! PUBLIC E hi MARYLAND PUBLIC EDUCATION IN MARYLAND PUBLICATIONS OF THE GENERAL EDUCATION BOARD 61 Broadway, New York City sent on request. The General Education Board: An account of its Activities 1902-1914. Cloth, 254 pages, with 32 full-page illustrations and 31 maps. Public Education in Maryland, By Abraham Flexner and Frank P. Bachman. 196 pages, with 25 full-page illustrations and 34 cuts. OCCASIONAL PAPERS 1. The Country School of To-morrow, By Fred- erick T. Gates. Paper, 15 pages. IN PRESS Report of the Secretary of the General Educa- tion Board, 1914-1915. Occasional Paper II: Changes Needed in American Secondary Education, By Charles W. Eliot. PUBLIC EDUCATION IN MARYLAND A REPORT TO THE MARYLAND EDUCATIONAL SURVEY COMMISSION BY ABRAHAM FLEXNER AND FRANK P. BACHMAN NEW YORK THE GENERAL EDUCATION BOARD 6 1 BROADWAY I9l6 PREFACE The Act of 1914, Chapter 844, which created our com- mission, contains the following statement of the purposes of the legislature: "It is the desire of the General Assembly that there be made a comprehensive study of the public school system of the State of Maryland, of the state-aided elementary and secondary schools and the higher educational insti- tions of the State of Maryland, with a view to correlating and coordinating the different institutions wholly or partially supported by state appropriations." The Act also set forth in its premises: " That the Commission shall have the power to . . . call to its assistance any expert help that may be avail- able either from public or private foundations." An appropriation of $5,000 was made to carry out the purposes of the Legislature. As this was clearly insuf- ficient to conduct so extensive a survey as that con- templated by the Act, it became evident that the Legislature intended that the commission should secure the services of one of the great foundations now conduct- ing educational surveys throughout the states. After careful consideration the commission requested the General Education Board to undertake the survey. The vii viii PREFACE Board consented to do so, generously agreeing at the same time to supplement the legislative appropriation to the extent of $7,500 or such part thereof as might be needed. The commission state^ to the representatives of the General Education Board that it was the commission's opinion that the State of Maryland could not afford at the present time to increase its appropriations for public schools. The commission therefore asked the General Education Board not to draw a plan for an ideal school system in Maryland which would be beyond the state's resources, but rather to indicate whether or not the State of Maryland was getting the best results from the money now expended, and if not, in what manner the same sum could be expended to better advantage. It should be a source of gratification to the people of the state that the representatives of the Board have re- ported that the present appropriation, if properly sup- plemented by the counties, and wisely and correctly applied, should give Maryland an excellent public school system. The report which is now presented embodies a survey of the elementary and secondary schools of the counties. It does not deal with the schools of Baltimore City. Nor does it cover the higher educational institutions receiving state aid. It is the purpose of the commission, if con- tinued in office by the Legislature, to conduct a survey of these institutions. A study of education in this state would not be complete without such a survey. The Act of 1914 wisely contemplated "correlating and co- PREFACE ix ordinating the different institutions wholly or partially supported by state appropriations." The evident object is to provide a plan whereunder a student will be able to pass from the lowest grade of pub- lic school, to and through the highest that state-aided institutions offer, with the least possible delay and at the least possible cost to the state. The object has our en- tire approval. The State of Maryland expends $269,000 per annum for the aid of higher educational institutions, besides making large additional appropriations for the erection of new buildings. The people of the state are entitled to know whether this money is wisely and efficiently ex- pended and if the state is receiving an adequate return. As the original agreement between the commission and the General Education Board covered the survey of the higher institutions as well as the lower schools, the new survey should be conducted without further cost to the state except for an appropriation of $1,000 for the actual expenses of the commission, such as printing, clerical work, travelling expenses, etc. In view of the fact that a thorough survey of this char- acter will furnish the only correct basis on which a sound judgment as to the future can be based, the commission respectfully suggests that it may be detrimental to the best interest of the state to cripple any educational insti- tution that has any possibility of being moulded into such a plan by failure to make the usual appropriation for such institution at the present session. It also feels x PREFACE in duty bound to urge upon the Legislature that no appropriation for educational institutions of any char- acter be increased until the Legislature has before it for guidance all of the fundamental facts, supplemented by studies of the experiences of other states in the various fields of education, and aided by the unbiased opinion of experts based upon these facts and studies. No mat- ter how pressing the present need of any institution may appear to be, an increased appropriation may prove to be not only a waste of state funds, but an actual impedi- ment in the formation of the plan of coordination con- templated by the Act of 19 14. The present report of the General Education Board nas the unqualified endorsement of the commission. It is the work of Mr. Abraham Flexner and Dr. Frank P. Bachman, assisted in special lines by Mr. Jackson Davis and Mr. W. W. Theisen. Mr. Flexner, now one of the secretaries of the General Education Board, was formerly connected with the Carnegie Foundation for the Ad- vancement of Teaching; he is the author of The American College, Medical Education in the United States and Canada, Medical Education in Europe, and numerous papers dealing with educational subjects. Dr. Bachman has served as Assistant Superintendent of the schools of Cleveland, and was a member of the staff of experts, who, headed by Professor Hanus, conducted the survey of the schools of New York City. He has also taken an im- portant part in similar investigations elsewhere. He has published books entitled, " Problems in Elementary PREFACE xi School Administration" and "Principles of Elementary Education"; his contributions to the New York school survey deal with the elementary schools and the school budget. Mr. Davis, formerly State Supervisor of Negro Rural Schools of Virginia, is now the Field Agent of the General Education Board in charge of its work in Negro Education. Mr. Theisen is an experienced teacher, now working in the field of educational statistics. Dr. Bach- man was in local charge of the Maryland Survey and himself visited every county in the state. In the course of the survey Dr. Bachman visited over 1 6 per cent, of the white teachers and 10 per cent, of the colored teachers of the state. Schools were visited at random, and for this reason those visited were prob- ably typical of existing conditions. Dr. Bachman had the full cooperation of the State Board of Education, of the State Superintendent of Education, and of the school authorities throughout the state. The Federal Census of 1910 ranks Maryland among the states of the Union as twenty-third in point of illiteracy. If full allowance is made for the 20 per cent. Negro population of the state, the results are still very discouraging. It is a source of congratulation that the remedy is demonstrably clear and comparatively simple. The needed corrections in the school machinery are pointed out in the report. These can be promptly made. The necessary legislation to this end is embraced in proposed bills which will be presented to the Legislature. xii PREFACE But no legislation will produce results unless our schools are divorced from politics. Public opinion in the United States has long since endorsed the view that education and politics will not mix. The welfare of over two hundred thousand school children in the counties of Maryland is at stake, as well as the happiness and pros- perity of generations to come. Proper education is fundamental to good citizenship, to the progress of com- munities, and to the state as a whole. The problem of educating our children strikes deep into the very roots of state welfare and penetrates into nearly every home. Good schools cannot be made or sustained upon any other basis than intelligence and common sense. Polit- ical conditions and questions vary in the counties; the needs of the schools are almost identical. They should have no relation whatsoever to the political problems of a county. We venture to say that this is the view of all right- thinking politicians. We do not believe that it is their aim or desire to mix politics with education. It so hap- pens, however, that our school laws recognize the ex- istence of political parties and have been framed to invite political activity. The opportunity has come to remodel our public school laws. We have the facts before us together with the best expert advice. If this advice is followed, the State of Maryland should very soon be able to wipe out the blot of illiteracy and greatly to improve the type of education provided for the children of the state. PREFACE xiii In other states the problem of reorganizing an educa- tional system is very complex and very difficult. It is comparatively simple in our state. The commission respectfully submits herewith to the Legislature copies of proposed bills drafted in line with its recommendations. We most earnestly urge their passage by the Legislature of 1916. Respectfully submitted to His Excellency Governor Phillips Lee Goldsborough, December 20, 191 5. (Signed) B. Howell Griswold, Jr. (Chairman) J. McPherson Scott Albert W. Sisk INTRODUCTION In the following pages an effort is made to describe the organization of public education in Maryland, to estimate its efficiency, and to suggest such changes as appear at once desirable and feasible. The people of Maryland will find some grounds for gratification as they read this volume. Public education in Maryland is on the whole soundly organized; at the head stands the State Board of Education, acting through the State Superintendent upon the local unit, which is — as it should be — the county, not the district or the town- ship as is the case in less well-organized states. American experience stamps this type of state educational organi- zation as the best that can be devised, for it allows at one and the same time for local initiative and for central direction, both of which are indispensable. Further, the state deals generously with its public schools in the mat- ter of money. Some of the counties, as we shall learn, do less than their duty in this matter, but the state has been liberal — too liberal, indeed, with such counties as have failed to help themselves. We do not propose, therefore, any fundamental changes in the general struc- ture of the public school system of Maryland nor do we suggest that the state increase at all its appropriations to the schools. XV xvi INTRODUCTION So far the people of Maryland have, as we have said, reason to be satisfied. But there are other aspects which will cause grave concern. A system of public education, in the main soundly conceived, yields on the whole ex- tremely unsatisfactory results. A few counties possess good and steadily improving schools; a good school may be found here and there in other counties. But the large majority of the schools are poor; teachers are, for the most part, poorly trained; instruction is ineffective and ob- solete; children attend school with disastrous irregularity; school buildings are far too often in unsatisfactory condi- tion, school grounds frequently neglected and untidy. How can a fundamentally sound system produce such results? There are, indeed, a good many reasons. The state possesses a sound organization in skeleton or outline only. Neither the State Department of Education nor the office of the County Superintendent is so manned and equipped that they are really effective for the purposes for which they exist. The State Superintendent is charged with many important duties, but he has only a single assistant to help him in discharging them. The County Superin- tendency is in even more unsatisfactory condition. In the first place, the law does not even require the County Superintendent to be a trained or experienced school man; in the second place, adequate provision for skilled as- sistance exists in only one or two counties. In most counties, therefore, an untrained official without expert aid certificates teachers, arranges courses of study, super- INTRODUCTION xvii vises instruction, and examines for promotion pupils who attend school regularly or not, as they or their parents please. Finally, the state's large school fund is not distributed so as to accomplish the greatest possible good. For it is distributed almost unconditionally. The counties get their quota whether they do their educational duty or not, with the result that the backward counties some- times do much less than they ought and some well-to-do counties do much less than they should. The state fund thus becomes a source of positive demoralization. It can be converted into a real help and stimulus only if payment by the state is conditioned upon the perform- ance of local duty. In view of these conditions it is easy enough to under- stand why a fundamentally correct type of organization produces unsatisfactory educational results in Mary- land. But, as a matter of fact, the state does not even fare as well with its present organization as it might: why not? A few words suffice to explain. Public education in Maryland is "in politics." Politics are apt to prevent the State Board from acting with vigor; to determine the composition of the county boards; to affect the choice of the county superintendents; even to enter into the selection of the one-room rural school teacher. Of course, there are exceptions. Some of the county boards are excellent; some schools are entirely free from political taint. But, in general, political and personal xviii INTRODUCTION considerations impair the vigor, independence, thorough- ness, and efficiency of the school system. The public does not begin to realize the seriousness of the political infection or the damage it does. The following chapters discuss in detail the situation which has thus been briefly summarized. It is hoped that legislation supplementing and improving the present state system may result. But even should this be the case, public education will continue to disappoint, unless higher ideals result in completely divorcing education from politics. PUBLIC EDUCATION IN MARYLAND Public Education in Maryland I. MARYLAND AND ITS SCHOOLS BEFORE undertaking to describe or to discuss education in Maryland it is necessary to know the state itself. The very fact that we nowadays begin with an inquiry of this kind is significant. It means that there is no single educational pattern that ought to be applied to every state or to every county in any state regardless of local conditions. Not only the substance but the end of education must be defined with reference to the needs and opportunities of the people who are to be educated. Maryland is a border state, lying midway between North and South; in population and occupations it is therefore partly Northern and partly Southern. It differs, however, from all other states of the Union in the extent of its water area, for of a total area of 12,210 square miles, almost one-fifth (2,319 square miles) is water. Of the estimated state population, 1,300,000, 43 per cent., live in the city of Baltimore; a dozen small cities raise the urban population to just about 50 per cent. From the standpoint of numbers, therefore, the state is half urban and half rural. If, however, the city of Balti- 3 4 PUBLIC EDUCATION IN MARYLAND more is ignored, an overwhelming percentage of the rest of the population live in the country. Maryland is, therefore, with the exception of its one great city, a rural state with an unusual water development. Its rural character is clearer from the educational than from any other point of view; for of 388,486 children of legal school age in the state, 234,900 live outside Baltimore City. For education this is a fact of prime importance. The Federal Census of 19 10 shows that more than five hundred occupations are carried on in Maryland. Of these a few are regional — mining, for example, in the mountain regions, fishing and oystering about the Chesapeake. Baltimore thrives on manufacturing, trade, and transportation. Outside of Baltimore, agriculture predominates. Indeed, one-third of all the wage-earners outside that city and 21 per cent, of those in the entire state are engaged in one branch of farming or another. Agriculture has prospered in Maryland, though less so than in some other parts of the country. In the last decade the number of farms has increased by something over 6 per cent. ; the value of farm property has increased by 40 per cent.; farms now average slightly over 100 acres as opposed to twice that size in 1850. Simultane- ously with the decrease in the size of the farms, the num- ber of owners has increased. The tenant farmer, so apt to be an unfavorable symptom, is not prominent and is disappearing. The significance of these facts for our MARYLAND AND ITS SCHOOLS 5 inquiry is obvious. As the city of Baltimore is not in- cluded in this study, we are called on to deal with a sys- tem of schools serving mainly a rural population. The population of Maryland grows steadily, but no longer rapidly. The state ranked sixth with 320,000 inhabitants in 1790; it ranks twenty-seventh with over four times that number to-day. Its population is un- usually stable. In 1910 about 80 per cent, of those living in the state were born there, while only 8 per cent, were foreign born. In the rural districts this condition is even more marked; there the percentages were 84 per cent, born and living in the state; 3.7 per cent, foreign born. The border-line situation of the state adds, how- ever, a complication; for approximately one-fifth of the population belongs to the Negro race. The schools of Maryland serve then in the main native races, living largely in the country, the Negro race being numerous enough to make a heavy demand on the state. The history of the state need not be reviewed in this connection; but a single fact of outstanding importance must be noted. In the development of its institutions, as in the South generally, the county has from the begin- ning played a vital part. The Maryland county is not an aggregate of smaller units, such as towns and town- ships; it is the original and fundamental governing unit. The state began with counties; eleven were created be- tween 1637 and 1695. Division into election and school districts took place later and simply for purposes of con- venience. The priority of the county is, as we shall ob- 6 PUBLIC EDUCATION IN MARYLAND serve, a fortunate circumstance from the educational point of view. As early as 167 1 legislative efforts to provide schools or colleges "for the education of youth in learning and virtue" are recorded. But despite intermittent agita- tion, the better part of a century passed before certain schools were established, which were the forerunners of the "academies" established during the latter part of the eighteenth and the early part of the nineteenth centuries. Of these academies we shall learn more later. Suffice it to say here that they represented mainly the concern of the state for the education of the upper classes. Not until 181 2 was an effort made to provide elementary schools for the poor. Thereafter, developments were fairly rapid. In 1825 an ambitious scheme, never put into full operation, created by legislative action a complete system of public instruction, beginning with a superintendent at the top and ending with county and district organization at the bottom. The system failed; but efforts did not cease. Forty years later a new state system was established by the constitution of 1864. This system, distinguished by the great power conferred on the State Board and the State Superintendent, was evidently premature; for three years later a new constitution sounded its death knell. The State Board and the State Superintendent were abolished in the following year (1868); the county and the district thus became supreme. Well-founded -f £ H 2 C trt a— 5J £ o r* r- U C3 l - >-- -T ^_j c/j i— ~^r H rt o X5 r- ^ c o b °* ^2 2 -C .5 £ & C y. o ~x OJ r o .