\J" ] ' i (:M-W UNIVERSITY OF OREGON BULLETIN NEW SERIES ' VOL. 2 NO. 6 State normal School Systems of the United States 1905 H. D. SHELDON, PH. D. HEAD OF THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION Issued Bi-monthly. Published by the University, Eugene. November, 1905. Entered January^, 1904, at Eugene, Oregon, as second class matter under Act of Congress of July 16, 1894. UNIVERSITY PUBLICATIONS. Public School Libraries - September, 1903 Beowulf January, 1904 Water Power on the McKenzie River - - March, 1904 Mineral Resources and Mineral Industries of Oregon May, 1904 Water Power on the Santiam - - - November 1904 Tendencies in Recent American Road Legislation January, 1905 General Register of the University of Oregon - March, 1905 General Announcements ----- May, 1905 a. STATE NORMAL SCHOOL SYSTEMS OF THE UNITED STATES Compiled by DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION University of Oregon ■ • ■ ■ UNIVERSITY OF OREGON BULLETIN NEW SERIES VOL. 2 Published by th° University, Eugene, Oregon. Issued Bi-Monthly NOVEMBER, 1905 PREFACE. It is the aim of the present paper to present the most im- portant facts, statistical and otherwise relating to state systems of normal schools in the United States in brief and convenient form. In order that all the facts upon which the conclusions are based may be as accessible to the public as to the writer, the statistical summary and the replies to the circular letter on normal school systems are printed in full in the appendix. At first sight, it may seem strange that the figures for tne year 1902-03 should be the latest obtainable. The United States bureau of education which furnishes these statistics works with all possible dispatch, but the enormous magnitude of the task and the difficulty of securing; prompt returns pre* hide more rapid tabula- tion and publication. The writer is also indebted to the following- books for information : Gordy, J. P., Rise and Growth of the Nor- mal School Idea in the United States; Washington, 1891, Dexter, .E G., A History of Education in the United Stater, New York, 1904 and Hinsdale, B. A., Training of Teachers in Butler's Mono- graphs on Education, Vlo. I,, Albany, 1900. In some cases, the writer has referred to certain states as having one normal school, when very recently this policy has been departed from and one or two new institutions established. These schools are too new to have effected conditions, so that in com- paring results, there is no injustice in classing these common- wealths with states which have never departed from the one central school idea. STATE NORMAL SCHOOL SYSTEMS IN THE UNITED STATES. The first legislative recognition in America of the necessity of special training schools for teachers was given by the state of New York in the year 1835 and took the form of a small appro- priation for the support of teachers' training classes in a few of the academies of the commonwealth. Four years iater, Massa- chusetts, having small faith in the efficiency of the academy idea, founded, at the old historic town of Lexington, the first in- stitution in America having for its sole purpose, the preparation of teachers. For some years Massachusetts found few imitators. New York was the first to follow in 1844, Connecticut founded a normal school in 1849, Michigan 1850, Rhode Island 1852, Illin- ois, 1857, Pennsylvania, Minnesota, New Jersey 1859. By 1875 normal schools were establisheed as an integral portion of the educatioanl system, in all the states of the union save eight. At that date there were seventy schools in operation training more than fifteen thousand students. The normal school system of the country has been rapidly gaining strength in the last few years. In the period fro;--> 1889- 90 to 1902-03 the number of public normals increased from 135 to 177, the number of students in strictly normal courses from 26,917 to 49,175 and the number of graduates from 4,413 to 8,782. While the attendance did not quite double in this period of thirteen years, the sum total of appropriations more than doubled, as the commissioner of education records $1,312,419 total annual appropriation for current expenses of normal school at the beginning of this period as against $3,582,- 168 at the end. These sums do not include special appropria- tions for buildings and repairs. 6 University of Oregon Bulletin Separate normal schools are established by law a ad sup- ported by appropriations in forty-four out of the fifty states and territories constituting the continental possessions of the United states. Of the six without separate normal schools, three, Wy- oming, Utah and Nevada provide for normal training in con- nection with their state universities. Delaware, the fourth, sends her normal students to the institutions of the otiier states for their training, leaving only Alaska and Indian Territory without provision for the training of teachers. Of the more important states of the Union, Ohio alone, for many years stood out against the establishment of public normals, but within the last two years, this attitude has been changed and two institutions for the training of teachers founded. Among the states of the union, two divergent lines of policy in regard to the location and size of normal schools have been followed. In many states, number of moderately sized schools have been established, each school ministering to the needs of one particular section. Among the advocates of the policy are New York with nineteen public normal schools, Pennsylvania with fifteen, Massachusetts ten, Wisconsin nine. West Virginia and Minnesota six, California and Illinois five and numerous other states having more than one school. Twenty years ago there was an almost equally long list of states concentrating their energies on one strong central school. This list included such important and influential states as Michigan, New Jersey, Connecticut, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas and Colorado. In recent years, the increase of population and wealth together with pressure of localities remote from the central school, has caused a number of these states to reverse their policy, so that now Michigan and Connecticut each support four schools. A num- ber of these states, however, still maintain their former policy. The number of normal schools in a state has small meaning until we know the size of the constituency. For instance. New York, (19 normal schools), having an estimated population in in [903 of 7,659,814 persons has only one normal school for ap- proximately every 400,000 persons, while Idaho with two nor- mal schools has one for every 90,000 persons. In Pennsylvania there is one nornfal school for every 450,000 of population Mass- University of Oregon Bulletin 7 achusetts, one for every 300,000 ; Wisconsin, one for every 230,- 000; California one for every 300,000; Illinois one for every 1,000,000. One normal school for each 400,000 persons represents the average in those states which have been, for man}/ years committed to a policy of local schools. As to the cost of maintaining schools, there is the widest possible variation from Mississippi with an average annual out- lay of $1,435 P er school and Vermont with $6,723 at one end of the scale to the great central school of Iowa enjoying a revenue of more than $140,000 per year at the other. The average income in 1902-03 per normal school in some of the larger northern states devoted to the policy of local school is as follows : New York, $38,000; Pennsylvania, $43,000; Illinois, $42,000; Massachusetts, $33,000; California, $38,000 and Wisconsin $39,000. States de- pending on one large central school, naturally appropriate to a single school larger sums than the foregoing. In this class chiefly are Indiana, $72,500; Kansas, $70,000; Colorado, $67,000 and Rhode Island, $64,000. The $3,500,000 spent by the states of the union on normal education is distributed by no means evenly. Of the states which possess systems of such efficiency as would entitle them to consideration, there is a vast difference. It costs Indiana only $28 and Nebraska $31 per 1,000 persons to support their normal school systems. Washington on the other hand spends $225 per 1,000 persons or almost ten times as much. Wisconsin with an outlay of $164 per 1,000, Colorado $117 per 1,000, California with $121 per 1,000, Oklahoma $181 per i ; ooo and Rhode Island $140 per 1,000 are among the highest in the union. The average is represented by Massachusetts, $89 per 1,000, Michigan $61 per 1,000, Minnesota %jy per 1,000, New York $80 per 7,000. Pennsyl- vania $78 per 1,000, South Dakota $75 per r,ooo and Iowa $60 per 1 ,000. A truer test of the economy of the system is found in the cost per year of training each student enrolled. The factors de- termining this are, first, the amount of support and secondly, the number of students. A state appropriating a large sum to nor- mal education if it has a large number of students, may have a lower rate per student than a state with small appropriation and 8 University of Oregon Bulletin few students. Here again we find most startling contrasts be- tween extremes. Kansas trains teachers at an annual cost of $36 per student, Rhode Island pays $294 for the same service. Among the more expensive states are Colorado, $248 per student, Mass- achusetts $150, Oklahoma $141, South Dakota, $192, Washington S189, Wisconsin, $140. In the group of moderate expense are Michigan $98 per student, Minnesota $115, New York $106, Pennsylvania $84, Illinois $75 and West Virginia $98. Another question of fundamental importance is the capacity of the normal schools to meet