LZ9SZESOL ZLIOg TNA SPECIAL EDITION . = AW re PENNSYLVANIA. SCHOOL JOURNAL slay MARCH 12, 1923 CRUORTION Z gaPanTRgey c REPORT of the Survey of the Pennsylvania State Program of Education by the © Special Committee Employed by the Pennsylvania State Education Association Authorized by Resolution of the Executive Council of the Tae URRAY oe PRES 4, 1922 FEB 5 1996 UNIVERSITY OF TLLHEOIS Publication Authorized by the Executive | Council of the PENNSYLVANIA STATE EDUCATION ASSOCIATION No. 10 South Market Square HARRISBURG, PA. Entered as second-class matter September 1, 1921, at the post office at Lebanon, Pa., under the act of arch 3, 1879. Acceptance for mailing at special rate of postage provided for in section 1103, Act of October 3, 1917, authorized Sept. 1, 1921 rN | ST 148 | ‘ LP BE QR roe ratio” V Personnel of Survey Committee ne LOHN —W. WITHERS, Chairman, Dean School of Education,: New York University, New York City. Formerly Head Harris Teachers College, ‘St. Louis, Mo., and Superintendent of Public Schools, that city. MR. FRANK CODY, Superintendent Schools, Detroit, Michigan and Mem- ber of the Michigan State Board of Education. DR. THOMAS E. JOHNSON, State Superintendent of Public Instruction, Lansing, Michigan, and Vice President of the Michigan State Board of Education. DR. PAYSON SMITH, State Commissioner of Education, Boston, Massa- chusetts, New President of the Department of Superintendence N. E. A. Formerly State Superintendent of Public Schools of the State of Maine. MiSS CHARL O. WILLIAMS, Field Secretary National Education Asso- ciation, Washington, D. C. -Formerly County Superintendent of Schools, Shelby County, Tennessee, and President of the Nationai Education - Association. - PROBLEMS 1. Is our State program of education a good one and adequate to meet the needs of the State? Answer: YES. See page 6. 2. Is our State Department of Public Instruction properly organ- ae ; ized and manned? Answer: YES. See page 10. ng 3. Is our State program costing too much? Answer: NO. See page 11. 4. Are we paying too much or too little for public education? Answer: WE ARE PAYING TOO LITTLE. See page 12. 5. Can we afford not to raise the money requisite to carry out our State program of education? Answer: NO, WE CANNOT. See page 14. FEB5 1926 BPR Fe i UNIVERSITY oF int paetbee J yaaa ee, ae Ry ; ¥ J i . . ) i ie 7) . c ; ay as. Me ay ihe ne) ri eS f ¢ ee wht aotlos tar ee a ) é ey S si - oe , oh ’ ' _ i pe " " Survey of the State Program of Education in Pennsylvania To the Executive Council of the Pennsylvania | State Education Association: HE Committee that submits this report | was authorized by the Executive Coun- -cil of the Pennsylvania State Education Association at a meeting in Harrisburg, No- vember 4, 1922. The purpose of the Council was to obtain for the teachers of Pennsylvania, 99% of whom are members of the Association, an unbiased professional judgment of the value and effectiveness of the present State program of education in meeting the educational needs of the State. It was thought best, in the re- alization of this purpose, that the Committee should be composed of educators chosen from outside the State, who could, for this reason, consider the problem without local prejudice. The Problem The problem set for the Committee by the Executive Council may be stated as follows: 1. Is the State program of education in Penn- sylvania a good one and adequate to meet the needs of the State? 2. Is the State Department of Education prop- erly organized and manned? 3. Is the State Department of Education cost- ing too much? 4. Is the State paying too much or too little for public education? 5. Can the State afford not to raise the money requisite to carry out the present rate program of education? Plan of the Report The Committee has decided to make a very brief report, presenting its conclusions and recommendations without attempting to set forth in detail the facts and arguments on which they are based. It does this for two reasons: First, the report is prepared by spe- cial request for the teachers of the State, who are already familiar with the essential facts and desire merely to get the judgment of the Committee ‘as to the value of the present State program of education and the soundness of the policies on which it is based. Second, it is de- sired that the report be made accessible as early as possible to all teachers and school officials of the State, and that, for this reason, it be presented in such form as will permit. of its publication in the PENNSYLVANIA SCHOOL JOURNAL. Sources of Information With the exception of Commissioner Smith of Massachusetts, who came on later, the Com- mittee spent the week of January 8-15 in Har- -risburg in a first hand study of the facts. Su- perintendent Finegan, having been informed of the intention of the Committee, very kindly retained at Harrisburg for that week the lead- ing members of his staff to facilitate the work of bringing together the necessary informa- tion. Every type of material in the possession of the State Department of Public Instruction was placed at the disposal of the Committee. This consisted, among other things, of the records of the Department, the school laws of the State, the reports of the congresses called by Dr. Finegan to assist him in formu- lating the policies and setting up the present program of education and the various reports, courses of study, public addresses and other documents issued by the Department in carry- ing out the program. The Committee held several conferences with Dr. Finegan and with his subject directors and heads of divisions. It was also given full opportunity to study intimately the organization and personnel of the Department, the scope and character of its work, its relation to local school authorities, the expenses incurred in its operation, the amount of State aid distributed through it to local communities, the methods by which this is done and the statistical and other informa- tion necessary to a proper understanding of the educational situation in the State, both before and after the present program was in- troduced. The Committee, therefore, has in its possession ample information on which to base valid judgments in answer to the ques- tions