— < g u u ~ •c^~ o i £ o — ~* 71 o *X 3 >-H OJ.Sf c "^ — rt o a rH O »- rt o c tn — < >- "*- OJ ^ ' _ — o - — £ " S 1^ In u u 03 -_h U C - >- C c = 8 rt K 1) ,« C rt — boa. rf ^ « ci ftfcl _,' c o c y o ^ i-, a v _ >,-^ s ni «-*-! o ,— 1 — u *J o - J- 71 r:^ uJ MARYLAND AND ITS SCHOOLS 7 discontent led gradually to the revival of central state educational agencies; and thus by 1900 the system had attained the form in which this volume finds it. Though the facts will emerge as our study proceeds, it may be worth while, by means of a brief statistical state- ment, to show in advance the extent and importance of Maryland's educational interests. In the 23 counties of Maryland, and exclusive of Baltimore city, there are 1,935 white and 550 colored schools; the children of school age (6 to 18) number 275,503 white and 63,964 colored; 200,783 white children and 44,475 colored are enrolled. The state employs upward of 5,000 white and almost 1,000 colored teachers. Its annual outlay is more than $5,000,000, one-half of which is spent outside the city of Baltimore. We are about to inquire how wisely this large sum is spent and whether or not the people of Maryland could spend it more wisely than they do. II. THE STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION PUBLIC education in America has developed most satisfactorily in those states in which a judicious combination of state and local author- ity has been effected. The reason is plain. The in- fluence of the state makes for unity of design and uni- formity of standard; local initiative ensures the interest, effort, pride, and sacrifice of the community to which the school belongs. The public school system of Maryland is of this prevailing American type. The state de- termines the general outlines, while the details are largely managed by local authorities. We shall in this chapter describe the organization and operation of the State Board, discussing its part in centralizing educa- tional administration. The State Board consists of eight members of whom the Governor and the State Superintendent are two. The remaining six, of whom at least two must represent the political party defeated at the last preceding election for Governor, are appointed by the Governor, subject to confirmation by the Senate. Appointments run six years, two terms expiring every two years. Thus a total change of membership requires something more than a single gubernatorial term. The political complexion 8 THE STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION 9 may, however, be altered, whenever a Governor is elected whose politics differ from the politics of his predecessor. The present Board, a majority of whom are Republicans, consists of the Governor (a lawyer), the State Superin- tendent (an educator), a retired publisher, a banker, a manufacturer, a lawyer, and two college presidents. We shall, in a moment, discuss the functions, powers, and duties of the State Board. But it is important to call attention at the outset to the fact that the arrange- ment above described makes the State Department of Education part and parcel of the elected state govern- ment and thus exposes it — and, with it, public education in general — to the vicissitudes of state politics. It is not a question as to whether, at this time, or indeed at any time, the State Department has been "in politics." It is enough to point out that the statute regulating the personnel of the Board looks in that direction. Gover- nors should, of course, be sufficiently wise and strong to prevent local or national politics from determining the composition of the State Board and thus influencing school administration; and Maryland may be fortunate enough to escape the dangers to which she is exposed by the terms of the statute. But it is assuredly safer to dimin- ish the danger. The law should be drawn on the theory that while the people, through the State Board, decide general educational policies, the Board should be so con- stituted as to avoid the ups and downs of party contests. How should a State Board of Education be constituted and what should be its functions? There is as yet no io PUBLIC EDUCATION IN MARYLAND agreement in practice on either point. It happens there- fore that in some states the Board is an ex-officio body; in others a lay body; sometimes it is composed of both laymen and educators. The duties laid upon the Board also vary greatly from state to state. In one place its functions are nominal; in another, detailed and responsi- ble. As a rule, the powers exercised by state boards have grown by accretion, uncontrolled by a clear concep- tion of what is aimed at. Meanwhile, in the light of our experience, it may safely be said that the State Board should be essentially a lay body representing the people in large matters of educa- tional policy and keeping the viewpoint, experience, and need of the layman before the school executive. Obvi- ously a Board, made up of laymen and meeting a few times a year, cannot be charged with the direct execution of matters of policy nor can it undertake to decide and supervise in matters of detail. It is rather to be re- garded as a criticising, suggesting, and reviewing body, that the Superintendent must consult and convince in regard to all decisions of moment. The Board cannot supersede the Superintendent, but it can make sure that he does his duty and can enormously assist him with sug- gestion and counsel. The Maryland State Board does not appear to be con- stituted according to any clear principle, nor have all its functions been logically arrived at. As the Governor and State Superintendent are members, the membership is partly ex-officio; it contains, besides, both laymen and THE STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION n educators. Its duties are varied, not to say indiscrimi- nate, for it is at once a legislative, a judicial, and an executive agency. As a legislating educational body, it makes courses of study, determines the minimum re- quirements for the degrees conferred by the academic institutions of the state, passes on the qualifications of regular high school teachers, and classifies high schools that are to receive state aid. As an executive, it is ex- pected to enforce the school laws, which will be described in the course of this report — and, when necessary, to em- ploy legal proceedings to that end. On the judicial side, it interprets school legislation, deciding controversies and disputes, and even possesses, though it has not used, the power to remove from office an inefficient County Super- intendent. Finally, the State Board also administers the state normal schools, manages the state teachers' retire- ment fund, and grants professional certificates valid throughout the state and for life to teachers of experi- ence and established reputation. In exercising its authority and carrying out its will, the State Board acts through its secretary and executive officer, the Superintendent of Public Education. Aside for the moment from the question as to whether the State Board should or should not possess the particular powers above enumerated, it is clear that adequate execution of the law depends primarily on the State Superintendent. As the Superintendent is not omni- present and cannot make himself efficiently felt through circulars, blanks, and documents, he cannot make the 12 PUBLIC EDUCATION IN MARYLAND State Department effective unless he possesses an ade- quate organization and is vigorously supported both by the Board and by public opinion. As a matter of fact, not one of these three conditions is satisfactorily ful- filled. The State Superintendent's staff, as we shall more fully observe in the next chapter, consists of himself, an assistant, and a clerk — an organization altogether inadequate to the duties laid upon it. Public opinion in the state is in the main indifferent. The State Board, partly for this reason, partly because of the way it is constituted, frequently acts on the theory that friendly and patient pressure may in the long run accomplish more than would be achieved by vigorous measures. It follows inevitably that the State Board does not en- force all the laws. In some instances the law is simply ignored; in others it is applied with considerable laxity. For example, the statute requires that county superin- tendents "shall devote their entire time to public school business." 1 The State Board of Education is not un- aware of the fact that in the counties of Somerset, Calvert, and Montgomery the county superintendents now in office do not "devote their entire time to public school business." Again, the law provides that "no persons shall be employed as teachers unless such per- sons shall hold a certificate of qualification." 2 The State Board knows that this law is disregarded, as, for 1 Public School Laws of Maryland, Chap. XI, Sec. 80. 2 Public School Laws of Maryland, Chap VIII, Sec. 53. THE STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION 13 example, in the counties of Caroline and Dorchester. Thus neither of these important statutes is well enforced. It must, however, in fairness be said that inefficiency sometimes results from defects in the law itself. For example, nothing is more important than uniformity at a high level in the training of teachers. Unfortunately, in Maryland, several agencies, working independently of each other, participate in determining the qualifications of teachers. The State Board grants teaching certifi- cates valid for life, and in so far regulates one important part of the teaching profession. At the same time, the State Superintendent and the county superintendents control other parts of the teaching profession. Thus, in respect to certification — a matter of crucial importance — the law prevents the execution of a consistent and effective policy. Again, waste or ineffectiveness results when powers which should be lodged in the State Superintendent are delegated to the State Board. The Board is, for ex- ample, required to interpret the laws and to decide controversies arising under them. Such questions are at times presented to the Board as part of the regular docket; at times special meetings are called for their consideration, now at Annapolis, again at some remote corner of the state. Perhaps one-fourth of the Board's time is thus consumed. If the Board had not had to sit as a court in such matters, there would probably have been no occasion to hold six special meetings in 191 2, four in 1913, and five in 1915. i 4 PUBLIC EDUCATION IN MARYLAND Here again the law is responsible for inefficiency. The State Board should not be required to exercise judicial functions. Its members are widely scattered; most of them lack legal training and experience; they meet regu- larly only four times a year, and even then but for a few hours. They should not be expected to deal with mat- ters of minute detail or technical nature. The trained Superintendent who has their confidence should act for them and without their intervention in deciding tech- nical points. Such is already the practice in certain states — among others, Illinois, Kentucky, New York, and Virginia — in all of which the interpretation of the school law and the handling of appeals from county and town authorities are given over to the executive officer of the Board. To some extent inefficiency has also arisen because the Board, given a specific responsibility, has misconceived the manner in which that responsibility should be met. The State Board is — as it should be— the Board of Trustees of the state normal schools. It has, indeed, no more important duty, for from these schools, the Baltimore Normal School, the Frostburg Normal School, and the Normal and Industrial School at Bowie, come and will continue to come the major part of the trained teachers in the elementary schools of the state. Now, what should the board of trustees of a normal school do? In the first place, the board should select the school head, and in conference with him determine the general policy of the institution. It should visit, THE STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION 15 inspect, and control. But it should not conduct the school. If the head of the institution is competent, he should, in cooperation with the faculty of the institution, devise detailed plans and submit nominations to the State Board. In respect to these matters, the Board should be a sort of jury, whom the principal and his associates must convince of the propriety and wisdom of their suggestions. It is, of course, within the duty of the Board also to make suggestions in the course of their discussions. But the initiative should lie with the school head and staff. The Board cannot possess the technical knowledge, training, and experience, nor has it the time, to "run" the school. Unless the head and faculty of the normal schools are capable of discharging their proper functions, they are unequal to their task and should be replaced. The State Board now manages the normal schools through committees. Each institution is in charge of a committee made up of three members of the State Board, the chairman of the Committee being in a sense its repre- sentative and active agent. These sub-committees are so important that the State Board is in danger of exces- sive deference to them in the appointment of principals and teachers and in the determination of details of policy. To be sure, the principals of the normal schools have the right to appear before the Board on questions connected with their institutions. But advantage is seldom taken of this privilege. There is, moreover, no evidence to show that principals have been or have been expected to 1 6 PUBLIC EDUCATION IN MARYLAND be properly active in making known the larger needs of their schools or in outlining the steps in advance to be taken by them. Indeed, the more important changes in the course of study, in entrance requirements and the like, made within recent years, have had their origin with the State Superintendent. Again, principals have no particular responsibility in the matter of finding and recommending to the State Board qualified teachers to fill vacancies. Applications for positions may be sent to them, but quite as often they are sent to the State Board. Even though such applications are subsequently referred to the principal, it is evident that there exists an unfortu- nate doubt as to just where initiative belongs. The State Board should of course continue to exercise a strong and vigilant control over the normal schools, but the character of this control needs to be modified. Di- rect responsibility should be imposed upon the principals for working out plans for the training of teachers and for the development and improvement of their schools. Larger opportunity should be afforded them for the exercise of their powers in the management of their re- spective institutions. Thereupon the State Board must hold them to strict account for results. In respect to other technical points, the policy of the Board has been generally sound. The Board, for ex- ample, is authorized to prepare courses of study. In the elementary schools the statute specifies the subjects, but leaves the Board to determine details; in the high schools, normal schools, and colleges, the Board has THE STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION 17 practically complete power. In these matters the Board depends, as it should depend, on its executive offi- cer to lead, suggest, and devise. The details of the pre- scribed curricula will be taken up in connection with the different types of school. Suffice it at this point to say that the State Board, through its executive officer, has given no little attention of late years to courses of study, to the end that instruction might be better adapted to economic and social needs. The courses of study for both the elementary schools and the high schools were re- vised in 1 90 1, in 1907, and in 1913. Important changes were made in the course for the normal schools in 1905 and in 1908, and a complete revision of college courses for teachers is now under way. As we shall hereafter see, 1 it is, however, one thing to recast a course of study and another thing to recast the actual instruction given in the schools. The course of study, while still needing revision, has probably improved in recent years rather faster than the teaching through which it is ad- ministered. The Board has, though not without some excuse, 2 done less well in regard to its recording and reporting methods. As far back as 1872, the legislature empow- ered the State Board " to issue a uniform series of blanks for the use of teachers and of county boards, and to re- quire all records to be kept and reports to be made on these forms." Accordingly, the State Board through its 'Chapter VIII, "Instruction." 2 Viz., the lack of necessary assistance. 1 8 PUBLIC EDUCATION IN MARYLAND executive officer has prescribed a system of school records covering, among other things, the financial transactions of the county boards, the daily records and term reports of the teachers, records and reports for ap- proved high schools, and forms for the annual report of the county superintendents — a degree of uniformity found in few other states. The value of these uniform records can scarcely be overestimated, for modern school administration rests not upon personal opinion, but upon objective facts, such as these forms aim to elicit. Unfortunately, the blanks now prescribed by the State Board are by no means perfect, either as to form or as to the data called for. It would be a great improvement to adopt the financial forms suggested by the National Bureau of Education and the educational blanks rec- ommended by the Committee of the National Education Association on Uniform Blanks and Reports. There is, of course, no virtue in the mere accumulation of statistical data in the State Department of Education. The endless filling out of blanks is largely a waste of time unless the data accumulated are studied, interpreted, and utilized. As the Board is required by law to issue an annual Report and is allowed in its discretion to issue special pamphlets from time to time, opportunity to utilize the data collected cannot be said to be lacking. The Reports thus far issued, while comparing not un- favorably with reports issued by many other states, do not make effective use of the material available. A school report should not only give an account of what has THE STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION 19 happened, but should develop, expound, and recommend educational policy. It should exhibit vividly not only achievements, but needs, difficulties, and opportunities as well. A well-written report is the most effective means of communication between the Board of Education and the people of the state. The Annual Report of the State Board, prepared by the Superintendent, is now a volume of some 400 pages. It could be greatly reduced, and to that extent improved as a means of communication, by omitting such matter as the abstract of the proceedings of the Maryland State Teachers' Association, which are, as a matter of fact, separately published by the Department, and the alpha- betical list of the teachers of the state — a separate publi- cation of which would serve the purpose better. The reports of the county school boards could be much condensed. In place of what is thus omitted, the Report, utilizing the data obtained on the blanks above de- scribed, should present in narrative and graphic form the essential facts bearing upon the preparation and salaries of teachers, the attendance and classification of children, the condition of schoolhouses, and the financial support of the school system. Such information would supply a solid basis for deciding upon educational policies and for determining administrative and supervisory action. Each report might well carry some important message to the people. One might " feature" Compulsory School Attendance, another, The Sanitary Conditions and Care of Schoolhouses, still another, Better Pre- 20 PUBLIC EDUCATION IN MARYLAND pared Teachers. Obviously the executive officer of the Board, with his present force, cannot act on these sugges- tions. This, however, is simply another reason for plac- ing larger resources at its command. The State Board is not unmindful of the value of an aroused public interest in education. Indeed, not a little has been done within the last two years to centre the at- tention of the people upon their schools. Educational mass-meetings and school exhibits, authorized and en- couraged by the State Board, were held in 1914 in all but two counties of the state. There was usually a parade of the school children of the county, competitive athletic games, fancy drills, a display of school work, and a mass-meeting at which addresses were given by persons of prominence upon the work and needs of the schools. As many as eight to ten thousand attended these Educa- tional Rallies in a single county. Some of those attending realized for the first time the number of children there are to be educated. Others saw for the first time an ex- hibit of what the modern school does, and appreciated as never before the significance of public education to the youth of the state. Few, indeed, of all the many thou- sands attending these great meetings, failed to pledge their loyal support to the schools. The State Board has wisely resolved to continue this campaign for enlightened public sentiment. The failure year after year of counties to take advantage of the liberal aid offered by the state for particular kinds of elementary education; the demand of certain counties to THE STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION 21 be exempt from the provisions of laws regulating the length of the school term, the minimum salary for teach- ers, compulsory school attendance and the like; the meagre local support of the schools in certain counties — are all due more to the stagnant condition of public sentiment than to any other single cause. It is the business of the State Board not only to carry on, but to develop, popular education as fast as public sentiment can be created and the necessary resources found. Summarizing, we may conclude that the Maryland statutes are sound in providing a State Board of Educa- tion, though the body as constituted requires reconstruc- tion. The staff of the office should be increased so that the laws can be more intelligently and uniformly applied ; and largely through its activities an aroused public opin- ion must be developed, ready to follow when the state authorities give the word. III. