L 194.05*^°''"*" ""'**'■*" V-ibrary \liS&°l!!:iL'!!.^!:.tP9l>9>es Of the s ffitbratji REPRINTED FROM PART II A Survey of the Fiscal Policies of the State of Pennsylvania in the Field of Education A REPORT TO THE CITIZENS' COMMITTEE ON THE FINANCES OF PENNSYLVANIA TO HON. GIFFORD PINCHOT HARLAN UPDEGRAFF Professor of Educational Administration in the TJniTersity of Fennsylvama and LEROY A. KING Assistant Professor of Educational Administration in the University of Pennsylvania DECEMBER, 1922 DATE DUE IPR 9 1980 RETURN TO ALBERT R. MANN LIBRARY ITHACA, N. Y. The Report of The Citizens' Committee on the Finances of Pennsylvania to HON. GIFFORD PINCHOT PART II Education Cornell University Library The original of tiiis book is in tine Cornell University Library. There are no known copyright restrictions in the United States on the use of the text. http://www.archive.org/details/cu31924013035609 A Survey of the Fiscal Policies of the State of Pennsylvania in the Field of Education A REPORT TO THE CITIZENS' COMMITTEE ON THE FINANCES OF PENNSYLVANIA TO HON. GIFFORD PINCHOT HARLAN UPDEGRAFF Professor of Educational Administration in the University of Pennsylvania and LEROY A. KING Assistant Professor of Educational Administration in the University of Pennsylvania DECEMBER. 1922 c 5- (^111'^^ Acknowledgments . The Citizens' Committee on the Finances of the State of Penn- sylvania was appointed by Gifford Pinchot, then Republican nominee for Governor of the State of Pennsylvania, for the follow- ing purposes: (1) To secure and consider the best available figures show- ing the money income of the state from all sources during the current biennial fiscal period to secure and consider the best available figures showing the probable total revenue from all existing sources during the next biennial fiscal period; and to make needful recommendations as to sources of revenue and methods of taxation, with the object of avoiding addi- tional or unnecessary burdens upon the people of the state. (2) To inquire into the expenditures of all monies appropriated for any purpose by the legislative session of 1921; to consider the necessity for such expenditures; to estimate the probable deficits, where such exist, and to make needful recommendations for the more economical and effec- tive expenditure of the state's funds. (3) To examine into the present methods of appropria- tions and expending the money received by the State from all sources; to make recommendations as to the fiscal policies of the state; and to propose a form of budget that will assist in preventing the appropriation of monies in excess of the probable revenue. The Committee in undertaking its responsibilities early decided that it was advisable to have special surveys made of the spending policies of each of the larger departments through an expert peculiarly qualified in each respective field. The Committee chose for the experts to make the survey of the fiscal policies of the Department of Education, Dr. Harlan Upde- graff. Professor of Educational Administration in the University of Pennsylvania, and Dr. Leroy A. King, Assistant Professor of Educational Administration in the University of Pennsylvania. Dr. Updegraff is also director of the Bureau of Educational Measurements, and chairman of the general committee in charge of Schoolmen's Week at the University. He has served as the head of both public and private schools and as chief of two different divisions in the United States Bureau of Education. This latter iii IV work brought him into close contact with state and local public school administration in all parts of the United States. Dr. Upde- graff is the author of many books and articles dealing with the fiscal phase of Educational Administration. In 1911 he made a study of the expenses of city school systems. He has collaborated on surveys of city school systems in Baltimore, Maryland, in 1911; in Brookline, Massachusetts, in 1917; in the rural schools of Pennsylvania in 1913; and in Philadelphia in 1921. He was em- ployed as director of the financial section of the Rural School Survey of New York State made in 1921. His report is regarded as a noteworthy contribution in the field of educational finances. He has given close attention to the educational finances of Penn- sylvania during the past few years and has written a number of important papers concerning them. Dr. Updegraff's national standing in educational matters is indicated by the fact that he is chairman of the Committee on Tenure and the Committee on Participation of Teachers in School Management appointed by the National Educational Association. Dr. LeRoy A. King is assistant professor of Educational Admin- istration at the University' of Pennsylvania and is Assistant Director of the Biu^au of Educational Measurements. From 1910 to 1914 he was Professor of Education and Director of the Training School in the Lock Haven State Normal School. From 1914 to 1917 he was Supervising Principal of Public Schools. He is one of the associate editors of the Journal of Rural Educa- tion, and is secretary of the General Committee of Schoolmen's Week, held annually at the University of Pennsylvania. He has for many years held various group conferences on educational matters throughout Pennsylvania. The United States Bureau of Education published in 1921 a special monograph by Dr. King on "The Status of the Rural Teacher in Pennsylvania." He has also assisted in the survey of rural schools in New York State and in the Survey of Philadelphia made in 1921. Inasmuch as there are many important phases of public policy entering into each of these spending policies it was deemed advis- able to associate with each of the experts an advisory committee to add their judgments to the matter at hand. The Advisory Committee on Education comprises the following educators and citizens of the State. For the Citizens of the State this Committee has appointed Franklin N. Brewer, of Moylan, Pa., President of the Public Education and Child Labor Association of Pennsylvania; Mrs. John 0. Miller, of Pittsburgh, President of the Pennsylvania League of Women Voters; Mr. John A. Voll, of Philadelphia, of the Glass Bottle Blowers' Association, and Mr. R. L. Munce, of Washington, Pa., a representative farmer. For the Higher Educational Institutions, Dr. Henry H. Apple, Lancaster, Pa., President of Franklin and Marshall College; Dr. Samuel Black McCormick, of Pittsburgh, formerly Chancellor of the University of Pittsburgh, and John Franklin Shields, of Philadelphia, Trustee of the Pennsylvania State College, have been appointed. For the larger cities. Dr. Edwin C. Broome, of Philadelphia, Superintendent of Schools in Philadelphia, and Mr. Robert E. Laramy, of Altoona, Superintendent of the Altoona School District, have been appointed. For the smaller cities, boroughs and townships, Charles S. Davis, of Steelton, Pa., Superintendent of Steelton Schools; Mr. Cannon Ross, of Doylestown, Pa., Supervising Principal of Doylestown Borough Public Schools; T. T. Allen, of DuBois, Pa., Superin- tendent of Schools of DuBois, and Edward S. Ling, Superintendent of Schools of Abington Township, Glenside, Pa., have been appointed. For County Superintendents, Mr. Charles E. Dickey, of Pitts- biirgh. Pa., Superintendent of Schools of Allegheny County, and Mr. Eli H. Rapp, of Reading, Pa., County Superintendent of Berks County Schools, have been appointed. For Normal Schools, Dr. John A. H. Keith, Principal of the State Normal School at Indiana, Pa., and for School Boards, Mr. John M. Seasholtz, President of Board of Education, Reading, Pa., have been appointed. These surveys by experts are made as reports to the Committee and the Committee has immediately released them for publica- tion. The Committee, of course, cannot and does not take credit to itself for either the work or the recommendations. Credit in these matters is due solely to the expert and those who have advised with him. Clyde L. King, Chmrman. VI The Citizens' Committee on the Finances of Pennsylvania. Clyde L. King, Chairman Charles J. Rhoads, Treasurer Mrs. Walter King Sharpe, Secretary Hon. Franklin Spencer Edmonds Hon. John S. Fisher Mr. Leonard P. Fox Mr. Allen W. Hagenbach Mr. Alba B. Johnson Mrs. Mary Flinn Lawrence Hon. D. Edward Long General Asher Miner Mr. T. D. Stiles Mrs. William Thaw, Jr. Mrs. Barclay H. Warburton Mr. Frank P. Willits Hon. George W. Woodruff Hon. George Woodward Mr. Paul D. Wright Preface. This study was begun September 1, 1922, and has been carried on by the authors while doing their regular university work. They have been generously provided with competent editorial, steno- graphic and clerical assistants, without whose whole-hearted efforts the work could not have been completed in the brief time allotted. Nevertheless, it has not been possible to inquire into all phases of the various fields designated for study or to harmonize or eliminate minor statistical discrepancies; neither has there been time to secure throughout the best organization of material and the most concise forms of expression. However, the facts presented have been gathered in detail and treated with sufficient care and accuracy to make them a satisfactory basis of judgment. It is believed also that the conclusions drawn therefrom are so stated as to leave no doubt in the mind of the reader as to the authors' meaning. While both have co-operated in the preparation of the entire study, the chapters on Pubhc Schools, Higher Educational Institutions, State Department of Public Instruction, and Relative Needs have been prepared by Harlan Updegraff, and the chapter on Normal Schools by Leroy A. King. The authors join in expressing their debt of gratitude to the Chairman of the Citizens' Committee on Finances, to its sub-com- mittee on Education, to the Advisory Committee on Education, to our office staff and to all others who have assisted in the prepara- tion of the study. The Authors. December 9, 1922. vn VIU Table of Contents. Page Preface vii Summary of Findings and Recommendations Public Schools 1 Normal Schools 4 Higher Educational Institutions 8 State Department of Public Instruction 11 Relative Needs 12 Chapter I — General Introduction 15 Chapter II — Public Schools 19 Chapter III — Normal Schools 95 Chapter IV — Higher Educational Institutions 139 Chapter V — State Department of Public Instruction 170 Chapter VI — Relative Needs 195 Summary of Findings and Recommendations. Public Schools. 1. The machinery for the control and support of public educa- tion is in process of development. The tendency has been and still is to place control more in central organs rather than in local organs and in professional officers rather than in lay oflBcers. The tendency in the field of support is for the state to bear a larger proportion of the cost of schools. There are many unsettled prob- lems in both of these fields. 2. Pennsylvania lost ground educationally as compared with other states diiring the twenty years previous to 1920. Ayres' "Index Numbers for State School Systems" indicates this. The gradual decrease in the amount paid teachers as compared with other states is another proof. Still a third indication is the stand- ing of Pennsylvania school children in the standard tests in school subjects given near the close of this period. 3. The beginning of an upward movement was manifest as early as 1911, but it did not get fully under way until 1920. 4. Pennsylvania was a low cost education state for a period of forty years previous to 1921. The tax rates in rural and city school districts in 1921-22 were about the same as in other states having good educational systems. 5. Elementary school teachers in rural schools last year re- ceived salaries that were near or below the average for the United States as a whole except in city schools of the first class, in which group salaries seem to have been higher than the norm. Expenses per pupil in cities in the state of Pennsylvania in 1921-22 were on the whole relatively lower than in other cities of the United States. 6. The per capita income of individuals and corporations in the state of Pennsylvania in 1919 was less than in eighteen other states. 7. The state pays a lower proportion of expenses of schools in local school districts than the average state. An increase in the state appropriation for public schools is justified. 8. The method of distribution under the Edmonds Act is superior to any previous plan followed by the state. 9. Its advantages are: (a) It increases the length of the school term in fourth- class districts. (b) It penalizes districts for employing teachers holding low-grade certificates. (c) It promotes easy budgeting. (d) It marks a beginning in differentiating payments on the basis Of valuations. 10. Its disadvantages are: (a) Wealthy districts within each class of district receive too large an amount per teacher and poor districts too small an amount. (b) The grants to the second and third class districts should not be the same. (c) It fails to stimulate local districts to do their best and to penalize them when they have lowered their tax rates. (d) The number of forms of Special Aid are too limited. (e) It does not cover increments of salary above initial salaries. 11. Minor modifications in the Edmonds Act are suggested as follows in case the major modifications suggested below are not made: (a) Establishment of a state-wide minimum salary schedule in fourth class districts, over an eight-year period. (b) Extending the schedule already fixed for third class districts so that all districts should have an eight-year schedule. (c) Have state aid cover increments above initial salaries. 12. Major modifications should be made in the Edmonds Act to stop inefficient use of money involved in giving wealthy dis- tricts within each class of district as much per teacher as poor districts and those which levy a low tax as much as those that levy a high tax. Such an amendment to the Edmonds Act should be put into effect at the earliest time that it can be done without lowering the standards relative to teachers' salaries and teachers' qualifications. 13. The amoimt of aid per teacher to be given any district should be in inverse proportion to its ability to support schools as shown by its true valuation per teacher and in direct proportion to the effort it makes to support schools as shown by its true tax rates. This is called the "Ability and Effort Plan." 14. The true valuation of property taxable for schools must be ascertained in order to put into effect the "Ability and Effort Plan." To determine the rates of assessment used by local asses- sors, the establishment of a State Tax Commission or a Revenue Commissioner is recommended. 15. In the event that neither of these offices is created the rates of assessment reported by secretaries of school boards to the State Superintendent of Public Instruction may be used. These reports are reliable in 75 percent of the cases and the distribution imder such a plan, though imperfect, would be more effective in promoting efficiency in local schools than the existing method. 16. This "Ability and Effort Plan" makes it possible for all districts having a valuation below the established standard true valuation per teacher ($185,000) to have equally good schools by the levying of the same tax rate. The proportion that any dis- trict receives varies directly with the deficiency in its valuation below the established standard valuation. 17. Under the "Ability and Effort Plan" a district of any given true valuation will always receive the same proportion of its total expenses for schools so long as its tax rate does not exceed the maximum for which aid is granted. Thus as the district puts more into its schools the grant from the state increases up to the standard maximum limit. 18. The wealthier districts should be given only nominal grants except when the expenses exceed the average standard fixed by regulation. 19. Although this "Ability and Effort Plan" is considered the most equitable for General Aid and should therefore alone be used, it can be combined with other plans if necessary. 20. The chief object of state aid should now be to bring about an advance in the schools of nu"al districts similar to that which has occurred in city districts during the past two years. 21. The estimated cost of the plan herein proposed is less than the estimate oi grants under the present plan for the coming fiscal year. 22. New forms of Special Aid should be introduced, encourag- ing: (a) Enlargement of high schools in poor districts, (b) Erection of school houses and teacherages in poorer districts, (c) Purchase of transportation equipment in poorer districts, (d) Use of transportation, (e) Teachers to teach in outlying schools, (f ) Abandonment of buildings in rural districts, (g) Employment of supervisors in rural districts. 23. A reorganization of local school districts would contribute in a marked way to the more economical use of public money. Many schools are now improperly located, some have too many pupils, others too few. High school facilities are difficult to secure. A complete redistribution of territory into new school districts is necessary to the solution of many of the problems involved. 24. The present method of estimating the amount of high school tuition to be paid one district by another should be changed and based upon actual expenses of every kind and not for instruc- tion alone. The present law should be so altered as to permit dis- tricts to contract with each other upon any terms that may be satisfactory to both. 25. The sources from which the permanent state school fund, established by the Act of 1911, are increased should be extended. 26. A Commission should be appointed to consider the ways of eliminating wastes in the conduct of public schools. Such a com- mission should include experts in the various fields of school management and citizens. 27. The state auditor and treasurer should be authorized to borrow from separate funds in the State Treasury to pay grants to public schools on time. Normal Schools. 28. The Pennsylvania Normal Schools with the exception of three or four have smaller enrollments than Normal Schools over the country; however, the number of Normal School graduates is relatively large. 29. The Pennsylvania Normal Schools have generally a larger proportion of their students enrolled in secondary departments than most Normal Schools. 30. The summer sessions are unusually well attended and render a great service to the state by training teachers who are in service. 31. The Extension Departments in eleven of the schools show a phenomenal enrollment, considering that this work was only begun in September, 1921. 32. The Correspondence courses, for teachers in service who cannot attend Extension classes, are in the process of development. 33. The average number of students per teacher is 15.1, which is slightly above the average of the other schools studied except those of Wisconsin. 34. The average number of pupils in the training school is 543, showing an average of four per graduate in 1921, which is lower than three of the fiVe standard groups. 35. The expenditures of the several schools vary greatly in gross amounts and also in the amoimts spent under the various headings of the classification of accounts, based on the average for all of the Pennsylvania Normal Schools, and also on the stand- ards obtained from the country at large. 36. Similar variations exist in the expenditures for the Train- ing Departments which are due to the varied systems used in the several Normal Schools. 37. Practically all of the Pennsylvania Normal Schools show a surplus of receipts over expenditures in their Housing Depart- ments (dormitory, dining hall and laundry) for 1921. The cost of housing at some of the schools is so low that the question arises whether these schools are not sacrificing comfortable living condi- tions. It should be borne in mind, however, that some of the schools, on account of limited allotments of state funds, are obliged to transfer a surplus from housing to the educational budget. 38. There is a wide variation in the average salaries of the teachers among the different schools from the standpoints of median salary and of salary per student enrolled. 39. The allotment of state appropriations to the different schools varies greatly in the percentage of total expenses or receipts and from the standpoint of per student enrolled. 40. The Pennsylvania Normal Schools do not train enough teachers for the urban schools or for the rural schools. The enroll- ment for 1922-23 is more than 25 percent greater than fqr 1921-22, and it is probable that the larger number of Normal School graduates in 1922-23 will no more than meet the needs in the cities and boroughs. 41. Financial conditions in Pennsylvania Normal Schools have improved greatly during the past year or two in line with the marked progress of the Normal Schools in all educational aspects. Much of the credit for this improvement is due to the State De- partment of Public Instruction. The Administration Bureau of the State Department of Public Instruction introduced an excel- lent accounting system which has been most valuable in this study. There have undoubtedly been some errors in the classi- fication of receipts and expenditures, but when the final state- ments of the several schools in the oflfice of the State Superintend- ent were checked by the corresponding statements of the Auditor- General's office, the two were found to be in substantial agreement. The financial report of the Normal Schools prior to 1921-22 was organized on a basis so different from the present one that com- parisons with former years were practically impossible. The present Normal School administration is moving in the right direction. The wide variations in expenses and state allotments mentioned throughout this study indicate that there are desirable financial results yet to be achieved. 42. In view of the great variations in expenses among the Normal Schools under the various headings, it is recommended that a greater amount of standardization be established by the State Department in order to give a more equitable distribution of the state appropriation for Normal Schools. Such standardiza- tion should be based on an extended study of the Normal School system in regard to size, need, efficiency, and service to the State. 43. A larger appropriation for current expense should be made for the Normal Schools of Pennsylvania as now constituted. 44. A portion of the appropriation should be definitely set aside for extension work that will benefit especially the non-self-support- ing extension center and for the summer session, agencies especially devoted to the training of teachers in service. 45. A more definite relationship should be established between the state authorities and the Local Boards of Trustees in order to insure definite responsibility especially relative to financial matters. 46. Since the housing accounts at the several Normal Schools are relatively large, and since there are fluctuations in wages and prices, it is desirable that all of those responsible for the adminis- tration of the State Normal Schools, viz.: Superintendent of Public Instruction, State Council of Education, and thirteen Boards of Trustees and the thirteen principals — should establish a definite policy relative to a standard of comfort, charges per student, the disposition of any surplus that may arise, and the creation of a reserve or contingent fund, thus safeguarding the financial interest which the Commonwealth has because of its ownership. 47. A more efficient administration would be promoted by such a reorganization of control that would place the responsibility for the distribution and use of state fimds on a central lay board or the State Council of Education. Such a board should, through its expert agents, exercise supervision over the business adminis- tration of the local boards and the principals so as to promote on the one hand the proper expansion of each school and on the other hand a wise economy in expenditures through the introduction of better business methods and more careful purchasing. The Superintendent of Public Instruction should be the secretary and chief executive officer of such a board and the agents of the board should work imder his direction. 48. A Normal School Commission should be appointed by the Governor with the State Superintendent of Public Instruction, ex-officio member, to make a more extended study of the normal schools as to (a) the best form of board suggested above under paragraph 47, (b) providing better service to the state, as an agency for the training of public school teachers, (c) the organization of additional normal schools in cities to train teachers primarily to supply needs of cities and boroughs, (d) the advisability of closing or relocating some existing normal schools, and (e) the advisability and feasibility of enlarging the scope of the work of certain normal schools. 8 Higher Educational Institutions. 49. Pennsylvania has complied with the mandates of its earlier constitutions relative to universities and seminaries by chartering private corporations in which it has exercised some control and to which it has granted some support. 50. No higher educational institution in the Commonwealth may be said to be a state institution in the strictest sense of that term, although there are three, the University of Pennsylvania, the University of Pittsburgh and the Pennsylvania State College, which because of their connections with the state have been generally regarded as semi-public institutions. Pennsylvania State College more nearly satisfies the conditions requisite for being a strictly state institution than either of the other two. 51. The population of Pennsylvania and the number of high school graduates each year requires three state institutions of higher learning. 52. The location of each of these three institutions— University of Pennsylvania, University of Pittsburgh and Pennsylvania State College — ^presents peculiar advantages for certain fields of instruction, all of which should be utilized. 53. The percent of income from student fees in the two imiver- sities is considerably above the desired standard of 50 percent, while the incomes from endowment and gifts are considerably lower than they should be. This means that private effort has failed to do its full share and that the State has made up the differ- ences. The student fees of Pennsylvania State College constitute from one-fourth to one-fifth of the total income. This large proportion is caused by the failure of appropriations to meet the increased costs of higher education. 54. The equipment and the salaries of the personnel of all three of the Pennsylvania institutions are not of as high standard relatively as they were a number of years ago. This is because of the considerable growth in the development of universities and of land grant colleges in other states. Pennsylvania is going through the same lagging behind with regard to higher education that she has passed through during the past twenty years in the fields of elementary and secondary education. 55. The finances in all three of the higher educational institu- tions of Pennsylvania seem to have been economically administered. 56. The income from endowment and appropriations of the state universities in the West and of the private universities in the East have so increased that if these two Pennsylvania universities are to be conducted in the future upon the basis of private support, it is necessary that their endowments be increased up to $40,- 000,000 or $50,000,000 each, and that considerable enlargement, improvement and extension be made in their equipment. 57. All three of these institutions turned away students last year because of lack of accommodations. 58. While all three institutions have free scholarships, they are limited in number. Most of those granted are based upon a competitive examination. It is thus impossible for many promis- ing youths of Pennsylvania of inadequate means to obtain free tuition in institutions of higher learning. While senatorial scholarships make it possible for a few students to obtain this benefit, it is unfortunate that the benefit is obtained through political influence. 59. The century old plan of providing higher education through private institutions is seemingly reaching the breaking point. 60. It is incumbent upon the state to find ways in which more distinctly state institutions may be secured either (1) by greatly increasing appropriations to the Boards of Trustees of the three institutions under such an arrangement as will guarantee that the appropriations will be spent so as to satisfy most eflBciently the needs of the state or (2) by making suitable arrangement with the Boards of Trustees of other private institutions for the accom- plishment of the same purpose or (3) by the establishment of new institutions entirely under state support and control. 61. Pennsylvania State College can readily become a piu-ely state institution and should become such. 62. It is still uncertain whether private funds can come to the University of Pennsylvania and the University of Pittsburgh in such abundance as to enable them to maintain the position in the education of the state and the nation that rightfully belong to them. Failing in this the Board of Trustees of each should enter into such an arrangement with the state as would secure, on the one hand, the needed increase in plant, equipment and income and, on the other hand, as would guarantee to the state that the money 10 so given will be spent in ways which will most contribute to the advancement of its welfare. ' 63. The present method of making appropriations to the Universities is not altogether favorable. They hesitate to incur any obligation extending beyond the term of the appropriation because of the fear that it may not be renewed. 64. Until this question relative to the two universities is decided, it would seem desirable that all appropriations made to them as . well as to Pennsylvania State College should be placed under the control of a central state board without disturbing the present boards in charge of these institutions. Such boards should seek to avoid all financial duplication in work and to foster the develop- ment of those departments for which each institution is best suited. 65. As a beginning in the development of such a boEird it is recommended that the appropriations for Schools of Education in each of these institutions be placed under its control and that it have the authority to approve budgets and rules and regulations proposed by each institution. Extension courses might likewise be placed under the control of this board in order to eliminate duplication and to maintain standards for admission to the courses given and for credit received. 66. Such a board should work in the closest co-operation with the State Department of Public Instruction, and services of the members of the State Department and of the Schools of Education should be exchanged. The State Superintendent of Public Instruc- tion should serve as secretary and executive officer of the board of higher education. 67. Comparative data relative to appropriations for costs of higher education both in the universities and land grant colleges show that the state would be warranted in granting considerable increases to each of the two institutions under the administration of such a board and likewise to Pennsylvania State College, but not to the same degree. This is due to the fact that the state has heretofore supported State College more adequately than the other two institutions. 68. A Commission should be appointed to study the higher educational institutions of the state with a view of determining which should be supported by the state, the departments in each that should be supported by the state, the ways to avoid unwar- 11 ranted duplication of work, the best form of central board, the relation of such a board to the board in charge of each institution, the relation of the central boards to other central educational governmental agencies and similar questions. State Department of Public Instruction. 69. The State Departments of Public Instruction of other states increased their personnel more rapidly than did that of Pennsyl- vania during the fifteen years preceding 1920. 70. The number of staff officers now in the State Department of Public Instruction in Pennsylvania in proportion to the number of pupils enrolled in the public schools is near the norm for eleven representative states. 