"^Jr -^ %a3AINIV3\AV^ i>5 A ,^ V. 'Z- '■> ft /' v 'Z. Cx: ~^ Cxi > •I v: J\ V ^ ^ .-f f J^ 2? ^ r: ■>/ I '^i < < 0>> %0JI"IV3'JO>' f-rj m ^NN"^' ^'CAiivaaiii^'^ :v(riMi\TRV^ >- CC < CC -7' O » .inc -ivirrir, o O -1- :^ ^ CC .^WEUNIVERS/A 'A- X -s^t-LlBRARYOr ^ A 1 f< — ■ ^ 33 '^- ^\^E•UKIVER% ^ c^^ C: |— 1^1)| VI' o J *_■ J I 1 » ^ J V '^^ .^- TITr \~t J' \ 1 1 ' 1 1 J I ^Til^'jNVM]]^^ ''^/J>il3AlNa 31V> aMEIBRARYQ^ y^ / M >^ '^■^ v< r-n r— ui-i ^^^ %a3AINn3WV^ ^^^URP^RY/?/ ^>^.MIBRARY6//: ^ 1 1 ;>^ ^(!/03llV3-jO-^ ^.!/03llV>JO>^ A\^EIJNIVFRi/^ ^^v;lOSANr.Flff>^ - /JNVSOl^^^ '%iJ3AINIl-3Wv ^AiivaaiH^"^' ^(^AavaHiid m' 'a) ^ ' -V o , > z:; ' '=. •< ■ -n i— ' O u^ =3 -:; 'ilJONVSr >>. .•^^.UBRARYQ^^ ^' -n ..,\4ns-ANr,fi/ <: ;a3 <: -n 5^, : %0- s^ / '^J^ii^ONVsoi^'"^ '^-^imhmw k\EUNIVER% L5 ~ Nw*^ O ' o LIJ \ I ^ 1 I J ( » ^ ■ / w.i I vj \j 1 I J ■ <^ \\^f- Kjnrnr,. vj^lOSANCELi 1-lib; V ir"^ ^' Of ;^ o-v^ ,^MEUMIVFR.V/, a-. > >- ^ ' .^ O ■ i ^ .^X\l-1!PRARY/)^ ^l-llRRARYi ^ ^ ^ '^'<^Ojnv3-:io>' -'^c^ojiivjjt 'iVAQVaUl , ^\\E UiS'lVER^-//^ >- ' \>;10SANCEI£;^ O •— < '^Aa]AlNn-3WV^ ^.OFCALIPO/?^^ ^ > OFCALIFO/ -J' iV^ ^..--^ L.A.vV^ ^ \\w \ 'V > i-rri %_ ^EUNIVER% ^s.>;lOSANGELfj, - <: ^. ( , r i IDTl ' flV y-l . ir, '^-^ /■ • './■..'J I I ■J H v AWE UNIVERJ/^, ^^^lOSAS'CEU y^ .-ju..M:.,i-^^ %a]AiNa]\ -4,0FCALIF0/?^ ^.OF-CAIIFO/?^ ^^\\F UNIVFRi-/^, ^^K-lOSvVNCEli v:. n v^. rn >• =; -n <— ' O u_ ^(^Aavaaii-i""^^ - -n <: Or ec. Or C. >;lOSANCElfj> ^v^l•llBRARYQ/: ^^^VLIBRARY ?> c^ ''"■^/iajAiNn^wv -< - >i v>JO>' Survey of The Schools of Lawrence Township Mercer County, New Jersey Directed by MIL N. L. ENGELHARDT Professor of Education Wtati)txi ColIegeJColumfaia ^Hniberffitp New York City And E. S. EVENDEN Associate Professor of Education ^eacljerg College, Columbia ?Hnibergitp New York City J O ^ O «w The following members of the Major Professional Course in Educational Administration in the College Year 1921-1922 assisted in the work of this study: Miss Mary Kerr, Mrs. C. W. and Messrs. C. D. Anderson R. O. Bagby J. F. Barnhill F. V. Bermejo James Boyle O. S. Bradshaw W. H. Bristow R. H. Brown F. Cayco C. C. Clark F. DeVeyra R. B. Fore H. C. Fries T. A. Hendricks O. E. Hertzberg Flemming G. Howard, Jr. A. C. Humphreys W. M. Land G. A. Neff T. O. Oliver J. G. Ragsdale O. A. See R. K. Speer L. G. Stier R. O. Stoops G. Tabunar D. Weidler H. WiLMOT O. C. Wrigley 3'5'i 1 PART I ^ ^ «4 POPULATION STUDIES Lawrence Township is located in the southern portion of Mercer County, New Jersey. The southern section of the township borders on the outskirts of the city of Trenton. The township is a residence and rural community, many of the inhabitants of which are engaged in agricultural pursuits. Because of the electric railroad transpor- tation facilities, the township has become in part a suburban resi- dential community for Trenton. In Table I will be found the total population of Lawrence Town- ship for the United States Census periods 1890 to 1920 with the per- centages of increase in population over each of the three decades and comparison with the percentages of increases for the state of New Jersey and Mercer County. The population of Lawrence Township has grown more rapidly than the population of the state as a whole for the last two decades and also more rapidly than the total popula- tion of Mercer County itself. \ •o TABLE I Population op New Jersey, Mercer County and Lawrence Township From 1890 to 1920 Per Cent of Increase foi Each Decade Year Slate of New Jersey Per Cent . of Increase Mercer County Per Cent of Increase Lawrence Toivnship Per Cent of Increase 1890 1900 1910 1920 1,444,933 1,883,669 2,.537,167 3,1.55,900 30.4 34.7 24.4 79,978 95,365 125,657 159 881 19.2 31.8 27.2 1481 1555 2522 3686 5.0 62.1 46.2 There are thirteen townships and boroughs in Mercer County, Of these, Hamilton Town- ship surpassed Lawrence Township in increase in population for the decade 1900-1910 and Ewing and Hamilton Townships surpassed Lawrence Township in the increase in population from 1910-1920. Previous to 1890, six of Growth in Townships and Boroughs of Mercer County 2 Survey of Public School System the townships of Mercer County were decreasing in population. Only one township showed a decrease in the decade 1910-1920. The in- crease in Lawrence Township is no doubt due to the tendency toward suburban development in our American cities and the great change which has taken place in transportation facilities. With further progress in the development of the means of transportation, Law- rence Township will continue to increase in population. With this increase in population will come the problem of caring for a larger number of school children. It is desirable that the nature and extent of the school problem be anticipated for the future because of present overcrowded conditions in the Lawrence Township schools. The growth of population in the townships and boroughs of Mercer County is presented in Table IL „, „. '., . On Map No. I have been given the approximate resi- , r> ; • dential locations 01 each lamily lor Lawrence of ropulation _, 1 • t -n 1 j 1 1 iownship. it will be noted that the greatest density of population is in the Slackwood section which borders upon Trenton, the Eldrldge Park section and the Lawrenceville section. All three of these sections lie at points of vantage on the suburban trolley lines running from Trenton to Princeton. Aside from these three concentration points, the remainder of the population of the township is evenly distributed upon farms of various sizes. _,, ^. On Map No. i, the township has been divided into three r r, divisions for the purpose of distributing farms according to size. Division I is that section of the township north of Lawrenceville. Division II is that section to the east of Lawrence- ville, including Clarksville, Princesville and Bakers Basin. Division III contains the urban communities of Lawrenceville, Eldridge Park and Slackwood in which approximately three-fourths of the popula- tion of the township reside. According to data furnished by the assessor of the township, 2,685 people live in the three urban communities, while 1,000 people are living in the rural sections. Changes In the size of farms over a period of seven years indicate that the variation in population in the rural sections has been only slight during recent years. In Table III it will be seen that very few changes were made either in the size or number of farms in Divisions I and II in the seven year period from 1914 to 1921. On the other hand, 38 farms, or a total of 388 acres, have been cut into town lots in Division III during Lawrence Township, New Jersey CO W O P o « o fq o ;? <; w Oi ►-( M Oi r/5 'A K ^ ^ < H fe z U w Q » n N H-t h « Ix. » I— 1 P Ph O Ik t« o w CO K H W -< •-S ^ ft. W fS ^ f^ ;« t-t H rfl 2; r« P < o U o tH C5 1-H C5 CO t^ 00 t^ CO "* 00 CD 1—1 (M 00 CD 00 0^6 J t^ Tt< lO O CO iM CD 05 Oi ^ (M 1-H CO CO -* (N T-l CO CO »o 1—) 05 1-H r-l 1— j 1— ( 1-H 9SV9J.09(J CD lO CO % to 1— t o dsvauouj CO 1> o ^ iC 1—1 t^ "* rH 03 % IC i-i 05 I> ci (m' 1— ( CO oi ■51H Tt< 00 CD CO C^ CO 1—1 05 05 C5 CO 1-H (N CI (M CO t^ 1-H O Tt< 0161 O) 00 CO 00 o ^ lO l> 1— t 1—1 00 O CO 1— 1 l> 1-1 1-1 CO (M iO 1— 1 CD 1-H rH 9SV9U09Q •^ 1-1 Tf< 00 % o 1—1 CO 9SV9U0UJ lO o I> CD 00 % 1—1 lO '* -* 00 t--i cj (M 1— ( ^H (M ^ CO "* 05 o o lO CO CT> lO !>. t^ 05 Ci CO CD T}< CC CD lO CO 05 lO o lO t^ 006 T CO CO I-H t^ 05 CO •o t> 00 05 CO i-H (M T-l Tt 1-1 CO 1—1 CO CO 1-H T-( 9SV3U09(J CO i-H 00 0/ lO CD CO ■Oi C^ T^' 1—1 1—1 lO (M ^H 9SV9J,0UJ r- lO rtH CO 1-H % OJ CO CO CO c CO (M O lO (M rH o 05 o 1-1 CD 0881 o 1-1 t^ lO CO t^ o CO 1-H 00 OJ 1— i ■^ CO CO ■* 1— ( (M 1-H 05 !M CO (M CO --H rtn CO CO 1— ( 1-H 1-H CD t- t^ l> CO 1— ( 00 00 '^ ^ 00 0181 1—1 t^ 1-1 ■* t^ >o o CO t^ O CI C5 ■* ^ CO (M (M r- T-H 00 Ci rt< (M IC 1-1 Tj^ (M (M 1-H 1-H 1-H ^ « P3 pq bl n o CO g ilton tstown- well-B well CJ c 01 1 o b£ S o OJ o lington Winds( '^ ^ l2 -kS kS ►S S Sac S; Wash West Survey of Public School System The Approx 'innaT^ (^* of cocff fam ® RazeJalt MAP NO. 1. Lawrence Township, New Jersey 5 the same period of years. During this period of seven years, there has been practically no change in the size of farms in Division I. In Division II, the median farm has been reduced in size from 31 acres to 23 acres. In Division III, the number of farms has decreased from 138 to 95, but the median farm has increased in size from 14 to 24 acres. There is a tendency toward increase in size of farms for the entire township for this same period of time, the median farm having TABLE III Showing Comparative Number of Farms for Years 1914 and 1921, Dis- tributed According to Size and Division Division I Division II Division III Section North Section East Southwest Section Number of of of including Law- Totals Farms Lawrenceville Lawrenceville renceville, Eldridge Park & Slackwood Size in Acres 1914 1921 1914 1921 1914 1921 1914 1921 to 1. 1 7 2 8 4 16 7 31 1 " 4.99 7 3 8 6 38 11 53 20 5 " 9.99 7 5 7 8 20 6 34 19 10 " 24.99 11 14 13 13 23 15 47 42 25 " 49.99 14 13 4 7 17 10 35 30 50 " 99.99 18 18 16 12 24 24 58 54 100 " 149.99 13 15 6 6 8 9 27 30 150 " 199.99 3 3 4 3 3 3 10 9 200 and over 2 2 2 3 1 1 5 6 Totals 76 80 62 ■ 66 138 95 276 241 Medians 46.4 46.2 31.3 22.7 14.6 24.5 24 32.1 changed from 24 acres in 1914 to 32 acres in 1921. Part of this in- crease in the median farm is due to the fact that many of the farms that were eliminated in Division III were the smaller farms. Of the 216 farms which in 1914 had 5 or more acres, the median size was 44 acres. In 1921, there were only 120 farms with 5 or more acres and the median size was 51 acres. These facts, coupled with the small number of changes in ownership of farm property in the last 6 Survey of Public School System seven years and also with the small number of farms run by tenants, are further indications that the farming population tendencies are rather stabilized for this township. In 1914 to 1921, only 61 farms changed ownership and only 38 farms were being managed by tenants in 1921. rr-j ^ ■ ■ The New Tersev State Census of loic; shows that 1 he Lomposihon ,, rrv r 1 ' 1 • r t Vt. , . . , p , . oO% 01 the population of Lawrence Township is American born, the remainder being made up of English, Germans, Italians and Irish. According to the same census report, the census was divided into the following occupational groups: professional, 66; commercial pursuits, 79; skilled laborers, 371; un- skilled, 413; farmers, 146, and all other occupations, 185. The Present Schools of Lawrence Township In January 1922, Lawrence Township was being served by five schools, with a school enrolment and school facilities as shown in Table IV. TABLE IV The Number of Rooms and Enrolment in the Lawrence Township Schools November 30, 1921 Schools No. of Rooms Enrolment Average Enrolment per Room Slackwood Eldridge Park Lawrenceville Clarksville Rosedale 8 5* 5** 1 1 320 186 183 19 24 40 37 36 19 24 Total Number 20 732 36.6 *Including portable. **Including room in fire hall. Slackwood School is near Trenton City and serves the children of this suburban district. There is an eight-room building here in which eight teachers are employed. Eldridge Park is about one mile north of Slackwood on the electric line. This is a four-room building with portable attached. The teaching force is made up of five members. Lawrenceville School is located in the community of Lawrenceville Lawrence Township, New Jersey 7 and is near the two electric lines. This building has four rooms and a room above the tire house is used for the reception class and first grade. Five teachers are employed here. Rosedale, in the northern part of the township, and Clarksville, in the extreme eastern section, have one-room schools with one teacher each. „ , . _ rr^ 1 No school census figures are available for the Relation Between 1 otal , , . . . , , ^ , . jn 77- purposes oi this study, smce no school census Fopulatton and rubuc . , . ^ „ , . _ _, , , _, , , _ 7 • IS taken m Lawrence lownship. In iable School ropulation ,. ,,. ., i-ii j- V, public school population has been used in- stead of the school census figures in order to discover whether there was being maintained a rather constant ratio between total popula- tion and public school population. In this table, the total population for each five year period from 1900 to 1920 and the school enrolment for each year of the same period are given. It will be seen that the per- centage between public school enrolment and total school population TABLE V Relation Between Total Population and Public School Population Lawrence Township, Mercer County, New Jersey. With Estimates From 1925 to 1940 5 Year Per Cent Increase Public Increase * Total Per Per Enrolment * in Total School in Chil- Popu- lation Cent In- Cent De- Enrol- ment Enrol- ment is dren of Total Eleyn. H.S. Total crease crease {Per Cent) of Total Popula- tion En- rolment 1900 1,.555 14.6 **302 11 313 7.6 20.1 26 1905 2,043 31.4 **310 ***11 321 2.5 15.6 8 1910 2,522 23.4 404 ***25 429 33.6 16.4 108 1915 3,339 32.4 578 41 619 44.3 18.5 190 1920 3,686 10.4 776 72 848 36.9 23.0 229 1925 4,419 20 900 95 995 17.3 22.5 147 1930 5,303 20 1,047 120 1,167 17.3 22.0 172 1935 6,364 20 1,218 150 1,368 17.2 21.5 201 1940 7,637 20 1,418 185 1,603 17.2 21.0 235 *School enrolment taken for years 1900-1, 1905-6, etc. **Includes enrolment in New Jersey Chiklrens' Home (figures taken from Annual Report of State Board of Education.) ***Estimated high school enrolment. 8 Survey of Public School System has ranged from approximately i6% to 23% for this period, the aver- age percentage for the five year periods 1900 to 1920 being approxi- mately 19%. The percentage that public school enrolment is of total school population for the year 1920 is 23. In Table V are also given the estimates for total population and for school enrolment for each of the next five year periods. These estimates are based upon the ten- dencies indicated in the table for the past two decades and also upon the belief that the suburban growth will continue at even a greater Chart No 1 rate in years to come. The school population figures for each of the next five year periods have been based upon what has happened in 1920 and upon the belief that about the same ratio will maintain for the next twenty years. The number of children for whom educa- tional provision was being made in Lawrence Township in 1920 was 848, of whom 776 were being housed in the Lawrence Township schools and 72 were high school pupils being cared for in other school systems. Disregarding the proba- bility that larger percentages of the total school Showing the % which population will be attending high school within Public Schoolenrolment the next decade, the estimates of total school IS of Total Population in 5 Year Intervals, enrolment lor Lawrence iownship will be ap- 1900 to 1920 proximately as indicated in Table V since the ratio of school enrolment to total population has reached a maxi- mum point for this type of community. At the present rate of growth, approximately 5,300 people will be living in Lawrence Town- ship in 1930 and school provisions must be made, for about 1,100 children at that time. These are regarded as conservative estimates. In Chart No. i is shown the percentage which the public school enrolment is of total population in five year intervals from 1900 to 1920. There is reason to believe from the nature of the present residential building construction and the types of families which are coming into Lawrence Township that the increase in the ratio which has gradually developed since 1905 will be maintained in the next decade. The desirability of Lawrence Township for resi- dential purposes and for the purpose of bringing up families is not open to question. ISOO 1«5 1910 19LS Lawrence Township, New Jersey Appr ojtt/y^ofe RcQidGncG of each Child Ei^reNed in the. £lemGnta_ Sch oqIs, %JanL/oru , /J >3M^, of SCHOOLS OF UMRENCE TOWNSHIP, Md © Slackvroad ® L owrenc&)fltle ® Eld,;d o a o H (O o CI o 1-1 1^ CO ^ o o :;3 o l-H s I -a c o 'T3 03 < -»J 1—1 Ph oj cj o o o C c3 C QJ < "3 Q o bC o3 !-i C > w 2 ■1 Per Cent Attendance C3 t^ Tjf T-H lO CO CO CO 1-1 (N C50 t^ t^ 00 00 00 I^ 00 -< Q -=1: C^l CO TjH 1© »0 00 CO to (m' 1-1 (M lO 05 O (M (M CO lO T— 1 1— t 1— 1 I— 1 1— ( fe5 Enrol- ment O 00 00 (N (M C5 O -!*< CO 05 00 O O 00 1-1 1-1 1-1 1-1 (N (M i-< Per Cent A ttendance O IM 00 t^ 00 1-1 t> i-i CO ci t^ ic t^ lo 00 00 l^ 00 00 00 00 § 2 S5 CO 03 (N '^ CO Ci d 00 ^' CD (N (m' (M T-( rH rfi lO O 1—1 (M rH 1-1 .-1 1-1 (M tH 1-1 1-H »C CO C^i -*' 03 t^ i> o (N c^ CO CO ■* rH 1—1 1—1 1—1 1—1 1—1 (MiMCOTt00050i-l(N i-(r-4i-l.-Hi-((MC •<*< lO 05 0 O "c^ '^ 00 (M (M CO O o £- S O t^ CI CO I-H ■* t^ Tf< i-o lO CO 1> t- t^ ^ 1 O g to o o (M t^ I-H i* ^ 1-H ci d lO s ^-^ 00 CO i> Tt< Q> - »*^ ^ -^ :::i C^l i> I— 1 £ ^ ci T-H d t^ d ^« > CO i-H (M I— 1 c '^ C^ - I »c o O CO s s Tt< Tj< -* ■* 1*5 '- •*o 2? ■ s ^ O ^ ?^ IC '^ t> 00 i-H Tjl (M s lO lO CO Tt* lO d d £^ -§ l> 00 00 t^ 00 r^ o '^ f~ LO o M< (M CO CO IM ci 00 CO >o CO 00 d d • IM (N (M i-f I-H l-H I-H - '^ -^^ h s o »— I t^ '^ 00 C2 lO C3 ^ s to '^ CO (M 00 Qs CO 00 cS lO i6 CO (M d d d ,S • (N 1— t 1—1 I-H I-H I-H (M fi^ •^ -s - i 1 ^ (N CO CO 00 •* CO (N T-l (N (M CO CO (M ^ s 1— 1 CO t^ 00 o> O >-* iM s ^ T-H 1— 1 T-H T-< I-H (N (M (^^ « 5 1 i J. ci 1 ci) ci.i^ > I— 1 i-H I-H I-H 1-H I-H (M !M C5 05 05 o Oi 05 03 03 1~^ ^H r-^ '"' ^H 1-H I-H I-H * Ih O bC ;h a 13 . "o I-H '-' o r-H JC o" &. CO 73 u a (O s S3 CO 3 CO O 00 -^ rt <1J is o > o bc rs •:: C! * — ' bC C m << Ph O -1.3 M "a -^ 2 •r- <» W PQ (M CO •* »0 12 Survey of Public School System _ , . _ o 7 7 For the eleven year period, 1910-1921, the Relation Between bchoot , 1 1 1 1 • j ^ , , . elementary school enrolment has mcreased Lnrolment and Average ^ ™, , ., ^ ., . , Irom 404 to 732. Ihe average dailv at- DaiLy Attendance i 1 • 1 r ^ V • ■^ tendance has mcreased from 267 to 565 m 1920-1921. The percentage of attendance has increased from ap- proximately 82% in 1910-1911 to 87% in 1920-1921. The great increase in the per cent of attendance came in 1918-1919 when the pupils of Bakersville section were for the first time transported to Slackwood. This high percentage was not maintained in 1919-1920 but was again found possible in 1920-192 1. The enrolment for the period 1910-1921 has increased 90% in the Lawrenceville school, 70% in the Slackwood school, 43% in the Eldridge Park school (1915-1921), 10% in the Rosedale school and has decreased about 50% in the Clarksville school. Some of these percentages have been affected by the institution of school transportation. The changes are based on the enrolment for 1920-1921 since the final figure for 1921- 1922 is not yet available. The relationship between enrolment and average daily attend- ance for each of the existing schools and for Lawrence Township as a whole is shown in Table VL . „ ., Much school time is lost through the irregular at- Averas^e Daily 1 r -i t 1 r . , tendance of pupils. In the state report tor 1919- Attendance ^ „ 1 • • i- ^ j 1. • 1920, Lawrence lownship is listed as having a per cent of attendance of 84.6. Hopewell Township, Princeton Borough, Hamilton Township, East Windsor Township and Trenton City have percentages of attendance which are higher than that of Law- rence Township. The percentage of attendance in Trenton City reaches 88.6. It is clear that Lawrence Township should take mea- sures to provide for more regular attendance. -_ . , . , T,, . ., . Each dot on Map No. 2 indicates the ap- Residential Distribution . -i • 1 1 • r 1 1 -u , ^ , , _, , . proximate residential location of each child 0/ Cichool ropulation ,. , , 1 1 r t ■' ^ attending the elementary schools of Law- rence Township. The distribution of children according to residences was made with the assistance of the teachers in each grade. The loca- tion of each dot gives the approximate residence of one child. Here is clearly shown the elementary school problem for the district. PART II WEALTH AND SCHOOL SUPPORT Among the more than 500 school districts in the state, Lawrence Township occupies positions as follows: — * In net assessed valuations,** Lawrence ranks 132nd In number of pupils enrolled, " " 114th In state apportionment, " " iioth In state apportionment per pupil, " " 184th In local tax raised for schools, " " 140th In local tax raised per pupil, " " 31?^^ It is interesting to note that although Lawrence ranks as high as 184th in state apportionment per pupil, she ranks as low as 317th in local tax per pupil. In net assessed valuation Lawrence ranks 132nd, but in local tax raised for schools she ranks only 140th. Lawrence Township seems to have fallen below the average in the amount of money available per pupil and in the amount of local tax raised per pupil. This is shown below: — Average amount available per pupil in New Jersey $83.18 Average amount available per pupil in Mercer County $84 . 