submitted to it by the Executive Council. Treatment of the Problem The essence of the problem set for the Com- mittee is contained in the following question: Is the present State program of education a good one and adequate to meet the needs of the State? The answer is affirmative. The program is an excellent one and it is adequate to meet the educational needs of the State. It 6 PENNSYLVANIA SCHOOL JOURNAL is not, however, a perfect program, nor is it complete. It can and should be improved, but the changes needed do not alter it in any vital way, nor do they require any interference with its effective operation. They are really implied in the policy on which the program is based and form a part of the plan of the State De- partment of Education for the further exten- sion and improvement of this program. The Program But what is the program? What are the educational needs which it is supposed to meet? and, How fully and successfully does it meet these needs? The program has three es- sential features: The determination of an edu- cational policy considered best for Pennsyl- vania, the partial embodiment of this policy in the school legislation of 1921 and the organized effort led by the State Department of Educa- tion to make this and previously enacted but — hitherto unenforced legislation effective in the improvement of education in the State. The program, is, therefore, a matter of policy, of legislation and of administration and must be judged in these three respects. In forming such a judgment one must also consider the conditions that had to be met when the pro- gram was adopted, the effectiveness of the means and methods employed to meet these conditions, the wisdom and practical character of the objectives set up, and the actual results thus far achieved. From all these points of view the program is to be strongly commended for the following reasons: 1. It is fundamental. It deals with the recognized essentials of State education, and includes nothing that can be considered fad- distic. At the same time, it does not prevent any local community from adding to the cur- ricula anything that it chooses provided these essentials required by the State are first taken care of. 2. It is sound in theory. It is in harmony with the best present day thought and experi- ence in State education. The principles on which it is based are everywhere accepted at the present time where progressive work is being done. 38. It is readily adaptable to changing con- ditions and needs. It is not based on an inflex- ible conception of State education, but con- tains within itself the possibilities of growth and improvement. The same method by which it was adopted can and should be used to keep it adjusted to any new conditions and needs that may arise. é, 4. Itis based on the educational history and present needs of Pennsylvania. The best tra- ditions of the State have not been ignored. The program has been’ rationally developed. It has not arisen suddenly out of an ill-advised theory of State education, nor has it been brought in from the outside and arbitrarily imposed on the schools of .the State. It is distinctly a program for Pennsylvania, in the framing of which the best wisdom and experi- ence of the State were earnestly sought and utilized. 5. It provided for the progressive improve- ment of education in the State. It takes ac- count of future possibilities and needs and sets up a reasonable goal far enough in advance to stimulate and encourage sustained effort. It is a rational and workable attempt to restore Pennsylvania to that place among the States in the matter of public education which she formerly held and to which her wealth and the character of her population justly entitle her. 6. It is a definite attempt to equalize the opportunities and the burden of public edu- cation throughout the State. Though not wholly successful in this respect and capable of further improvement, it is far in advance of the program which it replaced, as will be shown later in this report, and is one of the best approximations of the ideal distribution of burden and opportunity in State education to be found in practical operation anywhere in the United States. f 7. It recognizes the right co-operative rela- tionship between State and local communities in the administration and support of the schools. “Education is now everywhere recog- nized in the United States as primarily a func- tion of the State. This is shown by legisla- tive action in all the States, and by numerous court decisions. Nowhere, however, is the local: community relieved of all responsibility in the administration and support of its own schools. In Pennsylvania the authority and responsi- bility for the maintenance of minimum stand- ards of. education guaranteed by law to all children of the State are centralized, as they should be, in the State Department of Edu- cation. Experience shows that in no other way can these standards be uniformly and eco- nomically maintained throughout the State. At the same time, the right and responsibility of local communities and the need of encouraging them to exceed State requirements wherever SURVEY OF STATE PROGRAM OF EDUCATION 7 this can be done are recognized and provided for: 8. It has the cordial approval and support of the educational leaders of the State. It is, in fact, their program because it is based on the conclusions reached and the recommendations made by them at the congresses which were held by Dr. Finegan for this purpose. The program, is, therefore, an approximate realization of what they, in their most intimate knowledge of the schools, considered most desirable for Penn- sylvania. They have had a share in determin- ing the program, are familiar with its under- lying policy, have been from the first well ac- quainted with what it is intended to accom- plish, and believe that the goals set up are not only desirable but are also possible of attain- ment. There is little wonder, therefore, that the leading educational organizations of the State have strongly endorsed the program. Among these are The Pennsylvania State Edu- cation Association, The Association of College Presidents, the Pennsylvania State School Di- rectors Association, the Association of School Board Secretaries, the Department of County Superintendence, the Department of District Superintendence and the School Directors As- sociations of numerous counties of the State. With such support as this even a less worthy program could hardly fail of a large measure of success. 