379.773 H.M. SCHROEDER 
 Sch7Sa 
 
 AN ANALYSIS OF THE COST 
 OF PUBLIC EDUCATION IN 
 PEORIA DURING THE 
 SCHOOL YEAR 1915-1916 
 
 O')/? 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
X| I - 72 
 
 ID 
 
 Cost of Public 
 Education 
 
 1915-1916 
 
 Peoria, Illinois 
 
 UNIVERSITY 0* 
 
 ILU volb LIBRARY 
 <vt urbana-champaign 
 
• 1 ■ • - - . 
 
 . 
 
 ' • ‘ , 
 
 ■ f J • . • : • V - l-r ; • 
 
 - ■ . ' : • ■ ■ - : * ■ r ■. ■ i / ■ . 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 x H *. * 
 
 > 7 ; i. 
 
 •:>. :>■ i ■ . rtf ! I . •>. 
 
 
 ' 
 
 - .. • . i; ' ;* 
 
 
 ■ 
 
 . 
 
 
 
 ' !*>> ■; ? ; ; ■'■'■‘I ’f 
 
 . . ■ • -'V 1 ' 
 
 . 
 
 ' •!• i V-" 
 
 
 V AV .. .. 
 
 & V' •» 
 
 
 • i • . . / "• «•» i • > : ' 
 
 ■ 
 
 , ■ > a -s ■ . • - 41 •• 
 
 ' . , ■ V : - * .. ’.S 
 
 . I ■ ■ 
 
 
 
 
 Mr- 1 , %\ 
 
 ■ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 \ ■ i K; *’M 
 
 . 
 
 - ■■ > v-' ■ • •- ' \ j’r' i > #, 7 
 
 . 
 
 * ' * <■. 'P-- ft « 
 
 : 
 
 . ... 
 
 - ■ T . !/ j . 
 
 s -'.■■■■■ - ■ 
 
 . v •< ■ • • ‘ . i ’* 
 
 r t Lv - . t ' t l ... 
 
 • '■!: >' 
 
 . - ' ‘ . • 
 
 . - ■ 1 v ® / * • ■ 
 
 ^ :i I , V; ■ • r - \ ' v: /! 
 
 . 
 
 ■ Ui .<■ *' i- ' t *fi\ 
 
 ■ 
 
 ‘ ; ; ' :'/ ' iiV'f f* » ■-' ", '• ' . 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 • r' 
 
 
 ■ 
 
 
 '■ I 
 
 V r - r 1 
 
 
 
 «' . , 
 
 ij i 1 
 
 
 
 ■> ^ - * 
 
 
 -■ if •; ' ' A , v • ~ ; .- 
 
 I f l , rij- •f'Mrtrii ' I 
 
 • •>: M - . ■ - -.>•¥ ■ ■ 
 
 '• i \ • ' V i ■ 
 
 ' 
 
 ■ 
 
An Analysis of 
 
 The Cost of Public 
 Education in 
 Peoria 
 
 during the school year 1915-1916 
 
 A Report to 
 
 The Board of School Inspectors of Peoria, Illinois 
 
 By 
 
 H. H. SCHROEDER 
 Associate Professor of Education 
 Illinois State Normal University, Normal, Illinois 
 
 Dup. U. of C. 
 G. W. 
 
. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 t 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 - 
 
 
 N 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Board of School Inspectors, 
 
 Peoria, Illinois. 
 
 Ladies and Gentlemen :— 
 
 In compliance with your resolution of October 6, 1916, I here¬ 
 with submit my report on “the relative cost of public education in 
 Peoria as compared to that of other cities of approximately the 
 same size.” The resolution stipulated that the report should show: 
 
 1. The cost per pupil in the elementary schools, in the high 
 schools and kindergartens, for administration, instruction, operation 
 of plant, maintenance, and other important expenditures per school; 
 
 2. The number of pupils per teacher in the elementary schools 
 and in the high schools; 
 
 3. Suggestions and recommendations justified by the findings. 
 
 A study of the report will show that these various factors have 
 received consideration. 
 
 In submitting my report I wish to express my appreciation for 
 the hearty co-operation extended to me by Supt. A. W. Beasley, 
 M-r. A. N. Morton, Secretary of the Board, Miss Frances Ulricson, 
 the assistant secretary, and by everybody connected with the public 
 schools from whom I had occasion to solicit information. 
 
 Respectfully yours, 
 
 H. H. Schroeder. 
 
 Normal, Ill., April 6, 1917. 
 
 
 3 
 
 LIBRARY 
 
 UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS 
 
 AT urbana.champaign 
 
» 
 
 Educational Costs in Peoria, Ill. 
 
 PART I. 
 
 A SURVEY OF ESSENTIAL FACTS 
 
 Expenditures of the Peoria Schools Last Year 
 
 In the attempt to determine the actual expenditures for differ¬ 
 ent purposes in the administration of the public schools of Peoria 
 and of other cities of approximately the same size it was thought 
 best to use the data for the school year 1915-1916. To do this it 
 was necessary to secure the co-operation of the Bureau of Educa¬ 
 tion at Washington. The data for all cities in the list except Peoria 
 were obtained from the reports made to the Commissioner of 
 Education by the superintendents of schools of the respective cities. 
 Several school systems had not reported, and hence it was necessary 
 in such cases to use the corresponding data for the most recent 
 school year for which a report had been rendered. 
 
 In the case of Peoria it was deemed advisable to make an in¬ 
 dependent study of the facts instead of depending on the report 
 made by the Secretary of the Board of School Inspectors. For 
 even a brief examination of the system of accounting used in the 
 offices of the Board revealed the fact that the same did not, in all 
 cases, show proper distributions of significant classes of expendi¬ 
 tures. It was impossible, as a result, to obtain the necessary data 
 from the balance sheets or even the face of the ledger. And for 
 this reason the necessary facts could not be secured from the 
 reports of the secretary, either, since these reports showed the 
 same distributions that were found in the final outcropping of the 
 system of books used in the offices of the Board. As a result it was 
 necessary in the case of a considerable number of accounts, to go 
 back to the first entries and even to the original vouchers. 
 
 Several illustrations may not be amiss. The secretary’s report 
 showed payments to the amount of $20,375.77 for supervisors’ 
 salaries. This amount, properly distributed, divides as follows: 
 
 Supervisors’ salaries.$13,067.89 
 
 Special Teachers, Manual Training High School. 1,502.98 
 
 Special Teachers, Peoria High School,,,. 1,338.40 
 
 4 
 
Special Teachers, Irving - School. 95.00 
 
 Mr. Graf’s salary, to be charged in equal parts to fol¬ 
 lowing schools: Blaine, Garfield, Harrison, Lincoln, 
 
 Loucks, McKinley. 960.00 
 
 Mr. Harms’s salary, to be charged in equal parts to fol¬ 
 lowing schools: Columbia, Irving, Longfellow, 
 Washington, White. 750.00 
 
 Miss Lord’s salary, to be charged in equal parts to fol¬ 
 lowing schools: Blaine, Harrison, Tyng, Webster.... 950.00 
 
 Miss Carson’s salary, to be charged in equal parts to fol¬ 
 lowing schools: Columbia, Lee, Loucks, Webster, 
 
 Whittier . 577.50 
 
 Miss Oates’s salary, to be charged in unequal parts to fol¬ 
 lowing schools: Lincoln, Loucks, Washington, Whit¬ 
 tier . 125.00 
 
 Substitute’s salary, Lincoln, $6.00; McKinley, $3.00. 9.00 
 
 Miss Youngreen, promotion of health. 1,000.00 
 
 $20,375.77 
 
 Of the above total, charged to supervision, only $13,067.89 
 ought to be so charged. 
 
 Under the head of Sundry Office Expense the secretary’s report 
 shows a charge of $951.72. Of this amount only $198.62 ought to 
 have been so charged. The rest of the total divides up as follows: 
 Peoria High, $21.05; Manual Training High, $23.70; Whittier, $.96; 
 Irving, $21.00; Evening School supplies, $8.00; instructional sup¬ 
 plies, $473.36; repairs, $89.87; janitors’ supplies, $106.91; outlay, 
 $8.25. While it was possible to make this redistribution, it was 
 not possible to determine to what schools some of these items 
 ought to have been charged, for neither the vouchers nor any other 
 records furnished the necessary information ; nor was the memory 
 of any employee of the Board able to supply such knowledge. 
 
 In determining the cost per pupil the average daily attendance 
 was taken as a basis. This is not an ideal basis, for the schools 
 have to be equipped to accommodate a great many pupils that do 
 not attend regularly. On the other hand it would not do to take 
 the total enrollment as the basis for ascertaining costs per pupil. 
 For the total enrollment would include a considerable number of 
 cases of children that attended for only a short time before leaving 
 the city. A more nearly just basis would be that of the average num¬ 
 ber of pupils belonging. But, since it was the desire of the Board of 
 School Inspectors to have a study made of educational costs in 
 Peoria as compared to those of other cities, it was necessary to 
 choose either the total enrollment or the average daily attendance 
 as the basis; for the data as to the average number belonging are 
 
 5 
 
not published in the Reports of the Commissioner of Education. 
 And as between the total enrollment and the average daily at¬ 
 tendance as criteria for measuring the actual cost of education, the 
 latter is decidedly preferable. It is obtained by dividing the total 
 days’ attendance by the number of days on which the schools 
 were actually in session. In the case of the Kindergarten at the 
 Lee School the low overage daily attendance (8) needs explanation. 
 This kindergarten was started in the spring of the year, being in 
 session for only 54 days. The aggregate attendance was 1531, 
 making the average daily attendance for the time during which 
 it was in session 28.4. But to put it on the same basis with the 
 rest, so as to be able to determine per pupil costs, the aggregate 
 daily attendance is divided by 190, giving 8.1 as the average daily 
 attendance on the year’s basis. 
 
 The cost of administration, according to the secretary’s report 
 amounted to $42,185.16. A careful analysis reduced this amount to 
 $20,543.91, and there is valid reason for believing that part of 
 this amount really belongs to other classes of expenditures. The 
 above amount includes the salaries of the superintendent of schools, 
 the secretary of the Board and the various office employees of the 
 Board, of the superintendent of repairs, of attendance officers, and 
 of office janitor. It also includes amounts paid for office rent, legal 
 services, expenses incurred by school elections and school census, 
 auditing of accounts, and sundry other overhead charges. This 
 amount was pro-rated to all schools on the basis of $2.299777 per 
 pupil, or practically $2.30, as indicated in Table I. 
 
 As regards the cost of supervision, reference was made above 
 to the fact that of $20,375.77 charged to supervision, in the secre¬ 
 tary’s report, only $13,067.89 ought to have been so charged. The 
 salaries of teachers supervising work in the elementary schools and 
 high schools amounted to $7,979.75. The salaries of teachers super¬ 
 vising work exclusively in the elementary schools amounted to 
 $5,088.14. The former amount is pro-rated as follows: 13.7661% 
 to High Schools, and 86.2339% to elementary schools. Hence 
 $1,098.50 is pro-rated to the two high schools and $11,969.39 to the 
 elementary schools. The former amount is divided as follows: 
 48.8189% to the Peoria High School and 51.1811% to the Manual 
 Training High School. The cost per pupil in the elementary 
 schools, exclusive of Detention Home School was $1.671703. In 
 the case of kindergartens, only the salary of the kindergarten super¬ 
 visor is pro-rated. The cost was $2.13464696 per pupil. 
 
 In the case of the two high schools the charges to principals’ 
 salaries include salaries of clerks, as follows: Peoria High, $400; 
 Manual Training High, $550. It will be noted that the salaries of 
 elementary school principals are charged only to the pupils above 
 
 6 
 
the kindergarten. In view of the fact that most of the kindergartens 
 of Peoria are housed in the elementary school buildings, there 
 might be good reason for charging principals’ salaries to kinder¬ 
 garten pupils, also. However, in Peoria as in many other school 
 systems the kindergarten is practically independent of the super¬ 
 vision of the elementary school principal, 
 
 , i 
 
 The amounts charged to each school under the head of teachers’ 
 salaries include the amounts so charged on the pay-roll, plus a 
 few minor amounts paid in cash at the end of the school year after 
 checks for the last month’s salaries had been issued, and lastly, 
 redistributions from the supervisors’ pay-roll and from the pay¬ 
 rolls of other schools. These redistributions were made only in 
 the case of teachers of special subjects. In the case of all other 
 teachers the charges were properly made in the records at the office. 
 Some teachers erroneously carried on the supervisors’ pay-roll were 
 teachers of special subjects dividing their time between different 
 schools. In some cases there were teachers carried on the pay-roll 
 of certain schools, while part of their services were rendered in 
 other schools. In all such cases redistributions were made. This 
 was done on the basis of information kindly supplied by Supt. 
 A. W. Beasley, as to the fractional amount of time spent in dif¬ 
 ferent schools. In the case of the Irving School, for instance, the 
 pay-roll showed a charge of $9,483.45 for teachers’ salaries. There 
 was an additional charge of $7.50 from the petty cash account, 
 making a total charge of $9,490.15. From this total there had to 
 be deducted $466.80 from the salaries of two teachers, leaving the 
 total charged for teachers’ salaries $9,024,15. In this connection 
 the fact might be mentioned that the Irving School houses the 
 City Training School. Part of the time of the teachers of this school 
 is devoted to the training of the young women preparing to teach in 
 the schools of the city. But at present there is no recognition 
 of this fact taken in the office records. 
 
 In the case of stationery, school supplies, and other instruction¬ 
 al expense it was impossible to procure reliable information as to 
 the extent to which charges ought to be made against the different 
 schools. The records show that such supplies were purchased to 
 the amount of $9,629.85. Of this amount $14.40 was charged to 
 evening schools, leaving $9,615.45 to be charged against the day 
 schools. Of this amount only $4,301.99 was charged to individual 
 schools, namely $2,508.62 on the monthly trial balances, and $1,- 
 793.37 on the requisition book. This left a balance of $5,313.46 for 
 supplies purchased during the year, but not charged to the different 
 schools. In other words, not quite 45 per cent of the whole was 
 charged to the different schools. As there is no reason to believe 
 that the other 55 per cent did hot reach the different schools, 
 
 7 
 
there was only one, thing left to do, namely to assume 
 that each school received its proportionate share of this bal¬ 
 ance. Hence the balance was pro-rated. v This was the best 
 that could be done under the circumstances. Yet it is noth¬ 
 ing more than a necessary makeshift. There is every rea¬ 
 son to believe that as a result charges against some schools are 
 overweighted while they are under-weighed in the case of some 
 others. The specific charges against the two high schools were 
 as follows: Peoria High, $941.61; Manual Training High School, 
 $1,196.42. In addition there was pro-rated to the high schools 
 $609.93. The records showed that of the uncharged total of 
 $5,313.46, there were supplies to the amount of $871.58 used in 
 elementary schools only. Hence, only the difference between these 
 two amounts, namely $4,441.88 could properly be pro-rated to high 
 schools and elementary schools alike. To show how unsatisfactory 
 the pro-rating of part of the instructional supplies is, a few illustra¬ 
 tions are added. Two of the smallest schools actually have the 
 greatest charges against them on the records. The Loucks School, 
 the smallest of all, is charged, with $112.37, next to the largest 
 amount charged to any of the elementary schools; while the Lee 
 School has a charge of $253.59, the largest amount charged to any of 
 the elementary schools. There is no particular ascertainable reason 
 for believing that these two small schools actually used so much 
 more of instructional material than did some of the larger schools. 
 In the case of the kindergartens no supplies were charged out 
 against individual schools. The books record charges for supplies 
 for the kindergarten department as a whole, instead. Hence, $772.60 
 which was charged on the trial balance, and $26.42 on the requisi¬ 
 tion book, or a total of $799.02, was pro-rated to the different kinder¬ 
 gartens on the basis of $1.3120197 per pupil. 
 
 Under the head of miscellaneous operating expenses, totaling 
 $8,704.27, are included gas and electricity to the amount of 
 $3,150.47; hauling ashes $475.90; rent of armory for use as a gymna¬ 
 sium by students of the Peoria High School, $1,050; rent for the 
 Neighborhood House kindergarten, $110; janitors’ supplies to the 
 amount of $2,467.09, and sundry other operating expenses, such as 
 inspection of scales and boilers, freight and express, hauling of 
 supplies. Janitors’ supplies were charged to individual schools to 
 the amount of only $426.80; the rest was pro-rated, as were all of 
 the charges for freight, express, hauling of supplies, and similar 
 items. Express, freight, and cartage charges on supplies ought to 
 be added to the cost of supplies wherever possible. As this was 
 not done there was no recourse but to pro-rate the respective 
 amounts. 
 
 The maintenance account includes repairs of buildings and 
 equipment, as well as replacement of equipment, upkeep of grounds, 
 supplies for repairs and insurance. The total of $21,211.32 includes 
 
 8 
 
a group of miscellaneous items such as supplies for repairs that 
 had to be pro-rated; this latter item amounted to $1,548.07. The 
 actual cost of insurance was $3,216.21, although the amount paid 
 out during the year for insurance was only $2,953.36. The balance, 
 amounting to $16,447.04, was for repairs on buildings, upkeep of 
 grounds, and repairs on equipment as well as replacement of equip¬ 
 ment. This amount does not agree with the total for repairs found 
 in the secretary’s report for the simple reason that the latter report 
 was drawn directly from the distributions found in the records of 
 the office. In some instances amounts were recorded as outlay that 
 ought to have been entered as replacements. For instance, vouchers 
 10095 and 10110 showed that new typewriters had been secured 
 for the Manual Training High School to displace old ones by 
 payment of additional charges of $165.00 and $30.00 respectively. 
 Voucher No. 10204 records a payment of $125.00 for a similar 
 purpose for the Peoria High School. These amounts were re¬ 
 corded as payments for furnishings bought, and were included, 
 therefore, under the head of outlay, whereas they ought to have 
 been charged under the head of maintenance. On the other hand, 
 some charges were entered as repairs instead of as outlay. Foi 
 instance, Vouchers No. 10032 and 10036 contain several charges 
 amounting to $55.25 for new furniture for the old Glen Oak School 
 that were charged in as repairs instead of as outlay. It is very 
 evident that the total cost per pupil in a given school is increased 
 materially by an unusually heavy repair bill, as for instance in the 
 case of the Columbia School. Hence, in comparing the total costs 
 per pupil in different schools, allowance must be made for a heavy 
 maintenance expenditure not characteristic of a given school. 
 
 The miscellaneous expenditures include payments for pension 
 fund, $3,007.85; promotion of health, $1,087.95, which last amount 
 includes a salary of $1,000; books for indigents, $816.61; coal, 
 repairs and hauling ashes for the Teachers’ Club $297.99 ; librarian 
 Peoria High School, $350.00; medical attendance under the em¬ 
 ployer's liability law, $261.50; exhibits, field day, civic parade, com¬ 
 mencement exercises. All items that could properly be charged 
 to individual schools were so charged. The balance was pro-rated. 
 The salary of the librarian at the Peoria High School was charged 
 to this school, making the cost per pupil in that school $1.30. Iff 
 the case of the Manual Training High School and the elementary 
 schools it was $.6715728 per pupil. For kindergarten pupils the 
 cost was $.8944299 per pupil. 
 
 The total expenditures were $456,377.88, while the secretary’s 
 books showed them to be $467,337.55. This difference is due 
 mainly to the fact that many items charged in as running expenses 
 really were payments for outlay. For instance, a charge of 
 
 9 
 
$1,016.17 for coal ought to have been included as part of the cost 
 of the new Peoria High School building. Insurance to the amount 
 of $777.30 on this building while in the process of construction 
 ought likewise to have been charged to this building, under the 
 head of outlay. 
 
 In attempting to determine how much it costs to give a pupil 
 one year of schooling it is necessary to consider something .more 
 than the current expenses for operation and maintenance. For 
 the city has a considerable amount of wealth tied up in the public 
 school plant. Interest on this investment and a reasonable charge 
 for depreciation ought to be added to the current expenses. In the 
 charges made, under this head in Tables I and II to the different 
 schools a charge of 5 per cent for interest was made on the total 
 investment in the site, the building, and the equipment. In estimat¬ 
 ing depreciation it was assumed that the life of a fire-proof building 
 is two-thirds of a century; that of the other buildings with the 
 exception of portable buildings, is fifty years, while that of portable 
 buildings is ten years. Hence an additional charge was made for 
 depreciation as follows : 2 per cent in the case of ordinary build¬ 
 
 ings, 1^2 per cent for fire-proof buildings, and 10 per cent for 
 portable buildings. It was much more difficult to estimate depre¬ 
 ciation on furniture and equipment, for the simple reason that the 
 records in the office do not distinguish between these two items, 
 simply showing the amount invested in “furnishings.” In the case 
 of several schools a painstaking attempt was made to determine 
 the proportion of the value of furniture to that of equipment. In 
 the elementary sch.ools probably about four-fifths of the amount 
 invested in “furnishings" is invested in furniture, and one-fifth in 
 equipment; in the high schools, three-fifths in furniture and two- 
 fifths in equipment. Furniture will last, on the average, about 
 twenty years, equipment, ten years. Hence, in the case of elemen¬ 
 tary schools a charge was made of 6 per cent for depreciation on 
 the amount invested in furnishings, and in the case of the high 
 schools, 7 per cent. The sum of the amounts thus obtained by 
 adding 5 per cent on the investment to the various amounts in¬ 
 dicated for depreciation gave the total annual charge to be added 
 to the current expenses. Adding the per pupil cost for interest 
 and depreciation to the total cost for running expenses, shows us 
 that last year the average cost per pupil in the kindergartens was 
 $62.61, in the elementary schools, $57.83, and in the high schools 
 
 $110.81. ;■ 
 
 \ ' yo-K? j* - 
 
 The basis used in.estimating the cost due to interest on invest¬ 
 ment and to depreciation is merely suggestive; it is not submitted 
 with any claim to finality. It may well be urged that even fire 
 proof buildings ought to be estimated to last at least half a century 
 and ordinary buildings a third of a century. In the older com- 
 
 10 
 
I 
 
 r 
 
 I 
 
 c 
 
 ( 
 
Table II. 
 
 T otal cost and per pupil cost of classified expenditures, exclusive of outlay, for the public day high schools and elementary schools of Peoria, 1915-1916 
 
 KINDERGARTENS 
 
 Number 
 of pupils 
 in aver¬ 
 age daily 
 attend¬ 
 ance 
 
 Adminisira- 
 tion, pro¬ 
 rated. $2.30 
 per pupil 
 
 Supervisors’ 
 salaries, pro¬ 
 rated ; 
 kindergar¬ 
 tens $2.13 
 per pupil 
 
 Salaries of principals 
 
 Amt. Per Pupil 
 
 Salaries of teachers 
 
 Amt. Per Pupil 
 
 Stationery, supplies, 
 and other instruc¬ 
 tion expense; 
 kindergartens, pro¬ 
 rated, $1.31 per 
 pupil 
 
 Amt. Per Pupil 
 
 Salaries of janitors 
 
 Amt. Per Pupil 
 
 Fuel 
 
 Amt. Per Pupil 
 
 Gas and electricity, 
 janitors’ supplies, 
 and other operating 
 expense 
 
 Amt. Per Pupil 
 
 Maintenance, re¬ 
 pairs, replacement 
 of equipment, in¬ 
 surance, etc. 
 
 Amt. Per Pupil 
 
 Promotion 
 of health, 
 libraries, 
 and other 
 miscellane¬ 
 ous ex¬ 
 pense, pro¬ 
 rated; kin¬ 
 dergartens, 
 $0.39 per 
 pupil 
 
 Total expenses, 
 exclusive of outlay 
 
 Amt. Per Pupil 
 
 Interest on investment 
 and depreciation of 
 plant and equipment 
 
 Amt. Per Pupil 
 
 Blaine Kindergarten . 
 
 32 
 
 $ 73.59 
 
 $ 68.31 
 
 
 
 $ 1 384 00 
 
 841 25 
 
 8 41 99 
 
 
 $ 91 69 
 
 $2 87 
 
 $ 34 08 
 
 $1.07 
 
 $ 21.40 
 
 $ .67 
 
 $ 60.21 
 
 $1.88 
 
 $ 28.62 
 
 $ 1803.89 
 
 $56.37 
 
 $ 353.06 
 
 $11.03 
 
 Columbia . 
 
 27 
 
 62.09 
 
 57.64 
 
 
 
 1212 67 
 
 45 65 
 
 15 49 
 
 
 90 15 
 
 3 34 
 
 38 04 
 
 ’ 1.41 
 
 21.64 
 
 .80 
 
 327.68 
 
 12.14 
 
 24.15 
 
 1889.48 
 
 69.98 
 
 339.27 
 
 ’ 12 57 
 
 Douglas . 
 
 37 
 
 85.10 
 
 78 98 
 
 
 
 1126 00 
 
 TJ.Uu 
 
 15 84 
 
 48 54 
 
 . 
 
 97 10 
 
 2 62 
 
 51 68 
 
 1.40 
 
 41.47 
 
 1.12 
 
 30.68 
 
 .83 
 
 33.10 
 
 1792.65 
 
 48.45 
 
 708.76 
 
 19 16 
 
 Franklin. 
 
 27 
 
 62.09 
 
 57.64 
 
 
 
 1295 75 
 
 O J.u i 
 
 47 99 
 
 15 41 
 
 
 73 64 
 
 2 73 
 
 31 16 
 
 1.15 
 
 17.74 
 
 .66 
 
 77.89 
 
 2.88 
 
 24.15 
 
 1675.49 
 
 62.05 
 
 281 68 
 
 10 43 
 
 Garfield . 
 
 47 
 
 108.09 
 
 100 33 
 
 
 
 1187 00 
 
 ?5 26 
 
 61 67 
 
 
 126 71 
 
 2 70 
 
 62 77 
 
 1.34 
 
 28.94 
 
 .62 
 
 120.08 
 
 2.55 
 
 42.03 
 
 1837.62 
 
 39.09 
 
 31447 
 
 6 69 
 
 Glen Oak. 
 
 35 
 
 80.49 
 
 74.71 
 
 
 
 1294 40 
 
 36 98 
 
 45 92 
 
 
 106.09 
 
 3.03 
 
 30.15 
 
 .86 
 
 17.87 
 
 .51 
 
 276.76 
 
 7.91 
 
 31.31 
 
 1957.70 
 
 55.93 
 
 296.92 
 
 8.48 
 
 Greeley . 
 
 16 
 
 36.80 
 
 34 15 
 
 
 
 1404 14 
 
 87 76 
 
 20 99 
 
 
 51 01 
 
 3 19 
 
 23 67 
 
 1.48 
 
 10.27 
 
 .64 
 
 21.96 
 
 1.37 
 
 14.30 
 
 1617.29 
 
 101.08 
 
 364 82 
 
 22 80 
 
 Harrison . 
 
 37 
 
 85.09 
 
 78.98 
 
 
 
 1215 27 
 
 3 9 87 
 
 48 54 
 
 
 84 81 
 
 2 29 
 
 39.07 
 
 1.06 
 
 23.26 
 
 .63 
 
 52.95 
 
 1.43 
 
 33.10 
 
 1661.07 
 
 44.89 
 
 394 27 
 
 10 66 
 
 Irving. 
 
 1 34 
 
 | 78.19 
 
 72 58 
 
 
 
 1044 25 
 
 30 71 
 
 44 61 
 
 
 102 91 
 
 3 03 
 
 38.13 
 
 1.12 
 
 26.13 
 
 .77 
 
 29.46 
 
 .86 
 
 30.41 
 
 1466.67 
 
 43.14 
 
 704 81 
 
 20 85 
 
 Lee . 
 
 8 
 
 18.40 
 
 17.08 
 
 
 
 368 50 
 
 46 06 
 
 10 50 
 
 
 24 24 
 
 3.03 
 
 7.99 
 
 1.00 
 
 3.99 
 
 .50 
 
 42.40 
 
 5.30 
 
 7.15 
 
 500.25 
 
 62.53 
 
 52 53 
 
 6 57 
 
 Lincoln . 
 
 35 
 
 80.49 
 
 74.71 
 
 
 . 
 
