950

N. T. S. C. LIBRARY

18014tf

TABLE OP CONTENTS

Pag© LIST OP TABLES . . . v

Chapter I. INTRODUCTION 1

Statement of the Problem Purpose of the Study Limitations of t h e Study Definition of Terms Sources of Data Related Studies Organ iza t i on and P r e s e n t a t i o n

I I , THE PLAIT AMD COST OF FINANCING THE RURAL HIGH SCHOOLS PRIOR TO GILMER-AIKIN LEGISLATION.13

A Br ie f H i s t o r y of E q u a l i z a t i o n Aid Laws Laws Governing the Pub l ic School Systems of

Texas During t h e yea r l^j.8~19i|9 The E q u a l i z a t i o n Aid Law The Minimum Salary Law The Per Capita Law

The Cost of F inanc ing the C o l l i n County Rural High Schools During t h e School Year of \9U&-l$k9

Scholastics, At tendance , Taxa t ion , and S i z e of D i s t r i c t s ,

T r a n s p o r t a t i o n Costs School Budgets Teachers and Teacher -Pup i l Load Local and S t a t e Con t r i bu t i ons

Sumnary

III. THE PLAN AND COST OF FINANCING- THE RURAL HIGH SCHOOLS UNDER GILMSR-AIKIN LEGISLATION . . , , 3 9

H i s t o r i c a l Background of Gi lmer-Aikin L e g i s l a t i o n

The Gi lmer-Aikin Program The S t a t e Administration B i l l The Foundation School Program Act The Automatic Financing B i l l

The Coat of Financing the C o l l i n County Rura l High Schools During the School Year of 19^9-1950

ill

Scholastics, Attendance, Taxation, and Size of District®,

Transportation Costs School Budgets Teachers and Teacher-Pupil Load Local and State Contributions

Suaaary

IV. A COMPARISON OP TBS OPERATIONAL COSTS OF THE COLLIN COUNTY RURAL HIGH SCHOOLS DURING THE FIRST YEAR OF THE GILHER-AIKIN PROGRAM WITH THOSE OP THE PREVIOUS YEAR. . 6k

Scholastics and Average Daily Attendance Teacher-Pupil Load Transportation Costs Property Tax Evaluations, Tax Rates, and Size

of Districts* Local and State Contributions School Budget Minimum Salary Schedule

V. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS. 82

- Sussenetry Conclusions

APPENDIX 87

BIBLIOGRAPHY 88

iv

LIST OP TABLES

Table Pag©

1. Scholastics, Average Daily Attendance, fax Evaluation, Local Maintenance fax Rates, and Size of District in Square Miles, Collin Comity Rural High. Schoola, 19*1.8-19 9 * 2?

2* Transportation Costa Per School, Collin County Rural High Schools, 19*48-19*49 . . . . . 29

3. Total Annual Salaries of Professional Personnel, Plant Operational Costs, Total Budget, and Coat Per Pupil, Collin County Rural High Schools, 19*48-19*49 31

*4-. Number of Teachers and Teacher-Pupil Load, Collin County Rural High Schools, IS i+S—191+9. 33

5» Local and State Contributions, Collin County Rural High Schools, 1948-1914.9 • . 35

6m Scholastics, Average Daily Attendance, Tax Evaluation, Local Maintenance fax Rates, and Size of District in Square Miles, Collin County Rural High Schools, 19*4-9-1950 . . 53

7. Transportation Costs Per School and Per Pupil, Collin County Rural High Schools, 19*4.9-1950 . . . 55

8. Total Annual Salaries of Professional Personnel, Plant Operational Costs, Total Budget, and Cost Per Pupil, Collin County Rural High Schools, 19*49-1950 5?

9# Number of Teachers and Teacher-Pupil Load, Collin County Rural High Schools, 1914-9-1950. . . . . . . 59

10. Local and State Contributions, Collin County Rural High Schools, 19*49-1950 61

11. A Comparison of the Scholastics and Average Daily Attendance, Collin County Rural High Schools, 191+3-194-9 and 19*4-9-1950. 65

12. Comparison of Teacher-Pupil Load and Number of Teachers, Collin County Rural High Schools, 19*48-19149 and 19*49-1950 67

13# Comparison of Transportation Costs, Cost Per Pupil Transported, and lumber of Pupils Trans-ported, Coliin County Rural High Schools, 19*0-191+9 1949-1950 69

ill* A Comparison of the Tax Evaluation and the Size of the Districts in Square Miles, Collin County Rural High Schools, 1948-1949 and 191+9-1950 . . * ?1

15* A Comparison of the Local Maintenance Bates, Collin County Rural High Schools districts, 194*3-1949 72

16* A Comparison of the Amount of Money Contributed by the State Toward the Operation of t he Collin County Rural High School, 1943-1949 and 1949-i9$o. ; 74

17. A Comparison of the Amount of Money Contributed by the Local Districts Toward the Operation of the Collin County Rural High Schools, 1948-1949 and 1949-1950 75

18., A Comparison of tho Budgets and Cost Per Pupil, Collin County Rural High Schools, 1948-1949 and 1949-1950 . . . . . . . . . . . . 77

19. Basic Minimum Salary Schedule, Equalization Aid Law of 1947 80

20. Basic Minimum Salary Schedule, Gilmer-Aikin Program 31

vi

CHAPfEH I

IKTBODUCTIO*

Statement of the Problem

One of the mos t pressing problems among ttaited States

public school men, business men, leglalators* and laymen

for the past several years has been the ©qualigation of edu-

cational opportunities* In Texas* as well as in other areas,

efforts have bean made through legislation or rulings by

virtue of law to secure for the children of the state, re-

gardless of the section of the state in which they reside#

an equal chance for education* Indeed, in many sections of

the nation much has been done to relieve this situation during

the past few years*^

In this state in the spring of 1949, while the school

laws of Texas were under consideration by the Fifty-first

Legislature, there was a great deal of talk and speculation

regarding the proposed public school legislation, generally

referred to as the Gilmer~AikJn Bills, incorporated in Senate

Bills lumber 115, 116, and 117. These bills were finally

enacted into laws, and, as was expected, the teachers of the

^Roy R. James» "Legislation Affecting Rural Education,w

(Unpublished Master's Thesis, Department of Education, Southern Methodist University, August, 1945), p. i.

public school systems of Texas, as well as the general public*

were concerned with the effects that the laws would have

upon the schools* apparently being most disturbed about the

2'

provision for a higher salary schedule for teachers,

The taxpayers were upset about the cost of the new

program, beginning to grumble about the cost of the schools.

And there was a general feeling the country over that the

schools were not functioning properly,® The time was ripe

for Texas educational leaders to consider how to give the

people more and better education for their money* Hence#

it wa® finally decided that, in order to have better educa-

tional facilities and better trained teachers, more money

must be appropriated and a more attractive salary schedule

provided, for, although school finance cannot solve all of

them, adequate financial support is helpful in solving many

of the problems of education*"®

Texas has a more expensive task than most states in

educating her children because she has a higher percentage

Arett HcMichen, wSou» Aspects of the Gilaer-Aikdn Bills as they Affect the Schools of Walker County,n (unpub-lished Master's Thesis, Department of Education, North Texas State College, August, 1949}, p. 2.

jt Luther Pearson, "Do Our Schools Cost Too Much,* The

Texas Outlook, XXXIII (June, 1949), 2.

"%dgar I». Sorphet, "What Should Teachers Know About School Finance,* The Texas Outlook, XXXIII (June, 1949}, 39

of rural population than moat states. {And It costs more to

•ducat* a rural child than an urban child.)£ Accordingly,

the Qllmer-Aikin Program was the plan finally decided upon

to give the children of the State of Texas a more adequate

educational program, a proposal which, from its incept ion,

appeared to be high in coat but which seemed to provide so

many additional educational opportunities that the cost

could be Justified.^

Since the general public has assumed that the public

school systents of the State of Texas are costing more to

ope rate under the provisions of the Glliner-Alkin Bills than

under the previous plan, it was felt that a study to compare

the cost of the school systems under the two sets of laws,

before and after the passage of the Gilmer-A ikln Bills,

would be worthwhile. This problem, therefore, is a -compara-

tive study of the operational cost of selected school systems

of Texas during the school years 19^8-1^4.9 and 19^9-1950,

one year before and one year after the enactment of the

G ilmer-A ikln Program.

Robert G. Cherry, "Ability of Texas to Support an Adequate School System," The Texas Outlook, XXXI {January, 19*4.9), li*.

*

6joe C. Humphrey, "Texas' How School Laws,w The Texas Outlook, XXXIII (July, 19k9), 1*4-

Purpose of the Study

Inasmuch as It hag been assumed by the people of the

Stat® of fex&s that the cost of operating the public school

systems has risen since the Gilner-Aikih Bills have gone

into effeot* the purpose of this study is to determine just

what cost items have increased and to what extent. There

are many cost items to be considered in the operation of a.

public school, and they have varied from year to year since

the beginning of public school operation. Dhis study attempta

to determine those increased cost items in rural high schools

which can fe contributed directly to the passage of the

Oilaier-Aikin Bills.

Limitations of the Study

This thesis is limited to the rural high schools of

Collin County, and conclusions reached should not necessarily

be construed to be applicable to other types of country

elementary and/or secondary schools,

fteere are six rural high schools in Collin County*

(1) Alia, (8) Blue Ridge, (3) Coaaunity (Nevada), (4) Frisco,

(5) Melissa, and (6) Frosper* It is believed that these six

rural high schools are typical rural school units because

they are scattered throughout the county and have a wide

share of enrollments, ranging from 190 to 522 pupils. Further-

wore, these districts represent approximately 34 per cent of

til® total area of CoXIIn County, and they enroll approximately

24 per cent of the students of the county.7

®ils study is also limited to two school years, those

of 1948-1949 and 1949-1950• Such limitation Is in ord«i»

because the school year of 1948-1949 was the last year th®

schools operated under th® Equalization Aid Law (passed on

Tuesday, May 20, 194?)8 and the school year of 1949-1950 was

the first year the schools operated under the Gilmer-Alkln

Bills (passed on Thursday, June 2, 1949).® It Is felt that

a comparative study of these two schools years should present

as accurate a picture as is presently possible of the opera-

tional cost of the rural high school systems of Collin County

under the Equalization Aid Law as compared with the Gilmer-

Alki.i Dills.

This study is also limited to certain operational cost#5^

(1) The total annual salaries of professional personnel*

(2) The total annual salaries of special service teachers

and supervisors*

7 Re cords of, the Collin County Superintendent * s Office, McKinney, Texas, for school years, 1948-1940 and 1949-1950.

%enate Journal Supplement, Fiftieth Legislature, Regular Session, May 20, 1947."

^Senate Journal Supplement, Plfty-Pirst Legislature, Regular Session, June 2, i^S.'

10The capital outlay of the buildings and land and the cost of operating the lunch rooms are not Included in this study since they were not affected directly by the Gilmer-AIM a Bills.

(3) fhe cast of tr&nsporttt ion.

(4) The current plant operation®! cost.

Definition of Terms

The tera "rural high school," as used in this study,

includes both the elementary and secondary school of the

systems involved.

The "Gilmer-Aijiin Bills" refer to Senate Bills Huaber

115, 116, and 117.

fhe tera "equalization aid* is used in this study to

denote equalisation of educational opportunity through

enactment of biennial lavs*

The term "Equalisation Aid Law" refers to the specific

law as enacted fey the Piftieth legislature, Regular Session,

1947.

The term "budget" as used in this study includes the

salaries of professional personnel, salaries of special

service teachers and supervisors, current operational costa,

and transportation costs.

"Cost of transportation" includes bus driver1® salaries,

tires, repairs, bus storage, gas, oil, batteries, eto.^

•^Qne fallacy of comparing transportation costs over a two-year period is the fact that the buses are one year older and would naturally cost more to operate. However, to offset this is the fact that some of the buses were new during the 1949-1950 school year, and therefore, cost less to operate than did the old buses used during the previous year. ' "

The term "plant operational cost1* as used In this study

includes such item® as teaching equipment, 'assessing and

collecting taxes, business administration, insurance, library

books# periodicals, fuel, lights, janitor fs salary, and so forth.

Sources of Data

The souroes of data for this study nay be listed as

folio*® I

{1) Professional books in the field of school finance.

(2) Professional references dealing at least in oart

with th© equalization of educational opportunity.

(3) Public School 1ja.ua of th* State of Texas.

(4) The complete Gilraer-Aikin Bill or Senate Bills

lumber 115, 116, and 117 as published in the Senate Journal

Supplement, Fifty-First Legislature, Regular Session,

June 2, 1949.

(5) Theses related to the study.

(6) Articles fro® The Texas Outlook dealing with problems

and questions on public school finance, equalisation laws, and

other pertinent problems connected with this study. .

(7) Numerous pamphlets, bulletins, and other literature

from the State Department of Education and other educational

agencies which are related at least in part with this study,

(8) Pertinent records of the County Superintendent *a

Office of Collin County for the school years of 1948-1949

and 1949-1950.

8

(9) Pertinent records of the rural high school districts

of Collin Countj for the school years of 1948-1949 and 1949-

1950.

Belated Studies

There are no studies which have made a direct comparison

of the operational cost of Texas School Systems over a parti-

cular two—year peri od. However* a number of studies has been

mad® concerning the laws which govern the public schools of

Texas# including the recently-enacted Gilaer-Aikin Bills.12

These investigations are important because they indicate s.

definite trend toward better educational facilities tot the

children of the State of Texas; consequently, they will be

briefly described at this point.

Roy H. James made a study in 1945 concerning legislation

affecting rural education. In this study he aade a critical

evaluation and analysis of the Equalization Aid Law in Texas,

1g The State Department of Education of Texas publishes

biennially a bulletin entitled Public School Laws of the State of Texas, a collection of school! "laws with notes anil annoia-tTons which furnish. In compact form, all the laws that govern the public school systems of the State of Texas up until publication of the bulletin*

A comprehensive study of the school laws of Texas was published In 1938 by J. C. Kinsley, and it was revised and republished in 1948. The book is a handbook of Texas School Laws and contains provisions of the Texas Constitution and statutes relating to the public schools• It is annotated with court decisions and rulings of the Attorney General.

Still another study that is valuable in any study of Texas' public school laws is Frederick Eby's The Development of Education in Texas. It provides the historical back-ground for muc5T of ttie school legislation of the state and gives a picture of many of the difficulties thut education has encountered in Texas.

**Roy R. Jaiaes. 00. cit.

and he concluded that only through legislation, either

federal or state, could a plan for the betterment of rural

education b© accomplished.

Arett McMichen made & study during the summer of 1849

concerning some aspects of the Gilxaer-Aikin Bills as they

effect the schools of Walker County. In this study he

discussed both the state-aid and non-state-aid schools. He

concluded that a number of the school districts of Walker •

County would ha ire to raise- their local maintenance tax rates

in order to be able to raise the money assigned to them by

the economic index,

Calvin K« Snodgr&ss made a study in 1949 concerning the

authority of county boards to change school district lines

In this study a chapter was devoted to the historical back-

ground of the Giliaar-Aild n Legislation.

^Arett McMichen* op. oit.

•^Senate Journal Supplement, Article VI, Section 1* Senate Bill ''lumber''Il6» Flf'ty-Flrst Legislature, Regular Session, June 2, 1949,' pp* 20-22.