71. While the salaries paid these staff officers are higher than in other states, they are no higher than was necessary to secure the services of the individuals employed. The fact that these officers are not permitted to take fees for services in Pennsylvania or to accept contracts for writing books should be taken into account in this connection. Also the fact that in other states the salaries are frequently fixed by statute and are lower than they should be in order to secure persons of the highest efficiency. 72. Salaries are no higher than are necessary to secure and hold men and women of high qualifications. Twelve percent of the staff have left to accept positions elsewhere under conditions that would give them larger financial returns than in the State Depart- ment of Public Instruction. 73. The expenses of the Department per pupil enrolled in the state and the per capita of population in the state are not quite so high as the norm furnished by eleven representative northern states. 74. The Biu-eaus have been, on the whole, conducted in an efficient manner. It is believed that the data presented relative to the number of schools visited, conferences held, addresses given, letters written, syllabi prepared, hours per day spent at work, etc., when considered in connection with the high qualifications of the staff clearly indicate that the state has gotten full return for the money expended. 75. Certain of the Bureaus are able to show their actual savings of money to school districts or of increased amounts of education 12 furnished to and received by school children of the state to such an extent as to warrant the maintenance of the Department upon the present scale of efficiency. 76. Interchange of services of specialists in the Department of Public Instruction and the members of the faculty of the Schools of Education and normal schools should be fostered in order that both the work of the department and of the educational institutions may be made the more efficient. 77. The question of appropriations for vocational education should be carefully considered inasmuch as this branch of educa- tion seems to be well established in the public's esteem. 78. It is recommended also that careful consideration be given to the development of the work in Americanization in order that better results may be obtained for the money expended. 79. The State Superintendent of Public Instruction should so co-ordinate the expenditures in all of thevarious classes of schools — universities, colleges, normal schools, high and elementary schools— as to make it possible for each to render the greatest service to all the others. This may be accomplished if he is made the secretary and executive officer of the various lay boards which control the various appropriations to each of the various classes of schools. Relative Needs. 80. The total appropriations for all educational purposes for the biennium 1921-23 amounted to $37,834,316, two and one- fourth times as much as for the biennium 1909-11. 81. The appropriations for all other purposes increased in the same proportion. 82. Thirty-two percent of the total appropriation for 1921-23 were for education. The norm for all the states was 37.5 percent in 1919. Pennsylvania as judged by the standard would then be warranted in devoting a larger proportion of the state appropria- tion to education than at present. 83. Sixty-five percent of the appropriation is for state aid to local public schools. This is 20 percent less than in 1909-11. 84. Normal schools, colleges and universities each receive 13 percent of the total, a little more than double in each case the percentage of 1909-11. 13 85. Equal percentage (2.4) goes to the Department of Public Instruction and to county administration, 350 percent and 170 percent respectively of what they were in 1909-11. 86. The present appropriation for the Department of Public Instruction is not excessive when compared with expense of other state offices. 87. Pennsylvania is no longer the state that gives the largest grants to public schools. Three states make larger grants, two of which have less population than Pennsylvania. Six states granted larger appropriations in 1919-20 to normal schools, five of which have less population than Pennsylvania. Eight states made larger appropriations for universities and colleges in 1919-20, all of which have less population than Penn- sylvania. Thfc appropriation of three other states were within $75,000 less. 88. The combined appropriation for higher education in Michi- gan, Wisconsin and Minnesota, which states together have approxi- mately as many people as Pennsylvania alone, was foiu* times that of Pennsylvania. 89. Measuring the appropriations for 1919-21 on the basis of per capita of population, Pennsylvania is slightly below the norm for public schools, about one-half of the norm for normal schools and about four-tenths of the norm for universities and colleges. The appropriation for 1921-23 while higher, probably did not go above the norm in any case except possibly in normal schools, and did not approach the norm in the case of universities and colleges. 90. Measuring the appropriations for 1921-23 upon the basis of income per inhabitant, Pennsylvania's appropriation for public schools was about three-fourths the norm, for normal schools about one-third greater than the norm, and for colleges and imiversities about four-ninths of the norm. 91. On the whole Pennsylvania's appropriation as measured by per capita costs and income for 1921-23 is near the standard formed by all the states in the case of public schools and normal schools, but is still considerably below in the case of higher educational institutions. CHAPTER I. General Introduction. For a century or more Pennsylvania has, in common with the other states of the Union, been gradually building up a system of public education. At the critical stages in its development certain questions have been pretty well settled by the votes of the people or by the Legislature. It is no longer questioned that public education shall be universal, that it shall be free to all and that it shall be sup- ported by all, and that it shall be controlled by all. It is not so clearly established, however, just how much of the children's time should be placed at the disposal of the State in order for them to secure the benefits of public education, nor whether universal free education supported by all and controlled by all shall extend to schools of college and university grade, nor how much control the State should exercise over private educational institutions. But the vmsettled questions are not confined solely to these more general aspects of public education. There are many ques- tions having to do with the conduct of the schools regarding which there are differences of opinion. These questions have to do both with the control and the financial support of the public schools. Most of the questions in which differences of opinion arise in each of these two fields may be classified under one of the two following heads: 1. Whether the authority should be exercised and the support furnished by the state or by local school districts. 2. Whether the function should be performed (o) by a legislative agency such as the Legislature, State Board of Education or Local School Board (usually laymen), or (6) by an Executive Officer (usually an educational expert) such as the State Superintendent, County Superintendent, District Superintendent or Supervising Principal. The tendencies have been manifest not only in Pennsylvania but in all of the other states of the Union, (1) to take away from local school boards the very wide discretion originally granted 15 16 them at the first establishment of the state's public school systein, (2) to place a larger share of the management, as well as the expense of conducting the schools, upon the state government, and (3) to increase the power and extend the duties of state and local executive officers at the expense of the lay citizens holding office on local boards. These tendencies have been persistent and have been observed in most of the states of the Union without many backward steps. These withdrawals of authority were made in all cases by acts of the Legislature, elected by the people and in accordance with the state constitution as framed by the people and had as their purpose the improvement of the efficiency of the schools. These transfers may be divided into four different classes: 1. Those in which the Legislature assumed the power of act- ing upon matters formerly decided by the local school boards. As an example of this may be mentioned (a) the requirement that music shall be a part of the course of study in all the public schools of the state; (b) the fixing of the minimum salary to be paid to the teachers. 2. Those which authorized the State Superintendent of Public Instruction to exercise certain authority over the conduct of local schools, as for example in the condenma- tion of school buildings passed in 1911 and in the require- ment that he should enJForce in the local school districts the provisions of the Compulsory Education Act passed in 1911. 3. Those which authorized the State Board of Educa- tion to pass supplementary legislation, as in the finding of the requirements for teachers' certificates. 4. Those which gave the local superintendent the authority and the right to exercise f imctions performed by the local board as in the recommendation of text-books to be adopted by the schools, and in the first class districts, in the nomination of persons to fill certain positions. These transfers of authority and responsibility have usually been brought about by some such process as follows: One or more progressive school districts desired to incor- porate into the schools some new feature. If there was no authority in the state law to do this, permissive legislation was sought and usually secured, inasmuch as no compulsion was exercised upon other districts. Soon thereafter, if the project was considered worthy of general adoption, the state 17 granted Special Aid in order to stimulate other districts to adopt it. As time went on a sufficient number of districts incorporated this new feature until it was considered of suffi- cient importance to be required in all of the schools within a certain group of districts. Efforts were then made by the friends of public education to secure the passage of an act of the Legislature compelling certain classes of districts, or all districts, to bring their schools up to the new standards. All of the districts in the state covered by the Act were then supposed to observe the law. Frequently the State Superin- tendent was authorized or required to withhold the state subsidy from such districts as did not comply with the law. At this point one of the peculiarities of our form of govern- ment manifested itself. As a matter of fact some local districts did not observe the Act and there was no effective provision in our form of government to secure its enforce- ment. This was due to the fact that we do not have a central- ized executive system composed of officers located at the State Capitol and in districts throughout the state to compel the local executive or local boards to comply with the legisla- tion as passed. Variable compliance and non-compliance in different districts with the provision of state law in matters pertaining to education has been one of the noticeable char- acteristics of the public school system of Pennsylvania. Our school legislation has been centralized, but our execu- tion of the laws has been left largely in its decentralized form. Throughout the entire procedure these efforts toward efficiency may seem to have been in conflict with the forces of local control. People have been opposed to giving up the expression of their will to the central Legislature or to the State Board of Education as to what their local schools should be. They have likewise opposed the granting of authority to state officers either directly or in- directly and have opposed the enforcement, in their own particular commimities, of certain laws which have been passed by the State Legislature. They have, however, welcomed state support but at the same time have not wished to observe the standards re- quired in order to receive it. The situation in Pennsylvania is still in process of change. The solution involves a number of unsettled questions which are of great importance not only to schools but to the state and to society as a whole. Is the individual to be encouraged in the exer- cise of his own independent thinking in his participation in govern- ment? In the case of a community that is overwhelmingly opposed 18 to a particular Act of the Legislature, to what extent is it to be allowed not to comply with that legislation? Should it become a principle of action that a particular practice in connection with schools should be observed with a certain percentage of the school districts of the state under permissive legislation, before a manda- tory act of the Legislature makes it compulsory in all of the districts? Which is the better plan in order to secure enforce- ment of educational acts: (a) To educate local communities as to the wisdom of the state law or (b) to compel them to observe it? Does a measure which promotes the efficiency of the schools, likewise by virtue of that fact promote the well being of the state? Is it the function of the public school system not only to educate the children but also to promote greater intelligence in citizenship among the voters? How can the lasnnan be brought to a more intelligent appreciation of the views of the expert in making his decisions upon education and other public questions? Certain of these and similar questions will be discussed in con- nection with the treatment of the data relative to the present educational situation in Pennsylvania. It would seem that the solution of the present problems should be made in such a way as to promote the highest well-being to the state in the long run, and not the interest of the schools alone nor of any particular com- munity alone, but according to the best interests of all people of the state in all of their activities. CHAPTER II. Public Schools, Situation in Pennsylvania During Second Decade of 20th Century, 1910-20. Relative Position of Pennsylvania Schools. — A study of the educational statistics of the various states in the Union during the past thirty years points to the conclusion that Pennsylvania has, during this time, gradually lost ground as compared with the other states in the development of her schools. In proof of this Pennsylvania's rank among the states of the Union in a number of important items on which data are available is shown in Table 1. TABLE 1. Pennsylvania's Rank Among the States of the Union in Certain Important Items for Specified Years.' Years Percent of school population at- tending school daily Average days attended by each child of school age Average number of days schools were kept open Percent that high school at- tendance was of total attendance 1890 3 28 23 24 7 18 19 21 14 9 18 10 25 1900 26 1910 28 1918 29 ^This Table is adapted from Ayres' 31. 33, 36 and 49. 'An Index Number for State School Systems." Pages Salaries of Teachers. — The state was also falling greatly behind the others in the average salaries paid teachers during this period. Table 2 taken from Updegraff's Brief submitted to the Commission on Constitutional Amendment and Revision of the- Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, 1920 (No. 32), shows that while salaries did increase over the 28 year period, nevertheless the salaries were lower during the entire time than in the United States as a whole, and that the percent of diiference greatly increased until in 1916 the average monthly amount paid to men teachers in Pennsylvania was 24.3 percent less than in the United States as a whole, while the average paid women was 32.3 per- cent less. 19 20 TABLE 2. Average Salaries op Teachers in United States and in Pennsylvania as Given in Reports op United States Commissioner op Education for Years Indicated.' MEN WOMEN Year United States Penn- sylvania Difference United States Penn- sylvania Difference Dollars Percent Dollars Percent 1888... 1893... 1903... 1913... 1915... 1916.. $41.75 46.39 49.98 78.29 82.36 86.36 $38.64 43.94 44.82 66.82 68.43 68.63 3.21 2.45 6.16 12.47 13.92 16.73 8.3 6.6 11.6 18.9 20.3 24.3 $34.21 38.46 40.61 61.31 64.72 66.88 $30.16 33.04 34.11 48.69 60.14 60.65 4.05 5.42 6.40 12.62 14.58 16.33 13.4 16.4 18.8 28.0 29.1 32.3 ^Commission on Constitutional Amendment and Revision — Memoranda and Briefs No. 32, April 7, 1920, Page 14. The nation-wide study made of teachers' salaries for the year 1913 by the National Education Association shows that the salaries of teachers in cities in Pennsylvania were smaller than the standards for cities of the same size in the United States as a whole and that they were much lower than in New Jersey and New York and somewhat lower than in the State of Ohio. Salaries of superintendents both in large and small cities were likewise low, only nine or ten states pajing lower amounts.* During this time Pennsylvania was a favorite hunting-ground for superin- tendents of other states for securing superior teachers. Even the best graduates of some of the normal schools were going directly from graduation to New Jersey and New York, notwithstanding the fact that the state of Pennsylvania had given them their teacher preparation. One reason why it was difficult to secure experienced teachers was the very prevalent custom of continuing experienced teachers on at the same salary year after year and of not granting superior teachers higher salaries than those of inferior ability. Qualifications of Teachers. — Regarding the qualifications of teachers in the state the following data are available for teachers •See Updegraff in Schoolmen's Week Proceedings University of Pennsylvania — 1916 pp 48-67 and 1918, pp. 61-66. 21 in rural schools for the year 1918. t Twenty-three percent of the teachers in schools under county superintendent's supervision (including borough and rural) were new teachers without experi- ence, only 31 percent had normal school training and but 5 percent were college graduates. In the one-teacher rural schools 39 per- cent of the teachers had never attended a high school; 32 percent were without experience; but 39 percent of them had been teaching in the same position in the previous year and only 15 percent were normal school graduates. In the cities of the state during the same year only about 37 percent had normal school training and 11 percent were college graduates; 52 percent held certificates not requiring such high standards known as permanent, profes- sional and provisional certificates. This combination of low salaries, meagre preparation and little experience would naturally produce poor teaching. Relative Standing of Pennsylvania School Children. — The resxilts of giving the standard tests in school subjects in boroughs and in city school systems by the University of Pennsylvania and the University of Pittsburgh during the years 1918, 1919 and 1920 furnish data which throws direct light upon this point. Tables 3, 4 and 5 for fundamental operations in arithmetic, silent reading and reasoning in arithmetic show that the children in the schools of Pennsylvania did not, on the whole, display so good ability as children in corresponding schools in other states. Although these are the scores of the first tests for Pennsylvania children, whereas some of the scores from outside the state were those of second or third tests; nevertheless, after making due allowances for this difference it seems clear that all of the facts in these previous paragraphs — low rank as to efficiency, low scores, low standing of pupils — ^go to establish the fact that the public schools in the state of Pennsylvania did not, during the decade, rank favorably as compared with public schools in other states, more particularly those located in the northern and the western parts of the United States. tTaken from King's "Status of the Rural Teacher in Pennsylvania, United States Bulletin — 1921, No. 84." 22 TABLE 3. State, General and Standard Scores, Courtis Arithmetic Test, March, 1918.' MEDIANS Addition . Subtraction Multi- plication Division Rate Ace. Rate Ace. Rate Ace. Rate Ace. Sixth Grade Pennsylvania Medians Kansas Medians 7.0 6.9 8.3 8.5 7.7 9.8 10 8.7 9.8 9.5 10.0 9.2 11.6 12 65 65 64 67 62 73 100 75 78 67 72 69 76 100 7.8 8.8 8.7 9.7 8.4 10.3 11 10.6 11.7 10.9 12.0 11.2 12.9 13 81 82 77 83 76 85 100 83 85 82 86 86 87 100 7.6 8.1 7.5 8.6 7.6 9.1 9 10.0 10.2 9.9 11.5 10.7 11.5 11 78 74 68 76 71 78 100 82 81 74 81 81 81 100 5.2 6.4 6.1 7.0 5.6 8.2 8 8.1 9.8 9.7 10.8 8.6 10.7 11 77 82 Indiana Medians 79 83 Minnesota Medians 78 General Medians 87 100 Eighth Grade Pennsylvania Medians Kansas Medians 89 88 Indiana Medians. . . , 87 91 Minnesota Medians General Median .... 89 91 100 ^Schoolmen's Week Proceedings 1918, Pages 106-107. TABLE 4. Pennsylvania Medians, Monroe Silent Reading Tests, April, 1919. ' Sixth Grade Eighth Grade medians Rate Comprehension Rate Comprehension 84 92 17.2 21.0 90 108 22.8 Monroe Standard, May 27.6 ^Schoolmen's Week Proceedings 1919, Page 103. TABLE 5. Pennsylvania Medians, Monroe ReasoningTests, February, 1920.' Sixth Grade Eighth Grade medians Correct Principle Correct Answer Correct Principle Correct Answer 13.8 15.5 9.9 10.2 18.7 16.8 9.2 8.4 Monroe June Standard (Tentative) ^Schoolmen's Week Proceedings 1920, Page 135. Beginnings of Upward Movement. — Thus while this decade marked a low ebb for educational affairs in the state of Pennsyl- vania, there were at the same time certain influences working in the direction of the up-building of the schools. Among those were the passage of the School Code of 1911 under the administration of Governor Stuart which gradually introduced reforms in our 23 school administration. The annual conferences of teachers held by the Pennsylvania State Education Association, the University of Pittsburgh, the University of Pennsylvania, and later by the State Superintendent of Public Instruction, which were largely attended by the school people of the state, gave information regarding the educational conditions in the state and in the United States as a whole and suggested means for improving educational conditions throughout the state. The facts revealed regarding the illiteracy among the Pennsylvania boys who were drafted into the army carried the lesson to the people of the state generally. In addition to this was the granting of votes to women through an amendment to the United States Constitution, which imme- diately stimulated interest in the subject of education among all citizens. Teachers and citizens alike became more active in improving conditions throughout the state. Woodruff Act — Edmonds Act. — ^AU of these factors brought about the passage of the Woodruff Act in 1919. The appointment of Thomas E. Finegan as Superintendent of Pubhc Instruction later in the same year introduced a vigorous leader; while the passage, under his leadership, of the Edmonds Act and other bills for the improvement of educational conditions introduced a num- ber of important changes in the Legislature of 1921. These Acts, taken together with the large expansion in the office of the State Superintendent of Public Instruction and the more vigorous enforcement by the State Superintendent of laws, most of which had been upon the statute books for a number of years, but not enforced, and the greater activity of his office in its efforts to encourage the voluntary introduction of new measures on the part of Local Boards of Education in order to increase the efficiency of their schools have produced a new regime in education in this state. Naturally the opposition referred to earlier in this study which seems to exist between efficiency and local control was kindled afresh. Purpose of This Study. — It is the function of this study to endeavor to evaluate the present situation, particularly from the standpoint of financial support of the schools. This is a practical question of immediate importance by reason of the fact that apparently the income of the state is not adequate to meet the demands that are made upon it under the existing law. A con- 24 siderable proportion — 26 percent — of the state income at the present time is going to the support of the elementary and secon- dary schools controlled by the local school districts and to the support of the normal schools and higher educational institutions. Should this support be continued in its present form and extent? If not, what modifications are desirable? These are the funda- mental questions to be answered by this study. Collateral ques- tions relative to control will naturally arise and they will be dealt with in their proper place, but only in so far as it is necessary in order to answer these major questions. The Wisdom of the Financial Policy Embodied in the Edmonds Act. The Edmonds Act, together with its predecessor, the Woodruff Act, caused a considerable increase in the cost of public schools of the state. In order to pass upon the question whether this increased cost is warranted it is necessary to examine several different sorts of material. Let us take, in the first place, the cost of education in Pennsylvania during the preceding years as com- pared with the cost of public education in the United States. Table 6 (see page 25) furnishes the data relative to the cost per capita of average daily attendance for the United States as a whole for three different groups of states and for seven individual states scattered throughout the country. It will be seen from this table, and from Diagram 1 (page 26) which illustrates it, that the cost for the year 1919-20 per child attending was lower in Pennsylvania than in the United States as a whole, and was also lower than in any of the groups of states and in any of the individual states. The state has occupied this low positionever since 1880. Pennsyl- vania has been a low-cost education state for a period of forty years. This fact goes to show, since people usually get about the worth of their money in education as in other commodities, that it was desirable in Pennsylvania to increase the cost of education in order to obtain more efficient schools. 25 t-t-noo>eOf-i t-t-t"0»Ot-9101'4'00e9O t-(Dt»t-a«owt-cot-no 8 -« 03 in -^ to ua CD -^lo-^) c- toio H ■a! iaioioioootot-ioc9<.^ 3 n E-i O E-i NiH0404O4O]NO3rHO3O]N >aiSS o o S 26 SUB/lOff swe/foff •eeiK 27 Comparative Costs. — Table No. 7 (page 25) giving the expen- diture per capita of total population during the period 1870-1920, shows the efforts made to support public education in Pennsylvania in comparison with efforts made in other states. This table and the accompanjdng diagram, Diagram 2 (page 28), shows Pennsylvania to have a low position. This means that, taking man for man in Permsylvania as compared with citizens of other states, they have not, during these fifty years, put so much money into education. This would indicate that in order for Pennsylvania to make its schools equally efficient with those of other states it is necessary that its expenditures be increased. Similar data giving expenditures per capita of average daily attendance for teachers' salaries and expenditure per capita of school population shows Pennsylvania in the same relative posi- tion. They are not included here because of lack of space. The conclusion therefore is, from the standpoint of the money put into the schools per pupil attending and per inhabitant, that increasing the expenditures for Pennsylvania schools was a wise policy; that it was, in fact, an absolute necessity. Comparative Tax Rates. — ^Another type of material that may be used to throw light upon the question is a comparison of the tax rates paid in the different states for the support of schools. Data under this head is available, but is not so complete. Com- paring true tax rates in which the differences of rates of assessment have been eliminated for the year 1915, it is clear that the tax rates for schools in Pennsylvania cities of from 30,000 to 100,000 population were lower as compared with cities generally. Of thirteen Pennsylvania cities only five had a true tax rate as high as the median of eighty-four cities. These cities compare more favorably as regards taxation for schools than for taxation for all local purposes including schools. In this case only two cities of the thirteen had a true tax rate above the median. Data for the year 1921 are not complete. Such as they are, however, they show that Pennsylvania cities occupy a relatively low position as regards the tax rate for cities.* A comparison of the true tax rates in rural school districts in Pennsylvania and the state of New York for the year 1919 shows that their median tax rates are approximately the same — 5.7 mills •See Updegraff. Schoolmen's Week Proceedings, 1917, pp. 101-116. 28 S 8 29 and 5.4 mills respectively. A comparison of the true tax rates for school purposes for cities of the two states for the same year do not show so favorably for the state of Pennsylvania. The true tax rate for cities in Pennsylvania for that year was 6.4 mills while in the state of New York it was 7.9 mills. These data go to show that from the standpoint of the cost per $100 of taxable property, an increase in the cost of schools of Pennsylvania would not cause a greater burden upon the people than that borne by people in other states. Comparative data for the cost of schools for the year 1921-22, the first year of the operation of the Edmonds Act, are available to a very small extent. We know, however, that the median true tax rate for schools in the cities of Pennsylvania for the year 1922 was 9.2 mills, 1.3 mills more than the median tax rate for cities in the state of New York for the year 1919. Inasmuch as it is probable that the tax rate of the cities in the state of New York advanced during this three-year period as much or more than this amount, it would not seem as though the local city tax rates caused by the administration of the Edmonds Act were unreasonably high. Taking into account, therefore, the relative low position of Pennsylvania cities as compared with other cities in the United States in previous years it cannot be said that the schools of the state are an undue burden upon the city tax-payers. Comparative Salaries of Teachers in City Schools. — There is one sort of data that seems fairly complete for the year 1922. It is that of teachers' salaries in all classes of districts in the various states of the Union. The Research Department of the National Education Association has received data from several hundred districts of all sizes giving the exact salaries paid to all teachers. The median salaries have been computed for the individual cities, for the states as wholes and for cities arranged in groups. The median salaries paid in each state, to all the teachers serving in the cities in each group in elementary teaching positions, show Pennsylvania salaries to rank as follows: 30 Elementary Teachers United Pennsyl- Rank of in Cities States vania State 100,000 and over $1,848 $1,966 3 25,000 to 100,000 1,379 1,244 24 10,000 to 25,000 1,241 1,130 28 2,500 to 10,000 1,097 1,029 24 Villages and towns, 3 or more teachers. 1,010 992 28 Country schools, 3 or more teachers . . . 885 881 25 Country schools, 2 teachers 877 735 30 Country schools, 1 teacher 774 655 34 Consolidated schools 987 831 33 This data proves that salaries paid elementary teachers under the Edmonds Act are near or below the average in all classes of cities except the first class, in which group salaries are higher. Should the comparison be confined to the states in the northern half of the country, Pennsylvania would rank among the lowest states. Since such a comparison is a fair one it would seem that there can be no doubt that the standard for salaries set up in the Edmonds Act, notwithstanding the fact that there will be increases in later years under this head, are warranted and should be maintained. Current Expenses in Cities Compared. Such data as is available relative to cost of education in cities in 1921-22 is presented in Table 8. (See page 31.) These data have been furnished by the State Superintendents in the various states in response to a request of this Committee. The cities in the table are arranged according to population and in such a way as to place cities of approximately the same popula- tion on the same horizontal line. This shows that the cost of education per pupil is not on the whole so high in Pennsylvania cities as in those of New York, Illinois, Connecticut and Massa- chusetts. 