I 
i; 
Vor,. I.XXVl. 
Xi:w I’OUK. .TAXTAKY 2(>. H)18 
Xo. 4 -k;<). 
A Fair Review of the N. Y. School Law 
Suggestion for a New Law 
T HAVE road with considorahlo intorost llio 
i various letters. laihlished in your coluiims r('- 
oently in coudoiuuatiou and critieisni of the rural 
school bill that went into effect August 1, 1!)I7. 
From these letters it is evident to me that the cliief 
criticism is. “increased tax'es,” and I am of the 
opinion that most of the criticism so far is (luite 
unfair to the hoards of education throughout the 
State. 1 have no desire or purpose in uphold 
before the Ijegislature, iu view of the fact that 
the law has been in pperatiou i)ut five months, 
and no l)oard should be condemned without more 
careful investigation. There are several reasons 
for the increased taxes. 
1. In man.v districts under the former law corpora¬ 
tion and franchise as.sessments. together 'with the 
public money received, paid virtually oue-half of 
the cost of maintaining a school in that district, 
thus keeping their tax rate far below the actual 
cost of operation. Under the townshii) system the 
tram.-hi.so assessments are distributed evenly 
believe all villagt* schools should be operated under 
a separate system of taxation. 
.‘5. Man.v of the schools were in such a run¬ 
down condition that extensive rei)airs were im¬ 
perative, and in some instances an attemi)t was made 
to comply with the State Department I'eiiuirements 
relative to sauitation. The onl.v criticism i wish 
to make on this section is that the State Depart¬ 
ment issued an edict from time to time for cer¬ 
tain re(iuirenients in ventilation, heating and san¬ 
itation, tlmt aiv altogether unrea.sonable, imprac¬ 
tical and unnecessary in rural districts. 
A District School in Western New York. Fig. 46 
ing the law, for in truth no citizen could have 
done more than the writ(*r to prevent th(‘ enact¬ 
ment of the township bill as adoi)ted. However, 
now 1 want to see “fair pla.v,” and I believe there 
are very few thoughtful i)eople willing to con¬ 
cede the former system of control was perfect. 
1 am finite familiar with conditions in (’hau- 
tauqua Count.v and taken as a whole our .schools 
averaged fully as good as an.v count.v in the State, 
and I am forced to admit there were abominabh' 
conditions to be found in certain sections, even 
including my own town, that were a disgrace to 
any community. The argument against the bill 
of “increased taxes” is a very flimsy one to carry 
thi’oughout the town, and I am not la'ad.v to admit 
that this is :in unfair provision. 
2. T’nder the township .s.vstem now in opc-ra- 
tion all villages of le.s.s than l.oOO poi)ulation are 
included, and therefore the cost of maintenance of 
villa.ge schools is placed upon the town, thus iu 
some instances lowering the tax rate in the villages, 
with its resultant increase of taxes in the rural 
disti-icts. Many reasons have been advanced to me 
upholding this section of the law, claiming chiefly 
that our boys and girls have equal privileges in’ 
the village schools, and therefore the rural prop¬ 
erty should be equally taxed with the village 
property in their maintenance. This I deny and 
4. The new system has providcal for the retire¬ 
ment of bonded imh'btedness, and provision had to 
be made to meet interest and certificates due. 
r>. q'he l)iggest imposition i)laced upon the rural 
districts, in my opinion, is that of the “ph.vsical 
director.” The Department has .sent out statistics 
to support the claim that our rural population is 
ph.vsicall.v inferior to the city population, and hence 
it is imperative that we have a physical director 
to mold us into stalwart men aud women, and inci¬ 
dentally it makes a few more salaried otlices. All 
of which I claim is unjust, untrue and without di- 
ri'ct henetit to anyone aside from the “physical 
director.” 