 956 12 
 
 9712 
 
 45 92 
 
 
 83 01 
 
 2 37 
 
 42.01 
 
 1.20 
 
 21.92 
 
 .63 
 
 127.36 
 
 3.64 
 
 31.31 
 
 1462.85 
 
 41.80 
 
 350 59 
 
 10 0? 
 
 Loucks . 
 
 26 
 
 59.79 
 
 5 5'. 50 
 
 
 
 822 95 
 
 31 65 
 
 34 11 
 
 
 106 21 
 
 4.09 
 
 53.09 
 
 2.04 
 
 46.99 
 
 1.81 
 
 111.30 
 
 4.28 
 
 23.25 
 
 1313.19 
 
 50.51 
 
 459 37 
 
 17 67 
 
 McKinley. 
 
 45 
 
 103.49 
 
 96 06 
 
 
 
 1304 26 
 
 | 28 98 
 
 59 04 | 
 
 
 141 23 
 
 3.14 
 
 50.10 
 
 1.11 
 
 21.95 
 
 .49 
 
 34.82 
 
 .77 
 
 40.25 
 
 1851.20 
 
 41 14 
 
 549 75 
 
 12 22 
 
 Sumner. 
 
 29 
 
 66.69 
 
 61.90 
 
 
 . 
 
 1175 57 
 
 40 54 
 
 38 05 
 
 
 82.63 
 
 2.85 
 
 22.89 
 
 .79 
 
 14.84 
 
 .51 
 
 65.52 
 
 2.26 
 
 25.94 
 
 1554.03 
 
 53.59 
 
 191 50 
 
 6 60 
 
 Lucie B Tyng. 
 
 44 
 
 101.19 
 
 93.92 
 
 
 . 
 
 1074 00 
 
 24 41 
 
 57 73 
 
 
 115.62 
 
 2.63 
 
 40.21 
 
 .91 
 
 58.21 
 
 1.32 
 
 81.32 
 
 1.85 
 
 39.36 
 
 1661.56 
 
 37.76 
 
 627 57 
 
 14 26 
 
 Washington . 
 
 27 
 
 62.09 
 
 57.64 
 
 
 
 1144 00 
 
 42 37 
 
 35 42 
 
 
 84.69 
 
 3.14 
 
 29.06 
 
 1.08 
 
 26.09 
 
 .97 
 
 14.30 
 
 .53 
 
 24.15 
 
 1477 44 
 
 54.72 
 
 594 67 
 
 22 0? 
 
 White . 
 
 43 
 
 98.89 
 
 91.79 
 
 
 
 1242 75 
 
 28 90 
 
 56 42 
 
 
 99.82 
 
 2.32 
 
 44.26 
 
 1.03 
 
 28.09 
 
 .65 
 
 78.95 
 
 1.84 
 
 38.46 
 
 1779.43 
 
 41.38 
 
 485 18 
 
 11 28 
 
 Whittier . 
 
 36 
 
 82.79 
 
 76.85 
 
 
 
 1174 82 
 
 32 63 
 
 47 23 
 
 
 103.74 
 
 2.88 
 
 40.45 
 
 1.12 ! 
 
 39.96 
 
 1.11 
 
 65.83 
 
 1.83 
 
 32.20 
 
 1663.87 
 
 46 22 
 
 615.19 
 
 . 1 
 
 17.09 
 
 Neighborhood House . 
 
 24 
 
 55.19 
 
 51.23 
 
 
 . 
 
 1141.50 
 
 47.56 
 
 31.49 
 
 
 
 
 54.96 
 
 2.29 j 
 
 110.00 
 
 4.58 
 
 11.90 
 
 .50 
 
 21.47 
 
 1477.74 
 
 61.57 
 
 Totals and averages for kindergartens 
 
 609 
 
 1,400.54 
 
 1,300.00 
 
 
 
 21,787 95 
 
 35.78 
 
 799.02 
 
 
 1,665.30 
 
 2.73 
 
 733.77 
 
 1.21 
 
 580.76 
 
 .95 
 
 1.631.37 
 
 2.68 
 
 544.71 
 
 30,443.42 
 
 49 99 
 
 7 684 41 | 
 
 12 62 
 
 Totals for elementary schools. 
 
 | 7181 
 
 | 16,514.72 
 
 | 11,969.39 
 
 31,713.25 
 
 4.42 
 
 204,175.34 
 
 28.43 
 
 6068.48 
 
 . 
 
 .85 
 
 20,105.95 
 
 2.77 
 
 8,053.98 
 
 1.12 
 
 5,546.77 
 
 .77 
 
 16,897.88 
 
 2.35 
 
 4822.56 
 
 325,868.31 
 
 45.38 
 
 89,403.75 
 
 12.45 
 
 Elementary, including kindergarten. 
 
 7790 
 
 17,915.26 
 
 13,269.39 
 
 31,713.25 
 
 4.07 
 
 225,963.29 
 
 29.01 
 
 6867.50 
 
 .88 
 
 21,771.25 
 
 2.79 
 
 8,787.75 
 
 1.13 | 
 
 6,127.53 
 
 .79 | 
 
 18,529.25 
 
 2.38 
 
 5367.27 
 
 356,311.73 
 
 45.74 
 
 97,088.16 | 
 
 12.48 
 
 High schools . 
 
 1143 
 
 2 628.65 
 
 1,098.50 
 
 6,350.00 
 
 5.56 
 
 73,535.99 
 
 64.31 
 
 2747.95 
 
 2.40 
 
 5,654.00 
 
 4.91 
 
 1,674.63 
 
 1.45 | 
 
 2,576.74 
 
 2.28 i 
 
 2,682.07 
 
 2.91 
 
 1117.61 
 
 100.066.15 
 
 87.55 
 
 26,588.44 j 
 
 22.99 
 
 Totals and averages for all schools..- 
 
 8933 
 
 $20,543.91 
 
 $14,367.89 
 
 $38,063.25 
 
 $4.26 
 
 $299,499.28 
 
 $33.53 
 
 $9615.45 
 
 $1.08 
 
 $27,425.25 
 
 $3.07 
 
 $10,462.38 
 
 $1.17 | 
 
 $8,704.27 
 
 $ .97 | 
 
 $21,211.32 
 
 $2.38 
 
 $6484.88 
 
 $456,377.88 
 
 $51.09 j 
 
 $123,676.60 | 
 
 $13.89 
 
Table I. 
 
 Total cost and per pupil cost of classified expenditures, exclusive of outlay, for the public day high schools and elementary schools of Peoria, 1915-1916. 
 
 SCHOOL 
 
 Number of 
 pupils in 
 average 
 daily 
 
 attendance 
 
 Adminis¬ 
 
 tration 
 
 prorated 
 
 $2.30 
 
 per pupil 
 
 Supervisors' 
 
 salaries, 
 
 prorated 
 
 high schools 
 $0.96 _ 
 per pupil 
 
 elementary 
 schools $1.67 
 per pupil 
 
 Salaries of principals 
 (and their clerks in 
 case of high schools) 
 
 Amount 
 
 Per 
 
 Pupil 
 
 Salaries of teachers 
 
 Amount 
 
 Per 
 
 Pupil 
 
 Stationery, supplies 
 and other instruc¬ 
 tion expense 
 
 Amount 
 
 Per 
 
 Pupil 
 
 Salaries of 
 janitors 
 
 Fuel 
 
 Amount 
 
 Per 
 
 Pupil 
 
 Amount 
 
 Per 
 
 Pupil 
 
 Gas and electricity, 
 janitors’ supplies 
 and other operat¬ 
 ing expenses 
 
 Amount 
 
 Peoria High School. 
 
 Manual Training High School. 
 
 558 
 
 585 
 
 $ 1283.28 
 1345.37 
 
 536.28 | 
 562.22 i 
 
 3100.00 
 
 3250.00 
 
 $5.56 
 
 5.56 
 
 35,139.15 
 
 38,396.84 
 
 $62.97 
 
 65.64 
 
 $1239.37 
 
 1508.58 
 
 $ 2.22 
 
 2.58 
 
 1800.00 
 
 3854.00 
 
 $3.23 
 
 6.59 
 
 ; 491.78 | 
 1182.85 I 
 
 2.02 
 
 $1948.11 
 
 628.63 
 
 Totals and averages for high schools. 
 
 1143 | $ 2628.65 1 $ 1098.50 | $ 6350.00 | $5.56 | $ 
 
 ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS 
 
 Blaine . 
 
 Columbia . 
 
 Douglas . 
 
 Franklin . 
 
 Garfield . 
 
 Glen Oak . 
 
 Greeley . 
 
 Harrison . 
 
 Irving . 
 
 Lee . 
 
 Lincoln . 
 
 Longfellow . 
 
 Loucks . 
 
 McKinley . 
 
 Summer . 
 
 Lucie B. Tyng. 
 
 Washington . 
 
 Webster . 
 
 White . 
 
 Whittier . 
 
 Special School . 
 
 Detention School. 
 
 324 
 
 283 
 408 
 347 
 387 
 358 
 351 
 473 
 303 
 289 
 458 
 
 284 
 209 
 280 
 329 
 367 
 346 
 501 
 461 
 344 
 
 58 
 
 21 
 
 745.13 
 650.84 
 
 938.31 
 798.02 
 890.01 
 
 823.32 
 807.22 
 
 1087.80 
 
 696.83 
 
 664.64 
 1053.30 
 
 653.14 
 
 480.65 
 643.94 
 756.63 
 844.02 
 795.72 
 
 1152.19 
 
 1060.20 
 791.12 
 133.39 
 
 48.30 
 
 541.63 
 473.09 
 682.05 
 580.08 
 646.95 
 598.47 
 
 586.76 
 790.71 
 506.53 
 483.12 
 
 765.63 
 
 474.77 
 349.39 
 468.07 
 550.01 
 
 613.52 
 578.41 
 
 837.52 
 770.65 
 575.07 
 
 96.96 
 
 1691.50 
 
 1450.00 
 
 1700.00 
 
 1700.00 
 
 1450.00 
 
 1700.00 
 
 1695.75 
 1700.00 
 
 1442.75 
 1450.00 
 1700.00 
 1450.00 
 1455.00 
 1700.00 
 1700.00 
 1700.00 
 1450.00 
 1700.00 
 1428.25 
 1450.00 
 
 $5.22 
 
 5.13 
 
 4.17 
 4.90 
 
 3.75 
 
 4.75 
 4.83 
 3.60 
 
 4.76 
 5.02 
 3.71 
 5.11 
 6.96 
 6.07 
 
 5.17 
 4.63 
 4.19 
 3.39 
 3.10 
 4.22 
 
 Totals and averages for elementary schools. | 7181 | $16,514.72 | $11,969,39 | $31,713.. 
 
 ?5 
 
 73,535.99 j 
 
 $64.34 j 
 
 $2747.95 
 
 $2.40 
 
 $ 5654.00 
 
 $4.95 
 
 $1674.63 
 
 $1.47 
 
 $2576.74 
 
 9,639.64 j 
 
 $29.72 
 
 $ 278.58 
 
 $ .86 
 
 $ 928.31 
 
 $2.87 
 
 $ 345.02 
 
 $1.07 
 
 $ 216.69 
 
 8,882.44 
 
 1 31.39 
 
 | 244.63 
 
 1 .86 
 
 944.85 
 
 3.34 
 
 398.69 
 
 1.41 
 
 231.97 
 
 10,606.59 
 
 26.00 
 
 337.27 
 
 .83 
 
 1070.69 
 
 2.62 
 
 569.92 
 
 1.40 
 
 457.37 
 
 11,220.68 
 
 32.33 
 
 292.83 
 
 .84 
 
 946.36 
 
 2,73 
 
 400.43 
 
 1.15 
 
 229.45 
 
 9 368.42 
 
 24.21 
 
 305.98 
 
 .79 
 
 1043.29 
 
 2.70 
 
 516.81 
 
 1.34 
 
 238.22 
 
 8,873.10 
 
 24.79 
 
 278.59 
 
 .78 
 
 1085.16 
 
 3.03 
 
 308.39 
 
 .86 
 
 190.81 
 
 12,277.56 
 
 34.98 
 
 262.58 
 
 .75 
 
 1118.99 
 
 3.19 
 
 519.19 
 
 1.48 
 
 231.08 
 
 11,168.10 
 
 23.61 
 
 373.18 
 
 .79 
 
 1085.19 
 
 2 29 
 
 499.49 
 
 1.06 
 
 297.35' 
 
 9,024.15 
 
 29.78 
 
 282.25 
 
 .93 
 
 917.09 
 
 3.03 
 
 339.84 
 
 1.12 
 
 235.82 
 
 8,252.46 
 
 28.56 
 
 442.89 
 
 1.53 
 
 875.76 
 
 3.03 
 
 288.52 
 
 1.00 
 
 144.01 
 
 12,591.70 
 
 27.49 
 
 343.69 
 
 .75 
 
 1086.99 
 
 2.37 
 
 550.74 
 
 1.20 
 
 286.91 
 
 9,092.40 
 
 32.02 
 
 250.81 
 
 .88 
 
 900.00 
 
 3.17 
 
 223.23 
 
 .79 
 
 154.51 
 
 7,112.98 
 
 34.03 
 
 249.26 
 
 1.19 
 
 853.79 
 
 4.09 
 
 426.74 
 
 2.04 
 
 377.74 
 
 9,142.37 
 
 32.65 
 
 219.67 
 
 .78 
 
 878.77 
 
 3.14 
 
 311.70 
 
 1.11 
 
 141.20 
 
 9,389.33 
 
 28.54 
 
 246.32 
 
 .75 
 
 937.37 
 
 2.85 
 
 259.66 
 
 .79 
 
 168.44 
 
 8.377.61 
 
 22.83 
 
 295.77 
 
 .81 
 
 964.38 
 
 2.63 
 
 335.39 
 
 .91 
 
 489.46 
 
 9.950.82 
 
 28.76 
 
 262.13 
 
 .76 
 
 1085.31 
 
 3.14 
 
 372.33 
 
 1.08 
 
 337.35 
 
 14,323.26 
 
 28.59 
 
 389.70 
 
 .78 
 
 1170.00 
 
 2.34 
 
 445.77 
 
 .89 
 
 366.39 
 
 12,893.53 
 
 27.97 
 
 360.99 
 
 .78 
 
 1070.18 
 
 2.32 
 
 474.54 
 
 1.03 
 
 301.24 
 
 8,491.40 
 
 24.68 
 
 289.65 
 
 .84 
 
 991.26 
 
 2.88 
 
 386.56 
 
 1.12 
 
 385.74 
 
 2,511.80 
 
 43.31 
 
 47.94 
 
 .83 
 
 152.21 
 
 2.62 
 
 81.02 
 
 1.40 
 
 65.02 
 
 985.00 
 
 46.90 
 
 13.76 
 
 .66 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 [>204,175.34 
 
 | $28.43 
 
 | $6,068.48 
 
 | $ .85' 
 
 | $19,905.95 
 
 $2.77 
 
 $8053.98 
 
 $1.12 
 
 $5546.77 
 
 Per 
 
 Pupil 
 
 Maintenance, repairs, 
 replacement of equip¬ 
 ment, insurance, etc. 
 
 Amount 
 
 Per 
 
 Pupil 
 
 Promotion of 
 health, librar¬ 
 ies and other 
 miscellaneous 
 expenses pro¬ 
 rated. Peoria 
 High School 
 $ 1.30 per pu¬ 
 pil—all others 
 $.67 per pupil 
 
 Total expenses ex¬ 
 clusive of outlay 
 
 Amount 
 
 Per 
 
 Pupil 
 
 Interest on investment 
 and depreciation of 
 plant and equipment 
 
 Amount 
 
 $3.49 
 
 1.07 
 
 979.84 
 
 1702.23 
 
 $1.76 
 
 2.91 
 
 $ 724.74 
 392.87 
 
 47.242.55 
 
 52,823.60 
 
 $84.66 
 
 90.30 
 
 $ 6,440.92 
 20,147.52 
 
 $ 2 . 
 
 25 I 
 
 $ .67 
 .82 
 1.12 
 .66 
 .62 
 .53 
 .66 
 .63 
 .78 
 .50 
 .63 
 .54 
 1.81 
 .50 
 .51 
 1.33 
 .98 
 .73 
 .65 
 1.12 
 1.12 
 
 $ 
 
 614.10 
 
 3434.60 
 
 316.30 
 923.88 
 955.74 
 
 616.93 
 
 415.86 
 
 676.94 
 476.13 
 
 1531.68 
 
 1614.26 
 
 356.17 
 
 846.37 
 
 250.86 
 656.99 
 661.59 
 183.26 
 
 883.31 
 808.86 
 629.08 
 
 44.97 
 
 $1.90 
 
 12.14 
 
 .78 
 
 2.66 
 
 2.47 
 
 1.72 
 
 1.18 
 
 1.43 
 
 1.57 
 
 5.30 
 
 3.52 
 
 1.25 
 
 4.05 
 
 .90 
 
 2.00 
 
 1.80 
 
 .53 
 
 1.76 
 
 1.75 
 
 1.83 
 
 .77 
 
 217 
 
 190 
 
 274 
 
 233. 
 
 259. 
 
 240. 
 
 235. 
 
 317. 
 
 203. 
 
 194, 
 
 307 
 
 190 
 
 140 
 
 188 
 
 220 
 
 246 
 
 232 
 
 336 
 
 309 
 
 231 
 
 38 
 
 14, 
 
 59 
 
 06 
 
 00 
 
 04 
 
 90 
 
 42 
 
 72 
 65 
 49 
 08 
 58 
 
 73 
 36 
 04 
 95 
 47 
 36 
 .46 
 .59 
 .02 
 .95 
 10 
 
 $ 
 
 15.218.19 
 16,901.17 
 16,952.50 
 17,324.77 
 15,675.32 
 
 14.715.19 
 18,150.71 
 17,996.41 
 14,124.88 
 14,327.16 
 20,300.80 
 13,745.76 
 12.292.28 
 13,944.62 
 14,885.70 
 14,528.21 
 15,247.69 
 21,604.60 
 19,478.03 
 14,220.90 
 
 3,172.26 
 
 1,061.16 
 
 $46.97 
 
 59.72 
 
 41.55 
 
 49.93 
 
 40.50 
 
 41.10 
 
 51.71 
 
 38.05 
 
 46.62 
 
 49.57 
 
 44.32 
 
 48.40 
 
 58.81 
 
 49.80 
 
 45.25 
 39.59 
 44.07 
 43.12 
 
 42.25 
 41.34 
 54.69 
 50.53 
 
 $ 2,128.46 
 3,556.06 
 
 7.815.49 
 3,620.15 
 2,589.35 
 3,037.02 
 8,003.14 
 5,040.25 
 5,276.81 
 1,897.71 
 4,587.75 
 2,742.20 
 3,692.59 
 2,677.90 
 
 2.172.49 
 5,234.54 
 7,620.64 
 5,520.13 
 5,201.58 
 5,878.46 
 1,111.03 
 
 Per 
 
 Pupil 
 
 $11.54 
 
 34.44 
 
 $ 2682.07 ! $2.35 | $1117.61 | $100,066.15 | $87.55 [ $26,588.44 j $23.26 
 
 $ 6.75 
 11.57 
 19.16 
 10.43 
 6.69 
 8.48 
 22.80 
 10.66 
 17.42 
 6.57 
 10.02 
 9.66 
 17.67 
 9.56 
 6.60 
 14.26 
 22.02 
 11.02 
 11.28 
 17.09 
 19.16 
 
 $ .77 | $16,897.88 [ $2.35 | $4822.56 ! $325,868.31 | $45.38 | $89,403.75 | $12.45 
 
munities in the east we find numerous examples of school buildings 
 that have been used for longer periods than those suggested above. 
 It is for the community to decide how long its school buildings 
 shall be used. As regards depreciation, the estimates given above 
 on depreciation of equipment are especially unreliable for the 
 simple reason that there was lacking an adequate body of data 
 showing distributions. Furthermore, only instructional equip¬ 
 ment generally is included under this head, equipment of buildings 
 being included under cost of buildings. Flowever, whatever error 
 obtains in the estimate can safely be assumed to lie in the direc¬ 
 tion of underestimation rather than in that of overestimation. 
 
 Comparison With Other Cities 
 
 An analysis of costs in a given city is worth little unless 
 accompanied by a study of corresponding data in other cities of 
 approximately the same size and in the same section of the country. 
 It would hardly do to compare educational costs of Peoria with 
 those of cities on the Atlantic or Pacific sea-board or in the Gulf 
 States. Instead, all cities estimated by the U. S. Bureau of the 
 Census to range from 40,000 to 100,000 in population, and located 
 within the states of Illinois, Kentucky, Indiana, Ohio, Michigan, 
 Wisconsin, Minnesota, Iowa, Missouri, Kansas, and Nebraska, were 
 included in the study. The data for all cities excepting Peoria were 
 taken from reports sent to the Bureau of Education at Washington. 
 The attempt was made to secure the information for the school- 
 year 1915-1916. Through the kindness of the Commissioner of 
 Education copies were secured of all reports that had been sent in. 
 These data will appear in the Report of the Commissioner of Educa¬ 
 tion for the year ending June 30, 1917. Where reports for last 
 school-year were not procurable, the data used are those for the 
 most recent year for which they were obtainable. 
 
 The data for Evansville, for instance, are those for the school- 
 year 1913-14. After the tables and diagrams had been completed, 
 the data for 1915-16 were secured, but they arrived too late to be 
 incorporated in the tables and diagrams. An analysis of the state¬ 
 ment of finances for the public schools of this city, exclusive of even¬ 
 ing* school expense, and exclusive of outlay and interest, shows a 
 total of $394,108.58, making the cost per pupil $43.07 instead of 
 $40.76 as in'Table III. This would place Evansville fifteenth in 
 rank instead of twentieth as shown in the table referred to. 
 
 * , . t 
 
 It will be observed that there are only three cities in the list 
 that pay more per pupil than is paid in Peoria, namely South Bend, 
 Fort Wayne, and Davenport. South Bend pays a total of $53.54 
 per pupil as compared to $51.06 in the case of Peoria. But South 
 Bend paid $2.49 more per pupil for operation, $1.69 more for main- 
 
 
 11 
 
tenance, $1.75 more for auxiliary agencies, and $.51 more for 
 miscellaneous expense per pupil than Peoria did. An analysis of 
 details, not shown in the above table, shows that the significant 
 items of expense for the two cities were as follows: 
 
 
 South Bend 
 
 Peoria 
 
 Excess 
 
 Wages of janitors. 
 
 ..$31,705 
 
 $27,525 
 
 $ 4,180 
 
 Fuel ... 
 
 __ 13,697 
 
 10,462 
 
 3,235 
 
 Light and Power.. 
 
 _ 10,123 
 
 3,150 
 
 6,973 
 
 Water . 
 
 . 2,777 
 
 
 2,777 
 
 Libraries .. 
 
 .. 1,950 
 
 350 
 
 1,600 
 
 Playgrounds .... 
 
 . 11,424 
 
 136 
 
 11,288 
 
 Pensions . 
 
 .. 7,656 
 
 3,008 
 
 4,648 
 
 With reference to the comparatively large amount spent for 
 playgrounds as an item of the school budget in South Bend, and 
 the very small amount in the case of Peoria, it may be of interest 
 to note that the city government expenditure for parks and play¬ 
 grounds in these two cities shows that the difference between the 
 costs for this item in the two cities is not as great as might be in¬ 
 ferred from these school statistics. The city of Peoria spent $54,288, 
 or $.78 per capita, for this purpose, while South Bend spent $18,187, 
 or $.28 per capita. _ To the taxpayer it makes little difference as 
 far as cost is concerned, whether the amount he pays for play¬ 
 grounds is paid out of the city treasury or out of the treasury of the 
 school district. The amount spent for playgrounds out of the school 
 budget, in South Bend, namely $11,424, represents a cost of $1.50, 
 per pupil. 
 
 In the case of Fort Wayne the total cost per pupil was $53.47, 
 only 7 cents per pupil below that of South Bend. While the total 
 cost per pupil was $2.41 greater than in the case of Peoria, Fort 
 Wayne spent more per pupil than Peoria as follows: operation, 
 $1.51; maintenance, $.69; auxiliary agencies, $4.42. The item that 
 attracts attention first of all is that of the high cost for auxiliary 
 agencies. In the report to the Bureau of Education the cost for 
 libraries is given as $25,142; playgrounds, $3,315; these two items, 
 with other items under the head of promotion of health total 
 $29,726. 
 
 In the case of Davenport, the excess over Peoria is mainly due 
 to the cost of maintenance, which shows a per pupil cost of $7.19, as 
 compared to that of $2.35 for Peoria, showing a difference of $4.84 
 per pupil. Davenport paid more per pupil for repairs than any 
 other citv in the list. The total sum paid, $46,858, divides as fol¬ 
 lows: Insurance, $820; repair and replacement of equipment, 
 
 $3,992; repair of buildings and upkeep of grounds $42,046. An 
 examination of previous reports shows that the cost per pupil for 
 
 12 
 
Table III. 
 
 Total cost and per pupil cost of classified expenditures, exclusive of outlay, for public day schools in Peoria 
 and twenty-six other cities ranging in population from 40,000 to 100,000, 1915-1916. 
 
 CITY 
 
 Akron, Ohio . 
 
 Bay City, Mich. 
 
 Canton, Ohio . 
 
 Covington, Ky. 
 
 Davenport, Iowa. 
 
 Des Moines, Iowa. 
 
 Duluth, Minn., 1913-14. 
 
 East St. Louis, Ill. 
 
 Evansville, Ind., 1913-14 (b) .. 
 
 Flint, Mich. 
 
 Fort Wayne, Ind. . . .'. 
 
 Kalamazoo, Mich. 
 
 Kansas City, Kans. 
 
 Lincoln, Nebr. 
 
 Peoria, Ill. 
 
 Racine, Wis. 
 
 Rockford, Ill. 
 
 St. Joseph, Mo. 
 
 Saginaw, Mich., East Side (c) 
 Saginaw, Mich., West Side 
 
 Sioux City, Iowa. 
 
 South Bend, Ind. 
 
 Springfield, Ill. 
 
 Springfield, Ohio. 
 
 Superior, Wis. 
 
 Terre Haute, Ind., 1913-14.. 
 
 Topeka, Kans. 
 
 Wichita, Kans. 
 
 Averages. 
 
 Estimated 
 
 Population 
 
 (a) 
 
 Number of : 
 pupils in 
 average 
 daily- 
 
 attendance ! 
 