9. Lastly, the program is getting results. Though it has been in operation for less than three years, the net result thus far has been an educational development, which, consider- ing the time involved and the extent to which it has beneficially influenced all types of schools and aroused the general interest in public edu- cation of both the teaching profession and the people of the State is without a parallel in the history of American education. The whole problem has been attacked in a rational and practical way. The educational conditions and needs of the State were first thoroughly and critically studied. Those who were most. competent to do this were called to assist in the preparation of the program. Among these were business and professional men as well as educators so that every legiti- mate interestmightbe considered and no worthy claim overlooked. Suggestions for improve- ment from any source were carefully weighed, and when found sufficiently important were incorporated in the program. The educational erisis which Pennsylvania was facing called for heroic measures and such measures were taken. At the same time it was clearly recog- nized that the situation could not be corrected at once, that the plan decided upon must cover a period of years and that matters that were of the most vital importance must have first attention. Conditions to Be Met Among the more serious conditions that had to be met, attention is called to the following: During the preceding quarter of a century, the State had made progress in education. This fact must not be overlooked. The efforts to improve the schools had borne fruit, and the educators of the period in general were worthy servants of the State. Nevertheless, Pennsylvania had fallen rap- idly behind many other States of the Union in the progress of education. As judged by the ten essentials on which the study of State School Systems was made by the Russell Sage Foundation, Pennsylvania held tenth place in 1890, fifteenth in 1900, sixteenth in 1910 and _ twenty-first in 1918 in the general excellence of its public School System. This. comparison was based upon such important matters as the average attendance, the qualifications and salaries of teachers, the development of high school fa- cilities, and the expenditures per pupil and per capita on public education. The State stood twenty-fourth in 1918 in the percentage of her school population attending school daily, twenty-first in the average number of days at- tended by each child of legal school age, twenty- fifth in the average annual expenditures per child and twenty-ninth in the ratio of high school attendance to total attendance. Attendance The attendance law of the State was not generally enforced. The methods employed under local supervision failed to keep the chil- dren in school. Moreover, the law provided that in districts of the fourth class pupils over twelve years of age might be excused from school three-tenths of the time for domestic or farm service. There was also in many parts of the State local sentiment against the en- forcement of attendance. Consequently the average daily attendance in 1919 for the entire State was about seventy-four per cent. One child in every four who should have been in school was absent every day throughout the 8 PENNSYLVANIA SCHOOL JOURNAL / school year, and of the total enrollment of 1,800,000 children at least 450,000 were con- tinually out of school,—a number more than equal to the total enrollment of Pittsburgh and Philadelphia combined. ° The loss in morale and in the general ef- fectiveness of instruction due to this excessive absence and irregularity of attendance repre- sents a waste of educational effort of the most serious character. Besides, there was a finan- cial loss of more than fifteen million dollars per annum from state and local funds for the support of education; for it cost practically as much to operate the schools with twenty- six per cent of the children absent as it would have cost had those children been in school. Proper co-operation of local school agencies with the State Department of Education, sup- ported by effective supervision of the health of school children and the sanitation of school buildings, should have secured an average daily attendance of at least ninety per cent. Within one year after the present program of education went into operation the average daily attendance in rural Pennsylvania was _ in- creased nearly 10 per cent, thus saving to the State in fourth class districts alone nearly $1,500,000 on its annual school investment. Length of School Year The school year, especially in fourth class districts was only seven months. This fact, combined with poor attendance, brought about the unfortunate result that the children of Pennsylvania who were from six to twelve years of age were spending less than ten per cent of their total waking time in school each year, and those from twelve to sixteen years slightly more than eight per cent. Examina- tion of the records of attendance in all the rural schools of the State for the period from 1910 to 1919 shows that the average attend- ance of children from six to twelve years of age was less than one hundred nine days and of those from twelve to sixteen years of age only eighty-nine days. Qualifications of Teachers The standards for the preparation and cer- tification of teachers were also exceedingly low. Approximately 175,000 children repre- senting a total population of more than 1,000,- 000 people living for the most part in rural districts, were being taught in 1918 by teachers who had no more than an elementary school education, no professional training, and the majority of them no teaching experience. Nearly 600,000 children also living chiefly in rural communities and in districts of the third and fourth classes were being taught by teach- ers who had not had more than a high school education. Practically half of the teachers of the State had had no professional training except what they had gained through practical experience. Of those who were supervised by county superintendents, 23 per cent were new teachers without experience, and only 31 per cent had had any normal school training. 