021 289 863 6 Hollinger Corp. pH8.5 Public Educational Costs REPORT OF AN INVESTIGATION by the COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION of THE CHICAGO ASSOCIATION OF COMMERCE Copyright 1922 by The Chicago Association of Commerce ©CI.A6 8fi3H9 OCJ' ISIS2. ^Vi.« I ' ^ PREFACE The Chicago Association of Commerce is requested re- peatedly bo take position on questions of educational policy. Many of these requests relate to bills before the general assem- bly making appropriations for the financial support of educa- tional institutions. Some relate to city ordinances relating to the financial support of the city schools. These increases are often directly^ or indirectly competitive in the sense that the full allowance of all of the requests for financial support made at any one time would be beyond the possibilities. Some of the requests for endorsement relate to questions of policy apart from financial support. The Chicago Association of Commerce is in the habit of referring all such matters to its Committee on Education with the request that it report on them to the Executive Commit- tee, In order to make its reports on these matters when re- ferred to it of more value this committee has conducted an in- vestigation, the report of which is found in the following pages. The investigation has been financed by the Association. The committee consulted with President Harry Pratt Judson and Professor Charles H. Judd, director of the School of Education of the University of Chicago, and succeeded through them in securing Mr. N. B. Henry, a former teacher, high school princi- pal and superintendent of schopls in Missouri, and at present a research student doing post graduate work in the Department of Education of the University of Chicago. INTRODUCTION Recent years have been a season of great unrest in educational matters, though in this respect education does not differ radically from other social activities. There are those who question the advisability of pro- ceeding further with the development of opportunities for higher education. On the other hand there are those who advocate an extension of this field to a greater degree than in the past, claiming that our new world delations demand for us a better trained leadership. These say that the supremacy of our indus- trial institutions demands the aid of more technically trained men such as laboratory viforkers, chemists, bacteriologists, and engineers. We have generally assumed that the universality of a common school education wag a corner stone of our government. Yet from several widely separated quarters in recent years the advisability of discontinuing this policy of universal common school education has been questioned. On the other hand it is claimed that we have never needed an educated proletariat more than now, A permanently successful democracy necessitates an intelligent follow-ship. The advantages of education have always appealed to business men such as compose the membership of the Association of Commerce, Whether college graduates or not the majority of them have wanted their own sons to be college graduates. When it came to common school education the great major- ity of the membership endeavor to employ men of some education wherever possible. This opinion has been reflected in the willingness of business men to pay taxes to build schools, and to pay the expenses of the common schools, the colleges and the universities. But now the business man is rather generally opposing additional taxation. This opposition is showing more disposi- tion to crystalize into organized movements to resist increase of taxation than ever before. Some part of this disposition is extending to the field of support of education. This has gone as far at least as to make the business man desirous of knowing the present costs to government of education and also of learning the plans of the leaders of education in the common schools and of the higher schools of learning. The two factors which are most influential in contribu- ting to the steady increase in the cost of public education are the increasing numbers of eligible persons who are taking advant- age of the opportunities afforded for educational training, especially on the higher levels, and the constantly widening range of activities being undertaken by the schools. While the percentage of total population that was re- ported as of school age decreased from 29.6 in 1890, to 26.3 in 1918, the percentage of those of school age ?;rho were enrolled in public schools increased from 68.6 to 75.3, Although the elementary schools have reached the stage where they are increas- ing in enrollment at a rate approximately equal to that of growth in total population, they are carrying an increasing proportion of the enrolled pupils into the higher grades. Reports of the United States Bureau of Education show that the percentage of elementary school pupils who were in the eighth grade increased J jfoiToaaoHTW] ..:.■. ..^r,,.... ^....;,,,-, -.-■ aOQiSOS fc ;:_;,J -..•..;,,; ;;.....,, ,.,..;...; .a3ictivi::toe T ' '^ •■ ^ "(erf;*© moil xIlBoih'^^ •^'-■^'"' •-'■ as srtBciovbe oriw esorii ete eiiodi basd. tsricfo sflct «0 .notdBoubQ nod.l^cf e Ew to't bwemob snoictelsl bXww wsn i-wo ct/jr(:f gnirniaXo -ciubni tuo lo YOSfiisiquE 9rf;t dsrf;^ V,fi8 essriT .qirfciabeal beni^td benieicf ^(jixsoiminect atom lo bic aK.1 sbneraeb E5noit:^ij:licfBni lei'x^f bnf ,8c»siBO-foHo;*3Bd ,a:ts.tra9dD ,B-i9>fiow Y-£0;t3'jod'i5X as rfowe .asm lo vJilBBtsvtciiJ srfrf ^efid bemusBB v;Il6t9n9a s^e^ «^"t^' .atasnigna ntin^mnt-avog ti/o lo ono^a tarxioo a emv noi;Jo9iib9 Xooilo3 womaioa b Bd:t BiBii'i tiait^ot nt BtsiiBSjp bocJa-ssqaB ^leblvs Xsnsvae t-ioil ctoY rrommoD Issievinw lo v;9iXoq sirf;! sniwnliinooejtb lo Y^i^-fjt'-^stvbQ Xl^aonsanoq A ,won narii atow ^Bi'iBiBlotq beiBoabo «e bebaon .qi.ciB-woj.Xol insaiXXarfni "■ ,-•■::• ,--.- -oarjoornQb XwIbsc"—.'; o^ bQlesqqe 8\;evvXe ©vsrf in . .t ••■■.■;>.).„!'..• .c .;■:•-.* iiev be 9riT nordsi-Oi-'aA ;^rfd lo qiriBTtdcffftafn 9ri;J saoqmoo es rftvwa nam assnisx/of '." •■jf^olBtn ai-l;^ cfon tic aad'Qwbisig es?>XX6o rfsrfctarfV/ .©oismrtioO lo .aeo^swbe^g 95£>XXod 00* ocf anoa nwo fiedit bsdnew ©vsri morftf iotem rfeeia ©^^ noi^eaxjbo Xoorloa noniTioa o;* qcubo ^t nad^t .eXdtssoq isv9i0xfw lo aeongfiiXftw arfd' at tQi^&Ilst nsecf aerf noinlqo siriT ai-diBisvtm/ arfrf bne sogeXIoo Qrl:t ^aloocioa nomrttoo srlcf lo asanaqxa T^ttxaoqqo ^XXeiSitsg i^ii^s*! ei nem eaanif^jJd sriiT won isA -isoqsib siom gnttworfs ei ffoJt^Jisoqqo eiriT .noi::f.axs;f i;i u •■...;.,, ..x*r, aacQioni: i&te&s. cd BiJnemsvom bascftsQio cint BslZBiz'zto ocJ no25 ex nor"': ■ . '-j airf^ lo cJi.fiq sinoS a'nolad lava aerfcJ aoi>"tBXB* lo ©fto.13 .nolcteaubd lo i-toqqjJB lo bX©i:l arfcf o;;t gnibna^Jxo ^ntyci.:. ..w- .u^oiiaab nsai ea^niswcf sdct o:k;ra oct ae de^aX is ibI &b SnimciiX lo oaX.e bne noi::#eoi;fo3 lo cfnemn'xevo^i orf atfaoo cfnaa^iq arfcf -•'- .'--..-..• ..-..-.... - .,.. . :---^aouba lo a'jabseX erU lo sneXq odi iniflieoX lo sXoorioa lori^irl srf;J lo -i/(fiitfrtoo ni leilnewXlni ctsom ©•se dotriw eto^ofil ow^J orlT 010 noicteowba on:/iJq lo :Jeod erfd' ni sasoioni -^baoiJa erli oJ ,.!.ii.;.. -ctrtsvb.- qni:>ffii one oriw anoert^q ©fdJtstXs lo eiacfawn -jja/sisortoni 9rf;t ,>xni:rii:f •^;J Xsnoi^faoubo lol babiolla esi^inwcfioqqo aric^ lo 039 j^tti-^obK' v:XJtrfSv1ano9 orfcf bns ,sXev3X t3ff.-^i:rf arl"? no ^jXXsJcoeqsa r-XoorloR • '"^ ' n©3le^T[0bxtjj gffiecf eeiiJtviddfi "~ -•-'-t -■••J c. ■.. .:;;..>•: ' '• J.i-^JfO* lO ©gS^JnoOTJq 3fli sXfffW ni ^,92 od , 3 moil b3a'?9iD9'b o.gjs XoorfDC lo es badtoq ttt beXfotne ..3.:; Xoorf^e lo eaorfiJ lo oi^scfaeoioq orfJt ,axex '3rf:t rf^x, .^,eV oct d.ea moil bQBeatoett r.Xoorioa oiXdL*q -8:.5'53rti 016 ^•ti-.j — -^■- -':• biido&Qn avfirf eXcoiioe Y'^srfnamsXi/ idwix, lo c^erfcJ o;> oiqoe ©dst a do. ;*«f,"!X loins .ni.ani rtci^ir '---' — - ISO oifl ^oriS _ .-..^ 4- .- .■.—..•:. XsSb':*;n|- od:i ? .a' drfd crfni &L. (re.odiAo lo ..,. -vu: - > ;o .-^^j ....... .. km: noi^teawbS lo .u.... ■ .. ■■.,-., .-^t b^:ilnU b.^s.&Bionl 8bei3 rfcJrfjiJSo ©r£i ni 019W oriw eXiqwq Xoocloa ^iB:Jh9inoIo from 6,4 in 1911, to 7.5 in 1918, and that the percentage of eighth grade pupils of one year enrolling in high school the following year increased from 46,3 in 1912, to 57.8 in 1918. Professor Thorndike is authority for the estimate that the high schools are now annually receiving about one- third of the total population group reaching high school age, as compared with a ratio of one to ten in 1890. Figure 1 indicates the relative rate of growth of population and of the principal types of publicly supported schools between 1890 and 1918. The expansion of school curricula and other extensions of school activities are likewise proceeding rapidly. A recent report of the University of Minnesota shows the addition there of six distinct professional and technical departments since 1890. A study of high schools in the North central states by Professor Stout of Northwestern University, summarizes the sub- jects offered in 65 high schools in each of the two periods, 1906-11 and 1915-18. In the first period the schools studied were found to offer a total of 46 different courses, and the largest number offered by any one school was 6, In the second period the same number of high schools reported a total of 77 four year courses, 25^ of the schools offering more than 6 sub- jects, and as many as 19 being offered by one school. A bulle- tin of the Chicago Board of Education Issued in January, 1921, lists 26 different activities that have been added to the Chicago school system since the beginning of the school year 1909-10. In consideration of facts such as these, and the re- lated financial problems they imply, the present study was under- taken at the request of the Committee on Education of The Chicago Association of Commerce, and has been carried on in co-operation with this committee and a special committee of their number appointed to consider questions relating to the scope and policy of the investigation. Meetings of the committee and of the sub- committee have been held from time to time during the period of the investigation for the purpose of considering the character of the material to be included in the report and the significance of the findings of the study. The resolution and detailed pro- gram for the study as adopted by the committee in May, 1921, is here presented; There is an annual increase in the proportion of the graduates of grammar school going into and going through high school. There is an annual increase in the number of graduates of high schools going into the universities and colleges and technical schools. The cost per unit of maintenance of elementary schools, high schools, universities, colleges and technical schools, is increasing annually. The tendencies show no indication that they will not continue for years. Therefore, it is suggested that the Asso- ciation of Commerce, through its Committee on Education, conduct an investigation to determine: 1. The division of public funds between support of elementary schools, high schools, normal schools, universities, colleges and technical schools. 2. The tendencies in such division as shown by the experiences of the past ten years. 1o e^sjfnso'jeq srict ^flri* brre ^eIQX at c' IIx-I «i ^^,0 moil -v',:{ Ioo.r{D8 ff^M ni gnnioins is9ii anc quq sbeig nctri.vsii'? r^I rti a.fs o:t ,2K'X ni S.3:^ moil bseaoiDrjJt 163^ .^niwoffol ieaod -^rlct "io biirict-eao cfi/ode anivieooi y,£lRuas:is ivon ais aloorlos 'T(> f^^rn/j rpqio.:., ..„ .,-.J 'io bne stoiiBlvqQq 'io ri^^v/o'^ta Ic ... .. * rex has oeex asewcr&d eXoorfoa b9itoqque ^£9ll(iuq, BcioLcmeixs -xaricto bns s£ui3t%tsjo Xoorfos lo noienaqx© 8riT 6iarf:? noi::*r avvoxis GcfoeenniM lo ^cfj:B':f9VinU enM lo ctioqei softirs bShl... „.,„,., Xsoinrfaei bas XiPnoiaeeloiq ^^iirc^eib xie lo ^cf es;j£*B XeiSnso rfjtioW orfcJ «i eXoon'se rfpjrf lo ^bwie A ,0981 -cf0s ©ri:t Roairtsmmws ,v'*iei9vlnlT n'X9;ta9wddio'4 lo cfworfa lOBSQlCi'i .eboit^q ovi.-t ^licf lo rfri.o© ni eXood[93 rfglrl 56 cti beiello a;J39i, baJibu;Js eXoori^e OilcJ bcineq ctsiiil ©rfi nl .8X-eX5X bna Xl-dOvl '3cii bns ,e9stx;oD ittBt'i'l.litb 3f^ ^o Xe^toit a itsllo ocf bnwol siev* bnosQB 9f{,-J nl ,9 esw XoorioB erco \;0i5 -^cf botallo locfiown ctKagieX ^V lo Xe;^oi a bediOQOi slcon'os rf;Qi£ii lo i.^dsnsjn ome?/ Off;t bofisq -ci'ws 6 n^if* eiorrf ,^^i^^llo sioorloB orict lo ^33 , eseiuoo ibo^ tual -oXXucf A .Xoorfoe 9no Y,•.■ -91 erftf bn0 ,3agrid ge r(9UB e:^59l .:... ;>,, i,.; .. :t:-:_.i.,;.^...^ .;. -lebnif R6W ybyrfs cfneaaiq aritf ,MXqcfft \jar{d ameXdoiq Xsiionsnxl i^edaX ossoirfO 3riT lo noi-,1ooifb3 no eo:mmm.oO qA3 lo deo/ipsi siid' iB nejfsct noi:t£Tt3qo-oo ni no bstiiso naad sari bna ^soieraiGoO lo notisiooeBA lodtiurn ti-oill lo ©s^SifJiff?oo XaxDOge b bns aa;Jclirm«oo zidd dcJiw ^oiXoq brts dqoos stl;? oi ani;S.eX3i enoictaei/p lebiaaoD oi bQtiatoqq& -cf;j8 3iid lo bfifi 09i?i:famoo eri^ lo a?5ni;.!^9aM ' ,aot^B-^tiB^vcit &ii:i lo lo boiioq 3A:i ^at'mb smtrf oct Qmli moil bXari fyeocf'aveil yddcfimmoa tacfos-xerfo ©rfrf ^niiebiemoa lo aaoqiwq isri^J tol rsoidsgiciaQvni; ©d;? sonsoiilxn^!:*: ^xfct bne cl-toqai arid nr bsbx/Xoni^ etf o;* Iei'io;fsffl srf^J lo -otq bolie'J^b brce noidifXo83i 9riT ,T^bt/3a erlrf lo aanibni:! exl;:^ lo 8f ,X29X ♦^eM ni B^Htitrntoo erf^ (^d be^^qoba ae y,bu^?. &tii tol msig rigiri rf.^oTffrf '.^rtiog bne o.1nt ^nton, Xoodoa leramata lo ssctewbaig bciB eegfjXXoD brre Bsitfi-BTSVirfu srli orfni: g^io.n sXooriotj rlaiii lo ,aXoorfou :........ .■..,j. .> .... >7,r,. .;,.::o,ii, : io cfiaw 'leq .• ••^.' -'a^ ai ,eXoorf33 XsoinrfoeiJ bns essoiXoo ^eai^tiei&vinij ,8Xoorl33 rigiri Y X X swnn " - '-< *■ '- '- -"^ •"* '^ ''• ■ ■ - ....;.. ....-,. v;.-.:.. .,.;i0.o.jj. . .,a c-ii. ,;w/...,. c. ,./ o.iubaed o.... -oesA orlcf ied^ bodaoggys si ^i ,eiol8i9rIT ,b'is9\r lol awnxdnoo anivitrtedab oj> noi^JesJt^esvni: hb noawSacf 8bra;'l 3iX8 rJ^iH. (a) ^ \\ \ \ \ \ \ V \ li \ o O \ Q M (OH- oo I \ \ cop, t-J CDCQ • O g' o t-' cp ■^ o s CD t?a o 3 I (1) 3 <:+ •t) P o 11 Tl «< j:: i-» 03 P o c+ t^- H- o O o 3 !-• ca < H- e+ © (0 I o o CO o o o CQ o o c c •-< tr C fcr- •-< «< '•^ c I 5 > I-l SECTION I The Distribution of Public Funds in Support of Different Types of Schools It Is recognized that the several types of educational institutions included among those receiving public support do not constitute a unit-system, and that aggregate or unit costs ^ are not in themselves significant m.easures of the extent to vvhich the several types of schools are adequately supported. The great majority of public higher institutions are under state control and derive their principal support from legislative appropriations and specific assessment upon the resources of the state as a v/hole. Elementary and high schools are largely under the con- trol of lesser political units and receive approximately 80 per cent, of their revenue from local taxation. Moreover, the schools of different type and grade are designed and equipped to accommodate different population groups and to provide different types of training. The analysis here presented is therefore not interpreted as indicating that one phase of publicly support- ed education is more costly than it should be, or that any other phase is not adequately provided for. It is hoped, however, that the facts determined may provide a somewhat more definite basis than has heretofore obtained for the consideration of ques- tions constantly arising in connection with the increasing demands upon the Dublic purse made by the principal types of publicly supported schools. Prom this point of view it is appropriate to consider together the proportion of public funds going to the different levels of the common school system, comprising the public elementary and high schools, and the distribution of such funds among different types of higher institutions. So far as the division of funds between the common schools and institutions of higher learning is concerned, the problem is simplified by the separate accounting naturally re- sulting from the fact that these are almost entirely under dif- ferent units of control. There are a few municipal colleges or universities and a number of city normal schools deriving their support from the same taxation unit and being under the same administrative management as the public schools of the cities supporting them, but they are usually maintained by separate funds and their expenditures are separately reported. There is, however, no such distinct differentiation in accounting for the expenditures involved in carrying on the work of the elementary and that of the high school grades of the common school system, nor in indicating the relative cost of academic and other types of training on the college level. It is there- fore necessary to estimate such division on the basis of data supplied by either the individual schools or by agencies engaged in assembling facts concerning these schools, such as the state departments of education or the United States Bureau of Education. For the purposes of a general survey of the school systems of the various states, the data included in the statis- tical reports of the United States Bureau of Education are the most serviceable. As regards the state common school systems, these reports are based upon information supplied by the state superintendent of public instruction or other principal school officer for the state reporting. In view of the fact that the state officers exercise a measure of control in the matter of recording and reporting school statistics, and since the reports to the Bureau of Education are made on uniform blanks by persons I T'lOiToag •i BbmfZ otldtfi 1o noi:tycfti*8i i.^!.oK-tG9x;f)S lo Bsq^^ Xsiev- v-foa Ob :^ioqi7ifr otlduq gntvisodi &aoiiJ giiome oeujjioju anocasjd cjaui 3-T~ -iiro') •f.'''"j to 9^ic?3©rf.'nnr rfrri.:f i>ns .mecfs^e-cJ tiiw 3 yiti/ditfefiOo £'- ' -re orfi lo ^neoilingie cevIeBm.arlct ni cton '.rftoqqjje \i . jb ©Tre aXoorioe Jo aeq^cf Isiovee lOiJi-oa jdiiCie •iQbctu ate aauiswdictsfii tsrigtrC DiXdijq lo y^^'^^I.^'" ^acirfeftqoiqqa avirfBlsJrasX moil i'loqqifE iBqionitq tiierfrf svrtob ona n E-? 3;»e::f8 9rfrf lo eeoiuonet 'srli noqi; c^nomaBsaes oill3.;)q8 bnja -rtoo SiLi tobrxif ^lagteX bib aXoorloa si'std .bns ^tiscfnscislcl ."sXodv; tsq 08 yXad-omrxonqqe ©viooet bnB Bitcm iBotdtloq toesaX lo Xotd ©rfiJ ,ts»vo3toM .noi;Jaxe:i XsooX motl ei/nevat tiorli^ lo .rfnso Qi bsoqxwpo bns b&agreob ate sjbota bne eqvjrf cJnotellit) lo eXocxioB inetoll ib &bivotq oif fins aqfiota aoh^Bluqoq dnetellifo ecfisbonmiooos OTOlotarfS 3i faocfnaaoiq 019x1 eXSYXfinfi sriT .sninxotct lo ssqyJ* -;JtO(-;qij? YXoiXo'/w Jo osexfq ono cterfct anJtctaoibnX bs bsd'Stqioinl: ;Jofi t9;ido ^jn? dfi/l:t to , 9Cf ftXiJOris SI nsrfd ^jXcfeoo atom ai noiieowba 5© ,'i3vewo£f ,b9qo.ri: ef il ,iol bebivota YX^^Sifpabs don si ssarfq 'Jdfnllafo 9ton ctHriwsfnos a abivotq y^Bm foanimtsdsb edofil e-rf* isd^ -?9f'r lo .r!?.