31 00 ?9^ S m\ £3|s 6a 1 3^ lis Hiss OS III s^ ot S'' aW 8 g ox: c : V O nu Us I lis 2 (N ■* O mo to U3<-« CQ O^ SO)t» •-' oo> SO 04 01 IBS I& ^H O Pi 5 lO <0 C4 3 CPtOoO coco 00 lO pLiS m il^i s sail gSS 3 32 One very important consideration that should always be kept in mind in connection with the increase in the cost of education is that most of this increase was due to circumstances outside of the control of school superintendents and school boards. Doctor John K. Norton, Director of the Research Department of the National Education Association, has brought this out in a striking manner in a recent Bulletin published by that organization.' The chart which represents clearly and graphically the facts is printed herewith — Diagram 3 (page 33). It shows that notwithstanding the fact that the cost of education in the United States as a whole increased seven and a half times from 1890 to 1920, only 8 percent of this increase was due to conditions within the control of school boards and school superintendents; the next factor causing the increase was the depreciation of the dollar, which accounts for 70 percent of it; the remainder, 22 percent, was due to the increase in the attendance. Wealth of Pennsylvania. — The next question in order is whether the state of Pennsylvania is in a good position, from the standpoint of her wealth, to bear the costs of the present financial burden for education. The latest governmental investigation made of the taxable wealth of the various states shows that Pennsylvania in 1912 ranked nineteenth in the true valuation per capita of general property. The amount of general property available for taxation is not, however, a true index of ability of the people to support schools. Possibly the best index is fur- nished by a comparison of the income of the inhabitants of each of the states. The National Bureau of Economic Research has recently published the results of several years' study in this field. This shows that in per capita income, Pennsylvania again ranks nineteenth with an income of $683, the standard for the United States being $627. The list of states having a larger income per capita is given in Table No. 9 (page 34). From this data it is clear that in order for Pennsylvania to put as much money into her schools as many other northern states she will have to impose higher rates of taxation both upon general property and upon incomes from other classes of property, provided such property is made taxable. iFacts on the Cost of Public Education and What They Mean, Bulletin One of the Research Department of the National Education Association. 33 Mlliienv of KLlllon* «r Ballon bpandlturH r«r Pu&li«. SduoktlOB IBM Proportion tf iHroaa* Or«r ia90 Chargeable to Xaeroaisoil Attoii4JU0» D Proporiioa of laorouo Ovor 1890 Cluirgoibla t« ZaoroMod Sffloltaay mt floRool I froportiOB ar Xnoraai* Ovar 1890 1 ChargaaUa ta Dapraolatloa af tM Ilallar Zaoroaaa av«r ia9Q •T4.4S7,90S |l40,»t,T15^H •96.3(02. «e6 |U.e42.41« |1U,C20.3TJ $195.304. 333 Diagram 3. — ^An Analysis op the Increase in Expenditures FOR PxjBLic Education by Decades, 1890 to 1920. 34 TABLE 9. Income per Capita — 1919.' United States $627 1 New York 874 2 Nevada 850 3 California 820 4 Delaware 792 5 Wyoming 789 6 Massachusetts 788 7 Washington 786 8 Illinois 765 9 New Jersey 758 10 Rhode Island 720 11 Connecticut 717 12 Oregon 711 13 Iowa 706 14 Michigan 704 15 Nebraska 702 16 Ohio 689 17 Maryland 689 18 South Dakota 685 19 Pennsylvania 683 '"Distribution of Income by States in 1919" Oswald W. Knauth. It remains for the people of Pennsylvania to decide whether they will prefer to tax themselves more heavily and thus have schools among the very best of the entire Union or to have their efficiency determined by the wealth that lies back of the schools. However, in so far as the present Pennsylvania standards of salaries are concerned, and very probably of total expenses, it seems clear that they cannot be higher relatively than her position in regard to income. In fact Pennsylvania's rank as to salaries of elemen- tary teachers in all classes of schools is even lower than her wealth per capita of population in 1912 or her income per inhabitant in 1919. Thus, from every point of view it seems that the salaries should be at least as high as those established by the Edmonds Act, and since the teachers' salaries consume from 60 to 80 percent of the total expenses of the schools, that the total expense of schools should not be reduced below their present level. Distribution of Costs between State and local districts. — The question which next arises is: How should the cost of schools be distributed between the state and local districts? The practice of Pennsylvania as compared with the practices of other states during the past 30 years in the proportion of cost borne by the 35 state is shown in Table No. 10, which gives the percent of school revenue derived by the local districts from the state in Pennsylvania and in the United States as a whole and in various groups of states and seven individual states. From this table it will be seen that the practice is quite varied and, as may be inferred, there are not at the present time any well-established standards in this regard. Pennsylvania's rank among all the states in the Union in the year 1919-20 was twenty-seven, which means that twenty-six states obtained a greater percent of sup- port from the central government and that twenty- one received a less proportion. TABLE 10. Percent of School Revenue Derived from State.' STATES •89-'90 •99-'00 ■09-'10 '11-'12 '13-'14 •15-'16 '17-'18 ■19-'20 Pennsylvania United States N. A. States N. 0. States Western States New York 10.59 23.75 17.11 17.61 29.40 19.83 62.84 (1888) 18.98 3.35 3.90 51.64 22.0 20.8 15.1 14.8 83.4 10.9 40.6 (1898) 16.2 1.2 1.4 (1898) 48.7 16.6 18.1 12.3 14.7 20.4 9.6 17.6 10.2 2.0 7.5 28.1 14.26 19.41 15.26 13.79 24.58 9.19 61.42 16.91 2.22 7.14 30.88 10.78 18.66 13.87 15.10 25.35 8.08 46.84 9.21 1.93 6.65 27.68 10.32 17.82 13.04 13.84 23.99 8.18 44.08 9.66 1.76 8.00 24.15 = 9.6 16.8 17.4 18.2 20.3 9.5 45.3 8.2 3.7 2.2 22.3 15.9 16.8 16.85 26.22 16.60 12.1 - New Jersey Ohio 35.6 7.3 Massachusetts 12.3 1.6 California 20.4 'Data furnished by United States Bureau of Education Reports. Another standard which will assist in reaching a judgment is furnished by a consideration of the percent of the total expenses of state government that goes to the support of education. In this respect Pennsylvania ranked 39th in the year 1918-19 as may be observed from Table 11 (see page 36). Should the percentage of expenditures in other states have remained the same in 1922 as in 1919, Pennsylvania with her $36,000,000 appropriation for educa- tion would still have a rank not higher than the 30th. There were in 1918-19 only 9 states giving a less proportion. In the amount per capita of population given by the state or central government 36 to the support of schools, Pennsylvania in the same year ranked 35th as is shown in Table 12. In the percentage of total revenue of local districts received from the state, Pennsylvania ranked twenty-sixth, as may be seen from Table 13. Her present rank even with the larger appropriation is probably no higher. In so far as such data as these furnish a standard it would seem that Penn- sylvania took a normal step forward in increasing the amount of her appropriation for education and that she might properly still further increase her state appropriation for education. TABLE 11. States Which Had in 1918-19 a Higher Percentage OF Expenditures of State Government for Schools Than Pennsylvania.' Percent UnitedStates 33.8 1 Utah 57.5 2 North Dakota 64 . 2 8 Texas 63.2 4 New Mexico 51.0 5 Mississippi 50 . 8 6 New Jersey 49.9 7 Georgia 49.2 8 Delaware 48.7 9 South Dakota 46.2 10 California 46.0 11 Alabama 43.7 12 Arizona 43.6 13 Nevada 43.6 14 Nebraska 43.3 16 Wisconsin 42.6 16 Michigan 42. S 17 Washington 42.4 18 Kansas 42.4 19 Kentucky 41.7 20 Vir^nia 40.6 21 Indiana 40.0 22 Wyoming 38.4 23 Minnesota 38.3 24 Arkansas 37.9 26 West Virginia 37. 1 26 Idaho 36.8 27 Montana 35.2 28 Maine 84.6 29 North Carolina 34.3 30 South Carolina 84.1 31 Oregon 83. 32 Missouri SI .7 33 Illinois: 31.8 34 Tennessee 31.0 35 Oklahoma 30.9 36 Louisiana 29.9 37 Colorado 29 . 5 38 Ohio 29.9 39 Pennsylvania 26.8 'Bureau of Census, Financial Statistics of States, 1919, p. 88, 37 TABLE 12. States Which Had in 1918-1919 Higher Expenses of State Government per Capita for Schools than Pennsylvania.' United States $1.74 1 Arizona 6.46 2 Utah 5.18 8 Nevada 4.64 4 New Jersey 4.04 6 Minnesota 3.62 6 Wyoming 8.65 7 California 8.40 8 Michigan 8.42 9 Montana 8.19 10 North Dakota 3.19 11 Washington 3.00 12 Maine 2.98 13 Tems 2.86 14 Wisconsin 2.85 15 New Mexico 2.77 16 South Dakota 2.77 17 Delaware 2.68 18 Idaho 2 .29 19 Vermont 2.25 20 Kentucky 1.93 21 Nebraska 1 . 91 22 Indiana 1.89 23 Colorado 1.75 24 Virginia 1 . 72 26 Maryland 1.68 26 Oregon 1.67 27 Kansas 1.68 28 New Hampshire 1.41 29 Mississippi 1.40 30 Connecticut 1 .37 31 Alabama 1.36 32 Missouri 1 . 34 83 Georgia 1.30 34 Iowa 1.29 35 Pennsylvania 1 .25 >U. S. Bureau of Census. Financial Statistics of States. 1919, p. 87. TABLE 13. Percentage of Total Revenue Receipts of Local Districts Coming From the State, 1919-20.'' 1 Texas 64.0 2 Mississippi 62.1 3 Alabama 61.3 4 District of Columbia 49.6 6 Georgia 43.6 6 Maryland 41 .6 7 Kentucky 37.1 8 Virginia 36.7 9 Maine 35.6 10 New Jersey 35.6 11 Delaware 35.3 12 Vermont 33.1 18 Utah 31.5 14 North Carolina 30.1 16 Nevada 26.6 16 Louisiana 24.6 17 Wyoming 24.3 18 Arkansas S„ ' 1 19 California 20.4 20 Minnesota }^-° 21 Arizona 1°' 22 Washington l°.l 23 Tennessee ]'° 24 New Mexico I'-J 26 Michigan "•! 26 Pennsylvania l"-" "Furnished by U. S. Bureau of Education. 38 Appropriations. — Summing up the inferences derived from the data presented to test out the wisdom of expenditures required by the Edmonds Act it may be said that the expenses of schools required by it are near the norm for the United States as a whole but below the norm for the northern states; that the local tax rates required by it are probably no higher than the average; that the amounts of money granted by the state when measured both as to percent of total expenses and by the cost per capita are near the norm, and that in the appropriation of total expenses going to the support of schools she is below the average. Taken all in all, therefore, the practice of other states in the Union justifies an increase in the state appropriations for educa- tion rather than an increase in the local tax. However, increases in the latter may still be made without burdening the people unduly. Present Distribution of State Aid to School Districts. The present system of state aid to local districts is contained in the Edmonds Act. By reason of that fact the system of state aid has become closely identified in the minds of many people with the scheme of salary schedules and with the plan for gradually increasing the qualifications of teachers which are also embodied therein. As a matter of fact they are not interdependent. Although closely related, any one of these features may be changed without altering the others. It is important that this truth be kept in mind in the further consideration of the state's educational finances, viz., subsidies and standards are closely connected in the same relationship as cause and effect, but they are not parts of an organic whole. The field of this inquiry does not cover the careful study of the structure of the salary schedules but rather only the amounts of money they involve; neither does it include the standards for the qualifications of teachers. It is believed, however, that these features of the Edmonds Act, forming as they do, part of a broad statesman-like plan for the gradual improvement of instruction in the schools, stamp it as one of the most worthy pieces of educa- tional legislation in the history of the Commonwealth. These standards should be maintained against any effort which directly or indirectly may have the effect of lowering them. 39 Method of Distribution Under the Edmonds Act. Under the Edmonds Act first class districts receive for each teacher, supervisor and principal and any other members of the teaching and supervisory staff in day schools 25 percent of the annual minimum salary ($1,200 or $300 per person) established for elementary teachers for that class of district. Second and third class districts receive 35 percent of the minimum standard salary ($1,000 or $350 per person) adopted for those classes of districts. In fourth class districts the subsidy amounts to 50 percent of the minimum salaries, which are $100 per month for elementary teachers with Normal School certificates or equivalent, and $130 per month for high school teachers with Normal School certifi- cates or equivalent. Grants for teachers holding lower grades of certificates are based in all districts upon the salary of $85 per month for teachers with Partial certificates and $75 per month for teachers with Emergency certificates. This system of grants established in this Act represents an advance over previous Pennsylvania legislation of this character. It was the best plan of distribution obtainable at the time of its passage and the author of this chapter gave it his support. Its advantages will be brought out in the course of the further treat- ment of this study, certain of which are as follows: Advantages — 1. Longer School Terms. — It encourages the lengthening of the school term in fourth class districts. It is in this class of districts that practically all schools of less than 9 months' terms are to be found. 2. Better Teachers. — It rewards school districts for employ- ing teachers of superior qualifications in so far as such qualifications can be determined by the type of certificate held. This is accomplished by giving larger quotas for teachers holding higher certificates. This does not apply, however, to certificates higher than that of the Normal School certificate except in the case of the High School teacher certificate in fourth class districts. 3. Easy Budgeting. — It promotes easy budgeting both upon the part of the local district and the state government. This is because its terms are easily understood and the computations required are of the simplest sort. 40 4. State Appropriation. — It begins to recognize the prin- ciple that a larger proportion of teachers' salaries should be paid by the state to the poorer districts than to the wealthier districts. How far this principle is followed in reality will be indicated when a consideration of the results of the actual operation of the law is reached. Disadvantages — Notwithstanding these advantages and the improvements it has introduced over previous plans followed in this state, the plan has certain disadvantages which prevent the realization of the higher efficiency which it is possible for a system of state aid to produce. These disadvantages will be pointed out more clearly in the more detailed study of the operation of the plan as it is presented later, but certain of the most important points may be indicated here: 1. Incorrect Distribution of Appropriation. — The wealthy districts receive too much and the poor districts too little within each class of district. 2. Unequal Salary Grants. — Third class districts are much poorer, as a group, than second class districts, yet they receive the same grants of $350 per teacher. 3. Insufficient Encouragement. — It fails to stimulate local districts to bring their schools up to the highest standard and to penalize them whenever they seek to lower efficiency, which end might be accomplished by taking into account the amount of the tax rate in distribu- tion of aid. 4. Limited Special Aid. — The number of forms of Special Aid is limited. 5. Increments in Salary. — State aid does not cover the increments in salary above the initial salary. 6. Fixed Salary Schedule. — The Act fixes minimum salaries for local communities including increments over a period of years. At the present time in Pennsylvania this should not be considered a disadvantage. The plan is not con- sistent, however, in that the increments are not pre- scribed for fourth class districts and extend over a short period only in third class districts. Recommendations Provided the Present System of Aid Is Maintained — In order to promote the highest efficiency in the local school 41 districts it would be advisable, in case the present system of aid be retained, to remedy the deficiencies pointed out above by: (a) Establishment of state-wide minimum salary schedule for fourth class districts and extension of the increments already fixed for third class districts. ■ (b) By increasing the allotment to third class districts from 35 percent to 40 percent. (c) By having state aid apply to the increments in salary above the initial salary, at the same time diminishing the percentages of the grants so that total appropriations from the state will not be increased by such action. It is believed, however, that the best interests of the schools of the state would be served if a plan for state aid were adopted which would stop the inefficient use of money involved in giving wealthy districts as much as poor districts, and those which levy a low tax as much as those that levy a high tax within the various district groups. A better plan would be that which would equalize educational conditions between districts and also stimulate each district to its best efforts. Any plan which would realize these ends would assist much more effectively in achieving the objects implied in the Edmonds Act than the scheme for state aid con- tained therein or in the improvement of this Act as recommended above. Such a plan should be put into effect at the earliest possible time without sacrificing the present standards of the Act relative to teachers' salaries and to teacher qualifications. Proposed Modification of the Edmonds Act. It is believed that such a plan has been found for the better realization of the objects of the Edmonds Act. This plan of state aid is composed of two parts, GENERAL AID and SPECIAL AID. By General Aid is meant those grants that are given to all school districts of the state irrespective of the kind of school they have maintained. Special Aid are those grants which are given to certain districts to assist in support of particular projects or plans that they have undertaken. The plan proposed for General Aid may be called The Ability AND Effort Plan since it responds closely and immediately to any change in the local districts in their ability to support their schools or in the effort which they make by putting more or less 42 money into their schools. It may be based either upon total expenses or upon teachers' salaries alone, excluding all other expenses. It has no reference whatever to expenditures for capital outlays, such as new buildings or permanent improvements or for debt service such as is included in the payment of bonds and interest. It is based upon the teacher quota as in the Edmonds Act, but the amount of the quota is much more variable. The ability of a school district to support schools depends upon the amount of taxable wealth it has. Districts vary greatly in this respect. But before they can be compared it is necessary to eliminate the differences among them in the size of their schools. This can be done by ascertaining the amount of property taxable for schools back of each teacher employed. It is necessary also that another adjustment be made. Different districts assess property at different rates of assessment. In some the average rate of assessment is 90 percent of its true value, in others 50 percent, in others at 25 percent. Before comparison can be made it is necessary to ascertain what the taxable wealth would be if assessed at 100 percent of its true value. This amount divided by the number of teachers gives the true valuation /per teacher. It furnishes a figure from which all the disturbing factors are re- moved and so they may be safely used as indicating the relative differences in the school districts in their ability to support schools. Diagram 4 shows the distribution of true wealth per teacher in each of the various classes of school districts. Every first and second class district in the state is included; all of the third class districts in twelve of the typical counties and a mechanical sam- pling of all the fourth class districts in the same twelve counties. It is believed that the distribution in the third and fourth class districts is typical of the state as a whole. 43 'fflOU3ANDS DOLLARS FOURTH CLASS DIST 3?:^CLA55D15r. 15.'&22^CLAS5D!ST, UNDER 10 3 ^_ 10-19 3 ^B 20-29 3 ^M 30-39 40-49 6 7 50-59 60-69 70-79 80-89 90-99 100-109 12 10 13 8 10 6 4 1 1 5 ■ 110-119 120-129 130-139 8 6 3 5 8 2 — 1 - ^ 140-149 7 3 ^_ 150-159 5 ■M^ i ■ 160-169 1 ■ 2 ^ 1 ■ 170-179 3 MB 1 ■ 2 ma 180-189 2 IB 2 ^ 2 ■■ 190-199 2 ^ 2 ^ 2 ■■ 200-209 1 ■ 210-219 2 ^ 1 ■ 1 ■ 220-229 5 ^^^ 230-239 1 ■ 2 ^ 1 ■ 240-249 1 ■ 1 ■ 1 ■ 250-259 1 ■ 1 ■ 260-269 3 ^H 270-279 2 ^ 1 ■ 280-289 1 ■ 1 ■ 290-299 1 ■ 300-309 2 iB ] ■ 310-319 2 ■■ 320-329 1 ■ 330-339 1 ■ 340- ?ai 13 6 2 " / J^xsT Class City a Ibid Diagram 4.— Distribution of True Valuation Back of Each Teacher in Each of the Various Classes of School Districts in Pennsylvania, 1920-1921. 44 The effort which a district makes to support schools is deter- mined primarily by the amount of money it spends per school unit. As the "ability and effort" plan is arranged, the differences among the districts in this respect are accurately measured by the true tax rates, meaning by this term the tax that a district would levy if its property were assessed at 100 percent of its value. The dif- ferences in truetaxratesamongthevarious districts underthe present plan of state aid are shown in Tables 18, 19 and 20 (pages 52 and 53). The significance of these terms "ability" and "effort" will be still further developed in the later discussion which is to follow the next section of this chapter. Principles Underlying Distribution of State Aid in School Districts. Before furnishing a statement of the plans for General Aid and Special Aid it is desirable to give the principles which it is believed should govern the granting of state funds to local school districts and to evaluate the present plan in the light of those principles. It should be emphasized, however, that this evaluation is not made in criticism of the present plan of the Edmonds Act but to point out those new features which should be incorporated into the plan which would better promote the greatest efficiency in local school districts through the bestowal of state grants. 1. Equalization of Ability. — State aid should be dis- tributed in such a way as to insure a good school to every community, upon a reasonable tax rate. This may be done by making state aid dependent upon the amount of prop- erty taxable for schools, but in inverse proportion. 2. Reward for Effort. — It ought also to stimulate every school district to have better schools, thereby constantly raising the standard of education and promoting the con- tinual progress of the life of all the people in the state. Adjusting state aid to the number of mills levied within the minimum and maximum limits prescribed by the state will assist in bringing about such a result when properly safeguarded. 3. Special Aid.— It also ought to reward any school that takes a new and approved step in an efficient manner because of the meritorious action that such a step indi- cates. Direct grants for specific accomplishments will realize this end. 45 4. Equality of Opportunity for All Children. — It should do all these things, not only to protect the state from ignorance in the exercise of the ballot and to provide leaders, but also to promote in every possible way the individual welfare of every person in the state. In apply- ing this principle to schools, it means that all forms of aid should be utilized in such manner as to guarantee for each child that education which will best fit him for life, irre- spective of the particular community in which he may happen to live. 5. Self-Determination of Action. — State aid should be distributed also in such a way as to promote the efficient participation of citizens in the exercise of citizenship. The converse of this proposition is that it should not be so administered as to promote bureaucratic control in either state, county or local education offices. This can be accomplished, if on the one hand, the withholding of funds by state officers is exercised only in proportion to the seriousness of the shortcoming; and if on the other hand, right action on the part of local districts unfailingly meets with its reward. The facts are that, in a fairly large number of communi- ties of every state, we need a change in attitude on the part of the citizens toward the schools. These com- munities can frequently be led to change their ideas and to substitute right action over a sufficiently long period of years to bring about a fundamental change in their attitudes toward the benefits of education. That which a citizen learns through the operation of his own action becomes established, while that which is forced upon him against his will he opposes. It is, therefore, fundamental in state aid that we leave final decisions, provided the minimmn and maximum standards fixed by state laws are observed, to the local communities and allow them to choose what they think is best. Such standards should ordinarily, however, permit of considerable range for freedom of action. If this is done we have stronger agencies in the making of a better government and a better society. 6. All Districts Encouraged. — If a system of state aid is working properly, not only are the most advanced districts encouraged and thus the entire body kept moving, but also those districts which are lagging behind are con- stantly stimulated to come up to the standards that have already been adopted through the experience of the more progressive. 46 Evaluation of Pennsylvania's State Aid. General Aid. — The granting of General Aid on the basis of the number of teachers in a school district is in accordance with the best practice. The differences in the amounts of grants made to teachers in first, second and third class districts is so small, how- ever, that General Aid is almost a negligible factor in promoting efficiency in local schools. In making the amount of the grant for each teacher in fourth class districts dependent for the next five years upon the kind of certificate held and the length of term, it offers encouragement to local districts to employ better teachers and to increase the number of months of schooling. The granting of less amounts of aid for teachers with lower grade certificates works, however, to the advantage of the low valuation districts. These districts are so heavily burdened in order to maintain even the cheapest school that many of them feel it necessary to employ the lowest salaried teachers. This may be seen from Table 14. 47 TABLE 14. The Relationship Between the Average Amount per Teacher Received prom the State in 1922 and the True Valuation IN 1921 per Teacher for Typical Fourth Class Districts in 12 Typical Counties. STATE AID per Teacher g 1 s CI s i i 1 s C4 s m 1 I i 1 i 1 2 2 g m i 1 1 2 s eo S eo i 2 2 o eo eo 1 eo i i i S eo i 1 i 1 i s M 2 2 i 2 2 1 2 o i i i i 1 2 g 2 i 1 1 S "I* 2 — 1 1 — 2 2 o — — — — I $ 0,000- 9,999 10,000- 19,999 20,000- 29,999 30,000- 39,999 40,000- 49,999 50,000- 69,999 60,000- 69,999 70,000- 79,999 80,000- 89,999 90,000- 99,999 2 4 i 8 7 12 8 12 8 11 100,000-109,999 110,000-119,999 120,000-129,999 130,000-139,999 140,000-149,999 150,000-159,999 160,000-169,999 170,000-179,999 180,000-189,999 190,000-199,999 200,000-209,999 210,000-219,999 220,000-229,999 230,000-239,999 240,000-249,999 250,000-259,999 260,000-269,999 270,000-279,999 280,000-289,999 290,000-299,999 300,000-309,999 330,000-339,999 340,000-349,999 380,000-389,999 400,000-409,999 410,000-419.999 420,000-429,099 430,000-439,999 460,000-469,999 480,000-489,999 660,000-869,999 670,000-679,999 i _4 _2 5 1= _3 i 1 _9 1 2 1 11 1 1 i 4 1 i 1 _9 i 5 i i i 6 1 1 _7 6 i 2 1 12 i i _6 _5 4 2 1 3 i 2 4 _3 _3 1 2 1 12 1 1 •■ _3 _1^ i 16 6 8 6 3 TOTAL . . . _1 _2 150 Median Line Valuation, $100,000. Median State Aid, $400. 48 This table shows the amounts of money, for each teacher employed, received by the typical fourth class districts of the state included in previous tables. The table groups these districts by the amounts of their true valuations per teacher in dollars and then shows for each group the distribution of the amounts of the grants received from the state. The heavy horizontal line divides the districts into two halves from the standpoint of their valuations, while the heavy vertical line divides them into two equal groups from the standpoint of amounts of money received. It will be noted that the median valuation is approximately $100,000, while the median grant is approximately $400 per teacher. By true valuation of property is meant the assessed valuation divided by the rate of assessment. The significance of this table lies in the distribution of the state grants per teacher among the districts in the four quarters of the table made by these lines. In the low valuation, low grant quarter, there are 41 cases, while in the low valuation, high grant quarter, there are 34 cases. Taking the lower half of the table in the high valuation, low grant quarter, there are 33 cases, while in the high valuation, high grant quarter, there are 42 cases. These figures substantiate the truth of the statement that under the operation of the present plan of state aid in fourth class districts, the low valuation districts as a group, get the smallest amounts, while the high valuation districts get the largest amoimts. This is directly opposite to what should exist from the standpoint of promoting the highest efficiency of all of the schools of the state. This effect of the operation of the plan of General Aid in fourth class districts reveals one of its greatest weaknesses. State aid should promote the highest efficiency in every school district. This may he done, if in the first place, it puts all of the school districts upon the same financial basis, or at least the districts whose property valuations per teacher are below the average for the state as a whole; and if in the second place, the amount of state aid is made dependent upon the effort made by local districts to support good schools as revealed in their tax rates. The extent to which the present plan for General Aid in Pennsyl- vania satisfies the first of these conditions may be shown from Tables 15, 16 and 17, which give the true valuation of taxable property per teacher in representative fourth and third class districts and in all of the first and second class districts of the state. 49 The figure used as the rate of assessment was the average of the three figures submitted by the secretaries during the last three years, while the valuation used were those for the year 1920-21. The figure obtained by dividing the true valuation by the number of teachers gives the true valuation per teacher, which when obtained for the various school districts in the state makes it possible to compare all of them on the same basis. From the stand- point of their ability to support schools these figures not only eliminate the differences in the rates of assessment of property, but also the differences in the sizes of the school districts. TABLE 15. Tbue Valuations per Teacher in Typical Fourth Class Districts of Twelve Typical Counties for 1920-1921. True Valuations Per Teacher 2 1 5 £ 1 a . 1 1 1 g 1 1 1 1 1 i t 0,000- 9,999 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 . .^. 3 "2 "1 "2 3 10,000- 19,999 3 20,000- 29,999 1 1 1 1 2 3 30,000- 39,999 "2 3 1 3 2 " i' 1 1 1 1 8 40,000- 49,999 1 1 1 7 60,000- 59,999 8 4 1 2 2 1 ..... 1 1 12 60,000- 69,999 ■'s' 2 2 1 3 1 2 10 70,000- 79,999 1 2 2 1 IS 80,000- 89,999 8 90,000- 99,999 1 1 10 100 000-109,999 1 3 2 2 2 2 6 110,000-119,999 8 120,000-129,999 1 6 130 000-139,999 3 140,000-149,999 1 1 4 2 7 150,000-169,999 6 160 000-169,999 1 170,000-179,999 1 1 2 3 180,000-189,999 1 2 190 000-199,999 1 2 200,000-209,999 1 210,000-219,999 1 2 220 000-229,999 2 5 230,000-239,999 1 240,000-249,999 1 1 260 000-259 999 1 1 260 000-269, 999 1 1 3 270 000-279,999 1 1 1 1 2 280,000-289,999 290 000 299,999 1 1 300 000-309 999 2 330 000-339, 999 1 1 2 1 2 380 000-389 999 1 1 1 1 420 000 429,999 2 2 430!000-439,999 1 2 1 1 1 660,000-669,999 670,000-679,999 1 1 1 1 TOTAL 15 18 13 5 6 21 16 12 6 7 14 21 164 Median True Valuation. $100,000. 