the demand for trained teachers. If the testimony of the state superintendents and normal school principals is to be relied upon, the percentage of trained teachers is rapidly increasing throughout the country. Of the common- wealths replying to circular letter, Arizona leads with 60 per cent of teachers trained in normal schools, Utah follows with 50 per cent. The percentage for the other states replying runs as follows: Massachusetts 46 per cent, California 38 per cent, Connecticut 36 per cent, Indiana 20 per cent, Illinois 10 per cent, Iowa, \2y 2 per cent, Kansas 10 per cent, Louisiana 33 1-3 percent, Maine 23 per cent, Minnesota 25 per cent, Missouri 15 per cent, Xew Jersey 2>3 I_ 3 percent, New York 25 per cent, South Carolina 25 per cent, Vermont 24 per cent, Wisconsin 35 per cent. These figures are in nearly all cases approximate and in some instances pure estimates, so that too much importance should not be at- tached to them. However, there is no good reason for rejecting the general conclusion from them that of the 450,000 elementary teachers in the United States in 1902-03, about 100,000 or in the neighborhood of 22 per cent have had considerable normal train- ing and that probably 15 per cent are normal graduates. The significant fact that less than 25 per cent of our teachers are properly prepared for their work does not mean that we should be compelled to establish four times as many normal schools costing four times as much money in order to prepare the other 75 per cent. Many of the normal schools are new and have a proportionally small percentage of graduates, others could accommodate a considerably larger number of students without extra expense. There is also a slow tendency toward a longer term of service, particularly in large towns and cities, so in the University of Oregon Bulletin 9 future not so many new teachers will be needed. That more new schools will be needed especially in rapidly growing" sections of the country and in those states where the existing normals are not adequate to the needs, is of couse, evident, but it may serious- ly be questioned whether it would at present be advisable at one stroke of the pen to double the number of normal schools, were such a step possible. A fact of considerable significance in this connection is re- ported by a number of superintendents and principals, viz. that nearly the entire product of the normal school is absorbed by the graded schools, leaving the country schools largely untouched by normal school influences. Thus the sLate superintendent of Iowa reports that there are many normal school graduates in town, few in the country. According to the state superintendent of Montana, the normal graduates after a term or two of exper- ience in the country, all settle in the town schools In Wiscon- sin one of the normal school principals estimates that of 9,000 country school teachers in that state, only 1,000 are normal grad- uates, 3,500 others having attended without graduation. On the other hand nearly all of the 3,500 teachers in graded schools have received a normal training. In states like California where good wages are paid in the country districts, many normally trained teachers are found there. It is hardly necessary to point out that this undesirable state of affairs in regard to country schools is in no manner due to the normal school, but to the ordinary laws of business and trades by which the most efficient workers go where wages are highest and conditions best. At the present time, it is undoubtedly true that the wages paid in the country districts of man}* states would hardly justify any person spending three years of time and $800 in cash in preparation for service in them. Yet nowhere is further training more needed than among the country teachers. The best temporary solution of this problem is to be found in the establish- ment of brief summer schools with course of 10 to 12 weeks in length, one for each county or small group of counties. As these schools would be in session during the summer months, the faculties of normal schools and outside schoolmen of experience could be utilized at moderate expenses to the state. An appro- io . University of Oregon Bulletin priation of $10,000 spent in this manner would produce ? more immediate and powerful effect for good on the rural school than any other measure which could be devised. However, such a measure must necessarily be regarded as temporary, a twelve weeks review of element subjects and methods can never be the equivalent of a good normal school course. In order to secure the experience of other states, the depart- ment of education in the University of Oregon issued a circular letter to the state superintendent and normal school principals of the country. Twenty state superintendents and fifty-two princi- pals answered the letter. The replies are printed in the appendix to this bulletin. Nearly all the most important normal school states are well represented in the list of answers, notably New York, Michigan, Massachusetts, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas and California. The two most important questions asked in the circular were the following : 1. Is one large central normal school preferable to a number of normal schools? Why? 2. If a state supports a number of normal schools, should they be controlled by one central board, by separate local boards for each institution or by a combination of the two? It was not supposed that the categorical replies one way or another, would be particularly valuable as there would be a strong tendency for each superintendent or principal to defend the system in vogue in his own state. In the arguments and facts advanced to support these views, it was hoped that some light might be thrown on the general principles of the subject which might embody the best experience. The actual replies more than satisfied this hope as we shall see. While there were all pos- sible shades of individual opinion, there emerges from the dis- cussion a very generally accepted body of conclusions. These conclusions can, perhaps, be most clearly stated as arguments pro and con. One of the strongest arguments in favor of a system of local schools, is the fact that in most states, the students of a nor- mal school come from closely adjacent regions, so that in general a system of local schools reaches more students and therefore trains more teachers than can a single central school. All the more populous states having a large percentage of normally train- University of Oregon Bulletin i 1 ed teachers like Wisconsin, Massachusetts and California are states which maintain a system of local schools. There is much testimony to this effect from the replies. One of the most inter- esting written by the principal of the Milwaukee normal, dis- cusses conditions in Michigan. "My native state is Michigan where for years they have had one large normal school. Investi- gation showed that ninety per cent of its attendance was drawn from adjacent counties. It was not big enough to make itself felt throughout the state. Within the past eight year-, three new normal schools were established in Michigan. The attendance at the central school has materially increased and the three other schools are full. Each one of the schools draws largely from its own locality." There are one or two striking exceptionstothisgeneralization. Iowa and Kansas at the time of the publication of the last com- missioner's report had practically only a single school, yet the number of normal students trained was relatively large, Iowa having 2,231 students or 1 for each 1,047 °f population. Kansas 1,954 students or 1 for each 752 of population. California with five normal schools had an attendance of 1,604 students or 1 for each 975 of population. Wisconsin with nine schools, 2,514 stu- dents or 1 for each 857 of population. Just why Iowa and Kansas should succeed where other states have failed is not clear, Kansas at one time paid the traveling expenses of students beyond a radius of one hundred miles from a normal school. Iowa al- though almost equally successful had no such provision. It is worthy of note, however, that while Iowa and Kansas have an unusally heavy percentage of normal students, they have a relatively small percentage of normally trained teachers : Iowa 12^4 per cent and Kansas 10 per cent, which must mean that either their graduates enter other professions largely or migrate; probably the latter. The point most frequently made in support of the small local normal school is found in the statement that their training or practice school facilities are more likely to be adequate than those of a large school. The training school is to the normal what a laboratory is to a man of science ; it is the place where observa- tion and experience, the future teacher learns her art. Without a 12 University of Oregon Bulletin practice school for this essential work, a normal school is but little better than a specialized high school. Most state normal schools are located in but moderately sized towns, and there is always the danger that the number of normal students will in- crease more rapidly than the available supply of children for the training department ; the larger the school, the greater the danger. Says the principal of the Chico, California, normal school, "The great feature in the preparation of teachers is their practice teaching which cannot be effective in large schools." The prin- cipal of another California normal (San Diego) writes: "If the normal school is too large there is difficulty in securing ample training school facilities." These happen to be the first two