^1r;t3b.t8noo arfct tol bon^eido stolorfetori scrl nsirf eised •;)nf s/ict d:tiw noi:Soennoo at ^nlsita \;I;^nsc}erxoo enoirf •> BdcivJ Xsqtonitq orfd ^cf ebera aatuq oiXcfuq arf^ noqw cj '-J.-vric:Oi .;.;5£j et ^t v/oiv lo cJnJEoa slrfcf mot'< .aXoorfos borftoqqirs £.a;i o::t fl-'uoi^ Bbnwl olXcfwq lo noidtoqotq orfd toA'd'Ssocf tobisaoo Slid rjnieitqmoD ,ra9d8^;s Xoorfoa nommoo srid lo aXoveX cfrcotellib xfDi/B lo noldwcfitdaib arid bne (eXoodoe rigirl bns ^tsdn9frf3.''n oj.r-!.rf-r .^^aoicfjjrfi^eni: terfsi-ri lo aeq^rf dnoielllb gf nofnaioo arid neswdacf abnwl lo noietvib erld 3fi t^'*^ erld ,b9nt3onoo ei s^^i^i^t^Qi nsrlgtd lo ertoidjJdidB' -9t ^XXBii/^an Snidfti/oooe sdetsqaa arid ^d b&tlr r moXooiq -l.^b '^''•bnii v;X3tidne daomXs a'je saarid darfd dosl :il anxrfXi/s "f- 5 iBqioictum wol s eta sterlT .Xotdnoo io odinw dne-xsl "' Jviteb aXoorioe Xsmtoa ^^io ^o ledmwn e fons asidxetevtn.a 3i»-ia wild tobnxf grti^q bna dinw noidsxed srase edd mot! dtoaqj^a Bsidjto arid lo eXborfoe oXXdirq arid ae dfiewroaansin evjCdQtdexni.-nba eiatnaofi vd bsniadniem ^jXXaway sie ^jerid dwri ^irorid ynidtooqwa .fo^dto-r-,-"! Tyrsd-tc-ts?: 3t." rr-ir.'d ^Fi^r^r■r^ ^Jion'd bna sbax/l tit f/ordaidae.v .a.IT iftow Qrfd no AiHi .^;i-icf> iix Dwvlovni eoiijdrbuoaxw erij tol gnxdawo^os orrfrrroft erfd lo Bsbsti^ XoorioE rijjirf 9rid lo derid bna T^tednemeXa erfd lo lo deoo svidaX&t ^di anidaoifoni at ton ^made^a Xoorfoa ^I . IsvsX 9S6lXoo 9rid no i^fffrriatd lo eeq^d lerido bne '^fd^ no noiaivib rfoi/s ed^fnidee od \fta8a9oe)n atol '^^' v:cf to eXoorioa leubtvlbnt orid teridjca ^J b \tr--qi/E £■: aji;a ,aXoori3B eearid Tsniat^onoo edDcl grri • li usoxwa aedRdS bed inTJ o-f.-' to c:':\icnv'-j'3 lo r: ^ .:'b XoorioB erid lo '^avti/e Xetsneg a -sidada arid nt bobs^itont o&Bb f:)iii ,8ivdodB d^/Oiinv e-iid lo aoi9da\js add ote rrnMR'^i'b'^r lo uRotw? aDdfide bodiaU arid lo pdtcet r-toid - -Tioo edads arid -r^^to^et aA .aXcl ■ cm ;xfR noJrdsratolni cfoqx; bsae'-^ ^"'a :'!d , rorido to noJtdowtdani otldy ^a 'i tfl vi;dJtv nl ..^nidtoqat e . io ■ '• 'Jjr'.-j:.' j:ij nJt xotdfiOD lo Q'wr.oom a enioto'^^ia siooiilo lidada cdtoqst 9rfd aoajta b«fi ,3'>idp!-dpdf! foorioe n^r / •♦"jo^-r'^f iSrr? T^pfibtooe^t anoataq ^{d BiTffeXd sa*tQ%l' 1-2 familiar with the systems for which they are reporting, it is believed that the returns so assembled are better adapted to the purposes of this study than the separate reports of the state departments, were these readily available. Separate studies of public high schools, city school systems, normal schools, and state colleges and universities are also made by the Bureau, the facts assembled being reported directly to the Bureau by some officer of the system or institu- tion concerned. These reports suffer the disadvantage of being incomplete from, year to year since the Bureau has no authority to require that reports be made. Also, they are subject to the errors common to all reports which involve interpretation as well as the recording and reporting of facts by a number of dif- ferent Individuals. So far as the common schools are concerned the specific problem of this study is that of determining the division of public funds between the schools of elementary and of high school grade. While certain summaries regarding expenditures for state school systems in 1920, have been announced by the Bureau of Education, the latest available detailed report is for the school year ending June 30, 1918. Although the totals repre- senting expenditures for different educational activities in 1918, will doubtless be somewhat at variance from, corresponding figures for later years, the procedure in determining the dis- tributions here reported can be indicated only by reference to the detailed reports, hence the material included in the present section relates to educational expenditures in 1918, for the several types of schools considered. Similar results for 1920, are included in the tables presented in Section II. There is in general no separate accounting of expendi- tures for all phases of the administration of the elementary as distinguished from the high school grades of the common school system. In many city school systems and in a few state systems the effort is made to classify expenditures insofar as these m.ay be allocated to the two units separately. But in school organi- zations comprising both elementary and high school units economy itself requires that certain functions of administration be per- formed for both by a single agency, so that an absolutely separ- ate accounting exists only where the two units are under separate control. To determine with any degree of accuracy the relative cost of high and of elementary schools for even those states that distinguish as far as possible between these expenditures involves the assumption of some reasonably valid basis of apportionment of the undistributed items of expense within these systems. A fairly reliable estimate for the country as a whole may thus be derived from reports of a representative group of states. In Bulletin of the Bureau of Education, No. 19, 1920, it is noted {p. 73) that the reports for the common school systems of Arizona, California, Connecticut, District of Columbia, Louisiana, Maine, Utah, Vermont, and West Virginia present for 1918, a reasonably reliable separation of expenditures between elementary and high schools for all the principal functions of expense excepting general control ( overhead) , and interest on indebtedness*. It is also noted that these nine systems enrolled in that year approximately 10 per cent, of all the pupils in the public schools of the country, and expended an amount slightly above 10 per cent, of the total expenditures of all state systems, The average length of the school term is shown to be exactly the same as that for the United States as a vifhole. Apparently these systems constitute a reliable sample of the entire group, and estimates based upon their reports may be regarded as reasonably representative of similar items in general. :> oi Bbsm ex ^tio*:. • 3 S nolir .-SSI c ^eIQl 1-3 Assuming that the expenditures by these nine systems for general control and interest on indebtedness, am.ounting to a little more than 4 per cent, of their total expenditures, may be divided between elementary and high school costs on a per pupil basis, it is found that the cost of high school education per pupil enrolled was |84.49. The number of pupils enrolled in the high schools of all the states in 1918, was 1,933,821. On this basis, the total cost of high schools in the United States for that year was #163,388, 536, representing a little more than 21 per cent, of the cost of all state common school systems, report- ed as $763,678,089. In view of the close organic relationship between elementary and high schools it is obvious that certain items of school expense are much more readily classified as charges against elementary or high school administration within a given system than are other items. Especially is this true in the case of the large number of village school systems in virhich elementary and high school grades are housed in a single building. Of the principal classes of expenditures, the cost of instruction, in- cluding the items of teachers' salaries, supervision, materials employed in class room, v/ork, etc., is most readily divided be- tween the higher and lower grades. Inspection of reports of a number of different school systems indicates that there is a somewhat definite relationship existing betv/een instruction costs and total costs for elementary and high school units. The following analysis of such expendi- tures in the nine state systems referred to shov\fs the definite- ness of this relationship where a number of schools are considered. The total expenditures in the 9 states in 1918, amount- ed to $76,940,194. Of this amount, $3,165,741 was expended for general control and interest payments, leaving $73,774,453 which could be distributed between elementary and high schools. As thus distributed, the amount spent for elementary schools v;as $53,938,435. Since 88.2 per cent, of all pupils were enrolled in the elementary schools, this percentage of the undistributed costs is to be added to the distributed elementary school costs, giving a total cost of elementary schools of $56,730,618. This represents 74.08 per cent, of the total expenditures for both elementary and high schools. The total cost of the item of in- struction was $48,181,684. The cost of instruction in the ele- mentary schools alone was $35,714,450, virhich is 74.10 per cent, of the total amount expended for this item. Thus it is seen that total costs divide themselves between elementary and high schools in approximately the same ratio as the expenditures for the single item of instruction. Assuming that the same relationship holds for state school systems in general, such division for the United States as a whole may be determined by a similar analysis of instruction costs in the two types of schools. Thus, it is found that 78.6 per cent, of such costs was devoted to elementary schools. On this basis it Is computed that the total cost of elementary schools in 1918 was $600,250,978, the cost of high schools being thus determined as $163,427,111. It will be recalled that the total cost of high schools as determined by a per pupil cost estimate was $163,388,536. Since the two methods give approxi- mately the same result, it is believed that the amounts stated represent a reasonably accurate estimate of the division of funds between elem.entary and high schools for the United States as a Tifhole, 1-4 Determining the division of funds among the different types of institutions above high school grade involves the defi- nition or classification of the institutions considered in terms of the curricula they maintain. The principal classes of higher schools supported by state or other public funds are the univer-^ sities, agricultural and mechanical colleges, and normal schools. There are in addition a relatively small number of special schools, such as the New York State Library School, Virginia Military Academy, Lowell, (Mass.) Textile School, Mississippi College for Women, and Virginia Medical College. Among the normal schools, Uw types are found, Txiose virhose curricula include four year s work above high school gi^ade, and those offering from one to three years of advanced work. Some of those included in the former group have come to be recognized as schools of college rank, and are now usually termed teachers' colleges. For the purposes of the present classification these teachers' colleges are included with the college group, other normal schools constituting a separate division. The distinction between universities and technical schools is rather clearly drawn so far as separate institutions are concerned. Of forty-six universities receiving a large measure of public support in 1918, thirty-eight are institutions established as state universities, two, Miami University and Ohio University, are separate state institutions including colleges of education; one, Cornell, is a private institution receiving appropriations from the state and the federal government; another, Howard University, Is maintained by the federal government for colored students, and five are municipal universities. The largest single group of institutions which are clearly technical schools are the agricultural and mechanical colleges originally ^ endowed by federal land grants and supported in part by appropria- tions authorized by Congress. Some of these land grant colleges are incorporated with the state universities, thereby falling v/ithin the university group. Up to 1905, the reports of the^ United States Commissioner of Education included a separate list of technological schools. As a basis of classification of the institutions included in the 1918 reports, this list as presented in the report for 1905, was used. Inasmuch as this study is concerned with the distribu- tion of public funds among the different types of institutions receiving such support, all institutions not under public control but supported in part by appropriations from public funds were classified on the basis of the amount of public money received. It was found that a number of institutions receive contributions from public sources, and that the aggregate amount is considerable. However, the list includes a great many independent colleges re- ceiving only small contributions of this type. Reference to earlier reports -showed that these contributions vary in amount from year to year and in many Instances are not made regularly. Except for a small percentage of the total, the public funds contributed to privately controlled institutions go to a relative- ly small number of schools. It was therefore decided to include with publicly controlled institutions those private institutions which in 1918 received from public sources as much as 20 per cent, of their income exclusive of funds for increase of permanent en- dowment and receipts from fees for non- educational services. This list included St.' John's College and ¥/ashington College in Mary- land, Jefferson Medical College in Pennsylvania, Milligan College in Tennessee, and Mlddlebury College in Vermont, classified as colleges; Worcester (Mass.) Polytechnic Institute; and four universities, Norwich University of Vermont, The University of Pittsburg, the University of Pennsylvania, and Temple University i::. P.iilauelo-Ji. . . J (JiiO ' ^ \'f^ b •fJ.f /■ 5 ^ if '': 'to ife ,ct' 1-5 The list of schools as finally classified as a basis for deter- mining the division of funds between the three types is here shown. The normal schools are not listed for the reason that they are clearly distinguished from schools included in the other groups , CLASSIFIED LIST OP COLLEGES, UNIVERSITIES, and TECHNICAL S CHOOLS UNIVERSITIES University of Alabama University of Arizona University of Arkansas University of California University of Colorado Howard University University of Florida University of Georgia University of Idaho University of Illinois University of Indiana State University of Iowa University of Kansas University of Kentucky Louisiana State University University of Maine University of Michigan University of Minnesota University of Missouri University of Montana University of Nebraska University of Nebraska University of New Mexico Cornell University of North Carolina University of North Dakota Ohio University Miami University Ohio State University University of Oklahoma University of Oregon University of South Carolina University of South Dakota University of Tennessee University of Texas University of Utah University of Vermont University of Virginia University of Washington West Virginia University University of Wisconsin University of Vi/yoraing Temple University University of Pennsylvania University of Pittsburgh Norwich University University of Louisville University of Akron University of Cincinnati Toledo University (a) Nov/ the University of Maryland TECHNICAL SCHOOLS Alabama Polytechnic Institute Alabama Girl's Technical Inst. Colorado Agricultural College Colorado School of Mines Connecticut Agricultural College Delaware College Georgia School of Technology North Georgia Agricultural College Idaho Technical Institute Purdue Iowa State College of Agriculture and Mechanic Arts Kansas State Agricultural College United States Naval Academy Maryland State College of Agri- culture (a) Massachusetts Agricultural College Massachusetts Institute of Tech- nology Lowell Textile School Worcester Polytechnic Institute Michigan Agricultural College Michigan College of Mines Mississippi Agricultural and Mechan- ical College Montana State College of Agricul- ture and Mechanic Arts Montana School of Mines New Hampshire College of Agricul- ture and Mechanic Arts Rutgers New Mexico School of Mines New Mexico College of Agriculture and Mechanic Arts New York State College of Forestry North Carolina College of Agricul- ture and Engineering North Dakota Agricultural College Oklahoma Agricultural and Mechani- cal College Oregon Agricultural College Pennsylvania State College Rhode Island State College Military College of South Carolina South Dakota State College of Agri- culture and Mechanic Arts Agricultural and Mechanical College of Texas Texas College of Industrial Arts Agricultural College of Utah United States Military Academy Virginia Polytechnic Institute Virginia Military Institute Washington State College '3:^/- -.i ."i .,. 'JJOO -^O TBI J TOOHDP TAO. S3:.T'rT3??:7V].i-. ■T ;i i li'-:i r,i",7:2d>.vlrt "'BO A liiVi?^! 9i:niol:iXaO obc^oXoO . t .f*? "^o v;( r!S*f^v ff;^ ;.i "^ :-5 \r f fJfi ,8X0!" /-fi SO 10 1 Ivoiq lo vi3lv to ;trtxoq 9rl;* mcsl baisbf-saoD si Bloorfos lo "f XrS bC'bT'^tB ."•r. f :?•,-;., ,;t. TO oqo XenoictCDufos oriS -gaibneiKQ io t lo &•* iw Ij/l:^d0ob si: :ti: ,noi:^sn 9r[;J lo sol (Tfoil seoiij ife/iBiirf 10 . ;"fSl ai . 71 0'-^:} "iCT . •t . T lo ijcreasisafl ^rf^J »9Xqin/?x8 lo'' •> JTioil soi;- obivonq se ■^ni: Xe;torf ....:: ./uTr.:.. .-i;;. : HB&Qnonl lol e . ^.od ae ,880i:v't9a i -^- ,q ,3991 morel b^vtieb eetitBtevltw ■^. -- <3virtsj lo jiiow lol eexiJiXio^l aiasom ^ucf ebivorrq bXwow ^.ocra -.c icmomB rfox/s 1£ ctJuS .P(Toi:f«di:»gni o^BiBq^B 8^ nt ©bsntg 00 virteeasoan 'Srfct le^ls j:-.noi:djj:Jxrfarfi: aasrfcf gnoins .boiti/cfiii' '--)■ -lo'^ bsbivo'iq ^jX&.niisX a-^a .toi'^tDiJi^itani bna noictB't9qo 'Ol G3iitms:i'f.oqqo &di ,Gbnwl otlduq :^to^l anoxct :"-;■-)■*'■■'- -v'.f xXiw isllo nsa saoi^isjicisai eaed^ tioq Qdi cfsrfiJ ,t©vos^ojn , awoivcfo ^t . .^ ,_- . rcoil bsviteb ei rfoiriw Enoirfjjcf i^arri «i/l Xjoqigniiq Qdi rferfrf ;tocl 3ri:t lo iluedi arict ' ! .:;-''^i' -^'■>l fjebivoTcq «ye^ ^^r,,.- -.-..Tfo .H'Y^^^n i ocf beiiofltiJrf ' ...-■.. . ^.^ ^ .eaoiifoe s' ... .. v,...^;i ■cm il jbrawl oiXc Xcrfocf srlrf ,.!.•* lo xobni oxanoo aXoorfoc •■-fiisva sbrtwl ':i raoil ?ne loorioB itri; .'013 ax fief iij. xrfcJ^ no sXoorfoa Xeoxnr — .a©3iwoo iBoinno^i ax .■.....■. X-ieXi/gsi XX/s lo ^inso -xsq oe da-'si ••■ -:i sno ni bsocXq eiB assiiifoo Xso lo noldaoiliaasXo a/ii nX rt^J/ooo .. ioni aXoorfoa en-' i--' -r -i^r Xeitocf IS Xeolrtxioed- XenxaXio sricf lol oct ©ri;t 1-7 Table I. Distribution of total funds and funds derived from public sources among dif- ferent types of schools, 1918. (a) (Totals in millions of dollars.) income income from public sources Elementary schools High Schools Universities Technological schools Normal schools Colleges Totals to^-al per-cent total per-cent 600 70.54 536 71.62 163 19.11 146 19.51 45 5.04 30 4.01 25 2.69 is 2.40 21 2,46 16 2.14 3 .35 2. 