"IShe economic index of a county shall be calculated to approximate the per cent of the total taxpaying ability in the state which is in a given county, and shall constitute for the purpose of this Act a measure of one county*s ability to support schools in relation to the ability of other counties in the state** ' The economic index for Walker County is *107 per cent.

^Calvin K» Snodf$r&es, "The Authority of County -Boards to Change School District Lines," (Unpublished Master's !2hesis, Department of Education, North Texas State College, August, 1949). • •

10

D« K* Sogers made * study in 19M3 concerning Educational

Equalisation Legislation in Texas. His problem was to trace

the historical background of equalization in the United States,

to present briefly a cross-section of the plans of equalisa-

tion used by representative states in the United States, to

analyze the principal legal provisions of the equalization

laws of Texas for the purpose of showing growth and develop-

ment of the State's equalization piicy, and to present a

summary, draw conclus ions, and make recommendat ions in the

light of informtion received from the study• Three of the

most important findings of his study are {1) the first equali-

zation aid was used to stimulate more local support; (2) later

came realization of the fact that some districts were in real

need of help; and (3) the State gradually became aware of its

responsibility and made provisions for a minimum educational

program. In addition, Rogers (1) concluded that a great deal

of progress had been made; (2) found that there were still

many inequalities of educational opportunity in Texas; and

(3) recommended continued scientific study of equalization

problems in Texas,

Austin C« Newton made a study in 19k7 which he in-

cluded an analysis of the soundness of the Equalization Aid

K* Rogers, "An Analysis of Educational Equalization Legislation in Texas," (Unpublished Master's Thesis, Depart-ment of Education, TJorth Texas State Teachers College, August, 19^0) .

11

Laws of "Texas from 193? to 1949 and for the blonnluio 1947-

1949* A comparison between the laws for the ten— year period

arid the law for 191+7-1949 was made. He found that the Equali-

zation Aid Law for 1947-1949 was superior to any previous

Equalization Aid Lav, but that it was still inadequate,^®

Perhaps the study laoat closely related to this study is

one mad© by Leslie L. Browning in 19i|9* His proolem was

geared to determine the soundness of the Gilaer-Alkin plan

of financing the public schools of Montague County, Texas•

He concluded in his findings the fact that the Qilmer-Aikin

plan is an improvement over the program it superseded* He

also decided that the tlilmer-Aikin Bills should provide

longer school terms, high teachars1 salaries, and better

transportation and equipment.*^

Organization and Presentation

This study is divided into five chapters. Chapter I

gives an introduction to the problem. In it is found a

statement of the problem, a brief smmerj of the purpose of

^Austin C» lewton, "To Determine Whether the Present Equalization Law is Sounder than Certain Previous Equali-zation Laws," (Unpublished Master*s Tnesis, Department of Education, North Texas State Teachers College, August, 1947)•

^^Leslie L. Browning, "A Study to Determine the Sound-ness of the Gilmer-Aikin Plan of Financing the Public Schools of Montagu© County, Texas," {Unpublished Master's Thesis, Department of Education, North Texas State College, August, 1949)«

12

tli@ study, the limitations of the study, a. definition of

some of the more frequently used terms, the sources of data,

a description of related studies, and the organization and

presentation of data.-

Chapter II is devoted to the plan and cost of financing

the rural high shcools prior to Gilraer-Aikin Legislation. A

brief discussion of the Equalization Aid Lav of 1947-1949,

the Minimum Salary Law, and the Per Capita Law are presented.

These three laws were passed by the Fiftieth Legislature in

1947 end governed the schools for two years, 1947-1948 and

1948-1949. After the summary of these laws, figures are pre-

sented to 8how the actual cost of operating the rural high

schools of Collin County during the school year 1943-1949*

Chapter III is demoted to th® plan and cost of financing

the rural high schools under Gilraer-Aikin Legislation. A

brief discussion of the three bills which make up th® Gilmer-

Aiken plan of financing are presented, after which some

figures are presented to show the actual cost of operating

the rural high schools of Collin County during the school

year 1949-1950.

Chapter IV presents the actual comparison of the opera-

tional cost during the two year period mentioned# Much of

the content of this chapter is discussed by means of tables

and illustrations.

In Chapter V appear the summary and conclus ions of

this study.

GHAPTSR II

THE FLAM AID COST OF FIHAHCIHG THE COLLIH COUMTY

RURAL HIGH SCHOOLS PRIOR TO

GILMER-AIKJH LEGISLATIOH

The purpose of this chapter Is twofoldt (1) to describe

the laws which governed the financing of the public school

systems of Texas during the year of 1948-1949, and (2) to

present statistics shoving the actual cost of operating the

six rural high schools of Collin County during the school

year of 1948-1949.

The laws which governed the public school systems of

Texas during this period were House Bills limber 295, 300#

and SOI* passed by the Fiftieth Legislature* Regular Session,

1947,^ and governed the financing of the schools for the two-

year period of 1947-1949. Attention will also be given to a

brief history of Equalization Aid Laws prior to 1947, a sum-

mary of the Equalisation Aid Law of 1947-1949, the Miniaua

Salary Law, and th® Per Capita Law,

1 Senate Journal Supplement* Fiftieth Legislature,

Regularr¥eis'ion#J ' ISslay*1 May' 20, 1947.

13

14

A Brief History of Equalisation Aid Laws

As long as the cost of the public schools remained low

and as long as wealth was fairly well distributed# the legis-

latures of the various states were satisfied to exercise the

mandate of their constitutions through permissive or mandatory

legislation covering local support*^ As the country ©merged*

however, from an agrarian civilization to a more industrial

one* the comparative concentration of wealth in limited areas

began to he evidenced in inequalities both in educational

opportunities offered and in tax burdens of the local school

s

districts. The equalization movement itself bef;an in the

eastern states during the last quarter of the nineteenth cen-

tury* Massachusetts taking definite action in 1874, and

lew Jersey doing so in 1881, By 1905, when Cubberley made a

study of state support, there were eight states with equali-

zation laws*4 ;

By 1915, upon the recommendation of Governor James £•

Ferguson, the Texas Legislature passed the first equalisation

law in the history of Texas» j The biennial law of 1915-1917

called for an expenditure of one million dollars for the

^Austin C. Mewton, "To Determine Whether the Present Equalisation Law is Sounder than Certain Previous Equali-sation Laws," (Tfcipubllshed Master's Thesis, Department of Education, JJorth Texas State Teachers College, August, 1947).

3Paul 1# Mort, State Support for Public Education, p. 33,

4Ibid., p. 34,

1$

biennium, 1500,000 to be expended each year. Schools with

not more than two hundred scholastics enrolled were eligible

to receive aid, provided they had at least a fifty cents tax

levy on the one hundred dollars of assessed valuation, and

provided they met certain standards regarding teacher quali-

fications, buildings, equipment, and attendance. The State

Board of Education and the State Superintendent were authorized

to administer the funds, and the State Superintendent was

given power to appoint supervisors to aid him in the inspection

of schools affected by the law* The maximum aid that any

school could receive was five hundred dollars.£

Since that time each succeeding legislature has passed

a similar biennial equalization law, and there have been

seventeen equalisation laws passed to date. - Jhe tendency

has been to increase the size of the appropriation, the number

of schools that could qualify, and the degree of control by

the state relative to qualification for aid. The principal

provisions of these laws have been size of appropriation,

maximum grant, budget control, high school tuition, trans-

portation, special grants, scholastic population, teacher-

pupil ratio, average daily attendance, local tax rate, salary

schedule, and teacher qualifications.6

$ ^Laws of Texas, 1915-1917, Thirty-Fourth Legislature, First Called! Session, pp. 22-26.

^Austin C. Newton, op. clt., pp. 2-3.

16

Laws Governing the Public School System*

of Texas During the Year 1948-1949

Three laws were passed in 1947 by the Fiftieth Legis-

lature, setting up th® financial policy of th© public school

aysteras of Texas for the school years of 1947-1948 and 1948-

1949 These laws war® House Bills lumber 295* 300, and 301*

House Bill Humber 295 was the Equalization Aid Law; House

Bill Number 500 was the Minimum Salary Law; and House Bill

Mumber 301 was the Per Capita Law. These laws will be dis-

cussed briefly in order that one may gain a knowledge of the

methods employed by the State Department of Education to dis-

tribute the available school funds to the eligible receiving

school districts*

ffae Equalization Aid Law of 1947-1949.—On Tuesday, May

20, 1947, the Senate, after hearing the report of the con-

ference committee to adjust the differences between the House

and the Senate on Bouse Bill lumber 895, passed without a

dissenting vote the equalization bill for the bienniua 1947-

1949.8 This particular law is significant because of the

tremendous increase in teachers' salaries for which it pro-

vided. Another significant factor of the law is the fact that

it specified that schools receiving aid must, after September 1,

^Senate Journal Supplement, op. cit., p. 1134.

8 kIbld.

17

1948# buy their buses, tires, and tubes on competitive bids

under rules set up by the Stat® Board of Control*®

A brief summary of the law* article by article* follows J

Article I dealt with the eligibility for aid.*0 Section 1

of this article identified the school systems eligible for aid

as those which had not fewer than twenty nor more than fifteen

hundred original enumerated scholastics within the grades

classified to be taught. Section 2 provided that no school

district should be eligible to receive any type of aid

authorized under the provisions of the Act unless it was

levying a school tax of not less than fifty cents on the one

hundred dollars of property valuation in the entire district.

Section 3 stated that the schools receiving aid must be at

least two and one-half miles apart. Section 4 Indicated that

no school would be granted salary aid if the average dally

attendance was less than sixty-five per cent of the scholastic

census enrollment* Section 5 defined the term '•budgetary need"

as the difference between the total of all revenues of the

district and the total of all operating expenses if such expenses

were greater than the revenues#

Article II dealt with the rural aid budget.^ It was

necessary that the budget be prepared on forms furnished by

9Ibid., p. 1145.

*°Publlc School Laws of the State of Texas, House Bill lumber 295, P ' i ' i f t l e t h ' LegiSTaiure, Regular "Session, 1947, Bulletin Number 485, pp. 76-80.

11Ibid., pp. 80-81.

18

the Stat® Superintendent of Public Instruction. The receipts

shown on the budget included balances brought forward fron

the preceding year, state and county available12 and local

tax receipt® for the current year* tuition to be collected

locally* and miscellaneous receipts* a ® expenditures included

salaries of teachers a® determined by the salary schedule and

a maximum of three hundred dollars per teacher in accredited

schools for current operating expenses. The total amount of

the expenditures less the total receipts represented the amount

of salary aid which a school was eligible to receive*

Article III provided for the teacher-pupil quota, salary

schedule and length of school term#-*-® State aid provisions

were alloted upon the basis of one teacher for any number of

scholastics from twenty to thirty-five and one additional

teacher for each additional thirty scholastics* This article

12 State and county available funds are provided by law

as follows t one-fourth of all occupation taxes, one dollar from each poll-tax collected, and State taxes not to exceed thirty-five cents on the hundred dollars valuation of property, as may be levied by the Legislature, These funds are apportioned annually to the several counties of this State, according to the scholastic population of each, for the support and Main-tenance of the public free schools* Article 2823, Public School Laws of the State of Texas, Fiftieth Legislature, Regular Sess , on,l947V Bulletin Mo. 485, pp. 220-221.

13 Public School Laws of the State of Texas, op. cit*,

p. 82. ' ' '

It

also provided for & tours pay for classroom teachers in

accredited schools of $148.00 per month for nine months.**

Article IV provided for tuition aid which was not to

exceed $12,00 for high school students and $6.00 for grade

school pupils per month, and it was not to be paid for more

than five months during any one year.*6

Article ¥ provided for transportation aid which was' in

the amount of $3.00 per pupil per month for those pupils

living two and one-half or more miles from the school in

which they were attending.

Article VI defined the duties of the State Superintendent

of Public Instruction and the Legislative Accountant.*7 It

was the duty of these officers to take such action and to

make such rules and regulations not inconsistent with the

terns of this Act as may be necessary to carry out the pro-

visions and intentions of this Act, and for the best interest

of the schools for whose benefit the funds were appropriated#

Article VII dealt with the function of the Deputy State

Superintendents.*® The law provided for eighteen Deputy State

Superintendents, whose duty it was to see that the schools

14For complete details concerning the salary schedule,

see Table 19, p. 80. c

Public School Laws of the State of Texas, op. cit. , p. 84. -

16Ibid., p. 85. 17Ibid.> p. 87. X8Ibld.» p. 88.

20

that received a U complied with th© provisions set forth in

the law and th# Stat* Department of Education,

Articles VIII, IX, X, and XI provided for th# transfer

of th© entire district by contract, disbursements, counties

having no governing school board, and Federal government

IS land purchased and university lands, respectively.

Article XII provided for the appointment of five meatbers

of the Senate by the President of the Senate, and five mem-

bers of th© House by th© Speaker of th© House, who sad© up

the Joint Legislative Committee,2® One of the duties of the

Joint Legislative Committee was to appoint & Legislative -

Accountant, One of the duties of the Legislative Accountant

was to audit all applications for aid after they had been

passed on by the State Board of Education,

Article XIII provided for the appropriation and allocs-

tion of funds, •'* Section 1 appropriated out of the General

Hevenue Fund of the State of Texas, not otherwise appro-

priated, the sua of $18,000,000.00 for each of the fiscal

years ending August 31, 1948, and August 1, 1949, to be allo-

cated and expended under the provisions of the Act by the

Stat® Department of Education and under the supervision of

the Legislative Accountant, Section 2 specifically provided

19Ibid,0 pp« 88-90. 20Ibid,, pp» 90-91,

21Ibid,, pp. 91-92,

21

that the money appropriated for each year would "be allocated

as followss

{1} #10,770,000*00 for salary aid.

(2) |7OG,0O«OO for high school and elementary tuition#

(3) $6,350,000.00 for transportation aid.

(4) #125,000.00 for the Audio Visual Division of tee

Stat© Department of Education.

(5) $25,000*00 for the Division of Purchasing of the

Board of Control.

(6) $30,000.00 for the expenses of tho Legislative Com-

mittee, the salary of the Legislative Accountant, and for such

other necessary expenses incident to th© duties of the Legis-

lative Accountant.

Article XI¥ provided that ail school districts receiving

aid should purchase all motor vehicles, including buses and

bus bodies, and motor vehicle tires and tubes through th©

State Board of Control under competitive bidding in order

that savings might be made which would make it possible to

provide adequate compensation for the teachers of such school

StP districts, and otherwise equalize educational advantages.®48

Article X? and XVI established the penalty provisions

and the repealing and constitutional clauses.23*

82Ibid., p. 92.

23Ibid., pp. 94-95,

22

The Minimum Salary Law,-*-House Bill lumber 300, passed

by the Fiftieth Legislature, Regular Session, May 20, 1947,

along with the other two laws considered in this chapter,

established a minimum salary schedule for the classroom

teachers and administrators of the schools receiving aid

under the provision* of the Equalization Aid Law.2* Briefly,

the law provided for the following:

(1) The minimum beginning salary for a full-time teacher

was to be not less than 12*000.00 per annual,25

(2) Increments for further teaching experience were to

be paid upon the schedule not less than provided by the State

Equalization Aid Law.

(3) Teacher® without a recognised bachelor's degree or

higher were to be paid upon the schedule provided by the

State Equalisation Aid Law.