39 per cent of the teachers of one room rural schools had never attended high school, 32 per cent were without teaching experience, only 88 per cent had taught in the same po- sition the preceding year, and only 15 per cent were normal school graduates. In the cities of the State, 87 per cent had had normal school training, and only 11 per cent were college graduates. The annual turnover among the teachers of the State was approximately 5,000, which together with the additional positions that had to be filled on account of the natural erowth of the school population made it nec- essary to place approximately 6,000 new teach- ers in the schools of the State each year. Teachers’ Salaries Low salaries and inadequate facilities for the training of teachers were the two causes chiefly responsible for this unfortunate condi- tion. f For more than a quarter of a century prior to 1919 the average monthly salaries of the teachers of Pennsylvania had been lower than the average for the United States as a whole, and increasingly so as the period advanced. For men, the average was 8 per cent below that for the United States in 1888 and 24 per cent below in 1916. For women, this average was 13 per cent below in 1888 and 382 per cent below in 1916. In the year 1918 the average annual salary of all the teachers in the ele- mentary schools of the State was only $388.00. In the cities, as shown by the report of the Committee on salaries of the National Edu- cation Association prepared for 1913 salaries were lower than for cities of the same size throughout the United States, and much lower than those of New York and New Jersey. Su- perintendents in both small and large cities were also paid less than the average for such positions in the United States, Pennsylvania ranking thirty-ninth among the States in this respect. Under these conditions it was but natural that many of the best teachers and SURVEY OF STATE PROGRAM OF EDUCATION 9 superintendents could not be kept in the State and that often even the most promising gradu- ates of the state normal schools, though trained at the expense of Pennsylvania, were induced to leave without serving the schools of the State because of more attractive salaries and more favorable conditions for professional ad- vancement elsewhere. The normal schools were wholly inadequate to meet this situation. In spite of poor equip- ment, inadequate support and unorganized co- operative effort, these schools had during their long’ career rendered valuable service to the State, having supplied it with many of its best teachers, but the poor salaries and low stand- ing of the teaching profession in the State made it impossible to attract to these schools a sufficient number of students of good ability and adequate preparation, or to maintain proper standards of admission or of gradua- tion. This would have been true even if the normal schools had been well equipped and adequately supported, but they were not. They were established at first as private institutions of academic grade, and were not taken over and controlled by the State until 1911. From that time until the present program was adopted they were very poorly supported, the State paying only a tuition fee of $60 per annum for students over 17 years of age who - signified their intention of teaching. This fee was increased to $80 in 1919 and the appropria- - tion of $10,000 per annum to each of the nor- mal schools for maintenance was also author- ized. Nothing, however, was provided for the erection and equipment of new buildings or for the reconstruction and repair of old ones. Many of the buildings were consequently out of repair, uninviting and unsanitary, and few, if any, of them were of fire proof or fire resis- tive construction. Meeting the Conditions Here, then, were the primary problems of the new program of education. It was recog- nized by those who were responsible for this program that an indispensable requirement of any school system is an adequately equipped - teacher in every classroom and for every school child, and that such teachers cannot be secured in sufficient number to meet the requirements of the State without providing salaries suf- ficient to command their services. Either the salaries paid must be enough higher than those of other States to rob them of a sufficient num- ber of well-qualified teachers, or, what is really more economical and certainly more. ethical, adequate facilities for the training of teachers must be provided by the State itself: Another indispensable requirement ofa good school system is competent leadership in edu- cation in every community. Without this even a well-trained teaching staff will be relatively inefficient. Such leadership cannot be supplied unless the salaries of superintendents, super- visors and principals are high enough for this purpose. Failure to secure and hold such lead- ership is certainly not economy. It has been said that Pennsylvania had been securing in her school system under the above conditions just what she had been paying for. This, how- ever, is not true, for the overhead expense of a large school system is the same whether the staff employed is competent or incompetent. The saving of money by not spending it for necessary expert service in the classroom or in administrative and supervisory positions is not economy but actual extravagance. A better school attendance was also recog- nized as a prime necessity. It was obvious folly to call upon the State for more money for the extension and improvement of the schools without providing effective means in the State Department of Education for guaranteeing, through the enforcement of attendance, that the children of the State would actually receive the benefits of such increased appropriations. School Laws of 1921 To meet these conditions, the School Laws of 1921 were so framed as to provide: (1) for raising the standard qualifications of teachers; (2) for establishing a higher schedule of sal- aries; (3) for adding to the