state- ments of opinion on the list but twelve other witnesses testify to the same effect. There is also a general consensus of opinion that, after a certain number is reached, there is a sure loss of institutional efficiency. The personal influence of the president and leading- professors becomes less evenly diffused, their place is taken by cheap assistants. The student societies become large and un- wieldy and therefore inefficient; the building up of a school spirit which reaches the lives and ideals of the students, is increaseingly difficult. The idea is well expressed by the president of the Madison, South Dakota normal. "The great school has a mass of students and educates, trains and graduates in mass. The school of from 200 to 500, graduating from 40 to 80 each year knows, educates and trains every individual and is sure of its work; it developes character and power." Another statement to the same effect comes from the principal of the Whitewater normal school, Wisconsin. "A large central school is too much of a machine. Pupils have too little contact with the administration and stronger members of the faculty. Too much of the instruc- tion in such cases is done by subordinate and comparitivelv cheap instructors. The school cannot accomplish any such work in the way of character building and personal moulding of students as is done in smaller schools." There is no agreement as to the exact point at which a nor- mal school becomes unwieldy. One correspondent puts it as low as 300 and another as high as 1,000. The weight of opinio-.! would University of Oregon Bulletin 13 place the line neared the lower than the higher figure, perhaps at about 500. A normal school, by the outside work of its professors and through the influence of its students should act as a general stimulus to the schools of the communities adjacent to it. Amer- can normal schools as a rule do not undertake to advise and direct their graduates as in France and Germany, but in the main they should be expected to exert a steady and uplifting influence on the common schools nearest to them. Most American states are too extensive geographically and too populous to be reached in this way by a single school, no matter how efficient it may be. The entire population of Rhode Island, New Hampshire and New Jersey are in the immediate neighborhood of one school, but not so with New York and Pennsylvania and the great common- wealths of the west and south. As put by the state superintend- ent of Missouri, "Several schools, located in* different parts of our state will come more directly in contact with teachers and influence them more. The faculty of a normal school having about twenty counties in its district will in some measure super- vise the schools of that district, while one large central school will not reach the teachers of the outlying counties and will not exert the same influence on these counties as upon those nearer its location." Some other agruments are mentioned by the superintendents and principols, such as that a number of normal schools can se- cure appropriations easier than one and that competition is neces- sary to secure efficiency, which advantages either miss the mark or are purely incidental in their nature. The case for a system of small normal schools rests on the ground that in large and popu- lous states such a system trains more teachers, provides more adequate practice school facilities, moulds the lives of the stu- dents to a greater extent and exerts a stronger beneficial influence on the school system than could one large central school. On the other hand, there is no reasonable doubt that a central school could train the same number of students more cheaply. Many of the advocates of a system of small schools admit this fact. For instance the state superintendent of Minnesota writes: "From the standpoint of economy to the state, I think it pre- 14 University of Oregon Bulletin ferable to maintain only one large central school. From the standpoint of those in attendance, however, I think it better economy to have several located in different sections of the state." Such a quotation could be multiplied. States with only one school or which perhaps, have very recently added one or two weak in- stitutions with small appropriations and few students, so that for practical purposes there is only one school show a comparative- ly large gain in economy. The following brief statistical sum mary between two typical groups tells the tale. Group of states having in 1902-03 practically one school : Cost of Normal School Cost per Year of per 1000 Persons. Each Student. Iowa $60 $63 Kansas 48 36 Nebraska 31 62 Indiana 28 52 Group of states having a system of small local schools : Cost of Normal School Cost Per Year of per 1000 Persons. Each Student. Wisconsin $164 $140 New York 80 106 Massachusetts 89 150 California 121 1 18 When a central school fails to attract large attendance, it then is usually more expensive proportionally than a system of local schools. Colorado is a case in point where the cost of train- ing a student for a year reaches the high figure of $248 per year, a rate higher than that of some of the most efficient universities which have a much omre extensive plant. Another advantage in concentrating all the state's effort in one school is found in the correspondingly superior equipment and plant which such a concentration lenders possible. The gain is represented by better gymnasium and museums, excellent manual training and kindergarten departments, more advanced and specialized courses of instruction. The principals of the large schools take particular pains to emphasize this point. The fol- lowing quotation from a letter written by the principal of the Iowa school at Cedar Rapids represents others: "There are many University of Oregon Bulletin 15 reasons why a good strong normal school is to be preferred to several weak ones, among which the privilege of having gradu- ating classes at the end of every term, to place upon the schedule of recitations each term, the varieties and divisions of class work and to have many specialties such as music and art, as well as to maintain a superior lecture course that a small school could never afford. We are able to have the Theodore Thomas Or- chestra come to this school to give three concerts costing $2,300. Such a transaction could not occur were the school small." It is quite possible to over emphasize the importance of this advantage. There is a limit to the amount of equipment neces- sary for a normal school. In spite of the testimony of two or three correspondents to the contrary, there is no reason why a normal school should have the equipment of a good university. The normal school has a single definite aim, the training of ele- mentary teachers, while a university aims to train men for a half dozen professions, all requiring more specialized work than preparation for elementary teachers and also attempts to encour- age original research at the same time. The implication of the writer quoted in the previous paragraph, that a number of normal schools means necessarily weak schools is refuted by the systems of Wisconsin, Massachusetts, Illinois and California, where the schools are on an efficient basis. Up to a certain point the argu- ment for a central school on the ground of better equipment has great weight, but after that point is reached, the addition of fur- ther equipment adds comparitively little to the real efficiency of the school. Another argument for a central school is that it has much greater prestige. The greater number of normal schools, the less the esteem in which they are held. As one writer expresss it : "The smaller schools do not rise to the dignity a normal school should possess." A still further objection to a system of small schools is the fact that these schools by competing among them- selves lower the standard of admission and scholarship and bring normal school education into bad repute. This difficulty is easily remedied by putting all the normal schools under one strong cen- tral board which by uniform standards will prevent rivalry and its attendant ills. 16 University of Oregon Bulletin To strike a balance between the merits of the two systems which will be equally applicable to all states is obviously imprac- ticable in states where a central normal school is readily ac- cessible to the entire population and its influence as easily dif- fused the balance readily inclines to a single strong school. In commonwealths having vast populations like New York and Pennsylvania or of almost continental proportions like California or Texas, the establishment of a number of central schools be- comes a necessity. In case of states of considerable extent, but as yet possessing little wealth and contain a small po >vlation, yet growing rapidly, states like Oregon, Washington and Idaho, the problem becomes more intricate. 