(4) Any school district unable to pay the Minimus salaries

was to submit its salary schedule for the payment of its

teachers to the State Superintendent and through him to the

State Board of Education for approval*

(5) fhe minimum increments for the teaching experience

were to be paid on a schedule not less than that provided in

^^Senate Journal Supplement, op* eit*

2sThe minimum salary of §2,000^00 applied only to those teachers with a recognized bachelor's degree or higher. See Minimum Salary Schedule, fable 19, p. 80.

23

tii® State Equalization Aid Law which set forth a minimum

increment of |54»00 per school year for twelve years* A

teacher with a master^ degree should be paid $225.00 above

the schedule for teachers with a bachelor*s degree.2®

{6} The State Superintendent of Public Instruction Is

responsible for the minimum salary, and through him the

State Board of Education and the Committee on Affiliation

and Accreditation are responsible for seeing that the pro-

27

visions of the Act are being faithfully complied with.

The following interpretation of House Bill Number 300

was given by L. A. Woods, former State Superintendent of

Public Instruction, in the September, 1947, issue of The

Texas Outlook: All accredited schools which cannot meet fee salary

aid schedule, but are.eligible to receive salary aid must accept salary aid and meet the schedule or be removed from the accredited list of schools#

Accredited schools which have more than 1,500 scholastics must, according to House Bill 300, use the Equalisation Aid Salary Schedule as a minimum which they can pay their teachers, if their revenue will per-mit; otherwise their salary schedule to be submitted to this office must be based upon an estimated income which takes into consideration 40 per cent of their local maintenance fund, the net per capita apportionment, tuition received, and federal funds, other than those used for lunchroom purposes. The highest salaries possible that can be given to the teachers from thwse sources of revenue must be paid. If the revenue of the school district will not allow a full payment of the Equalization Aid Salary Schedule, then the salary schedule of the district must be based upon a percent-age of the Equalisation Aid Salary Schedule.

26See Table 19, p.

27 Charles II. Tennyson, "Minimum Salary Law for Texas,"

The Texas Outlook, XXXI (July, 1947), p. 9.

B4

Teaching experience gained In any public school* where the teacher held a valid teacher*a certificate, is to be counted in arriving at the teachers' salary. The schedule which is submitted by you should represent payment for nine months® of teaching service. ,

House Bill 500 further makes it manditory that all teachers in fully accredited school systems must be placed on a single salary schedule.*8

The Per Capita Law.—The third and last law considered

in this chapter is House Bill Number SOI which was passed at

the a am© time as House Bills lumber 295 and S00«2® Briefly,

the provisions of this law are stated as follows:®®

(1) The per capita apportionment for each and every

scholastic on the approved school census for each year shall

be the amount of #55.00.

(2) The Comptroller was authorized to determine the

amount to be transferred from the Clearance Fund to the Avail-

• able School Fund under the provisions of the Act.

(3) The Comptroller was given the authority to allocate,

transfer, and credit monthly in equal monthly installments

from the Clearance Fund to the Available State School Fund

such amounts as so determined*

OQ !*• A. Woods, 11 Interpretation of House Bill 500, w

The Texas Outlook, XXXI (September, 194?), 2J+.

29 Senate Journal Supplement, op. cit.

SO Public School Laws of the State of Texas, op. cit•»

7 6 # ' — -

2§

The Cost of Financing the Collin County Rural High Schools During the School fear of 1948-1949

III connect ion with the summaries of House Bills 295, 300,

and 301, it is seen that the State Department of Education has

full authority t© distribute among the eligible school districts

the money appropriated for educational purpose® on certain

basis as prescribed by the legislature* There are many things

to be taken into consideration in the distribution of this

money in order to give each child of the State of Texas an

equal educational opportunity. At this point of this study

the actual easts of operating a selected group of Texas* Public

School Systems are presented, and since the rural high schools

of Collin County are considered typical school units, their

financial operations during the school year of 1948-1949 ere

discussed in detail*

In order to determine the cost of financing the rural

high schools of Collin County during the school year of 1948-

1949, the following informtion will be presented, data re-

ceived from the available records of the offices of the superin-

tendents of the schools Investigated in this study*

(1) Name of school district.

(2) lumber of scholastics in each district,

(3) The average daily attendance.

(4) The value of the property of the school districts

for purposes of school taxation.

(5) The local maintenance tax rate.

26

(8) The school expenditures.

(7) The Instructional cost per pupil*

(8) The size of the district la square miles•

(9) The amount of money contributed to the school

district by the state.

{10} The amount of money raised by the local district*

(11) The number of teachers and the teacher-pupil load.

(12) The salaries of professional and non-professione1

personnel#

(13) The plant operational costs.

(14) Transportation costs.

Scholastics, attendance » taxation, and size of Districts#-

As a basis for determining the cost of operating the rural

high schools of Collin County, the following five points of

importance are essential: (1) the number of scholastics in

each district! (2) the average daily attendance; (3) the value

of the property in the district} (4) the local maintenance tax

rate; and (5) the size of the district in square miles. This

information, furnished in Table 1, is based on the available

figures for the school year of 1948-1949* The sources of data

for this table were the school records of the Individual

schools* It will be noted in connection with Table 1 that the

scholastic population of the districts ranged from 197 at Alia

to 522 at Community; the average daily attendance fro® 159 at

Alia to 483 at Community; the property tax evaluation from

$492,805 at Alia to $1,195,871 at Community; and the size of

27

the district in square miles from 27 at Melissa to 45 at

Community. It will also be noted that all of the schools

levied a local maintenance tax rate of #0.50 per #100 valua-

tion with the exception of Frisco, which levied a tax rate of

#0.75 per |100 valuation.

TABLE 1

SCHOLASTICS, AVERAGE DAILY ATTENDANCE, PROPERTY TAX EVALUA-TION, LOCAL MAINTENANCE TAX RuTES, AID SIZE OP DISTRICT IN

IM SQUARE MILES, COLL IK COUNTY RURAL HIGH SCHOOLS, 1948-1949

Jfaste of School

Scho-lastics

Average Daily

Attendance

Property Tax

Evaluation

Local Mainten-ance

Tax Rate

Area in

Squar< Kile:

Alia * * » # 197 159 | 492,805 |0.50 56

Blue Ridge • 382 302 642,215 0.50 30

Community • 552 483 1,195,871 0.50 45

Frisco . , . 365 311 1,096,039 0.75 28

Melissa. . # 248 166 559,690 0.50 27

Prosper. • » 367 234 942,029 0.50 35

Total 2,111 1,655 #4,929,349 * # * 201

Average * # # • • • #.54 * m

Commenting on the number of scholastics, average daily

attendance and school tax evaluation for the school year,

1948-1949, it will be seen that there is consistency in the

incidence of these factors and statistics. The only

28

inconsis tone Ids worth rioting are the oases of Frisco and

Blue Kidge. Blue ^idge, with a scholastic census of 382 had

an average daily attendance of 302, while Frisco, with a

smaller scholastic population of 365, bad a larger average

dally attendance of 311. Furthermore, Blue Ridge provided

educational facilities for those 582 pupils upon a local tax

evaluation of $643,916 at & $0.50 local maintenance tax

evaluation rate while Frisco, with a scholastic population

of 365 had a tax evaluation of $1,096,039 and a $0.75 local

Maintenance t&x rate. That is, Frisco with fewer scholastics,

had a greater tax evaluation and also a higher tax rate*

- Transportstlon costs . —Transportation service is a vital

part of t he operation of any rural school, since getting the

child to school is essential. The subject of transportation

is dealt with in Table 2 which furnished information as to

the nuxaber of buses operated, the number of pupils transported,

the cost per bus, and the cost per pupil transported in each

district. In commenting on the information in Table 2, it

will be noted that there is little consistency in the statis-

tics of the table* For example, the cost per pupil ranged

from $22.79 at Community to $51*25 at Prosper* Another in-

teresting comparison is the information furnished concerning

the cases of Alia and Prosper. Prosper operated three buses

to transport 120 pupils» while Alia required only two buses

to transport 128 pupils• Also, the cost per pupil at Prosper

is almost double that at Alia* Another inconsistency worth

29

03

I m a

xt

®|-f fc O

Pi ft 4^ p m mm a 8 |

J ® ® « 0> lO W O 1> O «D « • * * * * #

r* 03 f> O H 01 « 03 f tO to •JLiSk.

« H to • * 01

• i S

U %$ ' p m #4 -P

4» 3 H CQ fi 0

a §

O U) o o o o O 01 lO UJ o o • • • • > «

- o © at * . o o t0 <4* «0 tO tO tf>

• t» ca o © to ©

0» 04 H H CM

•

# m #

• 01 H

• 01 %

• H

« © '

43 -H $$ 4-5 o S 0 +» «"» fc

H © 0 m a* 1 S frt m

1? ;

o © o o o © O 2 W «0 o to to 0> 03 <3* H H to CO CD fr. to to

m*

#

HI » % •

82 tO *

«rt V» © 0 +»

© «H ft ft » 1 p 3 0 P<i ® P§ 1*4 «**

ipf

ffl © €t CQ >•-« o

a s 8 a s a CO * :

a . :

«k H *

*4 0

Si # i t # *P | | l #* #% .*3 Pi

^ $$ o

ea «# «# d ^3 *

f*f *

HI 0 0

a to

U. 0 #

1 ss

* » « • • • •

|H| flf iS $*f

* © « • * * 4 3 ® i j -N O >

* 13 # * • » £H <rt <* *i

» 03 d © M ® 3 O tt| Q«

<4 g g ® ft m p-t ;3 g «rl r-» O *"* d <4 *• J8 *« <$ tq o E-H » o*

30

commant is the fact that Prosper required three buses to

transport 120 pupils, whereas Community transported three times

as many pupils while operating only on® additional bus.

School budgets.—Under the Equalization Aid Lav of 19^-7-

19^9* the bulk of the expense of operating a school system

is in the salaries of the professional personnel which includes

the classroom teachers and administrators. The next most

expensive items are those of transportation and plant opera-

tional costs, respectively.

Table 3* which follows, fur xii shed infowaation concerning

the total annual salaries of professional personnel, the

plant operational coats, the total budget, and the instruc-

tional costs per pupil. As in the previous tables, there are

Inconsistencies in the statistics given in Table 3* About

the only consistent part of this table is the fact that the *

largest school, Community, recorded the smallest coat per

pupil, and the school with the largest budget, Blue Ridge,

recorded the highest cost per pupil.

One interesting comparison of the factors presented in

Table 3 is the cases of Community and Blue Ridge. The Com-

munity Rural High School employed 19 teachers^ with a com-

bined annual salary of #33#507# while the Blue Ridge Rur?al

High School employed only 13 teachers and paid then a combined

3 -see Table Ij., p. 33.

31

(U

&irt *¥4

4* ft

o

HI 4 * #

Iff

Hi 8

p o a g s u ass

#

£

0 m o

iO O H m 0» «0 IS 10 • ft • #

10 01 «0 Hi H a CD o

Hi

* r-i H H

$ •

r*f Ol

o <# IS IS 09 *0 1*1 to 5 < # o 10 oa 10 10 m in m ** % •r m

10 f> 9 ® IS to

01 9 10 01 m

J*»% JWl,

o 8 8 o o o

H m

ft €31 01 t0

O o fc"

tO *0 *0 03 01

m IS m IS CO m o is H to m o o IS

m •* % «fc %

to m ot m m m 01 et

8

§

m

i * • p %

*

10 HI *

01 «*

5x O IS

% 0 <0 H

* • * » • • m

H a • • « • • * * # 0 50 f ! « • •# • • • r4 41 a * &) • * • # * • # &)

J# 9 > %4 • *gr • * • C| <s o *ri m $4

• « a o m m s I : « t i

o «i ® *4 $, m 3 HI 0 vi HI o

M r~f H i S* A $4 : < sPQ o Osi m m

m

salary of $34,329. This oddity may be explained through &

study of the minimum salary schedule for the Equalization

Aid l»aw#^ providing that teachers be paid $25 per month

above the basic minimum salary for each year*# college train-

ing above one year* and through five years or the mastoids

degree. The schedule also provides that a teacher be paid,

six dollars for each year»s teaching experience through twelve

years*. It sstay be assumed, therefore* that the teachers at

Blue Kidge had more college training and/or more years of

experience than those employed at Community.

The superintendent*s salary is Included in the column

entitled "annual salaries of professional personnel® because

in these particular schools he devoted approximately fifty

per cent of his tin® to actual classroom teaching.®** Also,

since the superintendent is the only full-time administrator

in these school systems, it seemed unnecessary to set up a

special column for his individual salary.

Teachers and teacher-pupll load»—-In determining the

cost of operating any school system# the number of teachers

employed by the school must be taken into consideration.

Information regarding the number of teachers employed by

each of the schools of this study is given in Table 4, as is

^%ee Table 19* p. 80.

33This information was gained through personal inter-views with the superintendents of the schools investigated in this study.

33

teacher-pupil load# an item which may have little signifi-

cance in determining the actual cost of sohool operation*

although it is believed that it provides worth-while informa-

tion since the trend toward lightening the teacher load is

evident with the passage of the Gilmer-Aikin Bill*.®*

TABLE 4

KUUBBR OF TEACHERS AND TEACHER-PUPIL LOAD, COLLIN COtMTY RURAL HIGH SCHOOLS,

1948-1940

lame of School Humber of Teachers

Teacher-Pupll Load

Alia• • • • • ? 28 • 1

Blue Ridge, . 13 29.4

Community . . 19 29.0

Frisco* « . • 12 30,4

Melissa » . . 8 51.0

Prosper . . • m 30.8

Total . IX • • «

Average » • 29.8

54 A Comparison of the Teacher-pupil load for the two-

year period of this study is given in Chapter IV, p. 66.

34

Loc&l and state contributions•--5foe figures given in

Table 5 furnish important information concerning the amount

of the total budget that is contributed by the state; the

amount contributed by the local districts through taxation!

and the percentages of the total amount in each instance#

It should be noted that the bulk of the money required for

the operation of the rural high schools of Collin County

comes from the state*

An examination of fable 5 shows that til© statistics

presented are consistent with the sis© of the schools to a

certain degree# This table shows that some of the districts

contributed a larger per cent of their total budget through

taxation than did others, but that was as it should have been*

since the property in those districts was of higher valuation.

A good example of this is the case of Blue Ridge and Frisco,

in which Blue Ridge contributed only ©«8 per cent of their

total budget through local taxation, while Frisco contributed

21*2 per cent. This is justified according to the information

set forth in Ta,le 1, which lists the property in the Clue

Ridge district as having been valued at $642,915 while the

property in the Frisco district had a valuation of $1,096,039,

although the two districts were of practically the same size#

This information supports the contention that the money should

be collected where it isf the child educated where he is*

m Wr4 m m

CO H ot 01 o • l> : S3 Q • • * • * • » • # §4 q m 10 HI o < * • m

r4 HI HI H • H fc** ' 0 0 fe

•d e © 4* **

: g * *0 45 «H CG • S m <© OS m m

1 *

O m 10 o» * r*4 1 • # • m » • # • #

& , : ^ <# m O m O * O r i O of

10 H t> r*t r4 IS • O r i O of ' OS 01 01 £> *. : IO •

O * • * % m * * m • -2 1 to 10 m m < * •

§ m

H . o w

H .