support of the normal schools, increasing their facilities and improving their work; (4) for increasing the length of the school term, especially in fourth class districts; (5) for re-enforcing compul- sory school attendance; (6) for establishing State aid to local communities for the main- tenance of new and higher standards, basing such aid upon the principle that those dis- tricts least able to bear the burden should be most generously supported; (7) for establish- ing a budget system in every school district thereby putting school finances throughout the State on a business-like basis; (8) for en- couraging, but not requiring, the consolida- tion of rural schools through the provision of State aid for transportation and a fixed allow- ance for every school closed for this purpose; and (9) for centralizing and unifying State 10 PENNSYLVANIA SCHOOL JOURNAL school administration by abolishing the State Board of Education and the College and Uni- versity Council, and creating in their place the State Council of Education. The effective administration of those laws through co-operation of the State Department of Education with the educational leaders of the State and with local school agencies is rapidly restoring Pennsylvania to its proper place in the front rank of American States in public education. Results of Program One of the finest evidences of the success of the program is the remarkable response of the teachers of the State to the new demands for improved qualifications. For nine weeks dur- ing the summer vacation of 1922, more than twenty-five thousand teachers attended sum- mer schools, taxing the colleges and normal schools of the State to their utmost capacity to accommodate them. Fully one-third of the 45,000 teachers of the State are attending ex- tension courses on Saturdays and after school hours during the present school year. The remarkable fact that nearly sixty per cent of the entire corps attended summer schools and spent every dollar of their increase of salary, and sometimes more, for professional improve- ment is a magnificent tribute to the fine pro- fessional spirit of the teachers of Pennsylva- nia. Nothing at all approximating this has ever occurred before in State education. It cannot be too highly commended or too greatly appreciated by the people of the State. The fact that the teachers of the State, through their State Association, a professional organization to which more than 99 per cent of them belong, should order at their own ex- pense, a survey of the present State program of education that they may know whether or not their efforts in behalf of the children are being wisely directed, also sets a new profes- sional standard in State education and among teachers’ organizations. It is inconceivable that the people of Penn- sylvania will fail to give most cordial support to the leadership and the program of education that has called forth such a response when they have come to understand fully what is being, and will continue to be, accomplished for the children of the State. Is the State Department of Education properly organized and manned? The Com- mittee’s answer to this question is also affirma- tive. The present organization is a good one. It is, however, capable of improvement. This fact is apparent to no one more than Superin- tendent Finegan. As a consequence of the con- ditions which had to be met in setting up the present State Program of Education, the com- plete reorganization of the Department in full harmony with the new demands that would be made upon it, was delayed until the more ur- gent needs of the State school system could be provided for. This was done for three reasons: (1) The magnitude of the State school prob- lem was such as to require a considerable period of time to accomplish its satisfactory solution. As already pointed out, it was nec- essary that such a solution must be a progres- sive achievement. (2) The need of remedial effort was more important and far more urgent in other parts of the system; and (38) it was obvious that the most desirable and efficient form of organization of the Department was dependent upon the new and somewhat unusual demands made upon it by the new program of education. These demands could not be fully determined in advance of the actual operation of the program. The present organization of the Depart- ment is, therefore, mainly but not wholly, determined by legislation enacted prior to 1921, and is in some of its features a form worked out to meet the needs that have arisen in the gradual evolution of the State school system. It is similar in these respects to the plan of organization that has been found best in other States. However, the Subject Directors in- cluded in the personnel of the Department are not commonly found as a part of the State organization elsewhere, but are provided for in harmony with the new conception of the function of the State Department involved in the present program and with, the urgent need for this type of service in the schools of Penn- sylvania. The underlying principle which has deter- mined the reorganization of the Department thus far, and will doubtless control its further development, is the same as that which has determined the form of administrative and su- pervisory organization that has been found through long experience to be most satisfactory in city school systems. It provides not only for effective school administration, but also for the supervision and improvement of instruc- tion. In the State Department of Pennsylva- nia, therefore, three types of service are recog- SURVEY OF STATE PROGRAM OF EDUCATION it nized: (1) The definition of policies for the improvement of the schools of the State and the presentation of these policies to the legis- lature for the legal authority to put them into effect; (2) The administrative enforcement of school legislation: and (8) the rendering of ex- pert professional service in the supervision of school work in any part of the: State where such service is needed and requested by local school authorities. In all of these respects there is abundant evidence that the Department is rendering un- usually efficient service. It is extremely fortu- nate in those of its staff who have been