4 .52 855 748. 4 Siiramarlzing the findings for the two classes of schools considered, the state common school systems and publicly supported higher institutions, it is found that a total of 855 million dol- lars was expended in 1913 in support of educational training of the types specified. Of this amount, approximately 90 per cent. viras expended in support of elementary and high schools. Of the total thus expended, 765 million dollars, 21.4 per cent, went to the support of high schools. Universities and technical schools reported a total income of 66 million dollars, 48 million being derived from public sources. The public funds were divided be- tween the two classes of schools in the ratio of 5 to 5, the uni- versities receiving the larger portion. The normal schools com* prise the largest group of higher institutions and reported a total income only about 10 per cent, less than that of the technical schools. The colleges comprise the smallest group and their ex* penditures amounted to only about one- third of one per cent, of the total reported for the six types of schools considered. T-^.ble I shows the amount and the percentage of the total which was em- ployed in maintaining each of these six classes Of schodls. The following section will indicate the manner in which these distri- butions have varied during the period from 19i0 to 1980. (a) Prom data of Bureau of Education Bulletins and Nos. 11, 19, and 54, 1920. No. 81, 1919, II- 1 SECTION II. Tendencies in the Distribution of Funds Among Different Types of Schools from 1910 to 1920. In undertaking to determine the proportionate amounts of money expended from year to year by the several classes of schools supported by public funds, the limitations of the reports upon vv'hich estimates may be taa -ed must be taken into account. Except for the year 1912, the only data assembled by the Bureau of Educa- tion concerning high schools alone prior to 1918 were, included in reports made directly by officers of these institutions or of the local school systems to which they belonged. That is, there were no separate high school reports returned by state school officers. Since the Bureau cannot demand reports of persons In charge of high schools, the statistics prior to 1918 are not com- plete for any given year except 1912, when reports were received from state departments. Thus it is certain that the total enroll- ment in public high schools in each of the other earlier years was somewhat In excess of the figure reported by the Bureau. As regards expenditures, there was no attempt in these earlier years to secure classified statements for all high schools for the reason that accounts were not so kept for the majority of such schools. However, a statement of the amount of money avail- able for meeting the expenses of high school training was requested each year from thes"e school systems that were prepared to make such reports. These reports were examined in connection with other data concerning the same systems, and those reports comiiig from, systems In vifhich the high school items were clearly distinguished were considered separately. On the basis of these returns, the cost per pupil erjr'olled in this group of high schools was deter- mined. Since the number and distribution of such schools usually appeared to make the group fairly representative of high schools in general, it was assumed that this per pupil cost multiplied by the number of pupils in all high schools gave a reasonably reliable estimate of the total cost of maintaining all high schools. Except for the fact that the enrollment figure reported was certainly less than the actual total, the estimate was probably as accurate as could be made from any available Information for those years 4 It happens that in 1918 ■ returns were made for high schools both by officers in charge of individual schools and by state school officers. The total high school enrollment shown by- the individual reports was 1,645,171, while the state reports showed an enrollment of 1,933,821. The actual enrollment for this year is thus found to be 1,175 times the number enrolled in the schools for vi/hich reports were made directly to the Bureau. While it is not possible to determine the exact amount of discrepancy in these reports concerning high school enrollment for the years prior to 1918, it is probable that the high schools reporting from year to year constituted a fairly constant percent- age of the total number in operation. It seems, therefore, that the most reliable estimate of the total high school enrollment which can be made for these years is to be found by multiplying the reported enrollment for each year by the constant 1.175. The estimated total cost of high schools as shown in Table II for the years 1910, 1914, and 1916, was determined for each year by multi- plying this corrected enrollment figure by the per pupil cost calculated for those schools submitting adequate reports. In the case of 1912, the enrollment reported by the state departments was q jTon II-2 used. The cost of elementary schools for each of these years is found by deducting the computed cost of high schools from the total cost of common school systems as shown by the state reports The total cost of common scho $1,036,151,209. An examination of the 1920 reports (now in press) was made at of Education, but no adequate basis of total between elementary and high schoo In the report relating to high schools the cost per pupil in high school was 2 elementary school pupil. (a) In the sumed that this ratio obtained in 1920 of common schools is divided between el on this basis. ols in 1920 was detailed tables of the the office of the Bureau opportionment of this Is is shown for that year, in 1918, it is shown that ,67 times the cost per present study it is as- also, and the total cost ementary and high schools In determining the distribution of funds among the higher institutions receiving public support, the classification shown in Section I is followed, and the total income as there de- fined is considered rather than income from public sources alone. The list of schools is changed, however, by the omission of the ten schools not principally supported by public funds, but in- cluded as a means of securing a more complete accounting of the distribution of such funds for the year 1918. These schools are St. John's College, Washington College, Worcester Polytechnic Institute, University of Pittsburg^ Jefferson Medical College, Temple University, University of Pennsylvania, Milligan College, Middlebury College, and Norvjich University; also several normal schools had become teachers' colleges by 1920, thus transferring to the college group. On the basis of this classification the aggregate income of the institutions selected was distributed in alternate years from 1910 to 1920, as shown in Table II, which includes similar data for elementary and high schools. The rela- tive rates of Increase for all except the college and normal school groups, v^rhich are affected by the reclassification of teachers' colleges, are shown in Figure 2, Table II, Distribution of funds among different types of schools, 1910 - 1920 Expenditures in millions of dollars 1910 1912 1914 1916 1918 1920 Elementary -~ ■ Schools 375 419 473 539 600 795 High Schools 51 64 82 102 163 240 Universities 22 25 30 33 40 58 Technical Schools 11 12 14 18 23 38 Normal Schools 12 12 16 18 21 18 Colleges * 7 ' 9 1. 8 2 2, 6 11 Totals 471. 7 532. 9 616, 8 712 849. 6 1160 (a) Statistics of Publi _c High Schools, 1917-18, Bureau of Education Bulletin No. 19, 1920, P. 77. •."rfo8 n .L-riJrx to -'•^'':trr.-fJt;fr:.\b 3d- ■q mo 'J 36 ,C gXooiloS :oo. 2-4a xa (D ft {>!> +a +3 C rH ■P m •H r»t tJ O , BB ^§ ^ O o X5 faO \ •st^ o o o o to O o Vi A 1 o O \.? t-1 <0 '-"' :-i

A <- t r- tc 1-1 H- O tr- Q 2 JiU' O XI O i-i- o 01 II-3 The tendencies in such distribution during the period considered are rather more clearly indicated by the percentage derivatives shovm in Table III. One of the striking facts indi- cated by these percentages is the decidedly constant ratio of the total amount expended in support of common school systems to the aggregate cost of all types of schools considered. In the six different years for which the distribution is shown the range of variation in percentage devoted to elementary and high schools together is not more than 1.5, the total amount devoted to the support of common schools representing approximately 90 per cent of all expenditures each year. The constant ratio here shown apparently signifies a somewhat definite relationship between the funds required for public educational activities on the two levels. However, this fact should be considered in connection with the distribution of funds among the types of schools comprising each group. The most significant tendency revealed by the percent- ages is the increase in the proportion of funds going to support high schools, and the corresponding decline in the percentage ex- pended for elementary schools. Table III. Percentage distribution of funds among different types of schools, 1910-1920. Percentage of total expenditures 1910 1912 1914 1 916 1918 1920 Elementary 79,50 78,63 75,69 75.70 70.62 68,53 Schools High Schools Universities Technical Schools Norma 1 Schools Colleges The relation of common school expenditures to total expenditures for all schools and the tendency of high schools to absorb a constantly increasing proportion of the amount de- voted to all common schools are indicated together in Figure 3. Here it is shovm that within the ten year period cov- ered by this study the high schools have more than doubled the percentage of common school funds required for their support, although the expenses of the higli schools and elementary schools together have increased relatively no more rapidly than expendi- tures for all publicly supported schools. The explanation of the more rapid increase of high school expenditures is in part revealed by the records of increase in enrollment, especially when the relative increase in the en~- rollment of the different high school grades is tol:en into con- sideration. Figure 4 shows clearly the tendency of high schools 10,81 12.01 13.29 14.32 19.18 20.69 4.66 4,69 4.86 4,63 4.71 5.00 2.33 2.25 2,27 2.53 2.71 3,27 2.54 2.25 2.59 2.53 2.47 1.55 .15 ,17 .29 .28 .31 .95 la 10'' 2-6a FIG 3. Percentage of total expenditures for public education devoted to common schools, and percentage of common school expenditures devoted to high schools, 1910 - 20. 1920 -^-^^^^-^\M 1////////////////////////^////////////////^^^^^ 1918 ;^<>\>>^^"-l r/////////y/////////////////y////////////^^^^ 1916 ^x%^^\^ //////////////////^/////////////////^^^^^^^ 1914 ^^^$^1 /////'V/////////v//y////////////y/////////^^^^^^^^^ 1912 #i:^^l '///////y////////y//////////////^^^^^^^ 1910 ^^#1 ''///// yyyyyyyyyyyyy/yy/ywyyyyy//y/yyyyy/yyyy/y''Z 'yyyy/yA NOTE: In the above chart two different comparisons are presented. The lowest bar indicates the total expenditures for public education in the types of schools here studied for the years specified, the total expenditures being taken as 100^ in each case. The second bar indicates the per- centage that the expenditures for elementary and high schools constitute of the total expenditure represented by the first bar. The third bar indicates in similar manner the percent- age of the total devoted to elementary and high schools together which goes to high schools alone. Thus it is shown that while elementary -and high schools together have received a practically constant proportion of the total of public appropriations, high schools have from year to year claimed an increasing percentage of the total amount avail- able for common schools. .G'^-;. -OS • OX(?I 8xex E eoTunbnfiqxo Xb^oc^ erti o9:t«oJ:i)fti t&d ^aewoX erfT .bs^tnesetq fjaibuiB Qierf BXoodOB lo eeqv,^ ®ri^ «X noLtaoifbe o.r.XdrjJq lol ne--fB^ .tinlacf 8»^;J^iJb^6qxe Ifiioi ©ri* ,iJeXl.tOc>qa ai^seY Qfi-* io'3: -left 0i-f+ a9.tj6oXfini tecT forsooos erIT ♦sajBO rloBS ni i^OOX ax? eloodoe rl-.M bna Y^^*it»!"-»Xe no'i eeitiJcMfensqxQ erf J *firti lagsctneo -inaoTAq fltri^ -tennfini tsllmlB at as^Bothni n&d bnidi erIT ."£-d nwo-"(c al ii BUrfT .©noXjs elooilos ri.'^Xd o;t Dsog doxiivi lari^? - evBcl i©ric^930J aXoorfoa d^ld brwo vtBinemeXe eXl.-iw i:.:.r lo fsio* edi lo noii'roqo'jq :tnfiianoo yXI/^ox^vOJStq a bevteosT tBsy oi ^J3©y moil evfiri eXoorfoe rC^jXrf ,^aoiif.X1qo^qqB oXXdun -.!i£ve int/ome Xa^oi &rtt to ei^eineoieq T^aXa-oeioni nfi fcecilx^Io , « rc-.nri.'-M- ,••:,-,. l-^•i"no 'liOt '^X'^'B 2-7 a ^ CD

s ja c o G4 8 10 II-4 to carry an increasing proportion of the enrolled pupils through the secondary school course. From the data of Table III it is obvious that the bulk of public appropriations for education must continue to go to the common schools. In the effort to plan for adequate provi- sion for the school needs of elementary and high school pupils it is a common practice of local boards of education to estimate the requisite budget of the approaching years in terms of such known facts as will likely have some bearing upon the amount of money needed. For the country as a whole, or for a given state school system, the details of school requirements in individual communities are obscured, so that an estimate of future costs cannot take into account many of the specific factors that con- tribute to the total actual cost of the system. The two factors which determine actual costs and which can be ascertained with reasonable accuracy for any period for which records are avail- able are the number of pupils and the cost per pupil. It is not alvi/ays possible to determine the actual cost per pupil in elementary and high school sepf.rately- In fact, v/here the two units are under one administration, the per pupil cost figure is in part an estimate even for a single city. On the basis of such facts as could be determined, estimates of per pupil costs in elementary and high schools are frequently made for various administrative units. In Table II such estimates are presented for the United States. The reports of the State Superintendent of Public Instruction for Illinois include separate estimates for high schools v/hich are based up- on reports made by the officers of all districts maintaining high schools. Using the data of Table II for the United States and the superintendent's reports for Illinois, since 1912, an attempt has been made to estimate the probable cost of the common schools for each of these two units in 1923, In Figures 5 and 6 are shown the curve which repre- sents the cost of the common school system for a period of years in the United States and Illinois, respectively. This portion of the curve is the solid line extending to 1920. The dotted line of projection merely extends to the point on the scale which represents the probable cost in 1925, in each case, and does not indicate the estimated cost at intermediate dates be- tween 1920 and 1925. The point on the scale v/hich represents the estimated cost for 1925;^ has been determined by constructing for elementary and high schools separately that trend line which represents the product of per pupil cost and enrollment for the period for which records were available. These lines projected to cover the period to 1925 indicate the total cost of the elementary and high school units separately ot that year. The sura of these amounts is taken as the total cost for the com- mon school system, and the appropriate point is indicated on the scale. Thus, for Illinois, it is estimated that the probable cost of high schools in 1925 will be $24,500,000. The cost of elementary schools is found to be |60,700,000, The to- tal approximately ^85,200,000, is indicated in Figure 6 as a projection of the curve of common school costs. For the United States the estimated cost of elementary and high schools in 1925 is $1,315,000,000. If the ratio indicated in Figure 3 con- tinues as for the past ten years, the estimate here presented indicates that the total cost in 1925 of the types of publicly supported schools considered in this study will be approximate- ly |l, 500,000,000, ;> ©fl;f ] L^. 1 inola ] -'I'x ©rid J cmonsL \ ■x&q ^203 sriiJ hao zllquq 1c i--l i-'i .vd^io Ql^nia x: loi r ioq n± ai ) ;:iL! 3rtJ lo*? t'-. iB '■ a OS Set i.!"^ Jo ■•■ . * lO : ■■■'■' ;■_ ^-'iiinJ: j iti i 9ri:t ai 'ip ai ^o-c--^i lis : ' - ■ w orfi 9; -i. oi i- . ;-^'X- . '.1 '1 ' n-evoo QS ■:q i •Vo i .:a .trt '1 ■3X1 J :::-J ., 0ff:t i. .-if : 2-9a Millions Dollars 1350 IBOO 1050 900 750 600 450 300 150 .,315,000,000 y / X 1910 1912 1914 1916 1918 1920 1922 1924 193 FIG* 5 - Projection of curve of common school costs in the United States to indicate probable cost in 1925. 