06 Amount available per pupil in Lawrence Township $62.31 Average amount of local tax raised per pupil in N.J $63.27 Amount of local tax raised per pupil in Lawrence Township — $45 .94 For purposes of detailed comparisons with other school districts in the state, those having a student enrolment ranging from 845 to 1,025 were selected for comparison with Lawrence Township. In all there are twenty-one of these districts with Lawrence Township rank- ing eleventh in the number of students enrolled. It will be noted that * Fifth Annual Report of the State Board of Taxes and Assessments for the year ending June 30th, 1920. Report Xo. 46 of the Business Manager of the New- Jersey Department of Public Instruction. ** In this report the term "net assessed valuation", as used, means net valuation on which county, state and school taxes are apportioned. 14 Survey of Public School System < o ^ w o ^ to a. 3 <1 Eh (S oo a S CO 3 C3 |5 ;^ ° I ^ o H 1^ to s m Q g ^ ^ I a >< W 2 O S £:^ g^ Cm U o -^ M CO O H H a 1-3 -1-5 a State Apportion- ment Per Pupil OC3:.-iOCOO«DCC'iOcOt> CO'-HOfOOl-^lOCOO^.-iCO l^ t'coeoooo^cocococo CI 1— 1 1— 1 T-H ^H Cv^ jvj ,— 1 C^] ,— 1 I— 1 Stale Apportion- ment OOOOINOOOOtJHoC'IOC-- o 05_ iM__ 0_ C0_ oi CD IM GO 05 O (M '*" CO CO o" cc" o o c^" of io~ ic" (Ml— li— li— li— IC^lC^i— IC^IrHrH lO Local Tax Per Pupil »OO2i:DC0CD'^t--.C0iOO5'^ OOiOiOCDi-ICOCOCO-^i— 105 i-H^DooooTfioir^oioscoic t^ioi^ooo-^cot^os-^-* 1— 1 ■* Local Tax C5QOO»OOCO(N'— ICOO '-HOOOCOOOOCOCO'CO t-^dio^cdd'-id.-HSrd coo(M^QO»ccia3i^S2ci •-l^ !-;_ t~-_ '^ -^^ C5 O CO ■* '^ OC cocd"oo°£ coooic'd'io'22 ci t^lOt^^OOTtHCOt^O^TtH 1-H CO Net Valuation Per Pupil iOlC--Hr^-rt^ 0_ '^^ O 00^ 00 (N CO CO Co" 00 CO" -*" O Co" t>~ Cf CO (M Net Assessed Valuation i-HCDTt'(N'-iO >OlC00OcDQ05t>.i-HC0t~- ■-H^ co^ CO cq_ 00^ o_ "*, '"1. "^ <^„ °^ co" i-T t>r i>r oo~ t-J" TtT i-T oT d~ i-T 1— lOCDiOOOCDOOt^OC-lCO "*- ""1- '^^ "-^^ '^- '-'1 '^^ "^^ "^ '^„ Q, co" CO co" 00 co" co" Oi" co" i>r cfc>CCccccC«M5toC Lawrence Township, New Jersey 15 s lO 1— 1 lO o OT) fO Tt< lO C3 LO 1-- CO IC (M O T— 1 tH iC a; !M 'N ro CO ^ ^ LO * (M 1-1 IC Ol »C (M T— I (M CO i>ii^c^rocpocot^'+coo; ■*CO(MCOCO'*CO00CCCC (M O O iM r^ IM 0 I^ C3 CO i-* Ol > C! 3 o C X c o CI) '^ fll X y -^ cj CC r-i 3 S O bjj C G tc ^ t; O B* CC o 3 t/j o fl; ^ rt 'y; q; o o w e S <5 »— ' S O) b£ -a >. o Si o WD 3 •n 3 CC o . CC c3 -T- tC O s s W 3 ''Si xn -- 03 • -H p5 -l-i 1—1 _, W. IM 2 i^ S r^l <-M -*^ o ^ -rf -t^ II o m '-I -. O 3 P -3 c^i c " -« .2 O rt 3 <-•-« 1—1 Com aken 3 a 1 o +^ O -3 t- +3 O o _ 03 o s o G Sh O CO <4-< > - rH T-S •So^^ ^ ^ ^ [C -^ fl) & 1-1 ^ ^1 'O r of pi lumns >. 3 £ 3 o o T-l CO 3 3 -1 o o •-5 o umb for c 1 § o CO o o « Cl 3 ci o -+^ ti-i .^ H Q O ci i-S P * 16 Survey of Public School System the highest net assessed valuations in these twenty-one communities exceed $8,000,000, and $9,000,000, that the net valuation per pupil is as high as $10,000, and that the local tax runs as high as $135,000, with $137 as the highest local tax per pupil. The lowest tax per pupil is $33, and the lowest local tax is $30,000. For this same year, 1 920-1 92 1, the local tax per pupil of Lawrence Township was approx- imately $46, while the total local tax was $42,820. The state appor- tionment in these twenty-one districts varied for the year 1920-1921 from $10,764, to $26,289. Lawrence Township's apportionment of funds from the state for this same year was $15,062.91. The state apportionment per pupil for Lawrence Township was $16.37, while other communities ranged from $10.38 to $48.89 in the apportionment per pupil allotted by the state. To see more clearly the position which Lawrence Township holds when compared with other communities which have a similar pupil load, the facts of Table VH have been converted into ranks as shown in Table \ IIL According to this table, Lawrence Township receives state aid in direct proportion to its rank in pupils as might be ex- pected, but its rank in net valuation, and particularly in the local tax raised per pupil, places it very distinctly in the lower part of this group of comparable districts in the state of New Jersey. . For further comparison, twentv-one districts in Comparisons on the 1 ^ j '1 • . New Jersev were selected havmg approxi- Basis of yyealth , , ' 1^1 t t' u- ■^ mately the same wealth. Lawrence iownship is the median township of this group. In Table IX, this group of twenty-one townships and boroughs is shown together with their pupil loads, their net valuations per pupil, the local tax raised in each case, the local tax per pupil and the state apportionment per pupil. The very great variations in the ability of the districts in New Jersey to support schools is clearly brought out in this table. In these twenty-one districts, with minor variations in the net assessed valua- tions, the number of pupils to be educated in each district varies from 85 to 1,822, the net valuation per pupil from $1,643 ^o ^36,097, the local tax from $6,900 to $92,369, the local tax per pupil from $18.76 to $101.54 '^"^ ^^^ state apportionment per pupil from. $7.82 to $26.27. The rank of Lawrence Township on each of these items is shown in Table X. Here again, it is evident that Lawrence Township is sup- porting its schools by means of local tax to a less degree than its rank in net valuation in this group of districts would warrant. Lawrence Towjiship, New Jersey 17 < < a M H O O m W P^ K H H in « H O O r^ < a 2 o « K go a S z o m ^^ K Rank in State Ap- portionment (M "+ IC ^ OO t^ ^ — IC rH O r-1 .— 1 d >— 1 I-H I— 1 OOO-^t^ClCOOCSCOO ,-1 ,-1 1— 1 T-H C"A 1-1 Rank in Local Tax Per Pupil c; -^ x c '-t ic T— 1 t^ CO 00 oi !Oi-'C^i-iOt^'MOCO-^ 1-1 1-1 (M (M ^ ^ 1-1 Rank in Local Tax o -t L': ^ -^ I-': ^ w rc t- vj ^ ^ ■— 1 ^ ^H !S O C-1 ^ O C: CI OC' CO I> 1— 1 T— 1 (M CI 1—1 1—1 1—1 Rank in Net Valuation Til O CO rf iM C: CI C w t- IC ,-H I— 1 1—1 I-H "-H 1— 1 i-H O»CC0C0C3.-<.-(t-^Xi-i (M 1—1 1—1 C^l 1—1 Rank in Net Valuation CO LO (M (M '^ C. ^ O O t-- O '-iiCrfC;oOO'*'b-CCfO CI 1— I .-< C) 1— 1 Rank in No. Pupils in District i-HiMco'^ioot^ooc; o-^ ClCO^LO^^t-CCOCi-H Caldwell Bergenfield Boonton Franklin Hawthorne Freehold Glen Ridge Bogota Bernards Wanaque Lawrence Franklin Wildwood City Milburn Carlstadt Keyjjort Clementon Newton Madison Sccaucus Princeton Bor. 5> 1 c -r. y s % a % a '^ X « 'ii; £ 03 S X &i, S C3 o Gloucester Cape May Essex Bergen Monmouth Camden Sussex Morris Hudson Mercer 18 Survey of Public School System O fa < l-H o E-i O a o CD W 09 o M O ►J O o a o m « w H O m CO cc '^ Q w CLi o O CO o w o "A CO CO o ^ •c^ CT) (M cri cr. •* CO O O Vj CO o^ gn ^ ■*-j I-Ci O cz; »c lO ^H o CO ° CD CJi ^ ■^ w cS 1— t 1— 1 1 — 1 l-H ^ "-H Q •-^ -o CO 00 1— 1 1^ f— 1 -* C^J CD C^l CO o S 5 CO lO o IC r- CO iC lO o O t^ -^ cc •'S- T— 1 o C5 !M t^ Tj GC^ co__ o oi_ oo_^ !>: :^ ^ V s o; o '* ^ (>] Tj t^ T^ CO go" ^ so ^ "*— ^ o C5 ^ (M C: l-H ^H o o CO CO ^ f-^i CO (M (M o CO Allenhurst Boro Lawrence Town ^ .-^ X. Si 3 a; _CJ o CO 0.2 2 ^ o ^o tzT'-Tcsrcri-rc/r'-H ■^ I— I Cl T— I ,— I CO '^ t^ -* lO ^ C: CO lO O O ■^ "-H CC O "O l^ C) o CO O --H -* CO o CO O C3 O CC C-l o CO t^ lO '*' ^ t^ 't' OOOO^LQiO^iOO-lO (M CO O O ID CO CO O O l^ !->■__ CO_ CO_^ C0__ rH^ o^ ci_ o^ t--__^ o_ tC lo" cd" of o" t--^ O-f >-<" f-*" lO ^ -^ ^ (^ oi CO L'^ c^ i^ c. (M r^ ic (M lO ^ (M Ci O LO O t- CC' ^ t^ CO ■* o o c ci p:5 bX) 3 o o cq bD o . f-l o pq > o c3 o o o y _ in ," ^ ' O i^ X Ph Ph -a 3 m n p ^ O o pq H c ; — 1 o CJ 3 ;'^ 3 3 ^ ■;, 3 3 ^ *- 3 d 3 1^ § "^^ (M "^ ^ - O _j w rj ^ - !- »7 " o ^-^ C '^ '— t^- ^ t4-, t*^ O d 'o rt - rt rf 3 c^ 5 ^ P ►^ Q -^ P 01 3 20 Survey of Public School System X X o o a 02 a H a OX ^ s « pa ^ < ►J " o z c a s <* X C si a: a S a a o ^ s ^ o S a: r, BS «=; s o O o a 2^ X 03 2; o a u a ^1 ^ -(Si LO CO o CO C C^l t r-H rt (M iO'-i'*OOl^C50COO(M s <» c a. s ^ H s rH '^ -= 0- ooco^(Nioc2t--o-*^cr. I— I T-H r— I 1— I >— I 1— I (M CC r-H lO Tt< I> O (M O 00 'COiMO'-HCirC^OCOCC CO l> (M 00 '-H rti O I— I i-H O'l t-H OfMlOCOCOCO-^i-HCO T-H i-H ,-1 (M rH r^ 00 O rH (M 00 lO © I-H 1-1 (N ^ t> Q i- S -rr c '^ <: '^ a. CO G2 »0 Ci CO '^i t-- CO t^ ^ (M O 00 CO ^ lO (M CD C-l C^ T— I 1— I rH >^ I-H TtiCOt^Clt^X-fC: CO -H C^l I-H CI I-H LO O CO lO Ci C5 00 (N I-H ^1 ^ ^iMcO'#iocDi^cz:c:o^ (Mco'*iocoi^ooc;0'-H p w a « ph o ^ PQ 5 o rt iH g c .2 ^ Ph X 5 at' i ^ S O M S "3 O HJ c 2 S "2 [^ <^ :=! rt b£i C o o in o ^ S g g ci .■+£ o tn f^ t-< CS ^ i—i fe p^ ^ bC c T t- n o tH pq o P2 > n o o O tc 3 C c3 fl) Ph (ii -El -a bC tc 3 iU 2 ^ o o PQ ^ o H Z o O « H O E- 5 a; ca a X O a o z o ^wrt-e?/ of Public School System }iidiuuot]uod -dy djiyj^'m quvy^ pooq in mmy jidnj .ud ludmuoif ■JD Z a _ a; »o fO c^ 2ul)ij U3d XV j^ julnj jdd uot) uoifDnjVyi pufsiQ m sjtdnj 5 fe ^ Si. 5 II § I I- C H K «:> e t 3 pufsiQ in fijidnj o z o •-H (M CD 't^ lO CO t^ 05 00 <-i CO CD 00 lO C5 !M '* lO t^ C: OD t^ CO CO rH rfH (M CO CO C: ^ (M ■* CO t^ IC '^ GO t- C^ lO O CO CO i-H '-HCOCDiMiOCJr^QOTtH ^ IM CO ■* lO O t^ CC Ci O y-i CO C5 CO LQ O 00 o CO »0 C-1^ (M_ O r-T lo' CO CO i-H CO O (M (M Ci t^ r-H O l:^ Ci Tfl 1— I CO CO CO CO lO (M 05 Tfi (M CO 'Tf (M t>_ C0__ -^^^ CD (M CD 00 cd" oT -h" oT oo" (M 03 o lO Th o T-H r^ c t^ t-- r-} CD CD or (M LO (^1 i-H lO ■^ (M CO C5 o o o o O ■># o iQ o o '^ -* iC t^ o o 00 t^ CD GO O CD ■^ CO T-H ^H CO M' 'O o TjT ^i" CO t--^ t^ IC Tf< (M rH ,-1 I-H 1— I t^ ■—I 00 CO t^ lO CD ^ C-\ 1-^ LO 00 CI CO GO CD O "* t^ 1^ Ol CO CO CD t- c 0-1 C-1 — I G2 O CD CD^ T-H_ CO^ CD O O co~ cn iS co" --T TtT LO O O O 'f CO CD CO Ol C^ >-H -ti X CO 1— I 1— I CO O O Ol -t< o CO »0 (M C5 lO c; i-H o t-^ o o o T-H c; oo CD' CO CO O) (M o 'a; (J S p? c3 O ;- w w h-3 o c o a 5 ° ? 1^ §H ^- ^ .1 CJ 0) ^ 3 ^ -l-= Ph o «4-i <4-c O 03 o a CD S -^3 * ^ C5 ^ C- tc -5 (_) Lawrence Township, New Jersey Chart No. 2. 23 Comparison of Per Cent of Increase in Xet Valuation, Tax Rate and State Ap- portionment in Lawrence Township, New Jersey From 191 7-18 to 1921-22.* Per Cent 350 300 260 200 150 100 50 - \ V \ \ \ / / / / / / / / / / / / ^ / ^ / ^ ^ / ^ — ■ ■ — 1917-18 18-19 19-20 20-21 21-22 Per cent of increase in net valuation of property. Per cent of increase in school tax rate. Per cent of increase in amount received from state. *p Percentages are computed upon 1917-18 as the base. 24 Survey of Public School System CQ < < 6h O a o 5 w Ph > o m o O o s O 2 <; ^ H Z O I— I O 13 O s < s o U - o O ^ o o , o O o o o -^ -e OD d -— ^ d o o CC r-. C-; o o o g '^ w o c: o o cq s >^ CO CO CO CO CO IM 'Si CO ■* r^ ■^ 1—1 * I-! o vO » o o t^ Oi d ^^•o> b s t— f T— 1 1—1 CO C2 C^l 1-1 t^ '+ r^ lO lO o CD '^ 1— ( 00 »o iiJ o -*• lO o >o CO ^^ Q, t— 1 1—1 r-H ^ CO » Ci CO 00 Oi CO vO * =w O b o lO OJ o* (M CO CO 1—1 IM Ol o o 01 lO l> «D O t^ (M CD lO 00' rH GO iM iC t^ CO o !M GO 00 GO 00 Tf lO O CO CO t>r '*" o (m" 00 O >0 CO r-^ lO GO 00 t^ 05^ "-^ (m" (m" cf (M" CO GO 03 O "-I (M i-< 1— I C^ (N C^ t-. CO C3 o "-I 1— I 1— I 1— I (M r-J Ci cji C3 C3 c; CD u 3 CO >J fl :3 o o 2 «^ t, CC 3 ,gO _ A^i "« ywrr - Distribution of Pupils in Lawrence ToAvnship, Mercer County, New Jersey By Ages for 1921. (Elementary Pupils only) Reception Grade The large percentage of children in the reception grade for each of the years shown in Table XV'I leads to the ques- tion whether the reception grade has not in large part sup- planted the first grade. It will be noted that 21% is the average for the reception grade, while 10.9% has been the average for the first grade for this particular period. The reception and first grades have on an average included 32% of all the elementary children enrolled in the elementary schools of Lawrence Township. Since the reception grade is merely supplementary to the first grade, the value of this reception grade can be seriously questioned. The decrease in the percentage of children in the 3rd grade for the year 1921-1922 and similar marked decreases at other periods for other grades lead to the 30 Survey of Public School System suggestion that more careful analysis be made of the prornotional pro- gram than has been possible in this study. TABLE XVI Percentage Distribution of pupils by Grades for the Years 1910-11 and 1915-16 to 1921-22 Lawrence Township, Mercer County, New Jersej^ 1.910 1915 1916 1917 1918 1919 1920 1921* drnile to to to to to to to to Average 1911 1916 1917 1918 1919 1920 1921 1922 Reception 21.1 21.8 22 A 25.5 23.2 22.6 18.3 13.2 21.0 I 14.1 14.2 9.4 10.8 10.6 6.9 9.9 11.3 10.9 II 12.7 9.0 14.5 13.9 10.5 15.8 7.6 11.5 11.9 III 12.1 14.2 9.1 13.4 13.9 11.2 17.1 9.1 12.6 IV 8.4 11.9 12.3 8.5 10.8 13.5 13.0 14.7 11.6 \' 14.1 10.3 11.9 12.1 12.6 12.9 12.2 13.9 12.5 VI 7.4 8.5 7.9 6.3 6.1 7.8 11.1 11.5 8.3 VII 5.8 5.5 7.2 5.7 6.6 5.2 6.8 8.9 6.5 VIII 4.3 4.5 5.4 3.8 5.7 4.1 3.9 5.9 . 4.7 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 *Enrolment for 1921-22 was taken iip to January 1922. Inspection of Chart No. 4 shows a valley in the curve of enrol- ment at the 2nd grade. This salient in the curve is, without doubt, caused by spreading the enrolment of grades i and 2 over three grades as it is beng done today in Lawrence Township. . . Table XVII presents the age grade statistics for the ^^ ^ school year 1 921-1922. The age variability for all * ^ -^ of the grades is exceedingly marked, even covering a span of seven years for the 2nd and 4th grades. It should be noted that two children, nine years of age, are still in the reception grade, that five children who are ten and ten and a half years of age are still in the first grade and that one child, thirteen years of age, is still in the 2nd grade. In making this age grade table, one and a half years were taken as the normal age span for any single grade. The children older than those within the normal age group are called over-age for each grade and those younger than the normal age span are called under-age for Lawrence Township, New Jersey 31 Variation in Over-Age Conditions Over a Period of Years Chart No. 4 2m. each grade group. The percentage of over-age children in the Law- rence Township schools varies from 24% in the 8th grade to 45% in the 6th grade. The other grades range between 35% and 39%. The total percentage of children over age is 37. The percentage of children who are under-age for their grades varies from i% for the reception grade to 25% for grade 4. In the study of the Hackensack schools made in June 1921, 41.9% of all the elementary school children were over-age on the basis of the one and one-half year age span. In Table XVIII will be found the present distribution of pupils normal age, over age and under age for the years 1910-1911 and for the six years from 1915-1916 on. One of the most significant problems requiring solution in any school system is the reduction of the number of over age children and the correspond- ing increase of the number of under age children. It is significant to point out from Table XVIII that the percentages of change which have taken place in the over age section of this table for the period 1915— 1921 indicate decreases in over age children for all grades except 5 and 6, but the total change in over age conditions from the year 1915-1916 to the year 1921-1922 has been a zero change. The per- centage of children who are under age for their grades has increased slightly during this same period, but this is balanced by slight de- crease, during this same period, of the percentage of children who are normal age. Significant percentages are those for grades 3, 5 and 8 of the under-age section of Table XVIII where very large percentage increases have been made for the period 191 5 to 1921. These large percentages are partially due to the small base upon which the per- * centages were made. R I a a a ^[ v ^ 4m Changes in Enrolment by Grades for 1911, 1915 and 1920 32 Survey of Public School System TABLE XVII Age Grade Table for the Elementary Schools of Lawrence Township, New Jersey. Compiled Jan. 18, 1922. School Year 1921-22. Ages Computed as of Sept. 1, 1921. Grades Rec. 1 3 3 4 5 6 7 8 Ages :: s 05 1 1 S5 S CO 2? s to 00 ^ 0?^ il '-1 il =55 (SO P ^ 1 1 5 15 15 5^^ 30 15 1 2 7 4 1 31 6 12 21 16 29 61 16 8 42 7 16 45 37 "h 7 2 8 6 17 16 5 12 8 10 46 85 2 3 6 11 11 14 8 14 3 42 9 16 46 33 9i 4 4 6 5 7 7 6 17 10 2 10 IQi 11 46 45 1 1 1 6 13 10 22 17 8 1 11 13 48 lU 7 3 12 9 9 10 1 2 29 12 15 39 . 38 121 1 1 1 1 11 3 1 12 5 7 10 15 4 13 11 5 36 13^ 5 19 14 2 1 6 3 9 4 9 27 14i 4 11 15 1 1 4 2 8 15i 1 1 2 16 1 1 ]6i 2 2 17 17f Total 94 82 93 62 104 101 76 64 42 718 N. A. 60 49 49 32 39 50 32 40 25 376 0. A. 33 32 35 21 38 38 34 23 10 264 U. A. 1 1 9 9 27 13 10 1 7 78 % N. A. 64 60 53 50 38 49 42 63 60 52 % 0. A. 35 39 37 36 37 38 45 36 24 37 % U. A. 1 1 10 14 25 13 13 1 16 11 N. A. — Normal Age. O. A. — Overage. U. A. — Underage. Lawrence Township, New Jersey 33 TABLE XVIII The Percentage Distribution op Pupils of Normal Age, Over Age and Under Age for the Years 1910-11, 1915-16 to 1921-22. Lawrence Township, New Jersey Normal Age Grades R 1 2 3 4 5 6 / S Total 1910-11 56 35 45 53 44 40 40 9 56 44 1915-16 57 49 40 59 43 67 59 38 54 53 1916-17 62 69 45 41 30 40 46 37 44 49 1917-18 51 45 47 35 36 31 44 44 35 43 1918-19 52 44 50 57 49 32 33 51 44 47 1919-20 57 49 42 45 50 41 32 49 42 47 1920-21 54 52 55 39 54 49 50 40 70 50 1921-22 64 60 53 52 38 49 42 63 60 52 Per Cent of Change 1910-11 to 1915-16 2 40 -9 11 -2 68 48 322 -4 20 Per Cent of Change 1915-16 to 1921-22 12 24 33 -11 -12 -27 -28 65 11 -2 Over Age Grades R 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1910-11 40 58 51 43 56 56 53 87 33 51 1915-16 30 46 46 37 40 30 31 44 42 37 1916-17 29 31 47 54 66 56 46 37 44 45 1917-18 38 49 44 58 55 69 51 49 62 50 1918-19 40 56 38 31 43 56 65 36 29 43 1919-20 36 45 40 38 40 54 61 46 23 42 1920-21 40 40 29 32 31 40 38 38 27 36 1921-22 35 39 37 31 37 38 45 36 24 37 Per Cent of Change 1910-11 to 1915-16 -25 -21 -10 -14 -29 -52 -40 -38 27 -27 Per Cent of Change 1915-16 to 1921-22 17 -15 -20 -16 -8 27 30 -18 -43 00 34 Survey of Public School System Under Age Grades R 1 2 3 4 5 6 8 1910-11 4 7 4 4 4 7 4 11 5 1915-16 13 5 14 4. 17 3 11 18 4 10 1916-17 9 8 5 4 4 8 6 12 6 1917-18 11 6 9 7 9 5 7 3 7 1918-19 8 12 12 8 12 2 13 17 10 1919-20 7 6 18 17 10 5 7 5 35 11 1920-21 6 8 16 29 15 11 12 22 3 14 1921-22 1 1 10 17 25 13 13 1 16 11 Per Cent of Change 1910-11 to 1915-16 225 -28 250 -25 57 350 -63 100 Per Cent of Change 1915-16 to 1921-22 -92 -80 -29 325 47 333 18 -94 300 10 The very great discrepancy between the percentage of children who are over age and the percentage who are under age can be seen from the black and shaded portions in Chart No. 5. Chart No. 5. 1910-1911 1915-1916 1916-1917 1917-1918 1918-1919 1919-1920 1920-1921 1921-1922 V////llh Over Age Normal Age Under Age Showing the pupils in the Elementary Schools of LawTence Township, Mercer Countv, New Jersey of normal age, over-age and under-age for the years 1910- 1911, 1915-1916 to 1921 -i 922 inclusive. Lawrence Township, New Jersey TABLE XIX 35 Showing the Number of Pupils who are Less Than One Year Over Age, One to Two Years Over Age and Two or More Years Over Age for the Years 1910-11, 1915-16 to 1921-22 Inclusive liEwrence Township, New Jersey Less Than One Year Over Age Grades R 1 2 3 4 5 6 / 8 Total % of Enrolment 1910-11 16 8 11 5 9 17 7 12 5 90 22 1915-16 20 20 14 19 9 7 12 7 11 119 20 1916-17 25 11 25 12 21 19 10 15 9 147 25 1917-18 35 12 19 22 13 21 10 11 11 154 23 1918-19 41 21 14 15 16 21 14 11 8 161 23 1919-20 40 14 29 14 22 27 13 10 7 176 24 1920-21 37 19 11 25 14 22 13 8 7 156 20 1921-22 22 14 22 14 23 21 17 14 4 151 21 071 e To Tivo Years Over Age Grades R 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1910-11 11 8 6 7 6 5 5 5 1 54 13 191,5-16 4 8 6 16 7 18 12 3 2 76 13 1916-17 11 4 9 9 12 11 5 7 2 70 11 1917-18 14 11 15 15 5 18 8 5 2 93 13 1918-19 19 9 8 7 9 17 11 5 4 89 12 1919-20 15 3 10 9 9 16 14 6 82 11 1920-21 15 12 2 11 11 17 7 1 81 10 1921-22 9 9 11 7 10 14 13 8 3 84 10 Two Years or More Over Age Grades R 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1910-11 7 11 9 12 4 10 4 3 60 15 1915-16 6 10 4 13 12 10 5 2 1 63 11 1916-17 3 1 6 18 15 9 6 2 3 63 10 1917-18 17 13 8 15 14 17 4 3 3 94 13 1918-19 6 12 6 10 10 12 3 1 60 8 1919-20 6 5 8 9 10 9 9 2 58 8 1920-21 5 1 7 6 5 3 5 32 4 1921-22 2 9 2 5 3 4 1 3 29 4 36 Survey of Public School System The number of pupils who are less than one year over age, one to two years over age, and two years and more over age for each grade for the period 1910 to 1921 is shown in Table XIX. The very sig- nificant fact about this table is the large number of pupils one to two years over age and two years and more over age in the reception and the first grades. The consistent piling up of over age children in grades 5 and 6 for this same period of years is a situation which ought to be given very careful attention by the teachers and the supervising principal. ^ , „ Another measure of the efficiency of school organi- Grade Frogress ... 