chosen for each type of service. In all cases, men and women have been selected because of their fitness for the special lines of work in which they are employed and because of their achieve- ments in these lines. They are in almost every case men and women of such outstanding abil- ity and professional equipment as to command as they should the respect and confidence of teachers and school officials throughout the State. The desirability and economy of em- ploying such persons are evident. The salar- ies which the Department has been able to pay and the opportunities for increased profession- al service which it offers, have proved sufficient thus far to secure this type of men and women. The Department has not, however, been able to ‘hold many of its strongest members because of the call to higher positions and better sal- aries elsewhere. During the last three years 14 per cent of its members have been lost in this way. Such latitude should be granted to the State Superintendent of Instruction in de- termining the salaries of the staff as would enable him to prevent this serious loss in the efficiency of the Department. The subject directors have been of great service in promoting a professional spirit among the teachers of the State and in stimu- lating the improvement of instruction. They are rendering assistance where it is most needed and most effective and’ their ser- vices are constantly demanded not only by the smaller towns and rural districts but also by the larger cities of the State. No state or city school system can be highly efficient, no matter how well organized and equipped it may be from an administrative point of view, if it fails to provide sufficient help in the class room where the real work of the system must be done. The State Department of Pennsyl- vania is to be highly commended for the rec- ognition it has given to this fact, which is al- most universally neglected in state depart- ments of education. The various bureaus of the Department are also rendering highly efficient service to the schools of the State. In several instances they have saved the State in actual money value many times the cost of operating the bureaus. This is notably true of the Bureaus of School Buildings and of School Attendance. The ac- tual saving to the State brought about by the increased attendance due to the efficiency of the Attendance Bureau has already been pointed out. There is great need in the Department of an editorial staff which could relieve the heads of Bureaus, Subject Directors and the Super- intendent himself, of the work of putting in form for publication the various reports and statements issued by the Department to the public. Such a staff'could also put in form for distribution throughout the State, wher- ever it may be needed, information concern- ing interesting educational progress in any part of the State or from any part of the United States. Improved facilities for the immediate publication of the reports and other documents issued by the Department should be’ provided. At present the publica- tion of this type of material is too long de- layed. Is the State Department of Education cost- ing too much? From the standpoint of the type of service which the department is ren- dering and the cost of state departments of education elsewhere, the answer to this ques- tion must be negative. During the fifteen years prior to 1920 the departments of public instruction in other states increased their personnel more rapidly than did Pennsyl- vania. In the present administration, because of the new demands occasioned by the present program of education, the personnel of the department has been considerably increased. However, the present number of staff officers, in proportion to the number of pupils en- rolled, is near the average for eleven repre- sentative northern states. The salaries of these officers are higher than the average for other states for two reasons: (1) These sal- aries in most of the other states were decided upon at a time when salaries of all kinds were low, consequently it is very difficult to secure high grade service in these states at the present time. (2) It was very properly regarded in the Pennsylvania Department as a distinct economy to pay for the highest type of service that can be secured. As already i VON. 12 PENNSYLVANIA SCHOOL JOURNAL pointed. out, the present salaries have not proved high enough to retain some of the best men-and women that have been brought into the department. They are certainly no higher than they must be to secure the qualifications that are needed. The entire cost of the State Department of Education in Pennsylvania was 5.1 cents per capita in 1922. This was somewhat higher than the corresponding costs in Ohio, Illinois, Indiana and Michigan, but less than in Massa- chusetts, Wisconsin, Minnesota, New York and New Jersey, and was 1.6 cents below the average of the states named. The administra- tion cost per pupil in Pennsylvania was 27.5 cents. This was higher than in Ohio, Indiana, Illinois and Michigan, but lower than in Con- necticut, Massachusetts, Wisconsin, Minne- sota, New York and New Jersey, and was 8.3 cents less per pupil than the average of these states. These facts indicate that admin- istration costs in Pennsylvania are probably below the average among northern states and considerably below those of Massachusetts, Connecticut, New York and New Jersey. The Committee strongly recommends that larger sums be made available to meet the traveling expenses of the members of the De- partment staff. Is the State paying too much or too little for public education? This question should be considered from three points of view: (1) Is the State spending more or less than it should in view of its financial ability to sup- port public education? (2) Is the State, as compared with the local communities, bearing a larger share of the financial burden of edu- cation than it should? (3) Is the ratio of the State’s expenditures for education to its total expenditures for all purposes larger than it should be? The latest investigation by the United States Government of the taxable wealth of the various states shows that in 1912 Pennsyl- vania ranked nineteenth among the states in the true