00Ct000,ex5tX$ esQx i-sei sati OQ- ■Lfei i^ 1 •:; b''< -' rrui 2-9b ars ^85,200,000 1912 1914 1916 1918 1920 1922 1924 1925 FIG 6. Projection of curve of common school costs in Illinois to indicate probable cost in 1925= Q.r^P/ ^S-?! ^iP.t SI' ,;.,. ..,c,.;,..:o- --- - -^ ^ V '■■■' noiioefo 1591 ni ^Qoo ©Ideooiq e*iJOXl III-l SECTION III The Cost per Student in Different Types of Schools The significance of per capita cost figures for schools or school systems of different type depends upon the bases on which the cost figures are computed « If it is desired to com- pare the cost per student for a specified type of training in a selected group of institutions, care must be taken to select only the items of expense that contribute to the cost of such training in each institution considered. If the institutions are of similar type it may be possible to secure data which will yield unit cost figures for the several institutions that are more or less precisely comparable. If the institutions are of different type, it is likely that comparisons will have to be made on a somewhat less refined basis. Vi/hen comparisons are proposed which involve various types of training in different types of schools and school systems, it is obvious that the general aspects of the units are to be dealt with. The present study is concerned v/ith the cost of publicly supported educational training in general, rather than v;ith such specific comparisons as might be of inter- est in considerations relating to administrative policy, curricu- lum readjustments, etc. The classes of schools specified in Section I of this report include two general groups, the common schools, comprising the elementary and high schools, and the higher institutions. It is evident that the cost per student of m_aintaining these two classes of schools can indicate only the relative expense of pro- viding two different types of training, and will signify nothing v\:ith respect to economy or extravagance in the administration of the two classes of institutions which provide this training. Similarly, the per cqj ita cost figures for the tm^o divisions of the common school system and for the different types of higher institutions here presented are not regarded as in any sense a valid basis of comparison of the efficiency of the institutions or of the value of the training offered. As a matter of general interest, the cost per student in the common schools of certain states and cities are included in this section, but it is recognized that there are restrictions upon the inferences that may be drawn „ For example, it is shown in Table Vl that the cost per pupil in average daily attendance for the current expenses of the public schools of Minneapolis in 1919-20, was about $100, In certain other cities the like cost is less than half that amount. While there is no denying the fact that variations of this degree imply a distinctly more ade- quate provision for effective teaching of the children of the one city, the contrast may or may not be as great as the per pupil cost figures would suggest. There are such variations in the plan of organization and the administrative policy of different city school systems and in the relations existing between the schools and other municipal institutions, that cost figures often apply to widely different situations in different city systems. For example, elaborate provisions are made by some city school systems for health work and recreation. In other cities these are rather largely cared for by other divisions or institutions of the municipality. It is clear that the cost per pupil for the current expenses of the schools will not be on a comparable III-2 basis in the tv/o cases. It sometimes happens that such compari- son between different years for the same system will be affected by a change in administrative policy of the schools, as when last year the Chicago city schools were called upon to take over ^ the administration of certain recreational activities, thus adding several hundred thousands of dollars to the expenses of the school system. Vifhen the higher institutions that are largely supported by public funds are classified as in Section I, it is found that the income of the university group in 1920 was approximately 56 million dollars. On the basis of the number of pupils enrolled during the regular school year in the same institutions, the amount available per student was $451,90. if the income of these institutions which come from public sources alone is con- sidered, the amount per student was |293.97. For the group of technical schools, the corresponding amounts per student were ;;j)695.39 and 1^400.18. In 1919 only three of the state normal schools were ^^^ reported on separately as teachers' colleges. The 1920 report lists 45 such institutions. Since these constitute a much^larg- er group than the colleges, the classification given in Secion I is not followed here, but the teachers' colleges are considered separately. Omitting the teachers' colleges, the cost per stu- dent in the seven colleges included in that list was $414.81. The 45 teachers' colleges reporting in 1920 are dis- tributed among twenty states. Since all of these institutions have summer sessions of somewhat uniform length, the tot^l enroll- ment for the year is employed in determing the cost per student. On this basis, the income of these institutions in 1920 was iil41.11 per student. The amount received from public sources was ^119.06. In 135 state normal schools, not classified as teachers' colleges, the income per student enrolled was $173.25, while the amount received from public funds was §155.36 per stu- dent. The income per student of the several types of higher institutions on the basis of both total income and the amount received from public sources is shown in Table IV. The cost per student in teachers' colleges for the six states reporting 3 or more such institutions is shovm in Table IV-a. Table IV. Income per student enrolled in different types of higher insti- tutions, 1920. Income per Student Total Income Public Funds Universities Technical schools Colleges Teachers ' Colleges Normal schools- $451.90 695.39 414.81 141.11 173.26 1293.97 400.18 339.27 119.06 155.35 (a) Statistics of Teachers ' Colleges and Normal Schools , Bureau of Education Bulletin Wo. 8, 1922. FIG. 7. Amount of income from public source per student enrolled in different types of higher institutions, 1920. Technical Schools Colleges [ Universities Normal Schools Teachers' Colleges c 100 200 300 400 00-t> leoxmioeT levifiU •asilcO III-3 The difference in the amounts shovm foi' teachers' col- leges and for state normal schools, both of which are engaged in the same type pf v/ork, is probably accounted for by the fact that the latter group includes a number of comparatively small insti- tutions in which the cost per student is relatively high. The teachers' colleges in general are among the larger and better equipped teacher training institutions, and the lower per capita cost results from the assembling of larger groups of students. Table IV-a, Income per student of the teachers' colleges of certain states, 1920, States income pe^ student Missouri $178 ♦bS Michigan 158.02 Nebraska 142.09 Texas 138,74 Kansas 129,61 Illinois ^ 79.41 Imthe United States as a whole the cost per pupil in average daily attendance in the public schools in 1920 was $54.16. This is an increase of |23,73 per pupil since 1915, The cost of public schools per inhabitant of the United States was $9,80 in 1920, an increase of $3,77 per inhabitant since 1915, The variation in the cost per student or the cost per inhabitant of maintaining the public school systems of the different states is striking. In 1918 the cost per pupil enrolled for current expenses varied from $59.61 in Montana to $7,89 in Mississippi. Even a selected group of states representing a single geographi- cal division and fairly comparable in other respects reveal like variations, as is indicated by Table V. Table V. Expenditures in support of public schools by certain states in 1920. (a) expenditures for public schools State total per pupil per inhab . Illinois $71,212,070 $63.15 $10.96 Missouri (b) 35,168,763 48.53 10.33 Indiana 20,889,797 37,18 7.13 Michigan 47,004,620 70.79 12.81 Wisconsin 27,511,128 59.13 14.52 (a) Data from reports of state departments of education. (b) 1921. III-4 Variations of the type indicated between different state systems reveal rather more directly differences in the de- gree to which public schools are adequately supported than is the case when comparisons are made betvireen smaller school unito . The differences in state systems are generally more or less balanced by variations in the systems of the individual school districts. It maybe assumed therefore, that the schools of those states in which relatively small amounts per student are expended must suffer many disadvantages in comparison with those for whose pupils adequate sums are provided. The cost per pupil in city school systems shows strik- ing variations for cities of the same size, as well as between cities of different population groups. When a single city sys- tem is considered in relation to other cities, the total expendi- tures do not furnish as satisfactory a basis of comparison as the current expenses alone. This is due to the fact that expen- ditures for increasing the school plant and equipment vary from year to year to a much greater extent than do the current ex- penses which provide for the more regular activities of the schools. While allowance must be made for the differences in organization of the different city systems compared, per pupil costs on the basis of current expenses in a group of cities are significant as indicating tendencies. Where wide variations are observed, however, inferences v/ith regard to adequacy of school support should be made only in the light of detailed in- formation regarding the work the schools undertake to do. Table VI indicates the extent of variation to be found v/hen cities of different population groups are considered. If such variations are to be noted for elementary and high schools separately, further caution must be observed on account of the difficulty of dividing the expenditures of a given system betvi/een these two units. The cost per pupil for the expenses of instruction alone is probably the most satisfactory basis of comparison for the two types of schools in different systems . These are shown for a selected list of cities of different size in Table Vl-a . Table VI. Amount expended per pupil in average daily attendance for the current expenses of cer- tain city school systems, 1920. (a) population population over 100,000 50,000 to 100,000 cost per cost per city pupil city pupil Seattle, Wash. $106.07. Meriden, Conn. $167.41 Buffalo, N, Y. 103.74 Butte, Mont. 122.42 Minneapolis, Minn. 100.48 Pasadena, Calif. 110.61 Los Angeles, Calif. 96.24 Berkeley, Calif. 110.27 Cincinnati, Ohio 93.25 Des Moines, la . 104,03 Oakland, Calif. 92.16 Cedar Rapids, la . 94.77 St. Paul, Minn. 91,86 Sacramento, Calif, 94.55 Portland, Ore . 89.51 Boyonne, N. J. 92,79 Cleveland, Ohio 89,39 Fort Wyne, Ind . 88.89 Indianapolis, Ind. 87,94 Utica, N. Y. 88.51 Detroit, Mich. 86,60 Duluth, Minn. 80.12 Grand Rapids, Mich, 86.16 Wlteeling, W. Va. 79.09 Omaha, Nebr. 85.79 Springfield, 111. 77.42 Columbus , Ohio . 84.55 Canton, Ohio 76.60 Newark, N. J, 84.05 Salt Lake, Utah , 75.94 Spokane, Wash, 83.97 Tacoma, Wash. 75.17 Kansas City, Mo. 83.07 Akron, Ohio 74.22 Worcester, Mass. 80.36 Oshkosh, V/is . 70.09 (a) Data from Stat istics of City ■ School Systems, 1919^ -20. Bureau of Education Bulletin (in press) oig rro ^16 --.aTSYS iOOi'iOB OVv '-Is ;■ 'i £ j::J?IXwa no. III-5 Chicago, 111. ;if79.51 Rochester, N. Y. 78,84 Pittsburgh, Pa. 77.85 Philadelphia, Pa. 76.13 St. Louis, Mo. 76.09 Milwaukee, Wis. 75.74 Fall River, Mass. 75.43 Boston, Mass . 74. 7S Washington, D, G, 74,57 San Francisco, Calif. 74.07 Jersey City, N, J. 71.04 Denver, Colo. 70.75 Lowell, Mass. 69,93 New York, N. Y. 68,30 Paterson, N. J. 65.73 Providence, R.I. 63.51 Syracuse, K, Y. 62.93 Bridgeport, Conn. 62,52 Scranton, Pa. 58,18 Richmond, Va , 57.11 Louisville, Ky. 54.83 Nev/ Haven, Conn, 52.05 Atlanta, Ga . 51,58 New Orleans, La. 50.73 Baltimore, Md . 49.03 Birmingham, Ala. 37.12 Nashville, Tenn . 36.93 Kansas City, Kans Peoria, 111. Oklahoma , Okla . Manchester, N, H, pavif tucket, R, I, Topeka, Kans, New/ Britain, Conn Binghampton, N Calumet, Mich. Salem, Mar - Y, iss Altoona, Pa . Flint, Mich = Terre Haute, Ind, Wilkesbarre, Pa . San Antonio, Tex. Galveston, Tex, Decatur, 111, Covington, Ky. Lynn, Ma s s « El Paso, Tex. Little Rock, Ark. Springfield, Mo. Portsmouth, Va , Charlotte, N. C, Roanoke , Va . Montgomery, Ala. Savannah, Ga « $69.09 69.00 68.35 66.85 65.66 64.98 64 , 74 63.26 62.47 61.44 60.99 60.71 59.75 58.70 57.30 56.54 56.08 53,19 53.09 48.65 45.97 43 , 12 38.99 33.06 35.30 30.24 29.75 From the data of Table VI it is seen that Seattle ex- pended in 1933 nearly three times as much per pupil in average attendance as did Nashville, Among the 45 cites of from 30,000 to 100,000 inhabitants, the highest city in rank reported expenses amounting to nearly six times as much per pupil as the one lowest in rank. It is interesting to note that the largest amounts shown for the 90 cities in these two groups are reported for cities of less than 100,000. However, the median city in the larger population group reported a higher per pupil cost than the median city of the second group, these being St. Louis and Pav/tucket vi/ith per pupil expenditures reported as ;,.p76.09 and 1^66.66 respectively. Likewise, the average for the first group is higher, being ^»75,55 as compared with ,,i70.72 for the second group. A list of 45 cities of from 10,000 to 30,000 inhabitants included in the same report shows a range of from 1^^108,29 to 1^)25,96 per pupil, the median city expending C'68,44. The average for the group was vp55.55. Thus, it appears that for representa- tive groups of cities, the expenditures per pupil for current expenses are in general higher for. the cities of larger size, but the medians for the groups here presented show that the costs may "advance irregularly from group to group. In Table ports of average da separately, and the tion. This is the units separately, s buted between the e cities composing ea random from, a large listed in the table Vl-a the per capita figures are based upon re- ily attendance in elementary and high schools reported expenditures for the item of instruc- most practicable basis of comparison for these ince other costs cannot be so readily distri- lementary and high school grades. The 21 ch of the population groups were selected at r group of cities listed by states. Those are ranked according to the amount exp'ondeS - III-6 per pupil for instruction. In these coraparisons it is noted that the higher cost figures occur in the larger population groups. The cities of the first group are those of more than 300,000 inhabi- tants, those of the second group ranging between 100,000 and 300,000. The median cost for the tY Toledo, 0. Spokane, Wash . Omaha, Webr, Denver, Colo. Salt Lake, Utah, Rochester, N. y. Trenton, N. J, San Antonio, Tex. Providence, R. i. Atlanta, Ga , Louisville, Ky. New Haven, Conn . Wilmington, Del. Reading, Pa . Nashville, Tenn . GROUP 1. Hi gh schools 'iff6b,2b Detroit, Mac h . 61.06 Los Angeles, Calif « 59.48 Newark, N. J. 58.21 Philadelphia, Pa. 56.63 New York, N. Y. 54.75 Chicago, 111. 54.60 Buffalo, N. Y. 52.14 Cincinnati, 0. 51.35 St. Louis, Mo. 50.89 Cleveland, 0. 50,59 Indianapolis, Ind* 49.96 Washington, D. C. 49.33 Seattle, Wash. 49.12 Pittsburgh, pa . 48.73 Boston, Mass. 47.88 San Francisco, Calif. 47,47 Minneapolis, Minn. 47.21 Milwaukee, Wis. 43.54 Baltimore, Md . 38.04 Kansas City, Mo. 37.01 New Orleans, La. GROUP 2. $67 . 61 Oakland , Cal if . 59.39 Trenton, N. J, 59.32 Denver, Colo. 54.86 Worcester, Mass. 54 . 6 5 Omaha , Nebr . 51.09 St, Paul, Minn. 50.35 Rochester, N. Y. 50.22 Providence, R. I. 47.46 Grand Rapids, Mich. 47,26 Toledo, 0. 46.47 Portland, Ore. 41.40 Des Moines, la. 38.38 Spokane, Wash. 36.81 Vdlmington, Del, 36,58 Salt Lake, Utah^ 36.24 Louisville, Ky . 35.69 San Antonio, Tex, 35.58 Atlanta, Ga . 33.18 Reading, Pa, 23,83 New Haven, Conn. Nashville, Tenn, |182.52 165.54 128 . 54 128.24 117.95 117,56 111.80 111.33 110,21 107.88 105,85 103.08 101,08 96.12 94.90 89 . 17 88 - 11 84.71 78,18 74 .47 73.91 ^137.54 137.43 123,88 117.70 110.84 110,41 107,86 103,29 102,90 100,92 94,23 92.46 87.90 84.64 83.70 74,02 73.54 72.54 69.06 53,65 52,70 (a) Data from original reports submitted to Bureau of Educa- tion for year 1919-20. JC,0.rt . 101 FIG» 8. Medi£«i cost per pupil of instruction in elementary and in high schools of 21 cities of each of three population groups, 1920. Cities over , High 300,000 El em. 100,000 High to 300,000 Elem. 30,000 High ^° 100,000 ________ Elem. 25 50 75 100 125 ^<-. r ,-w-v ■"^r J. .' 000,005 rfjlH —^ 000,001 ^^^ 00,05 IV- 1 SECTION IV Division of The Cost of Education Between The State and The Student In undertaking to indicate the proportion of the cost of educational training which is borne by the individual at the different school levels, it should be noted in the beginning _ that certain items of expense which are more or less generally paid by the individual cannot be taken into account. While the tendency in public education, very pronounced In schools of elementary grade and decreasingly so as the individual progresses to higher levels, is obviously in the direction of supplying at public ex- pense more and more of the equipment and materials necessary for efficient instruction of the type for which the school is designed, it is yet a rare case in which the individual is not called upon to invest private suras in books, supplies, or paraphernalia re- quired by the studies and activities of the schools. Methods and procedure in American schools of all grades foster the lavish use of these educational supplies and if the total amount so spent by individuals attending publicly supported schools could be deter- mined and added to reported costs, the aggregate of expenditures on account of educational training as thus shown would doubtless- be surprisingly greater than the figures usually cited as the cost of such training. Disregarding expenditures of the type mentioned, avail- able records are found to indicate certain payments by individuals in attendance in the different kinds of schools which are in ef- fect an offset to the cost incurred by the public in maintaining these schools. There are, however, certain differences in the nature of the assessments im.posed upon the individual by the dif- ferent types of schools which should be defined if significance is to be attached to the ratio expressing the division of expense between the individual and the state. In the first place, it may be noted that there is a clear distinction in intent and purpose of the provisions which are made for common school and for higher institutional training with full or partial public support. This distinction is evidenced in present administrative requirement and practice in two principal ways, first, in the legal basis of organization and maintenance of the two classes of schools, and second, in the re- lationship established by law between the individual and the school. Thus the common school system, now definitely recognized as including both elem.entary and high schools, is largely in the control of the local communities, which provide in general about 80?^ of the funds required. Higher institutions, on the other hand, are few in number, are supported by the state through legis- lative appropriations or specific levies upon the wealth of the state at large and control is vested in some type of body repre- sentative of the state. Thus the factors of location and extent of opportunities provided, as well as the educational requirements for admission, make these schools more accessible to certain groups of individuals than toothers, and there is a higher degree of special privilege accruing to those who attend them. With reference to common school training, at least as regards elementary school instruction, the state assumes that provision must be made for all individuals for the promotion of the best interests of society, and claims the right within specified limitations to com- pel the individual to attend these schools. While this is not true to the same extent as regards the high schools, the tendency 8v ?80 :>ila ;iJ f,r •■•:-:■ ^T^rf-t ■*'-'.-■•* fr,?:J'''.n ocT y. ^ -^ •» r< !