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF PUBLIC EDUCATION THE State Superintendent of Public Education in an American commonwealth is the head of its public school system. As such, he is the execu- tive officer of the State Board; he represents the Board in the long intervals between its meetings; he is the profes- sional adviser of the Board in session; his position makes it possible for him to unite and to direct the educational forces of the state. Whatever the limits upon his legal powers in this respect, a man of tact, force, and resource- fulness can exert an influence that goes far beyond his actual authority. As all our states are, educationally speaking, still in the relatively early stages of their devel- opment, the state superintendency offers a splendid field for well-endowed and well-trained educational statesmen. In Maryland the Superintendent of Public Education is appointed by the Governor in the second year of his term, "by and with the consent of the Senate" and holds office for four years — as does the Governor who appoints him. Professional qualifications there are none, the vague word "competent" being the only limitation upon the Governor's freedom of choice. The salary of the Superintendent, which may not exceed $3,000 a year, is 22 O z o (U THE STATE SUPERINTENDENT 23 fixed by the State Board, which possesses also a qualified veto on his removal. For though the Governor may re- move the State Superintendent at his pleasure, the act, to be valid, must be sanctioned by a vote of two-thirds of the Board. In these provisions, as in the provisions regulating appointment to the State Board, there is, once more, evidence of lack of clear thinking. For the Superintendent, who is the state's educational executive, should be chosen, not by the Governor, but by a board as far removed from political influences as possible, for a term either indefinite or long enough to avoid danger of political complications. Aside from his duties as member of the State Board, and as the executive who carries out the Board's orders, the Superintendent of Public Education exercises certain powers and performs certain duties in his individual capac- ity. These duties are both supervisory and inspectional in character. For example, he accepts or rejects in his discretion normal school and college diplomas issued by other states; defines the qualifications of teachers of special branches in high school domestic science, manual training, etc. ; rates teachers who, not being normal school graduates, offer instead some supposedly equivalent training plus practical experience; and examines the reports and expenditures of the county school boards. The Superintendent is, moreover, authorized to prepare and distribute pamphlets to teachers giving information as to the best methods of instruction in the various studies pursued in the schools. 24 PUBLIC EDUCATION IN MARYLAND For our present purpose it is immaterial whether the Superintendent is called on to do a particular thing in his own capacity or on the order of the State Board. Our real concern is as to the efficiency with which the work of the department has been carried on. In passing judgment on this point, an important distinction must be made. The " mechanics" of the office have been well attended to, better indeed than one could reasonably expect with existing facilities. Modern methods of handling business have been introduced, correspondence is promptly dis- posed of, records are well kept and easily accessible. On the other hand, the larger opportunities have not been met and under existing circumstances cannot be met. True enough, the department has, over and above the explicit requirements of the statute, in recent years initi- ated certain progressive measures of great importance: it has, for example, secured legislation providing for state aid to and supervision of high schools, for state certifica- tion of high school teachers, and for a minimum profes- sional training in case of elementary school teachers. These measures, however, represent only a "drive" in one direction or another. The department has been unable to follow them up vigorously and steadily or to give the requisite attention to other large problems of equal urgency. The reason is plain. Nothing is simpler than to author- ize or require the State Superintendent to "supervise," "inspect," "examine," or "pass upon." But neither inspection, supervision, nor examination can avail, unless THE STATE SUPERINTENDENT 25 an adequate trained organization is provided through which he can work. As has been pointed out in the pre- ceding chapter, the force at the Superintendent's disposal is utterly insufficient. He has a single assistant appointed with the approval of the State Board at a salary of $2,000 and one clerk at a salary not to exceed $1,200. In addition to his own salary, he has an expense allowance of five hundred dollars, and one thousand dollars more for furniture, supplies, and printing. 1 Three persons thus constitute the entire staff at the disposal of the State Su- perintendent of Education in Maryland. It goes without saying that the functions which we have enumerated sim- ply cannot be effectively discharged by this organization. In lieu of an organized and specialized staff of which he would be the directing and inspiring chief, the State Superintendent of Maryland obtains, as best he can, such knowledge of school conditions as will enable him and the State Board to perform their various duties as intelli- gently as may be. He therefore spends the major por- tion of his time in actually visiting schools in different parts of the state. Obviously he cannot thoroughly cover the field. He is thus compelled to assume that by hastily "sampling" the situation here and there, he ob- tains a fairly adequate conception of existing conditions. Thus he glances at the school grounds, notes the condi- tions of the buildings, and examines cursorily the school J The State Board has an appropriation of $3,000 to cover the expenses of members in attending meetings, printing, supplies, etc. The depart- ment therefore costs the state $10,700 a year, all told. 26 PUBLIC EDUCATION IN MARYLAND equipment. His main concern, in the brief period at his disposal, is, however, the teaching in progress. On the basis of a hurried inspection advice is tendered to teach- ers, principals, and school officials. In addition to these efforts to study and to improve schools scattered through- out the state, the Superintendent frequently participates in teachers' meetings and civic conferences. He main- tains, besides, an active and voluminous correspondence with principals, county superintendents, and County School Board members throughout the state. Aside from information thus acquired, the Superintendent can know only what the county authorities report to him. But these reports are of very uneven quality; and the state department can under existing conditions do little either to improve them or to utilize the data which they obtain. The high school situation may be cited to show the folly of not giving the State Superintendent staff enough to ensure the wise expenditure of the state's money or the effective execution of the state's policy. In 1 910 a complete high school reorganization was undertaken on the basis of state aid. It was provided that, on the basis of reports made by high school principals, and inspections made by the State Superintendent, the high schools should be classified in two groups, those of the first group to receive an annual maximum grant of $2,500 each, those of the second group to receive an an- nual maximum grant of $1,400 each. 1 The law provides 'In 1914 there were 29 first-class high schools, receiving from the state $67,700; 36 second-class high schools, receiving $50,400. THE STATE SUPERINTENDENT 27 that every state-aided high school shall be inspected annually ; if, on notification of defects, the proper remedial steps are not taken, the state subsidy is to cease. The law thus creates for the State Superintendent the opportunity to direct the high school development of the state. He simply cannot take full advantage of this opportunity. The letter of the law has indeed been com- plied with: the Superintendent or his assistant has visited the high schools once a year. But the visit has been casual, concerning itself with ascertaining whether the formal requirements of the statute are complied with. Again, the last General Assembly provided that no per- son is to serve "as principal or assistant teacher (in a state-aided high school) whose qualifications have not been passed upon by the State Board of Education." To carry out the provisions of this act, the Board will need to prescribe the minimum qualifications for high school teachers, including principals, and then to examine the qualifications of the 300 regular high school teachers in service. Thus far the State Board has failed to move, not because it is difficult to prescribe the minimum qualifications of high school teachers, but rather, as we might suppose, because its executive officer, upon whom the duty falls, lacks the necessary time and assist- ance. One more illustration, taken from a different field, that of school finance, may be worth giving. The public schools of Maryland are supported partly by local tax- ation, partly by apportionment of a state fund. The 2 S PUBLIC EDUCATION IN MARYLAND State Superintendent is expected to safeguard the interest of both the state and the local taxpayer by examining the accounts of county school boards and reporting thereon to the State Board. It was evidently intended that the State Board should thus exercise a reasonable control over the finances of the county boards, in refer- ence to acts omitted as well as acts committed. At any rate, such should be the policy of the state. Though the bookkeeping of the county boards is fixed except in minor details by the forms prescribed by the State Board of Education, the forms in use are quite defective. It is, for example, difficult to determine from them the exact financial status of a County Board, no separate accounts being kept with funded debt, current loans, ordinary receipts, and the like. It is even more difficult to de- termine the expenditure for separate items such, for instance, as new buildings, repairs, upkeep, and main- tenance; and it is quite impossible to tell what the ele- mentary schools and the high schools are each costing. The use of antiquated forms is undoubtedly to be attributed to the lack of a skilled accountant in the Superintendent's office. And the same lack accounts for the fact that, having received these reports, the State Superintendent can simply check them up and file them away. The moral of the foregoing discussion is obvious. The Superintendent of Public Education in Maryland cannot be the state's educational leader unless he has proper assistance and support. The office can no longer THE STATE SUPERINTENDENT 29 be conducted with its present force or on its present allowance. In ways that will appear as we proceed, the State Superintendent must be assisted by adding to his resources a few experts capable of taking the field under his direction in charge of specialized activities. IV. THE COUNTY SCHOOL AUTHORITIES CENTRAL control of public education is thus, as we have now seen, in the hands of the State Board and the Superintendent of Public Education. Local control is, in the main, exercised by a board of county school commissioners. The present chapter will discuss the functions of the local authorities and their re- lations with the state department. Three forms of local educational administration are in use in this country: the district system, the township system, and the county unit. Of these the district and the county represent the two extremes. A word as to the district system may assist us to appreciate the im- portance of the form of organization that Maryland possesses. Under the district system every school, as a rule, has an independent board of trustees, which "runs" the school, levying and collecting taxes, erecting the school- house, determining the length of the term, prescribing the curriculum, selecting text-books, and employing the teacher. The mere description at once suggests the defects of the scheme. In the first place, no state and no county contains as many persons qualified to manage schools intelligently as the district system requires. 30 o u 4-> c Wi >-. _* *-• ■- >- Z a. ^3 O tn r £ -a « -S c o o 55 THE COUNTY SCHOOL AUTHORITIES 31 Again, the district system accepts all sorts of inequalities in educational facilities and efforts. One district may possess a good school with ample grounds and comfort- able buildings, while in another, close by, the school is wretchedly poor. No agency exists which can diminish these divergencies by working toward a general plan. Finally, teachers need teamwork and supervision if they are to keep in touch with professional progress. But teamwork and supervision presuppose a larger area than the district. The truth is that the district school re- flects pioneer conditions. It goes back to the time when an isolated group, desiring some sort of education for its children, pooled its meagre resources in order to establish a neighborhood school. Increased wealth, larger num- bers, improved communications, and more complicated educational requirements render the district system and the district school obsolete. As the county organization offers a wider service, it tends to attract able men into the County Board; and as this body can dispose in its discretion of the total yield of the county school taxes plus the state apportionment, something like statesmanship may be employed in locating, equipping, and consolidating schools. Educa- tional opportunities can thus more or less be equalized. The situation may, in a word, be viewed as a whole, the county schools forming a system in the development of which intelligence and design may be employed — provided, of course, the people are wise enough to take advantage of their opportunities. 32 PUBLIC EDUCATION IN MARYLAND Maryland is fortunate in possessing the county as the educational unit. Nevertheless, it has by no means realized to the full the advantages of the county type of organization, partly, as we shall see, because political and personal considerations are too apt to influence the selection and the policy of commissioners, partly because in the selection of teachers a vestige of the district sys- tem confuses and weakens administration. The county boards of education in Maryland are appointed by the Governor and are composed of six mem- bers each in six counties, 1 and of three in the remaining counties. Continuity of service is secured through a six-year term, and through so ordering the appointments that there are at the end of each second year not to ex- ceed two vacancies in the large counties and not more than one in the small counties. The County Board ap- points three district trustees for each schoolhouse dis- trict. These district trustees are the custodians of the school property and have the power to select the principal teacher, subject to the approval of the County Board. All subordinate teachers and all high school teachers are appointed by the County Board. The district trustees may also remove any teacher they themselves appoint, though the teacher retains the right of appeal to the County Board. To these powers of the district trustees we shall have occasion later to recur. The method of appointing the members of the County ^These counties are Baltimore, Carroll, Frederick, Dorchester, Wash- ington, and Montgomery. THE COUNTY SCHOOL AUTHORITIES 33 Board is open to question. Undoubtedly, appointment by the Governor might draw into service men of character and standing who would not be willing to wage an elec- toral campaign for the post. The system, however, does not always work in that way. The law provides that at least two of the members in large counties and at least one in small counties must be of the political party defeated in the last election, and that these appoint- ments must be made "by and with the advice and consent of the Senate." These limitations make the partisan consideration needlessly prominent; in conse- quence, appointments are viewed by local politicians and local political organizations as "spoils," so that the County Board of Education is almost everywhere looked upon as a "Democratic" board or as a "Republican" board, with party allegiance and party interests to con- sider. Again, the "advice and consent of the Senate" have come to mean, not the approval of the entire Senate, but the approval of the local senator. Indeed, to such a pass has senatorial courtesy come, that the Senate flatly refuses to confirm an appointment not endorsed by the local senator. And the local senator is tempted to act not as the representative of the people, but rather as the spokesman of the county political organization. The office of county school commissioner is thus usually re- garded as a political office, the public being for the most part indifferent to the dangers involved in this concep- tion. The county boards are therefore in the main seriously infected with politics. 34 PUBLIC EDUCATION IN MARYLAND In order to discharge its functions the County Board must be in position to procure adequate school funds, to select the County Superintendent, and, through him and his assistants, to provide suitable facilities and com- petent teachers, whose work is from time to time in- spected and supervised. Let us now see how the county boards do their work. Money is the first requisite — money for buildings, for up-keep, for equipment, for teachers and supervision, but county school boards are not "authorized, empow- ered, directed, and required to levy and collect" such taxes as will be adequate to maintain an efficient school system throughout the county. The tax-levying body of the county is the county board of commissioners, who are required under the law to levy such sums of money as the County School Board requests for the schools, provided such sums shall not exceed 15 cents on each $100 of the taxable property of the county; whether or not the county commissioners shall levy any amount in excess of 15 cents is left entirely to their discretion. Satisfactory county schools cannot possibly be main- tained on a local levy of 15 cents on each $100; in fact, every county of the state spends in excess of this rate. This limitation practically transfers the control of school finances from the County School Board to the county commissioners: thus, while the county school boards are, both by law and by the people, held responsible for the schools, they are in practice deprived of the financial power to meet their responsibility. 