 Administration 
 
 Amt. Per pupil 
 
 Instruction 
 
 Amt. Per pupil 
 
 Operation 
 
 Amt. Per pupil 
 
 Maintenance 
 
 Amt. Per pupil 
 
 Auxiliary 
 
 Agencies 
 
 Amt. Per pupil 
 
 % 
 
 Miscellaneous 
 
 Amt. Per pnpil 
 
 Total, exclusive 
 of outlay 
 
 Amt. Per pupil 
 
 80,291 | 
 
 15 368 1 
 
 $21,276 1 
 
 $1.42 | 
 
 $432,816 
 
 $28.16 
 
 $63,837 
 
 $4.14 
 
 $18 696 | 
 
 $ 1.22 | 
 
 $ 5,057 
 
 $ .33 
 
 
 .i 
 
 $ 541,682 
 
 $35.25 
 
 46,153 
 
 5,943 
 
 6,800 
 
 1.14 
 
 191,248 
 
 32.18 
 
 33,025 
 
 5.55 
 
 21,875 
 
 3.68 
 
 200 
 
 .03 
 
 
 
 253,148 
 
 42.59 
 
 57,426 
 
 8,624 
 
 12,819 
 
 1.49 
 
 250,443 
 
 29.04 
 
 38,796 
 
 4.50 
 
 56,903 
 
 6.59 
 
 3,588 
 
 .41 
 
 $ 4,050 
 
 $ .47 
 
 366,599 
 
 42.51 
 
 55,896 
 
 4,570 
 
 8,330 
 
 1.82 
 
 147,716 
 
 32.32 
 
 19,547 ' 
 
 4.28 
 
 7,997 
 
 1.75 
 
 1,056 
 
 .23 
 
 6,401 
 
 1.40 
 
 189,991 
 
 41,58 
 
 46,537 
 
 6,516 
 
 9,256 
 
 1.42 
 
 241,597 
 
 37.08 
 
 39,615 
 
 6.08 
 
 46,858 
 
 7.19 
 
 5,486 
 
 .83 
 
 3,624 
 
 .55 
 
 346,437 
 
 33.17 
 
 97,304 
 
 16,305 
 
 26,236 
 
 1.61 
 
 621,851 
 
 38.14 
 
 135084 
 
 8.28 
 
 39,398 
 
 3.41 
 
 4,978 
 
 .31 
 
 2,274 
 
 .14 
 
 831,600 
 
 51.00 
 
 89,331 
 
 12,291 
 
 13,476 
 
 1.10 
 
 385,184 
 
 31.34 
 
 68,443 
 
 5.57 
 
 13,104 
 
 1.07 
 
 7,627 
 
 .62 
 
 984 
 
 .08 
 
 488,818 
 
 39.78 
 
 69,502 
 
 7,920 
 
 15,411 
 
 1.95 
 
 226,328 
 
 28.58 
 
 39,278 
 
 4.96 
 
 14,930 
 
 1.89 
 
 1,187 
 
 .15 
 
 2,428 
 
 .31 
 
 299,562 
 
 37.82 
 
 71 284 
 
 7 915 
 
 9 096 
 
 1 1 5 
 
 ?49 464 
 
 31 5’2 
 
 38 591 
 
 4 87 
 
 13 403 
 
 1 70 
 
 
 
 12068 
 
 1.52 
 
 322,622 
 
 40.76 
 
 49,981 
 
 7,247 
 
 13885 
 
 1.92 
 
 150,318 
 
 20.74 
 
 27,412 
 
 3.78 
 
 14,776 
 
 2.04 
 
 5,922 
 
 .82 
 
 13,756 
 
 1.90 
 
 226,069 
 
 31.19 
 
 72,423 
 
 6,769 
 
 8,631 
 
 1.28 
 
 257,227 
 
 38.00 
 
 45,500 
 
 6.73 
 
 20,575 
 
 3.04 
 
 29,726 
 
 4.40 
 
 241 
 
 .03 
 
 361,900 
 
 53.47 
 
 46 222 
 
 5,563 
 
 13,839 
 
 2.49 
 
 212,013 
 
 38.11 
 
 31,533 
 
 5.67 
 
 7,928 
 
 1.43 
 
 15,448 
 
 2.78 
 
 390 
 
 .07 
 
 281,151 
 
 50.54 
 
 94,271 
 
 12,564 
 
 32,252 
 
 2.57 
 
 380,019 
 
 30.25 
 
 67,186 
 
 5.35 
 
 52,467 
 
 4.18 
 
 11,884 
 
 .94 
 
 9,415 
 
 .75 
 
 559,716 
 
 44.56 
 
 45,515 
 
 7,764 
 
 20,093 
 
 2.59 
 
 291,358 
 
 37.53 
 
 44,101 
 
 5.68 
 
 30,183 
 
 3.89 
 
 3,981 
 
 .51 
 
 2,041 
 
 .27 
 
 391,757 
 
 50.46 
 
 70,006 
 
 8,933 
 
 | 20,544 
 
 2.30 
 
 361,546 
 
 | 40.47 
 
 46,592 
 
 5.22 |(d) 20,950 i 
 
 2.35 | 
 
 1,088 | 
 
 .12 | 
 
 5.397 | 
 
 .60 | 
 
 456,117 | 
 
 51.06 
 
 44,528 
 
 6,366 
 
 8,229 
 
 1.29 
 
 182,632 
 
 28.69 
 
 32,167 
 
 5.06 
 
 19,225 
 
 3.02 
 
 4,678 
 
 .74 
 
 7,917 
 
 1.24 
 
 254,848 
 
 40.03 
 
 52 337 
 
 7 624 
 
 10 094 
 
 1 32 
 
 i 238 125 
 
 31 23 
 
 55 322 
 
 7 26 
 
 17 763 
 
 2 33 
 
 6 206 
 
 .82 
 
 
 
 327,510 
 
 42.96 
 
 83,132 
 
 9,418 
 
 19,489 
 
 2.07 
 
 | 295,344 
 
 31.36 
 
 61,008 
 
 6.48 
 
 20,401 
 
 2.17 
 
 2,867 
 
 .31 
 
 857 
 
 .91 
 
 399,966 
 
 42.47 
 
 33 114 
 
 4 118 
 
 10 654 
 
 2 59 
 
 134 842 
 
 32 74 
 
 25 916 
 
 6.29 
 
 12,460 
 
 3 03 
 
 6,311 
 
 1.54 
 
 
 
 190,184 
 
 46.18 
 
 21 287 
 
 3 236 
 
 3 672 
 
 1 14 
 
 82 844 
 
 25 60 
 
 20,739 
 
 6.42 
 
 17 137 
 
 5.30 
 
 3,646 
 
 1.13 
 
 
 
 128,038 
 
 39.57 
 
 54,470 
 
 8,085 
 
 12,210 
 
 1.51 
 
 303,901 
 
 37.59 
 
 53,860 
 
 5.67 
 
 20,887 
 
 2.59 
 
 5,877 
 
 .72 
 
 3,392 
 
 .42 
 
 400,127 
 
 49.49 
 
 65,114 
 
 7,619 
 
 10,440 
 
 1.37 
 
 285,452 
 
 37.48 
 
 58,735 
 
 7.71 
 
 30.750 
 
 4.04 
 
 14,166 
 
 1.87 
 
 8,405 
 
 1.11 
 
 407,948 
 
 53.54 
 
 58,221 
 
 7,422 
 
 21,037 
 
 2.83 
 
 260,251 
 
 35.07 
 
 36,657 
 
 4.94 
 
 22 762 
 
 3.07 
 
 3,424 
 
 .46 
 
 2.818 
 
 .38 
 
 346,949 
 
 46.75 
 
 50/058 
 
 7 239 
 
 5 487 
 
 76 
 
 218 324 
 
 30.16 
 
 35,783 
 
 4.95 
 
 7,151 
 
 .99 
 
 
 
 400 
 
 .06 
 
 267,145 
 
 36 90 
 
 44,109 
 
 5,447 
 
 8,251 
 
 1.52 
 
 187,407 
 
 34.41 
 
 34,655 
 
 6.37 
 
 8,361 
 
 1.54 
 
 1,920 
 
 . 
 
 .36 
 
 5,494 
 
 1.01 
 
 246,088 
 
 45.18 
 
 . | 63,529 
 
 8,485 
 
 | 19,250 
 
 2.27 
 
 | 286,700 
 
 33.79 
 
 65,850 
 
 | 7.76 
 
 29 000 
 
 3.42 
 
 15,800 
 
 1.86 
 
 950 
 
 .11 
 
 417,550 
 
 49.21 
 
 47 102 
 
 7,056 
 
 10,684 
 
 1.51 
 
 | 232,681 
 
 32.98 
 
 38,818 
 
 5.50 
 
 25,520 
 
 3.62 
 
 3,318 
 
 .47 
 
 5 418 
 
 .77 
 
 317,608 
 
 45.01 
 
 64,972 
 
 8,345 
 
 16,272 
 
 1.95 
 
 237.605 
 
 28.47 
 
 34,066 
 
 4.08 
 
 20,951 
 
 2.51 
 
 2,653 
 
 .32 
 
 . 
 
 
 311,920 
 
 37.37 
 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 | $1.73 
 
 1 
 
 | $32.61 
 
 
 I $5.69 
 
 
 2.97 
 
 
 82 
 
 
 .50 | 
 
 
 44.30 
 
 
 
 
 * 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 (a) From “Financial Statistics for Cities,” 1915. U. S. Bureau of Census. 
 
 (b) Explained in the text. 
 
 (c) The population of Saginaw is estimated at 54,401. The City is divided into two school districts. 
 
 (d) It will be observed that the cost of maintenance, according to this table, is less by $261 than the amount shown in Table II. The totals differ to the same extent. This 
 is due to the difference between the amounts paid for insurance last year and the actual insurance cost for each building. 
 
maintenance for the'years 1910-11 to 1915-16, averages $5.34, which 
 is unusually high for cities of this size. Four of the 17 buildings 
 in Davenport are more than half-a-century old, and a fifth has been 
 used for forty-nine years. Half of them have been used for more 
 than 30 years. Eight have been enlarged or have had improve¬ 
 ments made on them within recent years. Perhaps part of the 
 charge for repairs ought to have been included under outlay. An 
 item in the newspapers a few days ago reported the fact that at the 
 recent school-election, the citizens of Davenport authorized the 
 bonding of the district for the erection of three new buildings to 
 be used for Junior High School purposes. 
 
 One city, DesMoines, pays practically the same amount per 
 pupil as does Peoria. DesMoines pays $3.06 more per pupil for 
 operation and $1.06 more for maintenance. The conditions in Des 
 Moines are very different from those of Peoria in one important 
 respect. Peoria is compactly built. Not so with DesMoines. The 
 population of DesMoines exceeds that of Peoria by only about 50 
 per cent. But DesMoines covers an area almost 6 times as great 
 as that of Peoria. The population is scattered more. There is a 
 proportionately larger number of buildings. That necessarily means 
 increased cost of operation and maintenance per pupil. It would 
 likewise mean, as far as tendency goes, increased cost per pupil 
 for principals’ salaries. 
 
 As far as Peoria is concerned, the most significant thing about 
 Table III., however, is the high cost of instruction per pupil in 
 Peoria as compared to that in other cities in the list. Peoria pays 
 $40.47, which is $2.33 more than is paid by Des Moines, second in 
 rank; $2.36 more than the cost in Kalamazoo, third in rank; $2.47 
 more than the cost in Fort Wayne, fourth in rank; $2.88 more than 
 in Sioux City ; fifth in rank. 
 
 4 
 
 13 
 
PART II. 
 
 IS PEORIA PAYING MORE THAN IS NECESSARY? 
 
 Per Capita Cost. 
 
 The analysis above shows how much is being paid per pupil. 
 There is nothing about such an analysis to show whether or not 
 a given community is paying more than it can afford to pay. It 
 
 Table IV. 
 
 Per capita cost for expenditures of public schools, exclusive of outlay, in Peoria 
 
 # and twenty-six other cities. 
 
 CITY 
 
 Estimated 
 
 population 
 
 Expenditures 
 
 1915-1916 
 
 Total Per Capita 
 
 Rank 
 
 Akron . 
 
 80,291 
 
 $541,682 
 
 $6.75 
 
 5 
 
 Bay City (a). 
 
 46,153 
 
 253,148 
 
 5.48 
 
 20 
 
 Canton . 
 
 57,426 
 
 366 599 
 
 6.39 
 
 9 
 
 Covington . 
 
 55,896 
 
 189 991 
 
 3.40 
 
 28 
 
 Davenport . 
 
 46,537 
 
 346,437 
 
 7.44 
 
 3 
 
 Des Moines . 
 
 97,304 
 
 831,600 
 
 8.55 
 
 2 
 
 Duluth (b). 
 
 89,331 
 
 488,818 
 
 5.47 
 
 21 
 
 East St. Louis. 
 
 69,502 
 
 299,562 
 
 4.31 
 
 27 
 
 Evansville . 
 
 71,284 
 
 394,109 
 
 5.53 
 
 19 
 
 Flint . 
 
 49,981 
 
 226,069 
 
 4.52 
 
 26 
 
 Fort Wayne.’. 
 
 72,423 
 
 361 900 
 
 5.00 
 
 23 
 
 Kalamazoo . 
 
 46,222 
 
 281,151 
 
 6.08 
 
 12 
 
 Kansas City, Kans. 
 
 94,271 
 
 559,716 
 
 5.94 
 
 15 
 
 Lincoln . 
 
 45,515 
 
 391,757 
 
 8.61 
 
 1 
 
 Peoria . 
 
 70,006 
 
 456,174 
 
 6.52 
 
 8 
 
 Racine . 
 
 44,528 
 
 254,848 
 
 5.72 
 
 17 
 
 Rockford . 
 
 52,337 
 
 327,510 
 
 6.26 
 
 11 
 
 St. Joseph . 
 
 83,132 
 
 399,966 
 
 4.81 
 
 24 
 
 Saginaw, East Side. 
 
 33,114 
 
 190,184 
 
 5.74 
 
 16 
 
 Saginaw, West Side. 
 
 ! 21,287 
 
 128,038 
 
 6.01 
 
 13 
 
 Sioux City . 
 
 54,470 
 
 400,127 
 
 7.35 
 
 4 
 
 South Bend . 
 
 I 65,114 
 
 407,948 
 
 6.27 
 
 10 
 
 Springfield, Ill. 
 
 58,221 
 
 346,949 
 
 5.96 
 
 14 
 
 Springfield, O. 
 
 50,058 
 
 267,145' 
 
 5.34 
 
 22 
 
 Superior . 
 
 44,109 
 
 246,088 
 
 5.58 
 
 18 
 
 Terre Haute (b). 
 
 63,529 
 
 417,550 
 
 6.58 
 
 7 
 
 Topeka . 
 
 47,102 
 
 317,608 
 
 6.74 
 
 6 
 
 Wichita . 
 
 64,972 
 
 311,920 
 
 4.80 
 
 25 
 
 Average . 
 
 I 
 
 
 5.97 
 
 
 (a) Statistics for 1912-13; (b) statistics for 1913-14. 
 
 14 
 
does not show the relative burden of taxation in different com¬ 
 munities. One way of attempting to determine this matter is by 
 a study of the cost of education per every inhabitant. Table IV 
 shows the per capita cost for expenditures of public schools in 
 all of the cities studied above. The total expenses are the same 
 as those found in Table III, excepting for Evansville, in which 
 case the expenditures for 1915-16 are given. Peoria is eighth in 
 rank. In Table VI in which the per capita costs are for the 
 fiscal year 1914, Peoria ranks fifth. It would not do to infer 
 from this that the cost was decreased during the interim of ap¬ 
 proximately two years. The data used by the Bureau of the Census 
 were those obtained from the books of the secretary, and because 
 the distributions are incorrect, the ranking as to per capita cost is 
 likewise at fault. 
 
 The Work To Be Done 
 
 It would not do to assume that the per capita cost is a reliable 
 index as to the amount of wealth contributed in proportion to the 
 needs of the schools. For some cities have a greater educational 
 need to meet than others. The percentage of children of school 
 age is larger in some communities than it is in others. The Census 
 for 1910 shows, for instance, that iir Bay City the number of child¬ 
 ren from 5-14 years of age constituted 20 per cent of the population, 
 while Flint in the same state, shows a percentag-e of only 12.6. Peo¬ 
 ria ranked comparatively low, with only 15.3 per cent. However, 
 it would not do to infer that the community rank as to the work 
 to be done by the public schools is the same as its rank according 
 to the percentage of population that is made up of children of school 
 age. A large percentage of such children may not be attending 
 the public schools. Some may notvbe attending any school. The 
 latest sources of information, which are to appear in the Report 
 of the Commissioner of Education for the year ending Tune 30, 
 1917, show, for instance, that in Des Moines, 96 per cent of all chil¬ 
 dren enrolled in any schools are enrolled in the public schools. In 
 Covington only 57 per cent of school-enrolled children were en¬ 
 rolled in the public schools. For Peoria the percentage was 83.5. 
 In view of the fact that the reported number of pupils attending 
 parochial and private schools is generally based on nothing more 
 than an estimate it was thought advisable not to make use of these 
 data in this study. 
 
 • • # * .'V < . s* , 
 
 It is very apparent from a consideration of these facts that the 
 cost per capita is no reliable index as to how much money is con¬ 
 tributed by the community in proportion to the educational needs 
 of the community. A given per capita cost for educating 18 per 
 cent of the total population, for instance, would not be doing as 
 
 15 
 
Des Moines 
 
 ICO 
 
 •<* 
 
 »co 
 
 ICO 
 
 
 oo 
 
 04 
 
 05 
 
 t- 
 
 o 
 
 ac 
 
 rH 
 
 t- 
 
 CO 
 
 ■'t 
 
 Tf< 
 
 <N 
 
 CO 
 
 co 
 
 GO 
 
 t- 
 
 ■*< 
 
 o 
 
 
 o 
 
 C4 
 
 rS 
 
 o 
 
 ICO 
 
 
 co 
 
 L- 
 
 
 io 
 
 iCO 
 
 co 
 
 54 
 
 Ol 
 
 o 
 
 O 
 
 05 
 
 C5 
 
 05 
 
 
 t- 
 
 ICO 
 
 ico 
 
 
 
 CO 
 
 © 
 
 oo 
 
 co 
 
 CO 
 
 CO 
 
 
 oo 
 
 
 t-" 
 
 o’ 
 
 d 
 
 d 
 
 d 
 
 d 
 
 d 
 
 d 
 
 d 
 
 d 
 
 ia 
 
 uo 
 
 ICO 
 
 Co 
 
 ICO 
 
 ICO 
 
 ICO 
 
 ICO 
 
 ICO 
 
 ICO 
 
 ICO 
 
 Tji 
 
 Tt? 
 
 Tji 
 
 
 CO 
 
 $ 2.50 $ 5.00 $ 7.50 
 
 Diagram I.—Per capita cost for expenditures of public schools, Peoria and twenty-six other cities. 
 
rH 
 
 © 
 
 GO 
 
 <N 
 
 q 
 
 Cl 
 
 00 
 
 o 
 
 LO 
 
 \q 
 
 CO 
 
 o 
 
 t- 
 
 rH 
 
 CO 
 
 Cl 
 
 GO 
 
 t- 
 
 tH 
 
 co 
 
 o 
 
 t- 
 
 
 
 CO 
 
 rH 
 
 00 
 
 OI 
 
 o 
 
 1- 
 
 o' 
 
 LO 
 
 id 
 
 
 
 
 h}5 
 
 
 
 Tjl 
 
 00 
 
 00 
 
 CO 
 
 oi 
 
 oi 
 
 oi 
 
 oi 
 
 oi 
 
 oi 
 
 rH 
 
 rH 
 
 rH 
 
 rH 
 
 ’ rH 
 
 oi 
 
 CO* 
 
 rH 
 
 rH 
 
 rH 
 
 rH 
 
 rH 
 
 rH 
 
 rH 
 
 rH 
 
 rH 
 
 rH 
 
 rH 
 
 rH 
 
 rH 
 
 rH 
 
 rH 
 
 rH 
 
 rH 
 
 rH 
 
 rH 
 
 rH 
 
 rH 
 
 rH 
 
 rH 
 
 rH 
 
 rH 
 
 rH 
 
 Xfl 
 
 xi 
 
 o 
 
 ■s I 
 
 0> 
 
 m 
 
 Xl 
 
 
 op 
 
 £ 
 
 
 9 
 
 H 
 
 >> 
 
 
 
 
 
 4-> 
 
 
 ■+H 
 
 4-> 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 O 
 
 rH 
 
 
 0) 
 
 H 
 
 
 d 
 
 rH 
 
 is 
 
 CC 
 
 rH 
 
 o 
 
 -M 
 
 
 S 
 
 M 
 
 I? 
 
 o 
 
 ■vj 
 
 4-> 
 
 Tfj 
 
 rH 
 
 • rH 
 
 OP 
 
 d 
 
 o 
 
 rH 
 
 rH 
 
 CD 
 
 , - 4 -* 
 
 d 
 
 X 
 
 •»i 
 
 d 
 
 +-> 
 
 5 
 
 fcfl 
 
 d 
 
 inaw, 
 
 rH 
 
 o 
 
 • rH 
 
 3 
 
 o 
 
 N 
 
 d 
 
 rH 
 
 d 
 
 o 
 
 hH 
 
 rH 
 
 3> 
 
 -M 
 
 02 
 
 r-H 
 
 • rH 
 > 
 
 XI 
 
 d 
 
 CD 
 
 XI 
 
 o 
 
 City 
 
 r^j 
 
 d 
 
 £ 
 
 -M 
 
 ingtoi 
 
 'So 
 
 d 
 
 Cu 
 
 /■H 
 
 
 d 
 
 rH 
 
 *3 
 
 K- 
 
 r-q 
 
 i 
 
 d 
 
 
 
 *£j 
 
 bC 
 
 rv 
 
 
 d 
 
 XI 
 
 d 
 
 
 K*a 
 
 rH 
 
 > 
 
 « 
 
 d 
 
 o 
 
 w 
 
 • rH 
 
 o 
 
 • rH 
 
 
 d 
 
 d 
 
 d 
 
 d 
 
 
 a 
 
 Cl, 
 
 ca 
 
 d 
 
 d 
 
 o 
 
 d 
 
 ►> 
 
 -M 
 
 d 
 
 O 
 
 o 
 
 m 
 
 
 H 
 
 02 
 
 rH 
 
 r_ 
 
 rH 
 
 02 
 
 HH 
 
 »H 
 
 r*\ 
 
 r . 
 
 ri 
 
 Ui 
 
 fe 
 
 Ch 
 
 Zfl 
 
 GC. 
 
 02 
 
 w 
 
 02 
 
 a 
 
 w 
 
 02 
 
 rsH 
 
 rH 
 
 r 
 
 HH 
 
 O 
 
 1 7 
 
 Diagram II.—Pcrcentum that the number of pupils in average daily attendance in the public schools is of the total population, Peoria and twenty-six other cities. 
 
much per pupil as the same contribution would be doing if it had 
 to serve only 12 per cent of the whole population. Akron 
 has 19.1 per cent of its total population in average daily attendance 
 in the public schools, as compared to 9.3 per cent for Fort Wayne. 
 Akron pays $6.75 per capita, Fort Wayne pays $5.00 per capita. 
 But because of its large percentage of school-attending children 
 Akron pays only $35.25 per pupil, while Fort Wayne pays $53.47 per 
 pupil. Diagram II. shows the percentage of the whole population 
 that is reported in average daily attendance in the public schools. 
 This will serve as a fairly reliable index of the relative burden borne 
 by the public schools of the respective communities. 
 
 The Community’s Ability To Pay 
 
 To determine the community’s ability to pay one needs to con¬ 
 sider the wealth of the community in proportion to the population. 
 Diagram III. shows the wealth per capita of the different cities 
 studied. The data are somewhat misleading, however, in that the 
 wealth on the basis of which the wealth per capita is computed, is 
 that of the school district, while the population is that of the city. 
 In most of the cities in the list the boundaries of the school district 
 do not coincide with those of the city. But even so, the per capita 
 wealth, thus computed, is a fairly reliable index of the commun¬ 
 ity’s ability to support its schools. It is not so true an index, how¬ 
 ever, of the ability of the community to pay for the support of the 
 schools in proportion to the number of children attending the same. 
 
 Wealth Per Pupil 
 
 Probably the most reliable index of the community’s ability 
 to pay in proportion to the educational needs that have to be met 
 is to be found in the amount of wealth for every pupil in regular 
 attendance. This is shown in Table V. and in Diagram TV. The 
 wealth per pupil shows the community’s capacity to pay for .each 
 pupil. Table III. and Diagram V. show the amount actually paid 
 for each pupil. A comparison of Diagrams IV. and V. gives some 
 idea of what each city is doing in proportion to its ability to do. 
 Peoria, for instance, is only twelfth in rank as to ability to pay for 
 each pupil, while it is fourth in rank as to the amount actually paid 
 per pupil, indicating that it is making a greater sacrifice than most 
 of the cities in the group. 
 
 Contribution In Proportion To Ability 
 
 To determine what contribution each city is making for every 
 pupil in proportion to its ability it is necessary to compare the cost 
 per pupil with the wealth per pupil. Table V. shows what percen¬ 
 
 ts 
 

 CO 
 
 
 H 
 
 rH 
 
 rH 
 
 C 0 
 
 to 
 
 to 
 
 tH 
 
 O 
 
 rH 
 
 b- 
 
 CO 
 
 rH 
 
 04 
 
 O 
 
 io 
 
 CO 
 
 03 
 
 CO 
 
 O 
 
 t- 
 
 o 
 
 h 
 
 04 
 
 CO 
 
 CO 
 
 CO 
 
 lO 
 
 00 
 
 03 
 
 GO 
 
 
 04 
 
 rH 
 
 00 
 
 t- 
 
 b- 
 
 to 
 
 O 
 
 io 
 
 to 
 
 03 
 
 04 
 
 CO 
 
 K 3 
 
 o> 
 
 04 
 
 O 
 
 03 
 
 
 CO 
 
 CO 
 
 04 
 
 o 
 
 04 
 
 co 
 
 H 
 
 04 
 
 <N 
 
 <N 
 
 04 
 
 
 rH 
 
 rH 
 
 rH 
 
 tH 
 
 rH 
 
 © 
 
 o 
 
 O 
 
 O 
 
 03 
 
 03 
 
 03 
 
 03 
 
 03 
 
 00 
 
 CO 
 
 t- 
 
 t- 
 
 l— 
 
 t- 
 
 40 
 
 rH 
 
 iH 
 
 rH 
 
 rH 
 
 rH 
 
 rH 
 
 rH 
 
 rH 
 
 rH 
 
 rH 
 
 rH 
 
 rH 
 
 rH 
 
 tH 
 
 rH 
 
 rH 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 to 
 
 a> 
 
 <V 
 
 a 
 
 'O 
 
 o 
 
 
 
 
 
 C5 rrj 
 
 •rH X 
 
 P>> 
 
 cd 
 
 r-H 
 
 03 
 
 
 a 
 
 p 
 
 CP 
 
 a 
 
 o 
 
 a 
 
 r-H 
 
 o 
 
 CP 
 
 a 
 
 o 
 
 -M 
 
 a 
 
 a 
 
 •rH 
 
 5' 3 
 £ S 
 
 £ 
 
 -M 
 
 ta 
 
 be 
 
 _a 
 
 cd 
 
 CP 
 
 
 
 
 a 
 
 <C 
 
 Tfl 
 
 03 
 
 rH 
 
 rH 
 
 a 
 
 a 
 
 
 M 
 
 •rH 
 
 a 
 
 cd 
 
 O 
 
 O 
 
 O 
 
 a 
 
 o 
 
 P 
 
 < 
 
 
 O 
 
 a; 
 
 C 
 
 fa 
 
 fa 
 
 sc 
 
 H 
 
 'C 
 
 a 
 
 CD 
 
 fa 
 
 P 
 
 O 
 
 w. 
 
 a 
 
 o 
 
 %D 
 
 CD 
 
 bo 
 
 «s 
 
 ?-< 
 
 o> 
 
 > 
 
 03 
 
 a 
 
 s 
 
 02 
 
 o 
 
 o 
 
 N 
 
 CS 
 
 s 
 
 a 
 
 a 
 
 o- 
 
 o 
 
 03 
 
 03 
 
 •rH 
 
 SC 
 
 >5 
 
 
 l-H 
 
 Tfl 
 
 cd 
 
 o 
 
 
 
 4-> 
 
 •rH 
 
 
 r d 
 
 h 
 
 4-> 
 
 P 
 
 
 CP 
 
 o 
 
 
 r—H 
 
 CP 
 
 
 cd 
 
 -M 
 
 • rH 
 
 r-H 
 
 C/2 
 
 cd 
 
 cd 
 
 +j 
 
 • rH 
 
 cd 
 
 tJD 
 
 £ 
 
 a 
 
 hh 
 
 fa 
 
 o 
 
 •hH 
 
 K* - 
 
 C/2 
 
 C/2 
 
 rH 
 
 a 
 
 a 
 
 O 
 
 X 
 
 cj 
 
 fl 
 
 cd 
 
 CP 
 
 % 
 
 •rH 
 
 rH 
 
 a 
 
 •rH 
 
 bo 
 
 a 
 
 CZ2 
 
 rH 
 
 rH 
 
 CP 
 
 H 
 
 p 
 
 o 
 
 •rH 
 
 m 
 
 cd 
 
 > 
 
 fa 
 
 -a 
 
 a 
 
 <D 
 
 to 
 
 o 
 
 bo 
 
 03 
 
 as 
 
 •rH 
 
 m 
 
 m 
 
 CP 
 
 c/2 
 
 •rH 
 
 P 
 
 O 
 
 fa 
 
 a 
 
 o 
 
 > 
 
 fa 
 
 
 -4-3 
 
 43 
 
 be 
 
 ¥* 
 
 a 
 
 m 
 
 
 • rH 
 
 O 
 
 a 
 
 a 
 
 -4-3 
 
 -4-> 
 
 ’> 
 
 o 
 
 "So 
 
 a 
 
 Tfl 
 
 cd 
 
 *2 
 
 a 
 
 o 
 
 X/l 
 
 fa 
 
 fa 
 
 fa 
 
 19 
 
 $500 $1000 $1500 $2000 $2500 
 
 Diagram III.—Wealth per capita, Peoria and twenty-six other cities. 
 
t- 
 
 O 
 
 
 a 
 
 O 
 
 CO 
 
 1a 
 
 CD 
 
 C 5 
 
 a 
 
 0 
 
 CO 
 
 CD 
 
 CO 
 
 O 
 
 a 
 
 CO 
 
 IO 
 
 
 
 rH 
 
 rt< 
 
 0 
 
 
 05 
 
 CD 
 
 CD 
 
 CD 
 
 ia 
 
 
 O 
 
 
 TP 
 
 ■H 
 
 CO 
 
 do 
 
 CD 
 
 <M 
 
 
 <N 
 
 05 
 
 CO 
 
 r- 
 
 rH 
 
 co 
 
 1- 
 
 1 C 
 
 »a 
 
 O 
 
 I — 
 
 rH 
 
 0 
 
 CO 
 
 CD 
 
 CD 
 
 a 
 
 O 
 
 CD 
 
 t- 
 
 00 
 
 cq_ 
 
 GO 
 
 CO 
 
 l- 
 
 CO 
 
 10 
 
 IO 
 
 CO 
 
 
 <3 
 
 0 
 
 0 
 
 GO 
 
 t- 
 
 CD_ 
 
 CD 
 
 IO 
 
 IO 
 
 
 
 CO 
 
 0 
 
 CO 
 
 0 
 
 ©_ 
 
 CO 
 
 O 
 
 00 “ 
 
 vH 
 
 tH 
 
 a 
 
 H 
 
 a 
 
 05 
 
 Oi 
 
 00” 
 
 00“ 
 
 co 
 
 co' 
 
 co' 
 
 go' 
 
 00 
 
 00' 
 
 00' 
 
 L- 
 
 L—' 
 
 L-' 
 
 l- 
 
 t-’ 
 
 L- 
 
 ir 
 
 
 1 -’ 
 
 o' 
 
 cd“ 
 
 c £ 
 
 >0' 
 
 
 rj! 
 