valuation per capita of general prop- erty. The State’s economic development since 1912 gives no reason to believe that its pres- ent rank is lower than it was at that time. A recently published report of the National Bureau of Economic Research shows that the annual income per inhabitant for Pennsyl- vania in 1919 was $688. This was nine per cent higher than for the United States as a whole. In this respect also the State ranked nineteenth. It follows, therefore, that from the stand- point of property value and income per in- habitant, Pennsylvania is financially more able to support public education than the aver- age state of the Union. How does its actual expenditure on Education compare with the corresponding expendi- tures of other States? In 1870 the State was spending per capita of total population 35 per cent more on public education than the average for the United States, in 1900, 20 per cent more, in 1910, 17 per cent more and 4/10 of one per cent more in 1920. As compared with New York the State was spending 9 per cent more per capita in 1870, 16 per cent less in 1890 and 13 per cent ‘less in 1920. And as compared with the North Atlantic states 2 per cent more in 1915, 5 per cent more in 1917 and 16 per cent less in 1919 than the average of this group. As compared with the North Central states Pennsylvania has been spending considerably less per capita than the average for the past forty years. In 1920 Pennsylvania was spending 27 per cent less than the average of North Central group and 41 per cent less than the average of the Western states. In expenditures per capita of average school attendance, Pennsylvania was spend- ing 21 per cent more than the average of the United States in 1899, 16 per cent more in 1909, and 5 per cent less in 1919; as com- pared with New York 16 per cent less in 1899, 25 per cent less in 1909, and 27 per cent less in 1919; as compared with the North At- lantic states 17 per cent less in 1899, 13 per cent less in 1909 and 20 per cent less in 1919; as compared with the North Central states 17 per cent more in 1899, 4 per cent less in 1909 and 23 per cent less in 1920; and as compared with the Western states 36 per cent less in 1919. During that. year the State was also spending 30 per cent less per capita of aver- age school: attendance than New Jersey and 37 per cent less than California. The State’s expenditure per capita of average attendance . in 1919-20 was $51.76 per year, which was $2.89 less than the average for the United States as a whole, $22.64 less than New York, $15.28 less than the North Central states, $28.21 less than the Western states, $22.64 less than New Jersey and $29.90 less than California. These figures show that for a period of more than fifty years Pennsylvania has put *» SURVEY OF STATE PROGRAM OF EDUCATION Te, relatively much less money per capita both of the total population and of total school at- tendance into the education of her children than the North Atlantic, the North Central and the Western states; that prior to the pas- sage of the Edmonds Law the State stood near the bottom of the list of all Northern states; that at the time of the passage of this law, the State was actually spending in these respects more than five per cent less than the ’ average for the United States; and that even in 1921-22 the teachers’ salaries of the State except those of Pittsburgh and Philadelphia were less than the average for the United States. Turning to the present expenditures on teachers’ salaries, it must be noted that even with the heavy increases provided by the Ed- monds law Pennsylvania was still below the average for the United States in all schools except those of cities of more than 100,600 in- habitants in 1921-22. In those years the aver- age for the United States for cities between 25,000 and 100,000 was $1,379; for cities be- . tween 10,000 and 25,000, $1,241; for cities and towns between 2,500 and 10,000, $1,097; for villages and towns employing three or more teachers, $885. The corresponding salaries for Pennsylvania were $1,244, $1,130, $1,029, $992 and $881, respectively. Therefore dur- ing the first year of the operation of the Ed- monds law the teachers’ salaries of Pennsyl- vania in all centers of population below 100,- 000 were from 9.8 per cent less than the aver- age for the United States in cities of 25,000 and 100,000, to .5 per cent less than the aver- age in village and rural districts. The teach- ers of the State in all but the schools of Pitts- burgh and Philadelphia are still receiving much lower salaries than are being paid in such states as Arizona, California, Colorado, New Jersey and New York. In the matter of expenditures for the train- ing of teachers, Pennsylvania has also not kept pace with the majority of Northern states. The sum paid for expenses and capital outlay on the Normal Schools in 1921-1922 on account of the provisions of the Edmonds law was very much greater than in any preceding year. However, the. average total expense per student enrolled in the normal schools of the State for that year was $271. This was somewhat below the average for such North- ern states as Wisconsin ($313) and Massa- chusetts ($370). The total cost of instruction in the normal schools of the State for 1921-1922 was only $130 per student enrolled, $95 of which was paid for instruction in the normal school and $35 for instruction in the. Training’ School. These figures are very low ‘when compared with those of other Northern states, being $48 less per student for the total cost of instruc- tion than in Wisconsin and $92 less per student than in Massachusetts. On all these counts, therefore, the evidence clearly shows that, in viéw of the State’s ability to finance public education, it is not spending more, but con- siderably less than it should spend if what is being done in other Northern states is to be accepted as a proper standard. Is the State paying a larger percentage of the total cost of public education than it should as compared with local communities? The total amount appropriated by the State for the support of its schools in 1920 was $13,987,648 and in 1921, $18,459,658. This represented a per capita cost in 1920 of $1.60 and in 1921 of $2.12. In the per capita amount