50 Looking at Table 15 (page 49) it may be seen that in a number of coimties the amount of true taxable wealth per teacher in one district is twenty times as great as in that of another district. The tax rate that is necessary to pay the balance of the teachers' salaries over and above the state grant in the poorer district would have to be considerably higher than in the wealthier district. For example, a district with a $200,000 true valuation could pay a Normal School graduate $100 per month and levy a two mill tax to pay the difference, while a district with $28,000 true valuation would have to levy a ten mill tax to pay the difference in the salary of $75 a month to a teacher holding the lowest grade certi- ficate. The first of these districts receives far more than is neces- sary; the second not enough. Both are equally entitled to the highest grade of instruction if they want it. State aid should be so adjusted as to put them on the same financial basis and then per- mit them to exercise their choice as to the kind of teachers they wish above the standards prescribed by the law. No child's oppor- timity in life should be narrowed by reason of the fact that he happens to live in a low valuation district. What has been said of the fourth class districts applies equally well to the third and second class districts as may be seen in Tables 16 and 17. Take two cities, one having a valuation of $120,000 per teacher, another $240,000, Suppose both of these receive $350 per teacher from the state and pay out on an average $1550 per teacher. The first named would find it necessary to levy a tax of ten mills, while the second would have to levy only a five mill tax to pay the difference between the total expense for teaching and the amount received from the state as General Aid. The effect of this lack of adaptation of the system of state aid to the ability of local school districts to support schools on the basis of their own taxable property is revealed in the wide diver- gence of the tax rates. Tables 18, 19 and 20 (pages 52 and 53) give this information for fourth, third and second and first class dis- tricts respectively. These true tax rates, as they are called, were obtained by multiplying the actual tax rates, as reported by the secretaries of school boards, by the average of the rates of assess- ment for the past three years. They give the tax that would be levied in each of the school districts provided property was actually assessed at its full, or 100 percent, value. 51 TABLE 16. Distribution op True Valuations per Teacher IN all Third Class Districts in Typical Counties 1920-21,* True Valuations per Teacher 2 u 1 1 3 V 1 1 1 $ 60,00(^ 69,999 2 2 4 70,000- 79,999 . . . 1 1 1 80,000- 89,999 1 90,000- 99,999 100,000-109,999 1 2 2 3 ■■"i" 2 2 3 1 5 110,000-119,999 1 5 120,000-129,999 1 1 8 130,000-139,999 2 140,000-149,999 1 2 3 150,000-159,999 160,000-169,999 2 2 170,000-179,999 1 1 180,000-189,999 1 2 190,000-199,999 1 2 200,000-209,999 210,000-219,999 1 1 220,000-229,999 230,000-239,999 2 240,000-249,999 1 250,000-259,999 260,000-269,999 270.000-279,999 1 2 1 340 and over 6 Total 6 2 6 1 21 3 9 47 Median True Valuation. $129,376. ^ The five additional counties used in this study have no third class districts. TABLE 17. True Valuations per Teacher in all First and Second Class Cities. True Valuation 1920-21 per Teacher $120,000-129,999 1 130,000-139,999 140,000-149,999 150,000-159,999 1 160,000-169,999 1 170,000-179,999 2 180,000-189,999 2 190,000-199,999 2 200,000-209,999 210,000-219,999 1 220,000-229,999 230,000-239,999 1 240,000-249,999 1 250,000-269,999 1 260,000-269,999 270,000-279,999 280,000-289,999 1 290,000-299,999 800,000-309,999 IX 310,000-319,999 2 320,000-329,999 1 410,000-419,999 1 430,000-439,999 IX Total 20 Median True Valuation, $230,000. XDenotes First-Class Cities. 52 TABLE 18. True Tax Rates in Fourth Class Districts of Twelve Typical Counties — 1922. True Tax Rate (Mills) 1 1 1 1 a o 1 3 1 1 I 1 - & 3- 3 99 4 6 3 5 2 2 1 2 1 3 1 6 4- 4 99 7 ..... 1 1 1 2 3 1 2 1 "i' 1 9 6- 6.99 7 7 99 1 2 1 1 1 2 16 14 8- 8 99 2 1 "i' 1 8 1 6 4 10-10 99 2 1 1 1 1 1 "'i' 1 11 11 11 99 1 4 2 "i' 1 1 1 1 \ i 3 9 18-13 99 1 3 14-14 99 1 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 2 "'i' 8 16-16 99 4 17-17 99 1 3 2 2 4 2 1 1 4 Total 10 17 7 6 6 20 10 8 4 6 8 15 116 Median True Tax Rate 8.9. TABLE 19. True Tax Rates of All Third Class Districts in Twelve Typical Counties — 1922. True Tax Rate (Mills) 1 1 1 I § 1 I 0) t CO i CO 1 1 & 1 2 3 4 2 2 5 1 1 1 1 2 6 2 7 1 2 8 8 3 9 1 1 2 10 1 1 1 1 1 4 11 1 2 12 2 1 3 13 1 14 IB 1 1 1 16 1 ■ 17 18 Total 3 2 6 8 3 3 25 Median True Tax Rate 9 . 7 millB. 53 TABLE 20. True Tax Rates in all First and Second Class Cities — 1922. True Tax Rate = First and Second (Mills) Class Cities 4- 4.99 1 5- 5.99 6- 6.99 7- 7.99 8 8- 8.99 3 9- 9.99 2 10-10.99 2 11-11.99 1 12-12.99 2 13-13.99 14-14.99 16-15.99 i Total 16 Median True Tax Rate 9 . 2. These tables show the same wide range as in the case of true valuations per teacher and also the same differences between counties. The positions of the counties are, however, reversed from what they were in the table of true valuations inasmuch as districts with low valuations must, in order to maintain the same type of school, have a higher tax rate than districts with higher valuations. The second condition for an efficient system of General Aid given above was that the amount of state aid should be made dependent upon the effort of local districts to support good schools as revealed by their tax rates. Many differences shown in the tax rates inTablesl8,19 and 20 (pages 52 and 53) are due to the differences in the values of property. Districts having the same amounts of taxable wealth behind each teacher show varying tax rates, as may be seen from Tables 21 and 22 (pages 54 and 55) for fourth and third class districts respec- tively. These differences in tax rates are due, in a large measure, to the ideas of the people residing therein as to the standard of schools that should be maintained. 54 TABLE 21. The Relationship Between the True Valuations per Teacher AND THE True Tax Rate in Typical Fourth Class Districts OF Twelve Typical Counties, 1921-22. True Tax Rate in Mills. True Valuation per Teacher 1 2 3 4 6 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 i 1 1 i 17 18 19 20 21 i 22 & over 1 $ 0,000- 9,999 10,000- 19,999 20,000- 29,999 30,000- 39,999 40,000- 49,999 60,000- 59,999 fiO 000 69 999 'i i 1 1 ;; i i 1 1 i i 1 1 1 i i 2 1 1 4 2 4 2 1 1 i 1 2 1 i 2 i 1 i i 1 "i".'. "i".'. 1 2 3 4 7 13 . 8 70,000- 79,999 80,000- 89,999 90,000- 99,999 1 .. 11 6 1 i .. 7 100,000-109,999 110,000-119,999 120,000-129,999 130,000-139,999 140,000-149,999 150,000-159,999 160,000-169,999 170,000-179,999 180,000-189,999 190,000-199,999 200,000-209,999 210,000-219,999 220,000-229,999 230,000-239,999 240,000-249,999 260,000-269,999 260,000-269,999 280,000-289,999 •• i 2 i i i i 1 2 2 i i 3 2 i 2 i -2 1 i i i i i i 1 i i 1 i i i i 1 i i ' \ 2 4 8 , 5 3 7 4 1 1 1 1 1 S 1 1 3 1 290,000-299,999 300,000-309,999 810,000-319,999 320,000-329,999 330,000-339,999 340,000-349,999 1 2 1 6 Total 3 6 11 12 16 9 3 12 5 4 7 4 8 5 2 1 2 1 4 114 Median True Realty $94,286. Median True Tax Rate 9 . 3 mills. 55 TABLE 22. Relationship Between the True Valuation per Teacher AND THE True Tax Rate in all Third Class Districts of Twelve Typical Counties, 1921-22. Trae Valuation TRUE TAX RATE IN MIT.TnS Per Teacher 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Total 70,000- 79,999 1 1 80,000- 89,999 1 1 90,000- 99,999 1 1 1 3 100,000-109,999 1 110,000-119,999 120,000-129,999 1 1 130,000-139,999 140,000-149,999 1 150,000-159,999 160,000-169,999 ■ 170,000-179,999 1 180,000-189,999 1 1 210,000-219,999 1 1 220,000-229,999 1 1 2 Total 1 1 1 3 3 2 2 13 Median True Valuation $126,000. Median True Tax Rate 10.1 mills. Such differences will always exist. If an efficient system of state aid were put into effect and all districts of lower average valuation per teacher should be put upon the same financial foot- ing, they would vary greatly among themselves in their interest in schools and in the amounts of money that they would choose to put into them. Some districts would be parsimonious and run as cheap schools as the law would permit, while others would employ superior teachers, provide them with first-class equipment and supplies, introduce provisions for sanitation and health, for recreation and play, for developing the aesthetic and dramatic abilities of children and such other features of the modem school as would provide a superior quality of education for their children. All of these additional provisions would increase the cost of the school and would require higher tax rates than those for the districts with lower educational ideals. Such efforts should be rewarded by special state aid. The state is suffering greatly today from the effects of poor schooling in himdreds of districts — inferior teaching, short terms, early dropping out of school, poor equipment, unpleasant sur- roundings, meagre high school facilities, etc., due to lack of interest 56 upon the part of the people as well as to the low valuations. It is believed that it is to the interest of the state to encourage such districts to improve their educational facilities in order that their children may have a better preparation for life. This may be done by adjusting the amount of state aid to the efforts made by local districts to furnish such superior education as well as to the valuation of their taxable property. Merely to place districts upon the same financial footing does not offer a stimulus to such districts to improve. Furthermore, it is important to the state as a whole that the more progressive districts be encouraged in their educational development because, as results of such efforts extend out among the less progressive districts in their influence, they serve as examples to be followed. It is not possible to secure the most consistent and efficient progress in a decentralized educa- tional system such as we have in America, unless we take care that both the backward and progressive districts are constantly kept up to their best efforts. Details of the Plan of General Aid. The significance of the facts that have been revealed above is that a system of state General Aid should be devised for Pennsylvania which will, in the distribution of state school money, give to districts in inverse proportion to their "ability" to support schools as shown by their deficiencies in true valuations per teacher, and on the other hand in direct proportion to the amount of effort they make to support schools as shown by their true tax rates. While this should be the basic idea of the system of state support, it should at the same time be so administered as to insure the maintenance of proper stand- ards as to qualifications of teachers and types of equipment. This can be realized by making the amounts granted dependent upon the maintenance, by local authorities, of such standards as estab- lished by the State Legislature or other central agency. Such a plan, based upon equalized rates determined by a State Tax Commission or Tax Commissioner, has recently been formu- lated for the state of New York and has received the approval of the grange and of the Committee of 21 representing the state and is now being seriously proposed for adoption by the next Legislature. This provides that the amounts of General Aid which a district shall receive will depend upon the product of three fac- 57 tors; viz., its deficiency in equalized valuation per teacher below a standard that is established in accordance with a scientific study of conditions in that state, the equalized tax rate and the number of teachers. Tables have been prepared which facilitate the work- ing of the plan so that it is possible for local school board mem- bers to know in advance the amount of money they will receive from the state as soon as their plans for the coming year have been formulated. 58 Its Operation in Pennsylvania. In order to show how such a plan for General Aid would work out in Pennsylvania, Table23 (pages60and 61) has been prepared. It shows the amount that would be given by the state for each teacher in districts classified according to (1) their expenses per teacher, and (2) true valuation per teacher. For example, a district which has an interest in schools measured by a current expense of $1,110 per teacher and a valuation of $50,000 per teacher would meet its expenses by a levy of a 6 mill tax bringing in $300 and by a state grant of $810 per teacher. It will be noticed that every district having a valuation of less than $185,000 per teacher can support schools costing $1,110 per teacher on a 6 mill tax, the amount of state aid in each district being the difference between the proceeds of a 6 mill tax in such districts and $1,110. Similarly, all other districts having a valua- tion of less than $1,850 per teacher may have a school costing $1,295 per teacher with a levy of a 7 mill tax, or a school costing $1,480 per teacher with a levy of an 8 mill tax. According to this plan, therefore, all districts with the same standards as to what constitutes a good school, having a valuation of less than $185,000 per teacher are by this scheme of complementary state aid placed upon an equal footing, viz., the financial position in which the $185,000 district is placed. Thus, it is possible for a rural district to have as good a school as a city with the levy of the same tax rate. This has the effect of making equal opportimity possible for all the children of the state in a Way which heretofore has not existed and of stimulating districts to take advantage thereof, in- asmuch as it enables all of these districts to have the same amounts of money available for current expenses upon the levy of the same tax rate. These figures are illustrated in Diagram 5. The question naturally arises why the valuation of $185,000 per teacher was chosen as the equalization point. It has been estimated by carefully extended inquiry that the true valuation of property taxable for schools in Pennsylvania, according to the data from the secretaries of the Boards of Education, was in the year 1921, $8,318,130,000. The number of teachers in the state for the same year was 45,485. The first figure divided by the second gives the quotient $185,031 as the true valuation per Trvf-mL saboo 59 ^cooottjjo^ - aoo /as^ooo -£oooo /JS''«*-Offt' af« 1 2rx. 1 ////^/^z^^^/y//^^//A^ W$'^ ^77^777^^^ ffr^aac A Jto^ m t»^ /»s:c<^-'f*-«^ -//**• W^^^F^Mxf^^^^ 1 62% 1 '^/////y///////////////// limoto aff^ ' ««0 I acx I £0fXlO t-APe-nse- JI04 g-eeofftfioCt , yzo i4r »t)0 - Svnx) ^Ofeto A ,*<-» - *«*- 1 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^p; ^H 1 £7* 1 y/'/y/Y/j'yyyy/]^//y//yy////y//////y//y/////j j/*,ooo '/*,tftfe >.ve*f ryif-t /#<-«»*»/^B*» vw*^^*- '•ac ^^^^^^^^^^ 1 6iK 1 y/y//y//y/7///y^^y/yyyy>y/ /tmmo^ Y£iOi^ -/a J,'*- I 06*i I /vr*»'/vj^ ^(30 /(,««OiC.«ff -.^o /*r. •CJ-xo.*""' 'a^aevm .«.*_ /oyo w^^^^'^^^^^^^^^^'^^^^ ^m^^:^^^^. omyA 7j% v///////////// ^^^ 1 ^7* 1 y////////////////////////////// j/^,ooo li^oeo K.oct T f/^ /fS^eo - Mooo .7/aaiM .„of.^j-er ^^p^^^^^^^ '% 1 £f% 1 ^//////////////////////A /*ODoe> JUW4 r/^^O eex I LHC<^ iUP PcitT \ m Diagram 5.— Amounts of Local StrppoRT and Amounts of State Aid Districts will Receive from the State Based on Their True Valuation per Teacher and Current Expense per Teacher. a o s tf . d§ P "5 ^ 3 to y z w 2 P5 fi H :^ « & o ij (L, ^^ Q ''^ N ^ is , cy fe CO w o IM CI a 5 ^ ^ 1 ° g g ^ I O 6 =1 NMlNNiHrHrtfHT-iT-lfH III o.o oooogooooog 1 4 1^ CO ill o 2 ,1^ SomOO«DW*M(N003COt^ lit gs§sssss§§gs| U3 2 p CO SgggSgSSggggg Hi W =5 s r- ooooooooooooo gggSS||2ggSgg SSK ggggggggggggg CO ooooooooooooo (Nro^«S(Ot-coo)Oi-«e>»e>3rt< 3 s 1- ooooooooooooo T)4cg INrt^OOSOOOr-l>(OU3-*'«l' Si? o 2 2 P CO iiiiiiiiisl^i 3 " o. ggssggggsgggg J =3 2 CQ WOOOOOOQOOOOO 111 1 1 "a 2 P siiiiillliiif 1il 3SS "sisgsiiiiiii Amount to be spent per teacher ' lor current expenses 11 in lO lO U3 O lO »0 IT) lO lO >0 in lO ,-l■ a OQOt«^^00iOe>10)>aC4e0U3C4C0>4C4r4OOeC4C0'# 000 'O M OS CO to n 000 000 t«0(OtO(StDosa>o>oio»oO)e4Miou3n<-(«t0'*'*i(i'<»'*^^^^^'^«eO«MM^i-H 00000 i-< ^»«o> 10 00 CO a> o> o 10 to 10 >0 U3 h> C4 to e4 r« (C t*r«aooo goopotDcioocoaoaoooooaooooooo-«-«oo(OC4o (ON00«C0nC4C4MC4C4e4OIC4C4N94e4C^C4i~QOOiO'HC4m^totor>oaosoioo"3000o ^^,^^^,.H^M«)ff4C4e4e^01C at I i o CM k at m o s g CO I 5 s 2 - 1 » 0^ 9 10- 19 20- 29 30- 39 40- 49 80- 69 60- 69 70- 79 80- 89 90- 99 100- 109 1 ', ', ■ ■ i i i 1 3 2 7 6 9 4 8 3 3 2 110- 119 120- 129 130- 139 140- 149 160- 169 160- 169 180- 189 190- 199 200- 209 210- 219 220- 229 230- 239 260- 269 270- 279 280- 289 290- 299 330- 339 340- 349 380- 389 400- 409 420- 429 430- 439 460- 469 470- 479 660- 669 670- 679 10 i 2 2 i 1 1 1 2 1 i 1 14 1 i 2 1 6 1 2 3 i 1 3 1 ;; ' [ e 1 2 2 5 1 1 2 6 2 3 3 1 4 6 3 4 7 1 4 3 2 I 1 1 1 2 6 4 3 7 5 1 1 2 1 2 3 1 1 2 1 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 "i Total.... 98 Median True Valuation in ThouBands, $114,000. Median State Aid, $483. 81 Special Aid Under the Proposed New Plan. Various forms of Special Aid should be established in addition to General Aid as outlined above in order to encourage districts to undertake worthy projects which ordinarily they would not enter upon without some inducement from outside their own resources. The state of Pennsylvania already has two excellent forms of Special Aid; viz., granting one-half the cost of transportation to approved consolidated schools and the payment of $200 to school districts for each building abandoned since the year 1911. Both of these should be retained. There is also provision in the law for aid to special classes, but as yet no adequate appropriation has been made for this purpose. This provision should be retained and proper appropriation made. In addition to this it is very much desired that the following forms of Special Aid be added : 1. High Schools. In order to encoiu-age the establishment of new high schools and the expansion of present high schools in poor districts, it is recommended that the state grant $100 annually for each new or additional teacher employed. This amount, together with the increased appropriation that comes to such districts by reason of the increase in the number of teachers, should provide a sufficient inducement for the provision of the right number of teachers and should also encourage the high school to take in pupils from outside of the districts in which they are situated. This form of aid should be limited to 20 years. 2. Erection of School Houses in consolidated districts and of teacherages in poor districts outside of boroughs. This aid should be based upon the valuation per teacher and in the following amounts: Less than $ 50,000 25 per cent of cost of building and equipment 50,000— 99,000 20 " " 100,000— 149,000 15 " " 150,000— 199,000 10 " " 200,000— 249,000 5 " *' 250,000— and over " " This aid should be subject in each case to the approval of the State Department of Education, both from the point of view of the location of the site and the plans of the building, and also from the point of view of whether the erection of such a building in such a place is best adapted to promoting the best educational advantages for the children of the entire community. It is not intended that this state aid shall be given to assist in the erection 82 of buildings that satisfy needs of small groups of children, unless this is unavoidable. 3. Transportation. — ^Aid for purchase of trucks and wagons for transportation purposes in consolidated districts. Efficient and adequate provision for transportation of school children is just as important as proper housing in rural districts. Experience has shown that inhabitants of such districts are not inclined to make the proper provision in this particular. State aid is, therefore, necessary to promote the best interest of the state as a whole. It is recommended that aid be granted in such proportions as is provided for school houses, teacherages, etc., given in the paragraph above. 4. Transportation Aid. — The intention back of the present law regarding aid for transportation, one-half of that expended by the local districts up to an amount of $3,000 is worthy of praise. This form of aid would be much improved, however, if the amount granted would be adjusted to the true valuations of the districts to which aid is given. It is recommended, therefore, that the per- cent of the expenses to be paid by the state be made dependent upon the deficiency in equalized valuations below the standard equalized valuation per teacher in accordance with the following schedule: Percent of Ex- Equalized Valuation pense to be Per Teacher Paid by State $ 0,000- 9,000 95 10,000- 19,000 90 20,000- 29,000 85 30,000- 39,000 80 40,000- 49,000 75 50,000- 59,000 70 60,000- 69,000 65 70,000- 79,000 60 80,000- 89,000 55 90,000-99,000 50 100,000-109,000 45 110,000-119,000 40 120,000-129,000 35 130,000-139,000 30 140,000-149,000 25 150,000-159,000 20 160,000-169,000 15 170,000-179,000 10 180,000-189,000 5 83 4. Teachers in Outlying Rural Schools. — It seems impossible to get teachers of superior qualifications to teach in the rural communities for the same salaries as are paid in boroughs. It is recommended, therefore, that the state assist the rural districts in securing teachers of high qualifications by adding a direct grant to the salaries of normal school graduates or to those with equivalent educa- tion who teach in outlying one-room rural schools. This amount may well be fixed at $10 per month for the first year, $15 per month for the second year and $17 and $20 per month for the third and fourth years. The poor quality of the instruction given in the one-room rural schools of Pennsylvania and of other states is one of the most serious shortcomings in our public school system. Some such liberal provision as this is necessary in order to remedy the situation. 5. Abandonment of School Buildings in Rural Dis- tricts. — The present grant of $200 per year for school buildings practically abandoned should be reduced to $100 and continued until such time as the desirability of con- solidation of schools is more generally appreciated than at present. 6. Supervision. — In order to encourage weaker districts to employ supervising principals, it is recommended that the state grant to such districts $800 per year toward the salary of those supervisors giving their full time to super- vision; this grant to be limited to a period of twenty years. Modifications to Meet Probable Objection of the Wealthier Districts. It is obvious that the plan for General Aid as outlined above favors the less wealthy districts of the state and that if adopted, the wealthier districts would not receive as much as under the present plan. It is believed that from the standpoint of the state as a whole, more liberal aid to these latter districts than that which is granted above is not necessary. Inasmuch, however, as such districts are often able to influence the Legislature to an unusual degree, conditions may develop which will make it advisable that their demands be met. The wealthier districts, particularly the cities having manufac- turing centers, are inclined to claim that they pay the larger propor- tion of the taxes that support the state government and that 84 they are, therefore, entitled to a considerable share of the proceeds of the taxes. This point of view is local and provincial. It does not recegnize the true relation of the citizen to the state nor is it one that should be encouraged by the State Legislature. The interests of the country and the city are so interdependent that the money of all should be expended in such a way as to promote the good of all rather than of either group. The way suggested to meet such a contingency as this is to preserve the plan of General Aid as proposed above but to com- bine with it a plan involving a state tax which is virtually a local tax and the redistribution of such revenue back to the districts in much the same proportion as it was paid into the State Treas- ury. Such money should best come from a new form of taxation, as a state tax upon general property or a tax upon manufacturing corporations. Any other form of taxation which would be paid in by the local districts in much the same proportion as it is proposed to pay it out would be equally good from our standpoint for schools. Approximately $5,000,000 would be required for this purpose in order to grant the wealthier districts the amount they now receive. There is, in fact, more to be said in favor of such a measure than appears upon the surface. The costs of schools in the cities have increased to a marked degree in recent years, due not only to the demands of teachers for increased salaries, but also to the activities of various associations interested in the welfare of the schools. The local taxpayers as a group and those charged with the responsibil- ities of local government have not always been in agreement with the first named groups. It has been easier, therefore, to secure increases of salaries through state legislation and the grants of state money than through local legislation and local tax rates. Such a situation and such an outcome has taken place in New York state, but it happened that in that state at the same time teachers in cities secured large increases in salaries through increased grants, the state imposed a mill and a half tax, which taking the cities as a group, fully repaid the state for the amount that it had to pay out to these cities. When the Edmonds Act was passed two years ago there were no such increased revenues, inasmuch as the increased salaries for teachers were necessary. As these increases were not excessive, 85 it would appear to be a wise policy on the part of the state now to levy such a tax as would make it possible for the people of the cities to secure by an indirect method the increased amounts of money required. The salaries of the teachers ought not to be low and choice must, therefore, be made between a large increase in the local tax in cities and such a state tax as would come very largely from those cities, the major portion of which would go back to them through the method of distribution here suggested. Cer- tainly it is true that the less wealthy fourth and third class dis- tricts and certain second class districts should have the first call upon the state appropriations and that the wealthier first and second class cities and the twenty-five percent of the wealthier third and fourth class districts should not be entitled to funds until after the needier group has been supplied. Has the State Aid Plan Herein Proposed Satisfied the Principles That Should Govern State Aid? Having set up these principles whereby state aid for schools should be judged, it is now desirable that the plan herein proposed be tested out in accordance with them. Inasmuch as it responds immediately and proportionately to any change in the ability of the school district to support the type of school it is maintaining, it satisfies the first principle. Should there be any change, either in the number of teachers affecting the size of the school or in the value of the taxable property, the effect will be manifest at once in the determination of the corresponding tax rate. The second principle requires that state aid be adjusted to the amount of effort required by local districts to support schools as revealed in the costs and tax rates. In the plan here proposed the very close relationship between these two factors is maintained throughout and any change in the costs and its corresponding tax rate affects immediately and proportionately the amount of state aid. The third principle, which requires that districts be rewarded for undertaking some new feature, is satisfied by the grants of the various forms of Special Aid. The fourth principle, which requires that it promote the best education for evtry child in the state, is satisfied in that aid of some amount in proportion to the Ability and Effort Plan extends to every district. The fifth principle requires that the local districts be left to determine their own policies so long as they comply with the minimum and maximum standards fixed by state law. At the same time, it lays considerable stress on giving the largest possible freedom to local districts and upon the importance of school districts making advances by their own action, even though they are encouraged to do so by some financial benefit which may come from the state, rather than to have the district compelled to change its plans and methods of administration by the force of state law or the requirements of the State Education Department. While this principle cannot operate in its greatest efficiency so long as increments in salaries above the minimimi salary and the standards for rating teachers to secure these increments are fixed by state law, nevertheless it is believed that a minimum state salary schedule, such as is embodied in the Edmonds Act, is neces- sary in Pennsylvania at the present time. It will prove helpful in the realization of the very worthy plan of the State Superin- tendent of Public Instruction to speedily advance the qualifica- tions of teachers throughout the entire state. On the other hand it is believed that it has been the cause of maladjustments and difficulties which have arisen and that wastes which have resulted could have been minimized and largely removed had the adminis- tration of schools in the various cities been properly supported by the people. These maladjustments and wastes are of less impor- tance than the providing of those conditions which will make for one of the most able and efficient state group of teachers in the entire country. The authority to adjust salaries above the minimum should be given back to the local school districts after this end has been accomplished. The importance of this is borne out by the following considera- tion: As the costs of schools increase, their management must show a corresponding increase in efficiency, and eventually the people in the local districts must be satisfied that the money they are spend- ing has its full return. Thus, the elimination of wastes and the building up of the highest efficiencies in schools can be best accom- plished under the local school administration. The state should 87 insist on minimum standards, and through its system of state aid and through the giving of advice and assistance in local campaigns, promote efficiency above that level. The sixth principle, that all of the school districts should be stimulated to make their best efforts, is satisfied in that General Aid is made applicable to all and in proportion to effort expended. Cost of the Plan of General and Special Aid. Before outlining the estimates of cost under the Ability and Effort Plan a statement will first be made of the cost of the grants imder the Edmonds Act. In both cases only the grants on the teacher basis will be considered, thus excluding all grants of Special Aid, such as for transportation and the abandonment of school buildings. The Edmonds Act required payments by the state to local school districts at the rate of $16,900,000 per year, of which approximately 16 percent went to first class districts, 12 percent to second class districts, 24 percent to third class districts and 48 percent to fourth class districts. It is estimated by the Depart- ment of PubUc Instruction that $18,180,000 will be required for the same purposes during the next fiscal year beginning June 1, 1923, and $18,685,000 for the following fiscal year. Careful estimates have been made of the cost of the plan of GeheralAid as proposed in Table 23 (pages 60and61). The results of such computations are given in Table 31 (page 88). It will be noticed that the amounts given in the tables differ in accordance with the average tax rates that will be levied in the various types of districts and also with the Standards of True Valuation per teacher which may be adopted. It is believed that the $185,000 as the Standard True Valuation is the one that should be adopted for the best interests of education in Pennsylvania. This would require an annual expenditure of about $17,700,000, slightly less than would be required by the operation of the Edmonds Act during the coming year according to the estimate of the State Department of Public Instruction. 