1 • 1 1 -i j 1 1 zation IS the rate at which children progress through the various grades of the elementary and high school. A study of grade progress in Lawrence Township is immediately complicated by the reception grade. If the progress of children through school is measured on the basis of their being required to pass through nine grades instead of the customary eight, it is obvious that more children will make normal or regular progress in each grade than would be the case if the schools of the township were measured against the accomplishment of children in school systems organized on an eight grade basis. The difference between these two methods of in- terpreting the situation can be seen in Table XX. The factual basis for making a grade progress study is the cumu- lative individual record card for all pupils. Such record cards were not accessible in Lawrence Township. The basic facts for the prog- ress study in Table XX were collected by the individual classroom teachers from their knowledge of the children and also from the actual statements of the children. Because of this, the facts for individual grades are not as reliable as could be wished. The analysis of progress which children make through the grades of a school system is essential to efficient administration. The collection of complete and accurate data in this field should be considered an index in the future of good school administration in Lawrence Town- ship. In Table XX, the numbers and percentages of children making slow, normal and rapid progress are given on three bases, the first involving all of the children enrolled, the second involving all of those children who have at some time or other attended other school sys- tems than the local school system and third, involving non-transfers or only those children who have always been members of the local Lawrence Township, New Jersey 37 n CO 12; i% T-H o 1— 1 IS ST ^ a ^ £ H +3 K ^ o o (+-• r/> o M CO K -< t^ (M •o CO 5~ 1-H (M ve. f^ 6 E-. ^•2 05 § O CO CO C^ ■* i-O lO O GO CD 'SH CO (M lO Q -O I— 1 (M s o ■» -« e s~ ^ OO 00 S lO CO o CO O '^ 00 H«3 ^ 53 t^ ^ CO CD CO I— 1 § 5 -* Tl^ (M t^ J s £ O s fiq «> 1 o ^ E>( C-l i-H lO 05 CD »0 00 ^ CO I^ (M •<* C^ I— 1 e ^ (M CO 1-1 t^ 6 OJ CO (D m m ^^ m CO !jC OJ " ^. 2 ^ "» 22 K ^ ft 2 CO bC P S — s. a? O fn CO fl ^ p2 1 St bC bC bC .2 .a .a Cl-I o CO fl M 13 IS s fc£ bJC M c3 rt rt XJ a a a a a a fl rti ^ ^ -u ->^ += 3 c3 c3 cj C C C c a a s 0) QJ a; t) w o "S odd U td tn O Q^ Q^ ■1^ o Iz;^ ^ Ph Ph Ph H 75252 38 Survey of Public School System school system. For each of these three groups of children, the facts are given with the elementary school considered as a nine grade school and also with the elementary school organization on an eight grade basis. The true percentage of those making slow progress is nearer 66% of the total enrolment than the 29% shown on the nine year basis. The percentage of children making slow progress of those who have been transferred into the local system is nearer the 74% indi- cated when the school system is considered an eight grade school sys- tem than the 42% indicated when the school system is considered a nine grade school system. In like manner, the percentage of children who have never attended any other school system who are making slov/ progress is more nearly indicated by the 62% figure of Table XX than the 23% figure of the same table. Reckoned on either basis, the children who have never attended any other school system pro- gress more regularly than the children who have been transferred into the Lawrence Township schools from other school systems. A sim- ilar conclusion has resulted where studies of non-transfers and trans- fers have been made for other school systems.* Charts No. 6 and No. 7 show clearly the rather satisfactory situation when progress is studied on a nine grade basis and the most unsatisfactory situation which results when progress is studied on an eight grade basis or the basis which is most commonly employed in our school systems. The validity of the nine grade system will be further discussed under the measurement of the achievement of pupils. * Hackensack, N. J. School Survey, by George D. Strayer and N. L. Enge!- hardt, June 1921. Lawrence Township, New Jersey Chart No. 6. 39 Reception 1st Grade 2nd Grade 3rd Grade 4th Grade 5th Grade 6th Grade 7th Grade 8th Grade SO io wiwiiiii/niiiii/iimmm vmiiimiiiiiiiiiiimm SloM' Progress 3 Normal Progress ^2m Rapid Progress Showing the percentage 'of pupils who are making normal progress, slow progress and rapid progress in grades Reception to Eighth inclusi\e in the schools of Lawrence Township, New Jersey for the year 1921-22. 1st Grade 2nd Grade 3rd Grade 4th Grade 5th Grade 6th Grade 7th Grade 8th Grade Chart No. 7 \f Zp 30 ^0 90 100 jjJlB Slow I I Normal Showing the percentage of pupils in the Elementary Schools of Lawrence Town- ship, Mercer County, New Jersey who have made rapid, normal and slow pro- gress in the grades t to VIII inclusive, computed as of September 1st, 1921 for the school year 1921-22. In this computation the Reception Grade is combined with the 1st Grade and the elementary course is considered as extending over eight years. 40 Promotions and Non-Promotions Survey of Public School System Table XXI gives the promotions, double promo- tions, and non-promotions, withdrawals and trans- fers in Lawrence Township for all grades in the elementary school for the year 1910-1911 and the years 1916-1917 to 1920-1921. TABLE XXI Promotions, Double Promotions, Non-Promotions, Withdrawals and Transfers in Lawrence Township, Mercer County, New Jersey, Based on Enrolment in Each Grade at End of Year — 1911, 1917, 1918, 1919, 1920 and 1921. Including the percentages of totals for each year. Promotion s Unre- Per- corded Total cent- Grades Re- cep- tion / II /// IV V VI VII VIII With- draw- als number age of total Cases 1910-11 38 51 37 34 19 37 19 18 14 267 66 1916-17 76 42 82 39 57 35 36 29 9 405 68 1917-18 125 54 77 81 44 55 33 28 21 518 76 1918-19 70 50 65 85 76 35 36 26 27 470 66 1919-20 93 37 109 70 82 73 42 32 22 560 75 1920-21 73 55 44 89 82 63 61 38 24 527 67 Don hle-Promoiions 1910-11 2 2 .5 1916-17 17 17 2.9 1917-18 C 1918-19 60 3 63 9 1919-20 21 4 10 35 4.7 1920-21 19 19 3 Non-Promotioris 1910-11 19 2 2 13 11 13 7 4 3 74 18.8 1916-17 IS 1 3 11 15 22 8 10 20 108 18 1917-18 13 7 5 10 5 13 5 2 4 64 9 1918-19 28 6 2 11 12 8 4 71 10 , 1919-20 18 10 6 4 2 6 3 2 51 7 1920-21 13 11 11 14 10 16 17 3 1 96 12 Lawrence Township, New Jersey 41 TABLE 'XXI— Continued Withdrawals 1910-11 9 7 4 3 3 5 1 26 58 14 1916-17 11 5 3 2 12 2 5 3 8 51 9 1917-18 21 8 13 9 13 4 4 15 87 13 1918-19 6 10 5 9 6 6 3 11 56 8 1919-20 18 4 6 7 8 6 6 6 61 8.1 1920-21 17 8 3 14 9 14 4 12 5 81 10.4 Transjers 1910-11 2 1 3 .7 1916-17 1 S 2 11 2.1 1917-18 2 1 2 7 1 13 2 1918-19 16 5 1 3 12 1 10 1 49 7 1919-20 10 7 5 4 4 2 8 ( 40 5.2 1920-21 12 18 4 9 1 2 5 51 6.6 Totals 1910-11 68 60 33 50 35 55 27 23 17 26 404 100 1916-17 123 56 88 52 86 59 49 42 29 8 592 100 1917-18 161 62 92 104 65 81 43 34 25 15 682 100 1918-19 180 74 71 99 105 54 57 42 27 709 100 1919-20 160 58 126 85 100 97 59 40 22 747 100 1920-21 129 92 62 126 102 95 87 53 30 776 100 * o m « o E-i Z s O ij rr -< « H H o ►-^ o >^ z H < Z H P Z O 1^ O I-} o « z o o » o CO W o W H El z a m z o ~1 t- t- o e^ 5 oi C35 OJ t> 1-H >-H ■<-( T-H Oi o 05 o Oi ■>-H 5^ C5 t^ to d l-H ■<-H T-l 00 Ob o lO 00 s ■<-( 55 ^ Ol d M< 03 ■^ >-< an K 00 o 03 CO *~t 55 Oi l> »o b- ■^ >-i 'o 5^ a> iC o >-l Oi Ci 00 CO d >-( >~( T— 1 o >-< ■J^ 5^ CO iM CO Oi CD I^ CO 1-H ■>-H 1 Oi o >~( (M CO o 05 lO lO CO © *-H ■>~i &q 00 Oi r-^ >^ 55 00 CO 00 o <3i CO CO (M o >-( »-H -« U ^ f^ 00 rS£ >-H 55 lO 00 C' C» Oi ■* TtH (M •5* ■>--< ■^ a: Co e^ >-^ 5 5 <© CO 00 Oi ■* •^ (N ■^ *-( o >-( 05 t^ o ^ Ol CO o Oi o C5 CO ■^ >~l Ol O 03 C^l CD ■"-I 5l? lO CO 1^ ^-» C5 CO 00 C-l s '-H >-H S 00 Oi GO o IC ■»-H 55 CO ^ CO Oi o 00 (M *-< >-( e 6^ 00 l-H o (M "S ■<-«i 55 TJH l-H t^ ^ <3i o 00 (M ■•-I >-H -( I— 1 o GO Oi 5 oi IC t^ C-l ■"-H >~( .& D, §1 bC (U ^ o ^ a & o S 5 '? 1^ •g^ W iJ Ph o cC c^ -u cS -o ;h flj .C -^ o s o (H <*-! J2 ort o o ^ ^, -kJ o a m 13 j3 o b£ U ^ t-i C 41 o O -IJ ^H 0) (U S ^ Cl ^ ^4-H Ph Sh -ti o d c o CI C! 0) OJ (h c H tH 3 M o -1-3 >> m ■1-3 C! 0) 1— ' o -o o 3 CO (U ^ O O «-i ,a o o EC <^ J=l o .Sf c A £ .b (1) fi o o ^ ^ 03 73 '73 Ci 01 a s 42 o c:) fl> a; -o is 'O ?^ % o se-^ « " a; ^ .2 -^ H ^ H Lawrence Township, Neiv Jersey 45 years, there has been a slump in the high school enrolment, reaching its lowest point during the war period, 1918-1919. Since that time, however, there has been a rapid growth in the high school enrolment as the preceding table shows. In this table is also given the percentage which high school enrolment has been of total enrolment for three Mercer County townships for the period 1916-1921. Lawrence Chart No. 10. Gr. Til 1920 1921 1920 1921 1920 1921 1920 1921 1920 1921 '21 '22 '21 '22 '21 '22 '21 '22 '21 '22 Or. XII 1920 1921 '21 '22 Enrolment for 1920-21. Enrolment for 1921-22. Comparison of Pupil Enrolment for Schocl Years 1920-1921 and 1921-22 in Grades 7 to 12. Township sends a smaller percentage of its total enrolment to high school than either Ewing or Princeton. It should be borne in mind that these are the three townships in Mercer County which do not support their high schools and which are a comparable group. The high school percentages for all three groups are far below the median of the United States, namely, 13.6%. In Table XXIV are given the numbers of pupils en- Enrolment — Grades 7 to 12 rolled in Lawrence Township in grades 7 to 12 for the school years 1920-1921 and 1921-1922. In the loth and 1 2th grades, there is a sharp decrease in enrolment, but a splendid increase in grade 1 1. The inequalities between grades and the rapid falling off of children after the 7th grade are clearly marked in Chart No. 10. 46 Survey of Public School System X! m < h3 O O w Z/1 PS o 53 P ►J I— I (M I— I O H 03 o O P o Q fa o H W .J o K o c m 5 -»; s o O o X 1— I o w <>} o H 02 GO CO >0 (M ,_ •^o ^} 1 "^ =0 f« >~( ' 1 ■5*7 >--l ^ oi oo o s "S ?i. »-H 1-1 o Perce 'I Enr rades IM 1 "^ 1-^ I— 1 CO lo 1 ■~-l ^ —I 1 CO QO CD C) .— 1 ^1^ Ol ' 1 8^ -S I 00 Oi CO -^ ^H ■—1 C-} a 6> ■* lO i-H CO CO CO kO -+1 05 t^ E~( lo CO oi r—- . 1— 1 T— 1 CO 5 o »-H t^ to CO .-H ^ O OC O — 1 (M 1-H cq 00 0> 1— 1 CO CO t^ 1— 1 1— f 1— 1 IC CO LO ^ 1 7 1 t^ CO M< 05 -6 O 1 - -# (M iM O 1 ^ 05 ' 1 «D CO 1^ CO nth Grade ^ OJ 1-H 00 lO 00 CO C) ^3 1—1 CO 01 "-H LO ■* O O) o t^ O r^ CO ^ Ol 01 1 (M 1 -a ^ tS ^ I^ to o CI t^ CO ^ ^ 1 1 oq 00 00 o o 9th Grade f-H GO O (M t^ CI CO to '^ i^ CO ^ .-H ,-1 (M '# CO >-• t^ CQ ^ ^ , 1 &H O CI CI o ^i CO -^ r-H Ttl to C^ >0 GO t^ '-^. i-H CI -^ oq CO 1^ Tt< rH — H ^ CO &s CO •* T-H T-1 lO CO ■— 1 CI to •O O lO o C5 C3 CO CI oq 00 -^ CD ^ CI CO CI « v? o d Oj o o3 ti O CJ '- c P HH cc IW ,, J^ 1 V 7 ^ S Q 1 1 OJ X X w w p; a o < H h3 o o n o CQ i O 00 O < O Q O w C5 < o m a OS P5 «! OQ P^ O iz; o P n i-i « . El OS 4.8 80.8 4.8 4.8 4.8 o rH (M i-H 0:1 T-H ■"-I 00 I— 1 O >— 1 i— 1 Oi 00 CO ■•-1 r-H >-l 00 1—1 >~l 00 (M "^J 05 1 T-H >~< 20 '-1 T— 1 ■^ 00 1— ( ■>-l 00 <— t >-( =0 •a 3 GO t^ O >0 •* CO (M i-H OOt^OlO'^COIM'-HO 1 1 a. o 00 00"^ -s > si _ bC s.s fi O ■3 CQ 10 Pi O i3 a t3 o a t3 a O -4J 03 s ^ o o 52 Survey of Public School System The correlation of these two elements, — .04, shows that it is a matter of individual adjustment. A majority of the teachers holding normal school diplomas re- ceived them from the Trenton State Normal School. This fact, com- bined with the predominance of experience within Lawrence Township would show that the schools are staffed very largely by local people. The teachers of Lawrence Township are better trained than the ma- jority of teachers in the rural districts of New Jersey and much better trained than the teachers of similar districts in many other states. Lawrence Township ranks fourth among the districts in Mercer County in the percentage of elementary school teachers who are nor- mal school graduates. The following resolution passed May 30th, 1921 shows that there is to be financial recognition for additional preparation secured during service. "Resolved that beginning with the year 1921-22, no teacher shall receive an increase in pay for two consecutive years without having taken courses approved by the supervising principal at one of the state summer schools within two years preceding the proposed increase." The relative preparation of the elementary school teachers in the other districts of jVIercer County is shown in Table XXVIIL From this, it is seen that Lawrence Township's teachers compare favorably with those of other districts in the county. TABLE XXVIII Comparison of Preparation op Elementary School Teachers in Mercer County Townships 1921-22 Preparation Township Normal No Record Total Per Cent Per Cent Graduate oj Prep- Teachers Normal No Prep- aration Graduates aration Ewing 15 1 16 94 6 West Windsor 7 1 8 88 12 Hamilton 63 18 81 78 22 Lawrence 16 5 21 76 24 Hopewell 23 8 31 74 26 East Windsor 11 4 15 73 27 Princeton 4 2 6 67 33 Washington 2 3 5 40 60 Tolals 141 42 138 78 22 Lawrence Township, New Jersey 53 Sala ries The teachers of Lawrence Township are paid according to a regular salary schedule which went into effect in 1920 and which provides for a minimum salary of $1,100. and a maxi- mum of $1,800. per year. A comparison of the salaries paid to the teachers of Lawrence Township compared with the median salary of seven townships in ]VIercer County, given in Chart No. 13, shows that Lawrence Township has consistently, since 191 5, paid salaries higher than the average for the county. The actual distribution of salaries paid the teachers of Lawrence Township is shown in Table XXVTI and graphically presented in Chart No. 14. The fact that so many of the teachers receive $1,500. is due to the length of experience of these teachers in Lawrence Township which brought a number of them to the maximum salary until the new schedule was adopted in 1920. A comparison of Lawrence Township with the districts of East Windsor, Princeton, Hopewell, Hamilton, Washington, Ewing and West Wind- sor in jMercer County shows that Lawrence Township pays a higher median salary than any of these other districts by $100., even though three of the other townships are paying as high or higher maximum salaries. These comparisons are given in Table XXIX. Chart No. 13. Comparison of Teachers' Salaries in Elementary Schools in Lawrence Town- ship with those of other Townships in Mercer County. 1600 1400 ,^ 1200 / 1 / 1 / / / / 1000 / / / / / 800 ( ^X^ ^/> ,^ 600 J^^ ?»^ ^^ ».* — "■ - 600 19 10 19 j Is 191 6 19 17 19 Lb ic 19 19 SO 1= 21 V iiZ ' — Median salary of seven townships in Mercer County __^____ Median salary of Lawrence Township 54 Survey of Public School System It is not possible to make any adequate statement concerning the adequacy of the salaries in terms of cost of living or other expenses, because not all of the teachers returned the data on these items. In comparison with other places, the salaries paid are adequate to secure a maximum of efficient service and adequately trained progressive teachers. TABLE XXIX Comparative Salary Schedules in Mercer CorNTY Townships 1920-21 Elementary Teachers Township Minimum Maximum Median La-RTence 1100 1500 1425 East Windsor 1100 17.50 1325 Princeton 1100 1400 1275 Hopewell lOCO 1600 1255 Hamilton 1100 160C- 1230 Washington 1100 1500 11S7 Ewing 1100 1375 1178 West Windsor 1100 1300 1130 Chart Xo. 14 Salary S16c6 1.550 1500 1450 1400 1350 1300 1250 1200 11.50 Teachers Distribution of Salaries Paid Elementary School Teachers of Lawrence Township 1921-22 PART V THE MEASUREMENT OF PUPIL PERFORMANCE In order to evaluate more fully the efficiency of the existing school system in Lawrence Township, a number of standard- ized tests were given to the pupils in the various grades. In this way, it is possible to compare the achievement of the pupils in one school with those in another school in the township and also to com- pare the work done by the children in Lawrence Township with sim- ilar achievements of pupils in almost every section of the United States. It was not possible to give tests in every subject, but the selection included a wide enough range to furnish a foundation for the study of this phase of the Lawrence Township schools. The following tests were used: — Arithmetic The Woody Series A Tests* Addition.. . .In Grades 3 and 4 Subtraction." " 3 to 8 inclusive Division. ..." " 5 to 8 inclusive Writing Scored by the Thorndike Handwriting Scale * Grades 3 to 8 inclusive Spelling Words selected from the Buckingham Extension to the Ayres Spelling Scale* Grades 3 to 8 inclusive English Composition Scored by the Nassau County Supple- ment to the Hillegas Scale* Grades 4 to 8 inclusive Reading. .. ^ Thorndike-McCall (Scale A)* Grades 3 to 8 inclusive Haggerty Reading Sigma i** Grades 2 and 3 National Intelligence Test** — Grades 3 to 8 inclusive, and Pressey Primer Scale***' . .■ — Reception Grade, ist and 2nd Grades Each one of these tests was given according to the standardized direction? for that particular test and the results are summarized * Published by the Bureau of'Publications, Teachers College, Columbia Uni- versity, N. Y. C. ** Published by the World Book Co., Yonkers, N. Y. *** Pubhshed by the Department of Psychology, University of Indiana, Bloom- ington, Ind. 56 Survey of Public School System under each subject. Detailed tables giving the actual distributions for each subject in the township and in the separate schools of the township were submitted when the report was made. These actual distributions should be particularly helpful for diagnosing the situa- tion in any grade, in any school, and for building a constructive pro- gram of supervision with more accurate grading and classification. Arithmetic It will be seen from Table XXX that each grade from the 3rd to the 8th was given two tests in arithmetic. In every case, with the exception of the 4th grade in addition and the 5th grade in subtrac- TABLE XXX Median Scores on Woody Arithmetic Test-Series A Compared with Woody's Standard Medians. Lawrence Township, Mercer County, New Jersey Grades Schools III IV V VI VII VIII Addition: Lawrence Township 13.2 18.5 Woody Standard 14.5 18.3 Difference -1.3 +0.2 Subtraction: Lawrence Township 11.1 15.5 22.1 23.5 27 A 31.1 Woody Standard 11.2 15.7 20.4 25.0 28.5 31.7 Difference -0.1 -0.2 + 1.7 -1.5 -0.9 -0.6 Division : Lawrence Township 13.4 21.0 26.3 28.7 Woody Standard 16.5 23.8 27.4 30.1 Difference -3.1 -2.8 -1.1 -1.4 tion, the median scores for Lawrence Township are below the median scores adopted as the standard by the author of these tests. It is noticeable that the differences between Lawrence Township's median and the standard in the 3rd and 4th in both addition and subtraction are very small. This is possibly accounted for by the additional year spent by the majority of the children, due to the reception grade, in reaching the 3rd and 4th grade. This should give the children in these early grades a distinct advantage over the children in other commun. Lawrence Township, New Jersey 57 ities. The median performances of the 5th grade in subtraction and division and of the 6th grade in division show the greatest differences between the medians for Lawrence Township and the estabHshed standards for these tests, the 5th grade falling behind the standard by over three problems. The comparisons between the results secured in Lawrence Town- ship and other communities where the Series A tests had been used are shown in Table XXXL It will be seen from this table that other schools are not only able to attain the Woody standard but in many cases exceed that accomplishment. As in Table XXX, the upper grades in Lawrence Township performed less satisfactorily than the other groups, with the exception of the distinctly rural schools in the Wisconsin study. The Lawrence Township schools are even below the Wisconsin rural schools in four cases. TABLE XXXI Median Scores on Woody Arithmetic Test-Series A Compared by Grade WITH Medians of Other Schools Lawrence Township, Mercer County, New Jersey Grades Schools III IV V VI VII VIII Addition : Lawrence TouTiship 13.2 18.5 Woody Standard 14.5 18.3 Wisconsin Rural* 14.5 17.7 Wisconsin Cities* 15.5 20.2 Subtraction : Lawrence Township 11.1 15.5 22. 1 23,5 27 A 31.1 Woody Standard 11.2 15.7 20.4 25.0 28.5 31.7 Wisconsin Rural* 12.0 15.4 18.8 21.3 23.4 26.8 Wisconsin Cities* 13.3 18.1 20.8 25.6 28.4 30.3 Division : Lawrence Township 13.4 21.0 26.3 28.7 Woody Standard 16.5 23.8 27.4 30.1 Wisconsin Rural* 13.9 19.5 21.8 24.9 Wisconsin Cities * 19.6 25.1 28.4 30.0 *Educational Progress in Wisconsin, by Cary, Flemming and others, pg. 76. Publi.-^hed by State Department, Madison, Wisconsin. 