 
 <D 
 
 a 
 
 a 
 
 _a yS. 
 
 S O 
 
 Q 
 
 a 
 
 a 
 
 > 
 
 a 
 
 Q 
 
 'O 
 
 a 
 
 a 
 
 K 
 
 a 
 
 o 
 
 02 
 
 a © 
 
 o s 
 
 +-> « 
 
 b£ © 
 
 c 5 
 
 •rH Cw 
 
 o 
 
 u 
 
 a 
 
 M 
 
 a 
 
 O r-l 
 
 •ph <D 
 
 O Q, 
 
 a p 
 
 Ph 02 
 
 a 
 
 U 
 
 a 
 
 o 
 
 K ° 
 o rrt- 
 
 a o 
 
 a 
 
 fcJO 
 
 a 
 
 pH 
 
 0 ) 
 
 0 > 
 
 o 
 
 >.v ^ 
 
 cd T 1 £d 
 
 •pH rH 
 
 a 
 
 02 
 
 c 
 
 cd 
 
 n * < 
 
 •1—i 
 
 P 
 
 Cd 
 
 
 cd 
 
 +-> 
 
 c 0 
 
 C /3 
 
 >> 
 
 O 
 
 a 
 
 a 
 
 • pH 
 
 1—1 
 
 cd 
 
 73 
 
 0 
 
 r w 
 
 Cd 
 
 
 P 
 
 rH 
 
 0 
 
 > 
 
 0 
 
 
 • rH 
 
 K _ 
 
 cd 
 
 Ph 
 
 K 
 
 H 
 
 
 ? 
 
 
 o 
 
 a 
 
 a 
 
 o> 
 
 ta 
 
 a 
 
 02 
 
 02 
 
 4 -> 
 
 !» 
 
 a 
 
 W 
 
 tc 
 
 a 
 
 02 
 
 a 
 
 co 
 
 o 
 
 02 
 
 co 
 
 a 
 
 a 
 
 CO 
 
 a 
 
 Q 
 
 <D 
 
 a 
 
 a 
 
 a co 
 a ca 
 a m 
 
 a 
 
 'O 
 
 • rH 
 
 X 
 
 a? 
 
 o 
 
 X 
 
 <z 
 
 v\ g 
 
 o cf - 
 
 •^ cd 
 
 X X 
 
 Pi 
 
 Pi 
 
 cd 
 
 20 
 
 $ 5,000 $ 10,000 $ 15,000 
 
 Diagram IV.—Wealth per pupil in average daily attendance, Peoria and twenty-six other city school-systems. 
 
South Bend 
 
 -P 
 
 1 - 
 
 t- 
 
 
 o 
 
 
 CO 
 
 o 
 
 rH 
 
 to 
 
 00 
 
 00 
 
 T—i 
 
 CO 
 
 O 
 
 HP 
 
 rH 
 
 o 
 
 © 
 
 IO 
 
 HP 
 
 -p 
 
 C-l 
 
 c- 
 
 rH 
 
 rH 
 
 
 IO 
 
 CO 
 
 eo‘ 
 
 CO 
 
 rH 
 
 rH 
 
 o 
 
 o 
 
 05 
 
 05 
 
 d 
 
 CO 
 
 >6 
 
 i6 
 
 -p 
 
 It 
 
 IO 
 
 w 
 
 lO 
 
 to 
 
 LO 
 
 to 
 
 HP 
 
 Hp 
 
 HP 
 
 HP ' 
 
 -p 
 
 
 HP 
 
 o 
 
 CO 
 
 05 
 
 rH 
 
 t- 
 
 GO 
 
 CO 
 
 CO 
 
 00 
 
 In¬ 
 
 <01 
 
 t- 
 
 o 
 
 IO 
 
 o 
 
 to 
 
 05 
 
 IO 
 
 IO 
 
 Hp 
 
 IO 
 
 1- 
 
 © 
 
 I — 
 
 to 
 
 CO 
 
 CO 
 
 05 
 
 <01 
 
 rH 
 
 HP 
 
 oi 
 
 ci 
 
 oi 
 
 oi 
 
 rH 
 
 o 
 
 o 
 
 05 
 
 05 
 
 fc— 
 
 i2 
 
 CO 
 
 IO 
 
 rH 
 
 HP 
 
 rp 
 
 hp 
 
 HP 
 
 HP 
 
 hP 
 
 HP 
 
 HP 
 
 CO 
 
 CO 
 
 eo 
 
 CO 
 
 CO 
 
 CO 
 
 CO 
 
 o> 
 
 cz 
 
 m 
 
 <u 
 
 a 5 
 
 •g 
 
 C m 
 o cd 
 
 O 
 
 o 
 
 N 
 CS 
 
 IX 
 
 a o 
 
 O X 
 
 .2 o 
 P S 
 
 0> — 
 H-» 
 
 P 'O 
 
 rrt rr 
 
 Cw rtj 
 
 a cp 
 
 of) 
 
 p 5 
 
 rH rH 
 
 <u a 
 E-h m 
 
 'O 
 
 • ^H 
 
 02 
 
 -4— 1 
 02 
 P 
 
 H 
 
 £ 
 
 P 
 
 o 
 
 •rH 
 
 o 
 
 be 
 
 cs £3 
 £ CZ 2 
 
 P 
 
 O 
 
 a 
 
 o 
 
 U 
 
 02 
 
 P 
 
 02 
 
 P 
 
 M 
 
 P 
 
 o 
 
 'O 
 
 • rH 
 
 m 
 
 4-> 
 
 02 
 
 02 
 
 ^H 
 
 o 
 
 <m 
 
 HO 
 
 >- 
 
 
 r-| 
 
 PH 
 
 a 
 
 © 
 
 02 
 
 
 
 £ 
 
 o 
 
 a 
 
 02 
 
 rH 
 
 H-> 
 
 
 Or 1 
 
 4-> 
 
 •M 
 
 
 
 £ 
 
 4-> 
 
 oe 
 
 o 
 
 • rH 
 
 r ' 
 
 
 &2 
 
 /H 
 
 Ct) 
 
 r> 
 
 © 
 
 
 cb 
 
 02 
 
 P 
 
 rH 
 
 «M 
 
 r^J 
 
 W 
 
 c 
 
 4-< 
 
 
 .2 
 
 JZ2 
 
 P 
 
 01 
 
 •rH 
 
 -M 
 
 P 
 
 a 
 
 +-> 
 
 o 
 
 O 
 
 
 01 
 
 
 
 03 
 
 o 
 
 r—H 
 
 ’be 
 
 C/2 
 
 >• 
 
 o 
 
 P 
 
 cS 
 
 -M 
 
 ©• 
 
 K" 
 
 P 
 
 P 
 
 CS 
 
 P 
 
 •ejj 
 
 K 
 
 PQ 
 
 o 
 
 ZTl 
 
 U 
 
 w 
 
 « 
 
 Q 
 
 Tfl 
 
 a 
 
 P 
 
 -4—* 
 
 •rH 
 
 03 
 
 w 
 
 0> 
 
 <C 
 
 be 
 
 a 
 
 o 
 
 sc <1 
 
 21 
 
 $ 10.00 $ 20 . 00 . $ 30.00 $ 40.00 $ 50.00 
 
 Diagram V.—Cost per pupil in average daily attendance, Peoria and twenty-seven other cities. 
 
tage the cost per pupil is of the wealth per pupil. The same in¬ 
 formation is given in a more tangible way in Diagram VI. Table 
 V. shows the number of pupils and the estimated real wealth of the 
 different cities compared. The estimate of the real wealth was 
 computed on the basis of data furnished in “Financial Statistics 
 of Cities for 1917”, published by the Bureau of the Census, by 
 comparing the assessed valuation and the basis of assessment. In 
 
 Table V. 
 
 % 
 
 Wealth per pupil, cost per pupil, and per centum of wealth per pupil contributed, 
 in Peoria and twenty-five other cities, 1915-1916. 
 
 CITY 
 
 Number 
 of pupils 
 in aver¬ 
 age daily 
 attend¬ 
 ance 
 
 Estimated 
 real value 
 of property 
 assessed (a) 
 
 Wealth 
 
 per 
 
 Pupil 
 
 Cost per 
 pupil 
 
 Per 
 
 centum 
 of wealth 
 per pupil 
 that is 
 contrib¬ 
 uted 
 
 Rank o( 
 cities as 
 to per 
 centum 
 of wealth 
 per pupil 
 con¬ 
 tributed 
 
 Akron . 
 
 15,368 
 
 $119,118,990 
 
 $ 7,751 
 
 $35.25 
 
 .455 
 
 24 
 
 Bay City. 
 
 5,943 
 
 24,159,588 
 
 4,065 
 
 42.59 
 
 1.047 
 
 1 
 
 Canton . 
 
 8,624 
 
 73,561,107 
 
 8,529 
 
 42.51 
 
 .498 
 
 20 
 
 Covington .| 
 
 4 570 
 
 42,713,226 
 
 9,346 
 
 41.58 
 
 .445 
 
 27 
 
 Davenport . 
 
 6,516 
 
 77,044,948 
 
 11,824 
 
 53.17 
 
 .450 
 
 26 
 
 Des Moines . 
 
 16,305 
 
 119,025,360 
 
 7,300 
 
 51.00 
 
 .699 
 
 5 
 
 Duluth, 1913-14. 
 
 12,291 
 
 230,172,438 
 
 18 727 
 
 39.78 
 
 .212 
 
 28 
 
 East St. Louis. 
 
 7,920 
 
 50,443,300 
 
 6,369 
 
 37.82 
 
 .594 
 
 11 
 
 Evansville, 1913-14.. 
 
 7,915 
 
 63,913,570 
 
 8,075 
 
 40.76 
 
 .505 
 
 19 
 
 Flint . 
 
 7,247 
 
 35,267.451 
 
 4,866 
 
 31.19 
 
 .641 
 
 7 
 
 Fort Wayne . 
 
 6,769 
 
 80,281,990 
 
 11,860 
 
 53.47 
 
 .451 
 
 25 
 
 Kalamazoo . 
 
 5,563 
 
 48,584,350 
 
 8,733 
 
 50.54 
 
 .579 
 
 13 
 
 Kansas City, Kans... 
 
 12,564 
 
 96,171,965 
 
 7,655 
 
 44.56 
 
 .582 
 
 12 
 
 Lincoln . 
 
 7.764 
 
 58,648,600 
 
 7,554 
 
 50.46 
 
 .668 
 
 6 
 
 Peoria . 
 
 8,933 
 
 72,231,234 
 
 8,086 
 
 51.06 
 
 .631 
 
 8 
 
 Racine . 
 
 6,366 
 
 55,288,576 
 
 8,685 
 
 40.03 
 
 .461 
 
 22 
 
 Rockford . 
 
 7,624 
 
 63,591.720 
 
 8,341 
 
 42.96 
 
 .515 
 
 18 
 
 St. Joseph . 
 
 9,418 
 
 69,828,710 
 
 7,414 
 
 42.47 
 
 .573 
 
 15 
 
 Saginaw, East Side. . 
 
 4,118 
 
 30,767,307 
 
 7,471 
 
 46.18 
 
 .618 
 
 10 
 
 Saginaw, West Side.. 
 
 3,236 
 
 16,230,518 
 
 5,016 
 
 39.57 
 
 .789 
 
 3 
 
 Sioux City. 
 
 8,085 
 
 49,040 196 
 
 6,066 
 
 49.49 
 
 .816 
 
 2 
 
 South Bend . 
 
 7,619 
 
 74,976.325 
 
 9,841 
 
 53.54 
 
 .544 
 
 16 
 
 Springfield, Ill. 
 
 7,422 
 
 55,693,548 
 
 7,504 
 
 46.75 
 
 .623 
 
 9 
 
 Springfield. O. 
 
 7,239 
 
 58,620,430 
 
 8,098 
 
 36.90 
 
 .456 
 
 23 
 
 Superior . 
 
 5,447 
 
 46,660,710 
 
 8,566 
 
 45.18 
 
 .527 
 
 17 
 
 Terre Haute, 1913-14 
 
 8,485 
 
 58,798,817 
 
 6,930 
 
 49.21 
 
 .710 
 
 4 
 
 Topeka . 
 
 7,056 
 
 55,108,335'. 
 
 7,810 
 
 45.01 
 
 .576 
 
 14 
 
 Wichita . 
 
 8,345 
 
 64,029 295 
 
 7,673 
 
 37.37 
 
 .487 
 
 21 
 
 Average . 
 
 . j 
 
 
 
 .577 
 
 
 (a) From “Financial Statistics of Cities/’ 1915, U. S. Bureau of the 
 Census. 
 
 22 
 
1- 
 
 CD 
 
 05 
 
 o 
 
 05 
 
 00 
 
 rH 
 
 rH 
 
 CO 
 
 00 
 
 
 <N 
 
 O 
 
 l- 
 
 CD 
 
 CO 
 
 
 b- 
 
 30 
 
 30 
 
 00 
 
 t- 
 
 rH 
 
 CD 
 
 
 rH 
 
 00 
 
 rH 
 
 05 
 
 CD 
 
 
 CO 
 
 <M 
 
 rH 
 
 05 
 
 00 
 
 
 l'- 
 
 
 t- 
 
 
 <N 
 
 rH 
 
 O 
 
 05 
 
 00 
 
 CD 
 
 30 
 
 O 
 
 00 
 
 t— 
 
 t- 
 
 CD 
 
 CD 
 
 CD 
 
 CD 
 
 CD 
 
 CD 
 
 30 
 
 30 
 
 30 
 
 30 
 
 30 
 
 30 
 
 30 
 
 30 
 
 30 
 
 30 
 
 
 
 ■f 
 
 
 30 1-1 O l« <N 
 
 IO ID lO ^ rH 
 
 H< <N 
 
 43 
 
 a 
 
 . 
 
 <D 
 
 73 
 
 • rH 
 
 05 
 
 -H 
 
 •H 
 
 O 
 
 p 
 
 « 
 
 if 
 
 o 
 
 P 
 
 O 
 
 •rH 
 
 05 
 
 73 
 
 0> 
 
 £ 
 
 £ 
 
 P 
 
 a 
 
 •H 
 
 to 
 
 P 
 
 05 
 
 <u 
 
 •+■> 
 
 p 
 
 P 
 
 tn 
 
 o 
 
 H 
 
 03 
 
 EH 
 
 73 
 
 03 
 
 a 
 
 I 
 
 o 
 
 M 
 
 3=5 
 
 03 
 
 03 
 
 Q 
 
 a 
 
 f“H 
 
 O 
 
 03 
 
 a 
 
 • rH 
 
 fa 
 
 cj 
 
 •rH 
 
 rH 
 
 o 
 
 O) 
 
 Ph 
 
 03 
 
 cp 
 
 bO 
 
 a 
 
 fH 
 
 a 
 
 05 
 
 03 
 
 73 
 
 •rH 
 
 OQ 
 
 4J 
 
 72 
 
 cj 
 
 w 
 
 £ 
 
 cj 
 
 a 
 
 •rH 
 
 6*i 
 
 co 
 
 05 
 
 O 
 
 •rH 
 
 72 
 
 
 
 r-H 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 p 
 
 
 
 
 
 •rH 
 
 P 
 
 o 
 
 >> 
 
 4-> 
 
 o 
 
 cj 
 
 o 
 
 
 -a 
 
 70 
 
 a 
 
 
 
 <D 
 
 
 
 
 o 
 
 V 
 
 
 03 
 
 +j 
 
 rH 
 
 
 u 
 
 72 
 
 cj 
 
 72 
 
 o 
 
 «+H 
 
 
 a 
 
 03 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 P 
 
 t- 
 
 M 
 
 fa 
 
 U1 
 
 -M 
 
 N 
 
 Cj 
 
 s 
 
 cj 
 
 a> 
 
 to 
 
 cj 
 
 p 
 
 P 
 
 03 
 
 O' 
 
 72 
 
 tt 
 
 P 
 
 £h 
 
 o 
 
 •rH 
 
 rH 
 
 03 
 
 70 
 
 Sh 
 
 O 
 
 0-1 
 
 P 
 
 •rH 
 
 t> 
 
 72 
 
 fl 
 
 p 
 
 o 
 
 +J 
 
 5 
 
 •rH 
 
 •a 
 
 o 
 
 a 
 
 •rH 
 
 03 
 
 <p 
 
 W> 
 
 p 
 
 •rH 
 
 P 
 
 o 
 
 >> 
 
 P 
 
 £ 
 
 o 
 
 a 
 
 p 
 
 03 
 
 o 
 
 4-> 
 
 to 
 
 fl 
 
 •rH 
 
 72 
 
 a 
 
 
 QJ 
 
 a 
 
 
 r* 
 
 a 
 
 03 
 
 Cj 
 
 p 
 
 
 
 
 H 
 
 
 > 
 
 o 
 
 Cj 
 
 cj 
 
 Cj 
 
 > 
 
 o 
 
 fa 
 
 c 
 
 
 o 
 
 > 
 
 p 
 
 •rH 
 
 Cj 
 
 a 
 
 P 
 
 fa 
 
 P 
 
 o 
 
 w 
 
 fa 
 
 fa 
 
 < 
 
 H 
 
 02 
 
 
 05 
 
 
 fa 
 
 O 
 
 £ 
 
 « 
 
 05 
 
 
 fa 
 
 Q 
 
 u 
 
 P 
 
 -t-> 
 
 p 
 
 r-H 
 
 P 
 
 Q 
 
 23 
 
 .200 .400 .600 .800 1.000 
 
 Diagram VI.—Per centum/ of wealth per pupil that is actually contributed per pupil, Peoria and twenty-seven other city school-systems. 
 
the case of Illinois cities, for instance, the basis of assessment is 
 33 1/3 per cent. Hence, the estimated real wealth is equal to three 
 times the assessed valuation. 
 
 • 
 
 It will be noted that of the three cities paying more per pupil 
 than Peoria, pamely South Bend, Fort \\ ayne, and Davenport 
 not one makes a sacrifice comparable to that of Peoria. South Bend 
 with a greater per capita wealth than Peoria has a smaller number 
 of pupils, namely 11.7 per cent of its population, as compared to 
 12.8 per cent for Peoria. As a result, in wealth per pupil South 
 Bend ranks fourth, being surpassed only by Duluth, Fort Wayne 
 and Davenport. So, even though South Bend pays considerably 
 more per pupil than Peoria, her sacrifice is considerably less, for 
 the cost per pupil is only .544 per cent of the wealth per pupil as 
 compared to .631 per cent for Peoria. This is simply another way 
 of saying that in South Bend the tax on every $1,000, of the esti¬ 
 mated real wealth of the community is $5.44, while in Peoria it is 
 $6.31. 
 
 Fort Wayne, with a greater wealth per capita than Peoria, 
 has only 9.3 per cent of her population in average daily attendance 
 in the public schools, as compared to 12.8 per cent for Peoria. As 
 a result her wealth per pupil is almost 50 per cent greater than 
 that of Peoria. With reference to wealth per pupil Fort Wayne 
 r^nks second, while Peoria ranks twelfth. While Fort Wayne 
 spends more per pupil than Peoria, she spends far less in propor¬ 
 tion to her wealth. Her contribution per pupil is .451 per cent of 
 her wealth per pupil, as compared to .631 for Peoria. Davenport, 
 the third city paying more per pupil than Peoria, is second in'the 
 list as regards wealth per capita. The percentage of pupils in aver¬ 
 age daily attendance is about average. This leaves her ranking third 
 with ■ reference to wealth per pupil. Her contribution per pupil is 
 45 per cent of the wealth per pupil. 
 
 There are seven cities in the last that are making greater sac¬ 
 rifices than Peoria, namely: Bay City, Flint, Saginaw West Side, 
 Sioux City, Terre Haute, Des Moines, and Lincoln. Bay City with 
 least wealth per capita and least wealth per pupil, pays $42.59 per 
 pupil as compared to Duluth, the wealthiest in the group, which 
 pays $39.78. Sioux City, ranking second as to sacrifice made, has a 
 low per capita wealth, but has a comparatively large number of 
 children attending school, leaving her per pupil wealth small—in 
 fact, only fourth from the lowest. Des Moines, with 16.8 per cent 
 of her population in school, has a fairly large wealth per capita, but 
 her wealth per pupil is small, while in cost per pupil she is fifth 
 in rank. 
 
 If the three cities paying more per pupil than Peoria had made 
 
 24 
 
sacrifices in proportion to that made by Peoria they would have paid 
 as follows: 
 
 South Bend, .631 per cent of $9,841, or $62.0967 per pupil, or a 
 total of $473,115 for 7,619 pupils, instead of $407,948. 
 
 Fort Wayne, .631 per cent of $11,860, or $74.8366 per pupil, or 
 a total of $506,569 for 6,769 pupils, instead of $361,900. 
 
 Davenport, .631 per cent of $11,824, or $74.6094 per pupil, or 
 a total of $486,155 for 6,516 pupils, instead of $346,437. 
 
 Expenditures For Schools And For Other Purposes 
 
 In discussing the question of the ability of the community to 
 contribute for the support of its public schools one other important 
 factor needs to be considered, namely that of taxation for other 
 purposes. Table VI. shows the per capita cost for the support of 
 the public schools as compared to the per capita cost for other city 
 expenditures. Under the head of expenditures for general depart¬ 
 ments of city government are included general expenses, cost of 
 police department, fire department, cost of sanitation, construction 
 and care of highways, and all other expenditures of the city govern¬ 
 ment excepting interest on indebtedness, and outlay. It will be 
 observed that the per capita costs for school purposes are generally 
 lower than those in Table IV. They are based on expenditures 
 for the fiscal year 1914, thus including expenditures for the last six' 
 months of the school year 1913-14 and the first four months of the 
 school year 1914-15. Peoria ranks twenty-fourth in the list as to 
 the percentage that the expenditures' for schools are of the total 
 expenditures. 
 
 How Much Ought To Be Spent For School Purposes? 
 
 The question as to how much ought to be spent for school 
 purposes depends on a variety of factors. In the first place the 
 educational needs of the community, represented by the relative 
 number of pupils, ought to be considered ; in the second place the 
 community means, represented by the wealth per pupil. A wealthy 
 community can afford to pay more for the schooling of its children 
 than can a poorer community. To say that a given city should pay 
 as much per pupil as the average for .a given group of cities is to 
 ignore both of the above mentioned factors. Probably the average 
 cost per pupil is lower than it ought to be, for a large majority of 
 the cities paying less than the average per pupil are below the av¬ 
 erage in wealth per pupil. In other words, were they wealthier 
 they could afford to pay more per pupil and probably would do so. 
 
 Perhaps it is a fair assumption that communities that are above 
 the average in wealth per pupil are paying as much per pupil as is 
 necessary. The average cost per pupil in all cities with as great 
 
 25 
 
a wealth per pupil as Peoria was $45.89. Had Peoria spent $45.89, 
 per pupil, the total cost would have been $409,935.37. In other 
 words, if Peoria had spent as much per pupil as the average for 
 the cities having a wealth per pupil equal to or greater than her 
 own, her school bill would have been $46,181.56 less than it was. 
 Perhaps a still fairer test to apply would be the average per cent 
 that the cost per pupil is of the wealth per pupil in the twenty 
 
 Table VI. 
 
 Per capita cost for school purposes compared to per capita cost for total expendi 
 tures of city government, exclusive of outlay and interest (a) 
 
 CITY 
 
 Per capita cost 
 of expenditures 
 for public 
 schools 
 
 Per capita cost 
 of expenses of 
 general depart¬ 
 ments of city 
 government, ex¬ 
 penses of schools 
 included 
 
 Per cent, that the 
 school per cap. 
 cost is of the total 
 per capita cost 
 
 Rank as to the per 
 cent, that the per 
 cap. cost for 
 schools is of the per 
 cap. cost for all 
 department 
 expenditures 
 
 Akron . 
 
 $6.37 
 
 $13.42 
 
 47.5 
 
 10 
 
 Bay City. 
 
 4.69 
 
 9.52 
 
 49.3 
 
 5 
 
 Canton . 
 
 4.68 
 
 9.72 
 
 48.1 
 
 8 
 
 Covington . 
 
 3.36 
 
 11.17 
 
 30.1 
 
 27 
 
 Davenport . 
 
 7.22 
 
 15.65 
 
 46.1 
 
 12 
 
 l)es Moines . 
 
 7.62 
 
 15.78 
 
 48.3 
 
 7 
 
 Duluth . 
 
 5.40 
 
 13.90 
 
 38.8 
 
 25 
 
 East St. Louis. .. . 
 
 3.45 
 
 9.82 
 
 35.1 
 
 26 
 
 Evansville . 
 
 4.45 
 
 10.22 
 
 43.5 
 
 16 
 
 Flint . 
 
 3.86 
 
 8.34 
 
 46.3 
 
 11 
 
 Fort Wayne . 
 
 4.21 
 
 10.58 
 
 39.8 
 
 23 
 
 Kalamazoo . 
 
 5.63 
 
 11.01 
 
 51.1 
 
 2 
 
 Kansas City, Kans. 
 
 4.83 
 
 10.56 
 
 45.8 
 
 13 
 
 Lincoln . 
 
 5.60 
 
 10.84 
 
 51.7 
 
 1 
 
 Peoria . 
 
 5.76 
 
 14.74 
 
 39.1 
 
 24 
 
 Racine . 
 
 5.35 
 
 12.46 
 
 42.9 
 
 18 
 
 Rockford . 
 
 5.05 
 
 11.53 
 
 43.8 
 
 15 
 
 St. Joseph . 
 
 4.52 
 
 10.96 
 
 41.2 
 
 20 
 
 Saginaw . 
 
 5.24 
 
 12.08 
 
 43.4 
 
 17 
 
 Sioux City . 
 
