Pass New Laws 

 On State Aid For 

 Illinois Schools 



Provisions of State 

 Education Laws Continue 

 To Encourage Rural 

 Reorganization 







F the more than 200 school bills 

 introduced in the 66th Illinois 

 General Assembly, none was more 

 carefully watched and by more 

 people than the state aid bills. The 

 original bills, called for $132,000,000 

 of state aid for the next two years. 

 Budget difficulties made a reduction 

 necessary. The governor's budget al- 

 lowed $112,000,000 for the distributive 

 fund (money divided among schools 

 according to the number of pupils and 

 need). Ah additional $23,700,000 was 

 allowed for educating handicapped 

 children, pupil transportation, voca- 

 tional education, and the school lunch 

 program. 



Together state and federal aid to 

 schools would have amounted to about 

 $143,700,000. However, in his second 

 budget message on schools Gov. Adlai 

 Stevenson made it clear that the in- 

 creased aid for schools depended largely 

 on the raising of new taxes, mainly, by 

 a broadening of the sales tax base. 



To encourage school reorganization 

 where previous efforts had failed he 

 asked for a new plan for distributing 

 state aid. He also sought several other 

 pieces of legislation (reported else- 

 where in this issue of the RECORD) 

 designed to speed up school reorgani- 

 zation. The administration's ideas were 

 presented in eight bills six of which 

 passed. 



But the bills to raise more revenue 

 for schools failed to pass. As a result 

 proposed distributive aid dropped from 

 $112,000,000 to $100,800,000 or 10 per 

 cent. Fixed costs which cannot be 

 changed from year to year, however, 

 makes the drop closer to 12 per cent 

 than 10 per cent. Instead of the 70 per 

 cent increase in state aid expected, the 

 schools will get a 53 per cent increase. 



By JOHN K. COX, Director 



lAA Rural School Relations 



The plan for distribution is as fol- 

 lows: 



Flat grants of $7 per high school 

 child and $22 per grade child remain 

 the same. They will be cut 12 per cent 

 in the next biennium or to about $6.16 

 and $19.36 per pupil respectively. 



The equalization guarantees (an at- 

 tempt to bring poor districts up to the 

 financial level of wealthier districts) 

 of $120 per grade and high school 

 pupil the first year and $160 the second 

 year of the biennium as provided in the 

 act likewise are reduced and will be- 

 come about $105.60 and $140.80 per 

 pupil respectively when paid at 88 per 

 cent of the full statutory amount. 



The $1,400 temporary guarantee per 

 one-room school was to remain the 

 same. But the 12 per cent reduction 

 makes it $1,232. The law requiring 

 10 pupils in average daily attendance 

 to qualify for state aid went into effect 

 on July 1 of this year. The minimum 

 rises to 12 in 1951 and 15 in 1953. 



With the state paying 88 per cent of 

 the $120 per pupil guarantee the first 

 year or $105.60, the 10-pupil school 

 would be entitled to $1,056 on a 

 straight average daily attendance basis. 

 The second year of the biennium with 

 the state paying 88 per cent of the $160 

 per pupil guarantee or $140.80 per 

 pupil, the 10-pupil one-room school 

 would be entitled to $1,408 on a 

 straight average daily attendance basis 

 or well over the $1,232 guaranteed to 

 the one-room school. 



Qualifying rates, provided in House 

 Bill 1065 for the first year of the 

 biennium are 25c and 25c each per 

 $100 valuation for grade and high 

 school districts under the dual system 



(high school and grade school under 

 separate school boards) and 36c under 

 the unit district system (high school and 

 grade school under the same board). 

 Qualifying rates are minimum tax levies 

 which must be made before a school 

 district is eligible for equalization state 

 aid. 



Districts expecting to receive equali- 

 zation aid and take advantage of the 

 $140 guarantee per pupil the second 

 year of the biennium will be required 

 to levy 40c in the grades, 40c in high 

 school districts under the dual system, 

 and 50c under the unit system. 



The amount of state aid is not as 

 much as many people had hoped it 

 would be. Also, the program does 

 require some districts to increase their 

 local levies in order to qualify for 

 equalization aid. It should be remem- 

 bered, however, that every district in 

 the state has to make the same local 

 effort before receiving state equalization 

 money. It is as fair for one district as 

 for another. 



The new state aid program does have 

 some advantages, namely: 



1. All additional state money is dis- 

 tributed on an equalization basis or on 

 the basis of need. This feature of state 

 aid distribution is in line with lAA 

 school policy. 



2. The $l05 guarantee per pupil the 

 first year and the $140 guarantee the 

 second year should help spread educa- 

 tional opportunity throughout the state, 

 in poor as well as more fortunate 

 districts. 



3. The difference in qualifying rates 

 between dual (40c -|- 40c = 80c) and 

 unit districts (50c) should further 

 popularize the latter type of district. 



(Continued on page 25) 



I 



Univers 



The 

 HYBRIl 



your ass 



i that higl 



exhausti^ 



carries t 



So, ! 



■ day. Le 

 mean big 



Blotkhowli 



18 



L A. A. RECORD 



AUGUST 