3 o J3 "o o -a u a) O O THE COUNTY SCHOOL AUTHORITIES 35 The result is easily foreseen. The county commis- sioners are also a political body. Elected as they not infrequently are upon a platform of economy, and having, as is human, their own political future as well as that of their party in view, they often give scant attention to the requests of the county school boards for funds in excess of 15 cents on the $100, quite regardless of the merits of the application. The records of every county in the state show how seldom the full requests of the school boards for funds are granted by the county commissioners. Here and there a school board, on easy terms with the commissioners, makes no formal request for funds; the subject is talked over informally and an agreement reached. Elsewhere, requests are cut year after year, even in the face of the fact that in some instances the schools are kept open by county boards by means of current loans. Where the commissioners and the majority of the school board happen to be of the same political faith, the school board members are at times asked to modify their requests on the grounds of party loyalty or political expediency. Even the county superintendents do not escape. Persons with powerful political connections have been known to appeal to them, to reclassify teachers, in order to lower their salaries, and thus reduce the amount of money needed by the County School Board. In one instance that came to our notice the teachers were actually reclassified; in another, occur- ring in the spring of 191 5, be it said to the honor of the Superintendent, the intermediary was defied to do his 36 PUBLIC EDUCATION IN MARYLAND worst. To protect the schools against such dangers, five of the larger counties of the state have secured from the General Assembly special legislation rendering man- datory a higher levy by the board of county commissioners than that provided by the general law. Thus, Allegany may make a levy of 31 cents on $100 for usual expenses, and an additional 7 cents for buildings ; Baltimore County may levy 31 cents and 9 cents, respectively; while Mont- gomery County requires its county commissioners to meet any demand made by the school board for the support of the elementary schools. In Frederick and Prince George counties the school authorities secured local laws providing for larger teachers' salaries, and the county commissioners are required to levy the necessary funds. The most serious difficulties are usually encountered when funds are requested for the erection of new school- houses. A few boards of county commissioners make such allowance, but only a few. It does not follow that the rest get no money at all for new buildings; they get it, however, in ways that are roundabout and inefficient. Two counties — Allegany and Baltimore — have procured from the legislature laws compelling the commissioners to make a separate levy for buildings. But in the majority of counties almost all the money spent on new buildings within the last half decade has been wrung from the county commissioners through special laws, requiring a levy or a bond issue. Indeed, some counties — for ex- ample, Calvert, Charles, and St. Mary's, have had to THE COUNTY SCHOOL AUTHORITIES 37 appeal to the General Assembly to secure funds even for the erection of schoolhouses costing less than $600. The methods used by the county commissioners in granting funds aid them to shirk their responsibility. The requests of the school boards are as a rule presented by items; definite sums are asked for new buildings, for maintenance, for teachers, etc. But the county com- missioners, as a rule, make a lump allowance, less than the total sum asked for, and generally omit to state which items have been granted in full and which cut or refused altogether. This lump sum includes, ordinarily, enough for teachers' salaries and operating expenses; but for years in certain counties — Calvert and Charles, for in- stance — little has been provided even for repairs, to say nothing of the betterment of the plant, the commissioners trusting to the members of the County School Board to use their own ingenuity in keeping the schools open and some kind of roof over the heads of the children. To check this way of escaping responsibility, Montgomery County obtained special legislation which provides for a detailed school budget and compels the county commis- sioners to make their allowances by items. Such funds as the school boards obtain are usually administered with somewhat more than ordinary effi- ciency. Engaged in business and in commercial farming, as the great majority of the members are, it is natural that they should take a close interest in the business aspects of education. The county unit facilitates the use of intelligent methods of accounting, and perhaps v> S PUBLIC EDUCATION LX MARYLAND explains the introduction of a uniform accounting system throughout the state. Bills are audited by the Board members, and accounts are kept by the County Superin- tendent, the assistant superintendent, or the clerk. In a few cases — Allegany County, for instance — these ac- counts are examined monthly by an outside accountant; usually, however, this outside audit is made once a year, as in Howard County; however, there are a few counties — Garrett is an example — where no audit at all is made by an outside agency. More or less uniformitv of method has also been de- veloped in handling routine matters of school supplies, fuel, and repairs. In some counties a blank is employed by the district trustees to indicate to the County Board what repairs, etc., are deemed necessary. Elsewhere the County Board members make visits with the County Superintendent to decide what repairs are to be under- taken. Occasionally as much as a week is thus spent. On jobs of sufficient magnitude competitive bids are received. Work done under contract is supervised by the County Superintendent or his assistant; if a local man is employed he is more often subject to the direction of the district trustees. In our judgment these details are, as a rule, honestly and efficiently managed. The building problem has been less happily handled. The situation is obviously not a simple one. Funds are limited; old buildings can neither be torn down nor reconstructed to keep pace with modern notions of construction, as to size of classrooms, lighting, cloak- THE COUNTY SCHOOL AUTHORITIES 39 rooms, heating arrangements, closets, etc. On the other hand, these difficulties make it all the more imperative that new buildings should be soundly planned and that repairs and remodelling should be carried on with up-to- date models in mind. The State Department should exercise a general control over building operations, as it does in Minnesota, for example. As a matter of fact, the state has no policy and only a few counties, Allegany, Baltimore, Wicomico, and Queen Anne's, among them, handle this problem with intelligence. As for the rest, schoolhouses of obsolete type are still constructed, just as though standard types, soundly planned in respect to light, hygiene, drainage, etc., had not been evolved and were not elsewhere in use. District School No. 3, re- cently built in the third school district of Calvert County, shows less appreciation of sound principles of school architecture than was shown in the erection of certain schoolhouses in the same county fifty years ago ; the new consolidated schoolhouse at Clarksville, Howard County, ignores the principles of good lighting; city school build- ings costing from $12,000 to $15,000 and disregarding modern ideas as to hygiene and sanitation have recently been erected at North East, Cecil County; at St. Mich- aels, Talbot County; at Accident, Garrett County, and at Federalsburg, Caroline County. Highly objectionable is a practice, not altogether in- frequent, by which both County Board and County Superintendent have been completely deprived of con- trol in certain cases. Buildings were needed, for example, 4 o PUBLIC EDUCATION IN MARYLAND at Hyattsville, Prince George County, and at Kennedy- ville, Kent County. The county commissioners refused the necessary funds. "Influential" citizens then ap- pealed to the General Assembly which was thus induced to pass special legislation making mandatory upon the county commissioners the raising of the sum desired. In both the instances under discussion the acts named a local committee to have charge of the construction. Such legislation is absolutely pernicious. It encourages legislative favoritism and log-rolling, destroys local re- sponsibility, discourages systematic planning by the county authorities, lodges control in inexpert hands, and in the end produces an obsolete school building at great expense. For this reason the buildings erected at Hyattsville and Kennedyville are defective in respect to ventilating, lighting, and internal arrangement. We have already mentioned the fact that the county school boards appoint district school trustees, who choose and may remove the principal teacher. Politically selected county boards are, of course, apt to choose the district trustees on a partisan basis. The way is thus open for the introduction of politics into the management of every school. As a rule, the district trustees do little. They do not meet to talk over school affairs with the teacher; they take no especial interest in the schoolhouse or the school grounds. They wake up, however, when a teacher is to be appointed or dismissed, but the danger is great that their action will not be based purely on educa- tional considerations. THE COUNTY SCHOOL AUTHORITIES 41 We have in a previous chapter discussed the relation of the State Board of Education to the State Superintend- ent; its counterpart is to be found in the relation of the County Board to the County Superintendent. The County Board is a small, lay, unpaid body, composed of farmers, business men, physicians, or lawyers, more or less interested in public education and more or less competent to look after it in a general way, but necessarily without professional knowledge or experience. Under these cir- cumstances, while accepting from the state department their general policies, they look to the county superin- tendent for local leadership. Thus far, we have dis- cussed mainly the composition of the county boards and the transaction of certain business matters — the raising of funds and the erection of buildings — as to all of which we conclude that Maryland derives less benefit than it should and might from its superior type of school admin- istration. There remain to be considered the ways in which the county boards discharge their specifically educational responsibilities. This can, however, be most advantageously discussed in connection with the County Superintendent, to which subject the next chapter will be devoted. V. THE COUNTY SUPERINTENDENT OF SCHOOLS THE County Superintendent of Schools occupies in respect to the county schools the same posi- tion as the City Superintendent occupies in respect to the city schools. He is the expert adviser of the County School Board on all matters of educational policy; he supplies professional inspiration to the teaching staff of the county; he must be the organizer and leader of public opinion if increasing popular support and inter- est are to be won. In addition, as secretary- treasurer of the County Board he is its business representative and executive agent in financial and other matters. What kind of person must the County Superintendent be if he is to fulfill these specifications? If the County Superintendent is to be the source of professional inspira- tion and popular leadership, he must be a trained educa- tor, familiar with modern ideas as to curriculum, method, and supervision; he must be a man of weight in the community ; he must command the respect of the County Board; and he must hold his office long enough to develop an educational program. Even so, it is clear that no one person can himself perform all the duties of the County Superintendent. The County Superintend- 42 THE COUNTY SUPERINTENDENT 43 ent must therefore have at least a minimum of clerical and professional assistance — a specialized "staff" of modest proportions. Now, what are the facts? The county superintend- ents are elected by the politically constituted county boards. The politicians view the county superintend- ency as "spoils, " and in most counties the indifference of the people permits them to dispose of it on that basis. A general election, bringing about a change in party control, is scarcely over before political candidates are brought forth and "groomed" for this important office. In the four years during which the Republicans were in power — 1 896 -1 900 — new county superintendents were chosen in 19 out of the 23 counties of the state, 1 1 of them in the very year when the county school boards became Republican. In the first year of the new Democratic administration of 1900, 16 new county superintendents were appointed, whereas during the ensuing 11 years, aside from removals by death, there was a total of only 1 1 changes. Similarly, the first three years of the present Republican control witnessed the election of 12 new superintendents. Some of these changes were indeed for the better; but as long as a political upset is the inciting cause, there can be no certainty that changes will insure to the public advantage. Luckily, these deplorable conditions are not universal. In a few — a very few — counties, politics, as we shall shortly see, play no part in either the selection or retention of the county superintendents. While a dozen superintendents have 44 PUBLIC EDUCATION IN MARYLAND served three years or less, three have been in office for fourteen years. Though nothing can be said in extenuation of the county boards, in so far as their choice of the County Superintendent is influenced by political considerations, it must in fairness be added that highly desirable candi- dates would not be likely to covet the post in most counties under existing circumstances. The law makes no stipulations as to the professional qualifications or the salary of the incumbent. Of 23 county superintendents, one receives $5,000 a year, one $3,000, one $2,250. Of the remaining 20, one receives $800 a year, 6 receive from $1,200 to $1,500, and 13 from $1,600 to $2,000. In addi- tion there is an allowance of from $100 to $500 for ex- penses incurred in visiting schools, though Garrett County makes no allowance, and Harford and St. Mary's only $25. One cannot be surprised, therefore, to find that such positions have not attracted trained men. In- deed, three county superintendents have had less than a high school education and four of them never went be- yond the high school. Only one of the seven has added to his initial preparation, and he only to the extent of six weeks at a summer school. Of those remaining, one is a normal school graduate with a summer term of profes- sional work. Though fifteen hold college and university degrees, yet not more than six of the fifteen have made special and professional preparation for their work. Conditions are aggravated by the almost universal lack of competent assistants. The law, while permitting THE COUNTY SUPERINTENDENT 45 the county boards to expend thousands annually in their discretion, forbids the employment of even a clerk to assist the Superintendent, unless the number of teachers in the county exceeds 85; an assistant superintendent may not be employed unless the number of teachers ex- ceeds 175. Hence, five counties depend almost entirely upon the County Superintendent alone, employing only occasional and temporary clerical assistance. Six out of the twenty-three have assistant superintendents, and supervisors are found in four. In only three counties — Baltimore, Frederick, and Allegany — are the offices ample and well-equipped; elsewhere space is often meagre and equipment usually limited. One-fourth of the county superintendents have but one room, often a small one at that, which serves alike as a store-house for school supplies, as meeting-place for the County Board, and as general office. Let us now see what happens. The County Superin- tendent is, in the first place, the custodian of the records of the County Board. He conducts the correspondence with district trustees, teachers, patrons, and the general public. He arranges the business to be considered at the regular monthly or special meetings and keeps min- utes of the proceedings. He collects such statistics from the schools as are required, answers all inquiries for in- formation, and prepares the annual report submitted to the State Department of Education. As treasurer he has charge of funds varying from $28,000 annually in the smallest to $660,000 in the largest county. He receives, 46 PUBLIC EDUCATION IN MARYLAND and when audited by the Board members pays, all bills; keepsallaccounts;purchases,collects,and distributes text- books and educational material, and prepares the annual budget to be presented to the county commissioners. For lack of assistance and of facilities, clerical work is too often poorly performed. In seven or eight coun- ties at most — Baltimore, Allegany, Frederick, Harford, Washington, Wicomico, Talbot, and Queen Anne's — order prevails. In half a dozen more the work is fairly well done. Elsewhere there is a total lack of system. Teachers' examination records are indeed preserved, but they are inaccessible; school reports are merely bundled together and filed, little use being made of them, and data are almost never collected as to why children do not receive promotion or why they attend school irregularly. The financial accounts, however, be it said, while frequently handled in an unbusinesslike man- ner, are nevertheless carefully and accurately kept. The more purely educational duties begin with main- tenance of the school plant. In the smallest county of the state — Calvert — the County Superintendent must supervise 54 buildings, scattered over 216 miles of terri- tory, and in the largest (Baltimore) 181, scattered over an area of 650 square miles. District trustees, being the immediate custodians of their respective school- houses, may spend on their own authority upon upkeep and repairs $5 in any one term; larger expenditures can be made only after authorization by the County Board. Hence, anything costing more than five dollars — whether , *\%ar«*C" Substantial, but unsanitary and unhygienic rural school — one of many Ancient desks still in use THE COUNTY SUPERINTENDENT 47 a new fence, the grading of the school grounds, the re- pair of an outhouse, the roofing or painting of the school- house, a new stove or new furniture, is referred to the County School Board, and the duty of attending to such matters devolves upon the County Superintendent, who investigates and reports upon the need, makes the necessary purchases, and supervises work done under contract. If a new building is to be erected the County Superintendent bears the burden of acquiring the ground, drawing the plan, letting the contract, and look- ing after the construction and equipment. Here, then, is a second field of operations, much more technical in character, and sufficiently extensive to con- sume almost all the County Superintendent's time and energy. With what results? It was stated in the pre- ceding chapter that neither the state nor the county pursued or could, with its present staff, pursue a definite and intelligent policy in regard to new school buildings. With respect to sanitation and hygiene there is not lacking evidence that recent agitation has had a bene- ficial effect. School grounds have here and there been cleared of underbrush, outhouses have been cleaned and whitewashed, and old buildings have been repaired, painted, and redecorated. Nevertheless, it remains true that a. thoroughly decent and comfortable rural school plant, consisting of a neat school building, a clean yard, and sanitary outhouses is exceptional. There are in the state 1,935 school buildings for white children, 550 for colored. In the course of this investigation 500 of the 48 PUBLIC EDUCATION IN MARYLAND former were visited, 50 of the latter. Perhaps 8 per cent, of those visited may be called satisfactory. The duties thus far considered — those of the Secretary and Treasurer of the County Board and those of the cus- todian of the school plant, consume at least three-fourths of the time of the majority of the county superintendents and not less than half of the time of the others. More- over, if the school plant is to be kept in proper order, this drain will increase rather than diminish. In the smaller counties relief can be furnished by providing clerical assistance in the office and a reliable, all-round mechanic for the field. The larger counties might well follow the example of the cities, that is, employ a secretary-treasurer to care for the clerical work and the accounts of the Board, a business manager to look after the physical side of the schools, and a Superintendent, directly responsible for the secretary-treasurer and the business manager, yet free to devote his major energies to the educational conduct of the system. Important as are good records and neat schoolhouses, the really significant duties of the County Superintend- ent are educational. One-half the teachers in the rural schools enter the service by way of the county examina- tions which he conducts. Do these examinations select the best talent available? Do they direct the candidate's attention in the right direction? How could they? How can an untrained County Superintendent examine sensibly and judiciously the candidates for teaching positions? How can an un- Unsanitary, unhygienic, and neglected outhouses THE COUNTY SUPERINTENDENT 49 trained County Superintendent indicate by the character of the