: J * 0

# M r t fl§ «#

; 4^ 4* «0 ot 61 CO m o # 10 12 p • * # * # • • # . 0 S4 0S 10 !8 CO Oft m • fy 0 en Oft a IS CO m » |# %4

m # 0 &4 ..

t# © 4-> 3 J>

<0 «rf § <0 <# HI m iO IO * 1# 4» Ok w t> m <D : H # 4$ $ • * * • • # » * C 43 01 !> 10 CD is M5 • iifl9 : *0 Oft C** m * # ug #

o HI 01 «P m $ * 31 O • p% % # * % * «* m % #

4*j% : H 10 01 a * m *

8 m « # 10 10 Of m 0) * «i§f

m H

§ «s£

4+

• • • * • • • #

# • • • • • • Hi «sO

# • • # • # ^ : 0 r4 # 4* ®

0 *

f p% • • * P >

^ t s f 4* <% 8 xs m «rf •ri • as u m & S3 0 m # mm • £S O m o«

* fi IS *p4 m • r-1 5* B *H iH 0

HI < d

(Q s & • a £

M

Smwmry

In order to knit together in compact form the contents

of this chapter. It should be stated briefly that the prise

purpose of the chapter has been to present a description of

the laws which governed the financing of the public schools

of Texas during the school year of 1948-1949, along with

statistics showing, for the same period# the actual cost of

operating the six rural high schools connected-with this study.

A brief history of Equalisation Aid Laws was given in

this study for the purpose of showing the trend of public

school legislation for the past several years. "Eh© trend

has been toward increasing the size of the appropriation,

the number of schools that could qualify,- and the degree of

control by the state relative to qualification for aid. The

first Equalisation Aid Law in Texas was passed in 1915 and

oalled for an expenditure of #500,000 each year for the next

two yearsf this figure as compared with the #18,000,000

appropriated by the Equalisation Aid Law of 1947 for the

biennium 1947-1949 should indicate a definite trend toward

better educational opportunities for the youth of the State

of Texas.

The laws passed by the Fiftieth Legislature, Regular

Session, 1947, which set up the machinery for financing the

Texas public school systems for the next two years, were

House Bills Hunber 295, 300, and 301. House Bill Number 296

3?

was the Equalization Aid Law; House Bill lumber1 300 was the

Minimum Salary Law; and Bouse Bill tabar SOI was the Per

Capita Law.

House Bill lumber 295 contained the following provisions:

(1) the eligibility for aid, (2) the rural aid budget, {3) the

teacher-pupil quota, salary schedule and length of school tern,

(4) tuition aid, (5) transportation aid, and (6) the appro-

priation and allocation of funds.

House Bill Number 300 provided for the minimum salary

schedule, which set the salary of the teacher with a bachelor's

degree at a minimum of $2,000.00 annually. House Bill lumber

301 set the per capita for each scholastic on the approved

school census at #55*00*

J"n determining the cost of operating the six rural high

schools of Collin County, in connection with the laws dis-

cussed in this chapter, information regarding the following

Items was considered essentials (1) scholastics, attendance,

taxation, and size of school districts; (2) transportation

costs; (3) school budgets; (4) teachers and teacher-pupil load;

and (5) local and state contributions.

fhe six schools of this study h*d enrolled during the

1948-104® school year, 2,111 students who compiled an average

daily attendance of 1,655, and were taught at an average of

$105,85 each* The over-all cost of operating the six rural

high schools of Collin County for the one year period amounted

to $216,422. This figure included the followingt (1) cost of

38

transportation, $37,415; (2) plant operational cost, #18,300?

and (3) salaries of professional personnel, $160,707*

She cost of transportation represents the amount needed

to operate nineteen school buses and trans per t 1,-158 pupils

to and fro® school. This amounted to an average cost per

pupil of $32#31*

It is also worth comment at this point that of the total

budget for the six schools, $216,420, the salaries of the

professional amounted to #160,707, or approximately 75 per

cent of tfoe total#

CHAPTER 111

THE FLAM AW COST OF FISANCIWB THE

COLLI! COUNTY KUHAL HIGH SCHOOLS

UNDER GILMKR-A IKIM LfiBISLATIOK

The p u r p o s e o f t h i s c h a p t e r i s t o d e s c r i b e t h e e f f e c t

o f t h e r e c e n t l y - e n a c t e d G i l m e r - A i k i n s c h o o l l e g i s l a t i o n on

t h e s i x r u r a l h i g h s c h o o l s of C o l l i n County* A t t e n t i o n w i l l

bo g i v e n t o (1) t h e h i s t o r i c a l background of t h e p r o g r a m ,

(2 ) recommendations of t h e c o m m i t t e e , (3 ) t h e a c t u a l l e g i s -

l a t i o n , and ( i | ) t h e a c t u a l c o s t o f th® p r o g r a m as a d m i n i s t e r e d

i n t h e s c h o o l s o f t h i s study. S i n c e t h e G i l m e r - A i M n Program

ia s u c h a c o m p l e t e r e o r g a n i s a t i o n o f t h e s c h o o l s i t u a t i o n i n

Texas and th© l e g i s l a t i o n was so d i f f e r e n t f r o m any p r e v i o u s

school l e g i s l a t i o n i n t h i s s t a t e , i t i s f e l t t h a t a brief

suounary of t h e historical background and recommendations of

t h e commi t t ee i s w o r t h w h i l e .

H i s t o r i c a l Background o f G i l m e r - A i k i n L e g i s l a t i o n

Legislative members who have had e x p e r i e n c e a s t e a c h e r s

i n t h e s c h o o l s y s t e m of t h e s t a t e have l o n g b e e n aware of

t h e need f o r a r e o r g a n i z a t i o n of t h e p u b l i c s c h o o l s y s t e m . 1

^Calvin K. S n o d g r a s s , "The A u t h o r i t y of County Boards t o Change S c h o o l D i s t r i c t L i n e s , " ( U n p u b l i s h e d M a s t e r * s T h e s i s , Depa r tmen t of E d u c a t i o n , N o r t h Texas S t a t e C o l l e g e , A u g u s t , 1914.9}, p . ij.2.

39

40

la 191+7 while th# Legislature was in session In Austin,

authorisation was made for the formation of a ooBsatttee to

study the public school system of the state for the pnrpos©

of recoaaaending needed school legislation to the legislature

whin it next convened in regular session* The membership

of the committee, the educators who helped in the coiamittee,

and the procedure followed are all explained In a letter

sent by the committee of the legislature when the report on

the survey was made. This letter, written by James $« Taylor,

Chairman of the Gilmer-AIM n Committee, is reproduced; in

part# because it presents in concise form the essential factss

v In compliance with House Concurrent Resolution to* l+B ©f the Fiftieth Legislature, the Gilaer-*Aikl a Committee, after eighteen Months of intensive stud/ and preparations, presents in this report our recom-mendations for your consideration#

All of the r@commendat1ons contained herein were arrived at after Months of study, analysis, and survey# County ©OBwtttees in 2 4. counties assisted in the selection of issues and gathering data*

There are'eighteen members of th® Qilmer-Aikin committee,. We were fortunate in enlisting the support of some 75 other technical and professional people of T@xas to assist us in our study# They served, as did the members of the county committees, without compen-sation, even paying their own expenses to Austin and other points where the advisory committee met*

Without the assistance of these groups, nothing constructive could have been accomplished. With their help w® submit here a' list of proposals which wr feel are"sound, ©onitruetlfe and representative of the com-bined judgment of the people of Texas* We extend to 'all of you her© our' grateful thanks*

0ur committee is in accord with the proposals •• • • taken as a whole, and feel that their support by the

people of Texas will most certainly Improve the edu-cational opportunities of our youth*2

^Senate Journal Supplement, Pinal Eeport of the Gilmer* Aikin Costalttee, January 2$, lm9, p* 8«

41

The Gilmer-Aikia recommendations, as Indicated la the

letter, were based on a serious study a M survey of the needs

of education in Texas* In this connection, its proposals,

furthermore, were based upon the following facta and con-

victions*

' , . Education Is big business in Texas now* It oust become even bigger fast, 4 million babies have been

•, , ' born in Texas within the past six years• These babies ar© going to grow up with inferior education at the

, •vary time when they' need superior education, if Texas -eitlsant do not act promptly and positively*

The education we have now ia not *b&d« * it has many excellent features, is making some very good

. citizen®. As a whole'we can be proud of our public • schools—but not too 'proud of our public school system.

Our system for providing education does -have some flaws. Those flaws are serious, but they are neither so numerous nor so influential as the good features

• of what we now have# • ' Every bit of.evidence that we'have indicates that

'we need a much better system for operating education in the future than we had ia the past# flaws which could be overlooked ten year® ago will atop progress now# Antiquated or inefficient machinery will not be good enough for the modem Job we simply mast do#'

The system for education in Texas must b® designed to fit the needs of a great state, a growing state, a modern state with no time or excuse for lost notion*

proposals for improving education in Texas must be based upon the needs of the state# personalities# petty quarrels, local self-interest, political allignments, seIfishoess—these must be forgotten by any group en-trusted with designing a better eduction for Texas#3

The committee was thus faced with the problem of remedy-

ing the "flaws* in the system of pub?,ic school education# A

number of proposals were made, and a number of paramount Issues

were selected for study. Throughout the years of public

school operation the large city school systems, because of

3Ibld,, p. 2.

42

greater sources of incoiae and greater latitude In taxiing

procedures, have been able to build excellent school systems

and provide facilities that meet the varying needs of'all

the pupils, fhe small rural districts have not been'able

to do this because they have not had the resources* Rural

people, in many instances, have refused to consolidate with -

other districts in order 'to acquire more resources on which

to draw for support. The building of all-weather roads and

• the Improvements in means of bus transportation have made

possible the transfer of pupils over wide areas tV'bsa*

'central point# fhe large city school systems, 'iJto&er %xist-

ing laws, have had the powNir to annex these smaller districts,

and if they did not they lost their special taxation privilege

granted to elti#s whose boundary lines coincide with those

of the independent school district, fhe small rural district,

if it became a part of the city independent district, had to

bear its pro rata share of higher taxes# The result las been

confusion, litigation, and unequal opportunities of education

for the children of the state#

The Gllmer-Alkin Cowalttee gave serious study to some

method of financing the public schools that would apply

equally to the large city school district and the sinall rural

district as well. It set up the following principles as

guides in the studyi

45

1. Local taxation should support approximately 1$ per cent of til# total cost of the foundation program in the stat© as a whole, bat the amount raised by each lo-cality should accord with Its t&xpaying ability# Every local system in Texas should be required to raise some local funds for education; all private property should b© subject to local taxation for education#

2. The uniform local effort required should not exhaust the local taxing power for education* Each locality should have leeway to raise funds over and beyond the minimum program.

3U The state should provide the regaining cost of the minimum foundation program in each local unit#

4* State funds should be so distributed that opportunity for having a minimum foundation program will be equal in each system and between the races.

5. The formula for distributing the state funds should be so written that personal judgment in allo-cating fands Is reduced to a minimum.

6, All school funds should be handled to assure their safekeeping, and subject to careful state, auditing.**-

The result of the study was the formulation of a plan

whereby local and state support are combined to finance a

minimum foundation program, with the state underwriting the

'cost above reasonable, uniform local effort#

The Oilaer-Aikin Program

The Gilmer-A ikin plan constitutes a revolution in the

structure and the amount and nature of the support, state

and local, accorded to the public schools of Texas* For that

reason alone# it is a matter of serious import to every child

and adult in Texas. Whether the new method of financing la

advantageous or injurious, whether it has eliminated local

^Ibld., p.

44

inequities, or created more inequality than existed under

provisions of the previous plan, whether it provides better

and more proper equipment, plant, teacher® and education,

for the children of.the state, are also questions of vital

and long-range importance, • ., ;

The proponents of the'original proposal point to the

undeniable fact that Texas * rank in education is far lower

than it should be, particularly In view,of the exceptional

natural wealth of the .state* that Texas' teacher# are poorly

paid; that much of the plant and equipment is inefficient,

dangerous, useless or even non-existent; that in many dis-

tricts of the state nine-months * school terms are not avail-

able; that the facilities offered for fegro education are

deplorable! that attendance i® often far below standard!

that many districts receive inequitable treatment} and that

the education of the child is the province of the entire ' . £

state and not the localised individualized community alone.

This last argument is in line with 'the contention that the

Texas child should not suffer because his parents happen to

reside in a poverty-stricken, non-tax-paying, non-school

supporting locality# The child, when an adult, may become

%eslle t,. Browning, WA Study to Determine the Sound-ness of the Gllmer-Aikin Plan of Financing the Public Schools of Montague County, Texas,11 (Unpublished Master1® thesis, Department of Education, Horth Texas State College, August, W ) » f. 2,

45

a citisen of some other part of the state and a'Oitlaen of

the nation, and the citizen who is poorly educated it''often

no asset to the locality, the state, or the nation and no

suitable basis for the erection of a real and enduring

universal democracy.

The detailed application of the financing of the Oilaer-

Ailcln plan to on© county has importance, therefore, because

it will give at least a beginning idea of what the plan has

done and will do in practice.

The &lla*r<*Aikia plan' consists of three bills| Senate

Bills lumbers 115, 116, and 117. Senate Bill number 115

provides for a reorganisation of the state*a educational

administrationi Senate Bill Huaber 116 provides a m in latum

Foundation School program for the public free schools of the

state and provides a method of distribution of funds? Senate

Bill Humber 117 provides for the financing of the Foundation

School program.

Considered in detail,'the bills have three objectives:

CI) a more efficient method of school' administration at' the

stata level; (2) the guarantee to each child of school age of

the availability of a good minlmim education program nine

months of the years and (3) the guarantee of a method of

financing that will tend to equalize local and state support

and make each county pay, according to its ability, in pro-6

portion to what other counties pay#

^Ibld», p. li«

46

The real picture of the Gilmer-Alkln program a# It has

Sanctioned for on# year In the rural high schools of one

Texas county supplies the content of this chapter.

The State Adainlsfcrafcion Bill* —This is the first of

the three bills which constitute the Gilmer-Aikin Prograsu

It is entitled "An Act Providing a More Efficient Method of

State Administration of the Public Free 3chools,N^ and It

contains a number of provisions, for purpose® of simplifi-

cation outlined briefly here article by articles

Article 1 establishes the. Central Education Agency#

This agency is composed of'the Stat# Board of iduc&tlon, th®

Stat® goard for Vocational Education, the State Coaimiss loner

of Bducatlohi and the Stat® fiepartaifnt of Education, The

Central Education Agency shall exercise, under the Acts of •

the legislature, general control of the system of public

education at the state level# This will be the sole agency

wMch can enter into agreements on educational undertakings#.'

Article 11 provides for the creation of the gtnte Board

of Education• It provides that the elective office of the

State Superintendent of Public instruction and the appointive

nine-member State Board of Education be abolished, and sub-

stitutes instead a twenty-one meaber elective State Board of

Education which will, in turn, appoint the,State CosBaisaloner

7 'Senate Journal Supplement, Fifty-First Texas legislature,

Regular '''Session, Senate ll'Xis lumbers llj?» 116, and 117, P» 2#

47

of Education* fhe new Stat# Board of Education shall be

composed of one member from each of the twenty-one congres~>

•lobal districts, elected for a six-year tern*

Article III aets up the duties of the State Board of

Education, declared to be the policy-forming and planning

body for the Public School System of the state, The Board

of Education members must meet at least six times a year,

drawing no salary but being reimbursed for the expenses of

attending' meetings.