58 Survey of Public School System jr • I-,- • The outstanding feature of a detailed distrlbu- y uriubtLity tn . ^ . , . . tion of the scores in the arithmetic tests in ATitriTnstic tn J „ Lawrence Township is the very great range of Lawrence lozunsnip . . ^ ^ . '^ performance for any one test m any grade. For example, in one 4th grade, there are two children who could not solve any of the problems in subtraction. The remainder of the class are distributed in their ability to solve problems from this point to two children who solved twenty-one and one child who solved twenty- three of the problems. There were 33 children, or 44% of the 6th grade who could not solve as many problems in subtraction as the one child in the 4th grade who solved twenty-three. This very great over- lapping occurs in all of the grades and the spread within each of the grades shows a very distinct need for a more accurate grading of pupils. ^ . J. The number of problems solved bv 2q% of each class Lomparison of , , ^ f^ , , , ' , ^1 and by 75% of each class shows the range of per- formance of the middle 50% of the class. With this measure, comparisons of like grades in the different schools of Law- rence Township were made. In subtraction, one 3rd grade class has a class median of 5.5 problems, while another 3rd grade class has a median of 12 problems. The range of achievement between the 25 percentile and 75 percentile spreads in the one case from 2.3 to ii.i and in the other case is confined between 10.3 and 13.5. This means that in the first of these two 3rd grades, 25% of the class could not solve more than 2.3 problems and that only 75% of the class could solve more than ii.i, while the standard median for that grade, which should be met by 50% of the children, is 1 1.2. A comparison in the median number of subtraction problems solved by two 4th grade classes within the same building shows the median accomplishment for one class to be 6 problems and for the other 16 problems.' Many such irregularities within like grades developed out of the arithmetic tests. This is further evidence of a lack of proper supervision and a lack of attention to the whole problem of adequate classification. Writing D !'f < f H /J '^^^ handwriting test consisted of copying two familiar lines for a period of three minutes. The WTtttnz . children were given the following directions: "We want to know how well you can write. When I tell you to begin, you are to copy the two sentences over and over again, just as Lawrence Township, New Jersey 59 many times as you can, before I tell you to stop. Remember, how- ever, to write each time just as well as you can." These samples of handwriting were then scored on the Thorndike Handwriting Scale for quality by three competent judges and the median score of these three judgments taken as the quality score for each paper. Table XXXIl gives the median scores by schools and grades for Lawrence Township. It is evident that in every grade, Lawrence Township is distinctly below the standard achievement for that grade. There are only two instances where a grade in any school exceeds the standard for that grade. These two grades are the 4th grade in Clarksville, with only 5 pupils, and the 5th grade in Rosedale, with only 7. A more detailed distribution of these scores makes evident the lack of grading in these classes, since several of them spread over six quality steps in the scale and one 6th grade extends over nine steps from one child whose writing was adjudged "quality six" to children whose writing was scored at "quality fourteen." TABLE XXXII Comparison of the Schools in Lawrence Township as to Quality of Writing as Measured by the Thorndike Handwriting Scale Grades III IV V TV VII VIII Schools i i 4 £ u ^ ^' ^ ^ <6 s Lawrence Township 48 8.3 88 8.8 93 9.1 76 9.8 54 10.2 40 10.5 Standard 10.1 10.7 11.3 11.9 12.7 Slackwood 18 7. 40 8.4 42 8.7 37 9.5 40 10.6 22 10.9 Lawrenceville 10 7.9 17 8.3 21 9. 24 9.3 14 10.1 18 10. Eldridge Park 12 9.2 26 8.2 23 8.7 13 9.3 Rosedale 6 9.5 7 11.1 2 11. Clarksville 2 9.. 5 .5 10.5 Table XXXIII gives a comparison of the quality of handwriting in Lawrence Township with five other places, four of them in New Jersey and the fifth, Amsterdam, N. Y. Here again, Lawrence 60 Survey of Public School System Township is shown to be distinctly below the median accomplishment of these other places in all grades, with the exception of a slight ad- vantage in the 8th grade over the achievement of the pupils in Ams- terdam. TABLE XXXIII Comparison of Lawrence Township Schools with other School Systems AS TO Quality of Writing Grades Schools * Ill IV V VI VII VIII LawTence , Township 8.3 8.8 9.1 9.8 10.1 10.5 Standard Score 10.1 10.7 11.3 11.9 12.7 Paterson, N. J. 9.12 10.7 11.1 10.4 10.9 Chatham, N. J. 9.3 10.3 11.7 12.8 13.3 Morris Township, N. J, 11.2 12.5 11.1 12. 12.8 Newark, N. J. 9.9 11.5 11.9 12.2 13.2 Amsterdam, N. Y. 9.4 9.9 10.7 10.7 10.4 Speed of Hand- writing Table XXXIV shows the median speed of hand- writing for the schools and grades of Lawrence Township. Here it is again seen that the children of Lawrence Township are not only below the standard performance in the quality of writing, but also in rate. This is particularly true of the 6th, yth and 8th grades. The children in the Rosedale School are consistently above the median performance for the township and also are above the standard for their grades. Table XXXV shows the comparison of rate of writing of the pupils in Lawrence Township with the rates attained in other school systems. This shows that Lawrence Township does better in the rate of writing than it does in quality, even though in most cases it is still below the accomplishment in other places. The most significant comparison in this table is with the medians for 56 other cities which are slightly higher than those for Lawrence Township, with the excep- tion of the 5th grade. *Comparative data taken from unpublished survey of Amsterdam, N. Y. made by Department of Educational Administration, Teachers College, Columbia University. Lawrence Township, New Jersey 61 TABLE XXXIV Comparison of the Schools in Lawrence Township as to Rate of Writing Grades III IV V VI VII VIII Schools SO * CO 9- J- 1 o >>> o so g. 1 Lawrence Twp. Standard Score Slackwood Lawrenceville Eldridge Park Rosedale Clarksville 48 18 10 12 6 2 40.3 41. 39.3 28.5 60 40 88 40 17 26 5 45.2 56 43.3 41.6 55.4 44.8 93 42 21 23 7 62.8 65. 62.3 45.2 68.5 90.8 76 37 24 13 2 57 72 54.2 56 71.8 110 54 40 14 63.8 80 61.8 66.8 40 22 18 66 90 68.5 64.3 *Score is expressed in the number of letters per minute. TABLE XXXV Comparison of Lawrence Township Schools with other School Systems AS TO Rate of Writing Grades Schools** III IV V VI VII VIII Lawrence Township 40.3* 45.2 62.8 57. 63.8 66 Standard Score 56. 65. 72 80. 90 Paterson, N.J. 32. 38.5 44.5 52. 52.5 Amsterdam, N. Y. 26.44 32.9 46.8 51.4 61.5 78.5 St. Paul, Minn. 45. 53. 64. 70. 78. Cleveland, 0. 62. 69. 73. 78. 56 Cities 51.2 59.1 62.8 67.9 73. *Score Ls expressed in terms of the number of letters per minute. **Comparative data from unpublished survey of Amsterdam, N. Y. made by the Department of Educational Administration, Teachers College, Columbia University. 62 Survey of Public School System A detailed distribution of the rate of handwriting for the pupils of Lawrence Township shows again the very great overlapping be- tween grades, the wide distribution of abilities within any one grade and the slower progress made by the pupils in the 7th and 8th grades. An example of the wide range within any one grade occurs in a sixth grade where one child writes less than 44 letters per minute and another one in the same grade writes between loi and 105 in the same time. A tabulation of the handwriting scores for quality and speed, when combined by schools and not by grades, gives a median score for all of the children in Slackwood of 9.6, Lawrenceville 9.5, Eldridge Park 9.1, Rosedale 10.5 and Clarksville 9.9. When the median is found for speed, the scores are as follows: Slackwood 54 Lawrenceville 63 Eldridge Park 55 Rosedale 78 Clarksville 43 In comparing Clarksville and Rosedale with the other schools, it must be borne in mind that Rosedale does not extend beyond the 6th grade and has 12 pupils in that grade, while Clarksville extends only through the 4th grade. r, , . More attention should be given to the handwrit- Recommendations . ^ ....... . a^^ ^• , „, . . ing of pupils in all writing exercises. Attention ]or Wriiinp o r r ^ o should be paid to correct letter formation, correct position and the securing of increased speed without sacrificing qual- ity and legibility. The lowness of the scores in the upper grades shows either a lack of emphasis on handwriting or the development of an attitude of carelessness toward handwriting. • s letters per minute . T cc <( ii ii a a •5 •5 11 (( (( u (( (< Lawrence Township, Neio Jersey Spelling 63 Selection Twenty words were chosen from Buckingham's Extension f tt;- 1 to the Ayres Spelling Scale, one from each of the columns from "G" to "Z". The words* used and their difficulty for each grade are given below: Mid-year Percentage Column in Grade in Standara f No. Words Ayres Scale Bauer and Jones Lists III IV V VI VII 1 come G 2-2 2 was H 2-2 92 3 foot I 2-2 88 4 happy J 2-2 84 5 could K 2-2 79 92 6 once L 2-2 73 88 7 pretty M 2-2 66 84 92 8 always N 2-2 58 79 88 9 uncle 3-2 50 73 84 92 10 beautiful P 4-3 42 66 79 88 11 surprise Q 5-4 34 58 73 84 92 12 vessel R 5-5 50 66 79 88 13 century S 7-7 42 58 73 84 14 invitation T 7-7 34 50 66 79 15 necessary U 6-6 42 58 73 16 experience V 7-7 34 50 66 17 athletic W 6-5 42 58 18 convenient X 7-7 34 50 19 decision Y 0-8 42 20 recommend Z 0-8 34 * Taken from Virginia Public School Survey, Vol. 2, Page No. 93 — Directed by A. J. Inglis. 64 Surveij of Public School System ^ Table XXXVI gives a comparison of the schools of Lawrence Township on the basis of percentage of the Hst spelled correctly and the average number of words spelled correctly by each grade of the several schools. There is less variability shown in spelling than in any of the other tests given, with the exception of the 3rd grade in Rosedale and the 4th grade in Clarksville, in both of which cases the percentage spelled correctly and the average number of words spelled correctly are higher than for the other classes of those grades. TABLE XXXVI Comparison of Schools of Lawrence Township in Spelling on the Basis OF THE Percentage and Average Number of Words Spelled Correctly in the Entire List of Words Grades % /// IV V VI VII VIII Schools Av. % 44 Av. % Av. % Av. <7, /€ Av. % Av. Lawrence Township 27 5.4 8.7 55 11.1 66 13.1 76 15.2 84 16.8 Slackwood 27 5.3 43 8.6 53 10.6 63 12.6 77 15.3 89 17.9 Lawrenceville 25 4.9 43 8.5 53 10.5 66 13.1 76 15.1 77 15.4 Eldridge Park 21 4.3 43 8.5 61 12.2 73 14.5 Rosedale 38 7.5 59 11.9 75 15. Clarksville 25 5. 55 11. Comparison with Table XXXVII gives the spelling scores for each Standards grade of the Lawrence Township schools compared in Spelling with the standard scores given for the same words used in 84 other cities. Even though Table XXXVI shows smaller variation between classes, Table XXXVII shows that the classes are consistently below the standard achievements for the several grades. In this table, the lists were so used that each grade was scored upon ten words for which that grade should average 66.6%. The 3rd grade in Lawrence Township falls 22.2% below this stan- dard and the 7th grade is more than 10% below the standard achieve- ment. Lawrence Township, New Jersey TABLE XXXVII 65 Spelling Scores for the Schools of Lawrence Township, Compared with THE Standard Score on the Basis of the Ten Words op Equal Difficulty for the Various Grades (Scores expressed as percentages of the ten words spelled correctly) Grades III IV V 17 17/ Schools 2-11 I ncl.* 5-lIf Incl. 7-16 Incl. 9-18 Incl. 11- Wind. Lawrence Township 44.4 4:1. b 48. 51.2 56. Standard Score 66.6 66.6 66.6 66.6 66.6 Slackwood 43.5 45. 45. 45.7 55.8 Lawrenceville 41. 48.2 45.2 47.9 55.7 Eldridge Park 35. 46.5 55.2 61.5 Rosedale 61.7 51.4 75. Clarksville 26.7 66. Standard score based on results obtained from eighty-four cities. *This reference is to the ten words spelled as numbered on page 63. Comparison with Virginia Results in Spelling Table XXXVIII gives a comparison by grades with the achievements in spelling of the various types of schools in Virginia where it will be seen that the only place where Lawrence Township ex- ceeds the accomplishment in Virginia is in the yth grade, when com- pared with the Virginia one-room rural schools. TABLE XXXVIII Comparison of the Spelling Scores of the Lawrence Township Schools WITH Various Types of Schools in Virginia* on the Basis of the Standard Score Grades Schools III IV V VI VII Standard score 66.6 66.6 66.6 66.6 66.6 Lawrence Township 44.4 47.5 48. 51.2 56. Va. Rural oae room schools 61.9 54.1 56.8 54.6 .52.6 Va. Rural, four rooms or over 71.8 68.1 61.5 62.6 58.7 Va. City schools first half yr. 57.8 67.0 63.5 57.3 58.6 Va. City schools second half 69.6 63.8 68.3 69.5 63.1 *Virginia Public Schools, Vol. I., page No. 123, Directed by A. J. Inglis. 66 Survey of Public School System „ J . The children of Lawrence Township are so dis- Kecommendations • , , , i i • ,,■ , , r c^ /;■ tinctly below standard in spelling that additional emphasis should be placed upon this work. Care should be used in securing accurate imagery, proper syllabication when the word is first presented and focalization of attention on parts of words likely to be misspelled. Better results will be obtained if words are more carefully selected from the vocabularies of the chil- dren, fewer new words presented and more constant drill and review used in this subject. English Composition „, „ ,. All of the children in Lawrence Township, from the 4th a 7 f J to the 8th grade inclusive, were asked to write for twenty minutes upon the topic — "What I Should Like To Do Next Saturday." These compositions were then graded by three judges on the Nassau County Supplement to the Hillegas Com- position Scale and the median of these three judgments used as the score for the composition. Distribution of these scores is shown in Table XXXIX where it will again be noticed that improvement is made from the 4th to the 5th and from the 5th to the 6th grades after which the rate of improvement is materially lessened for the 7th and 8th grade. Also, there is the same wide variability within grades and extensive over-lapping between grades. This is still further shown when it is realized that one pupil in a 4th grade writes a com- position better than the median composition of either 8th grade and that there are many 4th and 5th grade pupils who do as well in composition as many of the 7th and 8th grade pupils. ^ . . . Bv comparing the median scores for each grade in Comparison zvitn ,' ^,. .,, ,. o . Lawrence 1 ownship with the corresponding scores bcores tn . . . " . , ,.,.^^,, ^ . r,, given tor the various places hsted in Table Other Places \ • • , if r^ AAAIA, It is clear that Lawrence Township not only falls distinctly below the standards for this test, but also mate- rially below a large majority of the other places for which comparable scores are available. n . . Much more attention should be given in Law- Kecomviendations _ ,. .. .„,., _^ x r^ ■ ■ rence i ownship to writing in Lnghsh. rower for Lorn position 1 u 1 • j 1 1 •, • r should be gained by the pupils in ease of expres- sion and continuity of thought. Enough attention must be given to the mechanical features of punctuation, capitalization, paragraphing Lawrence Toionship, New Jersey 67 H ai P3 Q P^ H h^ O <1 o •A c» '■' to 2 W- W iJ S hJ W w CO » Oi w S H O O u y. o H ?: S -< M rn h] c b frt a, 13 n CO OJ t; o ^ Z yj t= rii O Pi U < !>< P O CO \—i 00 CO C^) r- r-t 00 o in CO ic o 05 Ci C2 1— 1 IC CO iM --H CO CO 5o' 00 CO 1 to .— ( *~i (50 T— t >-( "H CO oi CO 00 lO M '-t (M -i^ (M lO (M 1— 1 1—) 22 00 l-H ^ lO CO O GO 22 ■rt< O --H 00 1— 1 1— 1 t^ GO r-H S ■^ ■^ O t- C5 ©0 CO eo o r-^ C-\ r-< ^^ No. tak- ing test »C t-^ (M O rO ■— 1 CO ^H r^) ^ t^ 00 CO (M CO T-H ^ (M o ^ „, T3 -^ Ph liiia lilll ^ 5 03 c3 ^ O HH S S W -is: 3 Ti Oh ^ S 8 g « T, £ S 5 3 P^ J H^ K a 1 CD ^ ^ ^ X -C H-^ -f-^ -M -4-^ -^ Tj^ tJ^ tJi ^^ ^^^ X -d ^ ^ -C *i -t-i *^ -(_ .»i lO m lo >c »n 68 Survey of Public School System o o X X X X •J <: ^ C CO O O C: t^ »o CO CO CO GO CO 1— 1 -TtH CD CJ O ^ ■^ CO 4.68 4.68 00 CD 00 CO >-< to !>0 to n1 T— 1 >~( >-( to to T-H >-H CO (^ (M ■SQ iCi 1— 1 LO O O »C GC' 00 1-H 1— 1 § 50 00 lO o o .— 1 C^ I— 1 CD 00 CO C5 GO CO CO '3^ GO - ^ CXi (M CO to t^ S 1 00 00 Lawrence Township, New Jersey 69 00 CO 6 X 1— I X X X >-^ < i:© lo GO '^ ■* C/3 CO CO LO o o O lO lO O (M CO l> -^ 05 05 O (M 00 C-l t^ Ol ■*'*■* rti lO O CO lO IC lO t^ CO 00 C5 >— I >— I C-l lO ■* CO C5 c^ T-( t~- lO 00 CO CO C CO Tf T}< Tfl T}H -^ lO Tf lO lO 1^ iM (M ■* 00 1^ CO C^l O COCOGO lOt^cOOtOt^'— I CO CO CO CO CO ■* lO CO "* ■* (M CI iM O ^ '^i Ci »0 ■* T— I ,— I uO CO lO O ■* O O GO (M CO CO CO (M -* "* CI ^ (M t^ lO lO O t^ t^ CI --I CD O CO ^ CO 05 d CI CI C4 CI CO -^ C4 CI ^ ^ •v. < ^ I OJ CO o o c3 1-5 1-5 o CO 05 liO -* lO CI Tt< lO CO CO -^ P4 3 o3 o I o I O 0) O a; bC 8 bD § .S ^ .S ^' t c; is c CC .S X' .5 0) QJ -£3 3 O e^ iz; ^ ^ 03 O ^ CJ pC CO O o c3 Ph IQ LO CO '# O CO '^ CI CI iC CI CO o 0) CD o c CJ o -3 OJ O o cc a; _> c3 CO 02 CO cc o !^ ^ c3 03 c3 -5 c3 § § §S^. §WS§ H 70 Survey of Public School System and the like so that these elements will not absorb the attention of the pupil during the writing of a composition. Effort should be made to bring about a better classification within grades. The median achievement for all of the grades should be materially raised. Reading Thorndike-McCall Reading Test, Scale A. All of the children from the 3rd grade through the 8th inclusive were tested on Scale A of the Thorndike-McCall Reading Test. The average accomplishment for each grade of each school is given in Table XL. From this table, it can be determined that the children of Lawrence Township are consistently slightly below the standard and quite markedly below the achievements of children in correspond- ing grades in other cities and states. There is a very wide distribu- tion of reading ability in practically all of the grades, but the average ability for each grade is near enough to the standard so that reading difficulties cannot be assigned as the cause of failure to approach standards in other subjects. The detailed scores obtained on this test show that a number of 4th grade children can read as well as some 8th grade children and better than a number of 7th grade children. Reading in the Lower Grades Haggerty Reading Test — Sigma i. In order to secure a test of the reading ability of the children of Lawrence Township in the 2nd and 3rd Grades, Haggerty Reading Test, Sigma i was used in all of these grades in the township. A distribution of the scores obtained by grades and schools is given in Table XLL J. . . The feature of this table, which is immediately noticed, r artatton . p ,. is the very great range in reading ability within each ^ grade in the several schools. This is greatest in Slack- wood but is much larger than it should be in all of the other schools. The 2nd grade in Slackwood, consisting of 22 pupils, ranges from a score of i to a score of 25 with not more than four pupils on any one step. The 3rd grade in Slackwood, with 18 pupils, ranges from a score of I toascoreof 36, with not more than two pupils on any one step. Where the reading ability varies in this manner from almost no ability to read up to a reading ability comparable to the 4th or 5th grade, it is impossible for the teacher to expect anything Lawrence Township, New Jersey 71 like uniform work from her class. The pupils at the lower ends of these distributions are a constant handicap to the other pupils in the class and an element constantly holding back the achievement of the grade. ^ . . , The median achievement of the 2nd grade is 8.^6 Comparison with , . , . , ,• , , , , 11/ r, , 7 , which IS but slightly more than the standard for Standards and , 1 1 • , • ^ ^ ■ ^^ ^ ^ , ... . the 1st grade which is 0. and materiallv below the Achievement in 1 1 r , 1 1 1 • 1 • ' t itt- „ , r.7 standard tor the 2nd grade which is 20. in Wis- Other Places . , _ 1 1 -i 1 1 , , 1 1 , consin, the nrst grade children who had had the advantage of previous kindergarten training received a score of 1 1.7 and those without kindergarten training a score of 9.6, both of which 1st grade scores are higher than the 2nd grade achievements in Law- rence Township. The corresponding achievements in the two Wis- consin groups for the 2nd grade were 23.4 and 20. The median age of the 2nd grade in Lawrence Township is 8.2 years and on the Pressey Primer Scale this grade practically met the standard accom- plishment for that grade. This would indicate that the mental ability of the 2nd grade was up to standard and that it should there- fore be able to meet the standards in reading. According to the Haggerty norms, children who are eight years of age should be able to make a score of 19 on the Haggerty Reading. Since the Lawrence Township second grades average slightly more than eight years of age, the standard of 20 for that grade is not too high to expect from these children. The median score of the 3rd grade is 19.5. This would indicate that the reading ability of the 3rd grade in Lawrence Township is slightly less than the standard for the 2nd grade. In other words, the 3rd grade children in Lawrence Township are almost exactly one grade behind in their reading ability. In the Slackwood 3rd grade, referred to above, where the range of reading ability extends from i to 36 and where only 6 of the 18 pupils, or one-third of the class exceed the standard for the 2nd grade, the situation is serious enough to demand immediate investigation and readjustment. ^ J The use of this test very clearlv locates one of the serious difficulties in the educational situation in Lawrence Town- sion ship, namely the inability of the children in the lower grades to read as well as children in similar grades in other districts. No other subject is as important in the lower grades or influences the accomplish- ment in other subjects as much as does reading. The discovery that 72 Survey of Public School System o o a « O > P ►J o X! H O o o 2^ ►J <; o m O o w Q Bi o X « o fa « O o m o g a o O o K Pi "" 1-5 GC o o -73 5 2 s 1 t~ (S \0 Oi lO 050(0 C^ CO (M C^ CO CO 41.1 38.4 01 CO CO CO X §5 r CO CO ^ 9 O Ol toi 1 § 1 1 s? ;l 1 1 § 1 II 1 1 ^ !l II 1 i ? II II 1 1 § II II 1 1 § II 1 '-' ~ i S 1 1 1 o o 1 § 1 1 o r- -1 e^ 1 ^ 1 1 II o o o o «5 II II ^ f— < 1—1 rH O "5 93 II " ^ ©J o -H rt ^ -H ~* 1 5 1 Ol o •3* Ol Ol lO rH O *•< 1 ^ 1 CO o 93 '- O CO CO o t^ 1 ^ 1 O Ol r-t CO to 1 i-H rH lO -* o *H 1 ^^ 1 CSI rt O OI XJ o O CO CO o Oi 1 2^ 1 o ^ O Ol 93 1 ^ Ol -r rH rH 00 — C rt -H 93 1 O) T)< o ^ K I »-H Ol CO o o to ^ o ■SJ O 00 O -H Cl 1 O Ol rH O 93 O - 50 rt ^ o ■^ O) .