examination the line of preparation which pros- pective teachers should follow? The situation, be it granted, is not easy. Salaries are low — ranging from an average of $271 a year in St. Mary's to $662 a year in Baltimore County. Three counties pay an average of less than $300; four less than $350; seven less than $400; seven less than $450; and only two, Allegany and Baltimore, pay in excess of $450. In counties with few or poor high schools the probable candidates will be the abler boys and girls who have lingered an extra year in the grades or in the rural schools; high school graduates will be applicants only in counties well supplied with secondary school facilities. But these inherent difficul- ties make it all the more important that the County Superintendent should be able, by reason of his training and experience, to make the best of a bad situation. The untrained official does not and cannot do this. He fails also, and for the same reason, to use such opportunities as he possesses for the improvement of his teaching corps. Teacher certificates issued by the County Superintendent on the basis of the examinations just dis- cussed are, in the first instance, probationary, good for only six months. At the end of this period the County Superintendent may cancel the certificate, require an- other examination, or issue, in lieu of the probationary certificate, one valid for five years. The discretion of the County Superintendent in respect to the re- examination of teachers thus gives him the power to in- PUBLIC EDUCATION IX MARYLAND upon further ; ~ Eessi :.al preparation. He possesses also an even more potent instrument. The minimum salary h. i : raaranteec I teachers ranked by the . S .iperintenden: as first lass a higher minimum _-. than ws - vided for other tea 3 Thus ati e financial inducement ls fered to all teachers themselves. Wherever . unty superintend- dared to use thei: ."ate authority the - _>een excellent. The enrolment in the Mary- I Teachers' Reading Circle has increased, the Teach- eis ] Institute and Teachers' Meetings have been taken more seriously, and teachers in larger numbers have at their own expen? ided the summer session of nor- mal schools and colleges. Unfortunately, however very few county superin- tendents have acted. The holder of the probationary certificatf Ls - iom dropped and only occasionally re- nined. The salary bonus is also usually wasted. Partly because of the lack of professional ideals, partly because of the generally low salary scale, superintendents commonly award the salary increase to teachers of long service and local favor instead of using it as a lever to lift the profession. On the whole, therefore, it is fair I say that the County- Superintendent usually leaves the teaching profession just about where he finds it. The teacher is the first — and the most important — factor in securing good teaching. The second is supervi- sion. The teachers of a school or of a school system are molded into an efficient team animated by one purpose THE COUNTY SUPERINTENDENT 51 and working toward a common end very largely by the pressure, guidance, and inspiration of the supervisors. It is one of the advantages of large cities that supervision is easily provided; it is among the most serious flaws in the district system that supervision is well-nigh impossi- ble. Maryland's county educational organization fa- cilitates effective supervision, embracing town and country schools alike. For the area is large, the schools varied in type, the financial resources more or less sub- stantial, and the authority of the County Board unques- tioned. But even a trained Superintendent cannot, in addition to his other duties, take upon himself, except in the very smallest counties, the details of classroom supervision. He requires for this purpose a small but highly specialized staff. Once more, the possibilities of the situation are in this matter almost entirely unrealized. Supervisors, includ- ing assistant superintendents, are employed in only 7 of the 23 counties 1 ; and of the assistant superintendents, two, perhaps one might say three, are engaged in clerical work. To be sure, in addition to these 7 counties, one county uses a portion of the state appropriation for Colored Industrial Schools to employ a part-time super- visor 2 and another is making a limited use of high school teachers 3 for the same purpose. In short, the teachers ■Allegany, Baltimore, Caroline, Dorchester, Frederick, Montgomery, and Prince George. 2 Anne Arundel. 3 Queen Anne. 52 PUBLIC EDUCATION IN MARYLAND of 1 6 out of the 23 counties receive no supervisory as- sistance other than that given by the County Superin- tendent, and but three counties, Allegany, Baltimore, and Frederick have anything like an adequate super- visory force. The failure to provide adequate super- vision is attributed by the county boards to the lack of funds. Too true. But lack of funds is not fundamental. At bottom lack of supervision is due in most counties, not so much to financial inability, as to a lack of appre- ciation of the significance of efficient supervision on the part of the Board and of the Superintendent who has failed to lead the Board. Of the three counties above mentioned Baltimore County must be singled out for especial commendation. The County Superintendent is a man of experience and modern training; and he is aided by a corps of supervisors, including an assistant superintendent, a primary super- visor with an assistant, a grammar grade supervisor with an assistant, a manual training supervisor, a domes- tic science supervisor, and, finally, a supervisor of rural schools. Working as a team, they have not only im- proved the schools, they have also developed a public sentiment which demands increasingly better schools, better instruction, better trained and better paid teach- ers. The teaching body of the county is permeated by genuine enthusiasm. Every improvement effected makes itself felt practically throughout the county. The situ- ation is, of course, still far from homogeneous, but it is developing steadily in the right direction. What Balti- THE COUNTY SUPERINTENDENT 53 more County has accomplished cannot be literally dupli- cated in counties with more limited resources. But every county in Maryland could, up to the limits of its financial ability, do the kind of thing that Baltimore County does. At bottom it depends on the competency of the County Superintendent. In counties without supervisors, whatever there is of personal supervision depends upon the county superin- tendents who are required by law to visit the schools. But the number of reported visits is no index to the amount of effective supervision performed. These visits are usually brief and of a business or inspectorial char- acter. The Superintendent calls to look after the physical plant or to classify a teacher on the basis of a hasty inspection. This is not "supervision" in the sense which the term bears in these pages. The County Superintendent also comes into touch with the teaching force at the teachers' meetings and conferences held throughout the state at least quarterly. Here again one notices the difference between counties lacking and counties possessing proper supervision. In the former the occasion is apt to be devoted to generali- ties—to the discussion of plans or to exhortations on general lines. In the supervised counties the confer- ences between Superintendent, supervisory staff, and teaching body are of an intensive character. Definite problems are formulated and presented. A lesson actually given by way of illustrating the use of materials and methods of presentation is made the basis of dis- 54 PUBLIC EDUCATION IN MARYLAND cussion. Or the teachers are divided into groups accord- ing as they teach in rural or urban schools, in the lower or in the upper grades, and attention is centred upon questions of interest to particular groups. With one group it may be discipline, with another how to teach beginners reading, and with still another what arithmetic should be taught. The County Superintendent can thus em- ploy the strong teachers to strengthen the weak. The entire body is in this way professionalized. But, obvi- ously, such organization and endeavor presuppose a trained leader and a trained staff. In still another important respect is the County Super- intendent charged with direct responsibility for the work of the classroom. He is required by law to prepare semi- annual examination questions for all the schools of the county, the second, or June examination, serving as the basis of promotion. Now examinations may serve several purposes: they may, for instance, ascertain what children know and how freely they can use their knowl- edge; but their main function is to guide the teacher; for by the examinations he sets, the County Superin- tendent tells the teacher the kind of instruction she should give, the things she should emphasize, and the habits of thought and action in which children should be trained. As one would expect from our account of the quali- fications and resources of the county superintendents, the current examinations belong in most counties to an obsolete type. By demanding from children isolated and unrelated facts and meaningless definitions, they do in- Mure outhouses THE COUNTY SUPERINTENDENT 55 calculable harm to instruction. As the child's failure or promotion depends upon them, even teachers capable of something better are forced to defer to them. They must, therefore, rush their pupils in the most superficial manner over the assignment for the year, in order to have three and even four months free for the reviews necessary for the June examination. It is indeed not uncommon for teachers to give children the task of find- ing the answers to sets of examination questions running back for years and to have them write out these answers and commit them to memory, as an effective preparation for the coming tests! A single topic remains to be briefly considered before this chapter can be brought to a close. The law re- quires the preparation and publication annually of a county school report, exhibiting the financial transac- tions of the Board and containing data bearing on enrol- ment, attendance, etc. The county report might be an attractive document, serving as a means of communica- tion between the Board and the community. It might depict conditions, record progress, explain policy, and stimulate interest. It does, as a rule, nothing of the sort. The county reports are usually in Maryland — as elsewhere — dull pamphlets throwing little light on educa- tional problems. In the course of our description and criticism of the County Superintendent the needs of the situation have been clearly implied. Effective schools require skilled and specialized leadership. Maryland must define in the 56 PUBLIC EDUCATION IN MARYLAND statute the qualifications of the County Superintendent. It must go into the open market to get him. Having found him, the county must give him a decent salary, assured tenure, and at least a minimum of clerical and professional help. VI. THE TEACHERS BOARDS, whether state or county, superintend- ents and supervisors, all have their part to play in education; but they strive to little purpose, except through well-trained and carefully selected teach- ers. Disregarding, for the moment, the influence of adequate supervision, the efficiency of the schools de- pends upon the preparation of the teachers and upon the intelligence with which teachers are chosen. There are reasons for exercising unusual watchfulness in Maryland, for the law guarantees what is tantamount to unlimited tenure. Once appointed, removal is in practice rare. What safeguards may an American state wisely set up in respect to the training and selection of its teaching body? The problem is by no means a simple one. The public school system consists of schools of many types — urban elementary schools, rural elementary schools, in- dustrial schools, and high schools.. One sort of teacher is needed for the graded city school; a modified type is needed for the ungraded rural school. The teacher of high school Latin needs a different equipment from the teacher of high school physics ; the teacher of high school physics needs a different preparation from that of the teacher of industrial art or domestic science in elementary 57 58 PUBLIC EDUCATION IN MARYLAND or high schools. Differentiation of function thus requires within limits specialization in training. We say ad- visedly "within limits," for all teachers of a given rank ought to base their professional training on a cer- tain common educational background or experience. All teachers in the elementary schools, city or country, should possess something like a high school education fol- lowed by normal school training; all high school teachers — certainly in the usual branches, should possess a higher education. Otherwise, the teaching force will be little above the level to which it hopes to elevate the pupils! Exceptions do indeed occur. There are some good teach- ers who have received little training and some poor teach- ers who have received much. But public school systems that turn the exception into the rule make precisely the showing that, as we shall now see, is made by Maryland. There are in Maryland, exclusive of Baltimore, 3,467 white and 672 colored teachers. Accurate information was obtained as to the professional training of 3,338 white teachers (96 per cent, of the whole) and 505 colored teachers (75 per cent, of the whole) both before and after they entered the profession. Regarding the train- ing of these teachers, no general statement can be made at all. There are the widest possible variations in the training of teachers doing the same grade of work — incon- ceivable confusion and lack of sequence and order in their preparation. For example, some teachers had entered the normal schools after high school graduation, as they should; but someof themhad enteredfrom the first, second, THE TEACHERS 59 or third high school year, and not a few went straight from the elementary schools. Some went from the ele- mentary schools to college in order to study "education" ; others spent a year or two in a normal school and then FIG. I PREPARATION OF ELEMENTARY TEACHERS (WHITE) entered college; still others reversed this last-mentioned process ! There is no rhyme or reason in what has been taking place. Of over 3,000 white elementary teachers in the state outside of Baltimore (Fig. 1) 391 (12.7 per cent.) have had only an elementary school education; 634 (20.7 per cent.) have spent one or two years in a high 6o PUBLIC EDUCATION IN MARYLAND school; 1,031 (33.7 per cent.) have completed a four- year high school course; only 148 — less than 5 per cent, of the whole — have received a standard normal school training. Of the rest, some have spent a little while in normal school; some have received an irregular normal schooling; a few have been to college and still fewer through college. 1 Grouping together standard normal school, part college, and college graduates, about 10 per cent, of the elementary teachers of Maryland — not more — may be called well trained; not quite one- third could on a stretch be called fairly well trained; at least one- third are practically untrained. The body as a whole is thus heterogeneous to the last degree. 2 How could it possibly function as a unit in carrying out a well- conceived educational policy, even if there were one? 3 1 I. e., have had a regular high school education or its equivalent fol- lowed by a college course. 2 To say nothing of classes prior to 1910, of the last six graduating classes of the Maryland State Normal Schools, less than 40 per cent, entered from standard high schools. 3 In the following table the figures are grouped: table 1 preparation of elementary teachers (white) Kind of Preparation Elementary School Part High School . . . Standard High School . Part Normal Course Non-standard Normal Course Standard Normal Course . Part College College Grand Total . . . Number 391 634 1,031 82 614 148 98 65 3,063 Per cent. 12.7 20.7 33.7 2.7 20. 4.8 3.2 2.1 99.9 Cumulative Per cent. 12.7 33.4 67.1 69.8 89.8 94.6 97.8 99.9 THE TEACHERS 61 The colored elementary teachers, including the super- visors, make a better showing than might have been anticipated. (Fig. 2.) Eight per cent, appear to have received a standard normal training. In view of the fact that there is not a single colored high school in the state outside of the city of Baltimore and the local facilities for training colored teachers are extremely meagre, this is a surprising fact. 1 To some extent it may be accounted for on the ground that, while the returns for the white teachers are practically complete, reports were received from only three-fourths of the colored teachers. This was not due to negligence on the part of the county superintendents, but to the fact that many colored schools had closed for the year before the blanks calling for data on teacher preparation were received, making it impossible to secure the requested information. Complete returns from the colored teachers would prob- ably lessen the per cent, of those adequately trained. ^The exact figures are as follows: table n PREPARATION OF ELEMENTARY AND SPECIAL TEACHERS (COLORED) Kind of Preparation Number Per cent. Cumulative Per cent. Part High School Non-standard Normal Course .... Part College 78 99 110 25 114 40 18 21 15.4 19.6 21.8 4.9 22.5 7.9 3.6 4.2 15.4 35. 56.8 61.7 84.2 92.1 95.7 College 99.9 Grand Total 505 99.9 62 PUBLIC EDUCATION IN MARYLAND The teachers in the high schools are of two kinds: regular teachers, (i. e., those handling the older studies) and special teachers (i. e., those working in manual training, domestic science, agriculture, and the commer- FIG. 2 PREPARATION OF ELEMENTARY AND SPECIAL TEACHERS( COLORE^ cial branches) . It has been stated above that high school teachers ought to be college graduates who have also had a certain amount of professional training. But it would be unfair to apply this standard to Maryland — or to most other states, for the high school movement is so recent and has developed so rapidly that professionally, V u 11 0) >. OJ "o O THE TEACHERS 63 trained teachers have been unobtainable. Separate pro- fessional training may therefore be ignored. Never- theless, despite this concession, Maryland makes an un- satisfactory showing. (Fig. 3.) Not exceeding two-fifths FIG. 3 PKZPASATION OF REGULAR HIGH SCHOOL TEACHER *>^* / HON 5TANPARD lS.t^ / ^W^ NORMAL / * \ fey \ "V 5TANPARP \ J HIGH SCHOOL \ 13.1 f. ^^\ \ PAK.T \ 20.77. ^-^ARTHIGH 5CHO0U ■'"^ 5.11. "; V COLLEGE FULL 37 4 % / of the regular high school teachers of the state may be described as adequately prepared; a second two-fifths are from one to four years short, though they have had some kind of training — a partial college or normal school course, for example; the remaining fifth are wofully lacking in 6 4 PUBLIC EDUCATION IN MARYLAND proper preparation, being made up of those who have had only a high school education, a part of a normal course, or some similarly inadequate and ill-adjusted preparation. 1 In reference to teachers of special high school branches — manual training, domestic science, agriculture, and commercial subjects, it was not possible to ascertain what specialized training teachers had had. We were compelled, therefore, to limit our inquiry to their general rather than their particular fitness. On this basis 2 less ^able rn PREPARATION OF REGULAR HIGH SCHOOL TEACHERS Kind of Preparation Elementary School . Part High School . . . Standard High School Part Normal Course Non-standard Normal Course Standard Normal Course . Part College College Grand Total Number 2 u 36 5 51 7 57 103 275 Per cent. .7 5.1 13.1 1.8 18.6 2.5 20.7 37.4 99.9 Cumulative Per cent. .7 5.8 18.9 20.7 39.3 41.8 62.5 99.9 •TABLE IV PREPARATION OF SPECIAL HIGH SCHOOL TEACHERS Kind of Preparation Elementary School . Part High School . . Standard High School . Part Normal Course Non-standard Normal Course Standard Normal Course Part College College Grand Total Manual Training No. % 1 2.9 3 8.8 8 23.5 2 5.9 20.6 11.7 23.5 2.9 34 99.8 Com- mercial No. 1 3 8 12 1 1 6 2 2.9 8.8 23.5 35.3 2.9 2.9 17.7 5.9 34 99.9 Domestic Science No. % 3 11 1 9.1 33.3 3. 1 3. 