■> f) • 3 *rol IV- 2 is quite clearly in the direction of increasing the amount of school training or of increasing the age limit beyond which the individual may follow his own inclination with reference to fur- ther school attendance. From the foregoing it is apparent that American edu- cational policy cannot consistently impose upon the individual the same obligation to share the burden of expense of training in the two situations described. Whatever portion of the cost that is shown to be borne by the individual in any specific case will be significant, therefore, only in relation to the conditions un- der which the payment is made. The most obvious difference in administrative practice with reference to tuition or other fees for educational service in the common schools as contrasted with higher institutions is that in the former no charges for tuition are made in the case of individuals residing within the district by which the schools are supported. There are special fees, such as laboratory fees and charges for specialized instruction in such lines as music and art, which the resident student is occasionally required to pay, but a general charge for tuition in elementary and high schools is made only against those who live in districts which do not contribute to the support of the particular schools in ques- tion. Higher institutions, on the other hand, almost univer- sally require the payment of a general tuition fee by both resi- dent and non-resident students, the fee for non-residents usually being somewhat higher. The implication of this difference with respect to tuition charges in the two types of publicly supported schools seems to be that higher educational training for the individual is not to the same extent a valid charge against the state. This attitude is even more clearly expressed in the pro- vision now quite commonly made for the payment of tuition charges for instruction of non-resident pupils in elementary and high schools out of public funds derived from a tax upon the district vifithin which such pupils reside » In the reports of the state school systems, revenues for school purposes are usually detailed according to sources,^ the proportion derived from each principal source being specified. The recent summaries of state reports issued by the United States Bureau of Education do not make a separate classification of the receipts of common schools from tuition fees, an indication of the relative unimportance of fees as a source of revenue for such schools. Individual state reports show that only a small percent- age of the cost of the common schools is met by tuition charges. Even so, it is not always clear that the amount reported as col- lected in fees represents the share of the costs assumed by indi- viduals themselves for whose instruction a non-resident fee is charged. As hag been pointed out, provision is usually made for the payment of tuition of elementary and high school students by_ the school districts within which they reside. Such provision is usually found where the district does not itself afford the educa- tional opportunities required, and at times when it is obviously inconvenient to attend school within the resident district, ^fiese two classes probably include the great majority of public school pupils on whose account any non-resident fees are paid. ^^^^^ 1920 report for Illinois, a report in which the amount received from other school districts in payment Of tuition fees is clearly indicated, the amount reported as paid by individuals for fees is less than four- tenths of one per cent, of the net receipts of district funds, and less than one-fourth the amount collected from other districts. The portion of the total of ^sf356,000 paid by individuals which was charged for high school as distinguished from toaaxi-oni jiiwc ■ini aidiij may perhaps be best regarded as an assessment designed to protect the district against encroachment rather than as a fee exacted of the individual for the educational service _ rendered. Prom the point of view, then, of an intentional divi- sion of expense between the individual and the state, insofar as such division implies a recognition of any individual responsibil- ity for meeting the cost of the training afforded by elementary and high schools, it can hardly be said that the individual bears any portion of the cost of public school training on this level. In the case of higher institutions which are in large part supported by public funds, the amount collected from students in the form of fees is more validly a measure of the division of the cost of education between the state and the individual. In addition to the fact that the fees for educational service in these institutions are looked upon as a source of revenue, and the tendency is apparently in the direction of increasing the amount so derived, tuition in higher schools may be regarded as a charge against the individuals in attendance at such schools because of the special advantages these individuals enjoy. It is true that some of the state liniversities and colleges have opened their doors to resident students at mere nominal rates of charge, an indication of the fact that a somewhat general impression has pre- vailed that there should be no limit to the opportunities for educational training in this country except such as are set by the individual's own native ability or ambition. But most state institutions, including many of the normal schools, now have a fee schedule which represents a specific charge for the kind of serv- ice the school renders. However, the amount charged by schools of different states, by different schools of the sam.e state, and even in the different departments of the same school is so vari- ous that it is evident there is in general no clearly defined basis of charge for the training offered. In consideration of the many different types of work done by state supported schools of higher grade, the most signifi- cant index of the division of expense between the individual and the state would probably be the proportionate part of the actual cost of the particular course taken that is paid by the individual. Such a comparison should apparently be readily set up by means of unit cost studies in different types of schools and courses and the corresponding tuition charges, but there are certain pronounced difficulties in the way of any such analysis. In the first place, the suggested comparison implies that the amount charged as a fee for instruction in a given school or department is in some definite manner related to the cost of providing this instruction. An analysis of the rates of tuition in a representative group of state institutions reveals no such relationship generally obtaining either as between different schools or different departments of the same school. It is some- what difficult to compare fees between different institutions be- cause of the lack of uniformity in reporting tuition rates, cer- tain special fees or assessments such as laboratory, diploma, athletic, or club fees, being included with tuition in some schools and in other cases reported separately. However, a reliable basis of comparison is found in tables appearing in the report of 3J'J.>Oi':7; Qd:i 1 lo g on filL L 9rf(J tjCf j to .Ini'- o.f stis crtorvljjSjtcf- 1 ecf Y rls stt .IS dricf /otq IV- 4 the proceedings of the Eleventh Annual Meeting of the Association of University and College Business Officers, May, 1921. After eliminating fees for graduate study, summer sessions, matricula- tion, and all special and deposit fees, the report of fees for the year 1920-21 shows a variation in tuition for resident students in the liberal arts courses of fifteen state colleges and univer- sities of from $20 to $90; In the lam schools of fourteen of these institutions, the tuition ranges from $24 to $105 for resi- dent students; in medicine, the range for fourteen schools is from |24 to fl55; in engineering, twelve schools show a range of from $20 to $95; while the seven schools offering agriculture report fees of from $20 to $90. While it is doubtless true that the actual cost of Instruction in any one of these departments varies somewhat between different institutions, this can scarcely be taken as the explanation of the differences noted. There is the same lack of uniformity in the schedule of fees for the different departments of the separate institutions. While one western state University charges a fee of $50 for resi- dent students in liberal arts, law, medicine, engineering, and pharmacy, the university of a central state charges $45 for each of these courses excepting pharmacy which is not offered, and a north central university offering agriculture and dentistry in addition to all those mentioned specifies a different charge for each course offered, the fees ranging from $42 to $180. These fee schedules for 1920-21 are shown for the fifteen state institu- tions in Table VII, Prom these exhibits it is obvious that no consistent basis can be found for the fee schedules in effect in state sup- ported schools, hence a comparison of fees and unit costs by courses could have no particular significance for a representative group of institutions. Besides the variations noted with regard to fee schedules, there are other difficulties involved in determining the actual cost of the different departments of a given institu- tion as a basis of determination of the share of instructional expense which is borne by the individual. Such computation requires the distribution of operating and overhead expenses to the different departments, which distribution can be made only on the basis of detailed information with regard to the school plant and administrative practices, as well as of expenditures. While a number of such studies have been made on the basis of actual records, there are such differences in procedure and such disagreement as to fundamental principles of accounting among them that the results of different studies cannot be regarded as com- parable. Yet another difficulty in the way of a comparison of unit costs and individual fees arises from the fact that excep- tions are made to specified rates of tuition in practically all state higher institutions. Allowances are made for student service, scholastic attainment, previous military service, etc. Besides^ there are in certain state institutions a number of political scholarships exempting the appointee from payment of part or all of the normally assessed fees. Per capita costs based upon enrollment or attendance, or upon the number of stud- ent-hours of instructional service given in different departments would involve all students, including those who do not pay the regular tuition rate. The ratio of tuition fee to per capita cost would be affected, then, by the policy of a given institution with reference to such exemotions, as well as by the distribution among the different departments of the students to whom allowances are made. oeaA 9- ';rii ' ' ^- • lo| ■■^'■■•^- ' ... c/lct ni. \ "10 89£;ti:e ^ aliriW I rioea ' no ^8 ■■; Table VII. Comparative Fee Schedule of Fifteen State Institutions 1920-21 IV -b Institu- tions Lib. Arts Lav/ 1 Medicine Engineer | Dent] Lstry Pharmacy Agr. ^R N-R R N-R ! R N-R^ R 60 N-R j R N-R R N-R R N-R A 72 84 1 66 66 1 150 150 ( 99 60 (180 99 180 54 54 42 84 B 30 80 1 1 1 60 110 1 150 200 30 80 (100 (150 150 200 ■ 30 80 30 80 C 24 148 24 148 1 24 148 24 148 24 148 D 30 30 1(120 30 30 1(155 j 120 155 30 30 (120 (150 120 150 60 60 95 95 30 30 1 E 55 55 75 100 150 175 55 i(l65 55 (175 190 220 75 75 F (80 (76 105 101 105 125 101 121 140 136 165 161 95 91 120 1 140 116 136 175 171 95 120 91 116 G 44 55 45 55 45 55 45 55 H 90 90 90 90 I 34 34 49 49 39 39 34 34 J 20 30 34 45 34 45 20 30 34 45 K 20 50 70 100 95 125 20 50 75 100 ■ L 20 35 20 25 20 25 M 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 M 50 85 65 100 (125 (150 125 150 45 90 60 90 120 150 * ' Graduate School, Summer Session, Matricultaion, Special and Deposit Fees are not included. Note: The letter "R" at the head of the left hand columns desig- nates Resident Students. "N-R" designates non-Re sident Students, Bracketed figures indicate different rate for freshman and sophomore students OOS Ocf) 1"^ Table Vll-a. Comparative Fee Schedule of Fifteen State Institutions IV- 6 1921-22 i Lib. Arts Law Medicine Engineer Dent. LStry Pharmacy 1 AEri. 1 j R N-R R N-R R N-R R N-R R N-R R N-R R N-R ; ^ 60 90 90 1 120 180 210 90 120 180 210 90 120 60 90 i i 1 B 40 140 60 160 150 250 30 1(100 130 (150 150 250 30 130 30 130 C 24 148 24 146 24 148 24 148 24 148 i D 50 50 50 50 (120 (155 120 155 50 50 120 120 60 95 60 95 50 50 E 55 55 75 100 150 175 55 55 (165 (175 190 200 75 75 F (80 (76 105 101 105 101 125 121 140 136 200 196 95 91 120 116 140 136 200 196 95 91 120 116 G 75 85 ■75 85 75 85 75 85 75 85 H 90 90 90 90 I 34 34 49 49 39 39 34 34 J 20 30 ( 35 (100 45 100 35 45 20 30 35 45 'k 25 50 25 50 25 50 L 25 50 75 100 95 125 25 50 75 100 M 45 150 45 150 45 150 45 150 45 150 N 50 85 65 100 150 150 45 90 60 90 120 150 snoiJU&zTsnl aex 351 |XS£ loj. jxox s?) Universities 11.3 64.7 5.6 technical schools 5.9 58.2 4.1 colleges (a) 7.9 75.8 2,1 all schools 9.5 62.8 4.9 IV- 7 Table VIII. Percentage of total income derived from each of principal sources in 1920, student public product private other fees funds funds funds sources 5.2 13.2 19.4 12,4 8.9 5.3 9.-9 12.9 Apparently the only measure of the division of the cost of higher training between the individual and the state is to be found in the ratio of total receipts from fees for educational services to the expenditures by the state in support of such train- ing. Table VIII shows the proportionate part of total funds ex- clusive of receipts for permanent endowment and from fees for non- educational services, such as board and room rent, virhich was de- rived from each of the principal sources by state supported uni- versities, colleges, and technical schools in 1920. The percentages shown in Table VIII. indicate the rela- tive importance of student fees and appropriations from public funds in contributing to the total income of the types of state schools specified. Considered from this point of viev^r, it is noted that the three classes of schools taken together receive ap- proximately six and one half times as large a share of their total income from public funds as is received from fees for sducaticnal services. Regarding the three classes of schools separately, it is observed that the colleges receive the largest percentage of total income from public funds, universities the largest percentage from student fees, while technical schools receive a smaller per- centage of total income from each of these two sources than either the colleges or the \miversities. These variations, how- ever, are obviously influenced by differences in the relative im- portance of other sources of revenue for the three types of schools. For example, the strikingly large percentage of total income which came through private contributions in the case of the technical schools serves to reduce the percentages shown for this group as derived from fees and public funds in comparison with the other types of schools. If all other sources of income are disregarded, it is found that the ratio of the total derived from student fees to the total received from public funds for the same groups of schools is approximately one to six in the case of the universities, and one to ten in the technical schools and the colleges. Consider- ing the totals for the three classes of schools- together, the re- ceipts from public funds amount to 6,8 times as much as is de- rived from student fees. Reduced to percentages, the summaries show that student fees constitute 12.9 per cent, of the total in- come of the three groups of schools from such fees and public funds together. For the universities alone this percentage is 14. 9, for technical schools it is 9.2, and for the colleges 9.5. Some indication of the tenc^-^i^cy with reference to the division of expense of higher educatiOi:al training between the state and the individual may be determined by reference to similar percentages based upon reports for a similar list of schools for 1918, Employing the same classification and including all schools (a) Excluding teachers' colleges formerly in normal school . group. bo ! •11 I TO tf)l,G.f^X J8 :;■ T.aq .8xex 4-14 FIG. 9. Percentage of total income of universities, technical schools, and colleges derived from student fees and from public funds in 1919-20. Universities Technical Schools Colleges (1) All SchCols 11.3 5.9 7.9 9.5 64.7 58.2 75.8 62.8 24 35.9 16.5 87.7 Percentage 20 40 60 80 100 Student Fees Public Funds D other Sources (1) Excluding techers' colleges formerly in normal school group . S ('''■- bis ic: rrtit fooviieh aeoiel I-<^orlv 39?