-H O rt ■^ --< Ol rH Ol to ^ 50 o -^ o o ^ 1 Ol -- rt CO «^ (M CO rH O to &^ 50 c o o o O ^ CO o ■* 00 O Ol o o ■51 00 rt rt o o o l^J (M CO O -H to O CO o o 93 1 5? O -H o o o '^ 1 o CO O Ol «3 1 o o O rH >H - ao ^ rt O o o e* j o o O O) <5< o o rH O **» (30 C<1 "-1 o o --■ 1 O -H rH CO «o O rH o »Hi «5 O O '-^ O •- O -H ^ o «! O rH o 1^ GO r-^ 0\ <^ ,-i Oi 00 1 o o O Ol ©1 o o c 1 <= 1 "30 o « o o o *-i o o o o o o ^ l-t 1 °i -^ -H w O — W O '-^ o o ■*-< 1 o o 1 ■=. 1 ^ *i o o 1 ** 1 ^ o ^ o c *-H o c Ol rt CO 1 o o 1 '^ 1 ^ O CO o <-< ^^ o o o o ^ *.H ^ O O rt .-H ^. I o •-i 51 IM -H O --I ^ 1 ° -> »-H 1 ^ ■^ OI r-. 9, 1 " ^ ®1 No. teat O X Tji CO o w 2^ 1 t^ Ol M CO 00 CO Ol ■* op 00 CO o rH Tf 01 t^ Ol S § 0) oii ^5 c S M be c3 S; § ,=3 2 2 o ^ ►J K W W K O "a o 03 ^ o '-' i- S w o <•*» 5 ^ a si ^ I-H t/3 a; ci Oc o S M OS ~ -3 ~ in -i o ; 3 5 -3 -a -d -rr -3 -73 u u t4 (m u ^ CO CO CO CO CO CO •71 •*■ lO j3 .a J3 J ; i Lawrence Township, New Jersey 73 e X 05 1> 01 O oc CO to 00 tT -^ -^ ^ <31 00 -•I- cc c-i o IM 00 --I lO IC lO 00 -^ 00 to W5 II II II II 1 11 ll 1 1 11 11 1 1 II '- ^ "' 11 CO 1 SO 1 II o ^ o ^ 11 .-■ CO 1 ^t ^ 1 ^ II O !M O '^ 11 O '" 1 »-^ o 1 - 11 - - o 1 ^ II CO CO 1 to 0>-i 0|'-0 II ■-. o 1 >-^ .-H ■<}< O 1 "5 II O TO " 1 ^ II 'O CO 1 Co C<3C-^^-^ |i-!|(NMCO 00 || ll O) ffi 1 00 (M C^ O 1 ^t II Ol O t' 1 =. II IM CO 1 i^ CO cc »o 1 ^ II o ^ CO 1 '-H II ^ 11 o •^ 1 -- (N Tf r-i 1 i- 1 CO CO CO ll o c^i \ c-i lOTfO |Oi||^ co|-<)- o o (NiCCO |o||co oij'^i o o rt IN -< 1 ~^ 1 ° 1 '^ 1 i-H 1 >-i (N CO -< 1 ^ II " 1 '"' 1 o o 1 o II o 1 o 1 O r^ 1 '^ 11 ° 1 "^ 1 o o 1 '^ 11 " 1 '^ 1 O O JO 1 1 1 ^ '- ■JS) 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 11 1 1 1 1 II 1 1 II 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 CO f^ (M (M M CO rt ? ^S?:^ CC Ol Lawrence Slackwood Eldridge Park Rosedale 1 Lawrence Slackwood Slackwood 1 "3 j; ^ j3 ja ^ ^ ^J -M o O to 5D ^ j: X -«^ -f^ -^ t> r^ r^ J3 J3 M CO -a e 00 oO«;acoiot^-*ic>c CCOSOiOO'-iOOOCOiNIN iCiOiOiOt^tO»C»OOtO t~ o o CO a CC 00 f~ o o cooooioocc"-o»-^cooo lO lO lO O O »0 lO lO »o »o oor^tcot^LOooiC CC o ■4< LO t-- -^ r-i o c^) c; O lO lO -^ »C to CD o CO CO o o ira o". '-0 CO ■^ tc 1-- ■* -i( ^ CO CO i^ o CO lO -^ Tt -^ 1-0 00003C5'-, >> tH •a a W ■4J O 3 o 3 fl >. 03 C en ►^ tc c. 03 c3 s ^ a .2 & iJ C fe o ro ro o :s C3 03 +-» e^ f« CO »— 1 i-J Pi a. 7J 74 Survey of Public School System X u 03 (S (^ ?: H Z P O O en w « |T1 »3 to o Z o o ^ o M Tl M C O Pi Z bl ! H a a o -i S 1 -^ >-i 00 1 ^ *-< S2 II O 2J <50 II o 55 II o ^ II *-( i^ 1 II o ^1 I II -^ -" -s *^ 1 1 '^ II I-l T-( ©J ;0| r-li-H|(5) II ^C>lr-t -^ SI i ^ il >-l ^^1 M C>I 1 -<^ II r-. i-H ^ ^1 1 o II Si =5^ i T-H Ol 1 ^ II " *H -, 1 rt ^ 1 (Jj II OJ SJ o 1 ^ cc ^. 1 to II Oi 1 C-) CO 1 IQ II 03 1 ^ eg CI ^ rf 1 N. 11 f^ 1 -H Tf 1 IC) II to 1 •-' rt 1 ^ '1 '-I '-^ iQ 1 rt 1 *-i II " "-1 '-i ^1 m CO CO 1 05 II z eo I lO !M 1 f^ 11 o " *-l ^1 CM ^ Tt< 1 i^ II z >-, 1 ^ ^ 1 (^ II ^ *-H O 1 IN 1 ©J II No. taking Test Tl< lO '-I CO iM CM !M IN § C^ O l> CO X ,-H 1— 1 ^ 1 o Pi w -:; M 1 C3 rs ^ §2 ^ § O Pi W k4 M 1 N 1 1 CO Lawrence Township , New Jersey 75 children in Lawrence Township are a year behind in their reading achievement when, by virtue of the reception grade, they should be a year ahead and furthermore when the measurements of mental ability show that the children in these grades should accomplish as much as the children in other districts, it is very clearly seen that primary reading should be one of the first problems to be studied and solved in Lawrence Township. Both of the reading tests show that with a little Recomviendattons ^^ ^- ^ j- • n • ^u i more attention to readmg, especially in the lower grades, the children in Lawrence Township could be made to reach and perhaps exceed the standard for these tests. Particular emphasis should be placed upon more rapid silent reading for content. Improvement in this phase of reading would be of mate- rial assistance in practically all other school subjects. General Intelligence r In making any comparisons between the pupil accom- ^, . ^-^ plishment in Lawrence Township with other school This Test systems, or between the schools of Lawrence Township, it is quite necessary to know whether the pupils compared have ap- proximately the same general ability before any constructive diag- nosis can be made of the reasons for variations. In order that this might be done in Lawrence Township, two general intelligence measures were used, the National Intelligence Test in grades 3 to 8 and the Pressey Primer Scale in the reception grade and grades I and 2. The National Intelligence Test was given to all of the children in Lawrence Township from the 3rd grade to „ ^ the 8th inclusive. The scores earned on this test by T est * children of each grade in each school are given in Table XLII. The contrast between this table and the other tables on the measurement of achievement is immediately evident. Here, for the first time, there is a regular advancement from grade to grade, the median achievement of each grade being distinctly higher than that of the preceding grade. This is conclusive evidence that the children in the upper grades are possessed of as much native ability as the children in the lower grades, consequently the failure of these grades to make regular progress in the subjects measured cannot be attrib- uted to a lack of ability to do the work. They must therefore be 76 Survey of Public School System CO Z o H a o O > GO g >' a: D P H a; H H X g o O H U K E- Z <; z o H ^1 Z O O z n C a « o o o ■j: o o 0) -^ 3 (M »C X rO O 1-H UD Tji t^ (N GO 00 CO (N ci ic CO Tt< 1 § 1—1 ■~( § T-H ■»*-i .— 1 CO >-< CO CO g .— 1 ■— ( s^ CO CD CO "—I 00 § (^^ ^ (30 11 lO »0 (M --H GO § (M C^l --1 «5 CO LO lo (30 >1 s. ^H CO •— 1 CI ■— < oo lo t^ CO ■— 1 ^ ^ (M r^ '-< 00 .-( Ol CO (M (20 § -^ IC ^ (30 .-1 r-< IM CO i^ 1—1 CO 'M "-^ t^ 1— ( 1— ( r-H &:> o i-H (M 5C No. tak- ing lest CO C t- C^l CD (M O '-^ (31 CD lO ^ CO (>5 ^ o o -2 -^-^ > Td &. CU ^ hJ S tq W p^ O i- T3 -d Ph ^ S s ^ -T3 2 i ^ ^ 2 ^ J OQ Oi W O • 60 1 ■73 -d -3 -rJ -d t3 ;. ;. ;h U ;h Lh CO CO CO CO CO CO xi Si js ^ j^ -tJ -4^ -kJ .+i -fJ Tf Tf* ^ ■^ ^ Lawrence Township, New Jersey 77 '« tf o O X CO O 05 O lO (M (N (M '^ ^ 00 t^ l> 00 CO Co CO CO CO ^ •-' <6 CO d> C5 O O CO I-H I-H 112.0 121.1 109. >-H >-< 130.2 127.8 00 CO o ic -* CO »o GC i^ t^ 00 oo 00 89. 104.5 96.3 to 05 113.3 127.5 110.6 126.4 123.3 1 1 Cl Cl ^ i-H >~( I-H d CI ici ^ CO ^ T-H ■"^ ^H CO I— ( "ij CO CO Co CO ^H I-H *cj Tt' Tf Tf^ >-< t^ CO iM <3^ 'TO: SO CO CI 00 CO >-H 1 Cl CO 1 00 (M lO f^ O CO T-i CO CI CO =0 CI CI -* CO ^ t^ io oi "to T}- lO ^ ^ "^ r^ -rr Oi 1 "^^ — 1 lO ■^ •/: CO I-H 1 Ci ^ CO 1 CO (M O (M (CI ■•-1 '^ CO Cl Ci T-H *-H 1 CO t^ (M CO I-H ^cj- 1 I-H >-H ^^ I-H ©i I — 1 i--( 1-H ■"-1 1 j 1 1 ^ >«H 1 1 1 OO CI O CO t- --H -* CI S CO L'^ t-H CI CI CO rH ■-0 CI o I-H ^ CI r- ci I-H CI so Lawrenceville Lawrence Slackwood Eldridge Park Rosedale Lawrenceville Slackwood Eldridge Park Rosedale LavvrenceviUe Slackwood Slackwood Lawrenceville Slackwood J3 ^ ^ ^ ^ +J +2 -tJ -U -U lO >0 lO lO lO ^1 ^4 ^ .-H .*-> 4-' -t^ -t-> CO CO CO CO r^ ^ r^ "ii 13 '3 i^ t^ i^ 00 00 78 Survey of Public School System s X 00 OS e "51^ CD 1> Ci C^ lO lO O Id I> IC CI CO CO c o cS o3 ^3 ^ n 1 > 1 i-l ^ cS s r. o -w U-i L U ca o c c U kj n =< , o C il o • -* , r^ o !S si rt ««-' « W — ^^ -w I Lawrence Township, New Jerseij 79 explained on the basis of lack of emphasis in these subjects on the part of the supervisor and the teachers in these grades. The intelligence scores shown in Table XLII confirm the fact noted in connection with all other tables that the children in Lawrence Township are very poorly classified since the scores spread over a range of 80 to no Chart No. 15 Distribution of Scores, National Intelligence Test Lawrence Township Showing Extreme Range of Ability in Each Grade and Over-lapping of Grades. C»'g=i 1 ■■0 t III' ^''C^ ^ * 1 1 < ' ' ' 1 I ' ic :ci ic c ^o zc ic ifi- 20 10 c :c 21' 10- 30 20. 10- ' J J I . ( cradt 4 1 , 1 ■ 1 1 1 , ' ' ' ' 1 ^"^' * ' 1 1 . cr«d« t 1 ' ' ' ' Cr«de 7 • ' 1 ' ' , 1 1 ' Cr»de e 1 ' 1 ' 1 < Scores 10 20 3D *0 5C 60 70 60 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 points in each grade. The instructional difficulties presented to a teacher, because of the wide variation of ability within one class, are obvious when the scores on this test for a given grade are noticed. For example, a grade of 17 pupils contains one pupil whose score is zero, three whose scores are between 10 and 20, four whose scores are between 20 and 30, two between 30 and 40, three between 40 and 50, two between 50 and 60, one between 60 and 70 and one between 70 and 80. With this range of ability, group instruction in this class is almost out of the question. 80 Survey of Public School System ^ . When the median scores for Lawrence Township are . , „ , compared with those for Baltimore and particularly T\- i • f '* ° § O o hi] u « « » 03 DQ » Ph tz; o OS P3 O CO c c e3 O O CI a c o CO o o3 O a; o o T3 ■+^ 5 Standards By Grade CO to Score for Lawrence Township o -)< to CO 00 «5 •* d o CO lO >o -r CO to CO O O to to O lO Median Chrono- logical Age t- CO C) cc o o to o "O ro o to l^ to IX 00 lO t/3 t~ CO CO 0! CO § 1 I^J g 1 1 IM C^ ^ W5 j II -^ ^' CO to 1— 1 *^ 1 rt ^ ^ — -<^ II i>\ o) CI to to rt rt ©< 1 C^) C^l !>) --> ;^ § r-H ^-1 CO tM '.-3 II r)l lO CO to rH ^ ^ rM ^ -^ Ci II CO CO ^ j^ r-l ^ CO .== 1 (N ># ,-1 ,-1 rt a> i-H !N ■30 t-l t CVl ^ — C 1 C>J i-t ^ -t rH l» ■SO ^ "M ^ 1 1— 1 T— 1 ©5 % ! - <5! C-1 !N M to 1 >-( CO " •-I to ^ ^ - 0^ .1 O .M ^ 1 (M -i Oi !M -* 1 ^ s< 1 00 rt C^l ■* ^ 1 "^ -t- 1 CO to t33 O ©< 1 rt o O CO CO cc o to O CO rt .-H C-) ■n o CO c: -r .-H ,-1 ,-1 C) IN 00 ^ ^1 ^ Oi c-1 CI ■5 ^■2 o S tt, ^ :3 0) ^ 1 II Oil f-( K S J y K O 00 si M 1^ pq K O c c c c c c *c. a *a a *a o c; t; c; o Cj O O C> Cj tf rt K tf tf Cl CI CI CI CI 82 Survey of Public School System ^ , . From the tests and measurements made of the Conclusions , ., , . _ _ , . , r ,, • ,, children m Lawrence iownship, the foUowme on JVl €CisuT£TH6nt . r . 1 . conclusions and recommendations are iustified: 0] /I ChX€V 6^,6711 . J J .,. I — Progress in a majority of the school subjects ana Inlelugence . . ... •* IS slower m the upper grades. 2 — There is an unusually large and unnecessary amount of overlap- ing between grades, many 3rd and 4th grade children in a number of the subjects achieving the same scores as those in the 8th grade in these same subjects. 3 — The unusual variation in the abilities within any one grade of any school gives evidence of a lack of attention to the classifi- cation of pupils and materially increases the difficulty of class instruction and mitigates against the effectiveness of the teach- ing. 4 — In practically every subject measured, the children of Lawrence Township fall below established standards for the subjects measured and below the achievement of children of the same grades in other districts. When it is borne in mind that Law- rence Township has developed a nine grade system of schools and that the children of each grade have an advantage over children of similar grades in other school systems, this fact has additional serious significance. 5 — The measurement of intelligence shows that the children of Law- rence Township are as capable as the children in any such typical situation so that any failures in accomplishment may not be attributed to natural inability. 6 — The value of the reception grade as a means of better adjustment and more accurate classification of pupils is not justified by any of the tests given. On the other hand, it seems to represent a year largely wasted so far as additional progress through the grades is concerned. n J I — A careful detailed and scientific study should be si-CCOtntn^nuci- conducted by the supervising principal and teachers of Lawrence Township on the problem of pupil classification. Tests similar to those utilized in his study should be used for the purpose of better adjustment be- tween grades and within grades. These tests should be used Lawrence Toivnship, New Jersey . 83 to supplement the grades given as a result of the regular ex- aminations by the teachers. 2 — Semi-annual promotions should be definitely established. 3 — A number of schools and grades within schools should be com- pletely reorganized in order to eliminate the very great varia- bility within any one grade. Where necessary, grades should be divided into sections on the basis of age and ability. PART VI THE SCHOOL BUILDINGS In measuring the school plants of Lawrence Township, each building was scored on the Strayer-Engelhardt Score Card for Village and Rural School Buildings. This score card has been devised for use in the scoring of rural school buildings so that judgment may be rendered on all important items of building construction and physical requirements. Whenever, through the use of this score card, a school plant scores i,ooo points, it is considered a perfect plant. These i,ooo points have been distributed among the five main ele- ments of a school plant and each of these five elements has been as- signed a definite weighting, as follows — Site 1 60 points Building Structure 200 Service Systems 250 Classrooms 225 Special Rooms 165 It will be observed from Chart No. 16, which reproduces the Strayer-Engelhardt Score Card, that each of these items is subdi- vided so as to allow a certain weight to be attached to each of the factors that go to make up these five main divisions. In scoring the buildings, three judges scored each building. The medians of the judgments rendered were utilized in making up the final score. In this way, an erratic score on one item, by any indi- vidual, was eliminated. Table XLIV, following, gives the final scores allotted to each of the five buildings of Lawrence Township on the five main items of the score card and the principal subdivisions of each. . . It is the opinion of those who have made a careful * - study of school buildings and the standards as set ■^ forth on the Strayer-Engelhardt Score Card for Rural Buildings that when a building scores between 800 and 1,000 points, it is satisfactory and meets the educational demands made upon it. A building scoring 700 to 800 points is only fairly satisfactory and is usually lacking in many elements that are essential to accept- able administration of a modern educational program. Lawrence Township y New Jersey Chart ^o. 16 Stray er-Engelhardt Score Card For Rural School Building Score of Building 85 I 2 3 I , 3 I. Site IM 1 E. Schedule and Emergency Equipment 20 A. Location 63 1 Qock 5 I. Accesiribility 30 ' 2. Bell 5 2. Environment 35 , 3. Telephone 5 B. Drainage 1 40, 4. First Aid 5 1. Elevation 20 1 F Water Supply System 1 50 2. Nature of Soil 20 1 i 1, Drinking 20| 1 C Size. Form and Use 45 45 2. Washing 15' 1 D. Flagpole 10 10 3. Bathing 3| 200' 4. Hot and Cold .0| ! A. Placement 40 0. Toilet Systems 1 60 25 I Placement '*l 1 2. Position on Site .5 1 2 Fixtures •oj 1 90 3, Adequacy 10 I. Type 20 4 Seclu=iion, Sanitat'n and Condifi 25 2. Material 10 IV Class Rooms 225 3. Height loi 1 A. Arrangement lOi 10 4. Roof 5 B. Construcuon and Fmish 80 S. FoundatJoo 10 1 Size 20 6. WaUs >0 2 Shape IS 7. Entrantx9 10 1 3. Floors 10 8. Aesthetic BaUnee Jl 1 4. Walls 5 9 Condition 10 1 1 5 Doora i C. Internal Structure 70 """1 6. Closets y, i 1. Stairways and Corridore 25 7. Blackb-^ards and Bulletin Board; is' ' 2. Baserneot 301 8 Color Scheme 5 3. Color Scheme lo' C. lUummation 1 60 4. Attic 5 i 1 Glass Area 3j t/j H-t M P H m 1-5 >j ^ o a o ^ o ao >:] 2 P 6 Bj H H Q tj K « < H > S 1— 1 H ^ yA O CW X tn 2 O < K H a E- C < 2 1-5 o o o a n o a O < m o o < z cc 1-3 m O O w o 02 00 lo X ^. o to » M M U5 ■* TO « ro M '5 5^ CO IC t^ C) M CO t-H C O M M (N CO sq 00 ^ O O O '^ •O OO Tt< O o S e ^ t^ 00 o o c^ Tf (M O C: — fcl 05 O O 1-0 o CO CO CO C^l CO Q o o « in lo O LO O Ol lO t^ CO Tf CO c^i c^i ftl X ■* LO o o lO 'f CO 'I" M- '^ O Tf TJ< 1- O 5 s -1 o o o o ~1 s 1 o CO -ji in o O O 00 t- t^ »— I I-H O — ' 1^ c; 00 in CO M rt 05 ■* 00' r~ t^ CO • '3 ■a 3 CS O o c; u o o "= -w a .5 -^ 3 tH C <« ^2 * IS Lawrence Township, New Jersey 87 A building scoring between 500 and 600 may, by extensive alter- ations and repairs be raised to a fairly satisfactory standard of ade- quacy. A community would be justified in thus increasing the effi- ciency of a building falling within this group. When a building scores less than 500 points, the community should look forward immediately towards providing a better and more adequate educational plant. It is hardly probable that the amount of money required to bring this type of building up to a point of adequacy would be a justifiable expenditure for the com- munity. In Chart No. 17 are shown graphically the scores allotted to the Lawrence Township buildings. All of the buildings scored less than 500 points, with Slackwood falling within the 450 to 500 point group. Slackwood's score falls lower than 500 because of the in- adequacy of the old part of the building. If the new part were scored alone, it would score considerably above 500 points. When one con- Chart ISo. 17. 1000 468 385 350 328 327 Per- Slack- Eld- Rose- Law- Clarks- fect wood ridge dale rence- ville ville Total Scores Allotted the Five Buildings of La-wrence Township on the Strayer-Engelhardt Score Card for Rural School Buildings. 88 Survey of Public School System siders that these scores consolidate the judgment of three judges concerning the adequacy of the school buildings, it is clear that the citizens of Lawrence Township should take action to develop more adequately its physical plant. Since the three largest school build- ings are also overcrowded, the opportune moment has come for the consideration of a school building development which will satisfy the needs of the community ten and fifteen years from now as far as such needs may at present be anticipated. Unfortunately, in the planning of the Eldridge Park and Law- renceville schools, no thought was given to the need for future ex- tensions of the buildings to provide for increases in enrolment. There is little possibility of extending these plants today at a reasonable cost and in such a way as to develop a school plant which will be satisfac- tory ten years from today. It has been pointed out that Lawrence Township is a growing community and will continue to grow. It is possible at this time to anticipate with considerable degree of cer- tainty the school building needs of Lawrence Township over the next decade or more. The Board of Education w^ill be accepting its re- sponsibility when it plans the expenditure of any money entrusted to it for school building purposes with this extended program in mind. The present undesirable location of the school building sites of El- dridge Park and Lawrenceville, the impossibility of making additions without excessive cost, the primitive nature of certain service pro- visions, the inadequacy of the natural lighting and the almost com- plete lack of fire protection, indicate that the future was not taken sufficiently into consideration when the present buildings were planned. ,, , , r, •,]• As both the Eldridge Park and Lawrenceville School nuilain? 