1 he first requisite is, in all cases, efficency. What is the smallest apt ropriation which will support a first-class school of from 150 to 250 students? This question was included in the circular letter sent to the principals and superintendents above mentioned. The replies varied from $15,000 a year at one limit :;o Siooooo at the other, the great majority, however, placed their estimates between $25,000 and $40,000. When we compare these figures with the actual expense in some of the most successful normal school states such as Wisconsin $39,000; Massachusetts, $33,000; New York and California $38,000, we can safely conclude that under ordinary conditions no normal school can bo put on an efficient basis for less than 25,000 for current expenses. The salary schedules which many principals kindly en- lesed in their replies to the circular letter form an interesting study. From them, we learn that in the states possessing the most efficient normal schools, the principal receives $3,000 a yea«*, men professors of experience from $1,400 to $2,200 per year; women professors in the normal school proper from $1,000 to $i\6oo, women teachers in the training department $750 to $1,000. These salaries may seen excessive to some, yet the fact that states as far apart as Massachusetts, New York, Michigan, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Kansas and California all pay at this rate, furnishes strong presumptive evidence that such salaries are necessary to secure first-rate talent and that lower salaries (than these) mean less efficient service. An easy method of economizing sometimes adopted is to University of Oregon Bulletin 17 eliminate the men with the exception of the principal. This at first glance does not seem to touch the standard of efficiency as $1,200 will secure a strong woman professor, while at least $1,600 or $1,800 is necessary to secure a man of equal ability. In the end this policy destroys the balance and vitality of the school and impairs its administrative effectiveness. At the schedule quoted above, the following budget would meet the needs of a school of not to exceed 300 students. President $5,0000 Four men at $1750 7,000 Four women at 1,200 4,800 Two women at 1,000 2,000 Four critic teachers at 800 3,200 20,000 Janitor, supplies, library 5,000 $25,000 In regard to the organization of the governing machinery in a system of local schools there is a great variety of opinion Most of the educators favor the plan which happened to be in vogue ni their own states. The argument for separate local boards rests on the assumption that conditions are likely to be quite different in different sections of a state ; one section may be old and wealthy, another portion poor and undeveloped. A standard suitable to a normal school in the first might strangle a struggling institution on the frontier. Central boards tend to rigid uniform- ity in standards and rules, a number of local boards favors flex- ibility. Thus the principal of the De Kalk normal school, Illinois, replies "Separate boards if the localities vary greatly in condi- tions." In a local board, however, there is always a strong danger of a subordination of state interests to the financial interest of the particular localities. A local board frequently wants a large num- ber of students at any cost and as large an expenditure of money as possible in improvements. A local board is often favorable soil for germination of faculty, neighborhood and sectarian quarrels, a steady policy is a difficult matter for the president to attain, hampered as he is likely to be by numerous local interests. The 18 University of Oregon Bulletin principal of the Mankota normal school, Minnesota represents this opinion when he writes : "We decided prefer our system of one central board as giving large freedom to the president and freedom from local interference." The principal of the New York City normal school speaks more sharply: "By a central board, local boards are chiefly interested in local graft." Some corre- spondents favor a compromise scheme by which the apopintment of teachers and business management is left in local hands while all matters are regulated to course of study,, certification and stan- dard of admission are regulated by a central committee, consist- ing of certain members of the different local committees. While a successful management of normal schools is possible under a number of different local boards the mass of argument and testimony inclines to the other side, the most successful nor- mal school states have either one central board of the compromise plan in which a central board controls scholastic conditions. The state as a state should have a normal school policy consistently carried out, not a number of different policies to suit the business interests of various towns. As local condition need some atten- tion, a local member from each normal school town on the central board secures this nesessary safeguard. A point of interest which was raised by several correspond- ents was the economy of the state paying the railway fare of stu- dents at a great distance from central school instead of founding local schools. In order to elicit all inforamtion possible on this interesting problem, a letter was sent to a large group of states, Colorado, Kansas, Nebraska, Iowa, Michigan, Michigan and In- diana, asking for information on this point. No state but Kansas has apparently ever tried this scheme, and from Kansas, no reply could be obtained although from private sources it is known that at one time, this plan worked well there. INTRODUCTORY NOTES TO STATISTICAL TABLE. These statistcs are taken from the reports of the United States commissioner of education for 1902-^. The estimated pop- ulation by states is found in vol- 1 p lxxvii. The number of schools is found in table 1, vol. 11, p 1756; the number of student^ in table 2, vol. 2. p. 1757, this number includes only the statement in normal courses, about 5,000 students in business and other courses are excluded. The amount of income by states is given in table 5, p. 1760, vol. 2. The other items in the following table, viz: Aver- age income per school, cost of normal schools per 1000 inhabi- tants, cost of educating each normal student and the ratio of nor- mal students to entire population are not given in the commis- sioner's report but have been compiled from the other items by the present writer. The total income represents all possible resources for current expenses, not merely the legislative appropriations. Thus the total income of the Oregon normals was $56,458, while the legisla- ture appropriation was $40,350; the difference represents tuition fees and miscellaneous sources of income. In some states, a few schools failed to report income : the number actually reporting is put in brackets to the right of the total income. The financial statistics are therefore incomplete but not to such an extent as to destroy their usefulness. When they are incomplete the figures as to the cost of normal education per 1,000 of population and cost of training each normal student are only approximately correct. This is true of New York and Pennsylvania, but not of Illinois, Michigan, Wisconsin or California. ~— The institutions included in this list are the public normal schools of the United States and consist of municipal as well as state normal schools. In only a few states do municipal normal schools exist. 20 University of Oregon Bulletin Is One Large Central School Preferable to a Number of Smaller Schools Alabama 1. Florence N. S 414 Students. One is best until system is well established, two or more are prone to work against each other. 2. Jacksonville N. S. No; the closer you put a school to the people the more of them you reach. Arizona 3 State Super. i. Flagstaff N. S No, in large states and territories where distances are so great. No, just a reasonable number well distributed will reach a much larger student body and thus reach the home life of many more. Do not centralize. ,. Tempe N. S. California. 6. State Super. Depends upon conditions. If the central normal school is so located as to be able to secure unlimited training school facilities, then one large school is preferable, because better faculty and equipment can be procured at same cost. One large school would make more expense to the people in sending their students so far than it takes to run four or five schools. Chico, N. S. One large central normal school is not prefer- able to several smaller schools, the great feature | in the preparation of teachers is their practice train- ling, which cannot be effective in large schools. University ot Oregon Bulletin 21 Central vs. Local | Boards. By separate state boards with Supt of P. Instruction on each board. A combination of local and state board. By a separate board for each school as condi- tions may vary in different lo- calities. Appropriation sufficient for| Small Normal S chool. $25,000 (Per Cent of Nor- mal trained Teachers. j Rapidly increas- I ing. Salary Schedule $15,000 to $20,000 Rapidly increas- ing. iPresident $2,250 2 profs 1,500 2 profs. 1,000 4 profs 900 This is a hard|60 per cent large question but l|ly increasing, would say $25,000] per year. President Heads of depts. | Assistants to Let the Supt. of: From $25,000 toj 45 per cent. Yes, President public instructionj$30,000. very noticeably. (Lowest Joint board from 20,000 is suffl-|38 per cent. all the schoolslcient if only high[ should govern| school graduates! course study, lo-|are admitted as| cal boards em-|in case of San| ploy teachers and] Francisco. attend to local matter. $2,250 1,250 500 600 $2,250 1,100 be the chairman of each local P board, not more than five in num- ber. Separate local|$40,000 for run- 60 per cent in-|Principal ..$2,250 boards acting un-|ning expenses in-|creasing der the same] eluding repairs, (rapidly in general laws re- [years. lating to normal] schools. y lprof. 1,750 2 1 prof. 1,650 3 profs. 1,300 5 profs. 1,250 3 profs. 850 1 prof. 750 I prefer i'dea of a central board with respect to standards of ad- mission minimun requirements of course of study graduation and| the like but I pre-| fer considerable local autonomy in order to give prin- cipal and faculty freedom as re- gards details and an 3 adaptation to locality. From $30,000 to $40,000 for run- ning expenses. Refer to state superintendent's report. President $3,400 2 profs. 