^eIXO0 '^16; 3X3 (X) IV- 8 of the three types listed as state institutions in 1918, it is found that student fees constitute 11.8 per cent, of the total income from both student fees and public fimds in the case of the university group, 8 per cent, for the technical group, end 15,7 per cent, for the colleges, Vi/ithin a period of two years, then, it is seen that there was a decided increase in the percentage derived from fees in the case of the university group, a smaller increase for the technical schools, and a considerable decifease in the case of the college group. This change with reference to the percentage derived from fees by the colleges is in part explained by the increase in the number of the schools included in this classification in 1920. over the number reported in 1918. Since the total number 'of colleges supported by state funds is relatively small, the addition of two new schools, one of which reported no income from fees, was sufficient to change the ratio materially. The percentages for the two years are shown in Table IX,^ Table IX. Relation of income from student fees and from public funds in universities , colleges, and technical schools, 1918 and 1920. percentage of total of fees and public funds derived from, fees 1918 1920 universities 11.8 14.9 technical schools 8.0 9,2 colleges 13.7 9.5 all higher schools 10.7 12.9 The explanation of the increase in the percentage de- rived from fees by the universities and technical schools is found in the general tendency to increase the tuition rates dur- ing the past few years. In the report of the Association of University and College Business Officers to which reference has been made, comparative fee schedules for 1920-21 and 1921-22 are presented for a representative group of state institutions, as shown in Tables VII and Vll-a. Of 15 such institutions, 6 re- ported an advance in tuition rates for resident students in lib- eral arts co\irses, the amount of Increase ranging from 25 per cent, in two institutions to 67 per cent, in two others. In technical and professional courses corresponding increases are shown, 4 institutions reporting a constant percentage increase in rate in all courses offered, one indicating an increase of 67 per cent, in all departments excepting medicine, dentistry, and pharmacy, another reporting a different rate of increase in all courses ex- cepting liberal arts, in which the tuition for resident students was reduced by 20 per cent. One institution, however, reported an increase of 33 per cent, in tuition of resident students in liberal arts, while the rates in all other departments remained unchanged. Seven institutions reported no change in the fees of any department from the rates in effect the preceding year. The fees for non-resident students are in general some- what higher than for resident students in all departments, Only two of the universities in this group report the same tuition rates in 1921-22 for both classes of students in all departments, and one of these has announced a new schedule for 1922-23 in which IV-9 higher rates are specified for non-resident students. There is, however, nothing approaching uniformity in the degree of difference shown in fees prescribed for the resident and non-resident groups. In one university the fee for resident students is ^24 in all departraents, while the rate for non- resident students is uniformly ;i.;>148. In another, the fee is the same for both groups in liberal arts, engineering, and pharmacy, and iip25 higher for non-resident students in law, medicine, and dentistry. In a third institutiaa of the same class, the rate is uniformly ^75 for resident students and \}Q5 for non-residents, while another charges 025 more for non-residents in liberal arts, engineering, and pharmacy, ^20 more for law, and ^60 more in medicine and dentistry. Apparently one principal consideration in determining the difference in charge to non-resi dent students is the question of v;hether or not it is desired to attract such students to the school. Here there seems to be a various policy both as between different institutions and with respect to different departments of the same institution. Obviously the institution which charges non-residents a rate uniformly six times the amount charged resi- dent students is not seeking to increase its enrollment by attract- ing students from other states, whereas a uniform fee for all students probably indicates that such increase is desired. A material difference in the excess of charge to non-residents among the different departments of the same institution may indicate merely the desire to restrict the enrollment in the more crowded departments, or may express the attitude of different administra- tive groups with reference to non-resident students. The significance of these different tuition rates so far as the special problem of this study is concerned lies in the fact that the total receipts from tuition fees as generally reported do not distinguish the amount received from resident students alone. Enrollment figures for the different departments are reported but these records do not indicate the distribution of non-resident students, hence no estimate can be given of the probable ratio of receipts from fees for resident students to the total amount of fees paid. The percentages indicating the relation of state support to individual payment for the educational training received are based upon the total receipts reported from fees for both resident and non-resident students. This percentage in 1920 was Shown to be 14.9, 9,2, and 9,5 for the university, technical, and college groups, respectively. In as much as there is a discrimi- nating charge in the case of certain groups of students on account of place of residence, the percentages stated do not indicate precisely the portion of the cost of advanced training which the state proposes to pay for the resident individual, assuming that tuition rates may be regarded as an evidence of such intention. The number of non-resident students in state institutions is rela- tively small, however, and deductions on account of fees paid by these students would likely change the above percentages only slightly for any of the groups of schools considered. Some caution should probably be observed in regard to any inferences that may be drawn from the percentages indicating the relative amount of the expense which is borne by the state in the different classes of schools. There are a number of different factors affecting the percentages as computed and it is doubtful IV-XO if the difference shown for the university and technical groups, for example, signifies any conscious difference in policy with respect to public support, although there might be some significant difference in the matter of requirements as regards the two types of institutions. The ratios are significant, however, as indicating a somewhat definite limi- tation upon the extent to which the individual is expected to share with the state the cost of advanced training in liberal or vocational courses. V-1 SECTION V Division of the Cost of Education Between the State and the Student in England, Germany, France, and Canada.. In considering the practice -of other countries with re- spect to the extent to which educational opportunities are pro- vided at public expense, it is recognized that direct comparisons cannot generally be drawn between the various units of these school systems and the different types of publicly supported schools in the United States. While it is clear that no other system of public education contemplates even an approach to the unrestricted opportunity for higher educational training afforded the youth of this country, the mere statement of difference in the relative cost of such training to the individual and the state in this and other countries may not in itself represent the degree of difference in public support of schools. Besides the limitations set by social practice, there are organic differences in the institutions of higher learning of the United States and those of other countries that make the factor of costs to the student in the tv/o situations quite incomparable, The same is true in the case of secondary schools as well in the European countries here considered. The statistics for foreign systems are presented for the light they throw upon the general educa- tional aims and practices of these countries, rather than as a basis for specific comparison as to the extent of public support of corresponding divisions of the American system. It is apparently the purpose of each of these foreign countries to see that no individual is denied the privilege of elementary educational training. It is understood, hov^ever, that the state does not necessarily have to provide school accommoda- tions for all individuals of elementary school age. The social and religious ideals that have influenced educational practice for generations, and in certain aspects even for centuries, ef- fect a segregation of particular classes of individuals for whose instruction either the family or the church assumes more or less responsibility. For example, two-fifths of all the pupils en- rolled in the ordinary public elementary schools of England in 1914 were attending schools which were established by some voluntary agency, though the expense of maintenance was borne by the public. (a) While reports from France and Germany for the years immediately preceding the outbreak of the war show a con- siderably larger percentage of pupils enrolled in the more dis- tinctly public schools, practically all children who were expect- ed to progress beyond the equivalent of the American elementary school curriculum were enrolled in schools in which all or a significant part of the expense is borne by the individual. In Canada-, the situation with regard to elementary education is in general like that of the United States. The elementary schools are free to all classes and supported entirely by public funds, except in the province of Quebec. Private elementary schools en- roll but fev; pupils in any of the provinces . So far as the elementary grades of instruction are con- cerned, it may be said that such training is practically free for (a) Peter Sandiford, Comparative Education . London; J. M. Dent & Sons, 1918. P. 203. V-2 the masses of people in all the countries here considered. Even in England, where prior to the passage of the Education Act of 1918 local boards of education were permitted to charge fees for instruction in the ordinary schools of elementary grade, the rate was small in those districts in which any charge was made and the amount of money generally derived from this source was negligible. According to a recent general statistical report, (a the amount expended in support of elementary education in 1914 was 26 million pounds. Of this amount 1.7 per cent, was ^ derived from such sources as minor appropriations of local authorities, fees and the sale of books and other articles, endowments, etc., more than 98 per cent, being derived from parliamentary grants and local taxation. V/hile the total amount derived from fees for instruction alone is not reported, fees and receipts from the sale of books and other articles in 1913 constituted only about 0.7 per cent, of the total amount available for the support of public elementary schools. In the other countries there are no fees for instruction in the common schools of elementary grade. This does not mean, however, that all individuals in these countries have the opportunity to secure free elementary school instruction. It is true in the case of Canada where the public elementary schools lead directly to the higher schools. In Germany and France, and in somewhat less degree in England, all students vifho expect to progress to higher educational insti- tutions are required to enter a school which prepares for such instruction at least by the age of nine years- These are known as secondary schools, but provide elementary instruction as well for the younger pupils. While in each of these countries there are numerous subventions and scholarships, 1:he majority of the pupils pay tuition fees, and the income from this source is an important factor in the support of the schools. In Canada, v^iere the secondary schools closely resem'-- . ble the public high schools of the United States, secondary edu- cation is inexpensive. In Nova Scotia and New Brunswick the high schools are practically free, vAiile the fees charged in other provinces are small- For example, the average fee in the high schools of Ontario is less than $4,50 per year, (b) While the secondary schools of England, France, and Germany are not in all respects" similarly administered, they are alike in that they are designed to provide training for those who are destined to enjoy the advantages of higher education, include both elementary and secondary courses of instruction, and are only partially supported by public funds. In England about ten per cent, of the income of the secondary schools, not includ- ing private institutions, has for some years been derived from student fees. ' Parliamentary grants and rates (property taxes) provide about 80 per cent, of the total, (c) ■In 1914 Germany spent the equivalent of about 19 mil- lion dollars in support of secondary schools. Of this amount, 39 per cent, was derived from fees and 56 per cent, from state and local sources. (d) There are several tjrpes of secondary schools in Germany, the course running from six to nine years, and the fees vary in the different types of schools, as well as in the higher and lower grades « There is also an intermediate (a) Statistical Abstract for the Unit^ed Ki ngdom , 1919 . P. 398. (b) Sandiford, op. cit , P. 411. (c) ibid. p. 274. (d) ibid. p. 148-9. V-3 school which is more closely connected v/ith the elementary school system and is in many instances maintained by communities which cannot maintain secondary schools. The fee that may be charged is limited, however, to not more than half the amount charged in the secondary schools. They are relatively few in number, en- rolling only about three per cent, of the pupils in 1911, and are generally inexpensive so far as cost to the individual is con- cerned . The secondary schools of France serve the double pur- pose of providing a liberal education, and of preparing the stu- dent for entrance into the universities, the engineering schools, and the normal schools. The baccalaureate degree is granted for completion of the secondary school course. This degree ad- mits the graduate to the government military and naval academies and makes him eligible to appointment to certain desirable posi- tions in the post office and the interior departments. Pees in these schools vary according to the district, the age of the pupil, and the extent to which he is under the care of the in- structors. Charges are higher in schools located in the cities. The cost is likewise greater for students who board at the schools all or part time, and for those who study under the immediate direction of the instructors. In general, the family bears about 52 per cent, (a) of the total cost of maintenance, not including the cost of buildings which are expensive and are paid for by the state. Other expenses are met by the state and its subdivisions. The institutions of higher learning in the countries here considered likev^rise present a variety of administrative as- pects when considered from the point of view of the cost of education on this level. Thus in the French universities there are no fees for instruction as such. However, the statement that higher instruction is free to the student is misleading in view of the fact that numerous fees for other privileges and services are exacted of all students. These include fees for matriculation, registration, library and laboratory privilege, examination, and diploma, the aggregate in the pre-war period being about 205 francs per year. The fees are assessed by the universities rather than by the state, and receipts therefrom are expended principally for library and laboratory equipment and for publications, the university depending upon the state to supply nearly all funds required for instruction, general equipment, and scholarships. About half the bost of construction of university buildings has been contributed by the towns in which the institu- tions are located, the state providing the balance. All of the British institutions for higher training receive contributions from public funds, the leading universities which are in part supported by contributions from their incor- porated colleges receiving the least support from public sources. Reports for Oxford, Cambridge, and Durham show that in 1912 the receipts from fees constituted 32 per cent, of the total expendi- tures of the three universities, while only about 15 per cent, of the funds came from local, parliamentary, and treasury grants- The six provincial universities, on the other hand, received (1913) a little more than half the amount of their total expendi- tures from local and parliamentary grants, and only about 25 per cent, from student fees. The University of London and its colleges collected in the same year 48 per cent, of its funds in student fees, and was supported by local and parliamentary grants to the extent of one-third the amount of its necessary expendi- tures . Reports of four independent university colleges,- that is, (a) Sandiford op. cit. P. 303. -fti sr; .?.aidi:o -. alcorio^ CIEOCf 9 .:' orfrt 16'. . ii/r, ' ■ an 7 , • >". , mi^.cnaJ;. orfj Yd' ic t3 brts sv , srcoxBlvxfac . 'nr atn;'?; :;j£;i ;:fGXiCj ©si shi'- ' * a.! -csLifoo-.f'ii x- ionfifiO :f .:; :;r::c^ '.i^i ■1'J'~:' "nGrfd :■; oJ iievsvA . ixni:X ai -ne • S'lB Y^fi-^ »eX'ooxlo5 ^^-ii^ijjfiooss orii aic ^•; . .jner' 'Xdq- o-tt'i: iuooe 1^^- ";rrr rim nq lo brtfe xq lo ocoq x^ne arid .. -•:■ 'tol; :!nab •13 8b eiBS'.:. 'J difi' «s.ioo/. 'j.'"tQ . DaiJJOD Y-XEbnoooB sriJ , toI ■'?;::.:> Oct CM'tsr-jfr; coqB od- sXcfi:??.? f'- nlri 3©:lGra b^i" ..-I a 90x110 i KX Brfoxcr ^rri'biooos ^ urioa oearfcf : noiriw oH vine.. urte ,Ii:qyq ■X ax •:JBoo t-;iT • :t rf-xsq 10 il ■ •lociointiBCix an? 'io noriae'xi;^ ic' edj lo (jsj) .c^nso isq S3 ■ .Jxwcf "io ie.00 erfct ..o 'is.ictc .sJ-jecTa 3,0 Y''''S-C'^'^^' • '-"q 9aj:w9s,xi jDoiQcxcnoo ©lex"! 'voiv '»..; .i .: ..: moi'i btsisblBmoo nsriw acfooq t^x gjjjiT , X»y@I aiiict xto noicfsot/bs ■•:.,. iojya se no.td"0ijtcl-8ni: aol nesl on dis rfx anxbesiaxr ax c^rtsbwcra on;t od- 3©o:l: SX csoiionjiic. li ;rflrf:t lol 3?.. ;>sla XXe lo bs^^oexs sis ssoivise <&?;on „ .. ■■:£ ^ no i: *^ '■■'.:'.. •^' 91 ^noi.: -.'c-ir-i^cm &o ;q en:i nx c •■ sricf . bne »r- -j^xe 9iij . ■ 9ie seel •'^■■::^' > i cJOS j.-/ .i&d 8ifi tnc BiqioooT bne rfctei BSicficJievlnw 'iol bf: 'upQ 'iioiQiod'^i . ... . . mqiontiq bsbiieqxs v,Xc ,■ tBCfe ©rii rtoqt' s^ij:' isvirtw oxicf ^anoxcfsoiXcfi/q ' ■■■ .^ '^^ '■,-'ir:-r^>': ..-:•;■-•?•„ _ :. o'3:l:wp9'r sbrrwl f n-. - '■Tsen ' IXBjtl ci-wocfA .8r iioa :,rMf-:i*--vv ■■■:■■ ;:rf ;-:: • :.-[ :-■.."' r;:- /ffj ^;lawl otFcSuq tno'it onnJcUij xicfnc . ■ .. ::0©t ..fXid'noo \:d bsriioc •, nx oie xioXrtw nx d-en.1 v -X jBctod" srW X , .^ _ . . : . _ ■ , .. ^. 'to .jifon isq 51 wT-.oode ^^^^ oiiriw »soxcfXBi9vxaw oa-xno ©xi;? lo asiwd' ";:; -•o'T- ■■ ■•i'.;-'0£'f. • .' '1 ■? .•",. ■■.d!!Oi,,9i/if;q ^XfcooX i.to'il omco 8br£x;l: 9ri;t 'iarf.©vXa'/ if-Xonivo'xq xia eriT ■( r^r-r'} -;,7i ©XCfC^.tf 6 (oX€X) Xisool raoij: Boiwd" • •':•' ■ ■ p. ffioi']: .ctnso loq dcfx lo -ji IXoo a93oXXoo t.