1,1, • r ■ , 1 • 1 1 , • _,. schools develop mto fairly good-sized schools, it will be found necessary to have larger play areas than are at present available. It will be exceedingly unwise to con- centrate a large group of children at either one of these schools and fail to provide a play area of at least 200 square feet per pupil. With the present enrolment, the playground areas are 136 square feet per pupil for the Eldridge Park School and 76 square feet for the Law- renceville school. Any addition to the buildings on the present sites would reduce these playgrounds to a very undesirable point. Lawrence Township, New Jersey 89 TABLE XLV Playground — Pupil Enrolment Basis (Enrolment Figures, January 1922) Showing Area in Square Feet of Open Space and Playground and Area in Square Feet Per Pupil Enrolment of Open Space and Playground and Amount of Playground Equipment Lawrence Township Area in sq.ft. Jan- per pupil Area in Square Feet of uary enrolled Play- School 1922 ground Pupils Equip- Total Build- Optn Play- En- Of Of ment Site ings Space grounds rolled Open Space Play- ground Slackwood 58,500 6,164 52,336 42,900 317 165 135 None Eldridge Park 33,350 3,540 29,810 25,000 183 162 136 None 3 pieces Lawrenceville 36,100 1,980 34,120 *13,500 179 191 76 appa- ratus Clarksville 13,500 720 12,780 6,000 19 673 317 None Rosedale 16,800 720 16,080 14,000 24 670 583 1 slide „ ..,. The outstanding faults in the building structures are the t^ combustible nature of the buildings, the lack of adequate exits in case of fire in the Eldridge Park building, the poor planning of classrooms, corridors and stairways, failure to isolate the heating plant from the rest of the building by fireproof partitions, the lack of special rooms for the purpose of promoting the special activity program of the school, the inadequate natural lighting and the faulty shape of classrooms which are planned on a wrong axis, the primitive toilet provisions and the lack of adequate artificial lighting. In any new construction, the Board of Education should require close adherence to the most acceptable standards of school building construction. It is sincerely hoped that no efi^ort will be made to build additions to the present school structures and to dupli- cate the construction faults which-are ro outstanding in the present buildings. *Not including space across road. 90 Survey of Public School System Decoration and Cleaning Too little attention has been directed to the decora- tion of classrooms and corridors in the school build- ings. The majority of school rooms are uninviting and indicate the failure to develop the proper surroundings for the child during his learning period. Particularly objectionable is the decoration in the old section of the Slackwood School. The class- rooms, corridors and stairways of the three larger school buildings in Lawrence Township are in such condition as to indicate that a very inadequate program of cleaning had been developed. It is surprising to find that so little care had been paid to good school-housekeeping. The two one-room schools stood out in direct contrast to the three larger schools in this respect. The program for janitorial service in the last three schools left much to be desired. The buildings and grounds may fail in many respects in meeting modern standards, but the school buildings can at least be clean at all times and fit for occu- pancy by children. In even a four- room school, it seems most un- Care of the desirable to permit janitors to leave the building Heating Plant when fires are on and when school is in session. This is the more undesirable in Lawrence Town- ship because of the non-fireproof nature of the school buildings. Ap- parently the practice of leaving the building has been followed by the janitors. The breakdown in the heating plant of the Eldridge Park School, necessitating the closing of school for a period of time and the purchase of new heating equipment, without doubt resulted from this practice. There is no evidence that the responsibility for directing the janitors has been assumed by the proper officer. Apparently, janitors are allowed to follow their own desires in the care of their schools, and are not required to pursue a program which best meets the local school requirements. ^, , In manv respects, the classrooms of the new Slack- Liassrooms and , ' ,. . . . . i • , r. ■ wood addition are quite satisfactory and m sharp contrast to the classrooms of the other schools. In all new construction, it will be desirable to light the classrooms from one side only instead of from two sides as has been done in the El- dridge Park and Lawrenceville schools and to adhere to the other standards of size, shape, heights of blackboards, classroom decora- Lawrence Toivnship, New Jersey 91 tion, artificial lighting, cloakroom provisions and the like which are to be found in the Strayer-Engelhardt Bulletin for Rural Schools.* The utilization of the playroom provided in the Slackwood School for the purpose of storing material used in the summer time for other community purposes is an indication that the proper use is not being made of the school plant and that apparently the school program is not directed to a point where a playroom can fill any defi- nite need. The special room provisions in the Lawrence Township schools are exceedingly meagre. In this respect, Lawrence Township compares most unfavorably with other progressive communities in New Jersey. In relieving the present crowded conditions, the Board of Edu- cation should give careful consideration, in the development of any new plant, to the inclusion of a community room, library facilities, auditorium, indoor play facilities, domestic arts and manual arts quarters, and should also make provision for an agricultural or gen- eral science laboratory. The School Building Program The children attending the Lawrence Township schools are dis- tributed among the grades, according to reports of the teachers, as shown in Table XLVI. TABLE XLVI Distribution op Children by Grades and Schools Lawrence Township January 1922 Grades Recep- Schools tion I II III IV V VI VII VIII Total Slackwood 34 29 29 22 45 44 37 46 24 310 Eldridge Park 42 32 25 10 31 29 14 183 Lawrenceville 13 17 26 15 22 26 24 18 18 179 Rosedale 4 4 7 7 2 24 Clarksville 5 5 2 7 19 Total 94 82 89 56 lOS 106 77 64 43 715** *Published by Bureau of Publications, Teachers College, Columl)ia University, New York City. **Withdrawals excluded. 92 Survey of Public School System The pupils who are being transported to Slackwood are distrib- uted among the grades as follows: — Reception 7 First Grade 7 Second " 7 Third " 4 Fourth " II Fifth " 14 Sixth " 13 Seventh " '. . . 8 Eighth " 7 Total 78 If these children were not to be transported to Slackwood, the Slackwood enrolment would be approximately 230. This enrolment could be adequately cared for in the eight rooms of the Slackwood School, together with the normal increase for another year. The number of children who now live in what Number of Children in rn^ight be called the Clarksville and Bakers the Clarksville and Basin sections is approximately 97. These Bakers Basin Sections children are distributed by grades as fol- lows : — Reception 12 First Grade 7 Second " 12 Third " 6 Fourth " 18 Fifth " 14 Sixth " 13 Seventh " 8 Eighth " 7 Total 97 T,j „ .,,. The Board of Education has already recognized the i\ ezv jjuildinzs . . . . need for planning new buildings. An architect has been engaged and plans for a new building have already been out- lined. These plans indicate that the Board of Education has considered the need for providing a modern school plant. Lawrence Township, New Jersey 93 In planning new construction, it is wise to give first attention to the districts north of Slackwood. A new building must also take into consideration the needs of the 7th, 8th and 9th grade children with the idea of beginning the development of a junior high school. Ti^ , r r • If one were to take the 6th, 7th and 8th grade r\ Wtflb£T 01 I UfllOT . ^ I c TT- 1 c^ 1 7 y-.i ■, 1 children of the lanuarv IQ22 enrolment, one High bchooL Lhttdren, , , , ' . , , o 7 would secure the approximate number 01 September ig22 1 u u 1 j r • 1 , children who should be cared for m the 7th, 8th and 9th grades in September 1922. These 6th, 7th and 8th grade children are distributed on Map No. 3 according to their approximate residences. Of these children, 77 will be in the 6th grade, 64 in the 7th grade and 42 in the 8th grade, if they are promoted and continue in school. These children are distributed among the school dis- tricts, as follows: — ■ Slackwood District (South of Shabakunk Creek) 47 Lawrenceville District 48 Eldridge Park " 54 Clarksville & Bakers Basin 29 Rosedale 5 Total (including the Slackwood Section) 183 Total (eliminating Slackwood Section) 136 This number would make a good beginning for a junior high school. With the idea of getting a school centrally located for the township. It Is recommended that the first junior high school be de- veloped in connection with the Lawrenceville district. r 7 D ]■ f ^^ present, 30 pupils of the 7th and 8th grade, who P (^, J J live In the Eldridge Park district, are attending tjie Slackwood School. These children are Included in the junior high school summary above. This would provide further relief for Slackwood and easily make possible accommodations in Slackwood for an increase In the Slackwood School population for a period of two, three or more years. r> J \T n jj- If a new building were planned at Lawrence- rroposed New Building ... , r ,1 , ^ J .„ ville, to take care oi all the present Law- at Lawrenceville ... . ,, t-tj -j t^ 1 renceviUe enrolment, all hldndge Park en- rolment of grades 5 to 9 for the year 1921, all Rosedale enrolment and all Clarksville and Bakers Basin enrolment, together with the esti- 94 Survey of Public School System ,n 6*h 11h ar-d fith Gradrs Ja"^o • 6th G>-ads 77 + 1th Crade e* O 8f^ G'ade 4i. Mai' No. 3. Lawrence Township , New Jersey 95 mated increase in enrolment for another year, the total number for whom accommodation would be needed in the new Lawrenceville building would be 430. Such a comprehensive plan of consolidation is, however, not advisable at the present time. The consolidation will depend upon the ability of the community to further develop its building program within a short period of time. The building suggested for Lawrenceville should be located on a ten acre site at a point where the building will be easily accessible. The building and site should be so developed as to become a matter TABLE XLVII Children to be Expected at Lawrenceville if Plant is Located There Schools R* 1 2 3 A 5 6 7 8 TotaU Lawrenceville Eldridge Park Rosedale Clarksville and Bakers Basin 13 12 16 4 7 28 5 12 13 6 6 22 31 18 26 24 7 14 24 16 2 13 18 22 8 18 8 7 178 101 24 97 Totals 25 27 45 25 71 71 55 48 33 400 Estimated Increase for 1922 30 Total 430 of local pride and satisfaction and an evidence of community interest in education. A site immediately to the south of Lawrenceville cen- ter should be selected, but care should be taken not to go so far south as to encroach upon the program outlined below for the Eldridge Park School. As pointed out above, provision for approxi- mately 75 children should be made by Sep- tember 1922 for those attending grades I to 6. In the very near future, it will be desirable to plan the beginning of a school building in the vicinity of Bakers Basin. If this building were to be begun immediately, provision should be made for three teachers in three rooms. This building, as well as the building suggested for the Lawrenceville section, should be so planned School Provisions in the Clarksville and Bakers Basin Section *R stands for reception grade. 96 Svrvey of Public School System as to make a maximum of addition possible. The elimination of these children from the projected Lawrenceville School, and also the retention of the Rosedale School on its present site for a period of time would leave for the Lawrenceville School a total of approximately 330 children for whom provision must be made. r,. , „ , On the basis of present enrolment and a btze of Proposed . i- 1 • t -h -. -11 n ■!]■ complete consolidation at Lawrenceville as LazvrenceviiLe nuiLaing . , . r,-. , , Arr-t/TT . •. projected in iable ALVli, the proposed Lawrenceville plant would require sixteen rooms. This would per- mit of growth over a three or four year period before additions became necessary. It would also provide relief for any overcrowding in the Eldridge Park School during this period. This provision, as out- lined above, will leave 109 children of the present enrolment at El- dridge Park. This present enrolment, together with the expected increase of approximately 25 pupils, could be housed in the Eldridge Park School for at least a year. Under the second plan proposed for the Lawrenceville section, with the pupils of Clarksville, Bakers Basin and Rosedale eliminated, the enrolment which will be left will require twelve classrooms. These twelve classrooms will suffice for a period of three or four years and may be utilized in this period to offset any overcrowding occurring in the Eldridge Park School. „, r-7 7 • 7 As has been pointed out, the Eldridge Park School I he LLdridge , ... . , ... ... „ 7 o 7 7 cannot be economically retained as a basis lor addi- Fark School . _,, , , .,. , t-i 1 • 1 -r. 1 1 1 1 tions. Ihe portable utilized at Eldridge Park should be discarded at the earliest possible moment. Within a short period, it will become necessary to begin a new school building in this section of the township. A large site of six to ten acres should be procured for this purpose and a modern building planned which will provide for the needs of children of the kindergarten and first six grades. It is most desirable that a kindergarten be added in this section. In fact, the reception grade in all the three large districts should be dis- placed by a kindergarten. Ultimately, this new Eldridge Park School may become a sixteen to twenty room elementary school, with the Lawrenceville School always providing the arrangements for chil- dren of the 7th, 8th and 9th Grades of this section. PART VII SCHOOL COSTS In Table XLVIII arcgiven the amounts expended by the Law- rence Township Board of Education for all educational purposes for the years 1913 to 1921. The current expenditures in this table are distributed on the basis of administration, instructional costs, operation of plant, maintenance of plant, auxiliary agencies and cer- tain items involving transportation. The grand total of all current expenses has increased from $15,696., in 191 3- 1914 to $5 1,198., in 1920- 1921, or 226%. During the same period, the average daily attend- ance has grown from 351 to 592, not including high school pupils, or 69%. The largest increase has been in instructional costs which have changed from $9,925., to $32,146., or a total increase of $22,221. The increase in instructional costs over this period of years is nearly half of the present grand total for current expenses. Another large increase is in tuition fees paid other districts. For the one year, 1919-1920, these tuition fees increased approximately 140%, again, no doubt, largely due to the fact that they involved in such a large degree in- creases in teachers' salaries elsewhere. Chart No. 18 shows the relationship between increases in costs and increases in pupil population and the teaching staff. In Table XLIX, these costs are distributed on the basis of the number of children in average daily attendance over the six major items of expenditure. In Table XLIX, the tuition fees and cost of transportation for all high school and elementary pupils attending schools In other districts are not Included. Table XLIX should be read In conjunction with Table L. In the latter table, the items of Table XLIX are given In terms of the percentage which each of the six major functions of accounting bears to the total expenditure.. The increase in administration, the fluctuation In instructional costs, the drop In cost of operation and maintenance are the outstanding elements in this table. „ . For purposes of comparison with other communities Comparative , • , , ■ -, , , , , , . t „ which have similar school problems to those of Law- rence Township, Table LI has been prepared. The positions of the districts on this table have been determined on the basis of the expenditures for the school year 1920-1921. Lawrence 98 Survey of Public School System a m a a H E-i Z P o O K H U 1— 1 K H- 1 rn > z (-1 ^ M O w h:) « ^ -r '-i'-i--iC^(M(>jfOkO CO --H GO (M 1— I rH O O) (M CO (M lO O 00 rH 05 lO 00 ■* CO O' OJ O GO <— l"*l-+IQOt--rHt^CC '^^ c-i^ 05_ ■*_ t^ CO 1— I 00 Co" rjT irf QO" go" lO of of i-Mt-Hi— Ir-Hi— iC^CO-^ OOOOCOiOO GO O CO CO i-O »0 CD C^l GO CO "M lO (M ^ lO -^ CO_ O^ 0_ CO_ i-H_ iM_^ CO CO r-T of c^r <>r of of of cd'^ lOooicoiiociTtico C01005COOOO»00 coior-iooscocot^ OS O Ol iCi Ol ' iC 'f GO »-0 OS 05 GO t-- OS 1— I 05 .2 ^ t^OscOcO-^OCOiO GOi-Hcococo-^cooi O 1-H oi lO h-^ 7—i GO Ol ^ CO lO lO CO o Ol CO 1— t 1-H 1— ( rt* "* o CD CO CO o o 05 CO lO t^ CO Ol o lO OS 00 1—1 00 .— 1 lO CO CO o r- CO Ol OS 00 t^ lO c co lo OS o ■* ■* CD oa -^ of co" co" OOt^t^COGOCOOlO COO'O'-OCOOSCO-Ti 00'— iCDGOOSt^OOJ OlOOCOiOt^OSGOOl 00 05 05 1-*^ OJ_ o^ t^ o^ I— I 1— I r-T of i-HiOiOCOCOCOOOS Tt<^CO00CO-*;DCD C5 Ol ^ >-0 Ol GO lO t^ Ttit^r^TfHoooi'rt'-* OO^CD^CO^-^OS^O CO OS r-T T-T i-T of of co" co~ co" 00 ■^ -^ e «s t^t^O'^OSCOOCD Ol CO ^ 00 GO LO ■* Tt< UOt-Ht-hiOCOOSCOCD Ol^COiOOOOi— !•* OSCOCOOSOliOiOi-' 05 O Ol CO CO t^ CO Ol ^H T— I 1— I 1— ( T— I Ol CO Ot^-^iOiOOOcO COOlGOcDOOO-^Oa 00 Ol t- CO 00 Ol CO O GO O Ol t^ <0 OS iC o 1— ICOCOCOCOGO00O5 TJH lO CO l^ OC C^ O rt -r 7 7 -r 1 1 '^" 7 coTfiiocor^oooio ■— I"— I"— ii— ii— (i— (1— lOl 0505O30S0SO5OS05 a ; o -*j 3 H m CD fl -tj a a 3 ,a -)-:> u CJ is 3 a « T! Ol a Tl OJ S a; •n t— * o £3 H 0) ;;; T3 C , 03 a ^ a m 3 0) o o a 0) tu ^ -(-> 2 b C3 . a (1) -^ c3 8 3 m >«-• c! O ^ o a r^ ■1 -M irf »* o ,>H a H 0^ o ^ ■a Lawrence Township, New Jersey 99 Chart No. 18 Showing the Comparison in LawTence Tow-nship From 1913-1921 Between Expenditm-es within the District Total, Current Expenditures, Average Daily Attendance^within the District and Total Average Daily Attendance. 7 6 5 Total A.D.A. * A.D.A. vrithin the District 3 Z Total Current ExFeni}lti;res Expenditures Within the District ^^ .-' y .-- -'-' ^^-^^ ,_ — — ^^-''' ^ • 1 y ^^^ 1 1 x^ . 1 /■ ' / I / 1 , / / "^ — ^ / 1 / ' / 1 / / 1 / / / / / / // / / / / / / / / / / / ' / / / / / / ,^' y y ^ y ^ / ^ 1913-14 14-15 15-16 16-17 17-18 18-19 19-20 20-21 100 Survey of Public School System Township holds eighth place in this group, with an expenditure of ^76.19 per pupil in average daily attendance. Morris Township expends ^135. per pupil, while Clementon Township spends $14. less than Lawrence Township. The rank which Lawrence Township has held in this group over a period of the last six years is clearly shown in Chart No. 19. Lawrence Township has dropped from rank six to rank eight over this period. TABLE XLIX Cost of Elementary Education Per Pupil in Lawrence Township Based ON Average Daily Attendance Average A uxili- Year Daily Admin- Instruc- Opera- Main- ary Miscel- Total Attend- istra- tion tion of tenance Agenc- laneous Expend- ance tion Plant of Plant ies itures 1913-14 351 .54 28.27 5.27 2.36 1.60 .18 38.22 1914-15 421 .72 24.50 3.97 2.33 2.21 .12 33.84 1915-16 401 . .82 30.84 4.7 2.34 1.48 .14 39.77 1916-17 468 .80 29.81 5.23 2.48 1.04 .14 39.50 1917-18 481 1.37 27.62 6.20 2.66 .98 .21 39.04 1918-19 513 1.74 34.13 5.90 2.14 5.18 . .25 49.34 1919-20 554 1.54 42.44 6.04 1.41 5.78 .87 58.08 1920-21 592 1.52 54.30 6.67 3.42 5.80 .70 72.41 Tuiton fees and cost of transportation for all elementary and high school pupils attending school in other districts are not included in this table. TABLE L Percentage of Current Expenditures for the Various Distributions of Cost in L.\avrence Township for Eight Years Mainte- Year Adminis- Instruction Operation nance of Auxiliary Miscel- tration of Plant Plant Agencies laneous 1913-14 1.4 73.9 13.8 6.1 4.2 .6 1914-15 2.1 72.4 11.7 6.9 6.5 .4 1915-16 2.0 77.5 10.5 5.9 3.7 .4 1916-17 2.0 75.5 13.2 6.3 2.6 .4 1917-18 3.5 70.8 15.9 6.8 2.5 .5 1918-19 3.5 09.3 12.0 4.3 10.4 .5 1919-20 2.6 73.1 10.4 2.4 10.0 1.5 1920-21 2.1 75.0 9.3 4.7 8.0 1.0 Lawrence Township, Neiv Jersey 101 In Table LI and Chart No. 19, the tuition fees and cost for trans- portation for pupils attending schools in other districts have been included. TABLE LI Cost of Education Current Expenditures Per Pupil in Average Daily Attendance in Lawrence and Ten Other Townships in New Jersey Plus the Cost of Those Living in the District but Attending School in Other Districts Toumships 1915-16 1916-17 1917-18 1918-19 1919-20 1930-21 Morris .$94.13 $93.60 $103.32 $108.45 $128.79 $135.33 Teaneck 47.88 57.58 64.. 52 61.05 92.33 103.00 Ewing 52.40 53.60 52.72 61.25 70.44 95.62 Passaic 58.52 58.53 64.81 64.12 73.32 95.15 Princeton 38.48 36.44 59.44 58.97 80.74 94.16 Hohokus 49.57 .52.28 48.85 64.84 73.95 82.48 Beverly 39.47 38.09 40.43 49.18 61.41 77.65 LAWRENCE 41.26 42.05 40.51 51.60 59.07 76.19 Gloucester .35.. 