 6.46 
 
 13.01 
 
 49.7 
 
 4 
 
 South Bend . 
 
 4.57 
 
 9.40 
 
 48.6 
 
 6 
 
 Springfield, Ill... . 
 
 4.99 
 
 11.84 
 
 42.1 
 
 19 
 
 Springfield, O. 
 
 4.39 
 
 10.91 
 
 . 40.2 
 
 22 
 
 Superior . 
 
 5.72 
 
 14.04 
 
 40.9 
 
 21 
 
 Terre Haute . 
 
 5.11 
 
 11.51 
 
 44.4 
 
 14 
 
 Topeka . 
 
 5.74 
 
 11.23 
 
 51.1 
 
 3 
 
 Wichita . 
 
 4.34 
 
 9.06 
 
 47.9 
 
 9 
 
 Averages .... 
 
 5.13 
 
 11.60 
 
 44.3 
 
 
 (a) From “Financial Statistics for Cities,” 1915, U. S. Bureau of the 
 
 Census. 
 
 26 
 
/ 
 
 eight school systems under consideration. Table V. shows this 
 average to be .577 per cent. Had Peoria spent .577 per cent of her 
 wealth per pupil, the total cost would have been $416,779.83. That 
 is to say, had Peoria made a sacrifice equal to that of the average 
 for all the cities in the group, the running expenses for her schools 
 would have been $39,337.10 less than they were. 
 
 Income Limited By Law 
 
 But Peoria is confronted by a “condition, not a theory’’. It is 
 not so much a question as to how much she ought to spend for her 
 schools in comparison to what other cities are spending. A far 
 more practical problem needs to be solved, namely this: will her in¬ 
 come enable her to maintain her schools next year and thereafter 
 on the present basis? Section 189 of the general school law of Illi¬ 
 nois prescribes that the levy on the assessed valuation of a school 
 district shall not exceed one and one-half per cent for educational, 
 and one and one-half per cent for building purposes. The same sec¬ 
 tion provides that the board may be authorized by the electors of the 
 district to levy up to 2 per cent for the educational fund, provided 
 that the levy for both purposes shall not exceed 3 per cent. The 
 electors of tlie school district of Peoria a few years ago authorized 
 the Board of School Inspectors to levy up to one and three-fourths 
 per cent for educational purposes. Before this authorization the 
 Board found it necessary to draw on the building fund for educa¬ 
 tional purposes, as the educational fund was not adequate to the de¬ 
 mands made upon it. For instance, two years ago janitors’ wages to 
 the amount of $26,747.75 were paid from the building fund, although 
 they may not, under the law, be paid from this fund. Last year at 
 least $5,861.38 of the $9,348.83 expended for furnishings ought to 
 have been taken from the educational fund. Pianos, organs and 
 movable furniture ought to be paid for from the educational fund, 
 not from the building fund. 
 
 Probable Income For Educational Fund, 1917-18 
 
 The assessed valuation of the school district of Peoria on which 
 a levy of one and three-fourths per cent may be made for the next 
 school year is $24,590,150. That would amount to $430,327.63. 
 From this there needs to be deducted three per cent, namely two 
 per cent for commission, and an allowance of one per cent to cover 
 loss of taxes not collected. This would leave a balance, available 
 for the educational fund, of $417,217.80. State taxes will probably 
 amount to $35,000; rents, $5,800; interest on funds, $2,000; tuition, 
 $1,500, making a total of $461,717.80. 
 
 27 
 
Probable Expenditures 
 
 This year’s appropriation for the educational fund was $460,- 
 839.18. The indications are that there will be little, if any, balance 
 left on hand at the end of the school year. The increases in sal¬ 
 aries automatically arising through the operation of the adopted 
 schedule will amount to $14,030.00 next year. Other expenditures 
 will probably amount to at least $11,000 more than this year. This 
 is on the assumption that coal will cost as much next year as it 
 did this, and that as much fuel will be needed, that the cost of light 
 and power will be equal to that of this year, and after making a 
 conservative estimate that different classes of supplies will cost 
 from ten to hftv per cent more next year. It likewise assumes the 
 need of a vigilant economy. This would give a total of $485,869.18 
 as the estimate for next year's expenditures from the educational 
 fund. This amount exceeds that of the estimated income for edu¬ 
 cational purposes by $24,151.38. 
 
 28 
 
sO 
 
 O' 
 
 hH 
 
 in 
 
 on 
 
 n 
 
 <u 
 
 ft 
 
 (U 
 
 -C 
 
 — 
 
 o 
 
 X 
 
 Ifl 
 
 I 
 
 x. 
 
 4-> 
 
 c 
 
 <u 
 
 £ 
 
 ~a 
 
 c 
 
 CS 
 
 CS 
 
 ’ft 
 
 O 
 
 u 
 
 cu 
 
 o 
 
 o 
 
 X 
 
 O 
 
 l« 
 
 Jft 
 
 58 
 
 ■o 
 
 in 
 
 E 
 
 a> 
 
 in 
 
 3 
 
 O 
 
 in 
 
 O 
 
 o 
 
 a 
 
 3 
 
 n. 
 
 ft 
 
 4> 
 
 a 
 
 T3 
 
 C 
 
 C8 
 
 w 
 
 C/3 
 
 o 
 
 o 
 
 "« 
 
 4-1 
 
 o 
 
 H 
 
 o 
 
 a 
 
 ft 
 
 ft 
 
 II 
 
 I ^ I 
 
 ft 4> X 
 3X1 <U 
 
 U) —j 1 
 
 . o o 
 ■'■x .2 
 
 *”< r- 1 •+-> 
 
 a; ~ a 
 
 c 03 r 
 
 O - in 
 •x rXi X 
 3 •—* ^ 
 (O ft*” 
 
 ft 
 
 3 
 
 ft 
 
 ft 
 
 U 
 
 ft 
 
 t/5 
 
 X 
 
 o 
 
 o 
 
 X 
 
 4-1 
 
 M 
 
 <U 
 
 t* 
 
 ft 
 
 ft 
 
 ft 
 
 V 
 
 ft 
 
 2 
 
 <! 
 
 in 
 
 ft 
 
 <u 
 
 X 
 
 o 
 
 c 8 
 
 U 
 
 in 
 
 W 
 
 vOOO'tMOO’^'tOOM'^O'-^Of'SKONfO'O^'OOiXNVO'HOiOOK 
 
 rHr-iOfOOrHCOiOi^NO’-'Mur^'OMtON'Ou'j'tO'H'tKC'rt' 
 
 cd cm on cm rd oo -ft oo i—< o’ oo oo o’ rd o oo 4-1 d <xi no rd id id o" xf cd cxi od 
 
 MrCMfOfOrorc(NfOCMfOfOfOtO , tNfOfO(ONrCfCfOrOfOCC( v )“ 
 69- 
 
 CM 
 
 ^Q0f0'OKrHT)-C0^00K!OO\00l0Nin'tN^-r-l(\lr-(^tNO’-llO 
 rl't^'-iCMOCOC'IO^M'HrHin^POM't^^CiniOMOOCOO 
 °qcM xf lx oo 't tco^oo r q_io no>— _ <o oo^ooo^xf cm co xf i>* no no 
 qi 4 —T o”td 4 —”t-Tno ncTon o'rd cm” o”4—i <—Tcm 00 1 o’ xf” cm" co”u-f © 00 ” id o' cm” rd 
 ^CMO't^NOOM'timc-HOOOUOCO'OO'OOOOOOMD-HCOOOf'XCi 
 7X < CM ’— 1 CM VO co CM CM ’— 1 CM CM co CM CO »— 1 CM CM 4 -h co CM CM CM --ft CM CM pm 
 
 C/7‘ 
 
 ^ 4 —iCMt^CM'XJON'^'—i < Ot^OOLoO'OOONO'0 <N 0'OCV)00\OOONO'0-—i 
 ^OfC'OcOMfOOOKq'+fOO'tOOOfOONO'tTffOrd^roONN 
 
 C/9 
 
 ^OO'ONWOtOONOO'OHMuiMi-VO^’^N'HCMOfOOO^ 
 
 NOOO'tNMNCOMD'OtOtMOiCrH'tON'd-rHioOOKONOCJOON 
 
 'to o no o_nq iqnt c> qo *o^\qqN on <xi xfxj- nq co <o io co no on 
 
 4 —' vO' CM ccTCO O N no no xf ON td o 4 —” On 'O I'd On On” co r-T o o’ 4 -h id cd cd no 
 
 1 “"" < CO ’““I CV] r—H i—4 i—{ 1—4 1—4 
 
 o ^-t- 
 lx 00 
 
 CM NO 
 NO 4— 1 
 
 69- 
 
 N) IO fO CC C C C • tx • xf •MtsNOOCMON’t 
 
 10)N0 4H(N)-HH • O -4—1 •OOONOtXr-Hr-H'cftX 
 
 On MO 
 4—i CM 
 
 CM O 
 xf o 
 IX O 
 
 o' no” 
 69- 
 
 xf tx 
 CM xf 
 co tx 
 
 ud 
 
 NO co O 00 oo 4—i NO 
 xf no CM NO tx CM no 
 NO CM CM 0_ xf On NO 
 oo” On 4 -h t-T 
 
 ON 
 
 tX 
 
 CM 
 
 oo” 
 
 xf 
 
 tx 
 
 oo 
 
 NOONNO 4—1 O xf co co 
 4—1 NO NO NO no no On co 
 NO no 4—1 co On tx 50 O 1 
 
 ON co CM xf 
 
 ro xf 
 
 cO O 
 
 IX NO 
 
 CO 4-H 
 
 4-h” cm” 
 
 CMON©©nocon 04—icOxf-ONNOOONCorxcONoCMxfOxfcOcooOxfeMxf 
 CM nq no tx co tx On xf CM ON tx co xf i_q no xf o CM CO tx xf ,—1 O 10 4 -^ o co io 
 xfNd'^fNdooNdxftdoN4—icM'NO©cdcdrdodododNd»-Hodco’odoNNdNd 
 
 CM CM CM CM CO co CM CM CM 4 -h co co CM co co CM CM CM CM ’—1 CM co CM CM CM CM CM CM 
 y^ 
 
 OnOOOOnCOcoOnOKvOCMNOOOOn 
 N tO\OOCMOONrHi 0 4tON4HrH4tOO\ 
 
 —f l^ tx QC 
 
 NO co ON CM 
 
 XfOtX4-H^HOtX4-H 
 
 M-cococoOnOOn -—1 
 T CM O co 4t Nt NO no 
 
 <J 1-H 
 
 M (/3 ’^ 
 
 03 
 
 2 > 
 X d 
 
 l; V 4 / 
 T ^ C, 
 
 5 ^ ^ 
 
 T-H <U X 
 
 xl M-OOtxco-H'OOOcoiO'tOMOrHCNKOOMNDOOCNtNO 
 £•! CO no 00 O NO t''* M" NO 4 -h CM no On CM no no O no co CO CXI 00 M" 00 CM 
 
 P-, ! 4—4 4 -h 4-h 4 1 4 1 4 -h 4 1 4 -h 4 -H 4 4 Cv) y— 
 
 u <«■ 
 
 o I _ 
 
 00 
 
 y—4 L/~) r~H 
 
 NN t 
 
 CM 
 
 NO 
 
 ■On 
 
 ■s. 
 
 U-4 
 
 o 
 
 V- X , 
 
 U ^ * lx . 
 
 X'ft y 3 X q 
 
 £ a rt A 5 
 
 55 *3-S » rt 
 
 x 1 
 
 H 
 
 i—i 
 
 u 
 
 CO 
 
 4-H 
 
 I 
 
 CM 
 
 4-H 
 
 ON 
 
 —|- cn 
 
 O 
 
 ■H 
 
 bjo 
 
 s ^ o c 
 
 U S 
 
 o 
 
 ft >3 
 
 Xi 03 
 
 G X 
 nS O 
 
 uu 
 
 ft 
 
 o' 
 a. 
 
 s f 
 
 >• 
 
 i 
 
 co 
 
 4-H 
 
 ON 
 
 o 
 
 J 
 
 c 8 
 
 CO 
 
 T—H 
 
 On 
 
 —i 
 
 cu” 
 
 -ft X 
 
 cn 
 
 <u 
 
 > 
 
 i/i 
 
 r-* 
 
 crj 
 
 > 
 
 o 
 
 G 
 
 o3 
 
 u 
 
 O 
 
 4-> 
 
 T—< 
 
 u 
 
 C/3 
 
 03 
 
 f—' 
 
 o3 
 
 cu 
 
 JO 
 
 OQ 
 
 d) 
 
 • 4—< 
 
 CO 
 
 -r 33 
 
 O -JH 
 
 o 
 
 G ® 
 OJ 
 
 'O 
 
 ft 
 
 o 
 ' — 
 
 -X 
 
 u 
 
 o 
 
 -G 
 
 a 
 
 cu 
 
 w 
 
 O 
 
 V) 
 
 o3 
 
 w 
 
 in 
 
 <u 
 
 >» c 
 .tj cu 
 U PQ 
 
 ’"O 2 
 
 t l~l X 
 
 ■on bfl' 
 
 co 
 
 ON 
 
 CU 
 
 G X-C x G 
 
 29 
 
 . bn 
 
 , X* 03 
 
 ^ cn 
 
 b£ 
 
 x 
 
 cn 
 
 ft 
 
 a ^ 
 cn co m w 
 
 .2 o 
 
 c3 
 
 §K 
 
 ft cu 
 
 <U ft 
 
 a ft 
 
 c n H 
 
 NO 
 
 CN1 
 
 CO 
 
 OOOOOOOCv)00 0'OCONOOnOOCOOlocono'-OCX)CMO _ 
 j O no no O M* CM xl* NO O ON O no co 00 NO M" oj On NO '— 1 xj- c co O NO O 
 
 H I H-I CM M- ON NO NO NO NO CM oo NO <X] NjX o co ON_ O NO CO^ o ^ co xl- ON XC O (XI M- 
 
 ^'\ lo” On” t ^ xf o” 4—T 1 o xf” On” OO” o” >x” co CX|” xj” NO* no’ co” co” xf” co” 4 -h” n0” no \Q \Q u“T co” 
 
 ' CO¬ 
 
 ON 
 
 NO 
 
 1 -^ 
 
 CM 
 
 > £ 
 
 -C 
 
 D 3 
 
 rt 3 
 
 *3 < 
 
 cl) 
 
 CMCNIx(MNrHON(Oi04tiOOftNCNOiOOOCOcONCOOOiONOx 
 
 NiOr- iCMOnOx 0\xTfrH00OC00\ , tON0'XN0'-1 co 0 NO xf- 00 CM 
 
 co 4 -h rx) 4 -h 4-h lo co 4 -h CX) ^h CM 4 -H co CM CM 4—1 rxi Cv| 4 —' CXJ CM CN] 4-h ,— 1 CM »—1 CM 
 60- 
 
 4 —« a 
 -S C 
 
 H J 
 
 ies and 
 
 enses 
 
 ncipals 
 
 Per Pupil 
 
 r^ooNOi^t^cxioot^oo 
 hONIONOnMO CM 
 <xj cd cxi cd cd co* cxi cm cxi 
 
 60- 
 
 NO CO CO CO NO O 4-H 10 
 
 O cq ON 00 (XI 4 -H cm NO 
 cd cd 4—1 om xf' cd 4—i 
 
 NO ’—1 CM f>» 00 CM NO ON 10 
 
 00 4 — 1 co NO On NO io 
 
 cdidcoxfcdcMcocd 
 
 O 
 
 
 
 
 3 
 
 i-< 
 
 OOOCONNONOON 
 
 NOONOcoM-KO 
 
 no xf on NO O no O CM O 
 
 u 
 
 iS ^ ft G 
 
 NOOOONxTNOxOO 
 
 no ft OO (O 0 NO OO NO 
 
 MOuocoOCMO'tN | 
 
 •W 
 
 r J) 
 
 G <U 3 
 
 CO co QQ N 10 OO CM ft O 
 
 VQ (O ft On O N H h 
 
 no CM X) NO xf Qn O tx nq 
 
 c 
 
 0 
 
 x 0 <; 
 
 CO CO CO NO xf" CO xC 4 — 1 GO 
 
 CO ft CM ft CM NO O CM ft 
 
 66 H 
 
 O 00 ’ xf ft 00 On On NO 
 (XI ft CXJ CM CO ft 
 
 CM 4— 1 NO xf tN NO ft NO rf 
 
 4— 1 xf CX) co CM 4-1 co CM 
 
 xf 
 
 cd 
 
 oo 
 
 OOcOxJ-ONOLOi-HONOC^ONCOxt-xfcoNOxj-oOOONONOONCMONt^NONONO 
 
 NO xj* (M h-iOOnCM-—'X fNONONONOcONOCNl4—i 4H o 00 4—lOMCOxfOO NO xf 
 co On NO NO NO CO ft On O M K 10 in tx ON (O N2 xf rH CM O O xf (NJ Xf xf c 'M 
 
 uo ”no 00”xf-”\o ”no cm” rCtd td no’ no cm” tC00 nO jtxTO n” xf- co”00 td id id 00” id 00 
 
 . - -< ' , 1 . 1 t 
 
 On 
 ON 
 cxj 
 i-o 
 yt 
 
 NO 
 
 NO 
 
 -X -d 
 
 cu -G 
 
 a o 
 °‘C 
 H > 
 
 & i 
 
 bn ! 
 
 2 ! 
 
 v 
 
 r* 
 
 < 
 
 L- 
 O 
 Of 
 ■4—* 
 
 c n 
 O 
 
 U 
 
 ci 
 
PART III. 
 
 WHAT OUGHT TO BE DONE? 
 
 Increase Income or Reduce Expenditures 
 
 Either some means must be found for increasing the income 
 or the expenditures must be reduced. Bills now pending before 
 the State Legislature may possibly provide a larger income from 
 tuition than can be figured on in the absence of such legislation. 
 As long* as parents are obliged to pay the tuition the income 
 from this source is not apt to exceed the estimate given above. 
 One other conceivable way of securing an increase in the income 
 will be by asking the electors of the district to allow the Board 
 to go beyond the one and three-fourths per cent now permitted. 
 But at a time when taxpayers are groaning under the high cost 
 of living, they could hardly be expected to vote for an increase 
 of the taxing burden of which they were complaining even before 
 the present advance in prices. Hence, expenditures must be re¬ 
 duced by at least $24,000.00. Where can the reduction be made 
 without reducing the efficiency of the school system? 
 
 High Cost of Instruction 
 
 Table III. showed that while Peoria ranked fourth as to the 
 total cost per pupil, the cost per pupil for instruction was greater 
 in Peoria than in any of the other systems, greater by $2.33 than 
 that of the city second in rank. Peoria ranks fourth as to salaries 
 and expenses of supervisors, third as to salaries and expenses of 
 principals, first as to salaries of teachers. In the table referred 
 to special schools are included under the head of elementary 
 schools and industrial schools under secondary schools. Tables 
 VIII and IX shows costs for elementary schools and for secondary 
 schools. Unfortunately the reports of some of the cities in 
 the list did not show distributions, merely lumping the expendi¬ 
 tures for both classes of schools as shown in Table VII. It will 
 be observed that Peoria ranks first as to total cost per pupil and 
 as to cost of instruction per pupil in the elementary schools. The 
 cost per pupil for teachers’ salaries in Peoria was $29.01 in the 
 elementary schools, $1.28 more than in the case of Des Moines, 
 which city ranks second. Peoria’s rank as to cost per pupil for 
 teachers’ salaries in the secondary schools is third; as to total cost 
 per pupil it is second. 
 
 30 
 
/ 
 
 Teachers’ Salaries 
 
 High cost of instruction may be due either to high salaries for 
 teachers, or to a large number of teachers in proportion to the num¬ 
 ber of pupils, or to a combination of both of these factors. The 
 attempt was made to secure the salary schedules obtaining in the 
 twenty-eight school systems under consideration, but it was im¬ 
 possible to secure the same from more than a few cities. This 
 made a real study of the salary situation impossible. Hence a dif¬ 
 ferent expedient had to be resorted to. Table X, shows the num¬ 
 ber of pupils per teacher, and the average salaries paid, in the ele¬ 
 mentary schools, and Table XI, corresponding data for the secon¬ 
 dary schools of the twenty-eight schools systems under consider¬ 
 ation. Peoria ranks fourth as to small classes, and third as to 
 salaries paid, in the elementary schools. In other words, the sal¬ 
 aries are comparatively high, and at the same time the number of 
 teachers in proportion to the number of pupils is large. The very 
 small number of pupils per teacher and the small average salary in 
 the elementary schools of Davenport indicates that cadet teachers 
 are included. For the minimum salary in the grades at Daven¬ 
 port is $600.00 per year, while the maximum is $850.00. The num¬ 
 ber of pupils per teacher in the secondary schools of Peoria is 
 smaller than in any one of the other cities. At the same time Peoria 
 ranks sixth as to salaries paid. 
 
 It is evident from an analysis of the above tables and of Dia¬ 
 grams VII. and VIII., showing the number of pupils per teacher 
 in the elementary schools and the secondary schools, that classes 
 ^are very much smaller in the schools of Peoria than they are in 
 most other cities.* There is no valid reason for assuming that classes 
 
 *The excessively large number of pupils per teacher in the case 
 of Evansville is evidently incorrect, although based on data pub¬ 
 lished in the Report of the Commissioner of Education for 1914. 
 The average daily attendance is there reported as 1378 while the 
 enrollment is reported as 1045. Presumably these two figures need 
 to be transposed. On this assumption the number of pupils per 
 teacher was 23.8 instead of 31.3. Point A in Diagram VIII. indicates 
 this presumably correct number. This would place Evansville in 
 rank between Flint and DesMoines. If the above assumption is 
 correct the costs per pupil for Evansville in Table III. need to be re¬ 
 vised. The average daily attendance for all schools was probably 
 7582 instead of 7915 as given in the Report of the Commissioner of 
 Education. If so, the cost per pupil was $42.55 instead of $40.76 as 
 shown in Table III. 
 
 31 
 
> 
 
 4) 
 
 X 
 
 cd 
 
 H 
 
 g 
 
 o 
 
 cu 
 
 0- 
 
 X 
 
 c 
 
 aj 
 
 w 
 
 g 
 
 cs 
 
 ■©£ 
 
 g 
 
 4 
 
 ■a 
 
 a 
 
 •o c 
 
 c 
 
 o 
 
 c 
 
 • — . 
 
 - vO 
 
 X '— 1 
 
 O 2 
 
 o . 
 
 J3 VO 
 o — 
 
 x ON 
 
 g 
 
 cs 
 
 4H 
 
 c 
 
 4 
 
 £ 
 
 4 
 
 4 
 
 D 
 
 c 
 
 o 
 
 4H 
 
 4 
 
 X 
 
 4 
 
 g 
 
 0) 
 
 _c 
 
 "3 
 
 C 
 
 a 
 
 X 
 
 O 
 
 o 
 
 u 
 
 4 
 
 a 
 
 ■a 
 
 c 
 
 « 
 
 *— 
 
 x 
 
 O 
 
 o 
 
 "3 
 
 *— 
 
 o 
 
 H 
 
 o 
 
 e- 
 
 c 
 
 o-a g 
 
 o c o 
 
 ai G C 
 
 l* U) 
 n ^ C 
 
 a x ^ 
 
 £■ 5 c. 
 
 <D 
 
 X 
 
 g: 
 
 o 
 
 o 
 
 JO 
 
 x g 
 - ^ 
 *-> G.G 
 X G •*-> 
 
 O' 0) o 
 
 H 
 
 a 
 
 a 
 
 g 
 
 a; 
 
 G 
 
 G 
 
 < 
 
 G 
 
 G 
 
 a 
 
 u 
 
 o 
 
 a. 
 
 a 
 
 < 
 
 o 
 
 .e 
 
 o 
 
 rt 
 
 o 
 
 X 
 
 o 
 
 a5 
 
 03 
 
 G 
 
 G 
 
 G 
 
 i-( 
 
 4 
 
 G 
 
 $21.96 
 
 23.51 
 | 29.59 
 
 
 O 00 VO 
 
 >o t'v vq 
 d id oo 
 
 CM CM CM 
 
 ; CM 
 
 • r-H 
 
 • co 
 
 33.30 
 
 35.66 
 
 25.96 
 
 27.52 
 
 35.29 
 
 34.10 
 
 
 • rH C\J 
 
 • cm. »q 
 
 . cd d 
 
 • co CM 
 
 28.98 
 
 $292,395 j 
 
 . 1 
 
 176,527 j 
 | 120,419 
 
 . 
 
 • 278,613 
 
 184,153 
 
 187,256 
 
 . 1 
 
 147,093 
 
 _ 
 
 219,649 
 
 277.812 
 
 145,042 
 
 223,469 
 
 1 
 
 .. 1 
 
 243 040 
 
 227,169 
 
 209,218 | 
 
 . oo 
 
 • On 
 
 ; o oo 
 . rvj co" 
 
 • 
 
 • t—< t-H 
 
 
 
 M - On 
 
 
 O "'cb On 
 
 co O 
 
 G’OOKgCOvJ- 
 
 co On 
 
 
 VO O N 
 
 o 
 
 CO 
 
 vo VO 
 
 
 XK tN 
 
 co co 
 
 CO O0 On CO 00 Vd 
 
 ■cf VO 
 
 
 co O0 VO 
 
 
 
 
 
 *—< 
 
 r—H 
 
 CM CM t— 1 
 
 cd i—i 
 
 
 r—H 
 
 
 y j- 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 •c 
 
 G 
 
 c3 
 
 O X 
 
 x rt 
 x a; a 
 o x •— 
 
 — c o 
 
 G o o 
 
 G 
 
 G 
 
 G 
 
 g 
 
 o 
 
 G 
 
 vO 
 
 On 
 
 m- 
 
 OJ 
 
 On 
 
 m- 
 
 On 
 
 H 
 
 VO 
 
 d" 
 
 IO 
 
 CM 
 
 W- 
 
 • o 
 
 CO • 
 
 • CM 
 
 oo 
 
 co 
 
 
 CNl 
 
 O 
 
 vo 
 
 1^ 
 
 
 vo 
 
 t-H 
 
 ON 
 
 • CM 
 
 t-H 
 
 CO 
 
 
 • GO 
 
 On • 
 
 • ON 
 
 On 
 
 VO 
 
 
 co 
 
 t-H 
 
 vo 
 
 VO 
 
 co 
 
 vo 
 
 vo 
 
 VO 
 
 • VO 
 
 co 
 
 H 
 
 
 • 
 
 • 
 
 • t-H 
 
 CM 
 
 r-H 
 
 
 ON 
 
 t-H 
 
 n- 
 
 GO 
 
 Tf 
 
 CO 
 
 CO 
 
 co 
 
 . ^ 
 
 VO 
 
 00 
 
 
 ^ M" 
 
 CM • 
 
 • id 
 
 VO 
 
 VO 
 
 
 1^ 
 
 vo 
 
 VO 
 
 -VO 
 
 VO 
 
 
 
 cm' 
 
 • co 
 
 o 
 
 OO 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 r-H 
 
 
 
 t-H 
 
 t-H 
 
 
 • OJ 
 
 t—H 
 
 
 
 • W 
 
 CM CO 
 
 co VO 
 
 VO 
 
 vo 
 
 t'v 
 
 cd 
 
 GO 
 
 
 CO 
 
 GO 
 
 On 
 
 CO CO 
 
 
 
 On 
 
 • co 
 
 CM ON 
 
 VO 
 
 
 
 
 r-H 
 
 CO 
 
 
 O 
 
 CO 
 
 CM 
 
 On 
 
 M- CM O 
 
 VO 
 
 
 LO 
 
 • On 
 
 d vo 
 
 1^ CM 
 
 r-H 
 
 
 1^ 
 
 id 
 
 VO 
 
 vo 
 
 On 
 
 --- 
 
 
 d 
 
 On co cd 
 
 t'v. 
 
 
 d 
 
 • T—H 
 
 Gl CNJ 
 
 OJ Ol 
 
 CM 
 
 CM 
 
 ▼— 1 
 
 CM 
 
 CM 
 
 CM 
 
 CM 
 
 CM 
 
 CM 
 
 CM 
 
 t-H t-H ^\J 
 
 OJ 
 
 
 CM 
 
 O O «—I 
 
 O H co 
 
 O CV1 !>. 
 co" O H 
 
 NGOrHOVO'trH't'tCO 
 O\KrC0C T tlN'OrPO(Vl 
 CO VO CM CM lo co 00 On CM CO 
 
 i o" OC t-h CM On vo id cd " d 
 cf ON O tN (N) >Ci vo vo M 
 ’—i i—i co CM ’— 1 ’— 1 r—< ’—i i- H 
 
 K O OO CM O O On O co 
 ONOtsOvocovOKvcno 
 vo On >—« 00 On C O vo On CM 
 
 VO VO ON o' CM* CM 00 00 cd' d 
 NCM'-ivOONC)iO00\O 
 i-H CM i—< i-H CM i— ' t-H ,-H 
 
 CO CO 
 
 OnCON 
 CO O H 
 H O 00 tq 
 
 i—r o cm’ vo 
 
 t— I o CO vo 
 t— i CM T ~ l r ~' 
 
 CM 
 
 H 
 
 CO 
 
 OJ 
 
 ON 
 
 On 
 
 y^ 
 
 • OJ OO OJ CO CM H- O 
 ■ vo H VO 00 On VO cq 
 
 • O VQ 
 
 • O VO 
 
 • 1—11>* -+ 
 ;t^oo 
 
 . VO 
 • OJ 
 
 • On -CC On 
 •OH’—< 
 
 • O CM Tf vo • 
 
 • t-H I t—1 ’—1 t 
 
 • oi cd cd cd cm* cm* oi 
 
 • cd oi 
 
 • oi d cd 
 
 
 I cd id cd 
 
 • d oi cd d 
 
 *4 
 
 o 
 
 * 1 
 4> 
 
 > 1 
 y= 
 
 i 
 
 V 
 
 J-: a’C ^ 
 
 os x a £ 
 
 CO o ^ 
 
 « 
 
 j~j 
 
 c 
 
 G 
 
 4 
 
 G 
 
 > 
 
 Tj 4 h tn O 
 
 > 
 
 GOG 
 rt C o 4 
 
 re r\ 
 
 o 
 
 • o 
 
 OC 
 
 co 
 
 OJ 
 
 vo 
 
 H 
 
 OJ 
 
 • VC 
 
 CO 
 
 • H 
 
 CO 
 
 vo 
 
 • o* 
 
 • VO 
 
 
 o 
 
 o 
 
 o 
 
 vo 
 
 o 
 
 OJ 
 
 VO 
 
 • o 
 
 
 CM 
 
 H 
 
 OJ 
 
 CM 
 
 CO 
 
 • o 
 
 CO 
 
 • vo 
 
 t-H 
 
 
 • VO 
 
 • to. 
 