1,800 2 profs. 1,700 2 profs. 1,500 1 prof. 1,400 2 profs. 1,300 5 profs. 1,200 5 profs. 1,000 1 prof. 900 22 University of Oregon Bulletin |Is One Large Central School Preferable to a Number | of Smaller Schools? Los Angeles One I think has greater strength; has less diver- sion of sentiment, can better meet university opposi- | tion which is shown by the statp universities. 9. San Diego N.| Central vs. Local Schools. S. No each normal school has an influtnce on educa- tion in surrounding country. If the school is too large there is difficulty in securing ample training school facilities. Students in small schools arc better known by faculty. 10. San Francisco] It is not; normal education, is a local matter. 11. San Jose N. S.| I think it better if attendance in any normal (school could be kept under 300. Faculty get personally acquainted with all etc. Colorado. 12. Greeley N. S. Central school is preferable until the state is well developed and has plenty of money to keep fully equip others. Connecticut. 13. State Super. In a small state like Connecticut a single normal school is preferable, if model schools and practice fa- cilities can be secured, the question was before the state board of education several years ago and we advised the legislators to enlarge the single school then in existence. The legislature did not follow our |advice but established another school and now we |have four. Reasons for consolidation are economy of | expense and unity of organization and purpose. 14. New Britain | No. Smaller schools if well supported can look N. S. after the training of the pupils; bettor success of a [noimal school depends on schools for practive. 15. Willamette N. S. It is my belief that a number of schools of a moderate size are preferable to one large school be- cause of the difficulties involved in providing training facilities for large classes of normal students. University of Oregon Bulletin 23 Boards. Appropriation Per Cent of Nor- Salary Schedule Central vs. Local sufficient for mal trained Small Normal | Teachers. Combination. $26,000 for run-|38 per cent, ning expenses. 1 Central vs. Local Appropriation. |Per Cent of Nor- President $3,400 board. $33,000. mally Trained 3 profs. 1,800 Not prepared to Teachers. 1 prof. 1,700 say. 133 1-3 in 1903 to 4 profs. 1,600 1 38 in 1904. |2 profs. 1,500 [1 prof. 1,400 I fl prof. 1,200 r |1 prof. 1,000 | |3 profs. 900 This depends!$25,000 to $30,000|46 per cent. Is in-|President $3,400 wholly on the|for current ex-icreasmg rapidly. 2 profs. 2,000 board. Ipenses. \ 2 profs. 1,800 1 prof. 1,620 1 2 profs. 1,500 1 1 prof. 840 2 prof 780 1 fl prof. 720 Combination; lo-|$30,000 to $35,000.|30 per cent; in- President $3,400 cal too much in-| creasing. 1 prof. . 2,200 fluenced by local 2 profs. 1,800 conditions. 1 prof. 4 profs. 7 profs. 3 profs. 4 profs. 1 prof. 1 prof. 1,700 1,600 1,500 1,300 1,200 1,100 900 Should on e board|$25,000 to $30,000 Large and in- with a local creasing. member where! school is locatedl to work with. Schools should be| $30,000 is not tool 1,550 teachers out| controlled by a single board and perhaps by a single person. Central Board. Control by cen- tral board satis- factory. large for a school|of 4,300. of 250 students|cent. with a good| plant.! per| $25,000 33 1-3, is increas-| ling. I [Less than 50 perl cent. 24 University of Oregon Bulletin Is One Large Central School Preferable to a Number of Smaller Schools? Idaho. 16. Albion N. S. "There should be two or more in a state if state is too large for one school tc get in close touch with all parts of the state." 17. Lewiston N S. "One school is preferable up to an attendance limit of about 400. If the attendance runs higher than about that number, it is practically impossible to get good results for teachers in the training school as there are too limited opportunities for teaching. To the state it is made more economical to have one large school. (Remarks on transportation accompany this.) Illinois "No. Because of the advantages of local patronage 18. Carbondale N.| which is always a factor of more or less importance, S. is increased by having more than one institution. The local interest is helpful. As a rule the larger number of sections interested, the easier to secure appropria- tions from the legislature. 19. Charleston, N.[ No. The area most adjacent to a normal school is most effective. Hence there is a greater stimulus from a number of schools." 20. DeKalb N. S.| "No. Too big." 21 Normal, 111. "Several small ones will secure more careful I training. The large schools give excellent instruction |and are full of enthusiasm." University of Oregon Bulletin 25 Central vs local Appropriation Per cent of Nor- | Salary S ;hedule. Boards. sufficient for Small Normal mal Trained Teachers. "By separate $30,000 to $40,000 20 per cent, in- President $2,250 boards." for biennial pe- creasing-. 2 profs. 1,20# riod for mainte- 2 profs. 1,100' nance alone. 1 prof. 1,000 1 2 profs 900 1 profs 750 1 1 prof. 500 This is a difficult|$25,000 a year for question to an-lmaintenance. swer sati'sf actor- 1 ily. Wisconsin does well withj one board. In| other states itj has hampered) the work and put the school into politics. It goes back to a consid-| eration of the| personnel of the; board. Increasing. President [4 profs. 1 prof. 1 prof. 1 prof. 1 prof. 1 prof. 1 prof. 1 prof. 2,400 1,350- 1,500 s 1,150 1,100> 1,000 950 780 600 There are ad-! About $40,000. vantages in each] method. In Illin- ois there is a| separate board! for each school! and it works well.j 10 percent, in- (President creasing slowly. 1 prof. 5 profs. 1 prof. 2 profs. 2 profs. 2 profs. 3 profs. 1 prof. $3,700 2,350 2,000 1.900 1,500 1,300 1,200 1,100 900 I do not know. I| have had eleven! years experience! under our central! board and six un-| der separate! boards. Each planj has its advant-| ages. I $35,000 From $2,250 down to $805. That depends |10 per cent, in- !$40,000 to $60,000.|creasing slowly. Profs. $1,500 $2,000. to I beli'eve a single) board is best al-| tho I know noth-i ing personally of its workings. $45,000. Graduates not I more than 5 per I cent, possibly 20 I per cent have at- tended 3 months. 26 University of Oregon Bulletin Is One Large Central School Preferable to a Number of Smaller Schools? Indiana. 22. State Supt. "I would say that one large normal school is preferable to a number of smaller normal schools. I think we need one large normal school in order to train teachers for teaching in district and town schools of state, so long as the school is sufficient to do the work. When other normal schools are neces- sary I think they should be smaller and a part of the normal school system of which the large normal school, first named, is the head. There should be a sufficient number of these smaller normal schools lo- cated in such a way as to meet the needs of teachers in the various localities. I should say that these smaller schools should give about a two y ars' course, one to the study of common branches ai J the other to professional work. The admission shoul I be limited to high school graduates or to persons of known ability. Full credit should be given for two years work in these smaller schools in the large central school." Iowa. "We have but one normal school in this state. 23. State Supt. There is an advantage in having one great library, (one strong department of domestic economy, physical [training, kindergarten, etc., etc., and the strength in |many ways that comes from numbers. The expense (travel from remote parts of the state to the one school is considerable and no doubt prevents many attending who would be enrolled in a school nearer at hand, that is the aggregate attendance in a number of schools would doubtless be much greater than attendance in one school, however strong." 24. Cedar Falls N. S. "Do not know which is preferable. Iowa at present, has only one and proposes to make it a valuable institution by fine plant, a superior equip- ment and variable courses. It is not considered in- ferior to the agricultural college or the state univer- sity, but is essentially different in all respects. Its limitation is the preparation of teachers for the public | schools." 25. Woodbine N. S. "A number of small ones. Accommodate more pupils and keep in better touch with common schools." Kansas. 26. Emporia N. S. "Yes. The smaller schools do not rise to the dignity a normal school should possess. There is no more reason for multiplying normal schools than for multi- plying state universities or state agricultural colleges." Central school is establishing branches. University of. Oregon Bulletin 27 Central vs. local | Boards. I Apropriation |Per cent of Nor-|Salary Schedule, sufficient for | mal Trained | small Normal I Teachers. If the state sup-|$20,000 to $25,000|Abcut 20 per cent ports a number! would be suffi-lhave had normal of normal schools) cient amount to| training, a larger as above. they | put a small nor- 1 per cent have had should be con-mal school on an trolled by one efficient basis central board some trainin n o r m a 1| One board would be preferable. Appropriation in! Many in town, Iowa is $130,000|few in country, for 2,000 students.] "Do not know| "$25,000, $35,000! Increasing in] Printed report. Illinois prefers! according to var-| better paying! separation, Wis-|iety of work at-|positions, no cen-j consin union,!/tempted. General sus taken. both are satisfied! courses might be| and equally sue- 1 maintained ; on cessful." .|*15,000 a year.l I the school wouldl I only be fair as to| I opportunity un-| der the latter." "One Central!$25,000 as mostllO to 15 per cent.