4 



. a^ 



\ 4 » 



from $19 to |25 would reduce the equal- 

 ization aid from $11 to $5. The district's 

 total state aid would remain the same as 

 before at $30 per pupil. In fact the 

 district would get just as much total state 

 aid if the flat grants were eliminated 

 completely: 



Local tax (^%) .....$50 per pupil 



State flat grants per pupil 



State equalization 30 per pupil 



Equalization level .....$80 per pupil 



Note that the total state aid would 

 still be $30, the difference between the 

 local tax and the equalization level. 



Obviously the poorer districts have 

 nothing to gain from increases in flat 

 grants. They can, however, benefit 

 greatly from an increase in the equaliza- 

 tion level. Raising the equalization level 

 from the present $80 figure to $110 

 would mean $30 per pupil more for each 

 of these more needy schools. For the 

 school in our example the figures would 

 be: 



Local tax ..._ _ $ 50 per pupil 



State flat grants 19 per pupil 



State equalization 41 per pupil 



Equalization level „$110 per pupil 



Notice that the total state aid would 

 be increased by $30, exactly the same 

 amount that the equalization level is 

 raised. An increase in the equalization 

 level, not larger flat grants, is the way to 

 help the poorer schools. 



The situation is just the opposite in 

 less needy and well-to-do country and 

 city districts. Their income from a y^ 

 per cent local tax and the state flat grants 

 is more than $80 per pupil. Therefore 

 they do not receive equalization aid, and 

 have no equalization aid to lose as flat 

 grants are increased. For the well-to-do 

 districts any increase in flat grants repre- 

 sents pure gain. 



So far we have discussed only ele- 

 mentary school districts, but the same 

 principles also apply to high school dis- 

 tricts. However, for the high schools the 

 flat grants are now $4 and the equaliza- 

 tion level $90 per pupil. The poorer 

 high schools can gain nothing from in- 

 creases in flat grants. They can get more 

 total state aid only by an increase in 

 equalization aid. 



The same principles also apply to 

 school districts which maintain all 12 

 grades. The only difference is that for 

 a 12-grade district the qualifying tax rate 

 is % per cent, instead of 14 pcr cent for 

 each district where the elementary and 

 high schools are operated as separate dis- 

 tricts. 



In all kinds of districts, however, the 

 principle is the same: Flat grants bene- 

 fit schools in the more prosperous com- 

 munities, while the poorer districts can 

 gain only by increases in equalization aid. 



Thus, there is a constant conflict of in- 

 terests between the two classes of schools. 



Generally speaking the wealthier 

 school districts have the better spokes- 

 men. They have the better trained ad- 

 ministrators. They are more proficient 

 at enlisting the support of Parent-Teacher 

 Associations and other citizen group.s. 

 They send larger delegations to Spring- 

 field. They get the lion's share of state 

 aid. 



Slowly, however, the people of the 

 less prosperous communities are winning 

 their fight for equal educational oppor- 

 tunities for their children. The equaliza- 

 tion level for elementary schools has 

 been increased from $41 per pupil in 

 1935 to $80 in 1946. The high school 

 equalization level has been increased to 

 $90. The percentage of state aid going 

 for equalization purposes has been in- 

 creased from 15 per cent 10 years ago to 

 37 per cent in 1944-45. 



But even with present equalization 

 levels the schools in communities with 

 less than average income from propert)' 

 taxes are at a severe disadvantage. Actual 

 costs in the better schools are now at 

 least $30 to $50 higher than present 

 equalization levels. Much higher levels 

 of equalization are necessary to provide 

 more equal educational opportunities to 

 the children in the less favored school 

 districts. 



For many years Illinois farmers have 

 supported the drive for more equal edu- 

 cational opportunities. In 1945 the Illi- 

 nois Agricultural Association sponsored 

 legislation which reduced by 50 per cent 

 the tax rates used for equalization pur- 

 poses. This legislation, which will apply 

 to state aid claims for 1946-47, will 

 greatly increase the amount of state aid 

 going to most needy schools. It will 

 also enable a much larger number of 

 schools to qualify for equalization aid. 



During the present session of the Illi- 

 nois General Assembly the Association 

 will support legislation to provide the 

 largest possible increases in equalization 

 aid. If the equalization levels can be 

 raised to, say, $110 per pupil it will mean 

 an additional $30 for each elementar)- 

 pupil and $20 for each high school pupil 

 in that third of the schools where the 

 need is greatest. At the same time many 

 schools in average circumstances would 

 be able to qualify for equalization aid 

 and gain up to $30 per pupil. 



This program is opposed by many per- 

 sons in Chicago and other wealthy dis- 

 tricts which would receive no direct bene- 

 fits from increases in equalization aid. 

 These persons are working for bigger flat 

 grants, which are of benefit only to the 

 well-to-do districts. 



The program to raise equalization aid 

 to adequate levels should, of course, be 

 supported by all persons in districts 



where income from the property tax it 

 less than average. It should also he 

 supported by all others who believe that 

 every boy and girl in the state should 

 have a fair chance to get a good educa- 

 tion. 



ELECT SUBCOMMITTEE 



Members of the statewide economic 

 study committee of the Illinois Agricul- 

 tural Association early in March elected 

 a subcommittee from among its own 

 members to prepare a tentative report of 

 findings and recommendations gathered 

 since it was organized in September, 

 1946. 



Those elected were: F. E. Morris, 

 Buffalo, lAA vice-president, chairman; 

 E. D. Lawrence, Danvers; Leo Knox, 

 Morrison; Earl M. Hughes, Woodstock; 

 and W. A. Dennis, Paris. 



Other members of the statewide com- 

 mittee are Everett C. Phelps, Rockton; 

 John Hanna, Sr., Geneseo; J. S. Bum- 

 garner, McNabb; Harry Munch, Ar- 

 genta; Leslie E. Mathers, Mason City; 

 Stanley Castle, Alton; Alfred Rister, 

 Omaha, 111.; Russell Hayes, Sparta; Otto 

 Steffey, Stronghurst; K. T. Smith, Green- 

 field; Earl M. Hughes, Woodstock; 

 Homer Curtiss, Stockton ; Lyman Bunt- 

 ing, Ellery; Gerald Waters, Edinburg, 

 and B. C. Fulling, Palestine. 



OjuA CoDSh 



STARVED ROCK, the third of our 

 series of Illinois cover pictures, is 

 clothed in legend and history. It rises 

 abruptly from the Illinois river to a 

 height of 100 feet and is situated in 

 La Salle county midway between La 

 Salle and Ottawa. 



The half-acre top of the rock was 

 the site of Fort St. Louis (1682-1692) 

 built by de La Salle and his lieutenant 

 Henri de Tonti. As to why the natural 

 citadel is named Starved Rock, we 

 quote the plaque on the rock's sum- 

 mit: 



"Indian tradition tells us that about 

 1766 a band of Illinois Indians pur- 

 sued by an overwhelming force of 

 Pottawatomi, seeking to avenge the 

 death of Chief Pontiac, took refuge on 

 the site of this rock. . . The inaccessi- 

 bility of this natural fortress enabled 

 the Illinois to keep their foes at bay 

 but hunger and thirst united to defeat 

 them. Their provisions failed; the 

 enemy cut the cords with which they 

 tried to lift vessels of water from the 

 river. 



"With their vast hunting grounds in 

 a panorama before them, they expired 

 of starvation with true Indian fortitude 

 and thus gave this lofty citadel the 

 name 'Starved Rock'." 



APRIL 1947 