2 6.1 10 30.3 5 15.1 33 999 Agricul- ture No. % 80 20 100 Totals No. % 2 1.9 9 8.5 27 25.5 15 14.1 9 8.5 7 6.6 28 26.4 9 8.5 106 100 o o o M THE TEACHERS 65 than 10 per cent, of the special high school teachers now in service are well trained. Forty per cent, have had a normal school or a part college course, but a fourth have never gone beyond the high school itself. To be sure, these high school graduates have had in most cases the special high school course in manual training or domestic science, or the commercial branches, but such instruction hardly gives them the broad outlook upon life and industry which is essential to efficient work in their chosen fields. A fair degree of uniformity in the teaching body can be obtained only if admission thereto is controlled by a central agency. Maryland, instead of a single portal, has almost half a dozen: the county examination, normal school diplomas, college certificates, and other evidences of training. No one authority passes upon these diverse credentials. In consequence, there is no common stand- ard and no way of enforcing a common standard, if one were formulated. As has been intimated in the preceding chapter, the teachers' examinations conducted by county superin- tendents form the most objectionable feature of the exist- ing situation. We have called attention to the fact that untrained superintendents cannot conduct judicious ex- aminations. As a matter of fact, under the existing law, neither can highly trained county superintendents. For the subjects of the examinations are regulated by stat- utes that make a sensible examination practically im- possible. 66 PUBLIC EDUCATION IN MARYLAND These statutes go back to the period between 1866 and 1872, when the conception of a free public school system was just beginning to be formed. The pioneers in this field were men of vision who planned a program of in- struction unrealized even at the present time. Their ambitious ideas were embodied in the law of 1872, which prescribed that there "shall be taught in every district school, orthography, reading, writing, English grammar, geography, arithmetic, history of the United States, good behavior, algebra, bookkeeping, natural philosophy, the Constitution of the United States, the Constitution of the State of Maryland, the history of Maryland, vocal music, drawing, physiology, the laws of health, and domestic economy." It was also provided that, in communities having a considerable German population, the German language might also be introduced. Nor was this pre- tentious program distributed between elementary and high schools; on the contrary, it was part of the dream that all branches should be taught in every district school. Teachers were to be selected on the basis of their fit- ness to carry out this ambitious scheme. To be sure, two grades of certificates were recognized. The second or lower grade — regarded as a makeshift then, though to-day, half a century later, it is still the prevailing cer- tificate — called for an examination in spelling, reading, writing, arithmetic, English grammar, geography, and history only; the first-grade certificate involved an exam- ination in all the studies mentioned in the law, except THE TEACHERS 67 physiology, vocal music, drawing, laws of health, and domestic economy. There was thus a close correspond- ence between the visionary course of study meant for every district school and the examination required for a first-grade certificate. Despite the vision, however, the actual instruction in the one-room rural and village schools was practically limited to the so-called three R's, English grammar, geography, and history. Branches like bookkeeping, algebra, and natural philosophy were attempted as a rule only in the academies and in the high schools of the larger towns, and the number of pupils taking them was small. For example, as late as 1900 Howard County reported only 134 pupils in all the schools of the county above the sixth grade; of these 68 were in bookkeeping, 123 in algebra, and 56 in natural philosophy. But the academies and high schools did not confine themselves to the studies prescribed in the law. Latin and higher mathematics including geometry, trigonometry, and sur- veying formed the backbone of their instruction; a little English literature and a smattering of the more exact sciences such as astronomy were also taught. Prospective teachers had therefore under the law to be trained to teach a course of study which as a matter of fact had no existence in either elementary or high schools. Hence examination based on the statutory requirement did not test the qualifications of teachers to give instruc- tion in the subjects actually taught. Those who strove to obtain the first-grade certificate as a basis of teaching 68 PUBLIC EDUCATION IN MARYLAND in elementary schools were compelled to equip them- selves in algebra, natural philosophy, and the like, but not in such elementary school branches as physiology, the laws of health, vocal music, drawing, and domestic economy. Those who strove to obtain a first-grade certificate in order to teach in the high school were even more remote from their needs, for they took no examina- tion in Latin, higher mathematics, English literature, general history, or in any of the sciences other than nat- ural philosophy. In a word, the examination for the standard certificate of the day was a poor basis for select- ing teachers for the elementary schools and of little or no worth in the selection of high school teachers. Incredible as it may seem, these defects, dating back to the year 1872, persist to this very day. Indeed, despite the differentiation made in recent years between elementary schools and high schools, the examination system of 1872 lasted up to 1904 without a single statutory change. At that time, without cutting anything out, there were added to the examination subjects for the second-grade certificate the history of Maryland, the State and Na- tional Constitution, physiology, algebra to quadratics, the theory and practice of teaching, and the laws and the by-laws of the public schools. Young women who teach in the elementary rural schools are thus examined in algebra, which they do not teach, but not in drawing or agriculture which they are expected to teach. Mean- while, candidates for the first-grade certificate are tested in bookkeeping, algebra, and natural philosophy, subjects THE TEACHERS 69 long since dropped from the elementary schools, and in general history and plane geometry which are distinctly high school studies, while they go entirely unexamined in important elementary branches. Equally disastrous is the effect of this arrangement on the high school. For as the first-grade certificate qualifies for a high school post, instruction may be given in Latin, higher mathematics, English literature, or science by a person holding a teach- ing license issued absolutely without reference to them. No serious effort has yet been made to get rid of the absurdities which we have just pointed out. The state has limited its endeavors to encouraging improvement in ways that, helpful though they be, do not strike at the root of the problem. A succession of laws beginning in 1867 has aimed to encourage and develop the county institute; in 19 14 counties were authorized, in lieu of holding the annual institute, to require not less than a fourth of their teachers to attend a summer school; and in the same year, the payment of higher salaries to teach- ers of superior training or ability was also authorized. Such provisions are wise enough in their way for they tend to improve the existing teaching corps. But much more radical measures must be taken. At the outset a clear division must be made between certificates valid in the elementary school and those valid in the high school. On the side of the elementary school an examination should be devised which will test the fitness not in some, but in all, the branches included in the elementary course of study. On the side of the 7 o PUBLIC EDUCATION IN MARYLAND high school there will need to be such a grouping of the principal academic studies that no teacher will be per- mitted to teach a branch unless she has first proven her fitness. In order that uniformity of standard may be se- cured, these examinations should be conducted by the state department, acting through the County Super- intendent. From an eligible list thus formed, teachers should be appointed by the County Superintendent — no longer as now by the county boards and the district trustees. In bringing about this reorganization an important factor will be the normal schools of the state, to the con- sideration of which we now turn. Maryland supports two establishments for the training of white elementary school teachers — the Normal School at Frostburg and the new Normal School at Towson. The Frostburg School, established in 1897, remains without any clear function in the state school system. Provision for it has always been grudging. The present plant comprises a modest building capable of accommo- dating about 175 students with additional quarters for a small practice school. The equipment is poor and alto- gether inadequate for instruction in nature study, physics, chemistry, manual training, domestic science, and the fine arts. The total amount provided annually by the state for all expenses from 1902 to 1914 was $7,000; in 1914 the sum was raised to $10,000. Accordingly, the salaries of the instructors scarcely exceed those in the neighboring high schools, and are in any case too meagre THE TEACHERS 71 to procure a qualified staff. Nevertheless, the school has grown rapidly, having in 19 14 an enrolment of 102 pre- paratory and 61 normal students, a total of 163, mostly drawn from Allegany County. Including the class of 1 9 14, 156 students have completed the course, of whom 131 are now engaged in teaching. The institution destined to be made the central normal school is the Baltimore Normal, established in 1865. The building occupied from the early 70's until the pres- ent autumn was for years one of the best of its kind in the country, and even at the time of its abandonment was not altogether unadapted to its purposes. While thus fairly well housed the funds for its support have never been adequate. Prior to 1914 the regular annual appropria- tion did not exceed $20,000, and it is now only $50,000. For almost forty years the Baltimore Normal was the only school for the training of teachers supported and con- trolled by the state. Its graduates, representing all sections and numbering more than 2,500, are to be found in important positions both within and without the schools. The school has, however, operated on so inade- quate an allowance that at best it has accomplished only a part of what it might have accomplished. Its leader- ship has at times been distinctly inadequate; not infre- quently, lacking funds to employ trained and experienced teachers, the school has appointed to its staff its own re- cent graduates. Inbreeding has thus gone on with its usual bad effects. Our interest is, however, with the future, not with the 72 PUBLIC EDUCATION IN MARYLAND past, of the Baltimore Normal School. The school has just occupied its new quarters at Towson, with dormitory accommodations for two hundred students, classrooms, laboratory, library, and gymnasium facilities for six or seven hundred, and ample quarters for an adequate prac- tice school. If the state is to derive full returns from the enormous sum now invested in its plant and equipment, a thoroughgoing reorganization is needed. We make this suggestion in no spirit of fault-finding with those who have hitherto had to conduct the school on a quite insufficient allowance. It may well be that no one could have done better under the circumstances. But the new plant totally changes conditions. Its facil- ities are perhaps not surpassed anywhere; and an ade- quate budget will doubtless be provided. Under these circumstances the head of the school ought to be the most competent that the country affords; and the entire country should be searched in order to find him. Poli- tics, personal interest, and local pride must be eliminated, for upon this selection depends in great part the progress of the public schools of the entire state. In the same way such men and women should be selected as teachers, in charge of the different departments, as will not only be able to develop strong courses of instruction within the school, but also to exert an influence throughout the state. For there is need not only of capable instructors, but of organizers who can work with the teachers in the field, inspiring and directing them in their daily work. The activities of the old school stopped with the close THE TEACHERS 73 of the school year in June. The work of a progressive school that would fully occupy its field, and especially a normal school, is never done. Indeed, the summer sea- son offers a great opportunity to the Baltimore Normal, if it is to rise to the new and larger service before it. Over 75 per cent, of the elementary teachers outside of the city of Baltimore, when judged most liberally, have had less than a standard professional preparation; to add to the initial equipment of these ill-prepared teachers should become one of the primary objects of the institution. To this end there should be a summer session, and the work of the summer session should equal in strength and attractiveness that of the regular school year. Again, the entrance standards of the old school have always been low. For years young people taken from the highest grade of the elementary school were gradu- ated in three years; only since 1904 has the course run four years, divided equally between preparatory and professional work. By resolution of the State Board of Education the admission requirements for 19 15 were fixed at the completion of the second year of high school, but no steps were taken to readjust the old two-year prepara- tory course. While more high school graduates entered in the fall of 191 5 than ever before, a great part of the work of the school is still confined, as it always has been, to prepara- tory students. Surely the time is now at hand when the school should cease to build its professional work upon an 74 PUBLIC EDUCATION IN MARYLAND abbreviated high school course. This does not imply that the present work below the professional course should be summarily abandoned. There are, and for some time there will continue to be, sections without high schools in easy reach of ambitious young people. To accommo- date students thus located who desire to become teachers the high school course at the Baltimore Normal should be maintained; but it should be lengthened to full four years, and so strengthened that it will become one of the strong- est in the state, instead of being a mere subterfuge and makeshift. It has been urged that the present is an appropriate time to broaden the activities of the Baltimore Normal so as to include the preparation of secondary teachers. Even if the state were not pledged to another policy, it is our opinion that this central school should confine its attention solely to the training of elementary teachers. The number of secondary teachers needed annually is too small for the state to undertake to develop, in com- petition with colleges already in the field, strong courses for regular high school teachers. There are, however, two kinds of high school teacher — viz., teachers of domestic science and of manual training — for the train- ing of whom no other schools in Maryland are at all equipped, and with these the Normal might wisely deal. The suggestion that it should also train supervisors is, in our judgment, without value. The number of new supervisors annually needed is inconsiderable. To pro- vide proper facilities could only be done at excessive cost. THE TEACHERS 75 The state should indeed maintain a high standard in appointing supervisors, but it should expect supervisors to resort to special institutions for supplementary training. The Towson plant was created on the theory that the training of all the elementary teachers for the white schools might be there concentrated. In 1914 the total en- rolment of both the Baltimore and the Frostburg schools was 2 24 ; there were 101 graduates. To supply all the new elementary teachers needed in the state an enrolment of more than 600 and yearly graduates in excess of 300 are required, or an increase in enrolment and graduates of more than 200 per cent. It is necessary, therefore, to attract students in larger numbers and to hold them until they complete the course. But a difficulty arises. Two-thirds of the teachers of Maryland work in vil- lages and the open country; 40 per cent, of them have one-room schools. Will the graduates of this stately normal school be willing to teach in rural schools? Will the practice school at Towson reproduce even approxi- mately the conditions which most of its graduates may have to meet? How can courses and practice opportuni- ties be adjusted to rural needs? American experience is not wholly encouraging in this matter. Central normal schools do not readily represent the rural point of view; and teachers trained in them prefer town and city posts. For this reason many states are endeavoring to train teachers for the rural elementary schools in connection with county high schools; and the legislature of Mary- land passed in 1914 a permissive law looking to this end. 76 PUBLIC EDUCATION IN MARYLAND For the moment, however, it will probably be wisest to take no steps in this direction until the Towson school has had a fair chance to grapple with the problem. 1 There are now 672 colored teachers in the schools out- side of the city of Baltimore. To encourage their fur- ther preparation — less than 40 per cent, of whom can be credited with anything like a satisfactory training — and toprepare approximately 7 5 new colored teachers required annually, the state maintains a single institution, the Maryland Normal and Industrial School at Bowie, opened under the auspices of the State Board of Educa- tion, September, 191 1. The equipment comprises a farm of 187 acres, an ordi- nary eight-room school building, the attic story of which serves for a girls' dormitory, the first and second floors for classrooms and the principal's office, and the base- ment for kitchen and dining-room. A remodelled barn answers for a dormitory for boys, and there is also an old farmhouse used principally for storage. The present annual appropriation for maintenance is $7,000, and there are accommodations for about 70 students. The course for teachers is three years in length, with an entrance requirement equivalent to the sixth grade of the public school. So many students, however, offered them- selves, whose preparation fell below this standard, that a two-year preparatory course had to be added. The ^his delay will be of advantage for another reason. The General Education Board is just beginning a thorough study of the training of rural teachers in Minnesota and other states. The results will probably be available within a year. THE TEACHERS 77 enrolment in the normal course in 1913-1914 was 43, with one special student, and in the preparatory department, 28, making a total of 72 — an enrolment which taxes the accommodations to the limit. The management of the school is excellent. The principal and his assistant are at once competent and "rural-minded." An abandoned farm was part of the school property. As school and students were both needy, principal and students set to work to make the farm supply what they lacked. The result has been gratifying from every point of view. Supplies have been raised, because there was no money with which to buy them; in the process agriculture has been efficiently taught, and rural school teachers of the right type have been trained. Up to date, however, the graduates num- ber only 25, and not all of these have become teachers. The Maryland Normal and Industrial School at Bowie is, to be sure, not the only source of colored teachers: Hampton, Tuskegee, Cheney Normal School, Dover College, and others contribute; some are also obtained from the Washington High School, and from the Balti- more High School and Morgan College. Nevertheless, half of the colored teachers of the state have no certifi- cates other than "postal card certificates" — that is, they are permitted to teach without having passed any exam- ination at all, the county superintendents selecting those most likely to succeed, irrespective of academic and pro- fessional credentials. The only other institution within the state, besides the 78 PUBLIC EDUCATION IN MARYLAND Maryland Normal and Industrial School and the Balti- more High School, that attempts to prepare elementary- colored teachers, is the Princess Anne Academy, under the management of the Morgan College Corporation. This school has a good-sized farm and rather ample quar- ters and equipment. While it is essentially a prepara- tory school for Morgan College, yet the employment of Federal funds has made agriculture and agricultural pursuits prominent and given to the school an industrial atmosphere. Special attention has lately been given to the preparation of teachers. Besides regular courses during the year, a summer school with an enrolment of about 40 was conducted in 191 5. The school is located near the colored population centre of the Eastern Shore, readily accessible, and is in position to exert a good influ- ence upon the public schools of that section. This brief statement will show that Maryland's present facilities for training negro teachers are altogether inade- quate, even though we reckon, as an additional factor, the industrial schools supported in 16 counties at an annual cost to the state of $22,500. There is, therefore, every reason why the school at