58 43.73 45.91 51.49 59.18 64.25 Buena Vista 41.04 .38.83 44.30 45.70 52.42 63.37 Clementon 33.49 39.33 37.28 .59.04 52.60 62.25 This table includes expenditures for transportation and tuition for all elemen- tary and high school pupils attending school in other districts. In Table LII, the cost of elementary schools is given on a unit basis. Here are recorded the total current expenditures per pupil for eight years in Lawrence and ten other townships, with the cost based on average daily attendance. In this case, tuition fees and cost of transportation for all elementary and high school pupils attending school in other districts are not included. When these costs for ele- mentary schools only are taken into consideration, Lawrence Town- ship holds a position which has varied from eighth place to seventh place over the period 1913-1921, having dropped to ninth place in 1917-1918, as shown in Chart No. 20. 102 Survey of Public School System Chart No. 19 Chart Showing the Rankings for Six Years of Lawrence and Ten other New- Jersey Townships on the Basis of Current Expenditures for All School Purposes Per Pupil in Average Daily Attendance. Rank in 1915- 1916- 1917- 1918- 1919- 1920 Group 1916 1917 1918 1919 1929 1921 ® ® ® ® ® ® 4 6 6 T e 9 10 B — Beverly G — Gloucester BY— Buena Vista H — Hohokus C — Clementon L — Lawrence E — Ewing M — Morris PA — Passaic PR — Princeton T — Teaneck TABLE LII Cost of Elementary Schools Total Current Expenditures Per Pupil for Eight Years in LawTence and^Ten Other ToAvnships in New Jersey Based on Average Daily Attendance 1913- 1914- 1915- 1916- 1917- 1918- 1919- 1920- ^ Townships 1914 1915 1916 1917 1918 1919 1920 1921 ]\1 orris $92.33 $88.68 $103.74 $101 . 14 $114.88 .$115.89 .$140.13 $146.46 Princeton 54.88 39.76 58.49 50.35 72.18 71.72 99.18 113.11 Teaneck 48.55 47.22 52.89 55.37 63.77 58.82 93.18 101.99 Passaic 59.32 55.10 56.07 57.85 64.34 65.50 77.45 92.42 Ewing 40.70 44.18 53.57 50.65 51.15 57.05 67.90 89.87 Hohokus 48.49 44.88 46.68 49.79 45.78 61.96 72.21 80.88 LAWRENCE 38.23 33.84 39.76 39.51 39.04 49.34 58.08 72.41 Beverly 36.46 33.58 36.23 34.72 36.77 44.93 56.29 70.16 Clementon 29.64 27.90 32.21 38.49 37.44 60.70 53.91 63.05 Buena Vista 33.33. 32.42 39.75 37.22 44.30 44.82 51.55 60.58 Gloucester 39.99 37.39 31.22 43.62 42.74 48.40 54.59 60.28 Median Township 40.70 39.76 46.68 49.79 45.78 *58.82 67.90 80.88 Tuition fees and cost of transportation for all elementary and high school pupils attending school in other districts are not included in thLs table. Lawrence Township, New Jersey Chart No. 20. 103 Chart showing the Rankings for Eight Years of LaAATence and Ten'Other Townships in New Jersey on the Basis of Expenditures in the Elementary Schools Per Pupil in Average Daily Attendance. Rant in 1913- 1914- 1915- 1916- 1917- 191S- 1919- 1920- Group 1914 191.5 1916 1917 1918 1919 1920 1921 ® ® © ® ® ® ® © u B — Beverly G — Gloucester BV— Buena Vista H — Hohokus C — Clementon L — LawTence E — Ewing M — Morris PA — Passaic PR — Princeton T — Teaneck 104 Survey of Public School Syste7n In Table LIII are given the costs for elementary schools for Law- rence and ten other townships, based on average daily attendance, with the cost divided among the various functions of accounting. Lawrence Township ranks sixth among the group in costs for admin- istration, fifth in instructional costs, tenth in operating costs, ninth in costs of maintenance of plant and fifth in costs for auxiliary agen- cies. TABLE LIII Cost of Elementary Schools for 1920-1921 Current Expenditures Per Pupil of LawTence and Ten Other Townships in New- Jersey Based on Average Daily Attendance Opera- Mainte- Auxili- Miscel- Total Townships Admin- istration Instruc- tion tion of Plant nance of Plant ary Agen- cies laneous Expendi- tures Morris Morri-i Co. Princeton $2.02 .$98.27 .$21.17 ,$7.59 $16.17 $1.24 $146.46 Mercer Co. 3.19 53.46 12.59 6.06 37.40 .41 113.11 Teaneck Bergen Co. 1.30 80.07 14.66 4.01 1.48 .47 101.99 Passaic Morris Co. 2.82 58.39 10.28 10.95 8.81 1.17 92.42 Ewing Mercer Co. 2.24 51.76 17.21 7.70 10.96 .00 89.87 Hohokus Bergen Co. 1.53 61.28 11.31 4.30 1.57 .09 80.88 LAWRENCE Mercer Co. 1.52 54.30 6.67 3.42 5.80 .70 72.41 Beverly Burlington Co. Clementon .99 52.66 8.69 1.05 2.51 4.66 70.16 Camden Co. 1.10 43.40 9.62 4.41 3.25 1.28 63.05 Buena Vista Atlantic Co. Gloucester 1.45 43.91 5.61 4.68 4.61 .32 60.58 Camden Co. 1.70 47.28 8.74 1 . 67 .89 .00 eo.28 Tuition fees and cost of transportation for all elerrentary and high school pupils attending schools in other districts are not included in this table. Lawrence Township, New Jersey 105 Table LIV and Chart No. 21 show the variations in costs for in- struction only for each of these townships lor the period 1913-1921. The figures and ranks in this table and chart are based upon cost per pupil in average daily attendance. Percentages of increase over the year 1913-1914 are as follows: — Morris Township 92% Teaneck " 146% Hohokus " 79-5% Passaic " 34-9% Lawrence " 92 . 1% Princeton " 42.8% Beverly " 104.4% Ewing " 86.2% Gloucester " 64. 1% Buena Vista " 67.8% Clementon " 99-6% Lawrence Township has been at the median point in this distri- bution for one year, namely 1919-1920, but is below the median in each other year. Lawrence Township's percentage of increase is 92.1%. TABLE LIV Cost of Instruction Expenditures for Instruction Per Pupil in Lawrence and Ten Other Townships in New Jersey for Eight Years Based on Average Daily Attendance Townships 1913-U 1914-15 1915-16 1916-17 1917-18 1918-19 1919-20 1920-21 Morris $51.25 $34.74 $66.14 $63.87 $72.04 $77.30 $92.05 .$98.27 Teaneck 32.51 29.45 35.56 39.21 41.85 45.58 61.85 80.07 Hohokus 34.15 31.15 32.06 32.29 32.23 37.62 44.29 61.28 Passaic 43.30 36.64 38.22 38.13 38.42 40.65 50.31 58.39 Lawrence 28.28 24.50 30.85 29.82 27.62 34.13 42.44 54.30 Princeton 37.43 27.63 40.25 37.79 .34.86 30.64 42.37 53.46 Beverly 25.56 28.57 27.94 28.24 28.63 34.42 43.62 52.26 Ewing 27.83 27.41 32.65 28.85 29. 80 30.89 39.17 51.76 Gloucester 29.40 25.90 24.70 29.43 33.69 37.01 41.65 47.28 Buena Vista 26.17 26.20 30.95 30.66 33.71 35.64 38.84 43.91 Clementon 21.75 20.87 22.92 28.13 26.51 42.. 52 34.45 43.40 Median Township 29.40 27.63 32.06 30.66 33.69 37.01 42.44 53.46 106 Survey of Public School System Ch.\rt No. 21 Chart Showing the Ranking for Eight Years of La^\Tence and Ten Other To\\-nships i n Xew Jersey on the Basis of Expenditures For Instruction Per Pupil in Average Daily Attendance. Rank in 1913- 1914- 1915- 1916- 1917- 1918- 1919- 1920 Group 1914 1915 1916 1917 1918 1919 1920 1921 J ® © ® ® ® ® ® © B — Beverly G — Gloucester PA — Passaic BV — Buena Vista H — Hohokus PR — Princeton C — Clementon L — Lawrence T — Teaneck E — Ewing M — Morris In Tables LV and LVI will be found the per pupil expenditure for administration and for operation and maintenance of plant for each of the eleven townships over the period 1913-1921. In the cost of administration, Lawrence Township holds a posi- tion which is low. This is desirable, providing the problems of ad- ministration are being carefully and thoroughly handled. In costs of operation and maintenance, Lawrence Township also holds a position which is low. If Lawrence Township maintained and operated their school buildings on an efficient basis, these low costs would be satisfying. It has, however, been pointed out that the standards of operation and maintenance for Lawrence Township have been exceedingly low. It is gratifying to discover that costs have been no higher with the standards that have been maintained. Lawrence Township, New Jersey 107 TABLE LV Cost of Administration Expenditures Per Pupil for Administration in Lawrence and Ten Other Townships in New Jersey for Eight Years Based on Average Daily Attendance Townships 1913-14 1914-15 1915-16 1916-17 1917-18 1918-19 1919-20 1920-21 Princeton $ .95 $1.42 SI. 39 $2.21 $1.47 $4.38 $3.63 $3.19 Passaic 1.97 2.16 1.42 2.21 1.98 2.46 2.30 2.82 Ewing .91 .87 1.03 1.33 1.12 1.70 2.04 2.24 Morris 2.28 2.65 2.42 4.23 3.10 2.06 2.14 2.02 Gloucester 1.93 2.61 1.53 .43 1.65 1.53 1.61 1.70 Hohokus 1.13 1.46 1.55 1.69 1.74 2.39 2.29 1.53 Lawrence .72 .54 .82 .80 1.37 1.74 1.54 1.52 Buena Vista .93 .78 .85 1.10 1.20 1.23 1.06 1.45 Teaneck 1.75 1.70 1.73 1.55 1.65 1.57 1.65 1.30 Clementon .65 .79 1.05 1.32 1.46 2.09 1.67 1.10 Beverly .74 .48 .67 .49 .67 1.26 .95 .99 TABLE LVI Cost of Operation and Maintenance of Pl.\nt Expenditures Per Pupil for Operation and Maintenance of Plant in LawTence and Ten Other Townships in Xew Jersey for Eight Years Based on Average Daily Attendance Townships 1913-14 1914-15 1915-16 1916-17 1917-18 1918-19 1919-20 1920-21 Morris $17.21 $14.24 $17.50 $17.54 $23.53 .$20.24 $27.72 .$28.76 Ewing 6.42 6.93 8.66 10.51 9.35 14.39 14.86 24.91 Passaic 5.90 7.62 7.86 8.96 9.96 10.13 12.12 21.23 Teaneck 11.26 11.09 11.02 11.48 10.98 9.98 15.38 18.67 Princeton 12.52 8.85 13.34 6.39 5.50 7.60 18.86 18.65 Hohokus 11.89 10.61 10.29 13.00 8.92 16.72 17.14 15.61 Clementon 4.75 4.84 5.22 7.23 7.81 11.88 14.45 14.03 Gloucester 6.63 6.28 3.29 12.29 6.58 9.08 10.04 10.41 Buena Vista 2.75 2.69 4.67 2.63 5.57 4.00 6.33 10.29 Lawrence 7.63 6.29 6.51 7.71 8.88 8.04 7.45 10.09 Beverly 9.97 4.33 7.34 5.90 6.02 9.07 10.18 9.74 In Table LVH are shown the variations in costs for tuition only in the present schools of Lawrence Township. Based on average daily attendance, the Clarksville cost per pupil is $30. more than the 108 Survey of Public School System Slackwood cost, or about 70% more than the Slackwood cost. The Rosedale cost is only $j.oo less than the Clarksville. The costs in Lawrenceville, Eldridge Park and Slackwood are about the same. TABLE LVII Cost for Salaries of Teachers Expenditures Per Pupil for Teachers Salaries in the Schools of Lawrence Township for the Year 1920-1921 Based on Average Daily Attendance Number of A verage Cost Based Schools Rooms in Daily Actual on Average School A ttendance Cost Salaries Clarksville • 1 19 $73.68 $70.04 Rosedale 1 21 66.67 64.04 Lawrenceville 5 148 44.94 45.43 Eldridge Park 5 156 41.54 43.10 Slackwood 8 222 43.24 42.40 Lawrence Township 20 566 45.01 45.01 The Children's Home School is not included in this table. The cost figures in the first column are obtained from the actual salaries paid. The figures in the second column are obtained from the average salary paid in the district. Other Individual School Costs The system of accounting in Lawrence Township does not permit of detailed costs by individual schools on other items of expenditure. Wherever such costs have been secured for large numbers of schools, it has be- come clear that costs of operation, maintenance and administration are lower on a per pupil unit basis for the large school plant than they are for a series of small school plants which have equal problems. A higher standard of maintenance and operation, as well as lor admin- istration, will raise costs in the new buildings proposed. The educa- tional and social results secured will, however, be so much greater than what are now being secured that the increased cost will bring adequate returns. PART VIII ADMINISTRATION AND ORGANIZATION The schools of Lawrence Township are administered by a board of nine workers, three of whom are chosen at each annual school meet- ing. Each member holds office for a term of three years. The cleri- cal duties of the board are performed by a paid district clerk. The board has three standing committees which are appointed annually by the board. These committees are — The Teachers: Buildings and Grounds: and Finance. The number of times that matters have been referred to and reported from these standing committees during the years 1920-1921 is as follows: — Committee Referred Reported Buildings and Grounds 11 12 Teachers 4 16 Finance 26 Total 15 54 The reports from the committee on "Finance" are approximately 50% of the total number of reports made during this period. The members of the Board of Education have been very faithful in their attendance at board meetings, the average attendance for a ten year period being 6.9 members, as shown in Table LVIII. The size of the board is too large, considering the number of peo- ple in the township and the size of the school problem. A board of , five members, serving overlapping periods for five years, would suffice for the township. It is even conceivable that a board of three mem- bers would be satisfactory, especially so if the actual administrative problems are handled by the supervising principal. „ /• r> • In Table LIX will be found a summarv of the I ypes of Jjusiness . ' ' , work of the board during the last fourteen meet- I ransacted . ^. ^ . . 111 , , ri 7 ings. i he types of busmess transacted have been by the Board ...... . . , . , . divided into routine matters and those involving discussion of the formation or adoption of a school policy. Ninety- three per cent of the business transacted has been of a routine nature, apparently, in most cases, of the kind which should be left in the hands 110 Survey of Public School System TABLE LVIII Number of Meetings and Attendance of the Members of the Board of Education from 1912 to 1921 Inclusive Year Number of Total Average Meetings Attendance Attendance 1912 13 94 7.2 1913 12 82 6.8 1914 9 61 6.7 1915 13 88 6.7 1916 11 67 6.1 1917 11 68 6.1 1918 9 57 6.3 1919 12 83 6.9 1920 12 98 8.1 1921 14 107 7.6 Total 116 SOo 6.9 of a chief administrative officer. Of the fourteen items involving educational policy, ten were proposed on the initiative of the board, one on the initiative of the supervising principal, two on the initiative of the county superintendent, and one on the initiative of the tax payer. When a board of nine members endeavors to assume respon- sibility for routine matters, it is questionable whether a program of education can be satisfactorily advanced. ^ .J The average number of votes cast for the ten- Lommuntty Interest . . , , . r i 1 1 , • D J ri .• year period at the election of school board mem- in Board LLections , _,, , bers was 37. Ihe average number cast at meetings where an annual budget was proposed was 38 The average number of votes cast when resolutions involving building projects were presented to the people for consideration was 66. At no dis- trict meeting, with the exception of a special district meeting held in May 191 2, has any large number of voters appeared for the purpose of casting votes, thereby showing their interest in school matters. Table LX gives the distribution of votes cast for all public meet- ings since March 191 1. The total population of Lawrence Township for 1920 has been shown to be 3,686. It is evident that the voters of the community must assume a more direct responsibility for the bet- terment of their schools than they have assumed in the past. Lawrence Township, New Jcry^etj TABLE LIX II Types ov Business Transacted by the Board op Education During the Year 1921 Types of Business Dale Rrutine Matters Methods of Policy Total Jan. 3. 1921 13 1 14 Feb. 7. 1921 10 10 .Mar. 7, 1921 l.'i 15 Apr. 4, 1921 •>•) 1 23 May 2, 1921 19 19 June (i, 1921 21 21 .Inly f), 1921 If) 1 Id .liily 19, 1921 3 2 5 Aug. 1, 1921 IS IS Sept. (j, 1921 12 1 13 Oct. 3, 1921 11 ■) 13 Nov. 7, 1921 19 2 21 Dec. 5, 1921 11 3 14 Dec. 13, 1921 t 1 S Total 196 H 210 Percentage 92.9 7.1 100 The 0-ffi.ce of the District Clerk Tlie district clerk is the paid secretary of the Board of Education. He may be elected from among the members of the board, or may be from outside the board. The clerk's duties, as specified by law, are as follows: — "He shall record in a suitable book all proceedings of the Board of Education, of the annual school meetings and of special school meetings. He shall pay out by orders on the custodian of the school moneys of the school district, and in the manner prescribed by all, all school moneys of the dis- trict. He shall keep a correct and detailed account of all the expenditures of school moneys in the district, and shall report to the board at each regular meeting the amount tor which warrants shall have been drawn since the date of his last report, the accounts against which said warrants shall have been drawn, and the balance to the credit of each account. 112 Survey of Public School System TABLE LX The Number of Votes Cast for Members of the Board of Education, Budget, and Resolutions at the District School Meetings of Lawrence Toa\"nship from 1911 to 1920 Inclusive Date Votes Cast For Members For Budget For Resolutions Mar. 21, 1911 55 62 62 Mar. 19, 1912 80 65 Apr. 30, 1912 94 May 28, 1912 136 Aug. 22, 1912 26 Mar. 18, 1913 Xo data Mar. 17, 1914 9 9 May 19, 1914 35 Mar. IC), 1915 32 48 48 Mar. 21, 1916 84 84 84 Apr. 18, 1916 90 Mar. 20, 1917 12 12 Mar. 19, 1918 27 27 Feb. IS, 1919 11 Mar. 18, 1919 13 Mar. 24, 1920 24 24 24 Average of Vote Cast 37.3 3S.0 66.6 At each annual school meeting, he shall present his record books and his accounts for public inspection, and shall make a statement of the financial condition of the district. He shall post notices of the annual and special meetings of the legal voters — and during the month of July in each year he shall present to the Board of Education a detailed report of the financial transactions of the Board during the preceding school year; and file a copy thereof with the County Super- intendent of Schools. In case any money shall be ordered to be raised by special tax, the district clerk shall make out and sign a certificate thereof, , that the same is correct , and deliver the same to the Board of Taxation of the county- -, and shall send a duplicate to the County Superintendent of Schools." Lawrence Township, New Jersey 113 For this service, the board pays ^500. a year. In a school sys- tem where only twenty teachers form the staff, it is questionable whether both district clerk and a supervising principal are needed. It is recommended that both these offices be combined and that one man be placed in charge to perform the duties of both positions. The reports, as recorded in the minutes, are so brief that it is difficult to Chart No. 22 SCHOOL MEETING OF LEGAL VOTERS COVV.Ti SUPER n.'TENDENT OF EDUCATION BUILDING COMMITTEE The Present Administrative Organization of the Lawrence Township Schools. determine of what the reports of the supervising principal, truant officer, medical inspector or chairman of the standing committees actually consist. Reports, giving in detail many of the significant elements included in this study of the township schools, should be required from the supervising principal and other officers from time to time. These reports should be in such detail that the Board of Edu- cation may rest assured that the proper progress is being made in the school system. All of the evidence which has been collected in this report tends to the conclusion that no careful analysis has been made of any of the significant problems involved in the development of the 114 Survey of Public School System local school system. Had such reports been made, it is very clear that the teachers would not be content with the low ratings attained by the pupils on the tests which had been given. rj,, ^ J . , There are three administrative officers appointed 1 ke Jbducational , , , , . . ..,,., ^jj. by the board, a supervising principal, a medical inspector, and a truant officer, who are responsible to the board and co-ordinate in authority. As far as could be ascer- tained, the present supervising principal has authority primarily in Chart No. 23 JAHITORS STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION SCHOO- UMTING OF LEGAL VOTERS nXJCMIONAL PiVISIOM yK. STATE COlClISSIOlfEP OF EDUCATION — LEGAL DIVISION EUSItltoa niYtJlQji OOtJNTY SUPERINTENDENT OF EDUCATION BOARD OF EDUCATION ALSO SUPERVISING DISTRICT PRIHCIfAL riTOK Proposed Relationships in Administrative Organization of Lawrence Township Schools. the field of supervision. From the nature of the work which the pupils are doing, there is little evidence that this authority is at all being exercised. In a school system which employs only twenty teachers, the supervising principal should also be responsible for all administrative details, including supervision of the janitors. The conditions in the school buildings are such that there is little evidence that any of this responsibility has been assumed by the supervising principal. Lawrence Township, New Jersey TABLE LXI Per Cent of Loss in Possible Attendance 115 Years Schools 1915-16 1916-17 1917-18 1918-19 1919-20 1920-21 Lawre^nceville 20.4 12.2 19.9 4.9 14.6 11.5 Slackwood 16.8 20.2 12,3 14.2 12.9 14.3 Eldridge Park 21.1 16.3 18.6 17.9 21.5 12.7 Rosedale 19.3 9.1 24.8 18.5 22.7 15. Clark.sville 14.6 16.3 25.2 14.9 20.6 9.8 Medical Inspection and Enforcement of Attendance According to the minutes of the Board of Education, it is the custom of the supervising principal to make monthly reports to the board. The following matters were reported by him in the last ten months: — enrolment, average daily attendance, examination grades, overcrowded rooms and minor details. There is no evidence of any comprehensive or continuous program of reporting and no evidence that any modern educational diagnosis had been made. If this type of service cannot be rendered by the supervising principal, it is ques- tionable whether the community gets adequate return for the money expended on supervision. The mere medical inspection of children as it is at present carried out has little value. The work of the truant officer is limited to special services requested by the Board of Education. The per cent of loss in possible attendance over a period of years is shown in Table LXI. When expressed in dollars and cents which might have been paid to the local school system by the state if chil- dren had attended, this loss is considerable. Without doubt, the best policy that could be pursued in Lawrence Township would be the selection of a nurse for the purpose of doing much of the work of medi- cal inspection and also for the purpose of acting as the truant officer. Such a combined service seems most desirable where there are so few children and where both services are at times essential. ^ As aggregate days' attendance is one source of income and r, , as there is no way of checking against the complete enforce- Record , , , , ment of the attendance laws, except as a permanent census record is maintained, it is highly essential that such a census program be developed. This program can readily be carried out without any 116 Survey of Public School System additional aid, providing the supervising principal and teachers co- operate in doing the work. J. . Until recently, the board employed only one full-time jan- I antloT . . . r J J J f, . itor. The janitors at the two smaller grade schools were 06TVXC6 . employed for part time and the one-room teachers received $25.00 to pay for janitor service. Within the last few weeks, the Eldridge Park School was closed for nine days, thus causing a loss of state money. Teachers were paid for this period and the cost of re- placement of heating apparatus was incurred because of the failure to provide proper janitorial service. Better janitorial service, with ade- quate supervision, must be secured. „ , , The records and reports of the school system should Records and , , . r ,,,,•, ,• -4., , n be kept m one ot the school buildmgs. 