EWP NewsPrint006
Item
-
Title
-
EWP NewsPrint006
-
Place
-
Virginia
-
Identifier
-
1043119
-
Is Version Of
-
1043119_EWP_NewsPrint006.jpg
-
Is Part Of
-
Uncategorized
-
Date Created
-
2024-01-07
-
Format
-
1043119_EWP_NewsPrint006.jpg
-
Number
-
772e4daaf0aeee840d38bf16617dab9acca512b9fec5769f7bb18b0f6f961598
-
Source
-
/Volumes/T7 Shield/EWP/Elements/EWP_Files/Access Files/Upload temp/1043119_EWP_NewsPrint006.jpg
-
Publisher
-
Digitized by Edwin Washingon Project
-
Rights
-
Loudoun County Public Schools
-
Language
-
English
-
extracted text
-
BERTY"”
w:(mwmmfl ATUHRD
DEVOTED TO THE
WELFARE OF PUR-
CELLVILLE AND LOU-
DOUN COUNTY.
R T B T S R S SIS
{
$1.50 A YEAR
' BOARD OF o™
~"S REDUCE
SCHOOL TAX LEVY {0 80 CENTS
Despite Earnest Appeals From School Officials, Com-
munity Leagues And Representative Tax-Payers
Not To Handicap Schools, Board Passes
" Measure With Only One Dis-
senting Vote.
In spite of earnest appeals Dy
hperintendent of Schools O. L.
merick, Mrs. Emile Windle,
ral supervisor, high schocl
rincipals, representing the Lou-
oun County Education 'Associ-
Ltion, representative of commu-
hity leagues and others, that the
school levy be not reduced any
further than that already pro-
posed by the School Board—a 5-
cent reduction—the Board of
Supervisors at its regular meet-
ing in Leesburg Monday adopt-
ed the budget with a further re-
duction of 5 cents, making a to-
tal of a 10-cent reduction on the
school levy, or 80 cents on the,
$100.
Notwithstanding these appeals
the board voted without hesita-
tion on the 80-cent levy. There
was one dissenting vote, that of
H. C. Rogers. j
.| ter, which has engrossed
payers in Loudoun County since
the Board of Supervisors -pro-
posed another 5-cent, cut after
the School Board had already
cut 5 cents on the levy,
made after a four-hour session
Monday when proponents and
opponents of a further reduc-
tion of the school levy
tax-
was
were
i
Final determination of the mat- |
as much as was consistent with
the efficient running, of the
schools. The two rural super-
visors which the Board suggest-
ed doing without, he insisted,
were needed to handle efficient-
ly the work of the schools. He
objected to cutting the teachers’
salaries as another means of
curtailing expenses inasmuch as
good teachers cannot be em-
ployed for small salaries. He
urged the Supervisors to adopt
the 85-cent levy saying, “Some-
where, somehow, sometime, fix-
ing the school rate at 80 cents
will retard the progress of Lou-
doun County schools.”
Mrs. Emile Windle, supervis-
or of rural schools, explained the
nature of her work and pointed
out -that in 1919-1920 before su-
pervisors were employed for the
rural schools only 53 percent of
the pupils in the schools of the
County that year were promot-
ed whereas in 1929-39, 70 per-
cent were promoted. She also
gave figures showing the cost to
the County of having the pupils
repeat grades as well as the loss
to -the pupils themselves. She al-
so explained - that the question-
naires which had drawn fire
of the Supervisors
were epaployed solely for -the
from one
