OCR Text |
Show CA ' The Salt JLake Tribune, Sunday, January 20, 1963 7S - QU ' - - TRENDS IN PURCHASING POWER OF CURRENT SCHOOL EXPENDITURES PER PUPIL FOR UTAH U.S. AND MOUNTAIN STATES AVERAGE TO 1947-4- 8 1962-6- 3 1 O. . lnr(i J,nt . Alula ImU (0013 1 tpH HinWMtnt, Ilf, lt(l UTAH ECUS OWNERSHIP IS HIGH I a 4 . 4 4 UTAH HOMES ARE HEW 4 . f - Per Cent In the past 14 Utah school expenditures have Increased only 3.7 has been years while for the same period the national average increase and the Mountain States' averages, 18.4. Does this represent 26.6 economy? Right or wrong, it effects." ''" Is the children of Utah who will receive 10 0 UTAH HOMES 50 r t ARE WORTH MORE ur the-- , 'I U rW Alt Per Capita State and Local Tax Burden in Eleven Western States (Thousands of Doll era 1961-6- 2 V t UTAH B0ME3 ARE BETTER EQUIPPED CALIFORNIA NEVADA v COLORADO WASHINGTON MONTANA i WYOMING OREGON U.S. AYERAGE ARIZONA UTAH IDAHO Utah y Km , United States MEXICO Mountain States I $0 $50 $150 $100 Soyrcet UA Deportment ef Commerce, Government Finances, $200 ?$250 $500 ' p. 42 1 961, IS THIS THE BEST WE CAN ' r f i average Utahn pays less n6t more than'ditixens of Other western. 0 states except Idaho and New Mexico. The . I .i ? Although the statement that Utahns are spending tf larger percentage of their individual income for education is true, it does not tell the whole story. Utah with its larger families and fewer paro-- " dal and private schools U in the peculiar position of having to educate four children for every threo children educated in "other states. Therefore," the larger income spent on education in Utah is not so significant as it might otherwise seem. The fact is that Utah is spending less per school child than any other 'Mountain State except Idaho, and far Jess than the national average. Chart No. 1 shows clearly Utah's fog in keeping pace with increasing needs of : education sine 1943. - 1 ; 4, .. To justify this failure io keep pace, many hcvl pointed out that Utah Is a relatively poor state and, as such, is, making maximum effort now. This statement also does not tell the whole story. Though per capita income in Utah is low, the average family income is high higher than the national average consistently since 1959; in, I960 4 higher. The income per consumer spending is also high. Utahns own more and better homes; their homes equipped; they also own more and better automobiles. Oddly bwer than the national enough, rent Is lower In. Utah, too 6 If charts we are 2, 3, 4.) capable of such expenses average. (See for materia! needs, certainly then we are capable of Investing more. In education for children, our. greatest resource. are-bett- 1 DO? The average family income of Utahns since 1959 has been higher than the national average. In 1960 it was 4 higher. Utahns live better. They own more automobiles. More Utahns own their own homes and equip them better with more telephones, rodios, television sets, washers and dryers. Their homes ere worth' m0fe too. And rent is lower in Utah. If we can afford to live better, can we not afford to make greater effort for better edu ' ' cation? . HOW HAVE WE BEEN DOING? e MaMaa j- vt s'! ' ? , again Is distinctly evident In thechart showing the comparative per capita tax burden in the eleven western states. Utah, a state with a tradition of high educational standards, a state which educates more people for a longer period than any other, Hat a lighter tax burden than the national average for states. Utah Is capable of supporting a better educational program. After all, Thjs capability r ,44 - -- r p - C Ml w which has more enduring value an automobile, a road, a room or a child's education. Funds allocated for education represent investment, not expenditure. Remembers "Education does not costs 3 X' 5 4 9U IT PAYSl" SUPPORT THE CAPS PROGRAM, vi ; ni |