Article IV provides for the creation of the State Text-

book Committee consisting of fifteen persona, nominated by

the OoshbIssloner of Education and approved by the Stat©

Board of Education* No two of the persons named to .the

committee shall live in the same Congressional District#

and they shall serire for a period of one year. The article

provides further that it shall be the duty of the Textbook

Goismittee to recommend to the Commissioner a couplet# list

of textbooks which it approves for adoption at the various

grade levels and In the various school subjects.

Article V establishes the position of State Commissioner

of Education and provides that he shall be appointed by the

State Board of Education for a term of four years and' shall

serve as Executive Secretary of the Board of Education.

Article VI provides for the establishment of the State

Department of Education, which shall be'the professional,

technical, and clerical staff of the Central Education Agency,

48

and shall be organized into such divisions arid sub-divisions

aa shall be established by the State Board of Education, upon

the recommendation of the Stat® Commissioner of Education*

Article VII provides for th© general provisions of th®

bill* , \

The Foundation Softool Program Act# —The second '-ot the

three ailraer-Aikin Bills is Senate Bill lumber ll6, entitled

"An'Aet to Provide a Minimum Foundation School lfor

the Public Free Schools of the State,"® This bill provides

a plan for distributing tba financial burden, '

• Article I gives th® purpose of the Act: • to guarantee to

each school-age child in fexas a minimum Foundation School

Program for nine full months and to establish eligibility

requirements of Texas school districts if they are to par-

ticipate in the program*

Article II provides that (a) legislative appropriations

be paid in accordance with this Acts (b) the Aet~eo1r«tt*tt

educational professional personnel services and transportation

and the number of units of each alloted to each school

district; and (c) at least a minimum salary must ty© paid*

Article H I deals with professional units based on

segregated average daily attendance. It includes a number

of attendance and other provisions, some of which will receive

treatment later in this study* Under the provisions of this

^Ibld»t p« 9*

49

article, classroom teacher units will be based In essence,

as follows! attendance of 15>-2$ pupils will constitute one

classroom teacher unit, and for other levels the plan provides

on® classroom teacher unit for approximate If each 2$ pupils

in attendance# The article also provides for vocational

teacher units$ special service teacher waits, exceptional

children teacher units# supervisor and/or counsellor units,

principal units and superintendent units, all units being

based on such factors as dally attendance, number of teachers

and number of schools and varying only slightly from district

to district.

Article IV, dealing with salary schedules, provides a

minimum base beginning salary plus increments for experience

and degrees• ly way of illustration, beginning teachers with

bach®lor*s degrees receive a Minimum base salary of #2,i|,©3

for a nine-months1 term with six dollars per month added for

each year of teaching experience not to exceed seventy-two

dollars per month. Beginning teachers with master*® degrees

receive a base salary of §2,628 per year with increases of

six dollars per month up to $l£6 per month* thus, teachers

with master1® degrees and twenty-six years* experience would

earn |i|.,032 for the nine-months* term,^

%ee Minimum Salary Schedule for Qilmer-Alkia program, fable 20, p. 81.

50

Article ? deals with services and current operating costs

and indicate® that the total operating costs for each school

district# other than for salaries and transportation, shall

be based upon classroom teacher unit# and exceptional teacher

units# this article also provides for transportation costs*

Article fl provides a system of financial allocation and

support for the Foundation program. Under its provisions an

economic index is determined for each county in the state by

the Stat® Commissioner of Education, the index measuring the

wealth of the counties in proportion to the wealth of other

counties and being on county valuations, school population of

the county anil county Income, Measurement of county income,

In turn, Is based on value of manufactures and minerals pro-

duced, agricultural products and payrolls. County income

weighs more proportionately in the computation of thin index

than do assessed valuation and scholastic population* Further-

more, the Act automatically assigns the first Indexes for the

counties and provides for their reoomputation every four

years (beginning in 1951) by the Commissioner of Education*

Of major importance to this study is the fact that tlie economic 10

index for Collin County has been established as .37ij- P«r cent,

The article further provides that the Comlssloher of

Education shall determine the total sua of local funds that

10Senate Journal Supplement, op» clt«, p* 21.

51

the sehool districts of a oounty shall contribute to th©

total ooat of the Foundation School Program by multiplying

#1+5,000,000 by th® economic index of the county* The Com-

missioner of Education is also given a formula by which th#

amount of local funds to be charged to and used by each

local district shall be determined* If a district cannot

raise its assi®aed amount after levying the maximum legal

school maintenance tax at the state*® assessed valuation,

th® difference will be paid by the state f**oia a special

minimum sehool fund.

Article ?XI says limply that th® Act is not inimical to

the Interests of parochial schools# Article VIII provides e

for the consolidation of dormant or inactive school districts,

and Article IX provides for appeals from actions of the

Central Education Agency.

Articles X, XI, XII, and XIII are enabling acts,.con-

version and fraud aots, repealing and constitutional clauses,

and th® emergency clause, which provides that the Act shall

be in full force after its enactment*

The Attfe®»atle Financing Bill. —Senate Bill Number 117

Is the last of the three bills making up the Qllaer-Aikin

plan of public school reorganization and Is, In a sense, an

enabling act. It provides that there must be appropriated

and transferred to a special fund known as the Foundation

School Fund the amount of state school funds ai determined

necessary.by the Foundation School Fund Budget Comalttee

composed of the State Commissioner of Education, th® State

52

Auditor and the Stat® Comptroller of Public Accounts, Before

tli® first day of Soveratoer, (except for th® year 19k9) preceding

each regular session of the Legislature, the Budget Ooiualtte©

must determine and certify to the Stat* Comptroller the «stl*»

mated amount to be placed In th® Foundation School Fund

for the purpose of fInane lag the Foundation School Program*

, Th* Cost of Financing th# Collin County Rural High Schools During th#

School year of 1$49~195G

• sine# this study deals primarily with the eoat of opera-

ting th© sehool program, a detailed application of th®

Qllmer-Aikln plan will be made to the Individual rural high

school® of Collin County for the sehool year of 19k9m^-9$0,

the first year of operation under the new program*

However, some other items of public school operation

which have a direct bearing upon the cost will also be given,

the same data as that presented In Chapter II for the sehool

year of 19i|B-19 9# being analysed and applied to the'school

year of I9k9~19$0*

Scholastics, attendance, taxation, and size of districts.~

As a basis for determining th© effects of th® appllcatlon of

the 0ila*r-Aikln plan upon the rural high schools of Collin

County, the following five factors are essentials (1) th#

number of scholastics in each district; (2) the average dally

attendance; (3) the property tax evaluation; (It.) the local

maintenance tax rate; and ($) the size of the district in

square miles* This Information, furnished in Table 6, is

53

based on the latest available figures, those for th© school

year of 19%9-1950, sources of data for this table being th®

school records of th® individual schools*

TABLE 6

SCHOLASTICS, A V M M E DAIIX ATTEHDAHCE, TAX EVALUATION, LOCAL milTOTAICB TAX RATE, M B SIZE OF DISTRICT IS SQUARE MILBS,

COLLDf COOTTI RURAL HIGH SCHOOLS, 1&9-1950

lame of School

Scho-lastics

Average Bally

Attendance

property Tax

Evaluation

Local iai»t@~ nance Tax Rat®

Area in

Square Miles

All®. •' « • • * 190 • '<lik # #0*50'^ 36

Blue Ridge . 355 . ^ 25^ 89?»?0S 60

Community. • 522 1.^55,255 ' ®.SQ ;\:S 85

f^if^O * • • U.07 295 1,1*.08»115 i*6o' 't '

I4.6

Meli3sa. , • 212 621,975 27

froaper* • • 3*0 207 1,152,157 1*00 • k$

Total 2,029 1,1 61 #6,063,682 # * # 2 99

Average # * « # • # # # * # • , * # M 8 » *

It will b# noted in connection with Table 6 that Collin

County has six rural high school districts* Th© scholastic

population of the districts ranged from 190 at Alia to 522

at Consnunityj th® average dally attendance fro® 152 at Melissa

to 397 at Conaunity, the property tax evaluation froo •528,^75

54

at Alia to $1,1*55,255 at Coasauaityj and the sisse of the

district in square miles from 27 at Melissa to 85 at Ooaununity.

It should also be noted that Alia has the lowest local

maintenance tax rate, that of #0*50 per §100 valuation,

Ail® four of the other districts (Blue Bidge, ftpiseo*

Melissa, and prosper), have rates of fl»00 per flQO valuation#

Regarding the amber of scholastics, average daily

attendance and school tax evaluation for the school year,

1914.9-1950, it will be seen that there is general consistency

in the incidence of these factors and statistics. The only

Inconsistencies worth noting are the cases of Alia and

Melissa* Alia, with a scholastic census of 190, had m average

daily attendance of 15^, whereas Melissa, with a larger

scholastic attendance of 212, had a smaller average dally

attendance, 152* Furthermore, Alia provided educational

facilities for those l5i|- pupils upon a local tax evaluation

of $528,14.75 at a |0*5O local maintenance tax rate, while

Melissa, with an average dally attendance of 152, had a tax

evaluation of #621,975 and a #1*00 tax rate* ielissa, then,

with fewer in average daily attendance, had a greater tax

evaluation and alto a higher tax rate.

Transportation Coate.—Definite transportation costs and

bus service for the school children of the rural high schools

of Collin County are available. Since Collin County la a

rural county and because getting the child to school is

essential, the subject of transportation is of importance

to the rural high schools of the county* Consequently, the

SB

u m §4

0 O 585 gJ10 M | 4 & H H r l < i $3 £> 0& S & i # 0«t 0 O &4 r4

O

a s s m m o t> a o mBrn

tn o K ^ p** ft p* % m

< o Q 1-4 S * W

U3 i4

O o , . M Si M •O $t< KJ O N

IX»

A3 •5# © m O

& ft4 </} ®

cw

<3

It -p f r t J i A* 'tri Q

& &• s ^ a g s

u «a © ®

a 3 ®s

4J S3 S<

I I

S3 a . * 4 tf

4* ' f* * o %4 £V

H O 19 m a 4» S(S •

& is

4* f®

a

*4 ri P*

XJ P*

%4

« 0 fc # 49 # fl® 0 € i it p5 # . 9 A'" m o

o 0 M 0 m

u 0

1

A

tH <# <0 m • # •

a ® o 02 4fr

Ct 01

O o o H5 o ©

» « • HI 10

«0 i 10

m m % H ri r-f

00 t> • <# 80

0 m to m • •

ft 01 *#

8 § 8 8 #

10

m m

H m

to CM ID r-f

«0 Cw «i

10 m m *»

m

m

o m m m ri m

% m m m

rf m oi m m »o p <o m m r4 0} *0 (SI

iO to rn

01 10 01 so

• 01 CO • #

02 # E

^jp

10 o * i> to t> «k

H

$ o

to r*f 01 %

H

O m

• #

JSP ^ • 'd «P # *

*H %-i M • K 5 O «o , ^ § o *

4 § s ^ *•* 3 § «H r-f

r*f rj 0 fe 0 <sf ttt O fe a|

fc m 04

# • Ml

H IS 0 *4 *p #

£ *

mmdm of bmm operated, t t e w d w of pstpHii tmiwjwtad,

the total eosfe of transportstion, the coat jmp bos, and ttm

traneportation coats par pupil a r t g inn to fabl# |»

f«hfj»I ft* Qtlam^Ukin Mgrus , as to

previous school legislation, th* salaries of p^faat iof t i l

personnel i t the most expensive t ta» to school operation*

All salaries of classroom teachers and administrators are

toolud*4 under this heading* . The next ®a§fc expensive item

U that of tvansportftttog the children to ffisd f*osi school,

followed by tha plant operational oosts and the salaries of

special m w t m teachers and supervisor* to that ©Mas?.

Table 8 desls with the annual salaries of professional

par»@iaial# the plant operational costs, salaries of special

service taaohsra and supervisors, the total budget, ana tha

instructional costs par» pupil* once again, tha s ta t is t ics

to this tabla are conslatent to that tha largest of tin

Collin county Rural High schools, Coaamunity, has tha largest

budgets and tha smiles t school, Mslissa, l*s tha smallest

budget*51 B«W«Pf this i s not naceassrlly tm® of' a l l

schools utidsr tha 011mer»*ikia Bille, for tha prassnt aalary

schedule provides for taaohars to be paid six dollars per

math for each year*s teaohtog experience through twelve year®

• ^Hellas* Blstrtet Ms tha anallaat average dally attendance of tha schools to this study, although Alia District has ths svallest scholastic population* gee Tabla 6, p* 53.

57

CO

n < as O r4 M •> t B H ® <c U3 «#

33 <£ B

; Jj}

I frr| fh i

ed t4 W|li < °

§ $4 m m o < o

*

«4 §4 < O O ©

If 0 *r4 4$ P*

| 2

» oi © m o o : «* <5 CO H O • * • * m • ca fe CD t* m i0 : 10 H i0 m «5 tt HI HI HI HI HJ

:

• © * © • m * o # f© # HI

;

4t H 4» «S © 4» tfl £ • 2 ft B

«

! HI ^ m 'm m m <0 ift 01 10 O 0H : « - 10 10 e* o m m m -m m m m

o m m m m : ¥$ m m m m m

I** • . • H « * # O •

. £0 » "WW*

1 g g *i © © h r t f l B 8 d 0<H Hi «H 01 J* « o e ?« ' 60 « ! • © '• r i m ® 3

um SS %4 «H g 0 > *f$ 1 S i «j£ # 0

Hi

Q O Ot O O lO • 85 t* H m m « ' ^ f O i ^ © % * * % 4| «v

r4 W 01 HI rl 4 *

o» # tt * ct » •i • * r-f •MAa.

H 1 • 13 4» o mi fm *ri & m 4* m rl i O PM U Q 0

: § '

o o o o o . o © o o o o o « en o m co «# * « * < * % « * * ot to <o 10 ot <*

o * O * : # «K » © , •

CM ' ^ 0 H 0 g <h s ft Orf * MI m

HI FLI g 3 ® £ CO • O * <4 ^ r4 0 $* 5f iKfl* § * *

' «# 0 ;

CO OJ O 0J to lO 0 o g- h oo 55 CO 03 CO O tD O « « • « « « 01 on to co ca to | » !iJ ^ *

10 • H • •

«i • * fcO • 01 1 '$&l

^ 0 r 4 O S ° 1 - 8

• * • • • • # » * • • • • • • Q

, «> • • # * # * HI <$

S3 S* • • * # 41 «P 0 * m P* * . < • «R* H I # M d 0 « m • 3 o » P«

* ft i m *i m

H § HI H 0 ^ ^ s s s &

« ©

I* m r1 • • XI

m %4 n

«rl

'•6

for the bachelor's degree, and through twenty-six years for 1 2 • • the master's degree. therefore, it is entirely possibl®

for a small school with acre experienced teachers to require

a larger budget than some larger schools with less experienced

teacher®. For example# as will be noted in this table* Blue

Bidge has a budget of $66,536 far 355 scholastics, while

Frisco has a budget of #614.,252 for lj.07 scholastics#

the superintendent* s salary is Included in the column

Mannual salaries of professional personnel,n because he

devotes approximately 50 per cent of his time to actual class-

room teaching.1"

Further, in -regard to fable 8, the figures in the column

waanual salaries of special service teachers and supervisors*

do not represent the total annual salary of any particular

special service teacher or supervisor* lather* these 'figures

represent the aaiouat of money that these particular schools

contributed to their salaries.

feachera and teacher-pupil load.—The classroom teacher

is, perhaps, with the exception of the child, one of the most

essential functioning units of the educational system. Over-

crowded classrooms and "over-loaded teachergw are not among

19 See Minimum salary Schedule for (Jilmer-Aikln Program,

fable 20, p. 8i.