-tvii:i.x If .;i-. ^8991 ctnabwiJa ono lo cfned-x9 ©rlcf 0.1- , V ";- v.J'ioq&H . a9ijj:t .oC- iiolibrteS ( c) V-4 colleges that are not incorporated within one of the greater uni- versities-show receipbs from local and parliamentary grants in 1913 amounting to 74" per cent, of their expenditures, fees sup- plying 26 per cent. Rather liberal support is given also to the agricultural and technical colleges. Reports from tvifelve of these schools in 1913 indicated receipts from local and parliamentary grants amounting to 60 per cent, of the costs for the year- Approximate- ly 28 per cent, of their funds came from student fees. The relative amounts contributed to the total income of each of the principal types of higher institutions of England and Scotland by fees and by appropriations from public funds are shown in Table X, The data for Oxford, Cambridge, and Durham are for the year 1912. Those for the other institutions relate to the year 1913. Table X. Percentage of total income of English and Scotch universities and colleges derived from fees and from appropria- tions of public funds. (a) institutions percentage of income fees pub, funds Oxford, Cambridge, and Durham 32 15 University of London 48 33 Provincial universities 25 52 Independent university colleges 26 74 Agricultural and tech- nical colleges 28 60 Scotch universities 29 40 All of the higher institutions with the exception of the independent university colleges have other sources of income be- sides fees and grants. The larger universities receive consider- able contributions from their incorporated colleges, in addition to the income from endowments, which are large as compared v/ith those of most other European universities. The Scotch universities receive about the same public support as is given the provincial universities in England, five of these institutions reporting receipts from local, parliamentary, and treasury grants in 19].3 amounting to 40 per cent, of the ex- penditures. Student fees were in that year approximately 30 per cent . of the expenditures . Canadian universities have in recent years received about one-third of their income from public funds. Reports for (a) Data from U, S. Bureau of Education Bulletin No. 16, 1917 . Studies in Higher Education in England and Scotland. V-5 14 institutions in 1918 (a) and 13 institutions in 1920 (b) show that while their income had almost doubled, the proportion of the total which was derived from Government and municipal grants was . in each case approximately 33 per cent. The percentage of income derived frora fees declined in the two years from 22§ per cent to 19 per cent. Reports (c) for seven colleges receiving public support in 1920 show receipts of slightly less than 33 per cent . from government and municipal grants, while the income frora fees was approximately 25 per cent of the expenditures. The industrial and technical schools of Canada, as in the case of England, are somewhat more generously supported. In the province of Ontario, where these schools are most highly developed, the legislative and municipal grants constituted sixty- five per cent of the total income in 1920 (d) Student fees, on the other hand, amounted to less than 5 per cent of the total cost of maintenance. It should be noted, however, that much of the work of these institutions is of secondary rather than of univer- sity grade. This fact probably accounts for the relatively low percentage of income derived from fees . The universities of Germany are under state control and are in general rather liberally supported by the state. Since 1870 the state has paid not less than two-thirds of the total cost of maintenance of the principal universities, and by 1908 the proportion of state funds had increased to three-fourths of th.e total income. The latest report giving details of expenditures for the German universities shows that the University of Berlin in 1912 received 83 per cent of its reported expenditures from state funds (e). The other universities were probably not so liberally supported, but received the greater portion of their in- come from, .the state. As these universities have little permanent endowment the actual payments of students approximate a fourth of the costs of maintenance in most of the German institutions, (a) Imperial Year Book for Canada, 1917- 18. P. 391 (b) The Cana da Year Book, 1^20. pp. 156-7 (c) ibid. Pp. 162-3. (d) Report of the Director of Technical Education for Canad a, 1920. (e ) Report, Uniteci States Commissioner of Education, l^lS. Vol.l, P. 823. woria (tf) 0291 9jaiO0il,t lo .^• ■••:•■•■•• - ■--■':• -.. • ~ -,- - ■ r iwcMfinsqxe 3.d:J- to - •■" doe© ::i: Bjqieoai woris 02GX nt d-xoqqi/a ' ■•": ' •'■ ■. wm bnn j-nr.:- ■ " - -.-■--.:, moi'i •'Liq S2 Yiad^;- ;3 sew ttl .t9;}'xoqqws ^Iswoisnsa atom c^erfwernos sis , xO sbb-j o; , Yln3i:/i ieon sis sloorioe easxi^ oiorfv; ^oiT . Torxlvoiq ocl^ no ^-■ axid-a (Jb) 02&I ni smooni Igc^o:? ari^ Tto cffiso Taq avil •CO Xeauj •:;. lo dnoo leq C nerio se©! od' 6e;tawomG ,b.- ' •'o Qcii Qcil 1o dousa cfaric^ ^'iove^iod ,b3.'Jorf 3Cf bXuoris *I .c : om lo woX tjXgvicteXs'x sri:t "Xol adn.. r.^ffjcfotq ^oel aidT .sbfii?^ xilz ;oo Xed-ocf files' 'io sMxrf;f-0'j./..i ecii 80ex TjcT Me ,B9i:fian.:. Qd-J Jo ?Minuo1-'eQiiii oi &©t; .:..-> iotsji ibneqxe 1c sXisc^sb gfixvig rtio-il BBtisi iba.&qKQ beitO'qQt sa Xe'iecXiX torf-lBi' Xeiewos «-i ©"^f- •X sort blBq BBff aetata ori* 0V8X .qioniaq Bci:i lo 9one«9;^nX«m lo • ,;. bfid ?.hnv1 &i8i'a lo nolitoqotq itoqin i^Q^Bl otiT , smoocti Xsctocf - ■ -^ ■ 'V^Elsvjtfti; nsni'xeO Qd:i rrol xsq £8 beviooe-x 2X61 nl bevieODt ^x/d ^bed'ioqqws yXXsi^cfiX lo sdTioxsjveQ Xejyrfofl sri;! drtsiiiwobno u Bi-VXOX .sbeneO -xol: >Iooa, "XBaY leti( *J3!oo3 1 ::?;■ JTTqT 5X»X »nc .J3Tan" VI-1 SECTION VI Public Support of Education in Illinois and Other States. There are in general only a few types of higher educa- tional institutions receiving their principal revenues from public sources. Of these, only the normal schools are numerous enough in a given state to be treated as a group. A comparison of the division of expense for educational training between the state and the individual in different states, if elementary and high schools are regarded as supported entirely by public funds, is in effect merely a comparison of individual institutions in this respect so far as universities, colleges, and technical schools are concerned. Since the particular interest here is such a comparison between Illinois and other states presenting a similar situation, there is only one type of higher institution besides the normal school which is involved, namely, the university. According to reports submitted to the United States Bureau of Education the university and normal schools are the only institutions of higher grade in Illinois that are supported by public funds . In 22 of the states, the agricultural and mechanical college, originally endowed by federal land grants and receiving annual appropriations from federal funds for current expenses, is maintained as a department of the university instead of as a sep- arate institution. This is the case with Illinois. Since the types of courses offered have much to do with the cost of rnain-^ taining the institution, and since the amount paid by the individu- al usually varies with different courses as well as between dif- ferent institutions, specific comparisons with respect to the proportionate part of the cost which is borne by the individual should probably be made only with other state universities that are similarly organized. Since the size of the institution and the number of dif- ferent courses offered obviously have their infouence on costs of maintenance and general overhead, these factors have also been considered in selecting the institutions for v/hich comparisons are to be made. According to reports for 1920, eight of the twenty- two state universities v/ith which the agricultural and mechanical college is combined enrolled more than 3000 students. Of these, Cornell, in reality a private school but listed as a state insti- tution because of state and federal support, receives relatively larger percentages of its total income from permanent endowment and private contributions than do other universities. The appro- priations from public funds are doubtless much less than would be required by any such institution lacking the endowment and private support which this institution enjoys. Receipts from tuitions, on the other hand are more in accord with the total working income of the university, it is therefore clearly not comparable to the other universities of this group with respect to the relation of tuition receipts to the aggregate of funds derived from public sources, and is not included in the comparisons which are to be shown. The institutions selected are also similarly organized with regard to the number and kinds of courses offered. The most expensive courses in such institutions are the technical and pro- fessional courses. Of the schools considered none has less than four professional and eight technical courses. The largest number of courses in these two groups listed by any one institution is 19, and the smallest number is IS. All have the usual offerings in VI- fine arts and academic work, hence there are no differences in curricula that would invalidate the comparisons desired. TABLE XI. Total amount received from specified sources of revenue by seven state universities in 1920. (a) total receipts from Univer- sity student fees 594211 public funds 2841936 product . funds 368821 private funds 943326 miscel . sources 1096170 total California 5844464 Illinois 353684 3152576 32451 35400 342138 3916249 Minnesota 501420 3140661 109883 89371 567101 4408436 Missouri 180806 1175547 94662 41011 243924 1726950 Nebraska 155009 1695650 56998 488199 2395856 Ohio 223723 2070933 62355 2065 263948 2622924 Wisconsin 716360 2135424 41533 80228 510095 3483640 The seven state universities on which comparisons are based are shown in Table XI together with facts concerning enroll- ment and revenues. The percentage of income derived from each of the principal sources is shown in Table XII. While the percentages given in Table XII indicate a somewhat definite tendency in these institutions with regard to the contribution which each of the principal sources of revenue makes in support of the institution, some marked variations are noted, California received much larger sums from private benefac- tions and productive funds than any of the other institutions, about twenty-two and one half percent of the total income being derived from the^e sources. Illinois, at the other extreme, re- ceived less than two percent from these two sources. The result of the different conditions noted with reference to these two in- stitutions is readily apparent in the percentage of total income which each received from public funds. These factors should there- fore be noted in making comparisons between institutions v/ith re- gard -co the students' share of the expense incurred* TABLE XII, Enrollment and percentage of total receipts derived from specified sources for seven state universities in 1920. enroll- ment (b) perce nt of to t al income from public product, private student fees " funds funds funds California 12630 10.17 ' 4'b . 59 6 .'32 16. lb Illinois 7935 9.03 80,48 0.82 0.89 Minnesota 12182 11.36 71.20 2.47 2.02 Missouri 4678 10.46 67.63 5.47 2.41 Nebraska 5759 6.48 70.71 2,38 .00 Ohio 7151 8.55 79.01 2.39 .78 Wisconsin 7294 20.58 61.35 1.18 2.30 median percentagel0.17 70.71 2,39 2,02 (a) Prom data presented in Bureau of Education Bulletin No. (b) Exluding summer session. miscel , sources ■ 18.77' ■ 8.78 12.95 14.03 20.43 9.27 14.59 14.03 48, 1920 DOiias- biwow tteri: beilioeqa /not? br-vrso-yi j-;rrf,:r;Tr. fj-.-toT.lX SJ?iAT uoes dc iefc QiTJOoni ,ee«navei b . IT" ' ■■ ' •y'xi.c- ._ T ■ /f • on. •"■J corb^.- -as. ovvj yssf).. vi n^ii. -isricf foix/oris siiocjosi -s-x ilcJiw 3.-ioi:t.u::ti-?'5'- . .bo v '■qio- ■ -.lAT .rid- ■■-■ nl aajisrrr . •: .^a^ron ■■I -J ■ -dB ■Gb ' ,; 5 3 lo . .. ^ 3 .■■i;9oe)i noes noirtw .r; b-'loc: '-'.1 o"co^ f fOTPf^ •:■..: i Xi^. .. j .:j,v r:^.0"^ CO. "rS .[V.i' 0.:.:- 3o. .^i'-; ,noxaa«i>a (c^) VI-3 The extent of the variation in the relative amount of the cost of training in these institutions which the individual pays in the different states is, however, not to be overlooked. So far as general recognition is concerned, everjr institution in the list is regarded as affording opportunities of a superior type for those interested in and prepared for advanced education- al training. If the central tendency as indicated by the institu- tions here considered may be regarded as a normal assessment upon the individual, that is, if about ten percent of the total cost is a reasonable share for the individual to assume, some considera- tion should be given to the fact that students in one institution must pay twice that part of the total cost, while in another insti- tution only a little more than half the normal rate is assessed. If it is desired to compare somewhat more directly the relative share of the cost of higher education borne by the indi- vidual and by the state, the percentage of the amount derived from the two sources of fees and public funds alone may be noted. Table XIII presents these percentages for the same list of univer- sities in 1920, Here it will be noted that the position of the several schools with reference to the percentage paid by the indi- vidual is changed slightly, California shows the second highest percentage in this comparison, the amount paid by students being 17,21 percent of the total derived from both student fees and public funds, while Table XII shows that student fees in this in- stitution constituted 10,17 percent of the total income from all sources which is less than that shown for three of the other in- stitutions. Minnesota records the second highest percentage when fees are compared with the total income, and is fourth in the list when fees and income from public sources alone are considered. Otherwise the institutions hold the same relative position in rank in the two comparisons. TABLE XIII. Relation of amount paid in student fees to total derived from fees and public funds. State percent from University student fees California 17,21 Illinois 10.09 Minnesota 13,07 Missouri 13.35 Nebraska 8,04 Ohio «?»?? Wisconsin 25.11 In the case of the normal schools, the selection of a comparable list involves a number of considerations. In the first place, there are three general types of normal schools that are supported by public funds, state schools, county or tovm- ship schools, and city normal schools. The standards and curricu- la maintained by these different kinds of schools are by no means uniform. The city normal, for example, is maintained for the purpose of training teachers for the local public school system. It is operated as a part of the city system, and its expenditures are largely determined by internal administrative policy. The county or township normal seeks primarily to recruit rural school teachers, and is usually meagerly supported. The state schools constitute by far the most important group so far as investment in the country at large is concerned, expenditures for this group in 1918 being more than 90 percent of the total for all three groups, (a) They are supported in the main by legislative ap- propriations, and while they vary greatly among the different states with regard to entrance requirements, academic standards, (a) Bureau of Education Bulletin No. 31, 1920. P. 5. liniea^f Is ■■I fi ai ■.^CJ^a -0 ''^. r*ri:* lot -s'"' -ii'ioliXr .-;rio ai leuJbjtv 12, ti ii i£iuOo Sii-j 'io Siiiivii'i^i^ VitO-i ir ' tj; OiXQuq il;'.: "fv; •* BSS'I :ii;oi>uj-2 as bieq -itrtyoxrie to iioid-^ ,obivj\ oslduq bdv sotA moil fesvjtis^'b f 1. ./nif,u/.' ll££!£2.1. e e^viovn/ craxi eld^ieqrn; 'oorfDS Xbiwi ".':f.f^::, 1 c.,' Qs'Xij:,^ ■■ O lec?< yd nr ■\no; .-'t JOn^lJr; VI-4 courses offered, salaries, fees, etc., the state normal in any given case represents a definite type of school for the state in which it is located. For these reasons the comparisons here drawn are between state schools only. The last detailed report concerning normal schools was issued by the Bureau of Education in 1919 and relates to expendi- tures for the year 1918. Of 170 state normal schools reporting, it is shown that approximately 90 percent of the income was de- rived from public funds. One hundred forty two of these schools reported tuition fees amounting to about Vs percent of the amount received from public appropriations. This percentage is by no means a constant one even among states having a relatively similar group of normal schools, as will be indicated by the data for the seven states given below, As has been suggested, these schools have no sources of income apart from fees and public appropriations that are of material aid in maintaining the schools. There are a very few ex- ceptions, where an endowment fund exists. Many of these schools, moreover, do not charge tuition fees at all. On the other hand, many of them maintain student dormitories, and the earnings from these may be used in defraying school expenses . In order to avoid the effect of selection of different types of institutions, the receipts of all schools charging tuition were analyzed and fees for services other than educational services were deducted, and a comparison made between only the receipts from fees and those from public funds. Table XIV shows the number of schools included in the report for each of the states selected, and the percentage that the receipts from fees for educational services constituted of the total amount derived from both fees and public funds. TABLE XIV. Relation of amount paid in student fees to total derived from both fees and public funds by the normal schools of seven states. (a) number of percent from schools student fees Illinois 5 4,77 Kansas 3 11.15 Massachusetts 8 .46 Michigan 4 8.16 Missouri 5 23.66 Texas 6 6.92 Wisconsin, 10 6,78 While the state normal schools of the group of states here represented are recognized as among the better schools of their class, it is at once apparent that there is great lack of uniformity with reference to the division of the cost of normal school training between the states and the students in attendance at these schools. If a larger group were considered and a number of the smaller schools included, the lack of any definite policy with reference to the cost of normal school training would be only the more decidedly indicated. (a) Data from Bureau of Education Bulletin Ho. 81, 1919, iir-or/oa lattnoa aaimsonoo i-tiC: joisq aiflT . erto.cJei'iqo'xqqs oil e i^nivrrl a&dflc^B gnomfi n'- • ■■ cf fcscfeojtbnl acJ Xliw as , 1 BZBO novl'S ........ ......I a J: Ji iioJtrfv/ .8IGI iBav' eriw lol ao-xiJ.-) lo qiuois aoid-ciiq-otqgjB o.i- Bsel xrioti :ti. moil -o n.I . aeensqx© Xoorfoa : .... ;^ ; a luu vXcnfi ©tow ■ •■ -t V ■ ■ - •'- ■• ' ■ VIX etsw 800 S-: ;.i tr ^' bo&7j:!i ■ jlocii c. nut; ^.;:v? Ta3 isn I'ct Qd^ B'.voria Ob jievosiorrt. m&ai 'lo yhsjh J, 16 lo Bctq2eo0i f^O e!80.£vi9g lOl ■'■■nm noaiiegmco sbnwl oiXcfwq 091 oriel" Jsri;^ ,v.^ XJ3:f--' ••■■■•'■ ■'- 8801: d'^od ioo'sl 5ovi-'£3b /iroil dr ;i.;oc'' 01 If YOiXoq .a lo >■ .fo9,t.' 91 Si-. j .yx ;;;: ^\ Y:^i;--zolirJi; .JoJ galnle.i^ Xoorfos 5 ii .aXoorfoa QBsdi c^e aXoorioa TeXXemB sriJ lo ■'.1 o:} eonsiele'^c ricfiw blodh Q-xo::: srii vine VII-1 SECTION VII The Distribution of Funds Among the Principal Functions of Expense » The generally accepted classifications of expendi- i tures in support of public elementary and high schools recognizes | eight principal functions or types of service for v;hich school i funds are ccmnonly expended. The following tabulation taken from 1 the uniform report blank used by the state departments of educa- ; tion in reporting educational statistics to the United States ; Bureau of Education indicates the important items of expense "i v/hich are included under each of the eight divisions: ' I. Expenses of general control (overhead charges) ; !