ws 8061 '12 m IVd (Beprintec^ OT^ l^eprintec^ from The Kansas Schqol Magazine, Emporia, Kansas January, Nine^en Thirteen SHALL KANSAS HAVE A MILL-TAX? Charles Hughes/ Johnston, Dean of the School of Education^ and H. W. Jos^eiTyn, Professor of School Administration ^ University of Kansas Never before would mo^ ^t&enfeyof^xa state assent to the proposition that education is the chief function of government. Every state in the union riovr-^ does assent to this proposition. Practically every state is.^now seriously concerned through its law making bodies with tlie^pVobleitt bf how to make best pro- vision for the educational enterprises for which it as a state is responsible. Chief among these problems is the method of supporting its higher educational institutions, the State Univer- sity, the State Agricultural College and the State Normal School, or system of such schools. The principles of the provision for state support must apply to all these schools alike. At present there are two methods of providing for the maintenance of the higher educational institutions. One is the biennial appropriations, the method used in this and many other states, regarded in no state as satisfactory. The second is the mill tax, some form of which is much desired now by most all states that do not have it. The biennial plan of support inevit- ably brings about log-rolling and squabbling among the schools, and all school officials, and even all instructors, are handi- capped in their work for months before each appropriation by uneasiness and a sense of insecurity. Again there is apt to be unfortunately some appearance on the part of educational insti- tutions of vieing with other causes, charitable and otherwise, whereas the rightful educational needs should be considered by the state wholly on their merits as a vital part of its own busi- ness. The worst feature by far, however, of this temporizing biennial method of educational support, is that these state insti- tutions, although great, vital and permanent, can make no cal- culations beyond the next half-dreaded meeting of the legisla- ture. It is clear that some substitute must be found for this plan which puts both the state and the state schools at such a hopeless disadvantage. Some form of permanent support must be devised. What is needed is some mill-tax adjustable to the needs of the insti- tutions for which it is supposed to provide. As a result of adopting this mill-tax we may expect a business basis of cal- culation so that the legislature may know that it is appropriat- ing what and just what the schools need; and the school officials, trusting this business calculation, can keep away from the legis- lature. The schools can by this plan also forecast future appro- priations, fix upon consistent school policies for long periods of years, and give their full time to the work of education. The enormous outlay for higher education already made by the Western states is not always regarded as a genuine form of social investment. Money wisely spent in education ultimately returns to the community excellent interest. The advocates of the mill tax for education feel and feel strongly the truth of the statement that the states in which the institutions of higher learning are adequately provided for have the best primary; grammar, and high schools. It is inevitable that the grammar school needs the high school and the high school must in many respects get its inspiration, its new ideas, and scientific meth- ods, as well as its properly trained teachers from the institu- tions of higher learning. It is not always as easy for the tax payer to see the direct returns that come from money invested in education as it is in the case of expenditures for good roads and other public improvements. The fact cannot be disputed however that the general intelligence and advancement of the people as a whole is of a higher order in the states v/here the educational institutions are on a firm foundation financially. If Kansas is to keep its present position among the progres- sive states of the Middle West, it is necessary for its legislators to provide a definite and adequate means of support for the higher institutions of learning. Undoubtedly Kansas is very far from the limit of desirable taxation of property values, and the proposed mill tax, while it will provide much more ade- quately for the needs of the institutions of higher education, will be no particular burden on the tax payer. If the fraction il be considered as the basis for taxation, a tax payer whose property is assessed at $100 will pay Sf cents, while for $1,000 of assessed valuation the tax would be 37^ cents, and for $5,- 000, $1.87|. We cannot believe that the people would regard this taxation for this purpose as burdensome. The people of Kansas should be and are willing to tax themselves for anything that will provide the sons and daughters of the humblest as well as the richest citizen with a chance to develop every talent with which nature may have endowed them. The amount of money provided by the mill tax is but little in excess of the present appropriations granted by the legislatures; but the nature of the work of our three state schools and the need for careful administration of them make it advisable for the governing authorities to have definite knowledge of v/hat means are at their disposal for the carrying on of the institu- tions* activities, and guiding and directing their expansion and development. Particularly is this true when we consider that an increased outlay of money is involved in almost every advance step that is proposed in public education. In brief it can be demonstrated that if the state of Kansas is to maintain a University, an Agricultural College, and Nor- mal Schools, of high standard for its sons and daughters, it can only do so by yearly increasing the budgets of the several insti- tutions. This can be done adequately and well only by the adop- tion of the mill tax. Gazette <^'^^^ Emporia 589546 A PERMANENT INCOME " i^ le is de For jreseni ^aluati State Institutions Would ^ i^^i ;al in1 be Advantageous f^J nal in 1. To the People ^^^y ^ ty of 1 Because money would be saved, without , increasing taxes. Because it would remove from politics ^ , the financing of the schools. ^ ^ Because the people would get better ^^^^ ^ schools for the same expenditure. ' ^sed ig els 2. To the Legislature ' ^^^ as sore iropris Because the legislature does not have time adequately to consider school , ^ budgets. Because it would relieve legislators from criticism. 3. To the State Institutions Because it would insure a normal healthy growth. Because it would place the management of the institutions on a business-like basis. Because it would secure and keep better teachers. 589546 V-'B;z.a^ UNIVERSITY OF CAUFORNIA LIBR/ <Y