1 hose that are Reports .... , ^ , . ^ , , r mamtamed m Lawrence iownship are, as a whole, far below the standard. This refers equally as well to the financial records and the educational records. A very intensive study of individual pupils is possible where one supervising principal has charge of such a small number of children as are found in the Lawrence Township schools. This intensive study requires a most accurate system of recording and reporting. Such a system involves slight expense, but requires time and a knowledge of modern methods in order that good results may be secured. The cost records should be so maintained that costs bv schools may become available. With only slight additional labor, costs by grades could also be secured by the accounting officer. Charts No. 22 and No. 23 show the present and proposed adminis- trative organizations of the local board of education. The proposed organization suggests the elimination of committees, the reduction of the size of the board, the consolidation of the office of the supervising officer and district clerk and the placement of all other officers and employees under the direct supervision of the supervising principal. PART IX SUMMARY OF FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS I — The school system of Lawrence Township is poorly organized and poorly administered. Responsibility is not fixed, nor is efficient service required. 2 — The teachers of Lawrence Township are well paid, and as a group, their class burdens are not too heavy. 3 — The small size of the school buildings presents a serious educa- tional handicap because of the necessity of keeping two grades in the same classroom. 4 — ^The children of Lawrence Township are intellectually capable, but in their classroom work they are not doing as well as children of similar ages or grades are doing elsewhere. In fact, the results of the achievement tests should arouse both the community and the teaching staif toward betterment of the educational work that is being done. 5 — A nine year elementary school has been developed without bring- ing adequate returns. 6 — ^The great amount of retardation and the great number of over-age children are serious factors in the elimination of children from schools. 7 — The township sends a relatively small number of children to high school. 8 — Children should be encouraged to stay in school much longer than they have been doing. 9 — For a period of time, it would be cheaper for Lawrence Township to continue to send the upper three years of the high school to Princeton and Trenton, as they have been doing in the past than to plan a separate high school building. lo — The recording and repofting system, both financial and educa- tional, fails to conform to modern standards. II — Proper standards of cleanliness are not maintained in the present buildings. 12 — The school buildings are inadequate to meet present needs as well as totally inadequate to meet any continued growth in the community. 118 Survey of Public School System 13 — The community is a growing community, with a rather stable rural population and with the increases taking place in the Slack- wood, Eldridge Park and Lawrenceville sections. 14 — The costs of education in Lawrence Township are not excessive as compared to what other communities are finding it necessary to pay in order to maintain a good school system. Measured in terms of the success at present being attained in the Lawrence Township schools, the costs are, without doubt, excessive. RECOMMENDATIONS • All members of the community must take a more active interest in the development of the local schools. The Board of Education should become purely a directing body and should give full adminis- trative responsibility to a capable administrative officer. The program of measurement of achievements should be extended to the point where the Board of Education is being constantly in- formed regarding the progress children are making. The children of all of the schools should be reclassified with an effort to reduce the wide variations in grades. The program of measurement of the intelligence of children, and comparison of achievement with intelligence standards, should be continued. A new building should be planned in the vicinity of Lawrence- ville to take care of grades i to 9. A new building at Bakers Basin should be begun with an initial provision of three classrooms. A new building must be planned in the Eldridge Park section. When new buildings are planned, sites of six to ten acres should be chosen. Changes should be made in the educational organization, elimi- nating the reception grade, substituting therefor a kindergarten in the larger schools and beginning a junior high school program for the children of the 7th, 8th and 9th years. Reports should be required of the administrative officer at such intervals as to assure the community that its school system is mak- ing the progress which has been found possible in other well organized and administered school systems. The recommendations made cannot be carried out on the basis of the present appropriations which are being made for education. The proposed new buildings will add to maintenance and operation cost. In Table LXII are shown estimates of pupil growth and possible cost changes. The indicated increase in total current expense as well as the addition for new buildings are factors to be expected where edu- cational improvement is desired. 120 Survey of Public School System TABLE LXII Estimates of Pupil Growth and Cost Changes Total Expenditures Total Expenditures within District Tuition Fees Transportation (Tuition Pupils) Total Elementary Average Daily Attendance Elementary Pupils sent to other Districts High School Pupils Cost of Elem. Pupils (Aver. Daily Attendance^ Cost Per Tuition Pupil (Tuition & Trans.) 1920-21 $51,198 42,868 6,342 1,987 592 8 72 72 104 1921-22 55,030 44,280 8,200* 2,550* 615 8 77 72 130 1922- 23 57,330 46,080 8,600 2,650 640 8 82 72 130 1923-24 (with new Building) 62,980 56,000 5,000 1,980 700** 8 50 80 130 Xew Principal and Interest for New Building $6,000 to $12,000 Total 868,980 to $74,980 * Estimates **If the 9th grade is included TABLE OF CONTENTS Part Page I. POPULATION STUDIES 1 Growth in Townships and Boroughs of Mercer County I The Distribution of Population 2 The Size of Farms 2 Composition of Population 6 The Present Schools of Lawrence Township 6 Relation Between Total Population and Public School Population 7 Relation Between School Enrolment and Average Daily Attend- ance 12 Average Daily Attendance 12 II. WEALTH AND SCHOOL SUPPORT 13 Comparisons on the Basis of Wealth 16 Lawrence Township' Position in the County 21 State Comparison 21 Bonded Indebtedness 21 III. CLASSIFICATION AND PROGRESS OF CHILDREN 25 Enrolment by Grades 27 Reception Grade 29 Overlapping in Age Groups 30 Variation in Over-age Conditions Over a Period of Years 31 Grade Progress Studies 36 Promotions and Non-promotions 40 Failures by Subjects 42 High School Enrolment 43 Enrolment — Grades 7 to 12 45 IV. TEACHERS IN LAWRENCE TOWNSHIP 47 Teaching Staff 47 Experience 47 Training 47 Salaries 53 V. THE MEASUREMENT OF PUPIL PERFORMANCE 55 Tests ; 5.5 Arithmetic 56 Variability in Arithmetic in Lawrence Township 58 Quality of Handwriting 58 Speed of Handwriting 60 Recommendations for Writing 62 Spelling 63 Recommendations for Spelling 66 English Composition 66 Reading 70 Haggerty Reading Test, Sigma 1 70 122 Survey of Public School System Recommendations on Reading 75 General Intelligence 75 National Intelligence Test 75 Pressey Primer Scale 80 Conclusions on Measurement of Achievement and Intelligence. . . 82 VI. THE SCHOOL BUILDINGS 84 School Building Sites 88 Building Structures 89 Decoration and Cleaning 90 Care of Heating Plant 90 Classrooms and Equipment 90 The School Building Program 91 New Buildings 92 Number of Junior High School Children, September 1922 93 Proposed New Building at Lawrenceville 93 School Provisions in the Clarksville and Bakers Basin Section .... 95 The Eldridge Park School 96 VII. SCHOOL COSTS 97 Comparative Costs 97 Other Individual School Costs 108 VIII. ADMINISTRATION AND ORGANIZATION 109 Types of Busine.ss Transacted by the Board 109 Community Interest in Board Elections 110 The Office of the District Clerk Ill The Educational Officers 114 Medical Inspection and Enforcement of Attendance 116 Census Record 116 Janitor Service 117 Records and Reports 117 IX. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS. ... 118 Recommendations 120 INDEX OF TABLES Table Page PART I I. Population of New Jersey, Mercer County and Lawrence Township From 1890 to 1920 1 II. Per Cent of Increase and Decrease in Population for the Dif- ferent Townships and Boroughs of Mercer County, New Jersey, Over a Period of Years 3 III. Showing Comparative Number of Farms for Years 1914 and 1921 Distributed According to Size and Division 5 IV. The Number of Rooms and Enrolment in the Lawrence Town- ship Schools 6 V, Relation Between Total Population and Public School Popu- lation 7 VI. School Enrolment and Attendance 10, 11 PART II VII. Lawrence Township Compared With Other School Districts of New Jersey in Certain Items of Finance 14, 15 VIII. Lawrence Township Ranked in Comparison With Other School Districts of New Jersey With Respect to the Financial Items Given in Table VII. . !^ 17 IX. Lawrence Township Compared With Other School Districts of New Jersey in Certain Items of Finance. Twenty Dis- tricts Which Approximate Lawrence Township in Net Assessed Valuation 18, 19 X. Lawrence Township Ranked in Comparison With Other School Districts of New Jersey With Respect to the Finan- cial Items Given in Table IX 20 XI. Comparison of the'Lawrence District With the Other Districts of Mercer County with the Exception of the City of Tren- ton ' 22 XII. Comparison of Important Financial Items of Lawrence Town- ship Over a Period of Years 24 PART III XIII. Distribution of Age Groups for the Years 1910-11 and 1915- 16 to 1921-22 With Changes and Per Cent of Change 26 XIV. Distribution in Percentages of Age Groups for the Years 1910- 11 and 1915-16 to 1921-22 27 XV. Distribution of Pupils by Grades for the Years 1910-11 and 1915-16 to 1921-22 28 124 XVI. XVII. XVIII. XIX. XX. XXI. XXII. XXIII. XXIV. Survey of Public School System PercentciKe Distribution of Pupils by Grades for the Years 1910-11 and 1915-16 to 1921-22 30 Age-grade Table for the Elementary Schools of Lawrence Township, New Jersey 32 The Percentage Distribution of Pupils of Normal-age, Over- age and Under-age for the Years 1910-11, 1915-16 to 1921-22 33,34 Showing the Number of Pupils Who Are Less Than One Year Over-age, One to Two Years Over age and Two or More Years Over-age for the Years 1910-11, 1915-16 to 1921-22, Inclusive 35 Progress Through the Grades 37 Promotions, Double Promotions, Non-promotions, With- drawals and Transfers in Lawrence Township, Mercer County, New Jersey, Based on Enrolment in Each Grade at End of Year 1911, 1917, 1918, 1919, 1920 and 1921 40,41 Failures by Subjects 42 A Comparison Between the High School Enrolment and the Total Enrolment for the Given Districts in Mercer County 44 Comparison of Pupil Enrolment of Lawrence Township, Mer- cer County, in Grades 7 to 12 Inclusive for School Years 1920-21 and 1921-22 46 PART IV XXV. Distribution of Salaries and Experience for Elementary School Teachers, Lawrence Township, Mercer County, New Jersey 48 XXVI. Comparison of Total Experience of Elementary School Teachers 49 XXVII. Distribution of Salaries and Years of Training Beyond Grade 8 of Lawrence Township Elementary School Teachers 51 XXVIII. Comparison of Preparation of Elementary School Teachers in Mercer County Townships 52 XXIX. Comparative Salary Schedules 54 PART V XXX. Median Scores on Woody Arithmetic Test-Series A Compared With Woody's Standard Medians 56 XXXI. Median Scores on Woody Arithmetic Test — Series A Compared by Grade with Medians of Other Schools 57 XXXII. Comparison of the Schools in Lawrence Town.ship as to Quality of Writing 59 XXXIII. Comparison of Lawrence Township Schools With Other School Systems as to Quality of Writing. 60 XXXIV. Comparison of the Schools in Lawrence Tlownship as to Rate of Writing 61 XXXV. XXXVI. XXXVII. XXXVIII. XXXIX. XL. XLI. XLII. XLIII. Laivrence Township, New Jersey 125 Comparison of Lawrence Township Schools With Other School Sy.'^tems as to Rate of Writing 61 Comparison of Schools of Lawrence Township in Spelling on the Basis of the Percentage and Average Number of Words Spelled Correctly in the Entire List of Words 64 Spelling Scores for the Schools of Lawrence Township, Com- pared with the Standard Score on the Basis of the Ten Words of Equal Difficulty for the Various Grades 65 Comparison of the Spelling Scores of the Lawrence- Township Schools With Various Types of Schools in Virginia on the Basis of the Standard Score 65 Composition Scores for Lawrence Township Based on the Nassau County Supplement to the Hillegas Scale Distributed by Grades. Schools, and Scores and Compared with Grade Standards and Accomj^lishments in other School Systems . . 67-69 Reading Scores for Thorndike-McCall Scale "A" for Grades 3 to 8, Inclusive, for Lawrence Township 72,73 Scores on Haggerty Reading Test, Sigma 1 74 Scores Obtained on the National Intelligence Test by Grades 3 to 8, Inclusive, of Lawrence Township 76-78 Scores on Pressey Primer Scale, for Reception and First and Second Grades of Lawrence Township 81 PART VI XLIV. Final Scores Allotted by the Judges Using the Strayer-Engel- hardt Rural School Building Score Card 86 XLV, Playground — Pupil Enrolment Basis 89 XLVI. Distribution of Children by Grades and Schools 91 XLVII. Children to be Expected at Lawrenceville if Plant is Located There 95 PART VII Current Expenditures in Lawrence Township 98 Cost of Elementary Education per Pupil in Lawrence Town- ship Based on Average Daily Attendance 100 Percentage of Current Expenditures for the Various Distribu- tions of Cost in Lawrence Township for eight years 100 Current Expenditures per Pupil in Average Daily Attendance in Lawrence and Ten Other Townships in New Jersey Plus the Cost of Those Living in the District but Attending School in Other Districts 101 LII. Total Current Expenditures per Pupil for Eight Years in Lawrence and Ten Other Townships in New Jersey Based on Average Daily Attendance 102 LIII. Cost of Elementary Schools for 1920-21 104 XLVIII. XLIX. LI. 126 Survey of Public School System LIV. Cost of Instruction 105 LV. Cost of Administration 107 LVI. Cost of Operation and Maintenance of Plant 107 LVII. Cost for Salaries of Teachers 108 PART VIII LVIII. Number of Meetings and Attendance of the Members of the Board of Education from 1912 to 1921, Inclusive 110 LIX. Types of Business Transacted by the Board of Education 111 LX. The Number of Votes Cast for Members of the Board of Edu- cation, Budget and Resolutions at the District School Meet- ings of Lawrence Township from 1911 to 1920 Inclusive. . . 112 LXI. Per Cent of Loss in Possible Attendance 116 PART IX LXII. Estimates of Pupil Growth and Cost Changes 121 INDEX OF CHARTS Chart Page PART I 1. Showing the Per Cent Which the Public School Enrolment is of the Total Population in 5 Year Intervals from 1900-1920 8 PART II 2. Comparison of Per Cent of Increase in Net Valuation, Tax Rate and State Apportionment in Lawrence Township 23 PART III 3. Distribution of Pupils in Lawrence Township by Ages 29 4. Changes in Enrolment by Grades 31 5. Showing the Percentage of Pupils Who are of Normal-age, Over- age and Under-age in the Schools of LawTence Township 34 6. Showing the Percentage of Pupils in the Elementarj^ Schools of Law- rence Township, Mercer County, New Jersey, Who Have Made Rapid, Normal and Slow Progress in Grades Reception to Eighth Inclusive 39 7. Showing the Percentage of Pupils in the Elementary Schools of Lawrence Township, Mercer County, New Jersey, Who Have Made Rapid, Normal and Slow Progress in the Grades I-VIII, Inclusive 39 8. Showing the Percentage of Promotions and Double Promotions in the Elementary Schools of Lawrence Township 41 9. Showing the Percentage of Failures by Subjects in the Elementary Schools 43 10. Comparison of Pupil Enrolment for School Years 1920-21 and 1921-22 45 PART IV 11. Showing Variability of Length of Service of Elementary School Teachers in Lawrence Township 1921-22 49 12. Comparison of Total Years' Experience with Experience in Lawrence Township 50 13. Comparison of Teachers' Salaries in Elementary Schools in Lawrence I'ownship with Those of Other Townships in Mercer County 53 14. Distribution of Salaries Paid the Teachers of Lawrence Township 1921-22: 54 PART V 15. Distribution of Scores Made on the National Intelligence Tests 79 128 Survey of Public School System PART VI 16. Strayer-Engelhardt Score Card for Rural School Buildings 85 17. Total Scores Allotted the Five Buildings of Lawrence Township on the Strayer-Engelhardt Score Card for Rural School Buildings 87 . PART VII 18. Showing the Comparison in Lawrence Township from 1913-1921 Between Expenditures Within the District, Total Current Expen- ditures, Average Daily Attendance Within the District and Total Average Daily Attendance 99 19. Chart Showing the Rankings for Six Years of Lawrence and Ten Other New Jersey Townships on the Basis of Current Expenditures for All School Purposes Per Pupil in Average Daily Attendance 102 20. Chart Showing the Rankings for Eight Years of Lawrence and Ten Other Townships in New Jersey on the Basis of Expenditures in the Elementary Schools per Pupil in Average Daily Attendance . . . 103 21. Chart Showing the Ranking for Eight Years of Lawrence and Ten Other Townships in New Jersey on the Basis of Expenditures for Instruction per Pupil in Average Daily Attendance 106 PART VITI 22. Present Administrative Organization of the Lawrence Township Schools 113 23. Proposed Relationships in Administrative Organization of Lawrence Township Schools 115 INDEX OF MAPS Map Page PART I 1. The Approximate Residential Location of Each Family, January 1922 4 2. Approximate Residence of Each Child Enrolled in the Elementary Schools, January 11, 1922 9 PART VI 3. Approximate Residence of Each Child in 6th, 7th and 8th Grades. ... 94 cy .7 -n V 2: 'yokw ^^■mmyim^ %a3AiNiimv ^ ^ '"^o-m iv> v\ins-ANr,firr> c . V ^\\M!RRARYQr ^ ^ME'UNIVFRi"/A -n t_ $01^'^'^ -^/^JIJAINQ^VW •■^ ^V- '^.!/0JllV3JO>' s; ■VaiMNfl ^VW"^ ! nc \ k;rri /-r i-> r r I i \ r ,"\T f> r /" A t 1 r r\ n iJ Or % Y'- .^ >&A(JVU.ui^ >i. ^ ^ .^ncjAirrr s^ < <-~\ >- ^ ^OFCAllFO/?^ ^ iiii\^^ ^ .NMllBRARY<9r -^x ^OdllVJ-JO'f^ >^HIBRARY6?/C >i y-. — 5 , 5? >- M-i^ i5 ,vin^.w,fifj-. '^/ia]AiNn-3i\v -XI -< % V< r-n .?^ ^ ^\\F I'N'IVFP^A ^^AavyaiH^"^ ^(?Aiivaaii-i'^'^ _ ; -n ,^WE•UNIVER% .V-lOSAMCElfj^. 5 rri ^ "J I — • i_fc_* 1 %a3AINa3WV^ ^V^lOSvVNCEL^r^ ^t-LIBRARYQ^ . ^ O '^JO"^ ''''^ -<^- OFC/uii U/14;;:^ ^v .# > io ■i^'AQVQUi 3 1158 00990 0266^ , ,\IN I 0^ o^lllBRARY^k, ^•■ '.'jai\i^,riu> UC SOUTHERN REGIONAL LIBRARY FACILITY AA 000 637 570 3 '^/i'dJAINil ivaairi^- UNIVERS/A r-5 — w — \ -'3 ^^\\EUNIVER% i]Al^ f* .:.o,FrA!iFa^'-. -■ ^A\F I'\'!VFPT.'>. .vins\N :z - LA-J > y %. > '^Aa3Al^ % . 1 nr ,v i re fr. <^lll;;4-L'S!ll(9/: .it HDD; < CO .u,AINn-3Wv i >- \\\im\ms/A '/- ^^ ..^ ■%>. rJtW 4? cr '^Vr ^\\\EI!N1VER% ^[om c ] CQ ^WEUNIVERi-/^ C5 . CP»