*3since the superintendent is the only full-time adainiS' trator, it seems unnecessary to set up a separate coluraa for his salary#

p9

the charao ter is tics conducive to better ©ducat Ion. The number

of teachers employed in the system Is a definite factor in

determining the cost of operating the system. The number of

teachers employed la each of th® Collin County Sural High

Schools, together with the teacher-pupil load, la given in

fable 9* fh© teacher-pupil load is significant in this

table sine® it indicates a-/definite- trend toward lightening

th#- load' of the teacher,^" The superintendent is included

in the nuiaber of teachers for each school sine# he devotes

a portion of his time tovclassroom teaching* "

' tAMM 9

m m m OF moats xm TEACHER-PUPIL LOAD, COLL IB COTROR BTJRAL HIGH SCB30LS,

1S49-1950

Name of School lumber of Teachers

»" "

Teacher-Pupil; Load . ; "

Alia* . • * * * 4- ' ~ 8

Blue Ridge, « *

Coaraamifcy • . • •' 21 2 ^ 8 , . -

S$*ls®@4 . • • • : 15

Melissa * . . . 8 ' ' '?>

prosper . « « • .. 12 2&*6 ' ; '•

Total 7& • _ •#'; -i# "

Average m • 26.0

•^See the comparison of the teacher-pupil load for the

60

Local and state contributions«~~Tha bulk of the money

used by the Collin County Rural High Schools In the operation

of their school systems must cos© from the state, although a

small per cent Is raised In the local district through taxation.

It is interesting to note, from the information presented in

Table 10, that the amount raised by the local districts varied

during the 19i*.9-19i?0 school year from 8,5 per cent of the

total amount required for operation at Alia* to 21*9 p«r cent

at Priaco. Although this stay or may not be justifiable, it

can be partially explained by the fact that Alia did not

raise its local maintenance after the passage of the Gllmer-

Aikin Bills, whereas Frisco did.^

StBsuary • - '

Although the Gilraer-Alkin Bills were not passed until

the spring of 19^9, they were being considered as far back

as 19U7, for it was then that the Gilmer-A ikin Comialttee was

created by the Legislature and given definite instructions

to carry out a complete research of the needs of the public

school systems of Texas* During the Intervening two years,

this committee, with the help of atany others, studied the

school set-up in Texas and presented their recoaaenlations

to the Fifty-First Legislature when it convened in fchd spring

I5g0# Table 15, P* 12*

2 HI H

5* §-t o m lr* H

§ o M

01 M OS E* *5 O o m

£•« W a 12s •<

o **JJ

© laSH a at 43 43 £ O ® fH a U <£ °

XI 4* ® O +5 »rt 3 *' ,0 4» •H « I# <ri -O H O * a o :

S K .J3

% Wrt tf #

a © Is* 0 f*%4 # 0 a*

t* Orl

ji W &$

m m o 0* 1# • p * • * • * m m HI HI c •

H H Ot 0* ca %

m to • 01

«o . * M

to <* Id o o HI # * *

r> 01 H ** 01 ID

* #% -«..

© H HI

m »

<* H 01 <i

t o

I** m m ri m m * H H

* » • m H

m #

0i

to O H 10 to • m • • • • •

m <0 m o> 01 *

CO © §* C- t* *

01 ID *

€0 H m *i fi® 01 •

t o to 10 m o* €0 * • *

m t o o m (O ss m 0* H * * *

** H o i0 S> t o

CO H H

m §

m * to S o

*

to

* * • # * * *

*& *

m 21 m *

ot * # o • • • • •

m to • • m fc 10 • ts o o « * #* * • 01 n> *

01 < * ; t> •

' H

* 0 ^ *3 H # C3 j£« t t IN <G

62

of After much deliberation and revision, the bills

were finally enacted into laws on Jim* 2* 19^9# and although

they were actually Senate Bills numbers 115, 116, and 117,

they were more commonly known as the Gilmer-Aiken Bills.

Senate Bill Mumber 115 was the Stat® Adminis tratlon

Sill and was geared to reorganize the public school system

of Texas from the state level. The bill abolished the

elective office of Stat© Superintendent ©f Public instruction

and substituted the appointive office, State Commissioner

of Bdueatitm* ' - V;:

Senate Bill Number 116 was the Foundation School program

Act which guaranteed to every child ©f school age in the

•tat* of Texas a full nine-months * term of school. The bill

also provided for a higher salary schedule for teachers,

assuring the teachers with the bachelor1 s degree a minimum

salary of #2,403 per year.

Senate Bill Kumber 11? was the enabling Act which

guaranteed the school districts enough money to carry out

the program.

Since this study deals primarily with the cost of opera-

ting the school program, it should be informative at this

point to summarize the statistics found from the study of

operational coats of the Collin County Rural High Schools

during tha first year of operation under the Gilmer-Aiken

Program, that of the school year of 19^9-19^0. The most

important findings are as follows:

63 v

(1) The tctal cost of operating the six rural high

schools of Collin County amounted to $330, lij.7, which in-

cluded the following? (a) coat of t r ans port a 13 on, §35»Oi|7;

{d) plant operational costs, $28,400; (c) salaries of pro-

fessional personnel, #2^,ifl3* and (d) salaries of special

service teachers and supervisors, $12,287.

(2) The schools of this study operated twenty school

buses and transported 1,216 pupils to and from school at an

average cost per pupil of $28,82#

(3) There were 2,029 pupils enrolled in th« six rural

high schools of Collin County, recording an average daily

attendance of l,l},6l.

(j+) The 2,029 pupils enrolled in these schools were

taught at an average of $160.60 per pup11.

CHAPTER IV

A COMPARISON OP fil OPERATIONAL COSfS OP THE COLLIW

COUNTY RURAL HIGH SCHOOLS DURING THB FIRST

YEAR OF THE OILMER-AIKIN PROGRAM WITH

THOSE OF THE PREVIOUS YEAR

f m purpose of this chapter Is to compare the opera-

tional costs of the Collin County Rural High Schools over

a two-year period. Chapter II of this study presented the

cost of operating the rural high schools of Collin County

during the school year of 19l|.8-19i+9* #hich was the last

year the school systems of Texas operated under the pro-

visions of the Equalization Aid Laws, Chapter III yielded

data concerning operational costs of administering the schools

under the recently-enacted Gllaer-Aikin Laws, figures for only

the school year of l$4j.9-19f>0 being presented since this is the

only year the schools have operated under the provisions of

the Gilmer-Aikin Program.

To be compared in this chapter are the following eleven

important school functioning factors: (1) scholastic popu-

lation; (2) average daily attendance; (3) teacher-pupil load;

(if) number of teachers; (5) transportation coats; (6) the tax

evaluation of the districts involved; <7) size of the districts;

6i}.

65

(8) local maintenance tax rates; (9) state and district

contribut ions toward the budgets of each school; (10) in-

struct 5.onal costs per pupil; and (11) the salary schedules

as sat up by the two sets of school lavs.

Scholastics and Average Daily At tendance

Under the provisions of the Oilmer-Alkin Program, the

average daily attendance Is the basis for which schools

determine the number of teachers to to# employed* The number

of .t*ach#rs employe*! in a syste® has a definite bearing upon

the cost of operating that school; therefore, average daily

attendance has an indirect bearing upon the cost. Table 11#

which follows, presents a comparison of the scholastic popula-

tion and the average daily attendance of the schools comprising

this study.

Table 11 ; ;,7

A COMPARISON OP THE SCHOLASTICS AID AfBSAQl DAILY mmmmoE, coixif? coutrrr

RURAL HIGH SCHOOLS, 19*4-8-19h9 and 19^9-1950

$am of School

Scholastics

19MM.$%9 19*19-1950

Average Daily Attendance

19 3-1914.9 IS2-I95O

# # • Alia Blue Ridg® Community. • • • j?risco •

* : # «

197 382 552 365

Prosper,

fetal,

367

2,111

190 355

22 07 212 A 3

i

2,029

159 302 m 311 166 231*.

1,655

153

397 295 152 207

1*461

66

One significant factor of Table 11 is that all the

sohools except Fr isco had a decrease 1b scholastic popu-

lation, and all the schoola» including Frisco, showed a

decrease in average daily attendance. On® other important

factor is the fact that the average daily attendance for

the combined achoola decreased mors than did the scholastic

population.

Teacher-Pupil Load

Sinoe the classroom teacher la on© of the moat essential

functioning units of the educational system, and the over*

crowded classroom is not on® of the characteris tica of better

education, a comparison of the teacher-pupil load under the

two sets of laws under consideration in this study seeins to

be worthwhile* There is, as can be seen from an analysis of

Table 12* a clear trend toward lightening the teacher-pupil

load under the Gilaer-Aikin Program, the significant point

of this table is the fact that every school shows a decrease

in the teacher-pupil load under the Gllraer-AildLn laws, and

all but two schools showed an increase in teacher personnel,

- The school law for 1948-1949 allowed one tea drier for dis-" x * ' i

tricts with twenty to twenty-five scholastics and one addition-

al ^teaoher for each additional thirty scholastics* or

fractional part thereof, residing in the district,1 whereas

the Ollaer-Alkln law bases the number of teachers a district

* ^uppljiasnt to Public School Laws of the State of Texas, \ State BepartJaent W Education, BulletinTTSS,p. 82. '

6?

© «

3 S M S t> eg

h! £

0 m m H

§

01 * m H

$ 0 §4

%4 o fe # M

m

os H i

! €0 : <# m : f4

5 t-i •H D.

• 5 U 03 I 55 OS f« o ® © >4 §*§ 2 3

01 *5

CO H Hi 01

tO CD 0) HI H

t. « H

i ® # r4 HI

< # o m to 10 o • • # • • •

* # < # to <* 03

€0

H t>

CD

tO

0 ' to a : H » Cft

01 r-l

0> <* 0> H I m

m H

S> <# © H ID <0 * o • • • • • • « *

to HI < # f> «e> CD i • *0 01 09 09 03 01 01 # m

H o * • « 0) 01 m 09 01 m

<# O <0 * * •

H O m to

* QD • »

• 0 • 03

* * m • # * • A

• • m • • # * W thfs H m

# • • • • m * u # 4» t

• 5P Py • * • 0 > <d 43 §4 <

• •H «r4 • Of fc m Si 0 m 0

# 3 0 m Pn i§ 0 § * «f«4 * r4 0 € r4 o ri rHl o fc M fc «* m o fe M Oi

68

laay employ on average dally attendance* the ratio between

tern©hers and pupils in average daily attendance being ap-g

proximately one teacher to every twenty-five pupils* An.

examination of fable 12 reveals- that the average deer ease-

in teacher-pupil load was 3#8 pupils, while the total num-

ber of teachers increased from 71 to 78.

Cost of ©pansportat ion

Definite figures of transportation mats and bus service

for the school children of the Collin County Rural High Schools

are given In Sable IS# where a comparison of the cost of trans-

portation and per pupil are indicated# The amazing incidence

about this comparison is the fact that the transportation costs

were actually less under the Oilmsr-Aikln Program than for the

year previous*., Further, an examination of this data proves

that the average cost per pupil decreased from $32,$1 in 1948-

1949 to 128*02 in 1949-1950. Only one school out of six showed

an increase in transportation cost per pupil over the two-

year period, this being the Alia School which increased fros

$27.34 in 1948-1949 to #29.95 in 1949-1950* This general de-

crease in transportation costs can be contributed to several

factors which were in no way connected to 0ilmer~Aikin legis-

lation# Several of the buses operated during the 1949-1950

school year were new buses and thee®fore required less repaii

and burned less fuel than the olo ;r buses operated during the

g Senate Journal Supplements Fifty-First Legislature,

Kegular'Session, 'June 2, 194&Vpp. 11-12.

69

1 3 8 a , « o o

03

O i

0 10 c&

# H H *0 m m m 10 • 4> & « 0* 10 r*f 1

m m m m m 3

H 03

*

* 0 m •

1 S .

H »

01 . &4

01 m *» H 0* «r4 H © m m ri O GD # & « 03 m m lO O ca

a #

€0 H m to H H H a » & €»

% r*i

# *

Hi

O 10

HI ' € & 10 <# an <8 O 10 • 02

HI r4 ' Ok m o> IS IO oa * «rf § * • • * • * • *

ft 0* m « 0 <# f t » OJ . < #

' 0> hi ;

: 01 01 ot 10 01 * m . < #

' 0> hi ;

Tip

# H*

4a o* m €9 0» • H i : ri r-§ 0 O <0 01 «0 & : 1 * • m * * • •

;; O © . : fc r*i m IS Q #4 * 01 4 *

m 01 m to • 10 €H 4 *

to 10 H

O . O : to

01 to i5|i O 0 40 |> • 4> r*1 03 - m r*t $0 01 as :

• eg 1 €& m O ® r4 O » 4* & * m ** % %

. -m m • s§ ' to m CO is 03 m m •

0 6> • m m ^S'

» 2*4 : H

m ^S'

n d 2 ; *4 iLt 0* *4

* *4 O 0 lO O 0 O 0 iO . m O r*4 0 0) HI to O d F"t •

1 m 01 m * H1 H •

m «* m <1 * m * m m €0 m IS §0 m IS #

• 5 w £0 • H w

HI 0 • , • . m • • # # 0 :

g i • • * m • * r4

:

g CO • m m H

4* • # •

O m >

*•1 * *r4 • # u < © *

£• | 0 O

eg Si

m P4

H * # If 3

<¥"#

§ f t jl 3 r4 0 - *

! H : -4 3 a £ 1 0«

TO

19kB-19k9 school year. Another item affecting the opera-

tional coat of the school buses was the fact that in soma

cases the same type of repairs, tires, tubes,- and fuel

was cheaper in 19k9-l9%0 than during the previous year*

Also, asore children were transported in 19i|9-19f>0

than in I9I4.8-I9I4.9# although there were actually fewer scho-

l a s t i c s , ^ fhis inconsistency can be accounted for by the

fact that the distance for transporting an eligible bus

student was reduced from two arid one-half miles in 19 4.8-

19I4.9 to two miles in 191+9-1950

Property fas Hvaluat ion, Local Maintenance

TAX Rates, and Bias of Districts

In comparing the property tax evaluation and the area

of the district# in square ailes, it is significant to not®

that each of the school districts involved increased their

tax evaluation for the year 19U9-W0 over the previous year,

and all but two of the districts had an Increase in area.

The increase in area was brought about by the consolidation

and anriexation of smaller adjoining districts* The increase

in area naturally brought on the increase in tax evaluation

in the four cases where the districts were enlarged. However,

the cases of Alia and ifelissa, where the area was not increased

3see Table 11, p. 6f>.