spent for educational purposes, Penn- sylvania stood thirty-second in the United States in 1920, and in 1921, although the per capita amount, due to the operation of the Edmonds law, was 32 per cent greater than in 1920,—the amount appropriated for 1921 placed the State in only the twenty-second place as compared with the expenditures of other states in 1920. It is unfortunate that the figures for the other states of the Union are not available for 1921, but there is no reason to believe that the expenditures in these states were on the average less than in 1920. Twelve states paid more than twice as much per capita in 1920 as did Pennsylvania, and two, Nevada and Vermont, paid more than four times as much. In the per capita amount paid to elemen- tary and secondary schools, Pennsylvania ranked twenty-fifth among the states in 1920, and thirty-second in the per capita amount paid for the support of normal schools. In 1921, the State appropriated more than four times as much to the normal schools as it did in 1920, and yet the amount paid in 1921 was smaller than the corresponding amount paid by ten other states in 1920. These facts indicate clearly that the State is not bearing a larger percentage of the total burden of education than it should, if here again what is being done in other states may | be accepted as the standard. Certainly such a standard cannot be considered too high. Variation in per capita wealth and in the in- terests, occupations and racial characteristics © 3 c Ja 14 PENNSYLVANIA SCHOOL JOURNAL of the people is much greater in Pennsylvania than in any other State, with the possible exception of New York. This variation very properly calls upon the State to bear a larger part of the financial burden than would other- wise be required in order that the burden and opportunities of.education may be more nearly equalized throughout the State. Where this variation is. slight, as in the case of the more strictly agricultural states of the Middle West, the whole burden of education may more justly be carried by local taxation. Is the ratio of expenditures for education to the total expenditures for all purposes in Pennsylvania greater than it should be? For the year 1918-1919, as shown by Report of the Bureau of Census on the Financial Statistics of States, Pennsylvania was devoting 27 per cent of its total expenditures to the support of education. The average for the United States for that year, as shown by the same Report, was 34 per cent. Pennsylvania was, therefore, devoting a much smaller percentage of its total expenditures to public education than the average of the states, ranking in this respect thirty-ninth among the states for that year. The expenditures of the several states in 1922 are unfortunately not accessible to the committee. The sum appropriated for education by Pennsylvania that year was much larger than for the preceding year. Nevertheless, if the percentage of expendi- tures for education in the other states had re- mained the same in 1922 as in 1919, Pennsyl- vania would still have been far below the average, and would have occupied thirtieth place among the states. The same Report of the Bureau of Census shows that, in the amount per capita of the total population appropriated by the State Government for the support of the schools, Pennsylvania ranked thirty-fifth among the states in 1919,—seven- teen states having appropriated more than twice as much and four states more than three times as much per capita for this pur- pose. As compared, therefore, with what is being done in other states, the larger fraction of total expenditures and the larger per capita amount devoted by the state to education under the operation of Edmonds law is not only justified, but could be considerably in- creased without exceeding the average for the United States. On all counts, therefore, the question “Is Pennsylvania spending too much for public education?” must be answered in the negative. Lastly, can Pennsylvania afford not to raise the money requisite to carry out the present state program. of education? It can not. This answer is inevitable in view of the facts that have been set forth in this report. Even under the increased expenditures called for by the Edmonds law, Pennsylvania is not at present spending more per capita or per pupil en- rolled than the average of Northern states. The fact that during the preceding quarter of a century Pennsylvania had allowed itself to fall far behind in the progress of education that group of states with which it should be compared makes it necessary for the State to spend more during the next few years to keep abreast of the procession than would other- wise have been required. It is hardly prob- able that the people of the State will fail to meet this emergency when they fully under- stand the present situation. The present moment is a very critical one in the educational history of the State, partly because of the fact that the progress of the last three years has been so rapid that the - rank and file of the people are not yet fully conscious of what has occurred and why there is at present such an urgent demand for more money for public education. A great battle has been fought and won, but the war itself is by no means over. It is now necessary to consolidate the splendid gains that have been made. The present program must be given time to reveal fully what it can accomplish and what changes it will be necessary to make in its operation. It is imperatively necessary that the teachers of the State shall consider the program as a whole and assist in pre- senting it to the people in its proper perspec- tive. To lose the splendid fight for better schools in this State would be a serious loss not only to Pennsylvania, but to every other State in the Union. There can be no doubt that Pennsylvania in its present program has taken the position of distinct leadership among American states in the improvement of public education. It should be the ambition of every school man and every citizen of the State to see to it that it does not lose this splendid position. Respectfully submitted by the Survey Com- mittee : JOHN W. WITHERS, Chairman FRANK Copy THOMAS E. JOHNSON PAYSON SMITH CHARL O. WILLIAMS \y