|$500 to $1,400 for board to preventlstate schools ardProbably, yes. leach teacher, rivalry." I managed $10,,000! I should do it. By one board. I Annual income! Probably 10 per|Important full ($30,000 to $50,000.! cent Normally! professors $1,890 Itrained teachers|e x c 1 u s i v e or I stay longer in| summer session. I profession, I creasing. in Assoc. $1,450 a year, exclusive of summer school. I Some exceptions full salary roll en- dorsed. 2$ University of Oregon Bulletin lis One Large Central School Preferable to a Number of Smaller Schools? "Louisiana. "Yes, one school can be better equipped and made 27. State Super, more efficient unless the state is rich and Willing to I spend money for normal school work." Maine. 28. State Super. Several. 29. Gorham N. S. "Three hundred students is enough for a school land that number only in a city which can give 3,000 I children in practice schools. Less than that if you | have not enough pupils in lower grades for practice I school s." Massachusetts.! Your first question must be answered by each 30. State Super, state for itself in accordance with its own local con- ations. Rhode Island finds one central school sufficient I for its purposes. Massachusetts has nine and finds j them none too many to provide the teachers whom lit needs." 31. Fitchburg N. S. 32. Framingham N. S. "No. Several being easier of aecess craw pupils who can attend only by living at home." "This state has nhip schools, all comnaratively small. We evidently tend to small schools. " 33. Hyannis N. S "No. In smaller schools there is bettei oppor- tunity for individual instruction and practice work." Massachusetts 34. Salem. "No. The smaller normal schools are preferable, because of the greater ease of thorouerh acquaintance of student by teacher, and of providing a proper sup- ply of model and practice schools." University of Oregon Bulletin 29 Central vs. Local! Appropriation |Per Cent of Nor- 1 Salary Schedule Boards. sufficient for mal trained Small Normal I Te ache rs. (Almost the samelOne-third slowly as for large I increasing, school salaries! alone, $30,000. One board. One board. $15,000. 33 per cent, in- creasing at rate I of 10 per cent a I year. ($20,000 a year for|Increasing, I running ex- 1 very slowly Ipenses. but "I should say| Gives facts for that it is better! Massachusetts, that all the nor-JBridgewater, mal schools of! $45,781|a year, the state be un-| Salem 29,886) der the control of|Fitchburg 30,000| one central board jrange from S 22, - 1 some members of 1 000 to $45,000. which should be| assigned as a| special commit-] tee for each| school." |i 46.8 per cent, grows at rat of about 2 per cent Central Board. | $30,000 a year. | Increasing. I I I Principal $3,000 Male teachers $2,200, $2,000 Female, $1,600. $1,000 Both. $35,000 a year. | Don't know, I Principal $3,000 1 prof. 1,750 1 prof. 1,400 1 prof. 1,200 5 profs. 1,000 2 profs. 800 1 prof. 750 1 prof. 650 1 prof. 600 Combination the two. off $30,000 a year. Probably a com-| bination of two| methods would] work work best in practice. State apropria-|About 50 per tion $30,975-$4,-|cent, increasing. 750 paid by city| for model teach- j ers, $35,500. I Men who work full time ar e paid $2,300; women from $800 to $1,- 200, $1,000 being the average. 30 University cf Oregon Bulletin |Is One Large Central School Preferable to a Number of Smaller Schools? 35. Worcester "I should say c.ecidedly not." Michigan. "Our experience shows that it is preferable to 36. State Supt. jhave several normal schools in the state rather than j one large central school. Our experience also shows | that the practice teaching or the work of the training | school department is one of the most important fea- tures and that if your school is so large as to reduce I the amount of possible practice teaching, you have ! decreased the efficiency of the institution. Our state | normal college enrolls about a thousand students and I that is all it ought to accommodate. We have three 'other normal schools, one in the peninsula, one in the I southwest part of the state and another in the north I central part." County normal training classes in rural districts. I 37. Ypsilanti N.| "One central with others more elementary in S. [character acting as feeders for the central one seems Ito be the best system." Minnesota. 38. State Supt. 39. Duluth S. _J "From the standpoint of economy to the state, 1 1 think it preferable to maintain only one large cen- ftral school. From the standpoint of those who are I in attendance, however, I think it better economy to I have several located in different sections of the state. I I think also from the point of good administration and I best results in work, the smaller school is to be pre- jferred." N.| "I think not for the reason that the smaller student body and faculty can c'o more satisfactory I work and because variation in ooints of view is likely | to f'irni-sh a stimulus not otherwise obtainable." 40. Mankato S. N.[ "We prefer the smaller schools on acco^-.it of the S. I closer touch possible between student and teacher, land the better opportunity for practice teaching." 41. Moorehead S. N. S. "We have five normal schools in Minnesota. University of Oregon Bulletin 3* Central vs. Local) Boards. Appropriation sufficient for Small Normal |Per cent of Nor- | mally Trained Teachers. Salary Schedule", A combination. |Not far {$30,000. from "All our normal! schools are under the control of one| state board ofj education which) is by far prefer- able to having - a each institution board to control separately be- cause you then secure uniform-!' ity, harmony and| economy in ad-| ministration." | One board inlDo not know, control over all is| decidedly the 1 best plan. The annual ap- propriation for our northern peninsula school which enrollsj about 200 stu-| dents is for each of the ensuing two years $44,- 000; for the western normal school its $39,000. 50 per cent grad-| ed schools, in- creasing each year. Increasing rapid -| President $5,500 'ly. ! Heads of depart- ments 2,500 lAssistant profs. 2,000 1 Instructors 900 to 1,400 Assistants 500 to 800 "1 think the one| central board is| decidedly to be| preferred as it! gives unity and| economy of ad-'| ministration. After necessary 1 25 per cent of building and per- [normal graduates manent equip-ja still further ment $25,000 an-jnumber have a nuaJly. jpartial normal Straining. By a central board with a lo- cal member. For maintenance|On the increase, [not less thanf $35,000 to 40,000.| $3,000 to $8,00.1 We decidedlyfi prefer our system of one central board as giving large freedom to the president and freedom from lo-| ral interference, j We have one! board and system! is satisfactory. $30,000 to $35,000.1 Increasing, Nor-|Men teachers $1,- |mal schools can- 400 to $1,800; |not meet the de-jwomen $800 to Imands. |$1,200 j ' $25,000 to $30,000.!Per cent i s large,|Averag e of $1,800 igreat demand for|for men and $1,- Igraduates. 200 for women, fentire list given. 3* University of Oregon Bulletin Is One Large Central School Preferablp to a Number of Smaller Schools? 42. St. Cloud S. N. S. 43. Winona S. N. S. "I do not believe in one large central school. First, schools should be near people; second, schools have more political prestige if different parts of the state are represented; third, for practice purposes schools should not be too large." "We have five schools in this state and I think the attendance is larger and the work accomplished better than in one central school. Students who at- tend a normal school are not inclined to travel the longer distance necessary in reaching a central school." Missouri. 44. State Supt. Missouri believes in several normal schools rather than one large central school. Our legislature has recently voted to establish two new normai schools in addition to the three already in existence. Several schools located in different parts of the state will come directly in contact with teachers and influence them more. The faculty of a normal school having about 20 counties in its district will in some measure supervise the schools of that district, while one large central school will not reach the teachers of the out- lying counties and will not exert the same influence on these counties as upon those nearer its location. One large school will assume to itself the function of preparing teachers for the city schools and high schools and not adjust itself to the rural and village school conditions as readily and positively. Montana. Yes. It is too hard to get sufficient funis to main- tain several. 