^Senate Journal Supplement, op. eit., p. 19*

7 1

2 H

a

m © o «c$ M O

i-3 f t •"'•I* i-nf f > am w t>**

«$* n3 B M

M fifl M

B M

SS» **• ° 4

J—*, « o f O 05 a jpC* W* &4 S o

V# # o m u m m m-m fl m C 9 $Xr4 3 $4 m*4\ - 0

££ i t # H

cr CO

m #

0 10 OS H 1

01 I 0> H 0> *4* 0* f i » CD

ob H

0 i t it

, %* ® O 0 fo

0 i

a

0> * # o» H

<# & H

%4 O f f

0 ® S UJZ M 0 mm

o o o co o q «0 # f t f t

<0 o s *0 «9 «D « ^

tf>

10 m

o *o to ^

OD 02

l> 01

lO m

o to

4^

0 01 «k

10 m

1# m in 05 €® at 80 b r*t

% *1 m 05 m 0* O ia HI <D H m to m

o m 10 m to 10 iO t> ; 0& o to f t fcr tO ^ H &- ca H m r4

i % % * ** m «i a*

: <30 & * «o ca f4 • < # ' m o& to o 10 m CO i# <# f t : f t

f t •%

H '«% f t

§ CD 01 m <#

ntlls *W3P

10 r4 O m ; m rt to # Cft o m o to

«i % m % %

ca 10 m> oa • o» m ai m * # 02

«> H *

f t

o * HI

m 01 m m, *& m*

m r4

#

«r4 OS #

<HI &

CD 01

fib 01 0®

i-4 O ct

so #*

to Hi «%

r l -4dk.

% 10 *© o •fc

u>

H m *P I *

72

but the tax evaluation was, can be explained by the fact

that the equalization board for each individual school

district has the power to increase the value of property

for school taxing purposes, fable 14. presents a coapar-

ison of the tax 9valuation and the area of the districts

for th® two-year period ©f 1948*1949 and 1949-1950,*

In order to supply th* local share of the financial

support each school Is require d to levy and collect a cer*

tain local maintenance* This tax rat® is based upon the

fable 15

A COKPA/ILiOH OF fill LOCAL MAIHTEHAHCE RATES, " : m & m COOHTSC HURAL HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT, "

1943-1949 & m 1949-1950

Maxae of School Local Maintenance fax Bate

(Per #100 Valuation} Amount of Increase

1948-1949 1949*1950

A11a ^#$©.50 #0.5© : #0.00

Blue Ridge* 0,50 auoo 0.50

Oonsaunity,.. 0.50 0.80 0.30

Frisco.. • * • o.?s 1.00 " M$.-

Veilssit-.••» 0.50 1.00 * 0.50 _

Prosper.... 0.50 1.00

Average • #0.54 - • $0.88 #0.M

73

#100 property valuation of the d Is triesfc* It will be noted

from a study of Table 1$ that all the schools of this study

except Alia were required to raise their local maintenance

rate in order to secure state funds and to supply the amount

of local funds necessary to complete the educational financing

of the district. The rates were fixed by elections in the

individual districts, :

Local and State Contributions

The amount of money spent in 19l|B-19i|-9 and 191*9-1950

toward the operation of the Collin County Rural High Schools

is presented Jointly in Tables 16 and It* Table 16 deals

with the amount of money contributed to the local district

by the state; Table 17, with the amount of money raised by

the local district through taxation. It will be noted

that In every case except that of Melissa, the school dis-

trict required a greater contribution from the state to

operate toe school during the year 19U9-195>0 than during -

the previous year. Too, In ©very ease, except that of

Alia, the percentage of the total amount contributed by

the state decreased even though the actual amount re-

quired from the state Increased. This oddity xoay be ex-

plained by the fact that all the schools except Alia raised

their local maintenance tax rates, and also each district

had a considerable Increase in property tax evaluation,

Furthermore, the state contributed 87.3 per cent of the total

Ik

m #4

I H

© so

H * j p <# s p

0 4* if « frt Pi

«$—. i n NP m pf I

0* rt

3 n I

|9» # ft

SI *p » rf

& rf

s 10 # 0* t© to

- * •

m <# © <o t o «*» to • iO m * -. .# • * m nT ' S <n > * - w i-4 m to. < V •01 m *1 %, -r;.- * *

ri - ;^ : *0 vMr' ; ;^ :

*0 m © trf « ID # *> • * # * r4 m <0 CD © 01 m & m IS fc* !>

*

2 © ® o»

#1 0>

to 9*

« © . to 9* 01 # •

CD © 10 H •i© 10 Ct to tit 4* mi <0 HI m *0

to-rn ^ " l/V * V*f

• ' •

O C0 i>

l> r*

C0 i> £

* , % ** O «0 tO Ok <#

m

® m

• #

S m r4

H 031 -

m «* & m m m &

9

* <0 % 01 tO

#4 g$ &« lO • -•

tO 0*

. fr-% m.

g s

r4 <

•

#

I a

# - m # ' •

• • # #

• # o m © 0 l i *rf *H H O

fe s s

#

*

U #

o * 10 * - # I1

m * •

01 CH I1

m :# £*» t1* 0» m * m

• m * #

* to • <o

**• o

o 4%

t * t -

•

#

•

*

tO HI • 10 «* o

•I A

.35? •iHL

* *

*

# »

•

'

r l u m

O > §* <

g «

^ • a i

75

5

« m

+» « £ © 3 <*4

n

0 lO m T>i »

01 r 4

<8

m

m

£ r4

© id

r*t

r*f

m <4*

a

I

r 5

O t> CO to O OJ ft ® CD K) ^ * • • • • • 0 M m & '•:'>!'• •'•'«*•

s ? n $ s * #* _ m. ~- m .. %

- • •••«&. - -a te

10 m O m * <# • • • • < • •

® m ri o H1 maJt

r*$ 01 m 01

Q HI

CD m

m

Hi * 01 m O * 0 »

H a <# 01 Hi

a t o • « <# **

m

m

^mp

|js» €H % «ft

2 m fr*

O Hf e* 10 • * m #

03 HI m iHl 2f # r l CM

O m «d * % m . «i

HI < * <0 Hi r t HI r l

1 o •

s *

«

(D

3 #1

# m

¥&-

«D

*

t * €»

m m * © £f o# 4k

9 S # «

C0 O Cft HI f>* f y * % m . #

$ # *

• m m

m *rf r f

* * * *

$4 m Pk m o

<§ t • *

© • -* . * £ • • > • * , *

^ m

m H

€ t

<# <* # -

13 o % to ill

tt # «»

fr*

10 ft

r l tf &0 «f h m > <4

i £

76

ajsount of the budgets in 1948-1949 and 83*3 per cent ill

1949-1950. fills difference say be contributed to the

fact that the local districts are raising «ore aoney

through local taxation now than prior to Gilaer-Aikin leg-

islation*

yable 1? shows the amount of money contributed by

the local districts toward the operation of the school

systems during the two-year period of this study. In every

• case the local district contributed more during 1949-1950

than during 1948-1949, and Alia is the only district which

contributed a smaller per cent of the total amount required

for operation under the Gilaer-Aikin Program than during

the previous year.# A further examination of fable 1? re-

. veals the fact that the local districts contributed 16.7

per cent of the total amount required to operate their

schools during the firs t year of the Gilmer-Aikin Program,

as compared to 12.7 per cent contributed during the year

1948-1949,.

School Budgets

A comparison of the school budgets for the year® 1948-

1949 and 1949-1950 reveals an increase of #113,72® during

the first year of operation under the Gilmer-Aikin laws.

Of this amount, #93*706 was paid out in salaries of pro-

fessional personnel, total increase in the budgets

represent approximately 54,5 per cent for the year 1949-

77

CO H

H

| <

^ Q # * = €1. Ci : OJi : « ; 1 It #4 : :|. # a* ' 0 & •*<

L fWWlf, Jtt# ' ^

H

0 a m m

M #

& ° 8 a

»

Hi •rt'

ft 5

6

£ 4* m

ST m

a

m

m <#

en r4 A m w m

m m m

ri g 0

D a> » H «

» s & -4

rf -

' Hf © ©

l l

M

<<# # ID

10 H fii j m

o m • • .# • m <8 CD o

H m

H ' H i$ 40 0* t *

HI

tt #r

Is*

Of A ID

4| 01 H

* .

» * m m

ib . # >

SI o a

o

» ' £: .. co

HI 1 H

© CQ

cd $> - ot« m m m H H iri

" #

IO m H

£ 01

3 Q

•0 0* **§

H 1 ! > - 1 ..

f %® H CT H H r l

H m ID m # m

% m O m 10 . m

g s H ID

m 01 m

€1 01 m

€t m m m-

t m m

m m-10 m m m

s-*o

«•"--

<0 £>•

§' " £

m • .«* . : ji-~*S'•'.-¥* _.

,,v#; 0 m • *

•

4 H

. • • -W

S $ f*0'

• U # ft i 0

• * •

• 10

: ^ r t a IS

- . * * *

' * 0 * US

m • m • *•

+k.

a H

*

• # •

* O • ?0 *< *

• o # m * H • *t§*

• *

• 0

ri « 4% O §4

# eo # u # >

78

19S0 over the previous year. It will also be noted in

Table 18 that the Instructional cost per pupil increased

from an average of $105.85 in 1948-1949 to an average of

$160*60 in 194 J-1950* an increase of $£4*7$ per pupil«

Without exception each district shoved an increase

in budget and- also an increase in the eost per pupil,

the percentage of increased support per pupil varying

inversely* Oswwa»ity> for example* showed an Increase

of 92 per cent*, while Melissa increased its instructional

cost only 18.9'per cent.

falfsl® 18 indicates a definite increase in the amount

of aonejf net ed to operate the rural high schools of Col-

lin County under Gilmer-Alkin legislation as compared to

the previous school lft#s* j

Minimum Salary Schedule*

; Teacher# and administrators ar© better paid under

Gilmer-Aikin Legislation than under the old Equalization

Aid Law* The increase in salary amounts to approximately ! : | #400 per year per teacher, provided he has at least a

bachelor*a degree* According to the data included in' i

. Table 20* the frilmer-Aikin program emphasizes teacher-

training and experience. More specifically, a beginning

veacju-ar with three years college training would receive

an annua 1, salary of,fil*782 under the old law as compared

to f1,845 under the new one, an increase of only $63 per

19

year. However* the same teacher with a bachelor*s degree

would receive |2#00? under the Equalisation Aid Law as

compared to #2*403 under Gilmer Alkin salaries, an increase

of almost §400 per year.. Another example is the Increments

paid for the masters degree. tfiader Gil&er-Alkin legis-

lation* a teacher with the master's degree and twenty-six

TOT® years experience would receive an annual salary of

$4*058* Bie sene teaeher under the previous law received

SB annual salary of $2*880* Shi® represent# a sharp in-

crease* one of almost f1*200.

fables 19 and 20 are self-explanatory* Ubey are pre-

sented here *o support the previous statement that it "is

possible for schools of the same number of teaohers to vary

considerably; la the amounts of their budgets# the difference

in almost every case being attributed to the salaries"of

the professional personnel*

8 0

€X *HI

m a m

64

0* tD

u

m

M

1-3 $Mf D a ; P3 < 0 to

3S ^ S2 ffcj §S <tf JH *4 J5T, < *H 01 £3 » m

sc* §§ f*H

a

m

j H f n

-Sf H € K \ £ > ^ r * t OnmO ^ H ^ N ^ O ' X ) cm . CKCM r 4 CM r ^ O J v O €M€0 m r4 CM CI CM CM Hir

. ' w o o C - ^ < M ® r~c-\oico O h - O Q \ « n c u x r u 4 x r p - O

* 30 <m o o i en c i v s cm H w <M 04 <M

O W n N ® « ^ F ^ CM JH O ^ O t f s O ^ A O s f - H O ,

C K O O J O N W « 4 W c^-rn H Ot e<i W 04

O O \T \ IT \ O o 1AXA o o » CM O ^ H N l A O v X ) Ol CN04 CM C M ^ ' C M O <MC0 «*> H < N I C J < M < M

P-j£

p s H

HI

fe0

« 3

[P fltf

O i n ^ A O O V \ V \ € > O m - O S f ^ r H O - ^ a O ^ M C K i r f

^ r - 4 €K <M CM <*"* CM * 0 CM " H H CM CM CM

0 \ * ~ f ^ M Q 0 \>-s-«=f0 . . CO CM Cd h~r4 CKCM <M CMj^CV V0 CM H iH CM CM CM

t 4 - H O v - O . ^ - . - ! O w O _ M s o o o o f n < n \ A i A ®

O O i H c o <M r-4 <y «*% <M t n CM |H «~l <M Ol (St

cvoo r - t n c M t o t ' - f n w c o i A O f - W O t f \ CM o c~*

^ © p H c C C M O C J W C y V \ C M i H H Ol m 04 X> CM r^jv-CQ < M « n f - C Q CM

, . ^ • f w E v - O s O s < y CM *^_d*c>~ ^ • • A H O- rH CK<M SM e y l i t O I

Sri fH H CM CM

OH*"© (—t 0 \ — j c i •«»/ „g- w%-iy r ^ ^ f i ~ i r ~ - i - 4 0 s 0 i H c y < n c M f W H H OI CM

b0*-» © c

H tp-f r*t «tf O k O B

0 s r - 4 _ ^ 0 Chr- t \ 3 - H » O

o • 4 f O W \ V \ O O t A \ A O O

o s h H < n - d * o H\Or-»GOCyH<%J<nCV»

r—i f—I j—t CM OJ f|§|& O-rfr-t CK'O-d'r-i Q\'0-zj-S O t A i H N < n O i O CMS01A a E n H x O r H c o c y o c M c y c y o r*f r - t H CM CM IS® Sic© r ~ « n c y s o i — r ^ c y c o

j n j d - X A f - o o o o cm O M I A H P - H O CM CM <N

r - l r- t OJ <S|

>* >» r l H H H H H H

XI ai XJ ol aj 43 sj v> 3 +» a a g s a d M O O O 3 O G

c$

>» i»4 f-l r4 « «S 43 4 3 2 - 2 a d d

< 3 S < S < S < S < S

m u u si m © m >4 N

H

m %

m JH

<n

« ^ si IE* 0 *» o m $4

r-i u m # A 0 oi O Q €d

m

m m .O

d o «rl S} til ©

tea

ad

;tn © a

£!