88 TABLE 31. Estimate op Expenses op All Classes op Districts in Lower Range Plus Upper Range. True MILLS Valuation Per Teacher in Thousands 6 7 8 9 10 ¥126 $10,346,810 $11,520,668 $12,709,132 $13,895,898 $15,081,465 135 10,369,485 11.847,410 13,310,143 14,780,976 16,262,809 146 10,969,111 12,611,207 14,358,309 16,003,415 17,649,520 155 11,957,125 13,794,108 15,667,8918 17,433,294 19,266,285 165 12,829,780 14,807,184 16,786,620f 18,767,0321 20,751,419 175 13,539,953 15,660,353 17,785,753 19,909,1531 22,033,653 185 14,346,620 16,738,550 19,154,4561 21,692,042 24,256,267 Total expenses were used as a basis in the computations in this study for two reasons, first, because such a basis is of greatest benefit to those districts in which there have been long years of apathy toward the schools; second, because it is easy to make fairly accurate estimates for a narrower basis upon that furnished by total expenses if such a step were thought advi&able. It is much more difficult to estimate the amount that would be required by the different forms of Special Aid suggested here, possibly $2,000,000 would be required altogether, including the appropriations for vocational schools. This would make necessary the total appropriation of practically $20,000,000 per year in order to promote the best interests of education in the state. If the grants to the school districts under the Ability and Effort Plan were made upon the basis of salaries alone, rather than upon the total basis of expenses, the total cost to the state would amount to approximately $13,000,000. Special Aid might be reduced to an appropriation of $1,000,000, making a total of $14,000,000. This is the lowest amoimt that should be considered. If deemed necessary to make the total grant to public schools less than this amount, however, lower standard valuations per teacher could be established. This would reduce the $13,000,000 for General Aid in about the same proportions as the figures given in Table 31, with total current expenses as their basis. It is much to be desired that the districts having valuations below $90,000 per teacher be granted aid upon the basis of total expenses rather than upon teachers' salaries alone. To afford this aid it would require approximately $2,000,000 in addition to the amoimt based upon teachers' salaries alone. There are about 89 11,000 teachers in this state, more than one in five, who teach in a school district, which in order to pay a teacher $100 per month for nine months, would have to levy a true mill tax of ten mills or more — even up to thirty mills — and an additional tax of two and one-half mills in order to properly operate and maintain the school, furnish adequate supplies, proper janitorial care, etc. As rates of assessment run in this state at the present time this would mean an annual tax of from twenty to twenty-five mills or more — as high up as sixty to seventy-five mills. The state grant averaging in these poorer districts from $325 to $350 per teacher would reduce this tax to between fifteen and twenty mills or more — as high as forty-five to sixty mills. Naturally under these conditions poor schools have been maintained and the interest in education has become very low indeed. The state needs an up-building among its rural schools similar to that which has transpired in the past two years in its city schools. It cannot be satisfactorily accomplished unless state aid is granted upon the basis of expense rather than that involved in teachers' salaries, which aid must, of course, be carefully safeguarded by proper maximum standards. This would require about $16,000,000 per year. Other Aspects of State Financial Policy in the Field of Education. There are certain other features of finances of public education in the state that should be mentioned briefly in such a study as this. Reorganization of Local School Districts. — Generally speaking the boimdaries of the school districts of the state coincide with those of the cities, boroughs and townships. Such a division of territory in rural sections is not well adapted to the convenient location of school houses, particularly of high schools and to the local support of schools. In consequence many pupils in the state now have to walk long distances, and sometimes through other school districts, in order to reach their particular school. There are also many pupils who have completed the grammar course and are ready to enter high school but cannot find a high school open to them. The districts in which they live are not able 90 financially to erect a high school building and to bear the expense of running schools therein. Even if they were financially able their boundaries are such that the number of pupils is insufficient or even if these conditions were met there would be great waste upon the part of many districts in maintaining small high schools. The force of all this statement is that the territory of the state should be redistricted, and units be formed which will contribute to the highest efficiency of the schools on the one hand and to the most economic operation of such schools on the other hand. Such a reorganization should have as its basis the establishment of units of territory, each contributory to a central high school so that each child of high school age would have a high school reasonably close at hand to which he is entitled to go. The completion of the high school by every pupil is as much the standard of today as the completion of the grammar school was 20 or 30 years ago. These changes make necessary a complete reorganization of the school districts of the state. The sooner this is done, the better from the standpoint of elimination of waste in public school ■expenditures. High School Tuition. — In order to promote in the best way the attainment of high school education by all the pupils of the state until such reorganization is brought about, the method pro- vided in the state school code for estimating the amount of high school tuition should be changed. The expenses of operation, maintenance and depreciation of the physical plant should be taken into account in fixing the rate of tuition as well as the cost of instruction as now provided. Presumably the present plan which benefits the rural districts was adopted because usually these districts are less able to pay for such tuition than are the districts in which the high schools are situated, but in the plan for General Aid recommended above all of these differences are removed so that this plan of computation will be equitable to all and will at the same time encourage the boroughs to open their doors to rural school pupils in the way in which they now, in justice to themselves, rightfully refuse to do. It is also recom- mended that a law be passed authorizing any local school district to make a contract with any other school district for the instruc- tion of pupils in the high schools, such contract to be subject to the approval of the State Superintendent of Public Instruction. 91 State School Fund. — ^A State School Fund provided for in the Code of 1911, which has been gradually increasing as the proceeds of the income from forest lands has come in, should be still further developed so that in the years to come we may have a permanent school fimd comparable to those of other states. The sources for the increase of such funds should be enlarged to the greatest possi- ble extent. Need for this is seen in Table 32, which shows the large school funds of other states. TABLE 32. Permanent State School Fxjnds, 1919-20.' states Alabama 2,374,500 Arizona 1,025,527 Arkansas 1,200,000 California 7,691,987 Colorado 6,607,574 Connecticut 2,019,170 Delaware 488,235 Florida 1,565,667 Georgia Idaho 9,107,182 lUinois 948,955 Indiana 10,226,927 Iowa 4,818.094 Kansas 9,958,535 Kentucky 2,013,536 Louisiana 2,447,745 Maine 485,744 Maryland 247,935 Massacliuaetts 5,000,000 Michigan 5,335,732 Minnesota 30,920,032 Mississippi 1 , 035 , 641 Missouri 3,159,281 Montana 17,518,966 Nebraska 9,425,094 Nevada 2,770,674 New Hampshire 59,723 New Jersey 8,236,288 New Mexico 567,689 New York 9,371,863 North Carolina 907 ,406 North Dakota 13,560,081 Ohio 16,405,883 Oklahoma 12,660,811 Oregon 8,629,260 Pennsylvania 495,747 Rhode Island 255,193 South Carolina 60,000 South Dakota 24,312,084 Tennessee 2,512,600 Texas 73,892,960 Utah 4,192,997 Vermont 1,365,642 Virginia Washington 15,332,440 West V&ginia 1,000,000 Wisconsin 6,012,394 Wyoming 3,743,853 ^Data furnished by U. S. Bureau of Education Report. 92 The delays in the payment of the state grants to local districts during the past two years have caused considerable harm and inconvenience. The fundamental reason is the lack of ready money in the State Treasury. The State Department of Public Instruction has not been responsible in any way. The remedy is the passage of an act directing the State Auditor and the Treasurer to pay grants to local districts on or before dates specified in the law, to authorize them to draw upon the separate funds and to reimburse such funds upon the receipt of the first taxes together with proper interest. There are millions of dollars of such funds available. It is not only unfair to the local districts to make them borrow money in lieu of overdue state funds, but it is a discredit to the state itself not to be able to pay its obligations. Commission. — There are undoubtedly wastes in the conduct of public schools at the'present time. This exists throughout all parts of the country. The schools of Pennsylvania are probably being conducted more economically than those of most states, neverthe- less it is desirable that definite steps be taken to study ways and means of eliminating such wastes. It is recommended that a commission be formed consisting of experts in the various fields of public school management and of citizens who will make the proper inquiry into this subject and report to the Governor and to the Legislature at a session two years hence. 93 Supplementary Report. To the Citizens' Committee on Finances of the State of Pennsylvania The following undersigned members of the Advisory Committee on Education beg leave to submit the following supplementary report: I. We agree on the whole with the report on the public schools as submitted by the experts. We recognize needed changes in the method of distributing state school funds and urge the careful and further study of the "Ability and Effort Plan." II. We do not find ourselves, however, in complete agreement with that part of the report which advocates the new method of distribution called in the report "The Ability and Effort Plan" for the following reasons: 1. Until there is an agency such as a State Tax Commission to equalize and to determine rates of assessment, any such plan as proposed must be based upon the reports of assessment as made by the school board secretaries of 2,600 districts. As is well known these reported rates were in most cases mere opinion. 2. While in the opinion of the experts the "Ability and Effort Plan" alone would cost no more than the Edmonds plan yet, if it should be necessary to retain the plan of the Edmonds Act to meet the needs of the first and second class districts, about $5,000,000 now would be required. III. Therefore, we strongly recommend that the essential features of the Edmonds Act be retained for the following reasons: 1. It would be unwise and inopportune to introduce a new plan of distribution before giving the present Edmonds Act a longer trial. 2. The Edmonds Act has made a beginning in equalizing educational opportunities, especially in fourth class districts. 3. Each feature of the Edmonds Act is an essential part of a state-wide forward-looking educational program. To disturb 94 or change radically any part of the Act would endanger the whole program that has so generally been accepted through- out the state. 4. The Edmonds Act is simple in its provisions, easily under- stood and administered. 5. The provisions of the Edmonds Act are retaining many efficient teachers in the service of the state, improving thousands of others, and attracting many young men and women of superior ability to the profession. IV. While commending the general features of the Edmonds Act, we feel that the following improvements should be made : 1. Definite salary schedule with increments for fourth class districts (as in the report). 2. Same number of increments for each class of school dis- tricts in order to retain efficient teachers in each t3T)e of district (as in the report). 3. The state should contribute its share of the increments required in each district (as in the report). 4. Provisions should be made for the creation of a fund for Special Aid to needy school districts. (Signed) Charles E. Dickey R. L. Munce Edward S. Ling Cannon Ross T. T. Allen John A. Keith Charles S. Davis Samuel Black McCormick Robert E. Laramy Edwin C. Broome Florence Deibert John F. Shields CHAPTER III. Normal Schools. Foundation. — There are fourteen State Normal Schools in Pennsylvania, one of which, the Cheyney School, is designated for the training of negro teachers. This school was but recently acquired by the state, and as the data for it, as well as for similar institutions throughout the country are most limited, this study will be confined to the original thirteen State Normal Schools only. The first of these schools was organized at Millersville in 1855, but was not recognized as a State Normal School until 1857. The Normal School Act of 1857 resulted in the establishing of other schools in different parts of the state, the thirteenth and last one being organized in 1893. Many of these schools were formerly private academies devoted to secondary academic training and in some instances were founded through local philanthropic efforts as private corporations under the law of 1857. Because of this they were established here and there in small rural communities without any preconceived plan of organizing a system of schools for the training of teachers to supply the need of the public schools of the state. The Normal Schools are now owned and controlled by the state, having been acquired during the past ten years, through purchase under the law of 1911, with the state assuming all mortgages and general indebtedness of each school respectively. Tuition and Maintenance. — For a period of time prior to 1919, the tuition of Normal School students over seventeen years of age preparing to teach was paid by the state at the rate of $60 per year. From that time until 1921 the rate was increased to $80 per year, or $2 per week. In addition to this the state also paid each Normal School $10,000 annually for maintenance. This most inadequate system of state support was changed in 1921 when the old tuition and maintenance policies were replaced by one appro- priating a very much larger amount (1) "For instructional, operating and maintenance expenses," and (2) "for necessary additions, extensions, alterations, equipment and repairs," to be distributed by the State Superintendent of Public Instruction. 95 96 In 1921 there was also an appropriation made to the trustees of the several State Normal Schools to cover the deficiencies of the two previous years and an appropriation for the payment and Uquidation of the mortgage indebtedness. An unused balance of an appropriation "heretofore made by the general appropriation act in 1919" was "re-appropriated to the Department of Public Instruction to be paid to the said State Normal Schools for maintenance." While these appropriations will be analyzed later on in this study, it will be seen at once that the state support for the state-owned and controlled Normal Schools was not only much enlarged in 1921, but it was also placed on an entirely different basis. It would be interesting to trace, first, the historical development of these schools from the early privately owned and controlled institution to the present state-owned and controlled system; second, the changes in management from a board of eighteen trustees entirely elected by stockholders to one composed of half of the trustees elected by the stockholders and half appointed by the State Superintendent of Public Instruction, and finally to the present plan of nine trustees appointed by the State Superin- tendent of Public Instruction; third, the development from the former highly diversified system in which each school was largely permitted to work out its own plans and ideals in all educational and financial aspects, to the present uniformly centralized system of state control and state support; and fourth, the gradual evolu- tion in the aim of each school from academic-secondary school standards to the present progressive professional standards as evidenced by the successive changes in the course of study from a two-year secondary course beyond the elementary grades, to a three-year, then to a four-year course, and finally to the present course of two years of professional training in addition to a preparatory four-year High School course.' Any one of these phases of development might easily become the subject of a special investigation. In this study, however, they will be referred to only in the large as a possible explanation of some of the condi- tions which may be pointed out in the financial studies of the Normal School system as it is now constituted. 'Baker, Frank E., Discussion, Pennsylvania State Normal Schools — Schoolmen's Week Proceed- ings, 1916, pp. 85-95. 97 The Scope of the Investigation. An effort will be made to study the data of the thirteen Normal Schools in order to evaluate the findings in terms of standards obtained from a similar investigation for 1921-22 of: (1)^ a group of eight Normal Schools selected as among the best de- veloped schools for the training of teachers, (2)'' thirty imselected Normal Schools with two-year courses from all parts of the country, (3)' eight unselected Normal Schools with more than two-year courses, and (4) the Normal School systems of the states of Massachusetts, Minnesota and Wisconsin. This study will be concerned mainly with the analysis of Nor- mal Schools under the following headings : 1. Normal School Conditions. a. The student enrollment, Normal and Training School faculties and Training School enrollment and facilities. b. The total expenses, total instruction (including instruc- tion in Normal School and in Training School), general control, auxiliary agencies, maintenance, operation and capital outlay. c. Normal School and Training School salaries. d. Housing expenses. 2. The Purpose of and Need for Normal Schools in the state and the facilities for meeting such needs. 3. Receipts and State Appropriations. 4. Conclusions and Recommendations, especially with view to a state budget, that may be safely drawn from the facts obtained. 'The eight selected Normal Schools: State Normal School, San Diego, Cal. Montclair Normal School, Montclair, N. J. State Normal School, Oneonta, N. Y. Buffalo Normal School, Buffalo, N. Y. State Normal School, Milwaukee, Wis. St. Cloud Teachers College, St. Cloud, Minn. State Normal School, Salem, Mass. Illinois State Normal, Normal, 111. 3The thirty unselected Normal Schools with two-year courses are located in the following seventeen states: Arizona Kentucky New Hampshire North Dakota California Massachusetts New Jersey Oklahoma Connecticut Minnesota New York South Dakota Oeorgia Montana North Carolina Texas West Virginia ^The eight unselected Normal Schools with more than two-year courses are: State Normal School, Salem, Mass. State Normal School, Stevens Point, Wis. State Normal School, FredoniajMass. State Normal School, Whitewater, Wis. State Normal School, Cheney, Wis. Washington State Normal School, EUensburg, Wash. State Normal School, River Falls, Wis. State Teachers College, Fresno, Cal. 98 Student Enrollment, Training School and Faculty. Normal School Enrollment. — In Column 2, of Table 33 (page 99), it will be observed that the regular Normal School enrollment for the year 1921-22 ranges from 814 in School No. 6, ranking 1 in size, to 151 in School No. 8, ranking 18 in size, with an average enrollment of 424. These enrollment figures comprise the number of regular Normal course students listed in Column 3, plus the number of students in Special Courses and secondary departments found in Columns 4 and 5, respectively. In order to compute the per capita expenses of these schools there has been added to the regular Normal School enrollment one-fourth of the number of students enrolled in the summer and spring ses- sions, as these are of nine weeks duration, comprising one-fourth of the regular school year. These figures are included in Column 1, designated "adjusted total enrollment." 99 CO O O » o O! Eh ■a! H oa z H ^ PL4 u •■3 , Pq a CO cs m « v ^ E % fi fl CO m E-i O CO ■ • ■ ■^lOiO . "(NNeoNWCOTHtD -tfOOi-HCOWNOJCOtOOt-Mr-l Oiftt-OtDOCONOWNOJiO i-lCOiHCONW.-(OiOm^D»HOO oeoAt-ieooo-^NtoiaNtr-F- COTC^^OliOiOCOWTfiOOiH cocoeoMOeocorHiaeoooiao CO - ■ »-< lO t- Oi t- iH OJ lO t- -^ lO ArHMOOkO t- Oi '* O CO t- ■ OiOOfH ■CX)C-t- •NCO oOi-tOt-WCOOiOMNiONCO AOu3-^eo«ou3co-«ookau30} ■*J'iOCOCOeO"*CON«CO'^"'*M CDrHCOOiONlOM-^COC-Mi-l oot-oooj'^o.-tairHin'^'^*'^ NOOeCrHOJeOTf'«*000(Mi-tO» • M M M ■ M ■ M K "i*oi -i-iint- -Nua -tot-oo HNNTj«eOiHC0WCO«t- eOOONOi-lrHC-COiOOi-ifCDN IjOSOCOrHtD-^COrHOiOO^OOO i-icO(M^M»-Oi-N WW ■ com woit-t- O OS Tp -^ Oi to 00 t~ t- Ol t" W CO ^ rHONOSO eoooous ■^woiHwoioowt-oooeow iHoj^ooc-ooNC-coe-t-o lOooouaoot-nAiHNCftLAO 00r-l(Oe4tO-^r-lt>t>iar-ta)U3 OeOt-CaOOOOCOONCCrHOCQ b- n 00 Ok ooo con 00 rH CO 00 n AooQOeoMTHcoMOtcocokaoi OO000>rH00U3OU3-^O0>iH nooootat^'iHuaAtoc^oo-^O} CQOOCOt-AMOOUii-iOOaoOA rH«C000«OOJt-^00^lOlO« eot-ooot-ooeocooBiHOJcow oOf-tO"*o>eoc-c-«oco(Deo ooooeot-oo^oo^t-oo'^o a)(Mc-coo>c-Mo]OLoa) 0)0)U3iauaON>-tNrHOC00> (00iO'^b-eotoia-^(OiHo»^ M<-4«oo>ta-^a)00'^i-i-^okcQ WiOMOOlOO^VNOaOlCOCO WiHOOOiNi-i-^ft-OOOWO'* t-'^ootow*l'iooeoco»HOi(o iHrH rH i-l Oa rH ^ rH r^ »-l r^ rH ^toNO<-itHO}cot-oocoioe4 S,3s§|g^ i-(C^CC'4'tOtOt-000)OtH03c« toot eot- COfH neo NOO 00 to ooo • t-os oj oooi't; wco-g 2'* 2 o M oitoioeq U3 Oa «ON(Or-( CO O OOOC-'^f CO 00 Ol W kO A A IS Nt- ^ s N coocoo OO'VOOA Oi M V> iHt-ooeo to N OWlOrH eaoOfHOj CDi-tOOO t-rHlOtO kacoN^ noocoN NOOON 106 M M 1-1 (M OS iH P5 < M ^ W H fc O W hJ rf H « w P5 H cu 1^ H r) irj r/1 a l-H eo '. r! < >-i m H fl P M o F'n < S H o a IN iH W <0 iH rH i-l r-IC4rHC4 M n. M^ rt p a a o „ '+3 rt'3 ^ a S o £ O O HS? >-) o o M o 1/3 i « o IS rH C3 «D -t-OO 00 ^ CO Ol '^ tOlft010COU3TlW NCO'fl'TH-i^NiOWNCCOaOCIO) koeat-NccotDwajooco-^i- rH to O0OOC«C4 U3 M Mt-t-N iH iH i-t rHN COt-OONThOOTHOlrHCOCON t-co WIN WC4eOUCO00U2-4 (M^CONCOTfNCaiHMrH CO ua m -coo CO M OS 'iHt- C4 IN 1-4 -coco ■^iDwOiHi-coscoc-coeoioca wt* w 107 I U3 ca Tr <<^ N o a a o < a "A H El 6-1 < Ph CO Q CO co M e S E-i E (U g8 6- CQ U3i-IC0t»^00O04i-tC4 a»tou3r-i^oeocc-eowe4 co-^eoe4vatt-«-avi>oooio^c409 H II ■5" So 1% ill IN a o el M^Aoo^o4At-owniaoo 3a Is, S.S.H o o n o o z ■*«ooaOiHr-iaiwt-oocoioN la wo ■ i '■ ■ Ef^ si • ■ .^ .So S5-S iOWw5MjSSMmP -INCO^^iOWt-OOOiOr-^'vlert ' 110 instruction as in the case of School No, 13. Schools Nos. 5 and 8 with low total enrollments rank 4.6 and 1.7, respectively, among the schools having the highest average rank in expenses. There is in general a relative close agreement in the rank of the various items of expense when considered comparatively among the differ- ent schools; however, there is here and there an outstanding excep- tion, for example. School No. 1 ranks 6 in total expenses, 9 in general control, 5 in total instruction, and 3 in maintenance, Training School and auxiliary agencies. School No. 4 ranks 1 or 2 in total expenses, general control, instruction, and Training Schools, yet it ranks 7 in operation and 9 in maintenance. School No. 12 ranks 3 in total expenses, and yet in general control it ranks 8, in total instruction 4, in Training School 10, in operation 4, and in maintenance and Normal School instruction 1. In fact the average of the ranks found in the last column of Table 37 is a figure indicating in a general way the relative standing of each of the schools in expenditures. When comparing these averages with the rank in size in Column 1, it is at once evident that an inverse ratio exists between the schools with the lowest average rank in expenses and the highest rank in attendance, and vice versa. These differences in rank can probably in the main be attributed to local needs, and to the early individual development of each school under private control without any state standardization. Here and there the differences probably can also be attributed to dissimilar ideals in planning the work of a state Normal School, since in some cases it is known that practically no expense is spared in developing a Training School, because it is believed the better organized this department of the school is, the more efficiently the Normal School can serve its real purpose of training public school teachers. Another school will keep down this expense through some kind of local public school arrangement and thus be enabled to appropriate a larger percentage of the receipts to other phases of the school's developments such as general control, auxiliary agencies and operation. Again, the managements of the different schools have adopted widely diversi- fied salary schedules. This is an important factor in explain- ing the great variation in expenses since instruction alone com- prises 47 percent of the total expenses for all the Normal Schools. In general the cost of maintaining some of the Normal Schools is Ill very much out of proportion to the standards as evidenced by the average figures for all the schools combined. These facts will be given further consideration in connection with the apportionment of the appropriations among the various schools and the analysis of the appropriations in relation to expenditures. Training Schools. Table 39, Column 2, shows the cost per graduate of the Training Schools for the year 1921-22, and the average cost for all the Normal Schools of $135 with a range from $62 in School No. 13 to $382 in School No. 8. This difference can be explained since the former school with a large graduating class utilizes public school facilities at a much lower cost than the latter which owns, controls and finances its Training School with approximately the same gross cost, but on a basis of a small graduating class. School No. 1 has a student body and graduating class nearly as large as School No. 13, yet it expends in its Training School over twice the total amount expended by the latter, and on the basis of the niun- ber of graduates it expends just five times as much, viz., $311 per graduate. On a weekly attendance basis School No. 1 costs $6.92 in comparison with $1.38 in School No. 13. Here again. School No. 8 with its small attendance and relatively small graduating class costs $8.49 per week, which is $5.49 higher than the average amount of $3 for all of the Normal Schools. TABLE 39. Cost of Training Schools per Normal School Graduate and per Training School Pupil per Year and per Attendance Week. No. NORMAL SCHOOLS Rank in size Per grad- uate per year Per grad- uate per week Per training school pupil per year Per training school pupil per week 1 4 6 12 10 11 1 9 13 7 8 3 5 2 $311 243 133 2S3 127 97 104 382 106 78 115 110 62 $6.92 6.40 2.97 5.63 2.83 2.16 2.32 8.49 2.36 1.73 2.66 2.46 1.38 $65 48 23 45 22 34 35 97 38 55 31 59 9 $1.45 2 1.08 3 Clarion .52 4 1.00 .60 g .76 .79 g 2.16 Mansfield .86 10 MillerHville 1.23 11 12 .68 1.32 .21 Av 135 3.00 34 .76 112 Somewhat similar variations can be pointed out in the cost of the Training Schools per pupil both on the yearly and weekly bases, as shown in Columns 4 and 5 of Table 39 (page 111). These differences in the cost of this one item of expense can undoubtedly be accounted for first because of the type of training necessitated by local public school conditions, and second on the basis of the policy of individual Normal Schools to develop the Training Schools as their most essential feature with a consequent higher cost. This is especially clear in Schools Nos. 1, 4 and 8, although in the latter schools the proportionately high cost is also caused by the relatively small student body and small graduating class. To analyze thoroughly the expenses of the Normal Schools would entail a great deal of time and expense and would necessitate visits to each of the schools to get first-hand information and data. Undoubtedly other items and expenses can be accounted for, as are the expenses of the Training Schools, by the local limit- ing conditions and the varied Normal School ideals as to teacher training. The short-sighted policy in the management of some of the schools during the period of private ownership and control has brought about conditions in some of the schools that would necessarily entail a varied proportion of cost under the item of "maintenance of plant." Differences in practice relative to stu- dent welfare have caused a consequent proportionate difference in the auxiliary agency expenses. The general control expense columns show tremendous differences among the schools in com- parison with the average for all the schools. On the basis of the expense statements sent to the Auditor-General's Department, it can be very clearly pointed out that certain items in some of the schools are very much in excess of what might be considered rea- sonable costs, at least in proportion to the needs that the particular expenditure is to serve. It would seem that whatever the system of purchases is, there ought to be a check as to cost and need before the expense is incurred, especially in major accounts, either on the part of the Local Board of Trustees or some state agency before the account is submitted to the Auditor-General for payment. Housing Expenses. — Tables 40 and 41 (page 113) which analyze the housing expenses, include the dining hall, dormi- tory and laundry expenses. It will be seen in Columns 3 an(i 113 TABLE 40. Total Dining Hall Expenses and Expenses per Capita Boarding Student and Total Number of Boarders Including Faculty AND Employes per Year and per Attendance Week. No. NORMAL SCHOOLS Rank in size Total expenses Per capita boarding student Per capita student per att. week Per capita total No. of boarders Per capita boarder per att. week 1 2 Bloonuburg Califamia 4 6 12 10 11 1 9 13 7 8 3 6 2 $70,026 54,915 30,611 70,876 37,818 107,846 64,338 25,936 63,556 65,601 42,167 66,296 126,^41 $212 199 161 209 186 183 240 186 184 160 119 160 192 $4.71 4.46 3.60 4.66 4.13 4,07 5.33 4.16 4.10 3.66 2.66 3.66 4.29 $184 172 147 182 186 148 199 158 150 $4.08 3 84 3 Clarion 3 29 4 East Stroudsburg . . . 4.06 4 13 fi Indiana 3 28 7 4 42 8 Lock Haven Mansfield 3.62 3 34 in MiUersville Shippensbure Slippery Rock West Chester 11 12 13 99 142 173 2.22 3.17 8.86 Total 815,231 62,710 31,643 64,103 Pa. average ... 180 303 206 4.00 6.73 4.67 177 265 167 3 95 normal SCHOOL STANDARDS Illinois State 6.89 3.48 TABLE 41. Total Dormitory and Laundry Expenses and Expenses per Capita Resident Student and per Total Number of Residents Including Faculty and Employees PER Year and per Attendance Week. No. NORMAL schools Rank in size Total expenses Per capita resident student Per capita student per att. week Per capita total No. of residents Per capita resident per att. week 1 2 Bloomsburg 4 6 12 10 11 1 9 13 7 8 3 5 2 $26,490 16,468 15,161 24,430 17,318 61,461 22,910 17,038 24,161 43,494 17,736 33,658 42,689 $77 59 80 72 101 104 86 122 70 127 62 97 65 $1.72 1.33 1.78 1.61 2.25 2. 82 1.91 2.72 1.66 2.84 1.18 2.16 1.46 $69 61 78 62 101 86 74 113 67 46 86 58 $1.64 1 14 3 Clarion 1.62 4 5 East Stroudsburg . . . 