 On 
 
 H 
 
 ON 
 
 o 
 
 T—H 
 
 o 
 
 ,—i 
 
 VO 
 
 : 
 
 t-H 
 
 cq 
 
 o 
 
 VO 
 
 °°- 
 
 CO 
 
 • OO 
 
 vo 
 
 • cq 
 
 iq 
 
 On 
 
 • o. 
 
 • oo 
 
 H 
 
 CM 
 
 vo 
 
 1^ 
 
 cq 
 
 o 
 
 tq 
 
 vd 
 
 • co" 
 
 
 o" 
 
 oi 
 
 On" 
 
 oo" 
 
 vd 
 
 • id 
 
 cm" 
 
 • rd 
 
 t-H 
 
 vd 
 
 : oj" 
 
 •” oo” 
 
 rd 
 
 t-H 
 
 ON 
 
 vd 
 
 cm" 
 
 NO 
 
 co" 
 
 dJ 
 
 • t-H 
 
 t-H 
 
 O) 
 
 VO 
 
 cm 
 
 1— 1 
 
 l -1 
 
 .• --1 
 
 
 ..—i 
 
 CO 
 
 t—H 
 
 
 
 co 
 
 OJ 
 
 OJ 
 
 OJ 
 
 t—H 
 
 CM 
 
 OJ 
 
 yr 
 
 x a>.G 
 <u x ^ 
 
 s gs 
 
 G G G 
 G x 3 
 ■j, (V w 
 
 
 t, r 
 4 — 
 
 .g a 
 
 u —• 0) 
 O n5 C o 
 G g > *0 <l> a 
 
 c 3 G\r« 
 
 ^-g 
 ^ ° « 
 
 
 ON T—1 VO 1—1 OJ VO 1—* 
 
 On OJ co iq H VO H 
 
 t-H t-H t-H 
 
 ee- 
 
 /. 
 
 • ■ oo 
 ; ; 00 
 
 00 O cvj 
 h to. vq 
 
 it ts On M O • 
 
 H vo co co ; 
 
 1—4 t-H CO T—l 
 
 
 o O 1—1 1—1 O O o 
 
 • • 1^ 
 
 CO On 1—1 
 
 vo CM Lo vo CM CM 
 
 
 VO O 1 -H vo VO o 
 
 • • OJ 
 
 co vO vo 
 
 On i— 1 fv. i—< H co 
 
 
 if On vo io O] O cq 
 
 
 rq OJ H 
 
 vo CM^ On CO CO H 
 
 
 N d K On it vf On 
 
 
 On co" co 
 
 co vo co cd t-h vc 
 
 
 yt 
 
 
 
 rvj hh 
 
 lo (N1 CO OO 
 O On H 
 
 OJ 
 
 T—H 
 
 co 
 
 co" 
 
 KOONVOOi-NrHONfOVONON-HrtOOOO'OCM 
 CKCCMcOM-cOCMM-rH--HONON 00‘t-h CM O VO 00 VO 
 vo O O vt - rH rH vq i r, ON t>. On i-O tqvo CM 1 Oh 00 CO VO 
 
 rdo-" in co c’ i>T vd vo vo” m- o' vo t>T>o vd oo co" cm"vo" vo" 
 
 co O On O 
 •o o vo o 
 t>. o CM ^ 
 
 m- vd vo" cd 
 
 NcoOOO 
 vo CO K On On 
 CM vo CM VO 
 
 no" m*" co* vo* rd 
 
 ON 
 
 o 
 
 cd 
 
 VO 
 
 h 
 
 CJ 
 
 tfl 
 
 <u 
 
 CO 
 
 I 
 
 CM 
 
 ON 
 
 aj 
 
 i 
 
 co 
 
 S° S 
 
 ^ cd cd 
 
 o 
 
 4-1 
 
 bJO 
 
 .2 0\ 
 0 
 
 -4 s_/ 
 
 o 
 
 J <u 
 
 o •; 
 
 a 
 
 
 .0 v 
 
 > >■ XI 
 
 o o o 
 
 UQQ 
 
 ^ !>* 
 CO £ 
 
 r-* 
 
 X co 
 
 Cj > 
 
 ww 
 
 <u 
 
 r~* 
 
 >> 
 
 a5 
 
 > 
 
 G u 
 — O 
 tG 
 
 O 
 
 O 
 
 N 
 
 cd 
 
 r“< 
 
 £ 
 
 cd 
 
 u 
 
 c n 
 cd 
 
 (n 
 
 <v <v 
 
 c75c/5 
 
 C/5 
 
 cd 
 
 w 
 
 C/5 
 
 a; 
 
 o 
 
 >> 
 
 ’O „ - 
 
 cti a5 , 
 
 5 
 
 i— 
 
 O 
 
 4) 
 
 U 
 
 03 
 
 G 
 
 o 
 
 <4-. 
 
 G5 
 
 O 
 
 a, 
 
 <u 
 
 X 
 
 O 
 
 oj 
 
 4-4 n_) — 1 
 
 kTHoq w ^ 
 
 ^ U (-M o: vp o 
 o3 b/3 bJO-r; 
 
 G X-C C C h 
 
 bfl be 
 
 G G 
 
 I 
 
 co 
 
 aj 
 
 4-4 
 
 G 
 
 o3 
 
 K 
 
 <y 
 
 G 
 
 oJ ^ 
 
 a^ GP 
 Oh O 
 
 ; V d 03 -2 o a Ph G « O d 
 
 4PnP4P^cr!cncncricoc/}cr)cr!HHK> 
 
 <v 
 
 o, 
 
 X 
 
 -G> 
 
 X 
 
 O 
 
 U 
 
 aj 
 
 be 
 
 o5 
 
 G 
 
 O 
 
 > 
 
 < 
 
 CO 
 
 vo 
 
 cd 
 
 CM 
 
 y* 
 
 X 
 
 rt 
 
 ts 
 
 vo 
 
 i 
 
 VO 
 
 T—H 
 
 ON 
 
 Oh 
 
 r-* 
 
 *-> 
 
 Oh 
 
 G 
 
 43 
 
 Oh 
 
 4-4 
 
 X 
 
 o 
 
 u 
 
 05 
 
 32 
 
X 
 
 0) 
 
 -fi 
 
 C3 
 
 H 
 
 ce 
 
 u 
 
 O 
 
 03 
 
 3m 
 
 O 
 
 o 
 
 4= 
 
 o 
 
 x 
 
 '0£ 
 
 c 
 
 c 
 
 V 
 
 Ji¬ 
 
 ll 
 
 13 
 
 > 
 
 x 
 
 3 
 
 o 
 
 <u 
 
 vO 
 
 i—i 
 
 Ov 
 
 x • 
 — tn 
 O H 
 O ov 
 
 _3 *—I 
 
 o 
 
 * X 
 
 *.2 
 
 3 o 
 TJ 
 
 C U 
 
 o v 
 
 o X 
 <U " 
 x o 
 
 43 13 
 
 j: > 
 
 ■“ ie 
 
 c >» 
 
 = s 
 
 .2 S 
 
 13 
 
 ? TJ 
 
 £ C 
 
 x 
 
 c 
 
 3 
 
 x 
 
 O 
 
 O 
 
 a 
 
 3 
 
 a 
 
 u 
 
 <u 
 
 a 
 
 a! 
 
 a 
 
 3 
 
 ft 
 
 Ih 
 
 01 
 
 Oh 
 
 CM 
 
 • £""*) t-H • 
 
 • CO CO M- • 
 
 • o 
 
 • VO VO M- 
 
 . vo • 
 
 • CM O 
 
 00 
 
 • r-H CM 
 
 • i-H VO 1—1 
 
 : ^ 
 
 • CM CM vq 
 
 : °) 
 
 •t-'Y Ov 
 
 LO 
 
 3 vd 3 
 
 • CM vd 3 
 
 3 M- 
 
 3 rd cd td 
 
 • M- 3 
 
 3 o O 
 
 vo 
 
 . VO vo . 
 
 • VO VO Tf" • 
 
 • 
 
 •XNvf- 
 
 . vo • 
 
 • vo VO 
 
 C/O- 
 
 • * 
 
 
 
 * 
 
 * * 
 
 
 O 
 
 £ 
 
 <3 
 
 1 
 
 c 
 
 
 
 VO 
 
 . 00 l—l • 
 
 • vo vo 
 
 . ov 
 
 o 
 
 
 $ 
 
 CO 
 
 . Ov Ov • 
 
 • VO co O 
 
 . VO 00 
 
 +J 
 
 13 
 
 a 
 
 vd 
 
 3 CM i—i 3 
 
 • vo CM i—• 
 
 cd i-H 
 
 - 
 
 U 
 
 
 • • 
 
 
 • 
 
 Ifl 
 
 C/3 
 
 <D 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 <D 
 
 Pu 
 
 
 
 
 
 tfl r~ 
 
 44 n 
 
 O 
 
 o 
 
 •O 
 
 a 
 
 3 
 
 C/3 
 
 ® s 
 
 a 
 
 3 
 
 a 
 
 O c /3 
 C/l h 
 - 43 
 
 CS C3 
 13 
 
 Sh 
 
 13 
 
 CU 
 
 Cl 
 
 CO 
 
 a 
 
 <j 
 
 G O c/3 
 
 CO IS 
 CO 13 Q, 
 
 13 CO-t? 
 
 O o 
 
 13 C 
 
 & ! 
 
 a 
 
 3 
 
 a 
 
 in 
 
 13 
 
 PU 
 
 ri x a 
 CO o 
 
 a 
 
 <3 
 
 T3 <4-4 
 
 G O 
 « co 
 CO 13 
 O CO 
 
 a 
 
 a 
 
 3 
 
 a 
 
 iO CM 
 vo 
 
 h- o 
 
 LQ 
 
 t-H 
 
 vo 
 
 
 . M" 
 
 vo 
 
 . 
 
 vo 
 
 t-H 
 
 co 
 
 CM 
 
 . VO 
 
 • r-H 
 
 M* 
 
 CO 
 
 • • M" 
 
 Ov 
 
 CM 
 
 • vO 
 
 O 
 
 • co 
 
 Ov 
 
 o • 
 
 VO 
 
 
 co 
 
 co 
 
 • 
 
 : vo 
 
 00 
 
 co 
 
 : : °o 
 
 o 
 
 cq 
 
 •vo 
 
 i—i 
 
 ‘ T-1 
 
 CO 
 
 cm ; 
 
 cq 
 
 Iq 
 
 o. 
 
 cq 
 
 3 
 
 3 oo 
 
 CM 
 
 CO 
 
 . . Ln 
 
 K 
 
 vo" 
 
 3 cm" 
 
 rU 3 
 
 3 <n" 
 
 cm" 
 
 CM 3 
 
 cd 
 
 vo" 
 
 cd 
 
 id' 
 
 • r-H 
 
 • o 
 
 co" 
 
 o" 
 
 • • o' 
 
 co" 
 
 co 
 
 . vo 
 
 CM • 
 
 • 00 
 
 M" 
 
 vo . 
 
 vo 
 
 vO 
 
 00 
 
 co 
 
 
 • vo 
 
 vo 
 
 vo 
 
 • • VO 
 
 vO 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 • 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 I 
 
 KCNfOCOOv 
 M" M" vo M" vO vo 
 co c\i ’ cm co r-3 
 
 CO CO 
 
 00 o 
 
 oo o 
 
 M-t'x 
 
 co CM 
 
 > 
 (h 
 13 13 
 
 a n 
 
 rt x 3 
 
 co 03 co 
 
 Ih 
 
 13 
 
 PU 
 
 u 
 
 as 
 
 a 
 
 <3 
 
 I_ CO , >, 
 
 43 03 in HP • o 
 
 JO a 13 cl O C3 
 H 3 J* -O 4J J3 
 
 cm fl bn a ^ 
 O a$ 
 
 T3 
 
 C 
 
 C8 
 
 x 
 
 O 
 
 o 
 
 O 
 
 H 
 
 H 
 
 U 
 
 
 o 
 
 o 
 
 1-0 
 
 
 m- 
 
 VO 
 
 vo 
 
 o 
 
 CM 
 
 00 
 
 vd 
 
 vo 
 
 co 
 
 r>. 
 
 CM 
 
 t—H 
 
 . O 
 
 CO • 
 
 • CM 
 
 LO 
 
 co 
 
 • 
 
 
 co 
 
 00 
 
 00 
 
 O 
 
 Ov 
 
 t-H 
 
 O 
 
 
 vO 
 
 O 
 
 CO 
 
 
 O 
 
 CO 
 
 co 
 
 
 CM 
 
 . co 
 
 vo • 
 
 • T—H 
 
 CM 
 
 VO 
 
 • 
 
 Cvj 
 
 o 
 
 LO 
 
 M" 
 
 CM 
 
 CO 
 
 T-H 
 
 O 
 
 
 Ov 
 
 Ov 
 
 o 
 
 
 O 
 
 co 
 
 Ov 
 
 
 O 
 
 . co 
 
 Ov • 
 
 • oo 
 
 OO 
 
 M- 
 
 • 
 
 Ov 
 
 vo 
 
 O 
 
 
 LO 
 
 M- 
 
 
 CM 
 
 
 r-H 
 
 Ov 
 
 VO 
 
 
 co 
 
 
 co 
 
 
 t-H 
 
 3 CO 
 
 
 . 00 
 
 r-H 
 
 r-H 
 
 3 
 
 CM 
 
 t—H 
 
 •e 
 
 CM 
 
 
 co 
 
 H- 
 
 t—H 
 
 
 CM 
 
 
 l- 1 
 
 
 
 M" 
 
 cd' 
 
 
 09- 
 
 • 
 
 
 
 
 
 • 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 VO 
 
 . co 
 
 O co 
 
 00 o 
 
 CO 
 
 VO r-H 
 
 vo 
 
 Ov 
 
 Ov 
 
 
 t-H 
 
 t-H 
 
 
 VO 
 
 t—H 
 
 CM 
 
 
 
 vo 
 
 o 
 
 M" 
 
 00 
 
 ■—■ 
 
 t-H 
 
 . 
 
 co CO 
 
 CO co 
 
 co 
 
 00 00 
 
 00 
 
 M" 
 
 00 
 
 CO 
 
 00 
 
 t—H 
 
 t—H 
 
 r-H 
 
 CO 
 
 t-'Y 
 
 vO 
 
 
 Ov 
 
 
 00 
 
 co 
 
 CM 
 
 id 
 
 3 oo 
 
 Or 1—1 
 
 M- CM 
 
 Ov' 
 
 i-H OV 
 
 vd 
 
 vd 
 
 OO 
 
 
 00 
 
 Ov 
 
 00 
 
 rd 
 
 t-H 
 
 vd 
 
 vd 
 
 
 LO 
 
 M- 
 
 oo 
 
 M" 
 
 O 
 
 vo 
 
 • M- 
 
 M- vo 
 
 M" to 
 
 of 
 
 H- CM 
 
 vo 
 
 vo 
 
 M" 
 
 VO 
 
 co 
 
 co 
 
 
 vo 
 
 vo 
 
 M" 
 
 vo 
 
 
 
 CO 
 
 co 
 
 M- 
 
 Ov 
 
 90- 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 M* 
 
 VO’—it^t^t^vOvOcMOOOv 
 (OIOloio^I-KOOkOVO 
 
 m; vqvor^r-^cM'O vo o vq 
 ~d cd VOld'O'Coo I'd rtV vo" 
 vo CM M" CM VO co vo CM vo vo 
 
 ’-^VOCMCM’—'t^.CMvovO'ct- 
 OCOCOVOOOOOVOVO^OO 
 
 cqiqcM oi_ -t vo vo oo cm tq 
 id ccT c' d cm" o' CM~ H- cd co" 
 
 lO 1^ CO «0 VO -f- CM vr, LO '■+ 
 
 CM O VO 
 O O CM M- 
 O ’M' 00 
 
 cm vcT cm" vo" 
 
 Tf\j-lOio 
 
 t—H 
 
 CO 
 
 . 00 O VO Ov VO VO CM 
 • co O VO vo ih Os CM 
 
 . oo oo 
 
 • M" LO 
 
 . co vq oo 
 
 • Tf LO LO 
 
 • LO 
 
 cd 
 
 99^ 
 
 3 m- id m- cd cd c\i evi 
 
 ; rd id 
 
 3 cd vd cd 
 
 3 cd 
 
 Ov o 
 
 t—I r-H CM 
 
 O cd M" 
 
 i O i-O -t- co M- 
 OV CM VO 
 
 i-3 cd cd cm' cd 
 
 o 
 
 O O Ov vo VO M* 00 
 
 O i—i 
 
 o 
 
 OOHCONOvifl 
 
 vo M" 
 
 00 
 
 Ov vo CM CO t-h CM O 
 
 OO w 
 
 vo 
 
 d CM rt o d CV) cd 
 
 CM 
 
 90 
 
 t-H 
 
 
 
 • • On y ~~^ • • • 
 
 • Tf 
 
 
 • • cm • : *. 
 
 • CM 
 
 
 • • • • • 
 
 • • 99- 
 
 • r-H 
 
 KOOO 
 
 vo vo co 
 
 OON 
 
 •d* vo" CM 
 
 co 
 
 00 
 
 o 
 
 OOOVVOOOOOO 
 voOl—IM-Oi—lOtON 
 
 oo cqov^tq vo© ©uq 
 fd cd M - -M^i—I CO VO co Tf" 
 
 vo 
 
 Ov 
 
 CO 
 
 t—h vo 00 
 
 M- Ov ^ 
 Y—3 • M- 
 
 o 
 
 ■M* 
 
 00 
 
 • • • • On • 
 
 • . • CO • 
 
 • • • • I^Y VO 
 
 • . ■ LO • 
 
 : : : : © ® : 
 
 : : : : 
 
 • • • • CM CM • 
 
 • . . i—i 
 
 • • • * C/9- 
 
 
 VO Ov PM 
 
 hp o\ 
 vq ©H; 
 
 r-H r-H CO 
 
 • • o 
 
 • • • 
 
 • • CM 
 
 • • o 
 
 • • • 
 
 • • 00 
 
 : : vo 
 
 • • • 
 
 • • • 
 
 : :^o : : ; 
 
 
 • • • 
 
 • • • 
 
 • • T—H • • • 
 
 • • • • • 
 
 r^ot^ovCMvooot^oooor^coOvcot^oooOvJ^ 
 
 1—lOOt^CMt^C^CMCMVOM-VOM-t^r—'OVi— ivOOnvO 
 r-H vo ov oo cqt>* cq i^ oo 00 vqi—i i— 1 M^CM co ’— 1 Ov 
 
 1—I CM 1— 1 1”HI l—l r-H rH 1—1 1—1 r-H 
 
 O'tNOO 
 tN-HCOVO'O 
 Q\ Ov co CO CM 
 
 cti 
 
 CO _ w 
 
 CO 
 
 1 —I 
 
 cn Ov 
 
 3C 
 
 Ih U 
 
 P o 
 
 co CM 
 C ON 
 
 o 
 
 i—l <v 
 
 CU o 
 
 O -P 
 
 *H Jo 0 
 
 Pi rt as 
 
 emu 
 
 b /3 
 
 in 
 
 > 
 
 03 
 
 -O 
 
 
 u 
 
 03 
 03 1^3 
 
 rrt «<H 
 
 X 
 
 03 
 
 .0 03 
 
 > X 
 o c3 
 
 UP 
 
 X «— 1 
 03 *h 
 
 pa 
 
 X CCS 
 
 nS J* 
 
 WW 
 
 C u 
 m o 
 
 crj 
 
 in 
 
 ct 
 
 w 
 
 o-g 
 b o 
 
 PP 03 
 
 03 
 
 X) 
 
 U 
 
 O 
 
 r^ 
 
 03 
 
 o 
 
 CX 
 
 03 
 
 X 
 
 o 
 
 as 
 
 w> 
 
 M- 
 
 i 
 
 co 
 
 Ov 
 
 03 
 
 aS 
 
 be 
 
 aS 
 
 'O ^ . 
 
 EP TP OP 
 
 H-* a-> — 7 -! ■ort 
 
 as y be be*r 
 
 5 S-S.S.S S £ 
 
 S.2 
 
 aS 
 
 aS 
 v .TP 
 flj rC 
 
 a.y 
 
 o 
 
 V> -d y ^ d u as as .M o aa3. lu r ( J> 
 
 ^pp3Ummmrn(7ic^cocr!cocr)cnHH!> 
 
 o 
 
 CO 
 
 00 
 
 vo 
 
 «e- 
 
 CU 
 
 a 
 
 1m 
 
 03 
 
 a 
 
 X 
 
 X 
 
 O 
 
 o 
 
 03 
 
 be 
 
 aS 
 
 Sm 
 
 03 
 
 > 
 
 < 
 
 X 
 
 a! 
 
 VO 
 
 i 
 
 vn 
 
 Ov 
 
 a 
 
 ;p 
 
 a 
 
 Sm 
 
 03 
 
 Oh 
 
 X 
 
 O 
 
 u 
 
 as 
 
 33 
 
Table X. 
 
 Number of pupils per teacher, and average salaries paid to teachers in the elemen- 
 tary schools of Peoria and twenty-five other cities, 1915-1916. 
 
 CITY 
 
 Number of 
 teachers in 
 elemen¬ 
 tary 
 schools 
 
 Average 
 
 daily 
 
 attendance 
 
 Number 
 of pupils 
 per 
 
 teacher in 
 elemen¬ 
 tary 
 schools 
 
 Salaries 
 
 Average 
 
 salaries 
 
 Akron . 
 
 371 
 
 13,312 
 
 35.9 
 
 $254,649 
 
 $686.39 
 
 Bay City. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Canton. 
 
 227 
 
 7,507 
 
 33.0 
 
 145,397 
 
 640.52 
 
 Covington . 
 
 140 
 
 4,070 
 
 29.1 
 
 98,578 
 
 704.13 
 
 Davenport . 
 
 249 
 
 5,609 
 
 22.5 
 
 151,231 
 
 607.35 
 
 Des Moines . 
 
 462 
 
 13 426 
 
 29.1 
 
 372,280 
 
 805.80 
 
 Duluth (1912-13).. 
 
 349 
 
 10,130 
 
 29.0 
 
 229,546 
 
 657.72 
 
 East St. Louis_ 
 
 216 
 
 7,144 
 
 33.1 
 
 155,374 
 
 719.32 
 
 Evansville (’13-14) 
 
 247 
 
 6,537 
 
 26.4 
 
 157,861 
 
 639.11 
 
 Flint . 
 
 231 
 
 6,521 
 
 28.2 
 
 113,934 
 
 493.22 
 
 Fort Wayne . 
 
 238 
 
 5,949 
 
 25.0 
 
 161,204 
 
 677.33 
 
 Kalamazoo . 
 
 (a)188 
 
 4,713 
 
 25.1 
 
 124,323 
 
 661.29 
 
 Kansas City. 
 
 342 
 
 10 916 
 
 31.9 
 
 
 
 Lincoln . 
 
 249 
 
 6,597 
 
 26.5 
 
 i 76,597 
 
 709.22 
 
 Peoria . 
 
 304 
 
 7 790 
 
 25.6*, 
 
 . 225,963 
 
 743.30, 
 
 Racine . 
 
 178 
 
 5,587 
 
 31.4 
 
 119,178 
 
 669.54 
 
 Rockford . 
 
 220 
 
 6,211 
 
 28.2 
 
 150,802 
 
 685.46 
 
 St. Joseph . 
 
 310 
 
 8,121 
 
 26.2 
 
 202,956 
 
 654.70 
 
 Saginaw, East Side 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 (1914-15) . 
 
 113 
 
 3,378 
 
 29.9 
 
 66,121 
 
 585.14 
 
 Saginaw, West Sidel 77 
 
 2,868 
 
 37.2 
 
 38,066 
 
 494.37 
 
 Sioux City. 
 
 242 
 
 6,886 
 
 28.4 
 
 158,579 
 
 655.29 
 
 South Bend . 
 
 259 
 
 6,662 
 
 25.7 
 
 (b) 183 956 
 
 710.25 
 
 Springfield, Ill. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 (1914-15) . 
 
 221 
 
 6,433 
 
 29.1 
 
 164,253 
 
 743.23 
 
 Springfield, O. 
 
 193 
 
 6,267 
 
 32.4 
 
 130,028 
 
 676.86 
 
 Superior (1914-15) 
 
 174 
 
 5,098 
 
 29.3 
 
 116,272 
 
 668.23 
 
 Terre Haute . 
 
 296 
 
 8,276 
 
 28.0 
 
 200.000 
 
 | 754.72 
 
 Topeka . 
 
 190 
 
 5,696 
 
 30.0 
 
 132,876 
 
 699.35 
 
 Wichita . 
 
 233 
 
 7,090 
 
 30.4 
 
 165,747 
 
 t 7 
 
 711.36 
 
 Averages. 
 
 
 1 
 
 | 29.1 
 
 
 | 674.72 
 
 (a) Teachers in elementary schools, 173; in secondary schools, 34; 
 elementary and secondary, 30. 
 
 (b) $183,956 for salaries of elementary teachers includes $7,587 for sum¬ 
 mer school, and $8,197 for institute fees. 
 