O

D O m

r4 r i

m

m m

p

O

[CO

r-| cx ©

O H , O iH

o o *

o 0 0 H 0

o

o d

3 -*4 ©

d

Ot

o

14 # ,d o

#

£<

cu

O o

sO

x$ •d of

09 r 4 O 0

o

d

1 # i - i o

•d «

•d &

o o

« l«l

H a P,

\ A O o o C4 to « r 4 ? n t # ^ P4

n u m

CM *r4 1 o o r"4

O CM-C^ O CM o o

*ri ^ OH m o r-f *rt m i m i A >

CM r- ! t A u r - i 4?% m a

Q4 o$ H H C K O m n * 0

00 s » 0 m

r - o ncf *H 1 ^ s >

M0 » 3 14

Jh Cl i ^ •

o O g c£ O

O 4^ o H - ^

r d g 4 O «H

S5 H of 3^

g| *H ^ O

^ # E - n H * d # 2 a

%4 O # O XI P

o d |4 ^3 "H 9 ^ U

MM 0

3 *H pi mmm

d «P • « o

O % O * o o

M 4 > \ A

o © UV Q "d

^ €1 0 a n

o .. i>>

a p o a q ^4

CM

H m

u th

•• 4* o a OS

*4 * * Xf o ^ m > M

*H 0

-p

o

m $4 m S$

§ ^ 8

•d ^ r- t 0

ts

1 g ai m 4•> 4

.., 0 O

I § © « 8 , ( 3

<|> «ri W &

*P

# #

O

HI

8 1

0 m

1 m £•*

& ft a • r-is$i !> &4 O O m < 0»i

s to <.*• < OS

o £1 Q »-3 a: &> 0-, Q n-i j

O O ro K

>i m K <Z S5 W O .-3i M cTj

g 0 H p frzs* ftu-M ' s p O B HI m

i _ J " S k I T 3 - ; $ ^ £ ^ r 4 fc-^ey® H 30 CM H_4r^%eN.CKfn((M\A H : CXCM CM <M CM 0\c^€M

H CM CJ CM *n lilr ' s m W a T V u \ c ^ ^ c j

p n H » 0 4 ^ « 4 W > 0 \ A H C h CM *H CM f**\ CM OS €^\ H cr\

H CM CM 04 &\

'0%

X)

m

9 N

5

m e $3 #

£t m

ft*

— m l>*-P ^ a of 0

to at p*

f t ^ a j 01 ^ r - . H < X M 3 w 01 ca r»~u\<n f~^2 cm cm o i ^ j o j o <n cm c\i

KM cm cm r"\ «*\

to o o n C « r l N r-( CM

r*~<n c« co N O tACM O W O t t H CM l!k

•O*

O o i a i -A m r~co CM k O S O v H H enr~CNOv<M t A O H © W H W ^ ) « ® r ^

H CM CM CM

O

® Ci fr«Q«H # d HI »r4 H « O $4 o s*

rH 0 \ 0 s r - , : _ d ^ 0 , f ^ t A ® H_r j i <n<MSD r-f r n CM CM r*\

r-~ m m v.. o o M t \ ^ r ! \ D 4 cm CM co iv\ o <n CM CM r*\

fn t ^ - co CM r^-os,OvCM

r-t 0\£M iH

£«- HI OwO-cH CM J i t ® o © f \ CM CM r » f n o < n CM CM m

- Q\»~f t^-tncM-SO H 0 - 3 " r 4 0 ^ J - C M o lACM^

r4 0 \ CM r-l CM H CM CM CM

HTf » 1 H C K ' O ^ + H OsCKr-t-dX) IH N r ^ O ^ ) CM H OC3*r4 OHoOCMOCMNOCMOOO^ H - r-f CM CM

, l A t - C O 0 \ 0 CMSDCO OHH 1 A H r - r - t O CMV\CM f*-C*

H r-< <M CM CM

* T < * S ^ H OMD Cvl 0\Xf \ r"4 r4 €**• O :

!P®i uf%r*l f^r*!

H r4 r4 m '

0 \ r 4 ^ 0 r -cD ih

sH,«3"r4^> H 5 0 ra -d 'OI^O <M H r-f iH <M CM jjg A i A o o \ A t A r - : o cu

OvlA C J C O ^ t O O ^ O CM Ch ^ H O HCO CM4CM^O CM H r-t

5$'

CM

CM CM

JO CM

f H

rM®

-4"4

<M

D O

O .

0:... H CV: •v

»0 r*4 CM ^

30 CM O H £•»» '?*%

0\ H

f A O

m

o fH

D O

p H LA«n:

o p p\CD

CM l A f n c o

,fcr<o, ^ O N H i ^ c n

c#

j m ' r n H h r n m 1

j n

H H r i r-t #"4 H H

jS 4^

C9

If m % m

u : 4

m # i #

N H Hi CM m

14 O & ~ ®

n ^ ^ ^ 6§*P tsD O $ 09 0 g a g a

# xD rH HI

HI H H m

of JS

. . # # CO

1 m

4%

$4 «H 0 4^ A 0 ^ o

s IH

0 0 r*f rH ^ O

® ^ 0 < m

H m $4 H ^ o r-t O iti / J CO o

t/5 1 S bl

<v4 *H « fill •H mm

m O 4^ * #

£t

o . < lk as

pk t

#r*I *&

XS Q <$

9 & O 4 o B t r y

_ _ I L a Us €h CM\f\ I Ch)

IH 01 O^C* CM o 0 01 o » o

r-l CM

H 0

H \ A 1 |>-

rH r-t O

o 0 0 HI\A * H

v 0 4 #

IA ^ V % I CM

O H 11%

Os ~dt o

1 o O r i 0%^

Q\ CM O i co

CM

D\ H O f S0

H HI

09 _ © O r** - * •-*-r-f-l 77,.

4 o

01 w» 4>-:d # ro a ... © r4

t-P ^ d »H

# 0 m >

p.# G! H

00 ^

' 0 r-f 4* M m

4& 0 »d a g

O <S S

a o

CO m ®

m

u cd rH bO €D cc;

<D 43

05 H CO

•H bD 0

-P 03 Jh 4H fo 1 j>> 4^ fe

vQ H

•H m

0 -p cd CI 0 0Q

d o

• H

«P o <D CO

<D rH O

•H -P

<3

0 \ 3 " as

CHAPTER V

SUMKAR-r AID CONCLUSIONS

Sumary

In view of the marked differences between the provisions

of the Glliaer-Aikin Bills and. previous Texas school legisla-

tion, it was thought that a comparative study of the cost of

operating the public school systems of Texas under the new

legislation as coaip&red with the last Equalization Aid Law

would to® both interesting and educational. This investi-

gation has been limited to (1) th© six rural high schools

of Collin County, because it was felt that they represented

the typical rural school unit; and (2) two school years,

those of 19l|B»19i+9 and 19^9-1950. The year I9I4.8-19I4.9 was

selected because it was the last year the schools operated

under the Equalization Aid Law of 19^7# and the year 1949-

1950 was chosen because it was the first year the schools

operated under the Gilmer-AIkin Program*

More specifically, the purposes of this study' have been

(1) to compare the operational coat of the Collin County

Rural High Schools for the two-year period; and (2) to deter-

mine those particular cost items affected by Olliaer-Aikin

Legislation.

82

83

As for findings relative to the first purpose* Collin

County Rural High Schools have cost more to operate under

the Gilmer-Aikin Program than under the previous plan. It

may be pointed out here, by way of explanation, that it took

1113*725 more to operate the six schools of this study during

the 19i|.9-19 0 school year than during the 191+8-191+9 school

year. Of that amount, |93»706 was paid out in salaries of

professional personnel, a figure representing 32 per cent of

the total increased cost.

Regarding findings relative to the second purpose of

this study, four major facts emerge indicating a marked

increase under Gllaer-Aikin Legislation as compared to the

Equalization Aid Laws (1) the salaries of professional per-

sonnel Increased from $160,707 in 19l+8~19l+9 to $251+, 1+13 in

19l+9~1950j (2) the salaries of special service teachers and

supervisors, a new benefit provided for under Oilaer-Aikln

Legislation, cost the districts Involved in this study a

total of $12,237; (3) the plant operational costs Increased

from $18,300 in 191+8-19^9 to f28»i+00 in 191+9-1950, an increase

of #10,100 or approximately 55 per cent; and (1+) the cost of

transportation is the only major cost item which showed a

decrease under Gllmer-Aikln Legislation, decreasing froa

#37,1415 in 191+8-1949 to #35,01+7 in 191+9-1950.

There are, in addition, six other Important facts

revealed through this study;

(1) The six schools investigated enrolled 2,111 pupils

in 1948-1949 and recorded aa average daily attendance of

1»655* as compared with an enrollment of 2#029 and an average

daily attendance of l,[,.6l in 1949-1950.

{2} The instructional cost per pupil showed an increase

of from £105.85 in 194 *-194? to #l60.60 in 1949-1950, repre-

senting an over-all increase of |>54«75 per pupil.

(3) The schools transported 1,153 pupils to and from

school in 1948-1949 at an average of #32.31* compared with

1,216 pupils in 1949-1950 at an average cost of $28.82 per

pupil. This new cost represented a decrease of $3*49 P®**

pupil transported.

(4) Although the number of pupils decreased from 2,111

in 1948-1949 to 2,029 in 1949-1950, the number of teachers

actually increased from 71 to ?Q» indicating the availability

of aor© teachers under the Gilmer-Aikin Program. Conse-

quently, the teacher-pupil load decreased from 29.3 to 26.0.

(5) Five of the six schools were required to raise

their local maintenance tax rate, the average amount of the

increase being f0.34*

(6) Teachers are paid an average of approximately #400

per year more under the Gilmer-Aikin Bills than under the

Equalization Aid Law of 1947• This figure represents th®

average increase per teacher in the schools of this study,

and does not necessarily apply to teachers of other school

systems.

85

Conclusions

The following conclusions, not dealing entirely with

finance, are bcsed oh the results of this study:

CI) The Equalization Aid Law of 19 -7 was superior to

any previous school legislation in that It provided (a) a

minimum salary schedule of $2,000 per year for the teacher

with a bachelor's degree or ligher; (b) more money for trans-

portation aid; (c) raore money for high school and elementary

school tuition; (d) an Audio Visual Division of the State

Department of Education; and (e) a $55.00 per capita appor-

tionment for each and every scholastic on the approved

school census for each year.

(2) The Gilmer-*ikin Program is superior to the Equali-

zation Aid Law of 19^7 because it provides for (a) a minimum

salary schedule of f 2,1{.00 per year for the teacher with a

bachelor's degree or higher; (b) professional units based on

average daily attendance rather than scholastic population

of the district; (c) the guarantee to each child of school

age the availability of a good minimum educational program

nine months of the year; and (d) a method of financing that

will tend to equalize local mad state support and make each

county pay, according to its ability, in proportion to what

other counties pay*

(3) Inasmuch as it provides that each school district

shall pay according to its ability, the economic index, as

provided for in Senate Bill Number 116, is a fair method of

86

determining the amount of money a school district must raise

in order to be able to take advantage of the provisions of

the Gilmer-Aikin Program.

(4) The provision of Senate Bill number 116 for basing

the numb«r of teachers to be eiaployed by a school district

on average daily attendance rather than on scholastic

population is an improvement in school standards. This is

particularly true because it encourages the school officials

to put forth every effort tc get the children in school and r

for as many days as possible throughout the year. " .

(5) The provision of the 3ilmer-Aikin Program for more i

special service teachers and supervisors, nojt particularly

emphasized in previous legislation* is a definite step toward

improving educational opportunities for children of this 1

state, '

(6) The Qilmer-Alkin Salary Schedule i3 a definite I

improvement over the Equalization Aid Schedule because it

puts more emphasis on training and experience, thereby

theoretically attracting more capable men an& women to the

teaching profession. ;

(?) High school and elementary school principals are not

adequately paid for their extra duties and responsibilities.

This is especially true in the smaller systems, such as those

in which the schools investigated in this study find them-

selves, because, according to the Gilrner-Aikin Salary

Schedule, an experienced classroom teacher in many eases is

paid a higher salary than a less experienced principal.

87

APPENDIX

CHECK LIST CONCERNING COST OP COLLIN COUNTY

RURAL HIGH SCHOOLS, 19^8-19^9 AND 1949-1950

lame of School

Super intendent

Information dequested im-i vm

1. SALARIES 0? PROFESSIONAL PERSONNEL# •

2. CURRENT PLANT OPERATIONAL COST {Include assessing and collecting taxes, teacher equipment, business administration, fuel, lights, insurance, library, etc, » • • *• «

3. COST OP TRANSFORTAT10H (Include bus driver*s salary, and all expenses prevalent to the upkeep and operation of buses. . ,

k* SALARIES OP SPECIAL SERVICE TEACHERS AID SUPERVISORS . . . ,

5. SIZE OP DISTRICT IN SQUARE MILES. . ,

6. PROPERTY VALUATION OP DISTRICT,

7. LOCAL MAINTENANCE TAX RATE.

8. SCHOLASTIC POPULATION . . . . . . . .

9. AVERAGE DAILY ATTENDANCE. . . . . . .

10. NUMBER OP SCHOOL BUSKS OPERATED . . .

U . NUMBER OP CHILDREN TRANSPORTED. . . .

12. NUMBER OP TEACHERS 1!I SYSTEM.

• # » • •

* • # •

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Books

Eby, Frederick, The Development of Sducation In Texas, New York, llacmillan Company, 13725.

Kinsley, John Carroll, The Handbook of Texas School Laws, Austin* The Steck Cb», ttevise'dTfait ion, 1^8,

Mort, Paul Rmt Stat# Support For Public Education, Washington, D. C», American Council on Education, 1933•

Mort, Paul R«, State Support of Public School®, Bureau of Publ ic at ions , Teachers College, CoTuiaBTa Univer a ity, New York, If* Y., 1926*

Public Document®

Laws of Texas, 1915-1917# Thirty-Fourth Legislature, Pirat CalledSession, 1915.

Seriate Journal Supplement, Fifty-First Legislature, Regular Session, Senate Bills Number 115# 116 and 117, Thursday, June 2, 1949*

Senate Journal Supplement, Pinal Report of the Gilmer-Aikin Committee, January 25, 1949•

Texas State Department of Education, Supplement to Public School Laws of the State of Texas, Bulletin No. I±8'5, Austin, 19i|7.

Articles

Cherry, Robert G., "Ability of Texas to Support an Adequate School System," The Texas Outlook, XXXI {January, I9I4.7), 14. '

Haskew, L* D., Framework Pit for }50,« The Texas Outlook, XXXIII (November, 191+9)» ll+.

Humphrey, Joe c., "Texas* Hew School Laws,11 The Texas Outlook, XXXIII (July, 1949), 14.

88

89

Morphet, Edgar L., "What Should Teachers Know About School Finance," The Texas Outlook, XXX21I (June, 1949)39.

Pearson, Luther, "do Our Schools Cost Too Much," The Texas Outlook, XXXIII ( June, 19^9 ) 2.

Tennyson, Charles H., "Minimum Salary Law for Texas," The Texas Outlook, XXXI (July, 1947)# 9*

Woods, L. A., "Interpretation of House Bill 300," The Texas Outlook, XXXI (September, 1947)» 2I4..

Unpublished Material

Browning, Leslie L», "A Study to Determine the Soundness of the Gilaer-Aikin Plan of Financing the Public Schools of Montague County, Texas," Unpublished Master's Thesis, Department of Education, North Texas State College, August, 1949-

James, Hoy R., "Legislation Affecting Rural Education,* Unpublished Masters Thesis, Department of Education, Southern Methodist University, August, 1945*

McMichen, Arett, "Some Aspects of the G iliaer-A ikin Bills as they Affect the Schools of Walker County," Unpublished Master's Thesis, Department of Education, North Texas State College, August, 1949-

Newton, Austin C«, nTo Determine Whether the Present Kquali-ssatIon Law is Sounder than Certain Previous Equalization Laws,® Unpublished Master1 a'Thesis,, Department of Educa-tion, North Texas Stat® Teachers College, August, 1947*

Rogers, D» K», "An An&lysIs of Educational Equalization Legislation 'in Texas," Unpublished Master*® Thesis, Department of Education, North Texas Stat© Teachers College, August, 191+0.

Snodgrass, Calvin K«, "The Authority of County Boards to Change School District Lines," Unpublished Master*'® Thesis, Department of Education, florth Texas State College, August, 1949.