45. Dillon N. S. "In reply to No. 1., it seems to me that the burden of proof rests with those who would have more than one normal school. Why have several any more than several universities or several agricultural colleges? It is desirable to have the facilities within easy reach but suppose you try to locate institutions in Oregon so that one would be more than a hundied miles from a normal school It would cost the state less to pay the railroad fare of all the students who would be | more than one hundred miles from a central normal j school than it would to maintain the additional schools. Besides this a is very much more efficient |fac ulty could be maintained because of th e possibility |of more thoroughly organized systematizing the work. I Where a state has already made heavy investments in plants at various points, the practical problem is, jhowever, seriously modified." University of Oregon Bulletin 33 Central vs. Local! Boards. I Appropriation sufficient for Small Normal $28,000. There should be! one central boards thus to prevent! livalry, dissen-! sion, etc. One, Resident director to represent local] conditi'ons is al wise idea. | "I prefer the cen-j After plant tral board which, | established however extends! would some freeom to|$30,000 separate schoolsjfcr running to meet local! penses. conditions." | Per cent of Nor- 1 Salary Schedule i mally Trained | | Teacher s^ | (About 33 perlPresident $3,000 I cent is increas-j Director of train- ling. ' ! ing depart 2,000 [Heads of departs | $1,000 to $1,600 Assistants 900 I to 810 i ___J I isjGraduates 10 perPresident $3,000 it|cent, Normal! Men 1,800 to 2,000 require! teachers not| Women 600 annuallylgraduates 10 perj to 1,650 ex- 1 cent. Under separate! After school boards cur nor e q u i p p e d mal schools work very harmonous- ly and co-operate as far as courses of study and re- quirements for entrance and graduation are concerned, the state superin- tendent is a member of each I of the boards and! i s the harmoniz-| ing influence of! these boards. is|Is increasing, 15| it) per cent are nor-l an|mally trained, 30 anual aopropria-|per cent come in tion of support of|contact with nor- about $25,000. Imal schools • should have IGraduates all go|Figure s in report |to graded schools, sent. They should have! It costs us $27,- 1 From 10 to 15 perj local board and! 000 annually. Icent. central governing! I board s. _J My answer to No.| 2 must be purely| theoretical as I| have no experi-| ence to throw| light on that! point, I should! prefer, however) to try the central! board. 34 University of Oregon Bulletin lis One Large Central School Preferable to a Number of Smaller Schools? Nebraska. | "A number of small scnools preferable. Experience 46. State Super, [of older states." 47. Peru St. N. "We prefer having two in this state. New Jersey "I think the number of normal spools in any state 48. Trenton N. S.jshould be decided by the clearly expressed conditions jof the state, territory, and as to population. Those I who are to take up the work of teaching, a-; a rule, have limited means, hence we find that railway dis- tances very much effects their attendance upon the normal schools. Any normal school will fin;' its largest percentage of attendance relatively speaking, from the nearby sections. "Secondly: Normal schools are educe tional insti- tutions of the higher order and as such follow the general principles of educational institutions. For instance, they must be large enough to be able to get strong faculties and a well planned department or- ganization, goo: 1 laboratories, libraries, etc., and a good institutional spirit something akin to that spirit reached in many of the colleges: If the normal schools are too small and too personal, they come I short in these features. I should say that a normal I school should enroll about four hundred students and Ithat after this enrollment is reached, it i's better to I establish other schools in different population centers j than to go on increasing the size of a school beyond | this point." New York "No. Because it 49. Cortland N. S.|so many students." cannot conveniently accomodate 50. Fredonia N. S.l "In a state as large as Oregon there should be more than one normal school to elict interest in dif- ferent parts of the state as well as for convenience." 51. Amaica N. S. | "One central school of higher grade for secondary teachers; others for elementary teachers." University of Oregon Bulletin 35 Central vs. Local f Appropriation | Boards. sufficient for j Small Normal Per Cent of Nor-! mal trained | Teachers. Salary Schedule Controlled by one| $25,000 a year fori central board. |salaries. j By one board. See junior nor-| mal bulletin. $60,000 for sal- aries and mainte- nance. Is increasing Pres. $2,500 rapidly. Can't to 1,000 give percentage.! 2 profs. 1,400 but low. to 900 2 profs. 1,200 2 profs. 1,100 Must receive 1,100 I think the nor- $30,000 a suffi- mal schools of a cient annual ap- state should appropriation for a be under thejschool of 250 pu- same board of|pils. education, other- 1 wise there are| bound to be leg- islative rivalries,! this board can! appoint as many committees on local schools as itj likes. 33 1-3 per cent, is] increasing. A combination of| $35,000. two, the first will secure uniform-' ity, the second] will take care of! local interests. Separate boards|$15,000 to with central con trol. By a board. central (Principal 15 men I to 1 2 receive I Women to mostly 25 per cent injPrincipal 1899 it was 23 per|4 men cent. to J12 women to $3,300 1,100 2,200 1,900 650 1,200 1, 000 "$3,300 1,600 2,000 400 1,300 mostly oth- er 700 or 800. About 65 per cent|Men $1,900 to $2,- |500. Women $800 to $1,400. 36 University of Oregon Bulletin 52. New Paltz 53. New York N S. Is One Large Central School Preferable to a Number of Smaller Schools? "No. Competition is as necessary in developing ideals in educational institutions of efficiency as in business." 54. Oneonta N. S. "No. Several schools accessible to students in different parts of the state will be more largely at- tended and each will exert an uplifting influence in its own locality." I consider several smaller schools preferable, com- petition is a good thing, traveling expenses of Istudents lessstudents less. J 55 - Plattsburg [ "No. Smaller schools are able to give better train- ■^- S. jing in observation anc practice work and more indi- vidual attention. Of course equal faculties and (equipment are presupposed." sft N A7- rth - Dakota - "Yes. If independent of university or other con- 5b. Valley City. |trol and is properly located. Its aim should be to turn out a number of highly trained teachers" Oklahoma. 57. Stats Supt. "The prevailing sentiment among educators in the territory is that we should emphasize the schools for secondary education and decrease the number of normal schools to one (from three). At thr present our normal schools ar e doing about fourteen years' work. We feel that a great good could be done to a greater number if this change were made. University of Oregon Bulletin 37 Central vs. Local| Boards for Nor-| mal Schools. | Combination of] the two provide ij that the local boards have some real power vested in Lhem and not centralized pow- er, otherwise one central board as in Massachusetts is preferable. I By a central| board, local) board are chieflyj interested in lo-j cal graft. j Combination. Appropriation Per cent of Nor- Salary S< ?hedule. sufficient for mally Trained Small Normal Teachers. Not less than Principal $3,000 $40,000. 1 house 1 prof. 2 profs. 2 profs. 2 profs. 1 prof. 1 prof. 750 1,700 1,600 1,400 1,200 1,000 900 Grade supervisors $800 to $1,000, critic teachers $550 to $650. 25,000. Increasing-. |Principal |First ass't lAss't I to $40,000 annual; Increasing 25 maintenance. 30 per cent. to|Principal | Men IWomen $5,000 3,500 1,900 2,400 $3,300 2,000 1,000 On average. Would favor cen- $40,000 to $50,000.| tral board of con-j trol with perhaps! a local boara of | visitation. A combination of| $40,000 two, one boardf tends to mechari-] ism and horizon-! tal rules. Schooll should be inde-j pendent enough! to eneoiirge in-! indispensible in-j itiative in man- agement. ! At the presentlFor time, the three! normal schools! are con-] trolled by one| central board of] regents. In some| iPrincipal $3,300 1 4 men 1,500 to 1.800 IWomen 500 to 800 | mostly 800 'IPrincipal $2,800 4 men 1,200 1 to 1,600 i9 men 600 to 1,300 150 students] $20,000. Is fair. mess board ways this is very satisfactory, in others very (Detri- mental. Our peo- ple serve without] them comp e n s a t i o nifrom practically andllar the length time required of the detains too long their regu- vocations.j of! Either system toiwill have its ad- transact the bus r !vantages. 38 University of Oregon Bulletin Is One Large Central School Preferable to a Number of Smaller Schools? Pennsylvania. 58. State Supt. 'I prefer several schools." South Carolina.| "Yes, for economy and efficiency's sake." 59. State Supt. | South Dakota. | "It is not. The great school has a mass of stu- 60. Madiscn N. S. dents and educates, trains and graduates in mass. I The school of 200 to 500, graduating from 40 to 80 leach year, knows, educates and trains every individ- [ al and is sure of all its work, develops character [and power. The state cannot be reached by one las by three or four. The work of all is needed badly." Texas. 61. State Supt. "In Texas, several preferable because of the con- tinental proportions of the state." Vermont. 62. State Supt. "No. Several schools located in different parts of the state will graduate many more teachers than one .school. In seeking to increase the per cent, of trained teachers numbers constitute an important element. One school would be of higher standard, bue 300 fairly trained etachers will do a state more good than 100 finely trained teachers." 63. Johnson S. N. "We have three in this small state of Vermont but this is due more to historical than practical rea- sons I fancy. If the founding of a normal school came up as a new proposition I doubt if there would be more than one. Certainly not more than two, one for the eastern and one for the western side of the state." Virginia. "Smaller schools are preferable because of ac- L Petersburg S. cessibility and because more personal work can be done for the students." "In answer to your first question 1 will simply ask whieli you think preferable, a large university well supported or a small affair which has no stand- ling anywhere in the union? If the state supports eral normal schools will they rank as highly as (one well supported and well equipped normal school? I My opinion is they will not." Washington 65. State Supt. University of Oregon Bulletin 39 -ntral vs. Local! Appropriation |Per cent of Nor- 1 Salary Schedule. Boards. sufficient for Small Normal mally Trained Teachers. I prefer board. central! $15,000 a year. central $100,000. One board. By one single|From $15,000 up board for all un-|to $20,000 be questionably, the|strictly normal other plan was|schools not col- tried in this state|leges or miscel- and was a fail-|laneous schools, ure. One boarc 1 ! for all state insti-| tutions is ourj practica l plan. j A combination of the two. Its increasing! percentages mis-j lead. | 25 per cent rap-| idly increasing. Is increasing de- mand is for more Not plant, countin; $20,000. ;\ No statistics, I number is rapid- ly increasing. By central! $15,000 minimum.! 