• school elections 2, board of education and secretary's office • 3. finance offices and accounts I 4« offices in charge of buildings and supplies i 5. legal services j 6» operation and maintenance of office buildings j ?♦ superintendents of schools and their offices ] 8, enforcement of compulsory education, truancy lav;s, i and census enumeration. j 9. other expenses of general control. II, Expenses of instruction. J 1. salaries of supervisors of grades and subjects j 2. other expenses of supervisors | 3. salaries of principals 4. other expenses of principals' offices 5. other expenses of supervision 6. salaries of teachers : . 7. text -books j 8, supplies used in instruction 9. other expenses of instruction. i III. Expenses of operation of school plant 'j i 1. T.'ages of janitors and other employes ] 2. fuel I 3. v/ater ; 4. light and pouer 5. janitors' supplies : 6. other expenses of operation ; IV. Expenses of maintenance of school plant I 1. repair of, buildings and upkeep of grounds i 2. repair and replacement of equipment ,: 3. other expenses of maintenance j VII-2 V. Expenses of auxiliary agencies & sundry activities 1. libraries 2. books for libraries 3. promotion of health 4. transportation of pupils 5. care of children in institutions 6. provision of lunches 7. community lectures 8. social centers 9. recreation 10. other agencies and activities 11. pajmients to private schools 12. payments to schools of other civil divisions VI. Expenses of fixed charges 1. pensions 2 . rent 3. insurance 4. taxes 5. contributions, contingencies, etc. VII, Outlays (capital acquisition cSc construction) 1 . land 2. new buildings 3. alteration of old buildings 4. equipment of new buildings and grounds, exclusive of replacements VIII. Expenses of debt service 1 , redemption of bonds 2, payments to sinking funds 3, redemption of short term loans 4, payments of interest on indebtedness 5, refunds (tax and tuition) Expenditures for the items comprised in the first six of these groups constitute the current or relatively constant ex- penses of the schools, as distinguished from capital outlays and the expenses of debt service v\/hich ordinarily result from the comparatively infrequent and irregular necessity of enlarging the school plant or adding to its equipment. Of the items included under expenses of debt service, interest on indebtedness alone represents an actual charge against the accounts of the school systems, the amounts of the payments to sinking funds and for re- demption of bonds or other loans having previously been reported as expenditures, largely under the heading of capital outlays. The item of interest, however, is an actual cost over and above the expenditures for which the indebtedness was incurred. It is for this reason frequently classified with other items of current operating expense, the total actual expenditures being grouped under the two classes of current expenses and outlays. According to the report of the Bureau of Education (a) for 1920, the total pajmients for capital outlays for public schools in 1920 amounted to §153,542,852, The payments for current operating expenses including interest on indebtedness were $882,608,357. The expenditures for outlays thus amounted to 14.8 per cent of the total cost of schools for that year. In 1918 the percentage of total expenditures in support of elementary and high (a) Statistics of state school systems, 1919-20 (in press). VII-3 schools which was classified as outlay was 15.5, According to Burgesa (a) expenditures for outlays have absorbed annually from approximately 16 per cent to 19 per cent of all school funds since 1890. TABLE XV. Distribution of expenditures of state school systems for current expenses, 1920. function general control instruction operation maintenance auxiliary agencies fixed charges interest total amount in millions of dollars 36 636 115 30 36 9 21 683 The distribution of the current expenses of state school systems in 1920 is shown in Table XV. The percentage of the total current expenses which was devoted to each of the principal class- es of expenditures is shown for both 1920 and 1918 in Table XVI. The percentages for the same items v/hen the expenditures for capi- tal outlay are included are shown for the two years in Table XVII. TABLE XVI - Percentage distribution of current expenses of state school 3ystems, 1918 & 1920. function perc( sntage 1918 1920 general control 3.9 4,1 instruction 69,0 72.0 operation 17.3 13.1 maintenance 3.2 3.4 auxiliary agencies 3.3 4.1 fixed charges ,9 1,0 interest 2,3 2«3 From Table XVI it appears that about 70 per cent of the funds available for meeting the current expenses of the schools is required for items included under the head of instruction,. The general expenses involved in the administration of schools from year to year absorb about 30 per cent of all funds exclusive of capital outlays. (a) W. Randolph Burgess. Trends of School Costs . Russell Sage Foundation, 1920. P. 10b. New York: UO 10 'I '■1:> : iw rtOi tv 5 I'ooi':^: :jet!l 3r..9- ; *io noi^wcfiiJe: • ,VX ajQAT -3?; ex. lo-xcrnoo .; fro:;:?;; TO i£ ioocioi : ■ ■, :).fTam:;;f IccfocJ- Sri* ,VX eJ. .IVX QicfBi nx 61^1 Lite OS'^i rldocf • nivone. : 3 V~ ?j - ilUO :Oi^»nw'i I ?•■ 30 isq or i ' pifT. NToY W0M .acfao^ pe 1918 rcentag{ "1920 3.3 3.5 58.2 61,3 14.7 11.1 2,7 2.9 2.8 3.5 .8 2.0 .9 2.0 VII-4 TABLE XVII. Percentage distribution of total expenditures of state school systems, 1918 and 1920. function general control instruction operation maintenance auxiliary agencies fixed charges interest capital outlay 15.5 14.8 lH/hen the total expenditures are considered, approximately 60 per cent of all funds are required for the expenses of instruc- tion and about 15 per cent for capital outlays. According to data contained in the report of the state superintendent of public in- struction in Illinois, these percentages for this state in 1920 were 60.3 and 14.9, respectively. The increase shown in Tables _ XVI and XVII in the percentage of expenditures for instruction in 1920 over that for 1918 is due principally to the general increase in teachers' salaries during that period. The reports for state school systems include both city and rural schools and the percentages shown in the above tables in- dicate the tendency when the expenses of all schools are taken together. When city school systems alone are considered and the cities are classified according to size there is seen to be a difference in the proportionate part of school expenses devoted to instruction. Table XVIII shows the percentage distribution of current expenses for 225 cities in 1918. These cities include five population groups of 45 cities each. Group 1 includes cities of over 10,000 inhabitants. Group 11 cities of from 30,000 to 100,000, group 111 those from 10,000 to 30,000, group IV those from 5,000 to 10,000 and group V those between 2,500 and 5,000, While the expenses of city school systems increased greatly in the period from 1910 to 1920, the division of funds between the costs of instruction and other current expenses for schools has remained relatively constant. A study (a) based upon data assembled by agents of the Bureau of Census in 1910 and relating to school expenditures in 1909 shows that in 103 cities of 30,000 and more inhabitants 74.5 per cent of the current expenses of schools was used to defray the costs of instruction. A study (b) recently reported and based upon reports from 375 cities of more than 8000 inhabitants for 1920 shows that 74.3 per cent of _ the current expenses of these school systems went for instruction. (a) Harlan Updegroff, A Study of Expenses of City School Systems , Bureau of Education Bulletin No, 5, 1912, (b) Know and Help Your Schools. Third Report . New York: American City Bureau, iy21. P. 2b. W9W . ,"3^ 7-5a PIG. 10. Percentage of total expenditures for common schools devoted to instruction and outlays, 1918 & 1920. Instruction Other current expenses Outlays 19 18 19 2 101 ti^iiUitbn&qxB LaioS 1o ©ajsineoif tsx&liur t&Qwif-. ^iov^b Gloorfoa nomaoo Q I VII-5 TABLE XVIII. Percentage distribution of current school expenses of 225 cities grouped according to size, 1918. (a) gen'l con- trol I -4.0 instr- unct- ion- Vb.O' oper- ation maint- enance . auxil . agencies 2.0 fixed charges & int. Group 10.6 4.1 4.3 Group II -3.3 69.2 12,9 5.2 1.6 7.8 Group III -4.5 69.7 13.0 4.4 1.3 7.1 Group IV -5.2 65.9 13.7 4,4 2.0 8.8 Group V -6.8 65.5 14.1 3.6 2.0 8.0 Where it is possible to separate high school and elementary school expenditures it is found that the proportion of total costs devoted to the expenses of instruction is approximately the same in the two types of schools. Detailed reports concerning nine state systems for 1918 show that 62.9 per cent of all ele- mentary school costs v/ere incurred for instruction, while this percentage for the high schools was 51,7. There is, hov/ever, a greater difference in the proportionate amounts spent for outlays. Computations based on the same reports show an expenditure for outlays of 17.1 per cent of all high school funds and only 11.2 per cent in the case of the elementary schools. Reports of expenditures for higher educational institutions do not follow exactly the same classification as that adopted for common schools. Besides the fact that the activities of the insti- tutions are different, the funds of higher institutions are derived from different sources and the accounting for any given institution is adapted to the type of school and its sources of income. One result of this fact is a greater variety of accounting systems and a general lack of uniforraity in the type of report that is made. The central agencies which collect statistics of higher schools report fiscal statistics for these institutions in terms of in- come received rather than in the form of classified expenditures. The reports issued by the Bureau of Education make some analysis of the state appropriations for higher education, indicating separately the amounts alloted for current expenses and for out- lays. Thus the report for 1921 shows that the income of all state colleges and universities amounted to 98 million dollars. The legislative appropriations for buildings and new equipment amount- ed to nine millions, or a little more than nine per cent of the total income. In 1920 the legislative appropriations for build- ings amounted, to about eight per cent of the income of the insti- tutions reporting. This, however, can not be taken as an exact estimate of the division of funds for these institutions between current expense and capital outlays because considerable sums are frequently received from private benefactions for building pur- poses, and other income may be so employed. Reports for individual institutions of course specify the amount expended for capital acquisition and construction, usually for a one-year or a two-year period. In considering a single in- stitution, however, it must be understood that the requirements of the institution in the way of new buildings and equipment for (a) Computed from data presented in Bureau of Education Bulletin No. 24, 1920. •Jt>' lo sai '.olilo aS5 1c eoneno -not ^sanocf: .'.CSV 19. icrwijtd-arxjt Xswbivibrri tol ecfioq& v/Ct S '10 moil; bGim, VII-6 a given year or "biennium may not be representative of such require- ments from year to year. The division of expenditures between capital and other accounts over a period of years is obviously the most significant measure of the relation of outlays to current expenses. Detailed reports of this type which represent a uniform accounting over a period of years are not readily obtainable. Such data for the University of Illinois are included in the report of the comptroller for the year ending June 30, 1920. According to this report the percentage of total expenditures devoted to capital outlays for the seven-year period ending June 30, 1920 was 15.1. The percentage devoted to outlays in any one year varied from 26,4 in 1914 to 8.7 in 1920. Detailed reports concerning expenditures for state high- er institutions are to be found in some of the surveys of these institutions. The classifications employed in the Iowa (a) and Washington (b) surveys indicate rather clearly the principal t^'^pes of expenditures in the institutions considered. Each of these states maintains a university and an agricultural and mechanical college under state control. Including v^ith salaries the reported expenditures for educational supplies and equipment other than that charged to outlay accounts, this total is taken as the cost of instruction proper. Since executive officers of higher insti- tutions are generally not regarded as supervisors of instruction, their salaries are reported as expenses of overhead. Costs of maintenance and operation are likewise classed as overhead, the expenditures being distributed among the three functions of out- lays, instruction, and overhead, TABLE XIX, Percentage distribution of expenditures for state higher institutions in Iov;a and Washington, Universities A & M Colleges function Iowa Wash . Iowa Wa sh ■ outlays 23.0 22.2 30,0 38.1 instruction 48,4 56,5 45.3 41.6 other expenses 28.5 21.1 24,6 20.2 The reports mentioned include data for the tv;o years of 1914 and 1915 in the case of the Iowa institutions and estimates for 1917-19 for those of Washington, In order to more evenly dis- tribute the cost of buildings and new equipment, the average annual expenditures for the periods stated are taken instead of the data for a single year. Table XIX shows the percentage of total expend- itures devoted to each of the three functions for the two types of schools separately, these being based upon the average expenditures for two years as stated. The relation of instruction costs to other costs may be shown as in Table XIX. It is perhaps more significant to note the ratio of the cost of instruction to the total amount of the current expenses. Such ratio probably furnishes the best basis of compari- son of the distribution of expenditures in different institutions. However, any such comparisons should be made with caution even between institutions of similar type because of the lack of (a) State Higher Educational Institutions of Iowa. Bureau of Education Bulletin No. 19, 1916. — (b) T he Educational Institutions of the State of Washington . Bureau ol' Education Bulletin. Nor . 26, 1916. VII-7 uniform methods of accounting. In the University of Illinois, according to the 1920 report referred to, the percentage of total current expenses classified as the cost of teaching and research was 57.7. Including the cost of certain special investigations which constitute the rather regular research activities, - the agricultural and engineering experiment stations, the Bureau of Educational Research, etc. - this percentage becomes 69.8. In 1914 the corresponding percentages were 63.8 and 78,7, respective- ly. The report of the Survey of the University of Arizona (a) presents a comparable classification of expenditures of that in- stitution for 1915 and 1916. The percentage of total current ex- penses represented by instruction costs was 47,4 in 1915 and 43.9 in 1916. A survey just completed of the higher institutions of Kansas shows that the cost of instruction and research in the state university was 40,0 per cent of all current expenses in 1921. In the agricultural and mechanical college 54.3 per cent of the current expenses went for instruction and research (b). A recent report of expenditures by the University of Washington (c) shows that 44,71 per cent of the current expenses in 1921 was classified as instruction costs . The data presented v;ith reference to instruction indi- cate considerable variation in the proportionate amount of avail- able funds devoted to instruction and research as compared with other current expenses even where comparable records exist. Such variation is to be expected from the fact that the activities of the different institutions are by no means uniform. Moreover, those activities which are common to all the institutions for which reports are given are variously emphasized. To distinguish the costs of instruction in classical subjects from the costs of technical instruction for any given higher institution requires an analysis of all items of current expense and more detailed records than are usually compiled for general distribution. Such details of expenditures are included in the report of the survey of the Washington institutions. Forty- two separate courses are reported on as to salary costs of instruc- tion. If these are grouped so as to include all courses which are primarily vocational under one class, it is found that the salary costs of instruction in the two higher state institutions for these courses is 44.5 per cent of these costs for all instruc- tion. This is based upon a two years' budget, and probably represents as accurate distribution as can be made of such costs in higher institutions. The Iowa study does not give similar data for the A. & M. College, but shows approximately the same division for the two types of courses in the university as vi/as shown for Washington, the data for 1915 showing 45 per cent of the salary costs of instruction as being charged to the vocational group. In 1914 this percentage was 44.7.. A similar analysis of instruction costs in the University of Washington in the 1921 report referred to shows that 53.5 per cent of the salary costs of instruction was expended for courses in liberal arts and science groups. On the basis of these reports, it appears that about 55 per cent of the salaries of instructors in higher schools are at present ab- sorbed in teaching the academic or classical courses. (a) Bureau of Education Bulletin No. 19, 1917. P, 162, (b) Data from manuscript of report of Survey made under the direc- tion of the Bureau of Education. (c) The Third Biennial Report of the Joint B oard of Higher Curricula . Seattle: The Joint Board of Higher Curricula , Edwin B. Stevens, Secretary, 1922. P. 51. VII-8 The salary costs probably do not indicate exactly the difference in the costs of the two types of training, as the materials of insti-'uction and the equipment used in teaching is much more expensive for some courses than for others. But since the salary costs amount to from two-thirds to three-fourths of the total cost of most departments, the actual expenses of the group of departments included in the vocational group would like- ly bear approximately the same ratio to the total costs if it were possible to determine the total costs of the various depart- ments precisely. iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiwn 021 289 863 6