 34 
 
b 
 
 © 
 
 r-l 
 
 CD 
 
 t- 
 
 <N 
 
 
 ia 
 
 O 
 
 Oi 
 
 <N 
 
 
 O 
 
 rH 
 
 rH 
 
 rH 
 
 CO 
 
 OS 
 
 © 
 
 
 TtJ 
 
 OS 
 
 
 © 
 
 rH 
 
 os 
 
 
 d 
 
 in 
 
 d 
 
 d 
 
 d 
 
 CD 
 
 CD 
 
 CD* 
 
 00 
 
 00 
 
 oo’ 
 
 00 
 
 d 
 
 d 
 
 d 
 
 d 
 
 d 
 
 d 
 
 o 
 
 o 
 
 rH 
 
 1—1 
 
 oi 
 
 CO 
 
 CO 
 
 d 
 
 t- 
 
 cs 
 
 CI 
 
 <N 
 
 <N 
 
 <M 
 
 <N 
 
 
 <N 
 
 <M 
 
 Cl 
 
 <N 
 
 Dl 
 
 <N 
 
 IM 
 
 
 (M 
 
 
 Ol 
 
 CO 
 
 CO 
 
 CO 
 
 CO 
 
 CO 
 
 CO 
 
 CO 
 
 CO 
 
 CO 
 
 & 
 
 y. 
 
 'O 
 
 •rH 
 
 Xfl 
 
 bC 
 
 Zfj. 
 
 o 
 
 EH 
 
 ,a 
 
 o 
 
 -M 
 
 •»-< rj3 
 
 O ~ 
 
 0> 
 
 M 
 
 m 
 
 0) 
 
 <D 
 
 a 
 
 •rH 
 
 m 
 
 d 
 
 m 
 
 rH 
 
 © 
 
 be 
 
 fl 
 
 •pH 
 
 a 
 
 o 
 
 +-> 
 
 <X> 
 
 4-> 
 
 a 
 
 o 
 
 p 
 
 a 
 
 a 
 
 •rH 
 
 o 
 
 M 
 
 S-l 
 
 a 
 
 XJ1 
 
 S-( 
 
 ba 
 
 ci 
 
 Cj 
 
 Oa 
 
 a 
 
 a 
 
 ac 
 
 a 
 
 M 
 
 
 m 
 
 O 
 
 H 
 
 
 Z/2 
 
 35 
 
 Diagram VII.—Number of pupils per teacher in the elementary schools of Peoria and twenty-five other 
 cities. (Bay City omitted, as data for recent years were not available.) 
 
Table XI 
 
 \ 
 
 Number of pupils per teacher, and average salaries paid to teachers in the secon¬ 
 dary schools of Peoria, and twenty-five other cities, 1915-1916. 
 
 CITY 
 
 Number 
 
 of 
 
 teachers 
 
 in 
 
 secondary 
 
 schools 
 
 % 
 
 Average 
 
 daily 
 
 attend¬ 
 
 ance 
 
 Number of 
 pupils per 
 teacher in 
 secondary 
 schools 
 
 Salaries 
 
 Average 
 
 salaries 
 
 Akron . 
 
 111 
 
 2056 
 
 18.5 
 
 $117,500 
 
 $1058.56 
 
 Bay City. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Canton . 
 
 42 
 
 1117 
 
 26.6 
 
 54,436 
 
 1296.10 
 
 Covington . 
 
 22 
 
 500 
 
 22.7 
 
 23.651 
 
 1075.05 
 
 Davenport . 
 
 48 
 
 907 
 
 18.9 
 
 46,557 
 
 969.94 
 
 Des Moines. 
 
 119 
 
 2879 
 
 24.2 
 
 127,757 
 
 1073.59 
 
 Duluth (T2-T3)... 
 
 63 
 
 1322 
 
 22.0 
 
 69,147 
 
 1097.57 
 
 East St. Louis.... 
 
 37 
 
 776 
 
 21.0 
 
 38 276 
 
 1034.49 
 
 Evansville (T3-T4) 
 
 44 
 
 1378 
 
 31.3 
 
 57,686 
 
 1311.05 
 
 Flint . 
 
 31 
 
 727 
 
 23.5 
 
 21,672 
 
 699.10 
 
 Fort Wayne. 
 
 45 
 
 820 
 
 18.2 
 
 54,008 
 
 1200.18 
 
 Kalamazoo .1(a) 49 
 
 850 | 
 
 17.3 ] 
 
 55,669 
 
 1136.10 
 
 Kansas City. 
 
 73 
 
 1648 
 
 22 6 
 
 
 
 Lincoln . 
 
 61 
 
 1167 
 
 19.1 
 
 . 
 
 57,001 
 
 934.44 
 
 Peoria .. 
 
 67 
 
 1143 
 
 17. W 
 
 * 73,536 
 
 1097.55_ 
 
 Racine . 
 
 34 
 
 779 
 
 22.9 
 
 30,232 
 
 889.18 
 
 Rockford . 
 
 62 
 
 1413 
 
 22.8 
 
 55,262 
 
 891.32 
 
 St. Joseph. 
 
 68 
 
 1297 
 
 19.1 
 
 62,481 
 
 918.84 
 
 Saganaw, East Side] 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 (T4-T5) . 
 
 1 43 
 
 735 
 
 17.1 
 
 27,950 
 
 650.00 
 
 Saginaw, West Side 
 
 15 
 
 368 
 
 24.5 
 
 22,562 
 
 902.48 
 
 Sioux City. 
 
 60 
 
 1199 
 
 20.0 
 
 54,865 
 
 914.42 
 
 South Bend. 
 
 49 
 
 957 
 
 19.5 
 
 (b) 53 275 
 
 1087.24 
 
 Springfield, Ill. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 (T4-T5) . 
 
 41 
 
 796 
 
 19.4 
 
 43,784 
 
 1067.90 
 
 Springfield. O . 
 
 37 
 
 972 
 
 26.2 
 
 40,450 
 
 1093.24 
 
 Superior (T4-T5).. 
 
 41 
 
 882 
 
 21.5 
 
 38,181 
 
 931.24 
 
 Terre Haute. 
 
 65 
 
 1337 
 
 20.6 
 
 46,400 
 
 928.00 
 
 Topeka . 
 
 54 
 
 1360 
 
 25.2 
 
 52,821 
 
 978.17 
 
 Wichita . 
 
 | 56 
 
 | 1256 
 
 22.4 
 
 55,746 
 
 995.46 
 
 Averages . 
 
 
 r . 
 
 21.6 
 
 | $1008.89 
 
 (a) Teachers in elementary schools, 173; in secondary schools, 34; 
 elementary and secondarj^ 30. 
 
 (b) $53,275 for salaries of secondary school teachers includes $2,818 
 for summer school and $3,079 for institute fees. 
 
 36 
 
© 
 
 t> 
 
 OS CO 
 ^ b- GO 
 
 b ri rl 
 
 IQ CS 
 
 00 GO 
 
 rH 
 
 tH 
 
 
 lO 
 
 O 
 
 ■ co 
 
 o 
 
 ID 
 
 © 
 
 rH 
 
 CO 
 
 1- 
 
 tf> 
 
 05 
 
 ID 
 
 CI 
 
 id 
 
 (M 
 
 CI 
 
 CO 
 
 CO 
 
 d> 
 
 d 
 
 05 
 
 05 
 
 O 
 
 d 
 
 rH 
 
 rH 
 
 ci 
 
 ci 
 
 ci 
 
 ci 
 
 ci 
 
 ci 
 
 05 
 
 rH 
 
 rH 
 
 id 
 
 co 
 
 CO 
 
 rH 
 
 rH 
 
 rH 
 
 i—1 
 
 rH 
 
 
 CI 
 
 Cl 
 
 CI 
 
 CI 
 
 ci 
 
 . VI 
 
 CI 
 
 CI 
 
 CI 
 
 CI 
 
 CI 
 
 CI 
 
 CI 
 
 CI 
 
 CI 
 
 CO 
 
 
 02 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 02 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 s 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 2 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 55 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 w 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 55 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 -4-> 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 |—| 
 
 
 
 
 •pH 
 
 P 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 4- 1 
 
 
 . 
 
 
 
 
 in 
 
 C3 
 
 
 0) 
 
 
 
 
 
 HH 
 
 rr+ 
 
 
 <D 
 
 o 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 72 
 
 02 
 
 
 0 
 
 
 d 
 
 
 H 
 
 o 
 
 o 
 
 N 
 
 d 
 
 d 
 
 
 4-i 
 
 ?h 
 
 O 
 
 
 
 r P 
 
 02 
 
 V 
 
 P 
 
 CD 
 
 rr\ 
 
 >> 
 
 4-> 
 
 •rH 
 
 4-> 
 
 P 
 
 d 
 
 HH 
 
 fa 
 
 fa 
 
 p 
 
 
 d 
 
 4-> 
 
 4-> 
 
 •rH 
 
 a 
 
 p 
 
 0 
 
 CO 
 
 
 
 72 
 
 02 
 
 P 
 
 •rH 
 
 £ 
 
 
 d 
 
 rH 
 
 02 
 
 
 02 
 
 a 
 
 d 
 
 d 
 
 P 
 
 £ 
 
 rH 
 
 Ph 
 
 rH 
 
 O 
 
 72 
 
 p 
 
 rH 
 
 <P 
 
 &J3 
 
 rH 
 
 O 
 
 fa 
 
 
 O 
 
 •rH 
 
 .p 
 
 72 
 
 d 
 
 72 
 
 H-> 
 
 to 
 
 rH 
 
 O 
 
 0) 
 
 
 O 
 
 £ 
 
 d 
 
 d 
 
 cp 
 
 OX) 
 
 P 
 
 d 
 
 •rH 
 
 
 p 
 
 •rH 
 
 c 
 
 d 
 
 
 P 
 
 o 
 
 r-( 
 
 <D 
 
 O 
 
 o 
 
 o 
 
 r~] 
 
 rH 
 
 •+H 
 
 X 
 
 rH 
 
 CD 
 
 rH 
 
 +-> 
 
 rH 
 
 o> 
 
 +-> 
 
 ^p 
 
 •rH 
 
 rP 
 
 01 
 
 •rH 
 
 «H 
 
 Js) 
 
 d 
 
 
 
 .9 
 
 fa 
 
 02 
 
 0 
 
 -4-j 
 
 72 
 
 P 
 
 o 
 
 o 
 
 H . 
 
 HH 
 
 CX) 
 
 P 
 
 5l 
 
 r— I 
 
 P 
 
 w 
 
 rH 
 
 o 
 
 fa 
 
 rH 
 
 MS 
 
 K* 
 
 d 
 
 Q 
 
 fa 
 
 02 
 
 a 
 
 •rH 
 
 rH 
 
 Ch 
 
 m 
 
 P 
 
 o 
 
 m 
 
 r- 1 
 
 O 
 
 • rH 
 
 m 
 
 U 
 
 02 
 
 H 
 
 d 
 
 fa 
 
 a 
 
 r-. 
 
 02 
 
 p 
 
 n 
 
 O 
 
 •rH 
 
 P 
 
 d 
 
 fa 
 
 K* 
 
 O 
 
 O 
 
 O 
 
 O 
 
 « 
 
 *0 
 
 d 
 
 W 
 
 p 
 
 s 
 
 in 
 
 <D 
 
 Q 
 
 So 
 
 c3 
 
 02 
 
 p. 
 
 O 
 
 H 
 
 •rH 
 
 ?H 
 
 ft 
 
 02 
 
 p 
 
 d 
 
 O 
 
 d 
 
 > 
 
 fa 
 
 37 
 
 Diagram VIII.—Number of pupils per teacher in the secondary schools of Peoria and twenty-five other cities. 
 
 (Bay City omitted, as data for recent years were not available.) 
 
must be as small, on the average, as they are in Peoria in order that 
 good teaching may be done. W here provision is made in the form of a 
 special school to take care of particularly difficult cases, from twenty- 
 eight to thirty pupils per teacher on the average is not excessive. 
 Of course the attempt to ke< p the average number of pupils per 
 teacher up to some such stand.-rd will do injury to the schools un¬ 
 less it is accompanied by the policy of fixing a maximum number 
 of pupils per teacher. At any rate if the teachers of any city are 
 anxious to have salaries equal to the highest paid in other cities 
 they cannot reasonably expect to have the smallest classes also. Dia¬ 
 gram V1L shows that Davenport, Fort Wayne, and Kalamazoo are 
 the only cities in which the number of pupils per teacher in the 
 grades is smaller than it is in Peoria. But Davenport ranks twenty- 
 third, Fort Wa lie thirteenth, Kalamazoo seventeenth, while Peoria 
 ranks third as to average salaries. 
 
 In the case of high schools there is reason to believe that an 
 average of twenty to twenty-two pupils per teacher is not exces¬ 
 sive, provided that the administrative policy seeks intelligently to 
 equalize the burdens of the different members of the teaching staff. 
 A detailed analysis of the number of pupils per teacher in the two 
 secondary schools of Peoria last year and during the current school 
 year shows something not revealed by the tables. While the av¬ 
 erage for the two schools was 17.06 it was 16.5 for the Manual 
 Training High School and 17.7 for the Peoria High School. For 
 the first semester of the present school year the average number for 
 the Manual Training High School was 14, while for the new Peoria 
 Pligh School it was 20.7. Even the last comparatively high figures, 
 as measured by local standards, is considerably below the average 
 for the twenty-seven cities, namely 21.6. 
 
 Principals’ Salaries 
 
 There are three cities paying more per pupil for salaries of 
 elementary school principals than in Peoria, namely Sioux City, To¬ 
 peka, and Springfield, O. Sioux City, with seven-eighths as many 
 pupils as Peoria, has twenty-four elementary school buildings as 
 compared to twenty for Peoria. This is evidently due to the fact 
 that Sioux City is spread over an extensive area, nearly five times 
 as large as that of Peoria. While Sioux City pays lower princi¬ 
 pals’ salaries than Peoria, yet the cost per pupil is higher, due to 
 the comparatively small number of pupils per school. Topeka, with 
 not quite three-fourths as lany pupils, has twenty-two elementary 
 school buildings. Althougl principals’ salaries are lower in Peo¬ 
 ria the cost per pupil is higher. Springfield, O., with four-fifths 
 as many pupils as Peoria, has 21 buildings. 
 
 38 
 

Table XII. 
 
 Number of supervisors, assistant supervisors, special teachers, salary cost, 1916-1917. 
 
 1 
 
 CITY 
 
 No. 
 
 Art 
 
 Salaries 
 
 Music 
 
 No. Salaries 
 
 / 
 
 Physical 
 
 training: 
 
 No. Salaries 
 
 Manual 
 
 training: 
 
 No. Salaries 
 
 Sewing’ 
 
 No. Salaries 
 
 Cooking 
 
 No. Salaries 
 
 Penmanship 
 
 No. Salaries 
 
 Primary 
 
 supervisor 
 
 / 
 
 No. Salaries 
 
 Other subjects 
 or depart¬ 
 ments 
 
 No. Salaries 
 
 No. 
 
 Total 
 
 Salaries 
 
 Rank 
 as to 
 total 
 cost 
 
 Akron 
 
 2 
 
 $2,600 
 
 2 
 
 $3,000 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 4 
 
 $ 5 600 
 
 23 
 
 14 a v C11 v 
 
 1 
 
 Lm! 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 
 4 
 
 
 2 
 
 
 3 
 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 13 
 
 •••*••* 
 
 
 J-Jcij CU) . 
 
 t q ti f rt n 
 
 X 
 
 ? 
 
 2,000 
 
 1 050 
 
 X 
 
 2 
 
 2,000 
 
 1 230 
 
 X 
 
 
 nr 
 
 « 
 
 88 000 
 
 Ld 
 
 4 
 
 $4 700 
 
 7 
 
 $5 750 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 23 
 
 22,450 
 
 11 
 
 C ovi n afon 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 $1,000 
 
 1,600 
 
 o 
 
 3 
 
 vDUjUUU 
 
 3,600 
 
 5,200 
 
 i 
 
 1 
 
 750 
 
 • j 
 1 
 
 900 
 
 1 
 
 $1,050 
 
 
 
 4 
 
 $2,450 
 
 13 
 
 12,050 
 
 18 
 
 X/ VJ V Lvll • • • • • t •• • •• • •• 
 
 Davenport . 
 
 1 
 
 1 jV J V 
 
 1,500 
 
 1 
 
 JL y \J 
 
 900 
 
 1 
 
 *4 
 
 *3 
 
 3,150 
 
 *1 
 
 1,200 
 
 *1 
 
 950 
 
 1 
 
 $1,700 ' 
 
 *1 
 
 1,500 
 
 14 
 
 16,200 
 
 15 
 
 D e s AT o i n e s 
 
 4 
 
 4 200 
 
 3 
 
 3 875 
 
 7 
 
 8 300 
 
 
 
 
 
 23 
 
 $21,660 
 
 
 
 
 
 3 
 
 3,650 
 
 40 
 
 41,685 
 
 6 
 
 Tlnlnth M Q1 ? Ill 
 
 1 
 
 1 1 SO 
 
 1 
 
 1 100 
 
 1 
 
 1 400 
 
 6 
 
 5 700 
 
 
 
 s 
 
 13 875 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 14 
 
 13,225 
 
 16 
 
 i_>tLLiULii yiy llj i \j) . 
 
 East St. Louis (1912-13). 
 
 X 
 
 2 
 
 X y X kJ 
 2,200 
 
 X 
 
 2 
 
 X y X vy KJ 
 
 1,700 
 
 X 
 
 1 
 
 X yl\J\J 
 1,200 
 
 3 
 
 3,460 
 
 1 
 
 750 
 
 2 
 
 1,450 
 
 1 
 
 1,000 
 
 
 
 
 
 12 
 
 11,760 
 
 -4 -4 A A A 
 
 19 
 
 T7 T1 Qxri 11 
 
 1 
 
 1 600 
 
 1 
 
 1 600 
 
 1 
 
 1 750 
 
 1 
 
 2,500 
 
 1 
 
 1,800 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 1,750 
 
 6 
 
 11,000 
 
 20 
 
 _LL Vallov 111C • • . .. 
 
 In'll'nt 
 
 1 
 
 1 000 
 
 1 
 
 950 
 
 2 
 
 1 850 
 
 5 
 
 3 
 
 3 
 
 
 1 
 
 900 
 
 
 
 
 
 16 
 
 
 
 J? III! L . 
 
 Tn'nrt WavlIP . . 
 
 
 4,600 
 
 1 
 
 1.600 
 
 2 
 
 2,750 
 
 
 12,200 
 
 
 
 
 $5,000 
 
 1 
 
 1,600 
 
 1 
 
 1,900 
 
 • • • • 
 
 9,815 
 
 • • • • 
 
 39,465 
 
 5 
 
 T<T o I o tTl O *7 A A 
 
 10 
 
 7 150 
 
 10 
 
 7 100 
 
 22 
 
 20,000 ' 
 
 r 10 
 
 9 300 
 
 5 
 
 4 050 
 
 5 
 
 4,050 
 
 9 
 
 6,000 
 
 
 
 
 
 71 
 
 57,650 
 
 1 
 
 X\_ diciliiclZ,UO . . • ... .. . •• • • 
 
 TC n 11 c o C ( ' 1 f ir 
 
 1 
 
 1 260 
 
 1 
 
 1 260 
 
 5 
 
 4,635 
 
 1 
 
 1.125 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 8 
 
 8,280 
 
 21 
 
 XVdllbcib . 
 
 T i n c r> 1 n .... 
 
 7 
 
 6,112 
 
 7 
 
 6.304 
 
 6 
 
 6,611 
 
 6 
 
 9,394 
 
 
 6 
 
 $7,604 
 
 1 
 
 1,250 
 
 1 
 
 900 1 
 
 • • • • 
 
 2,753 
 
 • • • • 
 
 40,928 
 
 4 
 
 “P p a r 1 Q • 
 
 12 1 
 
 10,789 
 
 10.3 
 
 8,451 
 
 6 
 
 6 400 
 
 7.65 
 
 8,061 
 
 8.35 
 
 6,612 
 
 5.8 
 
 5,451 
 
 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 1,300 
 
 51.2 
 
 45,764 
 
 2 
 
 Paeirip ... 
 
 1 
 
 1,100 
 
 2 
 
 1,700 
 
 1 
 
 1,600 
 
 1 
 
 1,900 
 
 6 
 
 4.600 
 
 6 
 
 4,450 , 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 1,200 
 
 1 
 
 1,300 
 
 19 
 
 17,850 
 
 13 
 
 
 2 
 
 2 550 
 
 1 
 
 1,100 
 
 2 
 
 2,600 
 
 5% 
 
 6,150 
 
 
 
 5 
 
 $3 950 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 15 % 
 
 16 350 
 
 14 
 
 ( 101? Ill (H ) 
 
 1 
 
 675 
 
 2 
 
 1 845 
 
 1 
 
 1,680 
 
 4 
 
 3,780 
 
 
 
 4 
 
 $3,618 
 
 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 990 
 
 13 
 
 12,588 
 
 17 
 
 bt. J osepn {Ly±£-Loj v u /-- 
 Saginaw, Hast Side . 
 
 1 
 
 1,750 
 
 1 
 
 1,550 
 
 3 
 
 3,200 
 
 9 
 
 10,600 
 
 4 
 
 2,950 
 
 3 
 
 2,450 
 
 1 
 
 725 
 
 
 
 
 
 22 
 
 23,225 
 
 10 
 
 
 1 
 
 800 
 
 1 
 
 950 
 
 
 
 3 
 
 2,400 
 
 
 
 2 
 
 $1,200 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 7 
 
 5,350 
 
 24 
 
 bagmaw, vv esc oicic. 
 
 C 4 -1 1 AT ( ^ 11 \r 
 
 2 
 
 2 500 
 
 2 
 
 ‘ 2,050 
 
 2 
 
 1,000 
 
 4 
 
 3.100 
 
 3 
 
 2,750 
 
 1 3 
 
 117 
 
 2,300 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 
 11 
 
 10,200 
 
 27 
 
 23,900 
 
 9 
 
 South Bend . 
 
 3 
 
 3,300 
 
 1 
 
 1,500 
 
 2 
 
 2,000 
 
 3 
 
 4,295 
 
 4 
 
 3,250 
 
 i s 
 
 3.350 
 
 1 
 
 1,300 
 
 i 
 
 1,500 
 
 4 
 
 3,480 
 
 24 
 
 23,975 
 
 8 
 
 
 1 
 
 1 650 
 
 1 
 
 1.550 
 
 
 
 8 
 
 8,300 
 
 
 
 8 
 
 $6,810 
 
 • • • • 
 
 
 
 
 | 
 
 
 18 
 
 18,310 
 
 12 
 
 bprmgneici, xii.• • 
 
 Springfield O. (1912-13). 
 
 1 
 
 950 
 
 1 
 
 1(450 
 
 1 
 
 1,000 
 
 i 
 
 1,100 
 
 1 
 
 900 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 950 
 
 
 
 ? 
 
 1,450 
 
 8 
 
 7'800 
 
 22 
 
 
 3 
 
 (a) 2.850 
 
 3 
 
 3,000 
 
 3 
 
 
 9 
 
 (a) 11,900 
 
 1 4 
 
 3,800 
 
 3 
 
 1 2.625 
 
 
 1. 
 
 
 
 8 
 
 3,000 
 
 
 
 
 
 4 
 
 4 330 1 2 
 
 2,150 
 
 
 
 1 13 
 
 13,350 
 
 
 
 10 
 
 1(c) 96501 1 
 
 1.300 
 
 
 
 
 
 * * * * 
 
 30 
 
 31 000 
 
 6 
 
 I erre riaiiie . 
 
 r j ' /i| .r ..... 
 
 9 J 
 
 2,000 i 
 
 3 i 
 
 (b) 3 200 
 
 i 
 
 1,700 
 
 10 
 
 10,185 
 
 5.5 
 
 3,930 
 
 5 
 
 3.870 
 
 !.... 
 
 
 
 
 
 26.5 
 
 24 885 
 
 KJ 
 
 7 
 
 
 1 
 
 1,100 
 
 , 1 
 
 1,100 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 I 
 
 
 
 i 
 
 
 | 1 
 
 1 200 
 
 .!. i.... 
 
 
 
 
 
 Average Cost . 
 
 
 $2,703 
 
 
 $2,379 
 
 
 $3,560 
 
 
 $6,514 
 
 .... 
 
 $3,050 
 
 • • • * 
 
 $3,139 
 
 
 1 
 
 1 i 
 
 
 1 
 
 i 
 
 i $22,137 
 
 
 ^Supervisors and teachers devote half or more of their time to high school teaching. 
 
 -(-Combined sewing and cooking. 
 
 tCombined manual training, sewing and cooking. 
 
 (a) One supervisor in charge of art and manual training. 
 
 I, One of the three is a special teacher of art and music in the Junior High School. 
 
 (c) Does not include high school teachers.^ 
 
 (d) 
 
 Trainin 
 
 c)Does not include nign scnooi teacnert,. 
 
 f or 1916-17 arrived too late to be included above, but are as follows: Art, (1) $1170; Music, (f 
 $6345- Sewin°' (4) $3510; Cooking, (4) $4050; Sewing and Cooking combined (1) $720; Total, (22 
 
 CCpTCo Physical Trainin S. (2) $2580; Manual 
 
On the other hand Akron, with seventy per cent more pupils 
 than Peoria, has only nineteen elementary school principals, and 
 although paying an average salary of $1,400, the cost per pupil for 
 principals’ salaries in Akron is less than half of what it is in Peo¬ 
 ria. Canton, with almost as many pupils as Peoria, has twenty ele¬ 
 mentary school buildings, the same number found in Peoria, but 
 only twelve pincipals. Four of her principals have charge of one 
 building each. The other eight have charge of the remaining six¬ 
 teen buildings. Principals’ salaries average $1,575 in Canton as 
 compared with $1,585 in Peoria. The result is a comparative sav¬ 
 ing of $1.55 per pupil in Canton. Furthermore, Canton is no more 
 compactly built than Peoria. 
 
 The situation in Peoria with reference to salaries of elementary 
 school principals is unique in one respect. With one exception 
 all of its principals were drawing salaries of either $1,450 or $1,700, 
 eight at the former level, and eleven at the latter. The exceptional 
 salary was $1500.00. Furthermore, size of buildings, number of 
 teachers, or number of pupils do not seem to be determining factors. 
 In some cases principals of schools with small enrollment are draw¬ 
 ing higher salaries than principals of schools with larger enrollment. 
 In one case the principal of one school gets a larger salary than 
 the principal of another having an average daily attendance one 
 hundred twenty per cent larger than that of the former. No other 
 city in the group presents a similar situation or one that is even 
 fairly comparable to this one. It would seem that here also Peoria 
 has been more liberal than the educational needs required. 
 
 Supervisors And Teachers Of Special Subjects 
 
 Table XII. shows the total salary costs for supervisors and 
 teachers of so-called special subjects. The data were secured by 
 means of an inquiry made of the superintendents of the respective 
 cities. Where information for the present school year was not 
 obtainable, older data were used, taken from “The Tangible Re¬ 
 wards of Teaching,” Bulletin No. 16, 1914, U. S. Bureau of Educa¬ 
 tion. Supervisors, assistant supervisors, and teachers were grouped, 
 because in many cases the facts for each separate class of instruc¬ 
 tors were not secured. For art Peoria pays $3,639, or 50 per cent, 
 more than any other city in the list; for music, $1,351, or 19 per cent 
 more than any other. For physical training she pays less than three 
 cities, but pays $2,840, or 80 per cent, more than the average. For 
 manual training Peoria pays less than eight cities in the list, but still 
 pays $1,547, or nearly 24 per cent, more than the average. In the case 
 of sewing, Peoria ranks second, paying $6,612 as compared to 
 $7,220 by DesMoines (assuming that in the case of the latter city 
 
 39 
 
the whole amount paid for manual training, sewing, and cooking is 
 equally divided between these three subjects). At the same time 
 Peoria pays $3,562, or 116 per cent more than the average. For 
 cooking, Peoria pays less than two cities, but $2,312, or nearly 74 
 per cent, more than the average. In the matter of total cost Peo¬ 
 ria is outranked by only one city, namely, Kalamazoo, which pays 
 $11,886 more than Peoria. This excess is due to the high cost of 
 physical training in Kalamazoo, which is greater by $13,600 than 
 the amount paid in Peoria. For all the other special subjects, Peo¬ 
 ria pays $1,714 more than Kalamazoo. The total salary cost in Des 
 Moines, third in rank, is $4,079 less than in that of Peoria, although 
 DesMoines has to provide for 82 per cent more pupils. The total 
 cost in Peoria is $23,627, or 107 per cent, more than the average. 
 It may be urged that it is unfair to compare the cost in Peoria with 
 the average cost for the group of cities, in view of the fact that near¬ 
 ly three-fourths of these cities are smaller than Peoria. As a matter 
 of fact, the average of the costs for the seven cities that are larger 
 than Peoria, namely Akron, Des Moines, Duluth, Evansville, Fort 
 Wayne, Kansas City, and St. Joseph, is less than the average for 
 the twenty-seven cities in the case of all subjects listed, with the 
 sole exception of cooking. 
 