Bowie should be developed and made the centre for the training of colored teachers for at least the Western Shore, if not for the entire state. To do this its facilities will need to be largely increased and the teaching staff developed, so that it will be in position to give instruction to larger numbers of prospec- tive teachers during the year and to offer helpful work during the summer to those now in service. THE TEACHERS 79 But the development of the school at Bowie alone will not be sufficient. Maryland would do well to follow the example of Virginia and other Southern States in the establishment of County Training Schools — schools which, while giving appropriate instruction of a secondary grade, will also provide for a certain amount of teacher training. In this way a gradually improved teaching force, particularly for the rural schools, can be built up. Our position regarding the teachers of Maryland may then be briefly summarized. The profession is without standards, without even the possibility of standards. Some form of central control must be instituted; teachers must be differentiated on the basis of their particular functions; and appointments must be made by the County Superintendent, who, under the new order, will necessarily be a trained officer. Meanwhile, the reorgan- ized normal schools of the state, cooperating with the re- organized county school organization, should prove an important influence in improving teachers now in service. VII. ENROLMENT AND ATTENDANCE IN THE effort to ascertain how well Maryland edu- cates its children and what measures it must take to improve educational facilities, we have thus far discussed the administrative organization, state and county, and the character and qualifications of the super- vising and teaching bodies. We have criticised the county boards as politically constituted, the county superintendents as lacking in technical training and stability of tenure, the teaching body as ill-prepared and heterogeneous. Exceptions have indeed been gladly noted. A few county boards are non-political; a few county superintendents are competent and secure; some teachers — indeed, not a few — are well-trained, intelligent, and progressive. Nevertheless, these exceptions, impor- tant as they are, do not really leaven the mass. Whether or not the organization which we have thus de- scribed does the best that it is capable of doing depends on two factors to the consideration of which we now turn, viz. : (i) the regularity with which children attend school, and (2) the course of instruction through which they are put. To the former topic the present chapter will be devoted. The legal school age in Maryland is from five to twenty years of age. But children will neither start to school 80 ENROLMENT AND ATTENDANCE 81 at five nor remain until they are twenty. It would there- fore be absurd to criticise enrolment and attendance on the basis of the statutory requirement. It is however fair to expect children to begin school at six; and now that high schools are developing, it is important to ascertain how many pupils remain up to, say, eighteen. Accordingly, children from six to eighteen years of age are regarded in this chapter as constituting the school population. The number of children in Maryland between 6 and 18 has increased decidedly since 1880. There were 276,229 children of school age in Maryland in 1880; there were 339,467 in 1914. Simultaneously, as might be expected, the number of children enrolled in schools has also in- creased. What is more, the increase in school enrolment has been larger than the increase in school population. Conditions have therefore improved. (Fig. 4.) In 1880 FIG. 4 SCHOOL POPULATION ((,-18)6- SCHOOL EM&LLMENT 4- 339, 467... USANPS 01 276,229 245 .--' ' 0, X POPULATION ENROLLMENT 1880 .258 1390 1900 1910 1914- 82 PUBLIC EDUCATION IN MARYLAND only 59 per cent, of the white and colored children be- tween 6 and 18 were in school, whereas in 19 14, 73 per cent, were registered. In a word, in 1880, 41 children out of each 100 that should have been in school were not there, while in 1914 only 27 out of each 100 were out altogether. (Fig. 5.) Children are, of course, and FIG. S 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 £0 10 PERCENT OF TOTAL SCHOOL POPULATION f 6-13) ENROLLEP 5a 3% 12.5"\* 18S0 1890 i900 i910 1914 have always been, enrolled in other than public schools. We have no means of knowing how many attended pri- vate and parochial schools in 1880, nor do we know how many attend private and parochial schools to-day. There can be no doubt, however, that a larger percentage of the school population attended public schools in 19 14 than attended in 1880. Public school enrolment is, however, even now less than three-fourths of the school popula- tion. o o o o — o is >> o o On ENROLMENT AND ATTENDANCE 83 Up to 1900 the situation is partly explained by the non-enrolment of large numbers of colored children. (Fig. 6.) Since 1900, however, the difference between FIG. 6 100^ 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 PERCENT OF WHITE AN? COLOREP CHO.PREN ((,-i8)ENROLLEP 62a % WHITE 4J $.c^?--- - ,-- "~~* 7Z.(,% 69 5 7. 1S80 1890 1900 1310 1914 the enrolment of colored children and the enrolment of white children has become practically negligible. In that year there were enrolled 68 per cent, of the white as against 66 per cent, of the colored children, and 2 to 3 per cent, continues to measure the difference. Were there an up-to-date and complete school census giving the number of children of each age and the number at school, it would be possible to determine accurately the number of children of each age who are not enrolled. Such data are not available, for Maryland does not take a state school census. Hence, there is no telling how enrolment varies with age. The Federal Census, how- 84 PUBLIC EDUCATION IN MARYLAND ever, throws some light on the question. On the basis of its figures for 1910 it appears that, of children between 6 and 14 years of age, 17 white children out of each 100, and 29 colored children out of each 100 are not enrolled. (Fig. 7.) Of children between 15 and 18 — i. e., the high FIG. 7 PERCENT OF CHILDREN OF ELEMENTAL SCHOOL AC-z(t-U) IN SCHOOL WHITE COLOSfP /\, imoo /\ / IN SCHOOL \ Vjr { ,M school age — only 44 per cent, of the white and 61 per cent, of the colored children are in school (Fig. 8) — not, of course, in the high school; for 40 per cent, of the white chil- dren in school between 15 and 18 years old are floundering about between the second and the seventh grades of the elementary school, 1 and the same is true of all the colored pupils. These figures may not be absolutely ^his statement is made upon the basis of the per cent, of children between 15 and 18 in these grades in the cities. See Table VI. ENROLMENT AND ATTENDANCE 85 correct, but they serve to explain why in the Federal Census of 19 10 Maryland ranks twenty- third in point of illiteracy. FIG. 8 PERCENT OF CHILDREN 07 HIGH SCHOOL AGE ( 15- Id) XN SCHOOL WHITE COLORED An efficient system of public schools not only enrolls children, but holds at least those who are physically and mentally normal until they have finished the elementary, if not the high school, course. The school records of Maryland are so incomplete that it is impossible to de- termine with accuracy the number of grades finished by children before they drop out of school. But enough is known to show that the situation is deplorably bad. Under normal conditions children start to school in their seventh year (i. e., when they are six years old) ; therefore, if the system is efficient — if, that is, they start to school at six and remain consecutively, there ought to be just 86 PUBLIC EDUCATION IN MARYLAND about as many children in the second class or grade as there were in the first. Now in cities having a population of 2,500 or more, exclusive of Baltimore, there were enrolled in the winter term last year 1,916 children from eight to nine years of age, and only 1,590 children from six to seven years of age. 1 In other words, about 16 per cent, of the children started from one to two years too late. In consequence, many of the late beginners will drop out of school without completing the elementary curriculum; for a late start reduces the number of years spent in school and, as a rule, reduces the number of grades finished. Efforts must therefore be made to get children into school more promptly. Once started, the schools, even though there is no adequate compulsory attendance law, hold the children fairly well until they pass the age of thirteen. The orig- inal enrolment of 1,590 rises three years later to 1,930, gradually declining until there are 1,598 children in ^ABLE V ACEJ AND GRADE J OF CHILDREN fN THE CITIES AGES "1 3 P.t- 3 3 t- 3 I* 3 — O D-rJ 3 T« h O 1" h it Nil D-tO 3~ 35 2 0° Total Grddts I 4 i57^ 1245 683 308 133 43 lfe 5 5 J 402 2 II 11 354 845 671 346 166 89 37 19 3 2541 III 33 351 <*" 528 336 186 98 44 10 1 2212 IV 36 ?'r3 474 3 53 184 65 23 1 1826 VI 48 164 37? 361 260 112 49 9 1382 VII 6 34 17? 338 300 175 58 13 3 1099 VIII 2 48 1M ?76 232 124 41 6 3 896 Ix I b 34 J59 209 170 85 22 3 669 X 2 38 J05 175 119 59 18 4 520 XI 1 7 22 84 1I& 112 33 19 385 Xll 1 9 ?3 22 4 §9 Total Aqts 5 1590 1G52 1916 1930 1848 1685 1714 1596 1358 968 TOO 408 224 61 14 17650 ENROLMENT AND ATTENDANCE 87 attendance in their fourteenth year. But these figures do not indicate orderly progress through the elementary grades. If children started to school when six years of age, fourteen-year-old children would normally be found in the eighth grade. If they start later than six, they will as a rule be correspondingly retarded. Now in the cities under consideration, fourteen-year-old children (Table VI), instead of being concentrated in the eighth grade, are scattered from the first to the eleventh grades: five were still in the first grade; 19 had finished the first and reached the second; 300 had reached grade seven, and 276, grade eight. About two-thirds of the children under fourteen years of age — to be precise, 898 out of 1,358 — were from one to seven grades in arrears; 44 per cent, had either not reached or not finished more than grade V; only 13 per cent, were normal or ahead of normal. 1 1 TABLE VI GRADES COMPLETED BY CHILDREN 14 TO IS YEARS OE AGE GRADES COMPLETED AND GRADES NOW' IN x V <9 c 1 c -o c c ■0 > c -c! a > > c § > 5 c 1 c § 5 c -a c 5 X .S c c C V i V "E. E -Sf CL. g V "3. E 01 "5 £ 9 0) g Cu g "5 13 it i * 4150 2409 1147 678 13399 9 2 PUBLIC EDUCATION IN MARYLAND remain in the lower school to any such ages. If they did, there would now be about 4,000 children 16 years of age or older in the elementary schools of the Maryland towns we have been considering; there are, as a matter of fact, only 165. 1 It is thus evident that orobably 98 per cent. FIG. IO PERCENT OF OVERAGE PUPIL5 BEHIND THEIR GRADES LESS THAN 1 YR. 1&2YR3 ELEMENTAFy HIGH SCHOOL COMBINED i(/3YK.%. 3&4Y& 4KKS.UP §^EEE&i WWWWWWWWWM Ai PERCENT 10 20 30 4-0 50 (,0 JO SO 90 iOO of the children now behind their grade will drop out be- fore completing the course; in all probability they will lose just about as many grades as they are now in arrears. Our estimate, then, that not to exceed 50 per cent, of the white children enrolled in the schools are getting more than a fifth-grade education is shown to be well within the facts. Several factors combine to account for the extent of over-age in the Maryland schools. Late entrance is one; irregular attendance, another. Children once enrolled ^ee Table V, page 86. ENROLMENT AND ATTENDANCE 93 cannot be promoted regularly unless they attend regu- larly. It has already been pointed out that the enrol- ment falls short of the school population. Attention must now be directed to the fact that, of the children who are enrolled — children, that is, who propose to attend school, only about half attended on the average in 1880; since then attendance has steadily improved until in 1914 the average daily attendance, in so far as the enrol- ment is concerned, reached 65.3 per cent. (Fig. 11.) FIG. IT PER CENT OF ENROLMENT IN AVERAGE DAILY ATTENDANCE 1880 1890 1900 1910 1914 I 52.8-fo \/ 55.5f. \ / fc0. + 7°\ ( Ml 8 /. \[ C.5.57. \ This is, to be sure, a great improvement from the stand- point of 1880; but it is still poor; for it means that of every one hundred children enrolled, 34 are now absent daily. The plant thus seems to be running at only two-thirds capacity. As a matter of fact, it is far from doing even this! For attendance should be calculated on the basis of school population, not of school enrolment — on the basis, that is, of the children who ought to be going to school rather than on the basis of those who are really 94 PUBLIC EDUCATION IN MARYLAND going. Thus considered, the average daily attendance was 31 per cent, in 1880 — less, that is, than one-third of what it should have been; and it was 47.1 per cent, in 1 9 14 — less than one-half of what it should have been. The plant is working, therefore, not two- thirds capacity — assuming that there are accommodations for all children between 6 and 18 — but less than one-half capacity. (Fig. 12.) Hence the schools are not doing half their job, FIG. 12 PERCENT OF SCHOOL POPULATION ((.-IB) IN AVERAGE DAILY ATTENDANCE 1880 1890 1900 1910 1914- even when quantity alone is considered. In these statements no distinction is made between white and colored children. One might suppose that a high average attendance among white children is brought down by a low average attendance on the part of colored children. This is, however, not the case. Colored chil- dren do indeed attend school less regularly than white, but the difference is not sufficient to account for the bad showing. In 1914 the attendance of colored children averaged 59 per cent, against 67 per cent, for whites: that ENROLMENT AND ATTENDANCE 95 is, 33 white children out of every hundred were missing as against 41 colored. (Fig. 13.) 80 40 20 FIG. 13 PERCENT OF WHITE & COLORED SCHOOL ENROLL- MENT IN AVERAGE DAILY ATTENDANCE "WHITE ^ ?5* m ~~^~~' (,7% 58.5 1880 1890 1900 1910 1914 Conditions do, however, vary greatly in the various counties. Whether children attend school regularly or not depends on several factors — on the attitude of parents, on the merits of the schools, on the condition of roads, etc. Obviously, sections differ in these respects. (Fig. 14.) Baltimore County, with a relatively superior school system and good physical conditions, leads the white schools of the state with an average daily attendance of 73 per cent.; St. Mary's brings up the rear with 55 per cent. Even were the white schools of these two counties of equal efficiency, Baltimore County gives its children a better education with only 27 out of each one hundred 96 PUBLIC EDUCATION IN MARYLAND absent daily than St. Mary's gives with 45 absent daily. Similar differences are to be observed in the attendance 100J 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 to FIG. 14 Per cent of Enrolment in Average Daily Attendance by Counties WHITE COLORED 2 ^ c S a S3 C 3 < O E c § > g § Ctf CT3 C3 C$ « u u u a .*-■ 4^ O cfl rt O K S E o if c o 4) c c < c v V E ZZ < < ffl S * 8« 73 U o _ t U U V ^ -a -a S fe b E ° E £ o ■?: !^2fc a ft o "3 H £ £ £ o J FINANCE 133 increase in expenditure per pupil enrolled was nowhere considerable; in Calvert, Charles, and St. Mary's counties there was a decline. From 1900 to 1914, however, every county in the state, without exception, increased its per capita expenditures, some of them very largely. The lowest percentage of increase — that of Charles County — was about 50 per cent.; the highest Dorchester County, 160 per cent. Of the 23 counties of the state, 13 more than doubled their per-pupil outlay between 1900 and 1914, 1 with the result that existing disparities were still further emphasized. Thus, in 1890, with per-pupil ex- penditure varying in the counties from $4.92 to $11.97, there was less disparity in respect to educational ad- vantages than in 19 14, when $9.17 was spent upon each pupil in Charles County and $28.81 upon each pupil in Baltimore County. (Fig. 25.) These enormous differ- ences are, of course, pregnant with consequences to the individual child. As we have seen, public education in Maryland, as in other states, is paid for by both state and county. From 1870 up to the present time the counties of Maryland and the city of Baltimore have raised annually about 70 per cent, of the money expended for education; the state has contributed about 30 per cent. (Fig. 26.) While the relative proportion of all school expenditures borne by the state has not materially changed, the total amount dis- tributed to the counties has risen from $458,000 in 1870 to 'Allegany, Baltimore, Caroline, Carroll, Cecil, Dorchester, Frederick, Garrett, Montgomery, Queen Anne, Somerset, Wicomico, and Worcester. i 3 4 PUBLIC EDUCATION IN MARYLAND FIG. 26 PROPORTION OF SCHOOL EXPENDITURES BORNE BY THE STATE 1UU'« 50 40 JO 20 to -22^1* 30.4?. 1370 1880 1890 1900 1910 1914 $1,675,000 in 1914, representing an increase both in the amount provided by the state per child of the school popu- lation and per pupil of the school enrolment. (Fig. 27.) The funds distributed by the state are derived from several sources. Far the largest factor is the state school tax, which, ranging from 10 cents on each $100 in 1870 to 17 cents in 191 5, is levied against all the taxable prop- ■s. FIG. 27 AMOUNT OF PER-PUPIL EXPENPITURE CONTRIBUTED BY THE STATE / s j*Q8- — -— / ' r ,'' YS5 683 ^ 4.02 1870 1880 1890 1900 1910 1914 • PER PUPIL ENROLLED PER CHILD OF SCHOOL POPULATION S-2& FINANCE i3S erty of the state and produced, in 1914, $1,654,000. Out of this fund are paid in the first instance the expenses of the State Department of Education, the maintenance of the three State Normal Schools, Teachers' Retirement allowances, 1 the income on the Surplus Revenue Fund, the special aid to high schools and colored industrial schools, and the Free Text-book Fund. After meeting these charges, there remained in 1914 $1,305,000 which was divided between the counties and the city of Balti- more on the basis of the population between 5 and 20 years of age. Almost every state in the Union has at one time or another apportioned its general school fund on the basis of school population, as Maryland, still does. But the method is in process of abandonment throughout the country, and for obvious reasons. Education is, we have said, a state function. The state supports it liberally because the state desires that all children should enjoy substantial educational advantages. If the matter were left to counties and districts, the disparities in educa- T^rovision was made, in 1902, for a straight-out annual pension of $200 to be paid all teachers, irrespective of financial ability, who, having reached the age of sixty, had taught in the schools of the state twenty-five years, and were disqualified for further service. Within three years it became evident that the financial burden involved was more than the state could afford. The law was accordingly amended to provide that pensions should be paid to those only who were "without other means of comfortable support." On this basis, the sum required increased to $38,000 in 1914, the total number of teachers drawing pensions being 161. The law has been administered with great care, but the entire question of teachers' pensions needs to be re-studied. The present provision, while relieving certain individuals, cannot be regarded as a final solution. There is good reason to believe that no non-contributory pension system on a large scale is either wise or feasible. 