1.40 2.26 6 1.92 7 1.66 8 9 Lock Haven 2.62 1.27 10 MiUersville 11 12 13 Shippensburg Slippery Rock West Chester 1.03 1.92 1.30 360,804 27,754 8,083 20,332 83 77 78 1.87 1.71 1.73 74 72 61 1.66 normal school standards IlUnois state 1.60 1.36 114 4 that the yearly and weekly average costs of the table board per student are $180 and $4 with a range of $240 and $5.33 in School No. 7, to $119 and $2.66 in School No. 11. The middle 50 percent of this group ranges in cost from $199 and $4.45 to $161 and $3,60. It is interesting to note that the three most expensive schools show yearly and weekly costs per student of $240 and $5.33, $212 and $4.71 and $209 and $4.65, while the three least expensive ones show an average of $160 and $3.56, $160 and $3.56 and $119 and $2.66 per student respectively. The average yearly cost in the Pennsylvania Normal Schools per student for dormitory and laundry expenses, as shown in Table 41, is $83 or $1.87 per week. The variation in this expense per student is equally as marked as those of the dining halls. Combining the figures for Pennsylvania schools they show a range of from $295 and $6.55 in School No. 8, the most expensive school, to $174 and $3.86 in School No. 11, the least expensive school. The Pennsylvania Normal Schools are essentially boarding schools and in this respect differ from those of most of the other states, consequently it has been difficult to obtain comparable data on housing expenses. Such data as were obtainable, however, show that the lUinois State Normal has an average yearly housing cost of $380 or a weekly cost of $8.44 per student, while that of four Massachusetts schools is $303 per year or $6.73 per week, both of which are higher than the average for the Pennsylvania Normal Schools. Since all the Normal Schools charge $7 per week to cover housing expenses, with the exception of School No. 11 which charges $6.50, it is evident that practically, all of them are making money in varied amounts. The differences in this expense indicate that some of the schools are spending too much in housing, while others are not spending enough. Every student should be assured a reasonable return in comfort for the amount of money expended, and there should be some standard upon which to base this. The question naturally arises here as to whether the Normal Schools have the right to charge the student more for housing than is actually expended. Probably some part of the profit should be spent to help finance plant operation, as this can legitimately be called part of the housing expense, or perhaps a certain percent of the cost of heat, light and water should be 115 transferred to the housing account. It would seem that the State Normal Schools should create a limited reserve fund to be expended at the discretion of the local Board of Trustees on the basis of a fair profit, to be held to cover such unforeseen losses as may occur from time to time in the Housing Department, such as are caused by fluctuations in the cost of food products and unfore- seen emergencies in securing help, equipment and supplies. Of course it must be assumed that if the Normal School does not make a profit through these sources to meet expenses when the state appropriations are inadequate, an equal amount should be supplied by larger state appropriations. The causes and con- ditions underlying these diversified facts should receive a more extended investigation in order to insiire a higher degree of standardization in the distribution of state appropriations. Salaries of Normal School and Training School Teachers. Tables 42, 43 and 44 (pages 116, 117 and 118) show the total dis- tribution of salaries paid out on a monthly basis to the teachers of the thirteen Normal Schools according to the requisitions fur- nished by the Normal Schools to the Auditor-General. 116 w o (3 I 3 bc panojug mo J, 83UBIBS nc'tpapi siaqacaX JO -ON IB^OJ, ^P^i co«oa>oc4iHosooioe4 C4iH^eot>iA^oiaoooo40 CQtOOOO '00 AkOtSO -CQ iON iH D t- 00 0> O >-t IN CO 117 S § ^ CO >5 ^ a psnojna: ^napniis B3IJTIIBS IBIOX Xjvive nfljpap^ Bjaqo«3x •OM iBjox (OtoMU9-«OOC4rHncOeQC4 '4i<4«^u3>ae<3eome4C4ra(Oc4 w- w- U3^cot*>c40^aoocoeoon WOCOOt^tDOOCOeOONO ■-•gocwoiow^oot-ooc* ffiraonoioocoioiootoo 6ie w» ooei eez 1 ■ •^MN'^^'HrtWeo^'^ eooeo-^^io* •ei'*o« ^ ^ rt . -00 CDi-t ■«« ^(Odo^rtOieci^ooeotON li Oi->aooiHoot-oot^ooioe4oD COOMCOiHOlOOCQAtOaOiO Ci9^WN(00>t-rHlO00MOr-4 09rHCOOOC41AA0401MM<0 6S8 o» OtEi 6E8 o* OZSi 6TS o» OOEi 668 o» 08Z* 6iZ 0? 09Z* 69ZO»0»Z* eez o« ozz$ 6XZ o» OOZJ 661 05 081* 6iX o» 091* 691 05 oni 68T o; OZIS 611 °i OOXS 68 05 08* ei o» 09* 69 o? ot* OJ'* nsq} Bsa^ azis ni 3[nB5j O s o m C5 Z M Ot-00>iHlO w t-if-icai-t r-( »0 t- 0> t- »-( iHCOCO I U3 ■^CONOiHt^aiCOt-oOOBiON 3 rt 9 £ d goo osar ail o o aS MOOHw5M4SSmmP H < 119 Table 42 (page 116) shows that the median monthly teachers' salary for all Normal Schools combined is $190. The median salaries for the individual Normal Schools range from $230 in School No. 8 to $148 in School No. 6. Among the Normal Schools constituting the middle 50 percent of the group the range extends from $205 in School No. 12 to $176 in School No. 10, a difference of $29. It is interesting to note that the median salary for the group of all Normal Schools, $190, is practically the midpoint between the extremes of this middle group of seven. The extreme differences, therefore, in these median salaries will be found at the low end of the distribution in Schools Nos. 6, 9 and 3 and the upper end of the distribution in Schools Nos. 8, 4 and 13. Naturally the median salaries do not tell the complete story concerning the differences that prevail among the thirteen Normal Schools. The complete range in salaries for example in School No. 6 extends from $40 per month to $340 per month, while in School No. 7 and School No. 8 with one exception, it extends from $140 to $340 per month. Additional information is neces- sary in order to make a more complete study of the salaries paid in the same departments of the different schools, and among the instructors of the same and different ranks in each school respec- tively. However, Tables 43 and 44 (pages 117 and 118) show con- clusively that these variations in complete distribution of median salaries do exist in faculties as constituted both in the Normal School and in the Training School. In the next to the last colmnn of Table 42 (page 116) will be found the amount of salary paid per student enrolled for all the Normal Schools, viz., $130, and also for each of the individual Normal Schools ranking from $220 per student in School No. 8 to $88 per student in School No. 11. The average salaries among the seven schools constituting the middle 50 percent of the group range from $153 to $113 per student. Comparing these with the rank of the schools in student enrollment it will be noticed that School No. 11, ranking 13 in salary per student, ranks 3 in size. This school while ranking 4 in number of teachers also ranks 2 in the largest number of students per teacher (Table 33) and 5 in median salary. It is clear, therefore,' that the low per capita cost in salary is largely due to the smaller faculty per student enrolled, and also on account of a median salary slightly above 120 the median for all the Normal School teachers. School No. 2 ranks 12 in the amount of money paid in salary per student, while it ranks 6 in total enrollment and 9 in median salary. How- ever, this same school ranks 3 in the large number of students per teacher (Table 33) and 10 in the size of its faculty. Con- sequently it is quite evident that the lower cost per student is due to the low salaries paid and the smaller faculty per student enrolled. School No. 6 ranking 10 in per capita total salary also ranks 8 in teachers per number of students enrolled (Table 33), but it ranks 13 or lowest in the median salaries paid per teacher. Special attention is called to the high instructional expense of School No. 8, which ranks highest in total salaries paid per student enrolled, highest in median salary paid per teacher and 12 or next to the smallest in student enrollment per teacher (Table 33). Another case in point is that of School No. 4, which ranks 2 in highest total salaries per student enrolled, 2 in the highest median salaries paid per teacher, 11 in the number of teachers per student enrolled (Table 33), and 10 in size, indicative of the high amount of salary per student due to the higher salaries and the smaller per- centage of students per teacher. School No. 5 ranks 3 in the total amount of salary paid per student enrolled, 7 in median salary paid, 11 in size and 13 in the smallest number of students per teacher. This again illustrates that the higher costs of salary per student is due, not so much to the higher median salary, but rather to the size of the school and the large faculty as shown by the small number of students per teacher. In the last column of Table 42 (page 116) the total salaries are distributed on the basis of the number of graduates in 1922. It will be observed that the variations per graduate are even greater than the variations in salaries per student enrolled, also that the causes for these variations in the different schools are due to the number of graduates exclusively and also to the number of graduates in proportion to the entire student body. The Pennsylvania average teacher's salary per student enrolled, $130, is higher than the group averages of the unselected schools with two-year courses of $116 and the unselected schools with more than two-year courses of $121, while it is lower than that of the individual states with the Minnesota schools of $144, the Wiscon- 121 sin schools of $175 and the Massachusetts schools of $138 and the selected schools of $166. In Table 43 (page 117) a complete distribution of the salaries of Normal School teachers exclusive of the Training School faculties is shown on a monthly basis for each of the Normal Schools and for all the Normal Schools combined. The median for Pennsyl- vania Normal School teachers is $193 per month. School No. 8 ranks highest with a median of $240 and School No. 6 lowest with a median of $156. The salaries of the middle 50 percent of the group extends from $220 to $173, a difference of $47 in salaries per month between the Normal Schools ranking 4 and 10 among the group. The three schools paying the highest salaries per student enrolled are Nos. 8, 5 and 4, with $146, $144 and $143 respectively, and the three schools paying the lowest salaries are Nos. 2, 11 and 9, with $66, $71 and $86 respectively. In other words the rank of the middle 50 percent, seven schools, extends from $131 to $87, a difference of $47 per student enrolled. The difference in salaries per month between the first and thirteenth school in rank is $80, an amount $14 greater than the amount expended per student in the Normal School ranking lowest in the list. In Table 44 (page 118) the salaries paid in the Training School departments are analyzed. It will be seen that the median salary is $180, the average per capita cost of Normal School student enrolled is $38 and the cost per Normal School graduate is $120. This variation in the salaries of the Training School faculties exists among: the different Normal Schools in much the same proportion as has been pointed out in the Normal School faculties and of all the Normal School teachers combined. Since the departments in the various schools administering the uniform state course of study are practically the same, it is evident that (1) some of the schools are either paying salaries which are too high or others are paying salaries which are too low for the same quality of work, and (2) some of the schools have too many teachers per student, or some do not have enough. These facts are vital since instruction constitutes 47 percent of the total Normal School expenses ranging from 37 percent in School No. 2 to 56 percent in Schools Nos. 1 and 13, with the others distributed between a 40 and 50 percent range (Table 38). 122 Many of these schools with the larger teaching force per student enrolled could accommodate a much larger number of students without making substantial additions to their faculties, but these schools are receiving more money proportionately with their small student body, than other schools with larger pupil enroll- ments and consequently additional departments and personnel, irrespective of their service to the state. These facts demonstrate the importance of a most careful consideration of the variations in salaries, since this expense constitutes the chief item in the amount of the appropriation to be apportioned to the different schools by the State Department of Public Instruction. The Purpose of and Need for Normal Schools in the State and the Facilities for Meeting Such Needs. According to investigations made by the Teachers' Biu-eau of the State Department of Public Instruction^ the number of new teachers required in Pennsylvania each year is upwards of five thousand. In 1919 there were approximately 1,850 prospective teachers graduated from the Pennsylvania State Normal Schools, while it was found that there was need of about 3,000 new teachers in the public schools in the rural districts under the supervision of county superintendents. This would indicate that approxi- mately upward of 2,000 teachers are required in Pennsylvania in the boroughs and cities of over 5,000 population." The Normal School principals reported that in their judgment an average of only about 15 percent of the 1919 graduates entered the rural schools. In other words there were about 275 teachers graduated from the Normal Schools that year to supply the 3,000 vacancies in schools under county superintendents' supervision.' In 1922 there were 1,797 graduates in the thirteen State Normal Schools of Pennsylvania with an average of 138 per school. In reply to questionnaires sent to Normal School principals relative to this year's graduates, they reported that approximately 15 percent of the 1,797 graduates or 265 teachers entered the rural schools. It must be remembered that this number includes those teaching in rural High Schools and Graded Schools and that the number of Normal School graduates entering the 10,000 one- teacher schools of the state is negligible. According to the Normal 'Study in Teacher Shortage, Department of Public Instruction, 1919-20. (Unpublished.) ^King, LeBoy A. — Status of Rural Teachers in Pennsylvania, U. S. Bulletin No. 34, 1921. 123 School principals, approximately 90 percent of the graduates of Normal Schools who are teaching are employed in the cities and boroughs of the state. In June, 1923, there will be in round numbers 2,450 Normal School students graduated with certificates to teach in the state of Pennsylvania, a considerable increase over 1922. If the per- centage of teachers entering the rural schools is about the same as in 1919, and there is no evidence to think otherwise, there will be approximately 850 teachers entering rural schools, leaving a balance of 2,100 graduates to fill the vacancies in the cities and boroughs exclusive of Philadelphia and Pittsburgh. There will still remain at least 2,500 to 3,000 vacancies to be filled over the state should the graduates of the Normal Schools all teach in Penn- sylvania. In response to a questionnaire, only three of the Normal School principals reported that their schools are practically filled to their capacity. The remainder of the schools reported that approxi- mately 1,100 boarding students and 1,300 day students can be accommodated in addition to the 1922-23 enrollment. If to these totals is added the 1,000 students (see Table 49) enrolled in the secondary school departments and the special courses not author- ized to give certificates at their completion, it is apparent that approximately 3,400 additional students could be accommodated in the Pennsylvania Normal Schools this year for preparation to teach in the public schools of the state. Excluding Philadelphia and Pittsburgh with their own Normal Schools it is extremely doubtful from the above figures whether the Normal Schools can supply for some time to come the teacher needs in our rural districts through our present Normal School organization. The Normal School principals with the approval of the State Superintendent of Public Instruction organized a new Normal School course particularly intended to specialize in the training of elementary, junior high school, and rural school teachers. Six of the Normal School principals report that in 1922- 23 — the present year — not a single student in their schools has elected the rural school course. They report that there is a general feeling among the students that they do not wish to teach in the rural schools on account of the teaching and living conditions and in most cases the lower salaries. On the basis of these facts, it 124 would seem that the Normal Schools are not of direct service in training teachers for the rural schools. In 1920 there were, for example, as few as one or two Normal School graduates among the 150 or 175 one-room rural schools in some counties of the state.' The question might be raised in this connection whether the Normal Schools should not organize ways and means, apart from the regular and special courses, to train rural school teachers both in preparation and in service, for the state of Pennsylvania. How can this be accomplished? Undoubtedly many prospective teachers and teachers in service are receiving training through the extension courses or the sunmier sessions. In fact one of the Normal School principals just recently stated that he believed that the best service that his school can render in the way of training rural school teachers is to provide a type of extension course that will reach the rural school teachers in service in the rural districts. If the training of teachers is to be accomplished in part through the extension courses, then instead of the extension work being necessarily self-supporting a certain amount of state appropriation should be designated to be spent definitely for extension work, particularly among the rural school teachers. One of the Normal Schools has established four rural school centers this year in addition to a number of centers in cities and larger boroughs. These rural centers are in part financed by the profits from the larger urban extension classes. It is generally known that most of the extension courses are carried on in the cities where a large proportion of the teachers are already Normal School graduates, and where in the case of a number of schools, an extra tuition charge is made for granting credits which are forwarded to some college or university. This is not the kind of Normal School extension work that is most needed in the state to help train the 5,000 or more teachers with inadequate academic and professional training. It is the latter group that needs the Normal School training for which adequate state appropriation should be allotted. The Normal Schools are also training a constantly growing number of summer session students as shown by the enrollments of 1921 and 1922. (See Tables 33 and 49.) It would probably be a wise provision if a definite amount of money were laid aside to be used exclusively for the training of teachers in the summer 'King, LeRoy A. — Status of Rural Teachers in Pennsylvania, U. S. Bulletin No. 34, 1921. 125 sessions. In other words, might it not be well for the state to appropriate a certain amount of money to the Normal Schools (1) to train teachers in the regular courses and such special courses as are authorized for which certificates are issued, (2) to train teachers in the summer sessions, and (3) to train teachers in service through extension work, particularly extension work to reach the rural school teachers? Again, it should be pointed out that more than twenty states in the United States are now providing teacher training for rural teachers through the High Schools and the County Training Schools subsidized by the state. It is not our purpose to enter into the merits of this question as to whether or not such a temporary agency should be established for the training of the teachers in Pennsylvania. However, it should be considered in answering the question of whether all money for teacher-training purposes should be exclusively appropriated to the Normal Schools as the chief agency for the training of public school teachers, or whether a larger amount should be appropriated to help finance all teacher- training work in the state, part of this to be used for such temporary agencies apart from the State Normal Schools and Schools or Departments of Education in colleges and universities. The Normal Schools of Pennsylvania as now constituted are not adequately serving the needs of rural schools. It is believed that a step forward would be taken if a careful study could be made of such constructive measures as would especially train teachers for the rural and small community schools, to be subsidized by suffi- cient appropriation of state money to make such training facilities possible. Normal School Receipts and State Appropriation . The total amount of money appropriated to the Normal Schools of Pennsylvania for the two-year period 1921-23 was $5,112,622.25. While this amount includes all the money that the Normal Schools were to receive during the two-year period, it should be pointed out that it also includes $212,306.25 reappropriated from a balance from previous appropriations to be used largely to meet deficits. The difference of $4,900,000 was the total amount appropriated 126 to Normal Schools by the last Legislature. This amount as is shown in Table 45 (page 127) was apportioned as follows: Instructional, Operating and Maintenance . $2,993,000.00 Liquidation of Normal School mortgages and indebtedness 825,000.00 Alterations and repairs 500,000.00 Maintenance — a deficiency appropriation for previous years 582,316.00 Reappropriation to be apportioned among the Normal Schools upon the basis of the number of students 212,306.25 Total $5,112,622.25 The allotment of these various amounts to the respective Nor- mal Schools is indicated in Tables 45 and 46 (pages 127 and 128). According to the record of the Auditor-General as of August 1, 1922, practically all of the student-tuition reappropriated balance was distributed to the Normal Schools. Only $90,900 out of the $825,000 for the liquidation of Normal School mortgages and indebtedness had been expended at that time. In the case of the maintenance fund and the alteration and repair fund approxi- mately one-half of the amounts appropriated were distributed for the first year of the appropriation period. The deficiency appro- priation was distributed among the State Normal Schools in amoimts as found in Column 4 of Table 45 and are identical with the amounts as stipulated in the law. In Column 6 the reappro- priated balance of the previous appropriations is distributed to the respective Normal Schools in amounts as determined by the State Department of Public Instruction on the basis of the mmiber of students enrolled in each of the Normal Schools as stipulated in the law. In Column 5 the alteration and repair appropriation is shown as distributed by the State Department of Public Instruc- tion on the basis of the requests and established needs of each of the State Normal Schools. It will be noted that $31,400 of this amount, according to the record submitted from Harrisburg, still remains as a balance to be redistributed among the schools during the balance of the two-year period. 127 i5 < r-i H ^ fills ■g a.gr! (C o oar o s O CQ ■J o t-CONt-*DOOcg^ONOiOOO f-iOaOCOOO«OI>OCD(DmeqU3W(0A cm CO ca b- 1-4 A 00 mo«ou3 eooc4eo OtOWOOtF-IOAM^^OO Ot-OOOA-^OOOOOAOO Ot-DlU30>OOt-OOnOO ooooooooooooo ooooooooooooo 000U3000000000 oioiot-uscgtotooooooM NOOWOAC^ODOOOnnNN ■^t004O*HrHAe3fr-00e0iaC l-a illi inNCO-flOtDt-OOOSOf-IWICO OS o •z o CO CO 7 I < ! 2 ■2 « I t I ■< a O « H 44 - i i o I •< H ropriation maintenance per student enrolled 1 Bloomsburg 2 California 3 Clarion 4 East Stroudsburg . 6 Bdinboro 6 Indiana 7 Kutztown 8 Lock Haven 9 Mansfield 10 Millersville 11 Shippensburg 12 Slippery Rock . . . . IS Westchester 4 6 12 10 11 1 9 IS 7 8 3 5 2 $134,134 103,130 87,168 132,641 132,640 125,041 93,168 86,877 103,381 75,004 106,200 131,946 137,123 $120,000 82,576 66,166 107,600 95,161 126,041 86,000 77,276 101,281 76,004 89,856 107,180 124,799 Total Fa. Average , NORMAL school STANDARDS Eight selected schools Thirty unaelected schools with two-year courses Eight unselected schools with more than two-year courses . Minnesota schools Massachusetts schools 1,448,357 111,412 165,823 137,992 171,804 106,374 112,026 198 286 290 107 103 1,065,786 96,980 172 129 Column 2 of Table 46 (page 128) contains the amounts received by the Normal Schools for instruction, operation and maintenance, and alterations and repairs. In Column 3 these appropriations are analyzed on the basis of the total number of students enrolled. The average amount received by the schools is $198, with School No. 8, the smallest in size, receiving $387 per student; and School No. 6, the largest in enrollment $134, a difference of $253 per student. The range among the seven schools constituting the middle 50 percent extends from $260 to $162 per student enrolled. The three schools with small enrollment, ranking 13, 11 and 10 in size, received from the state $387, $359 and $333 per student, and the three schools with large enrollment, ranking 3, 8 and 1 in size, received respectively $155, $142 and $134. In comparing these amoimts with the standards at the foot of the table it will be seen that the Pennsylvania State Normal Schools received considerably less per student than the selected group of Normal Schools receiving $286 per student; the unse- lected schools with more than two-year courses, receiving $228 per student; and the unselected group of thirty Normal Schools with two-year courses receiving $290. However, the average appropriation received by the Minnesota State Normal Schools is only $107 per student, and the Massachusetts Schools $103. On the basis of these standards, with the exception of the Minne- sota and Massachusetts averages, it is evident that the Pennsyl- vania State Normal Schools received from the state, in 1921-22, considerably less than they should have received. Columns 4 and 5 contain the appropriations for instruction, operation and maintenance exclusively and probably give a fairer basis for comparing the appropriations received by the Normal Schools. Apparently two of the schools did not receive any stated amount for alterations and repairs and those that did received them in quite varied amounts. These figures represent the exact amounts received by the schools as reported by the principals for the fiscal year ending June 1, 1922, and consequently vary slightly with those recorded in Column 3 of Table 45 as reported by the Auditor-General's department which contains some hold-over requisitions and also additional ones recognized since June 1, 1922. In Table 46, Column 4, the amounts received by each Normal School respectively for instruction, operation and 130 maintenance is also apportioned on the basis of the number of students enrolled, showing an average for all the schools of $172. The range in these amounts received by the individual schools extends from $131 in School No. 6, the first in size, to $344 in School No. 8 with the smallest enrollment. The seven Normal Schools representing the middle 50 percent, range from $198 in School No. 12 to $148 in School No. 13. In the accompanying Table 47 it will be seen that School No. 8 ranking 13 in size ranks 1 in the state appropriation received i)er student; School No. 3 ranking 12 in size ranks 5 in amount of state appropriation received per student, and School No. 5 ranking 11 in size ranks 3 in amount of appropriation received per student. In comparing the larger schools, it will further be seen that School No. 6 ranking 1 in size ranks 12 in appropriation received; School No. 13 ranking 2 in size ranks 10 in appropriation received; and School No. 11 ranking 3 in total enrollment and 5 in regular Normal Course student enrollment ranks 13 in appropriation received. In fact this inverse ratio is so pronounced that it indicates a high negative correlation in these ranks, with the exception of several schools about the midpoint. This practically established beyond question that the larger the school the less state money per student the school receives, and conversely, the smaller the school the greater amount of money per student the school receives. TABLE 47. Normal Schools Compared by Ranks in Size and Amounts of Appropriation Received per Student. NORMAL SCHOOLS Total Complete Appropria- enrollment enrollment tion including one-fourth excluding maintenance summer and per of summer Bpnng student session and term total one-fourth enrollment of spring session Rank Rank Rank 4 3 7 6 8 9 12 12 5 10 10 2 11 11 3 1 1 12 9 7 8 18 13 1 7 6 6 8 9 11 3 4 13 B S 4 2 2 10 Appropria- tion maintenance per regular student enrollment 1 Bloomsburg 2 California 3 Clarion 4 East Stroudsburg 5 Edinboro 6 Indiana 7 Kutztown 8 Lock Haven 9 Mansfield 10 Millersville 11 Shlppensbure. . , , 12 Slippery Rock 18 West Chester Rank 6 8 4 2 3 IS 7 1 9 10 11 6 12 131 It will be remembered in this comiection that in the analysis of the expenses of the Normal Schools there was found a wide varia- tion in the cost of the different departments of the different schools, apart from their size, and that the higher expenses in one item or another occurred principally in the smaller schools. Con- sequently unless these differences in imiformity of salaries and variations in other departments are removed by more rigid standards on the part of some governmental agency, it is evident that the only alternative on the part of the State Department of Public Instruction, which distributes this part of the State Normal School appropriation, is to consult with the authorities of the individual schools and to arrange for an appropriation proportion- ate to the amount claimed in order to avoid a deficit. A more equitable distribution of the state appropriation could probably be made if more consideration were given to (1) relative numbers of students enrolled, (2) the individual school needs, (3) certain measurable efficiency standards, and (4) services to the state through extension courses and summer session activities. Analysis of Normal School Receipts. In Tables 48 and 48A (pages 132 and 133) the Normal School receipts from all sources are analyzed and show that an average of 64 percent of all receipts are supplied by state appropriation. This is very low when compared with the percentage of 91.6 for the selected Normal Schools of the country, 85.5 for the thirty unselected Normal Schools with two-year courses, 91.2 for the unselected Normal Schools with more than two-year courses, 91.4 for the Massachusetts schools, and 87.2 for the Minnesota Normal Schools. The range in state appropriation in proportion to total receipts extends from 80.7 in School No. 8 to 44.7 in School No. 7 — a striking difference of 36 percent. Variations similar to those prevalent throughout this study are equally prominent in the analysis of Normal School receipts. The seven schools constituting the middle 50 percent received 73.8 percent to 62.9 percent, indicating a quartile deviation of 5.5 percent. Therefore, the extreme variation indicated above exists among the six schools constituting the first and third quartile; viz., Schools Nos. 8, 5 and 3, ranking 13, 11 and 12 in 132 00 p9AOJJOq jaqiO puB easjnoa ajitfoa] p3Aia3a^ (S1I0BS3T noT^mx * ai^BAUd ioj 633J }nno93B Sajenoq mojj jajBUBJX 8not:)«iidojdd'B tw^ox azis ni 3IUBH SONb- b-lOtDOi Or-1 -O ca«Du3eooou3iae N OC40»eo^ C400CllOO)0OOOOC4 OOOU3tDaOC>]OC4^m(MO ^O00iHOr^00t-»H"*OlQe0 eceoto-4<^^toi:-oooo-^e>i rH|H>Hka(0OlH00CqOe40>*H ;Dooncoo»(HtDOt>tO(nu3>H caNwoaNt-noot^'^eowo ^a»ooeDW*THt-t-Ti<«tD« lO CO rH Ifl 00 N 00 t- •>* lO t- M lO o>OfHa>tot-ooiO"^Tj(ooo CO'^tOWfr-OOAOiHNCO 133 pSAOJioq •ado s^dteaaj 04 to *-t to <« CO CO 00 b- O 00 CO A •H DOiHMoeouaeooeo'^tHioeo ^o B3a:(a«ran3 pQB 8)83)003 9E)aii{)y wioaeotoM oooooo -lOCOiH^ ■oodc sasjnoa ajiujaai mojj paAfaodTi ♦Hod dddd (BUOBsar 9)VAUa uvq) jaqio) u»e4^(DiHeQoaeo«wakoca i-i f-i ^ d d ^ ■* d N N ^^ f-i aocptU)sai ' 8)BAud ioj aocjmj, toooo ■coooab-oxotOfH -deddd^df-irnd 00 < nuaj, 9ano33B 3a]finoq •Ot01Of-trHt-*H CO 09 09 0)00 U9 •odNod^-^OMt^odtfiod C4 snoi^Kudojdds VAnt-waofr-t-aotOfHi-«flO o no 04 iac4^ IB»OX 134 size, show 80.7, 78.8 and 77.9 percent in total receipts covered by state appropriation and schools Nos. 10, 6 and 7, ranking 8, 1 and 9 in size, show 51.6, 45.8 and 44.7 percent respectively. It is evident that this negative relationship prevails throughout these proportions just as it did in the student enrollment in the previous discussion on appropriations. It is most significant that two of the Normal Schools should receive from the state 78 and 80 percent of their total receipts for maintaining their schools, while two other schools should receive only 44 and 45 percent. Naturally the question arises where do the Normal Schools, receiving the small percentages of state appropriation on the basis of their total receipts, make up the differences? This is answered in Table 48A (page 133), where it will be seen that the Normal Schools show receipts from local sources in various amounts such as transfer from housing account, term fees, tuition, borrowed money, etc. It will be seen that money transferred from the housing account is the chief source of revenue apart from state appropriation. School No. 6, receiving the second smallest amount of state appropriation, both per student enrolled and in percent of total receipts, transferred 32.9 percent of total receipts or $87,661 from the housing account to meet thegeneral expenses of the school. School No. 10 receiving 51.6 percent from state appropriations transferred $41,189 from the housing accoimt, an equivalent of 28.3 percent of the total receipts. School No. 7, which received 44.7 percent of its total receipts from the state, transferred only 10.7 percent from the housing accoimt; however, this school has 14.9 percent of its receipts credited to tuition and private lessons, and 23.3 percent to other and sundry receipts. Usually the schools receiving the larger appropriation of state money in relation to total receipts transfer a relatively smaller proportion from the housing accounts. School No. 1 transferred none. School No. 3 transferred 2.6 percent, School No. 11, 5.3 percent, etc. A study of the entire table is most interesting in that it shows how the receipts are distributed in each school to make up the total. The extreme differences in percentages of state appropriations in Column 2 seem to be the key in explanation of the situation. Equalized Distribution of State Appropriation. — In ana- lyzing the percentage of state appropriation for each of the Normal 135 Schools on the basis of the percentage of expenses as found in Table 38 (page 109), it will be found that the state appropriation in most of the schools covers all expenses for instruction and general control and in nine of the schools the state appropriation also covers a fairly good proportion of the expenses for auxiliary agencies. Consequently it would seem that the receipts obtained from other local sources cover the expenses for maintenance, operation of school plant and general control in the schools for which the state appropriation is not large enough to cover these items. Now the question arises whether the state should appro- priate more money for the Normal Schools to cover these expen- ditures not now met by state appropriation or whether the present amount is sufficient, provided the extreme variations in expenses of all kinds, as has been clearly demonstrated, can be adjusted to insure a more equitable distribution. It has already been shown that Pennsylvania does not appro- priate enough money for its Normal Schools compared with the standards obtained for the United States and certain individual states. However, on the basis of per capita population Peimsyl- vania appropriates 23 cents per inhabitant. In comparison Massa- chusetts appropriates 19 cents, Miimesota 24 cents, and Wisconsin 33 cents per inhabitant. The student enrollment has increased this year— 1922-23 — 26.7 percent over the year 1921-22, for which data are presented in Table 49. These increases, according to information submitted by the Normal Schools to the State Department of Public Instruction, vary from no increase in one school all the way to 80 percent in another. In the majority of schools the increases in attendance are in the neighborhood of 25 to 35 percent over the previous year. The enrollment in the summer session for 1922 of 9,159 students — an average of 705 per school — indicates a remarkable increase of approximately 50 percent over the previous session. The Exten- sion Courses this year show a total enrollment of 6,160 students, an average of 474 per school, which is an increase of approximately 85 percent over the enrollment of 1921-22. However, the gross salary increases have kept pace with the stu- dent increases throughout the list. According to the requisition payrolls submitted to the Auditor-General for the months of September and October the Normal School salaries for the year 136 tH U3WCOtO rHSDlOCOt-0>t-0«OMlO>Ot- 0)U3C]0(DOa>eoe4M^O^ t-(iH00MCOC0U5t-t-»-trHO»^ iH^OOkao9t-(OC»&3r-tODTHO O«0'^(0*D0»^C0t-t-i-»00^ iHtHCOCOCOCO^OO-^lOOit-CO e«^' CO -** so* « eo* ih'ci fh «' W -^ oeoooooooot-oooo aOiHU3tHNONOOOO*HrHtO t-ia04t-COOO^r-IU309Udt-00 ■ez-zzei easjnoo noiena^^ 'ZZ6X aoraeas jamnms 8261 Ba^wnpBJO ocacoiaeoeoMt-oootococo ouaneoeooooAOi-Ht-'^iH C4W nW4< r-tC4MC0rH toeotar-io»o-^b-rHocono> lOt-tOU3COMaOCOC4-^C0COCD ooaous-^cD^eoio^toiooooo t-oat-tDOO-^INOrHOt-lOCO eq^H fH fH ej rH i-l N N »H f-l ^ *)dap AiB -puosas ni si^aapn^g '836Jn03 l^pads ni siuapn^g *)uapi^s asjnoa *noisBae jatcnzmB pa« SmidB 3aipnx3xa )aanqi6iaa JvinSaH Jaarams pa? Snude 3nipnpai :^aanq|OJ -aa iB^o) pa:^snrpy ^1 is • K K M ■ K K oouau3oou30(Mt-u»o Wt-Nt-O^tOOiOOJ^OlO tO-^CQCOU3COe004iOcqU3U3CO ■^ioc0e0tr-u3<0t-usot"'4*>0 b-oacDoocooiua-^tsuaooNt- 00(0'<4"<4 8 ^ Z O « .2- n |og » ■•" •§5-2 6? O S? a s? oo COrH MeO t-tO s? s? ^ (MN I>0* tow -^US OCI 0*0 -s eo d S B .S " If i §■§ o| ^ = s ii gsSo ■ S S » " 0) ^' ^ Z % I o I s • 01 N g 1. 