24 pet of normal board with local! representation on the boar a. President $2,000 3 men 1,300 to 1,400 8 women 900 to 1,200 mostly 900 The control is in! $22,500 would be a central board of enough for one, is which the staten o w divided supt. of education (among three. is a member plus! one resident] member in each| of the towns) where the nor-j mals are located.) It represents all' interests and| works well. Combination of| $20,000. local and state! board. I graduates 8 per I cent have attend led normal schools ! 8 per cent are 'college graduates | 60 per cent high I school graduatesj 190 per cent havej lattended either) j college, normal orj ] high school. | About 30 per cent Is increasing, de- mand greater than supply. Principal Ass'ts to $1,800 500 800 Should be underlln Washington the control of one) from $74,000 to board of trustees! $55,000 including or regents for thejrepairs. reason that if you have a single! board you getjboard for each uniform results| normal school| while with a|you do not. I If increasing per- centage unknown. Statistics are in- accurate, so not given. 4 o University of Oregon Bulletin T 66. Bellingham N.| "In my opinion a normal school does its best S. | work when it does not have more than three or four [hundred students. The personal element is of much | importance in normal school work. I should think | that one normal school in eastern and one in western I Oregon would be sufficient for many years to come." I I West Virginia. I "A central school is less expensive on the whole 67. State Supt. |and therefore more likely to be able to supply train - 'ing of the highest grades. As schools are educators, | and therefore benefits the community, the more the better." Wisconsin 68. Milwaukee S. X 69. Oshkosh N. S "In regard to question No. 1, I have but one opinion, and that is that a number of smaller normal schools would be preferable to one large centrally lo- cated normal school. My native state is Michi- igan where for years they had one large normal school. Investigation showed that ninety per cent, of its attendance was drawn from adjacent counties. Remote parts of the state were not drawn upon. The factor of expense became an i important one. Moreover the remote parts of the state did feel the touch of the normal school, it was not big enough to make itself felt through the entire state. Within the last eight years three normal schools have been established in Michigan. The at- tendance at the central school has materially increased and the other three schools are f 'ill. Each one of the four schools draws largely from its own locality. Wisconsin is so thoroughly committed to the several school plan that the legislature now in session has authorized the establishment of an eighth school. Eight schools ministering to the eight sections of the state can do nearly eight times as nru-.i good for the educational interests of the sante as ca i one" "I think not. In a lame school all individuality is in danger of being lost. (Masses are much too large gener illy." 70. Platteville S. _J N.| "We likp o'U' system of a number of small schools. |We have seven of them in Wisconsin. The smaller 'schools give better opportunity for personal eontaci 'with in [vidua! students." University of Oregon Bulletin 4i Central vs. Local Boards. Appropriation sufficient for Small Normal $60,000 to erect and equip, $20,000 to $22,000 annual- ly for support Never have two boards in charge of same school. In Washington we have separate • boards, but I rather favor one central board. By a centralEnclose list board by alljappropriations means. The sys- tem of a state should be har- monious and be- sides the multi- plication of the unnecessary ex- pense. I am thoroughly convinced that one board is bet-| ter than several I Per Cent of Nor- mal trained Teachers. Small. Is in- creasing, but not rapidly on ac- count of growth I of state. ) Salary Schedule President Teachers to of $3,000 800 1,400 Per cent is small but increasing very rapidly at 'present. f $35,000 to $40,000. One central board for all. By a board. central Do not think is increasing. $35,000 to $40,000.|N. S 'graded $35,000. supply schools but only about 10 per cent of teach- lers in ungraded Ischools. lis increasing but (percentage is un- I known. President $3,200 Men 1,500 to 2,200 Women 825 to 1,200 1 woman re- ceives 1,800 4 2 University of Oregon Bulletin 71. Whitewater N. | S. "We are thoroughly convinced in Wisconsin that one large normal school is not preferable to a number of smaller normal schools. Of course certain things can be accomplished in a large school more easily and effectively, just as in a large factory; but these are not the things which are most worth accomplishing. A number of schools distributed judiciously about the state will reach a large number of people who cannot be reached by one central school. Thus the schools of the state will be more generally served, in the way of providing teachers. Again a large central school is too much of a machine. Pupils have too little con- tact with the administration and the stronger mem- bers of the faculty. Too much of the instruction is done in such cases by subordinate and comparatively cheap instructors. The school cannot accomplish any such work in the way of character building and per- sonal molding of its students as it is done in smaller schools. Doubtless 2000 pupils when once gathered can be more economically taught in a large school, but they will not be as effectively taught. The ele- ment of personal influence, so important in the in- spiration and training of teachers cannot be whole- saled to the best effect. University of Oregon Bulletin 43 Central vs. Local] Boards. Appropriation sufficient for Small Normal Our seven nor- mal schools in Wisconsin are controlled by one|$30,C00. board. We believej schools Smallest schools| in Wisconsin! costs more than Perhaps of the that this is a much better plan than the one fol- lowed in New York and Penn- size you indi'cate could be main tained at an an nual expense of $25,000 each, cer sylvania, where! tainly not for any |Per cent of Nor- | mally Trained Teachers. Of 9,000 county teachers 1,000 have graduated, 1,500 attended without gradua-|, tion in city schools, 3,500 mostly normal graduates about 35 per cent. local boards have too much fluence and schools are rn- the run less, in any ade- quate manner too much in the interest of the locality and not enough in th e in-| terests of the state at >arge. In our state, one member of the state board is ap- pointed . from each of the towns! where normal! schools are lo-| cated. This gives the locality all] the representa-| tion to which it| is really entitled.! Salary Schedule. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 33. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 4C. 3 ■ »o° Alabama 1,923,284 Arizona 133,338 Arkansas 1,366,119 Colorado 574.030 California 1,564,286 Connecticut . . . 956,789 Columbia dist. 293,217 Florida 566,885 Georgia 2,336,404 Idaho 183,738 Illinois- 5,117,036 Indiana 2,614,223 Iowa 2,336,484 Kansas 1,469,969 Kentucky 2,230,619 Louisiana .... 1,460,237 Maine 702,875 Maryland 1.231,739 Massachusetts 2,974,021 Michigan 2,510,647 Minnesota .... 1,857,462 Mississippi . . . 1,629,771 Missouri 3,227,214 Montana 277,102 Nebraska 1,098,139 N. Hampshire .422,109 New Jersey . . .2,016,797 New Mexico . . 205,819 New York 7.659.814 N. Carolina. . .1,976,571 North Dakota . . 357,594 Ohio 4,302,860 Oklahoma 495,285 Oregon 437,302 Pennsylvania .6,606,747 Rhode Island.. 454,629 S. Carolina . . .1,397,067 South Dakota ..443,927 Tennessee 2,095,233 Texas 3,285,474 Utah 295.404 Vermont 347,007 Virginia 1,919,103 Washington . . 581.626 W. Virginia . .1,021.106 Wis< onsin . . . .2.155.441 6 SSo a ta HfcS 1. Alabama .... .1,923,284 ■>,. Arizona . 133,338 3 Arkansas .... .1,366,119 4. Colorado .... . 574,030 5. < 'alifnrnia . . . .1,564,286 6. Connecticut . . . 956,789 7. Columbia dist. 293,217 R. Florida . 566,885 9. Georgia .2,336,404 10. Idaho . 183,738 11. Illinois .5,117,036 12 Indiana .2,614,223 13 .2.336,484 .1,469,969 15. Kentucky .... .2,230,619 1fi. Louisiana . . . .1,460,237 17. Maine . 702,875 18. Maryland . . . .1,231,739 19. Massachusetts 2,974,021 20. Michigan 2,510,647 21. Minnesota . . . .1.857,462 22. Mississippi . . .1,629,771 23. Mi'ssouri .... .3,227,214 24. Montana . 277,102 25. Nebraska .... .1,098,139 26. N. Hampshire .422,109 27. New Jersey . . .2,016,797 28. New Mexico . . 205,819 29. New York .7.659,814 30. N. Carolina. . .1,976,571 31. North Dakota . . 357,594 3? Ohio Oklahoma . . . . 495,285 33. Oregon 437,302 35. Pennsylvania .6,606,747 36. Rhode Island. . 454,629 37. S. Carolina . . .1,397,067 38. South Dakota . .443,927 39. Tennessee . . . .2,095,233 40 Texas .3,285,474 41 Utah . 295,404 42. Vermont . 347,007 43. Virginia .1,919,103 44. Washington . . 581,626 4 5. W. Virginia . .1.021,106 to. Wis< onsin ... .2.155.441 o «