136 PUBLIC EDUCATION IN MARYLAND tional opportunity would be intolerable. The state's contribution must therefore be employed to equalize conditions. Do what the commonwealth will, this highly desirable object cannot be fully attained; that is, however, only the stronger reason for doing the best possible. Apportionment on the basis of population aggravates inequalities instead of mitigating them. Certain coun- ties are able to provide good schools quite apart from state aid. Unquestionably, they should not for that reason be altogether passed over; but they cannot fairly complain if the adoption of a more intelligent basis of distribution somewhat reduces their share. Again, the rural counties being more thinly settled, a single teacher instructs fewer children in the country than in the city. The cost of instruction is therefore higher in the rural districts; apportionment on the basis of school population alone is therefore unfair to those sections that are most in need of help. Finally, the Federal Census on the basis of which the apportionment is made is actually correct only for the year in which it is taken; a considerable error may occur during all the other years of the decade. For example, according to the Federal Census, Baltimore County had, in 1910, 39,306 children between the ages of 5 and 20; the distribution of the state school tax was, however, made in 1910 on the basis of her having 26,290 children, meaning a loss to the county in a single year of approxi- mately $24,000. Contrariwise, while the census of 1910 gave Queen Anne 5,924 children between 5 and 20, the o o o a a u a. a o o O U FINANCE 137 county was credited in the division of the state school tax in that year with 6,042 children, thereby receiving from the state $3,500 more than the actual number of children at the time entitled her to. Such inequalities in the dis- tribution of the state school tax are unavoidable so long as the Federal Census is relied upon to provide the basis of distribution. The counties need funds mainly to pay the salaries of the teachers; a "fair" distribution would there- fore tend to make it equally feasible for all counties to employ at decent salaries the number of teachers really required. That is, if distribution on the basis of school population worked equitably, the counties would receive approximately equal amounts per teacher. As a matter of fact, the amounts received per teacher vary from $277 in Baltimore City to $147 per teacherin Cecil County. No two counties receive the same sum. (Fig. 28.) Dis- tribution on the basis of school population is therefore distinctly unfair. A more equitable basis is sorely needed. A second fund, known as the Common Free School Fund, is composed of three items. The first item con- sisted of an investment of $278,000 derived from taxes upon state bank stock, collected in the first instance in 1 816, and yielding in 19 14 an income of $6,000. The original intention was to distribute annually to the coun- ties in equal shares the entire amount of taxes collected. It, however, so happened that for years certain counties had no schools upon which they could properly spend 138 PUBLIC EDUCATION IN MARYLAND their money. Their unexpended share was accordingly left with the State Treasurer and held for them as a permanent investment. The amounts now so held vary from $21,400 in the name of Frederick County, to $4,300 for St. Mary's. Baltimore City, Allegany, Charles, Cal- FIG. 28 AMOUNT RECEIVED EER. TEACHER. . FROM STATE SCHOOL TAX ■a a c < a i 3^ .5 c — — >- — *" cs a a « u u u o u o o Q C9 ■O T3 o ra a) ~ o O a> u C 2 £ 3 *J $ te -S I (9 .S O vert, and Garrett counties do not now participate in this fund, they having used in times long past their full share in the current support of their schools. Hence, while the other counties now receive from this fund annually from $150 to $750, nothing at all is received by these four counties and the city of Baltimore. FINANCE 139 The second item of the Common Free School Fund consisted of $229,000, having as its origin $169,000 re- turned by the United States Government in 1858 to Maryland as interest on money advanced by her to the National Government during the War of 181 2. The income, amounting to $10,400 in 1914, is distributed annually to the counties on the basis of their representa- tion in the General Assembly. From the educational standpoint, this basis of distribution is arbitrary. For example, Calvert County in 1914 had three representa- tives with 4,119 children between 5 and 20, whereas Queen Anne, with the same number of representatives, had 5,924, or almost a third more children to provide for. The apportionment of school funds upon the basis of the number of representatives in the General Assembly thus disregards the main purpose of a state school fund, viz., the equalization of school advantages, since it takes no account of the number of children to be educated or of the disparity between the several counties in respect to their financial ability to support schools. The final item of the Common Free Fund is known as the Surplus Revenue Fund. It is the part of the surplus revenue, distributed in 1837 by the United States, and in Maryland set apart for the benefit of the schools. Un- fortunately, as in so many other states, the original amount was spent; the state, however, obligated itself to provide an annual income equal to 5 per cent, interest. Until 1910 this income amounting to $34,069 was de- rived from indirect taxes and paid from the General i 4 o PUBLIC EDUCATION IN MARYLAND Treasury; since then it has been deducted from the money raised from the state school tax, and for this reason, the Surplus Revenue Fund may be said to be virtually lost to the schools. A somewhat complicated plan was devised for the dis- tribution of this income. In the first place, the sum of $2,000 was set aside for the indigent blind. The re- mainder was then -divided into two equal parts, one part being distributed to the counties and Baltimore City on the basis of white population, the other divided equally among the counties and the city of Baltimore. Once more sound principles are ignored. Of the two methods of distribution employed, the former is unfair to counties with a large colored population, the latter does nothing to equalize educational facilities. Next in importance is the so-called "Academic" Fund, not, as its name would appear to indicate, a productive investment, but merely a regular annual appropriation made from the General Treasury for the encouragement of secondary education. These appropriations began in 1798 when donations were first made to 'quasi-private county academies; by 183 1 itjiad become the fixed policy of the state to appropriate $1,200 a year to each county, irrespective of size and needs. Where county academies independent of the public school authorities were main- tained, the appropriation went to the trustees of these academies; if there were more than one, the appropriation was divided. If there was no academy "with its separate board of trustees, the appropriation went to the public FINANCE 141 school authorities. In 1914 $26,150 was distributed by the state in this way. In the distribution of the academic fund every princi- ple of sound educational finance is violated. Originally — at least subsequently to 1831 — the counties were to share alike, itself an unsound method of procedure. Somewhat later an unequal distribution was brought about; but the inequalities were not dictated or suggested by sound principle. Wicomico, for example, with an enrolment of 5,888, received, in 1914, $2,400, whereas Carroll, with an enrolment of 6,697, secured only $200. But such inequalities are, after all, preferable to outright abuse as evidenced in the following examples: Washington Academy, located in Somerset County, some three miles from Princess Anne, was erected by private subscription in 1777. From 1798 until the pres- ent time an annual dqnatibn has been made from the "Academic Fund" to the trustees of this school, varying from $600 to $8op. For three-quarters of a century Washington Academy was the centre of higher education in Somerset, but the doors of the building were closed about 1864 and never again opened for educational pur- poses. For a half century thereafter bats found a friendly shelter in the attic and vagrants in its lower rooms. Still, during the entire half century of its non-existence, the Trustees of Washington Academy received the annual appropriation from the state, the accumulated amount of which, or as much of it as was recovered, including the interest, amounted by 1904 to over $12,000. With i 4 2 PUBLIC EDUCATION IN MARYLAND $12,000 in hand the academy trustees erected in 1904 in Princess Anne, upon a lot purchased with state funds in 1844, a modern school building. The building was deeded to the County School Board, but the lot is held by the academy trustees, and this building is to-day the public school of Princess Anne. Thus from funds do- nated by the state for the encouragement of secondary education, but which were not so currently used and hence should have been cut off, a public school building is erected and presented to Princess Anne. Moreover, by reason of the fact that this appropriation is still made to the Trustees of Washington Academy and applied to the maintenance of the present school, the state is making, through indirection, an annual present of $600 to Princess Anne. An even more flagrant abuse of state funds is to be found in connection with Patapsco Academy, Shipley Station, Anne Arundel County. This institution, es- tablished in 1837, had dwindled by 1908 to the pro- portions of a one-room school. Though the building and the grounds occupied for more than twenty years were the property of an individual, and the board of trustees had disappeared altogether, this insignificant private school continued to receive $400 a year from the treasury of the state of Maryland. In 1908 conditions seemed favorable to the abandonment of this "Academy" and to erection in the neighborhood of a much-needed public school supported and controlled by the County Board of Education. Such was not to be. A bill passed the o o o c 3 O "3 bfl M "3 5 FINANCE 143 General Assembly confiding the future of the "Academy" to a committee named in the law. An appropriation of $1,200 was provided to purchase in the name of the state the ancient home of the Academy, and in 19 10 an addi- tional $500 was supplied from the General Treasury for repairs and improvements. Two hundred fifty dollars for each of the years 19 10 and 191 1 were added to provide "courses of lectures on agriculture and its kindred sub- jects and for hall rent and other expenses." Thus an academy at best conducted for years as a private day school, and having in 1914 a total enrolment of 39 pupils with none above the fifth grade, was rehabilitated at state expense to serve as a private school. Other instances of abuse may be readily cited. Eight hundred dollars are annually paid by the state of Mary- land to Frederick County College, which is no longer in existence, the buildings being rented to Hood College. At Cumberland and at Rockville similar appropriations are used to bolster up obsolete institutions, in immediate proximity to high schools of the first rank capable of taking better care of all the academy students without additional cost; at Vienna, Bel Air, Millington, etc., money from the Academic Fund is employed to bring about private control of public high schools. It is unnec- essary to go further. The Academic Fund is in many instances wasted or worse than wasted. When the school finances of the state are reorganized, this money can be put to far more productive use. There remain to be considered certain special appro- 144 PUBLIC EDUCATION IN MARYLAND priations made by the General Assembly for the benefit of local schools. Regardless of the amount of money involved in these special appropriations, the principle — or lack of principle — makes them highly significant. Laws carrying special appropriations were passed, for example, in behalf of the Anne Arundel County Academy in 1900, of Greensboro, Caroline County, in 1904, of Federalsburg, Caroline County, and of Aberdeen in Har- ford County in 1906, of Patapsco Academy, Anne Arun- del County, in 1908. There is no justification for the bestowal by the legis- lature of school favors. State educational funds should be and can be distributed on the basis of principle; capricious departures from the rules, whatever they be, tend to log-rolling and other forms of demoralization. Garrett County is a case in point. In 1902 a special annual appropriation of $4,000 was deducted from the State School Fund for the benefit of Garrett County on the ground that the resources of the county were nor sufficient to enable her to keep her schools open the minimum term of seven and one-half months required by law at that time. When first granted the appropria- tion was endorsed by the State Board of Education; but in the meantime Garrett has grown in wealth, so that it stands to-day the fourteenth county of the state in the amount of wealth back of each child of the school popula- tion. At least eight counties are its inferiors in this respect. Nevertheless, the county continues to receive this special appropriation. To tell the truth, the county has been FINANCE 145 injured by this special favor, for it has been successively exempted from most of the progressive school legislation of recent years: the compulsory school attendance law, the minimum salary law, the nine months' school term, and the like. Garrett County is, however, not the only recipient of such appropriations. Five thousand dollars were appro- priated in 191 2 to buy land for the Ridgley Agricultural High School of Caroline County, and a like sum was con- tributed from the State Treasury toward the erection of a public school building at Federalsburg. The same General Assembly gave Caroline, Queen Anne, and Tal- bot counties, -together, $4,000 to be used in building what is known as the Tri-County High School. Talbot County again in 1914 received $7,500, in part payment of the cost of erecting a school building at Sudlersville. All such special appropriations must be strongly con- demned. The case is not helped by the pretext that the schools were to do special work in agriculture, for the state, as is well known, already gives a bonus for the teaching of agriculture in high schools; the schools spe- cially favored never contemplated more than is being done in the Boys' High School at Frederick, the Baden Agri- cultural High School of Prince George County, and the Sparks Agricultural High School of Baltimore County — schools built and supported entirely at county expense. The fact is that the counties wanted schools which could not be provided at local expense without consid- erable sacrifice. Special appropriations had already 146 PUBLIC EDUCATION IN MARYLAND been made for other localities. Why not for these? Political conditions were especially favorable; the local political leaders were enlisted in the enterprise, and the result is a matter of history. The general question of state aid to local schools must be surveyed from another angle. Let us assume that "favors" are discontinued; upon what terms should the state government render its assistance? Two general policies are in common use. Under the one, the state insists that local authorities, before they receive their full apportionment, comply with certain state require- ments with respect to the conduct and management of the schools. Under the second, the state makes its contributions without imposing any particular conditions. Maryland occupies a middle ground. The bulk of the funds distributed by the state of Maryland to the several counties, and especially of those raised by direct taxation, is intended for the support of the elementary schools. To receive their full apportion- ment, local authorities are required to keep the schools open at least nine months during the calendar year, and to pay white teachers at least three hundred dollars a year. 1 Tt follows that the minimum school year is nine months. Nine coun- ties have a school year of ten months: Baltimore, Calvert, Caroline, Carroll, Harford, Howard, Kent, Queen Anne's, and Talbot. However, the colored schools do not continue so long nor is the term so uniform. They are open ten months in Baltimore, Harford, and Kent; nine months in Allegany, Carroll, Cecil, and Washington; seven to eight months in Calvert, Charles, Frederick, Garrett, Montgomery, Prince George, and Queen Anne; six to seven months in Caroline, Howard, Talbot, and Worcester; five to six months in Dorchester, St. Mary's, Somerset, and Wicomico, and only four months in Anne Arundel. FINANCE 147 Besides, the money provided for free text-books and sup- plies must be employed exclusively for these purposes. There are no other limitations; the state makes no stipu- lation as to the kind of superintendent that shall be em- ployed, or his salary, or the quality and the amount of supervision that shall be provided, or the kind of school- houses that shall be built. Nor is there any requirement imposed upon the counties with respect to the amount of money that shall be raised locally to secure the entire state apportionment. The state follows a different policy in allotting funds to the high schools. Specific conditions must be met if the local authorities are to receive the full aid of the state: a certain number of children must be in attendance, a given number of teachers must be employed, specified salaries paid, and courses of study of a given length and character offered. Under the stimulus of these requirements and the financial assistance conditioned on complying with them, the high schools made more progress within the last five years than during the two preceding decades. Counties must also meet certain requirements in order to secure the special assistance offered by the state in support of colored industrial schools. Maryland is therefore not passive in the distribution of funds for the support of local schools, but she is by no means as active as some other states or as she herself might well be. The very purpose of levying and dis- tributing a school tax is defeated unless its expenditure 148 PUBLIC EDUCATION IN MARYLAND is wisely and efficiently directed. It becomes the state, therefore, to insist upon two points: that every locality should put forth proper effort in its own behalf; and that all school funds should be spent under effective supervision. Maryland has not done this in the past; she is not doing it now. Thousands upon thousands of dol- lars have been poured into some of the poorer counties without yielding a fair educational, return. This waste will continue until the state takes full advantage of the opportunity afforded by the state subsidy to bring about better local support and administration. A new era of progress will open, especially to the elementary schools, when the state lays down specific requirements with respect to the amount of taxes to be raised locally, the kind of schoolhouses to be erected, the preparation of the teachers to be employed, and the qualifications of the superintendent and the supervisors to be engaged, as pre-conditions to receiving state aid, and when, further, the state so organizes the State Department that proper guarantees can be exacted. In various ways now described the state of Maryland contributed in 1914 $1,675,201 to public education; meanwhile the total sum spent was $5,102,448. The difference — that is, $3,427,247 — was raised by the coun- ties and the city of Baltimore by taxes levied on all prop- erty. The amount thus raised has everywhere increased, in some counties remarkably. While the increase in Talbot County between 1900 and 1914 was only 6.7 per cent., there was an increase of over 100 per cent, in seven- FINANCE 149 teen counties, and in Somerset the rise was as much as 470 per cent. (Fig. 29.) These increases mean larger, even if not everywhere wholly adequate, expenditure in behalf of the individual child. (Fig. 30.) Somerset County produced in 1890 31 cents per child, of the school population (5-20) in 1914, $3.57; St. Mary's contributed 37 cents in 1890 and FIG. 29 PERCENT OF INCREASE IN THE COUNTY TAXE5 1900-1914 c 2 < a a < 2 - *3 > 1) B a CO o 4-* J o O) 0) cfl l-i a 'G ■o t r. CO U u U U P U, K ffi u E o s I c c < c o £ £ £ £ U P3 $1.87 in 1914; while the amount raised locally in Balti- more County rose from $3.24 to $12.55 in the same period. (Fig. 31.) The sums just mentioned as raised by county taxation form a widely varying part of the total expenditure on each child. In Charles County, for example, the total ISO PUBLIC EDUCATION IN MARYLAND FIG. 30 INCREASE IN AMOUNT RAISED FROM COUNTY TAXES PER CUILD(5-Zo) *12.55 •o c £ u a u re > re a 'u J3 u 1- CQ u u u p .a -w xi 73 ■3 u id b u is c id re O ffi B M b E bo *j c 3 4) » c re pq FIG. 31 AMOUNT AVAILABLE PER.CHIW ( '5-20 ) IN 1914. PARI CONTRIBUTED BY THE STATE AND BY THE COUNTY "20° 15° 10" •O c >» c re to < I t re U re U 3 .* .a +j -a -a re O ho O be £ 2 SI c a < a a 55 c o 2 *- .S o i 1 Si o I 13 03 FINANCE 151 expenditure per child of the school population (5-20) in 1914 was $5.34; of this the state contributed $3.90; the county $1.44, or 27 per cent. Calvert spent per child $5.87, but only $1.85 or 31 per cent, was county money. In contrast, there was available in Baltimore County $16.45, of which county taxes produced $12. 55 or 76 per cent. (Fig. 32.) FIG. 32 PERCENT OF TOTAL AMOUNT AVAILABLE PER. CHUJ>(s-2o) RAISED BY THE COUNTIES lflOl v ■O c 3 c < a a; V C < < v -5 o _ > _ I- ■- — - u w ~ w ,« 0> u o> 2; 1- — — 5 o a T3 T5 O re o O -r C 5. J re re re u.c" u, ™ ,£ .a ,"i «^ u ;i ^ V 1 I § re en h £ & £ U o a pa These differences are only partly due to the unequal financial resources of the various counties. A county's ability to support schools is best indicated by the amount of taxable wealth back of each child. So viewed, Balti- more County has, in 1914, $3,840 back of each child; St. Mary's, $710. Baltimore County would at the same 152 PUBLIC EDUCATION IN MARYLAND tax rate thus raise five or six times as much per child as St. Mary's. (Fig. 33.) Fully as important is the relative willingness of the several counties to tax themselves for education. The county school tax rate is an excellent index of educa- tional interest. FIG. S3 TAXABI-E WEALTH BACK OF EACH CHILD (5-ZO) "4-000 3000 2000 10OO ■O c 3 C < a M