2 .t i 152 (4) Finances of Higher Educational Institutions in Pennsylvania. — It has been found impossible to procure satisfactory comparable data regarding the finances of higher educational institutions in the United States. The only central agency gathering such data is the United States Bureau of Education. The blanks sent out by this Bureau are filled in by officers of the institutions who in the absence of positive construction interpret them differently. Further- more, the Bureau does not discriminate between the income from educational and non-educational departments. Those universities having hospitals, institutions, museums, etc., would, of course, send in different figures according to whether they interpret the blank to mean that they should or that they should not be included. It has been found impossible, there- fore, to use these data. Statistics relative to the expenditures of imiversities are not gathered by any central agency, doubtless due to the fact that it is much more difficult to get comparable data in this field than in that of income. This is due to the fact that universities are organized so differently, expenditures of a department in one institution is in one school and another institution is in another school. Furthermore, there is no agreement among universities as to the best way to take care of overhead or expenses of the plant. They also disagree among themselves as to the unit of cost that should be adopted. Notwithstanding all of these objections and uncertainties we venture to offer (Tables 54, 55 and 56) certain statistics relative to the cost per student enrolled in each school in the three Pennsylvania institutions and in the three prominent state universities whose population taken together was approximately the same in 1920 as that of Pennsylvania. While every care within our power has been taken to show the difference in the ways in which these figures were arrived at, nevertheless they should not be taken as satisfactory from a standpoint of either accuracy or reliability. The tables were prepared by Paul A. Mertz, Professor of Education, Ursinus College, and graduate student of the School of Education, University of Pennsylvania. The justification for the use of the figures here is to show that the cost of education in the Pennsylvania institutions is 153 3 S S 5 o 2 g ft, g g 09 H O O 1-4 U C/3 *9 W I? 1" gl z Pi »! « O ►J o o H o m OIO on 04 04 •t-cg •coeo 1 1 09 09-41 :Sg :g : : : : : : :S : •lOrH :g : • : ::::§: r-HDN '^oato eooiia 00 oat- - a .2'3'rt'O' ■O S--MI .S-S»gcQ. S'^lo.S. -ON CO « ml O OJ £ y Q, « , "g5 5S-Sm.B '■Ih_ * a) o *: o ..a.a " S " 35 S E 6 &S 3 m S C"-' *S !* gist's j-u P « ^ S o,|-sa ] o 0) a 01 > ^ 154 U3 pmK s ° 5^ ^ s& Eh Q « o O s OU3 N Tl* t- U3 U3 00 r-( rH ■* CO i-i i-i oowt- CO CO La S5! CO 00 t-o OiOi C-'^rHOO«OOirSTj Sri 2 h ■25 - = oooooooooooo'o-S'o Sfo o o ^000 0000 o'o'o'o'o'o^'o oooooooooo'^o u u o u otilSti u u t u •e-O 09 £3 ®'C S5.-B *£« fe S (9 Sp «2g ■gas ■5,5 K 'O— I'M "iS° all lag SOi'43 - ® »- Sflg. CO a-4J 1" B C3 ■t ^ s .3 2; ff 2 & •^ 1 w I ■o o, B 3 2 "^ a ^ 0) a a> e.sfg& U 0) b •. I — 5 .a a S a S o i § I 1 i - I i s » a S I -i ,■3 I Kil r^ 1 1 i I ilil §1 1 i ^ £slis|s5||gg |g5 " -'.§.£;.£; « a.i.i £J3 ^ « =5 I 155 5D O lo O ^ ° s ° o go "5 N t-li-H . N ■ m T-H rH C4 o rHt- . A ■ OtO • rH ' iH t) K 5 £ E o 3 ► ill > ^ .a 2 s goS •2 .a ^ ^ O&]OO(0OOI> ONcOiHrHrH 01(0 00 CO tax 00VU9 ^a oj»oo»Hi-iNi-ieot- J3 3 3 s.a Is MNrHt- N (OOO Nnooo 03 C-(0 a . o a USOi-l is - 3s a Si 3 h u J i:s g-c g^ « o'o'oo'o'o'3'o'oo'o'So'o-g'o M"© "o "o 3*0 "o 3 'o "o "o "o 'o'o 5 "o ^oooooooooooo o^ o +3 O) O - t,T3 rt B 0-i^0-^9V.rtrt « g-g "-S SioM 0) 3 " 3 S S b5 156 not excessive and thereby to establish the fact that the funds are on the whole being economically expended. Such wide discrepancies as do exist, as in the case of the Veterinary School of the University of Pennsylvania and the Medical School of the University of Pittsburgh, should be referred to the Board whose appointment has been suggested, inasmuch as questions dealing with the distribution of fields of instruc- tion among the various institutions cannot be dealt with in this brief study. (5) Equipment and Salaries. — While exact data cannot be obtained it is evident that all three institutions are lacking in equipment as compared with institutions of like grade in the United States at large. They occupy a like position as regards salaries paid professors. Since these are the two most essential factors in the success of higher educational institutions it is important to the interest of the people of the state that something be done to make better provision for the higher education of their children and also in order to enable them to have the benefits of the best advice and assistance in carrying on their various enterprises. (6) Income From Endowments and Appropriations. — In this connection it is pertinent to point out that one of the most significant movements in recent years is the gradual rise of certain of the large state universities into positions of commanding leadership. Michigan, Illinois and California are possibly the most noted examples. There are but few private institutions that can long remain in the same class with them, because of the large endowments that will be required to match the appropriations received from the state, and the income from endowments which have been sub- scribed by private individuals, in these state institutions. A private university requires today an endowment of close to fifty million dollars in order to have a financial basis equiva- lent to the leading state universities. Table 54 (page 153) shows the income for current expenses from appropriations and from endowments in the leading universities and colleges of Agriculture and Mechanic Arts of the country, including the three Pennsylvania institutions. It should be noted that the 157 figures of the latter group include the figures for hospitals and other non-educational activities, (7) Limited Accommodations. — ^Another significant fact is the inability of the higher educational institutions in this state to accommodate the number that apply, each of the three institutions named having been compelled to deny admission in the fall of 1922 to a number of students. Inquiry was made to each of these three institutions as to the numbers that failed of admission because of lack of accom- modations to take care of them. The number reported by the University of Pennsylvania for the year 1922 was 591, distributed as follows: 184 College of Liberal Arts (Pre- Medical and Pre-Dental), 69 School of Education, 338 Wharton School. The Pennsylvania State College reported 478, distributed as follows: 300 Engineering, 229 Liberal Arts, 84 Natural Science, 65 Department of Home Economics. These distribution figures include 200 who did not send in their application blanks "presumably because they believed there was little chance of admission." The University of Pitts- burgh reported 265, distributed as follows: 150 School of Pharmacy, 100 School of Dentistry, 15 School of Medicine. These figures do not include those who were rejected for any reason other than for the lack of physical accommodations. The number not admitted for other reasons in the University of Pennsylvania was 1,327, in the Pennsylvania State College (as stated) 200; no figures upon this point have been obtained from the University of Pittsburgh. (8) Free Scholarships. — ^At each of the three institutions there are scholarships available, some of which are granted with- out regard to competitive qualifications, while others are de- pendent upon school records and the need for aid because of limited economic conditions. The so-called senatorial scholar- ships belong to the first class; these are granted upon recom- mendations of members of the State Senate. In the University of Pennsylvania there are during this year 319 such scholar- ships, in the University of Pittsburgh 171, and at the Penn- sylvania State College 157. The total number of scholarships other than senatorial are as follows: University of Pennsyl- 158 vania 481, the University of Pittsburgh 216, and the Pennsyl- vania State College 64. It will be observed from these data that only a very small number of High School graduates in Pennsylvania have the opportunity of obtaining free tuition in a higher educational institution in the state. The fact that most of the scholar- ships are competitive in nature still further limits the oppor- tunity of those young people who do not possess the highest academic qualifications. Unfortunately such persons can be admitted only upon the recommendations of members of the Legislature. Inasmuch as the number of scholarships avail- able to each senator is limited, it is thus seen that opportu- nities are far from equal for the boys and girls of this state to receive the benefits of a higher education. These two different sorts of limitations placed upon the obtaining of free tuition in higher educational institutions of the state limiting registration to "possession of brains" or "pull" make it very important that the state provide means whereby all who desire may obtain the benefits of a higher education at the lowest possible cost. The appropriation of $56,000 made by the Legislature of 1921 to pay the tuition for students in the colleges of the state, which have been obtained imder competitive examina- tions, have doubtless worked to the benefit of a large number who would not otherwise have been able to attend college. The actual workings of the plan and its bearings upon the question in hand it is impossible for us to state, however, we believe it to be creditable and recommend its continuance. It will probably serve the purposes of the state much better if it were limited to those who otherwise could not obtain the benefits of a college education. (9) Control of Boards of Trustees. — While the Board of Trustees of each of these three institutions is legally an agent of the Commonwealth in the expenditure of the state funds, the extent of the control which it has through these boards varies considerably by reason of the differences in the manner in which they are chosen. The considerable variety in the agencies that choose the members of the Board of Trustees at Pennsylvania State College, and also the brief terms for 159 which they are chosen, would naturally promote a truer recognition of the needs of the state in the deliberations of these boards than that which would characterize the action of the Boards of Trustees at the two universities, which boards serve for life and chose their own successors, subject only to the limitation that the alumni have given the right to nominate in a certain percentage of the vacancies. Conclusions. Summing up what has been said thus far the situation which confronts the state at the present time may be set forth as follows: The state needs at least three finely equipped and efficiently conducted institutions of higher learning in order to place itself on an equal footingwith other states in the field of higher education, and the plan which has been followed for the past century or more of depending upon private institutions seems now to be at the breaking point. This is true both from the point of view of the need for a sufficient number of institutions and also in order to give all of its youths greater equality of opportunity to receive the benefit of a higher education. It is, therefore, incumbent upon the state to find ways in which such institutions may be secured, either (1) by gradually increased appropriations to the Boards of Trustees of these institutions under such an arrangement with these Boards as will insure that the appropriations will be spent in such a way as will satisfy most efficiently the needs of the state; (2) by making suitable arrangements with the Boards of Trustees of other private institutions for the accomplishment of the same purpose; or (3) by the establishment of new institutions entirely under state support and control. Viewed in the light of the history of Pennsylvania and of the intimate relationship that exists between the three semi-public institutions and the people of the state, it would seem that the natural solution would be for the state to base the far-reaching system of higher education which it should possess in the future upon that furnished by these three historic institutions — the University of Pennsylvania, the Western University of Pennsyl- vania (University of Pittsburgh), and the Pennsylvania State College. 160 Possibilities of the Realization of These Conclusions. Certain practical features of the situation now existing in each of these three institutions from the point of view of the realization of these conclusions should now be considered. Since Pennsylvania State College has been dependent to so large a degree upon the appropriations of the Legislature, and since its trustees have been chosen through more popular agencies than those of the other two institutions, it would seem that the state would have little or no difficulty in formulating such a policy for the administration of this institution to secure through its manage- ment the realization of those conditions which would meet the needs of the state. This is made clear in the following statement made by a member of the Board of Trustees: "Since the Pennsylvania State College has been maintained and supported out of the public funds, and since it as a corporation formally recognizes that it is the corporate agent of the state, with the legal title to the plant in the corporation and the equitable title thereof vested in the Commonwealth, and further recognizes that it as a corporation is subject to the direction of the Commonwealth, it appears the Commonwealth may formulate any new policy of administration it may desire." The problem is a more difficult one when it comes to the con- sideration of the two universities. The University of Pennsylvania has in years gone by ranked and still does rank among the highest of the universities of the country. For a number of years, however, fears have arisen that it could not maintain that position because of increasing amoimts of endowments and of other sources of income that have come to those institutions in other states that were its equal. The state has rendered a fine service not only to the university but to the state itself in the past fifteen years in enabling it to meet the emergencies growing out of its increasing deficits. It seems now that the University of Pennsylvania must, in order to maintain the highest plane of efficiency, find still addi- tional sources of income or obtain larger appropriations or limit the scope of its activities. It would be very unfortunate not only for the institution but for the state if the latter contingency resulted. It remains to be seen whether private funds will be 161 provided in sufficient amounts to enable the university to main- tain the position in the education of the nation that rightfully belongs to it. Efforts in this direction have already been started. Unless the endowment can be increased by thirty or forty millions of dollars and the plant and equipment considerably improved, it would be to the best interests of the state and the nation for the Board of Trustees of the University to enter into such an arrangement with the state as would secure, on the one hand, the needed increases in plant, equipment and income comparable in amount with the great services it is capable of rendering, and on the other hand guarantee to the state that the money so given will be spent in those ways which will most contribute to the advancement of the welfare of the state. The University could then play its part in maintaining the state of Pennsylvania and the city of Philadelphia in the high position they have always taken in national affairs. If, however, an arrangement satisfactory both to the University and to the state could not be worked out, it would seem incumbent upon the state to follow the course of one of the other alternatives mentioned above; viz., the development of some other private institutions in the eastern part of the state with which satisfactory arrangements covdd be made, or to establish an entirely new institution and then conduct it in such a way as would realize the ideals that a system of state higher education should accomplish. The University of Pittsburgh should render a service to western Pennsylvania similar to that of the University of Pennsylvania in the eastern part of the state. That which has been said regarding the best policy for the University of Pennsylvania applies on the whole to the University of Pittsburgh as well. It is just as impor- tant to the state to have an institution in Pittsburgh or in its vicinity which will render the service that a higher educational institution should render, as it is to have an institution of the same kind in the vicinity of Philadelphia. Inasmuch as the question as to the sufficiency of private means cannot be solved in another year or two in the case of both institu- tions, and inasmuch as it would take a number of years for another institution should render, as it is to have an institution of the same reason that it may prove best in the end to make some combination 162 of public and private support, such as exists at Cornell University, it is desirable to indicate a course of action for the present which will be adapted to either of these three contingencies. A Board of State Control of Higher Education in Institutions Receiving State Aid. It would seem that the future further appropriations to the University of Pennsylvania and the University of Pittsburgh might well be subject to a greater degree of state control, not that there has been any waste or lack of conscientious desire to promote the best interests of the state, but in order that the principle of state control of state appropriations may be realized and also in order to insure that the Trustees of the Universities in the making of their plans give such recognition to the needs of the state that the fullest possible return will come back to it for the money expended. At the present time appropriations to the various departments of these institutions are made by their respective Boards of Trustees. As a matter of fact they are applied to meet the deficit, as it is called — ^meaning by this term the difference between the expenses of running the institution and the income from all of its departments. This means that the needs of the universities as now organized and conducted are given the first consideration. There would be nothing wrong with this provided the trustees took care constantly to abolish or limit those departments in the universities that seemed to render little service to the state, and establish new departments to meet new developments in the social life of the state. It is at this point that the practice which has so long prevailed, of making private boards the agent of the state for the expenditure of its funds, fails to make certain that the best interests of the state are secured. That which has just been said does not apply, of course, to those special appropriations made by the Legislature for particular departments. In the University of Pennsylvania at the present time for example they cover the School of Education and the Extension courses. These special appropriations are to be approved inasmuch as they insure the use of money for those purposes which the state believes to be capable of rendering direct services. It is quite reasonable to expect, however, that the con- 163 trol by a public board created for that purpose by the State Legislature could better care for the interest of the state than the Legislature itself. There are other advantages of a public board for higher educa- tion. If such a board were to have certain responsibilities con- nected with the appropriations of all three of the institutions they could doubtless make such an adjustment between the work of all of them as to avoid useless duplication of effort and to check any tendency which might appear to support departments which were not fully efficient or which did not seem capable of rendering as much service to the state. It is very probable, too, that such a board could also, through its recommendations to the Legislature, or through influence with the Boards of Trustees, foster the development of those departments in said institutions which can be carried on most successfully therein, and curtail or abolish altogether those departments where the conditions do not seem favorable for their continuance. Such a board would also be of considerable advantage to the institutions themselves inasmuch as the present arrangement of securing appropriations is quite unsatisfactory in this one very important respect. Another matter which the board should have in mind is the unnecessary duplication in Extension service as well as in departments doing work upon the campus. It should give attention not only to unnecessary wastes of funds but also to standards of entrance required to imdertake the work, and to the quality of performance required to receive credit for degrees. The universities hesitate to incur obligation even for depart- ments under special state appropriation which will involve expenditures after the appropriation expires, for fear that it will not be renewed and that in consequence the imiversities will be unable to meet their obligations without undue strain. Doubtless there are duplications in appropriations, some of which are war- ranted, others of which are unwarranted. A State Board in control of all of this would greatly assist if the control were exercised by a single governmental body. Just what is the best form for this board of control it is difficult to say. This matter should hkewise be referred to the proposed Commission. In the meantime a temporary board could be appointed by the Governor to serve until such time as this matter is finally determined. 164 State Board for the Control of Schools of Education in the Three Institutions. The principle of state control through a public board of the appropriations made to private higher educational institutions may be applied to all such appropriations as recommended above, or in case such a plan does not meet with the favor of the Governor and the Legislature upon the one hand and the institutions them- selves upon the other, it may be narrowed to only a portion of such appropriations. Among the fields in which it would seem that the principle could be most easily applied is that of appropriations for Schools of Education, inasmuch as this field renders service to the state, of which there is great need, and in the conduct of which it is much to be desired that all three institutions co-operate in such a way as to produce the greatest benefit to the state as a whole from their individual and collective efforts. In order to meet the needs of teacher-training and the need for the improvement of the 45,000 teachers in service of this state, three fully developed institutions are none too many. While certain subjects might be taught at all of them, each institution would develop its specialties, the selection of which could be made in accordance with the peculiar situations surrounding each school and the demands made upon it. The division of the work among these schools should be determined by such a board. Graduate Schools of Education should be established in such of these institu- tions as are adapted for this work. It is believed, however, that this board should not, now at least, displace altogether the Boards of Trustees of these institutions. While it should have the power to approve or disapprove items in the budget and the rules and regulations for the conduct of the schools as proposed by the School of Education in each institution through their Boards of Trustees, it should seek to exercise its influence by guiding and suggesting rather than by directing and controlling. It is believed that in this way each school would have the best opportunity of exercising initiative and of reaching its fullest efficiency. It is believed also that this board should be a board existing solely for this purpose and that it should be borne in mind that its 165 functions may be extended to appropriations for other purposes. This plan will be in accord with the past policy of the state, which in the establishment of other state institutions such as Normal Schools, insane asylums, penitentiaries, etc., has placed local boards in charge. While such a board would not be a local board, yet it would be in charge of a single function, nevertheless a function with such large magnitude as would require considerable time of those persons appointed upon it, possibly all of the time that a busy man could be expected to give to public affairs. Such a board becoming interested in its problems would, with the assist- ance and co-operation that it could obtain from the Boards of Trustees and the faculties of the three institutions, do more for the development of education in the state and for the higher institutions themselves than a board which had also other tjrpes of schools to require their attention. Such a board should work in the closest co-operation also with the State Department of Education in the realization of its plans. The function of the State Superintendent of Public Instruction should be to co-ordinate the efforts of this board with those boards in control of other portions of the public school system, and to stimulate and encourage the advancement of its work. As will be pointed out in the section of this study dealing with the office of the State Department of Public Instruction there are a number of ways in which the office and the faculties of the Schools of Educa- tion should work in the closest harmony. For these reasons the State Superintendent of Public Instruction should serve as the secretary and executive officer of the board. It is believed that eventually the state will have these centers of higher education working in close harmony. Whether it is a single institution or three separate institutions, whether one or more of these state-supported centers would be in connection with a private institution, there should be a single controlling board co-ordinating the efforts of all three, eliminating wastes of money and of time and of effort upon the parts of teachers and students alike, both on the campus and in Extension work throughout the state. Whatever steps are taken in regard to control should have this in mind as the most probable outcome. A Commission on the one hand to study the entu-e problem intensively during the next two years and a Board on the other hand to manage all the state's 166 efforts in this direction until such time as it seems wise to make a change in it, seems to furnish the best immediate solution of the problem involved. Appropriations for Higher Educational Institutions. There is given in Table 57 the combined amounts of appropriations from the states and from the United States to the higher educational institutions in ten of the principal states of the Union including Pennsylvania. In absolute amounts Pennsylvania is the lowest except three, Indiana, Wisconsin and New York, TABLE 57. Income fob Current Expenses From Appropriations AND From Endowments in the Leading Univer- sities AND State Colleges op the Country.* INSTITUTIONS AND STATES Appropriations — State and United States combined Income from endowments Private Universities Harvard $2,021,662 Yale . ... 1,388,296 1,563,592 Princeton 369,681 Semi-Public Universities $1,348,636 627,706 2,841.936 3,152,676 1,670,863 715,978 964,885 3,026,071 1,756,488 1,269,683 3,431,038 2,355,423 998,221 77,394 3,140,661 1,478,616 129,880 1,348,636 2,663,843 287,337 2,070,833 305,673 2,207,667 1,222,114 627,706 381,610 2,136,424 738,113 576,161 State Universities t^ California University of California 368,821 Illinois University of Illinois 32,461 100,389 64,661 45 728 Iowa 58,507 Iowa State College of Agriculture and Mechani- cal Arts . 35,088 23,419 161,056 90,320 70 736 Minnesota 109 883 New York 738,113 New York College of Forestry 738,113 Ohio 77,047 Ohio University 5,866 Ohio State University 62,356 Miami University 8,826 636,913 31,020 675,161 Universitv of Pittsbursh 30,732 Wisconsin University of Wisconsin 41,533 •U. S. Bureau of Education Report, 1919-20, in press. 167 TABLE 58. Per Capita Distribution op State and United States Appropriations Combined Given to Higher Education, 1920. Pennsylvania California.... lUlnoiB Indiana Iowa Michigan, . . . Minnesota. . . New York. . . Ohio Wisconsin . . . $ .26 .83 .49 .58 1.26 .91 1.31 .14 .46 .81 TABLE 59. Percent op State Income Given to Higher Educational Institutions in Ten States op the Union, 1920. STATES Higher educational institutions .0003 California .0009 .0006 .0008 Iowa .0016 Michigan .0012 .0021 New York .0002 Ohio .0005 Wisconsin .0013 TABLE 60. Amounts and Per Capita Distribution of State Appropriations TO Higher Education, 1920. state Amounts of state* appropriations Per capita distribution $1,893,231 2,682,697 2,871,600 1,438,660 2,807,733 3,209,144 2,948,851 1,532,906 2,123,633 1,926,160 $ .22 California .78 .44 .49 1.17 Michigan .88 1.23 New York .15 Ohio .37 .73 *U. S. Bulletin, 1920, Statistics of State Universities and State Colleges. which appropriates only for the School of Agriculture at Cornell University, and the School of Forestry at Syracuse University. In seven other states the appropriations are larger. They are given 168 in ascending order as follows: Ohio, California, Iowa, Minnesota, Illinois, and Michigan. This is not the best way, however, to make comparisons of appropriations owing to the differences in population and in the wealth of the various states. When the appropriations to these same states are arranged on the basis of per capita of population, it is found, as maybe seen in Table 58 (page 167), that Pennsylvania granted in the year 1920 but $0.25 per capita for higher education. Only one state, that of New York, which appropriated only for agriculture and forestry, granted a lower amoimt than did this state. Minnesota and Iowa both grant almost three times as much. Using one-half the appropriation for the biennium 1921-23 instead of data for the year 1920 it is found that the amount per capita in Pennsylvania is $0.29. This does not change the rank of this state in this particular. In Table 59 (page 167) is given the percent of the total income of the inhabitants of the various states for the year 1919 that was appropriated for higher education in the year 1920. The rank of the states in this particular is very similar to that in the previous table. It shows that Pennsylvania has made a very small con- tribution to the support of higher education as compared with other representative states in the Union. Directing attention now only to institutions of "Agriculture and Mechanic Arts," it may be seen by referring to Table 57 (page 166) that in absolute amounts appropriated by national and state governments for these institutions, Pennsylvania occupies a middle position in the five states given in this list in which there are separate institutions of this character. These institutions in Indiana and Michigan obtain less amoimts from such sources, while those in New York and Iowa more than the Pennsylvania State College. The appropriations by the Legislatures separate from those granted by the Congress are given in Table 60 (page 167). The amounts per capita of population are also given in the table. These data taken together clearly show that the Legislature of the state would be warranted in granting considerable increase to the Pennsylvania State College and to each of the two Univer- sities. While Pennsylvania occupies a more favorable position than other states as regards its appropriations for the Pennsylvania 169 State College than for the other two institutions, it must be remembered that the state has undertaken a larger proportion of the burden of the support of this institution than it has for either of the other two. Another matter that must be borne in mind is that practically all of these appropriations in Pennsylvania were for current expenses, while portions of the appropriations in other states were for the erection of buildings and other capital outlays, the exact portion of which it has been impossible to determine. It is undoubtedly true that in order to insure the continuance of the high standing of higher educational institutions in this state large outlays will be required for better equipment and for the increase of the school plants to accommodate a number of the students who desire to attend. It is also just as necessary that increased income be received in order to adequately compensate professors and instructors and to encourage research in these schools. While the amoimt of the appropriations for permanent improve- ments should depend, more than in the case of current expenses, upon the amount of control that the state expects in the future to exercise over the respective institutions, and while the amounts for each of these purposes would naturally depend upon the wisdom of the plans proposed by each of these respective institutions, it seems to be clearly established that the Legislature would be making no mistake in greatly increasing the appropriations to all of them for both classes of expenditures. CHAPTER V. Department of Public Instruction. In Pennsylvania as in many other states of the Union the first Superintendent of Public Instruction was some other oflBcer of the state delegated to gather information and statistics relative to the public schools as they were carried on in the various school districts. When the educational functions were first given to a separate officer, little real responsibility was conferred. His chief duties were to gather statistics and information, generally, relative to the public schools, to advise local school districts as to proper legal procedure, as to good school practice, to create favorable public sentiment and to promote the efficiency of public education through public addresses and in such other ways as opportunity afforded, and to advise the Legislature from time to time as to what was best for the interest of the schools. As the efficiency of education advanced in the more progressive communities and as higher standards of what constitutes good education were expected by the more intelligent people in all school districts throughout the state, laws were passed by the Legislature which not only required all communities to conduct their schools in accordance with the higher standards but also increased the functions of the State Superintendent of Public Instruction and caused his office to participate in one way or another in the securing of better conditions. The legislation in this state relative to plans for school buildings, certification of teachers and the enforcement of the compulsory education laws are examples. In most states of the Union he is authorized to withhold state funds unless full compliance was made with the laws of the state. The Department of Public Instruction in Pennsylvania has passed through a similar evolution. In endeavoring to pass judg- ment upon the wisdom of the appropriation now made to support it the author is compelled to rely upon such evidence as is available in the short time that could be given to the study. The facts are submitted as found together with such inference as it is believed 170 171 may fairly be drawn from them. There are, however, certain statements that are not supported by statistical material, but which are based upon many observations of this office with a background of impressions gained in years past from visits made to over twenty other like offices in other states. Taken all in all they represent the author's best judgment as to the State Depart- ment of Public Instruction as now conducted in this state in the light of the available facts as herein presented. The new legislation referred to above and the increasing desire of school districts for the services of well- qualified persons to advise them, together with the great development in vocational education already brought about by the passage of the Smith- Hughes Act started a great increase, beginning about 15 years ago, in the staffs of the State Education Offices throughout the coimtry. The statistics relative to the number of professional officers, clerks and stenographers employed in the State Education Office of Pennsylvania and in the other states of the Union during the past twenty years is not available in such form as to make exact comparison possible. The reports of the State Superintendent of Public Instruction of Pennsylvania for various years during this period show the mmiber of persons employed, as follows: TABLE 61. NuMBEB OP Professional and Clerical Employees in Office of THE State Department of Public Instruction of Pennsylvania.* YEAR Professional officers Clerks and stenographers 1901 3 3 5 10 16 18 6 1906 6 1909 6 1912 7 1916 14 1918 16 ^ = •Reports of Superintendent of Public Instruction. The Educational Directory published by the United States Bureau of Education contains the names and positions of those persons whom the State Education Offices in the various states sent in to the Bureau from time to time as constituting the heads of the various departments and their chief assistants in addition to the superintendents and deputies, and it is the only general 172 source presenting such data for all the states. The data given in these directories have been tabulated in Table 62. It will be noticed that the figures for Pennsylvania in Table 61 (page 171) are larger than those given in Table 62. This shows a tendency, which no doubt was observed in many of the states, not to report to the United States Bureau of Education the names of all persons who might properly be considered as members of the professional staff. The differences for the year 1920-21 between this table and the one to follow also confirm this observation. TABLE 62. Professional Staffs of State Depabtments.* STATE departments Pennsylvania Massachusetts Connecticut New Jersey New York Maryland North Carolina Ohio Indiana Illinois Wisconsin California 1913 1915-16 1921-22 2 6 19 2 5 7 6 3 2 1 9 11 4 5 19 5 6 10 7 4 16 6 9 17 4 5 17 5 6 11 7 4 19 5 9 23 11 6 17 9 7 IB 10 6 21 9 28 29 14 19 18 9 16 11 10 6 19 14 71 31 13 20 19 11 2S 16 12 IS 21 16 *Based on Educational Directories. Table 62 indicates that in states other than Pennsylvania, New Jersey and New York there was a tendency to increase State Edu- cation Office staffs during this decade, but at the same time the tendency was held in check by the World War. A natural inference from the figures presented in Table 62 showing a large increase in Pennsylvania's education office in 1920-21 and 1921-22 over previous years would be that this increase was too large. In order to test this out Table 63 (page 173) has been prepared. It happens that for the year 1920 the Bureau of Education published a complete list of all the persons employed in the State Education Offices throughout the country. These persons have been classified into two large divi- sions — ^professional and clerical, excluding librarians, laborers and persons employed, in all other work which does not ordinarily belong to a State Education Office. In this table there is also given for each state the number of pupils enrolled in the public schools for 173 C<3 CO g § I O m tZ2 1 1 r-IW C0 O 1 1 S" S a" -* •i MOO iHrH CO to 04 •3 a Oi f-l r-t 1 9} 00 OS s o> ^5 ^00 00 CO 00 g 1 mt^ « 00 (O U3 00 CO CO 01 CO t- t- 0) -^A 1-^ LOCO »-( 3 i -- 1 »H CO J. 1" in § i-i i I ii 1 Eh III ill m 174 the year 1920, the latest year for which data were available, for each professional staff officer. In the next line are found figures giving the rank of each of these states beginning with the state that has the least number of pupils for each staff officer. These figures show that Pennsylvania, which has one professional staff officer in its state office for every 25,000 pupils, has alarger number of pupils for each such officer than four other states — Connecticut, New York, Massachusetts and Wisconsin — ^all of which states rank high educationally, and that there are seven states which are not so well supplied with such professional advice. The differences between Pennsylvania and the three states which are next below her — Maryland, New Jersey and North Carolina — ^are comparatively small, and so on the whole Pennsylvania may be said to lie in the median group. From this the conclusion is fairly drawn that the number of such professional officers is not too large based upon present practice in other states. 175 Salaries Paid Professional Staff. According to data furnished by the State Superintendent of Public Instruction in October, 1922, there were 72 such staff officers. These were distributed among the various bureaus as shown in Table 64. The salary of the State Superinten- dent is $12,000 a year, the first deputy $7,500, the second deputy $6,000. The salaries of the directors of the various bureaus range from $5,000 to $6,000, and of their assistants from $2,500 to $5,000. Besides those in the administrative bureaus there are certain specialists most of whom are directors of special school subjects whose salaries range from $4,000 to $7,000. There are also certain persons acting in what might be called field work, of whom there are two classes, the supervisors of Agriculture and of Home Economics, who receive from $1,800 to $3,000 a year, and directors and assistant directors in Extension and Americani- zation work whose salaries range from $2,500 to $5,000. TABLE 64. Classification op the "Staff" of the Office of the State Department of Public Instruction, 1922. Superintendent 1 Deputy superintendent 2 Assistant superintendent (law) , 1 Administration 3 Attendance 5 Health education 7 Rural education 4 Subject directors 14 School buildings 4 Special education 3 Teacher bureau 3 Vocational education 19 Americanization 6 Total 72 176 .i.S usea 00-^ OO o-^ OO OCO koud CD H A to O Oi to O O C4 O o"o • to •* weoNoust- lo too • 00 CO f-i o -^tHNrHOOCa » eoeo '. ^ W N ^ ■ CO S3 o o oooo • o OO : Q O w o o o iH o o N W « •^ 00 Ud to nuaioo • o OO . lO o 1-1 me4C4o • o OO • eo O kO U3 ■* i-t cow • lO 09 04 m O 04 M a" ss o ~ ; :^^ : ^ OO o o (O o o o o o^ OO o CO ■. ^ . -oo . lo ISO o 00 o . • -OO • N NO LO CO t- 00 . -fiO ■ CO CO o d »-l •xl* 04 «• * • ■ tH ^ N s" to ^ "^ : looo o : ^ o 1-t o •* w ^ . to U3 o > 'Oota t- t- ■ o 0) 00 t-t o_ es o u OI CQ *H r4 (C t4 •» H to § : 1 8 « '§ ■t MM 1 i • c ■ ■ i * 1 i o il 1 •i 2. Buildings 4. Purchases 5. Aid to Students 6. Deficits Vocational Education All Tyi •t s ''i • ^ 1 - 1 ^ ■= )> ;& ^ 109 n ci > ? 11 198 o o s Eh E-i I - 1-t is Si Si" OM s IS -co C0 ^00 l-t S b-oi 0»f-l IH 00 CO N X »-1 go, o 1. 00 CO t-lH CO f-t o CM . cQia l-t N o 5" o O § o U3 at 09- o 3« o is eo COU3 o 1: r-t St: 00 I-l -IH a- is s f-i s tH ss 1-1 r-t » o -co t- »H o coia h OrH s s toco So 1-t i CO f-t o :-. t-lO woo o 1H ^--^ COCO I ■I s E 1 C '•J 1 1 s ■3 * I •< § 1 a c R < •J 4. E ■« 1 1 : 4J 1; 1; 4: J § 1 a i 1 1 199 Turning now to an analysis of this total appropriation of $37,834,316 it may be seen from Table 69 that practically two- thirds of it is devoted to the support of local school districts and that the normal schools and higher educational institutions are each given slightly over one-eighth. The balance amounting to one-twelfth goes to the support of the state and county adminis- trative offices and to vocational education. It costs practically as much to support the State Education Office as is granted to the 65 counties in the support of their offices. Comparing the percentages with those of the previous biennium it is observed that taken as a whole the portion going to the state and county offices and to the normal schools has greatly in- creased, that the appropriations for higher educational institu- tions while irregular have remained about the same, and that the appropriation going to the local school districts has steadily decreased from 85 percent in 1909 to 65 percent in 1921. Regarding the reasonableness of these distributions it has been shown in Table 68 that the cost of the State Education Office in Pennsylvania per pupil enrolled and per capita of population was slightly below the median of 11 representative states. It would seem, therefore, that the appropriations for the State Education Office were not excessive. Comparative data are not available rela- tive to the cost of county administration. While the salaries paid the county superintendents of the state are higher than those in any other state, the ability of men filling the office is fully equal, if not superior, to that of any other similar group. Another fact that should be recognized in this connection is that these county superintendents have a larger number of schools and pupils to supervise than in other states. It is believed that the appropria- tions for this purpose are not too high. As regards the proportion of the total appropriation going to the local school districts Table 68 should again be cited. It was shown that in the year 1920 the percentage of the total revenue receipts of local school districts coming from the state was 16 percent in Pennsylvania, and that in 25 other states local districts received larger proportions. Judging by the practice of other states it seems that the appropriations for this purpose are slightly below the norm. Comparative data relative to the costs of vocational education 200 are not at hand. It was pointed out in Chapter V that, in view of the fact that vocational education in this state has become so well established and has reached such a high stage of efficiency, possibly the time has come when a larger proportion of the burden should be transferred to local districts. This appropriation should not be changed, however, unless the system of General Aid recommended in Chapter II is adopted. TABLE 70. Distribution op State Money (Appropriations and Income prom Permanent Funds) Given to Various Types op Schools IN THE States op the Union, 1920. states Public Schools Normal Schools Colleges and Universities Total Alabama Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut. . . . Delaware Florida Georgia Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts, . Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico ... New York North Carolina, North Dakota.. Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania*. Rhode Island , . South Carolina, South Dakota,. Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washinj^on. . . W.Virginia ■Wisconsin Wyoming $4,326,842 948,977 1,812,969 8,608,848 1,189,398 1,816,216 562,128 430,257 3,899,250 642,965 5,636,220 4,219,990 467,388 564,675 2,868,692 2,472,126 2,199,411 2,038,786 4,558,627 7,067,032 6,025,313 2,022,800 3,610,889 1,122,150 997,932 359,120 336,060 13,746,932 626,596 12,731,091 3,425,632 1,415,889 4,148,181 1,433,003 446,900 11,486,630 237,696 958,823 1,713,534 1,529,625 17,352,412 2,014,177 1,187,108 4,289,624 3,634,997 70.9, 6?1 3,669,528 736,889 166,614 386,665 31,000 ,066,153 84,739 602,085 285 500 189 807 418 670 313 816 663,432 286,682 98,000 142,924 132,600 746,889 707,865 584,686 79,553 498,648 85,000 301,645 91,098 418,675 131,454 1,388,079 246,959 448,763 430,218 479,460 60,261 608,780 81,000 186,990 289,665 181,381 246,660 16,246 214.160 637,670 416,378 1,160,641 $ 876,716 488,868 250,000 2,682,697 1,061,238 426,111 94,046 360,710 479,918 483,890 2,871,500 1,438,650 2,807,733 1,867,103 426,040 210,042 220,983 247,526 918,739 3,209,144 2,948,861 787,707 913,297 791,501 1,582,426 241,708 183,076 316,978 263,850 1,532,906 783,843 567,680 2,123,633 1,631,783 1,823,663 1,893,238 130,928 806,685 760,668 273,000 2,238,121 1,127,566 113,173 733,008 1,825,291 562,561 1,926,160 203,868 $ 4,859,172 1,823,400 2,093,959 12,357,598 2,325,375 2,744,412 656,173 780,967 4,664,668 1,316,662 6,825,390 6,972,456 3,275,121 2,996,210 3,681,314 2,780,167 2,563,318 2,418,811 6,224,266 10,984,031 9,558,749 2,889,860 6,022,834 1,998,651 2,831,002 600,828 610,233 14,481,586 1,020,900 15,652,076 4,456,334 2,432,332 6,702,032 3,544,246 2,319,814 18,987,648 449,623 1,952,498 2,753,857 1,933,906 19,837,193 3,141,743 1,266,627 5,236,682 6,097,968 1,688,470 6,746,229 940,747 •Data for 1921: Public SchoolB,!$13,523,600: Normal Schools, sities, $2,486,000; total, $18,469,658. 2,450,158; Colleges and univer- 201 Comparative data relative to the appropriations for normal schools and for colleges and universities areavailable. It ispossible also to make comparison between such appropriations and the appropriations made for the benefit of the public schools. These TABLE 71. Per Capita Distributions op State Money (Appropriations and Income from Permanent Funds) Given to the Various Types of Schools in the States of the Union, 1920. States PubUc Schools Normal Schools Colleges and Universities Total Alabama $1.85 2.84 1.03 2.52 1.28 1.31 2.62 .44 1.36 1.49 .85 1.44 .19 .32 1.19 1.38 2.86 1.41 1.18 1.93 2.53 1.13 1.06 2.06 .77 4.66 .76 4.36 1.74 1.22 1.34 2.21 .72 .71 .67 1.31 .39 .57 2.72 .68 3.72 4.58 3.26 1.86 2.69 .49 1.39 .38 $ .06 1.16 .02 .31 .09 36 $ .16 1.46 .14 .78 1.13 .31 .42 .36 .16 1.12 .44 .49 1.17 1.06 .17 .12 .29 .17 .24 .88 1.23 .44 .27 1.44 1.19 3.14 .41 .10 .73 .15 .30 .89 .37 .81 2.34 .22 .22 .48 1.19 .12 .48 2.56 .32 .82 1.86 .38 .73 .10 $2.07 6.46 1.19 California 3.61 2.50 1.98 2.94 Florida .80 .10 .44 .07 .10 1.61 Idaho 3.05 1.36 2.03 1.36 .32 .12 .06 .18 .09 .19 .19 .24 .04 .14 .16 .23 1.70 1.48 1.65 Maine 3.33 1.67 Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Misaisaippi Missouri 1.61 3.00 4.00 1.61 1.47 3.64 Nebraska 2.19 Nevada 7.80 New Hampshire .20 .13 .36 .13 .10 .70 .07 .23 .06 .07 .13 .11 .46 .06 .06 1.37 New Jersey 4.59 2.83 New York 1.60 1.74 North Dakota 3.80 Ohio 1.16 1.76 2.97 1.60 Rhode Island .74 South Carolina 1.16 4.37 .86 4.26 .7.14 .04 .09 .47 .28 .44 3.61 Virginia 2.27 4.61 West Vfreinia 1.16 2.56 .48 •Data for 1921: Public Se Total J2.12. hools, $1.56; No rmal Schools, $.! 8; colleges and un iversities $.29. statistics are furnished through the courtesy of the Commissioner of Education for the United States and are for the year 1919-20. The actual distribution of state money to each of these three types of schools including the income from the permanent school funds, 202 TABLE 72. Distribution by States op per Capita Amounts op State Money (Appropriations and Income from Permanent Funds) Given to Various Types of Schools in 48 States of the Union — 1920. Per Capita Amount PubUc Schools Normal Schools* Colleges and Universities $ 0- .04 3 11 9 4 4 1 2 2 2 2 . 05- . 09 . . . . .10- .14 1 5 .16- .19 6 .20- .24 3 .25- .29 2 .30- .34. 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 4 2 2 1 1 2 1 1 1 4 .35- .39 3 .40- .44 4 .45- .49 3 .50- .54 .55- .69. .65- .69 .70- .74 .75- .79 1 2 2 .85- .89. .. 2 1.00-1.04 1.05-1.09 1 1.10-1.14 2 1.15-1.19. 1 3 1.20-1.24 1 1.25-1.29 1.30-1.34 1.35-1.39 1 1.40-1.44 1 1.45-1.49. 1 1.70-1.74 1.85-1.89 1.90-1.94 2.05-2.09 2.20-2.24 2.30-2.34 2.45-2.49 2.60-2.54 3 2.55-2.69 1 2.65-2.69 1 1 2 6 48 $1.35 2.70-2.74 2.85-2.89 S.OOandover 1 42 $.163 Medians 48 $.425 *Six states have no normal schools. which go to the benefit of the public schools, is given in Table 70 (page 200) . Prom this it may be seen that in terms of dollars given, the appropriations of Texas, New Jersey and New York exceed that of Pennsylvania. The statement is no longer true that Pennsylvania gives larger appropriations to its local schools than any other state. 203 There are six states that granted larger appropriations to normal schools: New York, Wisconsin, California, Massachusetts, Michi- gan and Washington. In appropriations to the higher educational institutions, Pennsylvania is ninth, Michigan, Minnesota, Illinois, Iowa, California, Texas, Ohio and Wisconsin granting larger amounts. The appropriations of three other states, Oregon, Kansas and Washington, were less than Pennsylvania by less than $75,000. The combined appropriations ($8,084,155) of Michigan, Wisconsin and Minnesota for higher education in 1920, which states taken together have approximately the same population as Pennsylvania, were over four times as much as that for Pennsylvania ($1,893,238). The population of these states except that of New York is less than Pennsylvania. It seems, therefore, that as measured by the probable needs of the state, Pennsylvania is not expending as much asmany states. In order to test this out Table 71 (page201)hasbeen prepared, reducing the actual costs given in Table 70 to costs per capita. Then, in order to have them in a form in which comparison may be more easily made, distribution tables covering each of the colimins contained therein were worked out. These are presented in Table 72 for public schools, for normal schools and for colleges and universities. Table 73 (page 204) gives the figures for all three com- bined. Taking up for first consideration Table 71, it will be seen that Pennsylvania's per capita, $1.60, is 40 cents less than the median for the group. This is another indication that Pennsylvania's educational appropriations might rightfully be increased. Turning now to the distribution of this $1.60 we find from Table 72 that the per capita for public schools, $1.31, is slightly below the median, $1.35. This measure of the situation in Penn- sylvania is in close agreement with that furnished in Table 69, referred to above, where it was shown that in the percentage of total revenue receipts to local school districts coming from the state, Pennsylvania's percentage was about five-tenths of one per- cent less than the median. From this the inference may be drawn that the appropriations for public schools were, in 1920, near the norm as measured by the practices of other states. There are, however, certain difiiculties always connected with such compara- tive measures. They cannot because of their general nature take into account the details of the situation in the various states. The 204 data given in Chapter II on the Public Schools indicate that the minimum appropriation for public schools in this state, in order to equalize the differences in wealth and to stimulate all districts to a proper degree, should be about $18,000,000 per year. Table 72 also shows that the expenditures for normal schools in the previous biennium were very low as compeared with other states. The appropriation for the present biennium, which in- creases the cost per capita from 7 cents to 28 cents, is probably not much above the norm, if any, for 1921-22. In Chapter III it was shown, however, that the costs per pupil were not on the whole so high. Pennsylvania's appropriation to higher educational institutions is below the median amount per capita of population which in 1920 was 42 J4 cents. Pennsylvania's per capita in 1920 was 22 cents, and in 1921, 29 cents. It follows, therefore, that Pennsylvania would be warranted, upon the basis of the practice of other states, in increasing considerably her appropriations for higher educa- tional institutions. Another measure of the reasonableness of appropriations based upon current practice is that furnished by the taxable wealth of TABLE 73. Distribution of per Capita Distribution of State Money (Appropriation and Income) Given to Public Schools, Normal Schools and Universities and Colleges Combined in the Various States OF the Union — 1920. Per Capita Amount States S 0- .24 .25- .49 1 .50- .74. 1 .75- .99 1.00-1.24 2 4 1.25-1.49 5 1.60-1.74 1.75-1.99. 9 2 2.00-2.24 3 2.25-2.49 1 2.60-2.74 2.75-2.97 8.00-8.24.. . 2 3 2 3.25-8.49 1 3.50-8.74 3 3.75-8.97 4.00 and over 1 8 Total Median 48 $2.00 205 the various states. Inasmuch as the latest data on this subject are those for the year 1913, it has been deemed best not to use them. A similar type of data is that furnished by the amount of income of the inhabitants of the various states. There has recently been made by the National Bureau of Economic Research a very careful study of the income of the wealth of the inhabitants of all the states during the year 1919. Table 74 brings into relationship the data furnished by this study and figures for the cost of schools TABLE 74. Percent op State Income Given to Various Types op Schools in THE States op the Union — 1920. states Public Schools Normal Schoola GoUeseB and Universities Total Alabama Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware Florida Georgia Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts . . . Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire. New Jersey New Mexico. ... New York North Carolina. . North Dakota . . Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania*. . Rhode Island. . . South Carolina.. South Dakota. . . Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia. , . Wisconsin Wyoming .0052 .0043 .0027 .0031 .0019 .0018 .0032 .0010 .0034 .0025 .0011 .0025 .0003 .0005 .0030 .0032 .0049 .0020 .0016 .0027 .0043 .0032 .0019 .0040 .0011 .0055 .0013 .0068 .0042 .0014 .0034 .0042 .0010 .0013 .0008 .0019 .0005 .0013 .0039 .0017 .0069 .0087 .0061 .0043 .0034 .0011 .0026 .0048 .0002 .0017 .0004 .0002 .0006 .0002 .0007 .0001 .0002 .0006 .0003 .0001 .0003 .0001 .0002 .0003 .0004 .0001 .0003 .0003 .0003 .0003 .0001 .0009 .0001 .0002 .0014 .0001 .0004 .0001 .0001 .0002 .0002 .0006 .0002 .0001 .0001 .0002 .0006 .0006 .0008 .0006 .0022 .0004 .0009 .0017 .0004 .0006 .0009 .0004 .0018 .0005 .0008 .0016 .0018 .0004 .0003 .0005 .0003 .0003 .0012 .0021 .0012 .0006 .0028 .0017 .0037 .0007 .0001 .0018 .0002 .0008 .0017 .0005 .0015 .0032 .0001 .0003 .0011 .0018 .0003 .0009 .0048 .0006 .0007 .0017 .0008 .0013 .0013 .0059 .0082 .0031 .0044 .0038 .0027 .0037 .0019 .0040 .0050 .0017 .0035 .0019 .0028 .0037 .0036 .0057 .0024 .0020 .0042 .0068 .0046 .0027 .0071 .0031 -.0092 .0023 .0060 .0069 .0017 .0045 .0073 .0016 .0032 .0041 .0021 .0010 .0026 .0063 .0022 .0079 .0136 .0068 .0052 .0057 .0026 .0046 .0061 ♦Data (or 1921: .0004— Total .0030. Public Schools, .0022; Normal Schools, .0004; colleges and universities. 206 TABLE 75. Distribution by States of Percent op State Income Given to Various Types of Schools in 48 States — 1920. Percent Public Schools Normal Schools* Colleges and Universities All Schools Combined .0000-. 0004 1 3 9 5 2 5 8 1 6 2 1 2 1 1 32 8 1 1 12 15 5 10 2 1 1 1 .0005-. 0009 .0010-. 0014 1 .0015-. 0019 6 .0020-. 0024 5 .0025-. 0029 5 .0030-. 0034 3 .0035-. 0039 5 .0040-. 0044... 4 .0045-. 0049 1 3 .0050-. 0054 2 .0055-. 0059 3 .0060-. 0064 3 .0065-. 0069 3 .0070-. 0074 2 .0075-. 0079 1 .0080-. 0084 1 .0085-. 0089 1 .0090 and over 2 Total 48 .0029 42 .00029 48 .0009 48 0040 *Six states have no Normal Schools. given in Table 70. Table 74 shows the percent of the total income that was expended by the states for each of the three main types of schools. In order that these data might be studied satisfac- torily, distribution tables were made of each of the four columns contained in this table. Table 75 contains a distribution of the figures presented in Table 74. In this form we are able to tell at a glance how the percentages for Pennsylvania compare with those of the other states. The median percentages are given at the bottom of the respective columns. These medians should be read as follows: In the year 1920, two-tenths of one percent of the income of the inhabitants of Pennsylvania was expended for the support of public schools, one himdredth of one percent for normal schools, three hundredths of one percent for colleges and imiversities, and twenty-four hundredths of one percent for the three classes of schools combined. A measure of the same expenditures for the year 1921 would be better suited to our purpose. Accordingly, similar percentages for Pennsylvania have been arrived at in the same way by using one-half of the appropriations for the biennium 1921-23. They are as follows: public schools .0022, normal 207 schools .0004, higher education .0004, all schools .0030. This rather crude measure indicates that in all classes of schools and in all schools combined, Pennsylvania is not expending so great a proportion of its annual income as is the median state. The entire chapter furnishes conclusive proof that, in any- possible scheme for retrenchment in expenditures of the state, in order to make expenses come within revenues, there are no appropriations in excess of the norm as determined by the practice of other states, except possibly in the case of normal schools, the appropriation for which was necessarily unusually large this biennium in order to pay off indebtedness. It would seem, there- fore, that reduction in this field of appropriations should not be made, at least until other appropriations shall have been brought down to the same level. Whether it should be done at this time is a serious question, the answer to which is dependent in large part upon the importance placed upon education as regards the other concerns of the state. It is believed that no other field of governmental activity can be placed ahead of education. The fact that Pennsylvania has lagged behind the other states in this particular during the past decade or two is adequate reason for its being placed in a favorable position in the consideration of the budget. While in case of extreme necessity it might properly share in the cutting down of appropriations, great care should be taken to make the reduction as small as possible. Gaylord Bros. Makers Syracuse, N. Y, PST.JMl. 21,1908