 Kindergartens 
 
 In a reply to a letter of inquiry sent to the superintendents 
 of the other twenty-seven school systems in the group answers were 
 received from all but two: Duluth and East St. Louis. Of the 
 twenty-five remaining systems all have kindergartens except Rock¬ 
 ford, Saginaw (East Side), Springfield, Ill., and Wichita. In Sag¬ 
 inaw (West Side) with three kindergartners, in South Bend, with 
 sixteen, and in Peoria, with thirty-three, the kindergarten teachers 
 teach in the forenoon only. In Topeka, having three directors and 
 four assistants, one teaches both in the forenoon and afternoon. 
 In Fort Wayne, employing twenty-two kindergartners, most teach 
 in the forenoon only. In the remaining seventeen school systems 
 the kindergarten teachers, or “preliminary’’ teachers as they are 
 called in Sioux City, teach in the forenoon and afternoon. In other 
 words, out of twenty-two cities having kindergartens, there are only 
 three in which teaching is confined to the forenoon for all kinder¬ 
 garten teachers. Furthermore, Peoria employs a larger number 
 of kindergarten teachers than any other system in the list, with the 
 exception of DesMoines and Sioux City, the former employing fifty, 
 the latter thirty-eight. If DesMoines and Sioux City were having 
 their kindergarten or preliminary teaching done on the basis on 
 which it is done in Peoria, the former city would have to employ 
 one hundred kindergartners, and the latter seventy-six. 
 
 40 
 

 C^)st Of Instruction May Safely Be Reduced 
 
 At present it is impossible to tell whether any of the bills 
 now before ih,e legislature, providing for the payment of tuition by 
 districts, will be enacted into law. If such legislation should be ef¬ 
 fected, it would be reasonably safe to assume that this would pro¬ 
 vide an additional $3,000 in the w r ay of income for the educational 
 fund. In that case the Board of School Inspectors would need 
 to reduce the expenditures by only $21,000. In case such legisla¬ 
 tion should not be enacted, the Board will need to reduce the ex¬ 
 penditures from the educational fund by $24,000, or find other 
 sources of income. 
 
 What would it mean to reduce the expenditures from the edu¬ 
 cational fund to $461,717.80, the amount representing the probable 
 income? If to this amount be added $20,000 from the building fund 
 for payment of maintenance expenditures, the total amount for ex¬ 
 penditures for 1917-18 would be $481,217.80. The average daily 
 attendance for next school-year will probably not be as great as 9600 
 unless the legislation referred to above should be enacted. But 
 assuming that the attendance should reach 9600, the cost per pupil 
 would be $50.18, which is 69 cents more than was paid in Sioux City, 
 which city ranked eighth in cost per pupil last year. 
 
 Table III. shows that nearly 80 per cent of the total expendi¬ 
 tures are for instruction. Peoria ranked highest of all the cities 
 in the group in the matter of cost per pupil for instruction, paying 
 $40.47, or $2.33 more than the next highest. The significance of 
 this difference becomes even more apparent from a look at Dia¬ 
 gram IX. The probable cost of instruction for the present year 
 will be $380,585, or $41.08 per pupil, which is 61 cents more per 
 pupil than last year’s cost. If no additions are made to the super¬ 
 visory or teaching force, next year’s cost for instruction will be 
 about $395,695, or $41.22 per pupil. 
 
 If, on the other hand, the expenditures were to be reduced by 
 $24,000 and if this reduction should be made entirely in the cost 
 of instruction, it would reduce the cost per pupil to $38.72, which 
 is 58c more per pupil than was paid in Des Moines last year, which 
 city ranked second in cost per pupil for instruction. If the atten¬ 
 dance should be unexpectedly increased to 9700, the cost per pupil 
 would be $38.32 which is 18 cents more than the cost in PesMoines 
 last year. 
 
 Where Make The Reduction of $24,000? 
 
 As nearly 80 per cent of the total expenditures last year was 
 incurred for instruction, and as the expenditures under other heads 
 
 
 41 
 
1 - 
 
 
 rH 
 
 © 
 
 © 
 
 CO 
 
 00 
 
 00 
 
 t~ 
 
 -T 
 
 rH 
 
 rH 
 
 © 
 
 o 
 
 iq 
 
 "O 
 
 © 
 
 © 
 
 © 
 
 00 
 
 00 
 
 00 
 
 t- 
 
 t- 
 
 t4 
 
 I- 
 
 lO 
 
 "tl 
 
 cc 
 
 CO 
 
 CO 
 
 00 
 
 CO 
 
 CO 
 
 CO 
 
 CO' 
 
 rH 
 
 © 
 
 00 
 
 
 rH 
 
 oi 
 
 00 
 
 oi 
 
 © 
 
 rti 
 
 Hji 
 
 t- 
 
 © 
 
 t- 
 
 © 
 
 CO 
 
 rH 
 
 iq 
 
 CO 
 
 CO 
 
 ■4 
 
 00 
 
 oi 
 
 oi 
 
 oi 
 
 oi 
 
 oi 
 
 rH 
 
 rH 
 
 rH 
 
 CO 
 
 CO 
 
 © 
 
 © 
 
 © 
 
 © 
 
 © 
 
 © 
 
 © 
 
 © 
 
 © 
 
 1C 
 
 © 
 
 
 © 
 
 00 
 
 
 © 
 
 © 
 
 
 o> 
 
 OI 
 
 rH 
 
 © 
 
 © 
 
 iq 
 
 
 rH 
 
 © 
 
 t- 
 
 a 
 
 © 
 
 © 
 
 ©‘ 
 
 oo" 
 
 cc 
 
 00 
 
 00 
 
 LO 
 
 ©■ 
 
 © 
 
 00 
 
 © 
 
 © 
 
 OI 
 
 OI 
 
 OI 
 
 OI 
 
 Cl 
 
 OI 
 
 a> 
 
 m ~ 
 
 
 02 
 
 
 O 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 o 
 
 o 
 
 a 
 
 
 
 a 
 
 -M 
 
 'v 
 
 
 
 £2 
 
 c 
 
 
 4-> 
 
 
 0) 
 
 
 
 
 
 o 
 
 N 
 
 05 
 
 c3 
 
 Vv 
 
 •rH 
 
 U 
 
 
 « 
 
 o 
 
 ca 
 
 rH 
 
 o 
 
 C3 
 
 W_ 
 
 £ 
 
 £ 
 
 
 © 
 
 r*| 
 
 a 
 
 bo 
 
 A 
 
 •rH 
 
 rH 
 
 4h 
 
 
 C3 
 
 
 
 CJ 
 
 -M 
 
 Cj 
 
 
 O 
 
 o 
 
 o 
 
 rjl 
 • O 
 
 C3 
 
 o 
 
 C 
 
 • rH 
 
 .9 
 
 o 
 
 t> 
 
 03 
 
 r~l 
 
 £h 
 
 
 
 w 
 
 r~ 
 
 02 
 
 
 Of 
 
 a 
 
 0Q 
 
 M 
 
 <D 
 
 +j 
 
 a 
 
 cj 
 
 cj 
 
 a 
 
 o 
 
 cc 
 
 cj 
 
 W 
 
 £ 
 
 Cj 
 
 a 
 
 "be 
 
 Zfl 
 
 cj 
 
 O 
 
 O t* 
 
 &fi tt r 
 « a ~ 
 
 <U 
 
 > 
 
 m 
 
 a 
 
 03 
 
 a: 
 
 a 
 
 o> 
 
 CC 
 
 o 
 
 S » fl 
 
 a. -a 
 
 © 
 
 rH 
 
 o 
 
 «t-l 
 
 ^3 
 
 o 
 
 O 
 
 <v< 
 
 o 
 
 <D 
 
 SC 
 
 a 
 
 a 
 
 o 
 
 CO 
 Cj 
 CO 
 
 a 
 
 a _ 
 
 & 02 U 
 
 a 
 
 a oj 
 
 £3 
 
 O 
 
 Q) <fl 
 
 .2 %+ , 
 
 O CO 
 
 cj cj 
 
 M K 
 
 aj 
 
 a 
 
 o 
 
 (H 
 
 cc 
 
 -t-> 
 
 co 
 
 4J 
 
 £ 
 
 cj 
 
 a 
 
 S •“ 
 £ <q 
 
 on « 
 cj a 
 02 fe 
 
 42 
 
 $10.00 $20.00 ' $30.00 $40.00 
 
 Diagram IX.—Cost per pupil for instruction, Peoria and twenty-seven other city school-systems. 
 
were nearly all below the average, it is evident that practically all 
 of the above amount needs to be cut out of the budget for instruc¬ 
 tion. There are two items particularly in which expenditures in 
 Peoria exceed the corresponding items in other cities in the group : 
 the cost for kindergartens, and the cost for instruction in the 
 Manual Training High School. If kindergarten teachers were re¬ 
 quired to teach both forenoon and afternoon, half of the teaching 
 force could do the work to be done. The salaries paid last year 
 to kindergarten teachers, not counting the supervisor’s salary, 
 amounted to $21,787.95. This amount could be reduced by $11,000 
 without crippling the work. 
 
 The cost per pupil for teachers’ salaries at the Manual Training 
 Pligh School this year will be fully $83.50 unless there should be an 
 unusually tenacious attendance the rest of the school year. This 
 amount is about $17.85 more per pupil than the corresponding cost 
 last year. The number of pupils per teacher will be about 14.4, 
 which is very low as compared to that of any of the high schools in 
 the group. If the cost per pupil for this item were to be reduced 
 to $65.86, which was the cost at Fort Wayne, and the highest paid 
 by any city in the group, it would mean $32,600 paid for teachers’ 
 salaries instead of $41,018, the rate paid during the second 
 semester of the present school year. This would be a reduction of 
 $8,418, equal to salaries paid to perhaps six or eight teachers. If 
 the total number of teachers at the Manual Training High School 
 were to be reduced by eight, it would leave twenty-six teachers, or 
 nineteen pupils per teacher, which is considerably lower than that of 
 the average for the group of cities. If there were 28 teachers, 
 the number of pupils per teacher would be 17.6. At the new 
 Peoria High School, the cost per -pupil for teachers’ salaries will 
 be about $58.20, which is $4.77 less than the cost last year. Here 
 also the number of pupils per teacher is relatively small—only 
 18 during the second semester of the present year. 
 
 % 
 
 There is one other significant comparison to be made to deter¬ 
 mine where costs for instruction in Peoria are relatively high. "Fa¬ 
 ble VII, shows that in the cost per pupil for principals’ salaries 
 and expenses Peoria ranks third. As to cost for salaries of prin¬ 
 cipals and their clerks in secondary schools Peoria ranks second, 
 paying $5.56, while Kalamazoo paid $5.58. For the present school- 
 year the cost at the Peoria High School is $6.22 and at the Manual 
 Training High School it is $6.97. It would appear from this that 
 the Board of School Inspectors makes it easier for their high school 
 teachers than other Boards of Education seem to do. For while in 
 other high schools the number of pupils per teacher is larger than 
 it is in Peoria, these same teachers assume additional burdens not 
 placed, to the same extent, upon teachers in the Peoria High 
 Schools. 
 
 43 
 
As to elementary school principals, Table VIII. shows that Peoria 
 ranks fourth. In several parts of the city elementary school build¬ 
 ings are only six or eight blocks apart. A supervisory principal, 
 placed in charge of two or even three buildings, and aided in each 
 by an assistant principal, would probably secure as efficient super¬ 
 vision as is secured under the present plan, for most of the prin¬ 
 cipals in the elementary schools teach part of the time. When a 
 vacancy occurs in a principalship now paying $1,700, it would be 
 well to try the plan of placing a principal of a nearby building in 
 charge of this additional one. A vacancy supplied according to this 
 plan would mean a saving of $1,500 or $1,600 without reducing the 
 efficiency of the schools. If a supervising principal were placed 
 in charge of three buildings, there would be a saving of $2,500 to 
 $2,800. If there were eighteen elementary school principals in¬ 
 stead of twenty it would involve a saving of $3,000. 
 
 To sum up: The kindergartens could do their work for $11,000 
 less than they are costing, and could do it as well as they are doing 
 it now. If the teachers’ pay-roll at the Manual ■ Training High 
 School totaled $8,200 less than it does, the cost per pupil would, be 
 $66.50, which is 64 cents more than it was in Fort Wayne last 
 year, where the cost per pupil was highest. Two vacancies in ele¬ 
 mentary school principalships filled according to the plan sug¬ 
 gested would involve a saving of $3,000. This would leave $1,800 
 to be eliminated. The cost of supervision and teaching of special 
 subjects might be reduced to this extent. Or this amount could 
 be saved by not filling two or three positions in the elementary 
 schools. 
 
 Table XIII. shows the number of pupils and of teachers in the 
 different elementary and secondary schools of Peoria during the 
 school year 1915-16. The average number of pupils per teacher 
 is 26.8. Only five of the schools, namely, the Whittier, the Har¬ 
 rison, the Lincoln, the Sumner, and the Glen Oak, show as large a 
 number of pupils per teacher as the average for the twenty-eight 
 school systems studied. At the present time it seems that only 
 five schools will reach that average this year, namely the Wash¬ 
 ington, the Glen Oak, the Sumner, the Harrison, and the Garfield. 
 It is necessary to note the fact that Table XIII does not include 
 kindergarten pupils or teachers, as is the case in all the tables in 
 which comparisons are made with other cities. After making due 
 allowance for the probable increase in attendance, and on the as¬ 
 sumption that the kindergarten force be reduced to half its present 
 size, the average number of pupils per teacher would still be slight¬ 
 ly higher in at least some of the schools than was the average for 
 all the cities in the group, and it would be considerably higher than 
 the average for the cities paying as high salaries as Peoria. How- 
 
 44 
 
ever, it would be a mistake to attempt to reduce the total number 
 of teachers for the elementary schools and kindergartens below 280 
 for the coming school year, and after that, plans ought to be made to 
 increase that number in proportion to the increase in attendance. At 
 the present rate of annual increase in population the necessary 
 annual increase in the number of elementary school teachers would 
 be about half a dozen. 
 
 Table XIII. 
 
 Number of teachers and of 
 
 pupils in the elementary schools and secondary schools 
 
 of Peoria, 1915-1916. 
 
 SCHOOL 
 
 Teachers of 
 so-called 
 regfular 
 subjects 
 
 Teachers 
 of art, 
 music, 
 physical 
 training - , 
 manual 
 training-, 
 sewing 
 and 
 
 cooking 
 
 Total 
 number of 
 teachers 
 
 Number of 
 pupils in 
 average 
 daily 
 
 attendance 
 
 Number of 
 pupils per 
 teacher 
 
 Rank 
 as to 
 number 
 of pupils 
 per 
 
 teacher 
 
 Peoria High. 
 
 26 
 
 5 11/30 
 
 31.367 
 
 558 
 
 17.7 
 
 
 Manual Tr. High 
 
 28 
 
 7 8/15 
 
 35.533 
 
 585 
 
 16.5 , 
 
 
 Blaine . 
 
 11.40 
 
 1.016 
 
 12.42 
 
 324 
 
 26.1 
 
 13 
 
 Columbia . 
 
 11.825 
 
 .575 
 
 12.40 
 
 283 
 
 22.8 
 
 17 
 
 Douglas . 
 
 13.6 
 
 1.40 
 
 15.00 
 
 408 
 
 27.2 
 
 12 
 
 Franklin . 
 
 13.25 
 
 .50 
 
 13.75 
 
 347 
 
 25.3 
 
 14 
 
 Garfield . 
 
 13.40 
 
 .766 
 
 14.17 
 
 387 
 
 27.3 
 
 10 
 
 Glen Oak. 
 
 10.80 
 
 1.45 
 
 12.25 
 
 358 
 
 29.2 
 
 5 
 
 Greeley . 
 
 12. 
 
 2.00 
 
 14.00 
 
 351 
 
 25.0 
 
 15 
 
 Harrison . 
 
 15. 
 
 .54 
 
 15.54 
 
 473 
 
 30.4 
 
 2 
 
 Irving . 
 
 8.60 
 
 2.32 
 
 10.92 
 
 303 
 
 27.7 
 
 8 
 
 Lee . 
 
 11. 
 
 1.77 
 
 12.77 
 
 289 
 
 22.6 
 
 18 
 
 Lincoln . 
 
 14. 
 
 1.29 
 
 15.29 
 
 458 
 
 30.0 
 
 3 
 
 Longfellow .... 
 
 10.60 
 
 2.10 
 
 12.70 
 
 284 
 
 22.4 
 
 20 
 
 Loucks . 
 
 8. 
 
 1.32 
 
 9.32 
 
 209 
 
 22.4 
 
 19 
 
 McKinley. 
 
 11.50 
 
 .67 
 
 12.17 
 
 280 
 
 23.0 
 
 16 
 
 Sumner . 
 
 10. 
 
 1.00 
 
 11.00 
 
 329 
 
 29.9 
 
 4 
 
 Lucie B. Tyng . . 
 
 12. 
 
 1.25 
 
 13.25 
 
 367 
 
 27.7 
 
 9 
 
 Washington . . . 
 
 11. 
 
 1.20 
 
 12.20 
 
 346 
 
 28.4 
 
 6 
 
 Webster . 
 
 17. 
 
 1.40 
 
 18.40 
 
 501 
 
 27.2 
 
 11 
 
 White . 
 
 14. 
 
 2.32 
 
 16.32 
 
 461 
 
 28.2 
 
 7 
 
 Whittier . 
 
 9.80 
 
 1.15 
 
 10.95 
 
 344 
 
 31.4 
 
 1 
 
 45 
 
All things considered, there is hardly room for doubt, that the 
 public schools of Peoria could conceivably be operated for $24,000 
 less than it is costing now, and without impairing their efficiency. 
 But it is one thing to plan the administration of a school system in 
 such a way as to prevent unnecessary or excessive costs, and quite 
 a different thing to reduce the excessive expenditures after they 
 have come to be looked upon as normal. Yet, unless some other 
 means of raising funds can be devised, there is no election; it will 
 be necessary to do the thing that involves serious inconvenience, 
 perhaps injustice to individuals. 
 
 t t ^ 
 
 Should the Board of School Inspectors find it impossible to 
 avoid the curtailing of expenditures by $21,000 to $24,000, it goes 
 without saying that the superintendent of schools should be a de¬ 
 termining factor in deciding just what specific changes ought 
 to be made. Idle matter of dropping teachers is a serious one, 
 and it ought never to be resorted to unless the need to do so is im¬ 
 perative. Where this is unmistakably necessary, even those directly 
 affected may submit with good grace, for competent teachers can 
 always secure new positions, inconvenient as such forced changes 
 may be. But some of the problems by which the Board and the 
 superintendent are at present confronted are of even graver mo¬ 
 ment than this. Foremost is that o^ reducing costs at the Manual 
 Training High School. This involves more than a dropping of 
 teachers. A working organization of the instructional force has 
 been in operation for some years and it will be rather difficult to 
 effect the necessary readjustments at one stroke without seriously 
 interfering with the efficiency of the school. 
 
 f' 
 
 Is There No Other Alternative? 
 
 To attempt to secure a revaluation of assessed property in Peo¬ 
 ria would not relieve the exigencies of the moment, although the 
 future might be provided for in this manner. This would be a more 
 equitable way of increasing revenues than would the levying of an 
 increased assessment on the present basis. Another thing that 
 might help out with reference to the future would be a careful 
 study of other public expenditures, to determine whether or not 
 any of them are excessive. 
 
 A bill before our legislature providing for the distribution 
 of funds created by an act of Congress for the promotion of voca¬ 
 tional education, might possibly be enacted into law. If so, and 
 if the Board of School Inspectors be willing to give up a partial 
 control of the Manual Training High School, the need of reducing 
 expenditures in that particular school will be obviated. This would 
 leave $15,800 of the original $24,000 to be disposed of. If a law pro- 
 
 46 
 
viding for payment by districts of high school tuition for non-res¬ 
 ident students should be adopted by the state legislature, an ad¬ 
 ditional $3,000 could be counted on. This would leave $12,800 still 
 to be reduced. Just at present the prospects that the legislature will 
 make provision for meeting the requirements of the Federal Gov¬ 
 ernment’s vocational education law are unfavorable. On the other 
 hand, it seems probably that a law will be passed providing for 
 the payment by the district of tuition for its pupils attending high 
 schools outside of the district. Should events take this turn, the 
 Board will need to reduce the estimated expenditures on the present 
 basis by about $21,000. If the Board does not see fit to make such 
 a reduction, at one blow, there is still another way of meeting the 
 difficulty. An emergency fund might be created by disposing of 
 the remainder of the property turned over to the Board to partly 
 cover the defalcations of a former superintendent. 
 
 This property has been administered for the Board by a trustee 
 who receives a commission on the receipts for all properties sold. 
 From January 1, 1908 to April 21, 1911, the receipts from this 
 fund amounted to $65,500, on balance. Since that time there have 
 been no net receipts. Instead, the Board has had to pay out from 
 its regular funds into this fund. The amounts thus paid, beginning 
 with November 27, 1912, have totaled up to the present, $8,006.38, 
 the last payment being made April 11, 1916. For three years the 
 payments have been $2,500 per year. The trustee’s estimates of 
 the value of these properties show that they are not worth any 
 more today than they were ten years ago. This amounts to saying 
 that the Board is paying $2,500 a year for the privilege of holding 
 on to property estimated to be worth on balance, perhaps $50,000. 
 While this annual expenditure of $2,500 technically needs to be 
 charged to this fund as a real estate account, it virtually is a con¬ 
 tingent expense, increasing the annual expenditures by just so 
 much. And yet no pupil in the schools of Peoria is deriving any 
 direct benefit therefrom. If there were anything to indicate that 
 these properties were increasing in value and at a rate to more 
 than compensate for the annual $2,500 invested in them, there 
 might be some reason for retaining them, although even that 
 might be disputed. A Board of Education is not supposed to be 
 in the real estate business. Certainly under the existing circum¬ 
 stances these properties ought to be sold, whether the proceeds 
 are to be used as above indicated or not. 
 
 Just now we are in the grip of events that are fraught with 
 most serious consequence as regards effects on prices of all com¬ 
 modities. It is not improbable that the cost of all supplies used 
 for educational purposes will reach unprecedented heights. If so, 
 it might be well to have an emergency fund on which drafts might 
 be made to meet such unexpected demands. 
 
 47 
 
Ought Salaries To Be Reduced? 
 
 It has been suggested that expenditures might be curtailed by 
 reducing teachers’ salaries. It would be a serious mistake to abolish 
 the present salary schedule. At a time when prices are going up 
 at leaps and bounds it would work hardship and injustice to 
 teachers to reduce their salaries, just as it works hardship and 
 injustice on taxpayers of moderate circumstances to maintain the 
 present unnecessarily high cost of instruction. If anything, salaries 
 are bound to go up within the near future. Teachers feel the high 
 cost of living just as much as others do. On the other hand 
 teachers in a given city cannot reasonably expect to receive the 
 maximum salaries if at the same time the proportionate number 
 of teachers is excessively large. Salaries are ordinarily apt to be 
 comparatively high for a comparatively small number of teachers 
 or to be comparatively low for a comparatively large number of 
 teachers. As was shown above, in Peoria they are comparatively 
 high for a very large number of teachers, proportionately speaking. 
 And the teachers of Peoria will be found to be as reasonable and 
 as fair-minded a group of people as can be found in other walks 
 of life. On the other hand, it is not wise to let the members of the 
 teaching staff remain under the erroneous impression that their 
 burdens are heavy as compared to those of teachers in other school 
 systems of approximately the same size. When the facts are 
 known there will be little disposition to object to a gradual reduc¬ 
 tion in the number of teachers. 
 
 Other Considerations 
 
 The relatively small number of pupils per teacher is largely 
 due, at least in the elementary schools, to the fact that the so-called 
 special subjects are taught in most of these schools by special 
 teachers, and not by the regular room teachers. Peoria pays sal¬ 
 aries high enough to secure the services of teachers competent to 
 teach at least most of these special subjects themselves. This is 
 especiallv true in view of the fact that an ample supervisory staff 
 is provided. There is no good reason for excusing the regular 
 teachers from teaching music and drawing, for instance, any more 
 than there would be for excusing them from teaching reading and 
 eeographv. It is true that there are exceptional cases of teachers 
 who are thoroughly competent to teach those subjects that are 
 known as the regular subjects, while no amount of training in 
 music, for instance, would qualify them to teach music. In a case 
 of this kind it would be a comparatively easy matter to have such 
 a teacher teach some other subject for one of her fellow-teachers 
 in the same building who would in return give instruction in music 
 to the former teacher’s pupils. In fact, of a given corps of teachers 
 one might very well be placed in charge of the instruction in music, 
 
 48 
 
thus putting that part of the work on a departmental basis. But 
 it is one thing to select one of twelve teachers in a given school to 
 do this work, and quite a different thing to add a thirteenth teacher 
 to the original force of twelve—assuming that the number of pupils 
 has remained practically the same. A change in the organization 
 of the work ought not to mean an increase in the number of teach¬ 
 ers. Furthermore, an organization of the work of instruction that 
 necessitates the visitation of a given school by a considerable num¬ 
 ber of supervisors or of special teachers from without is apt to 
 involve more or less of friction in the running of the machinery of 
 instruction. 
 
 The point has been made that the introduction of the semi¬ 
 annual promotion plan is to blame for the relatively large number 
 of teachers in the elementary schools of Peoria. The semi-annual 
 promotion plan is in operation in the great majority of our larger 
 cities. Of the twenty-seven city school systems with which Peoria 
 has been compared twenty-three report that the scheme is used in 
 their schools. In two others individual instruction is given to facili¬ 
 tate promotions. In one other case provision is made for individual 
 promotion in addition to that made for semi-annual promotion, and 
 in this case the superintendent reports that the introduction of the 
 scheme called for an increased expenditure. This plan as well as a 
 variety of plans to provide flexibility in the scheme of gradation 
 and promotion may be put into effect without adding to the cost of 
 instruction. 
 
 While it was not the province of the present study to go be¬ 
 yond the matter of an analysis of educational costs, there are in¬ 
 dications that a more efficient organization of the school-system 
 could be effected. The usefulness of the special school might be 
 extended. Where such a school is efficiently conducted it pays 
 amply. For, while the cost per pupil in such a school may be 
 higher than is the per pupil cost in the rest of the elementary 
 schools, the lesser cost in the latter may be largely due to the 
 efficiency of the special school. The ordinary grade teacher can 
 do efficient work with a larger number of pupils if she is relieved 
 of the burden of taking care of especially difficult cases among her 
 pupils. It goes without saying that teachers in the special school 
 need to be possessed of natural aptitude for teaching besides having 
 secured expert training to fit them for this difficult work. 
 
 / 
 
 With such provisions to take care of backward children as 
 well as of pupils that present unusual difficulty as regards the 
 matter of discipline, it ought to be possible to maintain the schools 
 of Peoria at a high standard of efficiency even after reducing the 
 relative number of teachers. In this connection it may be said that 
 better provision ought to be made for taking care of superannuated 
 teachers that retire from service. Steps ought to be taken to 
 
 49 
 
t 
 
 secure a revision of the so-called statewide teachers’ pension law 
 so that teachers of the city of Peoria may be included as bene¬ 
 ficiaries under the provisions of this law. It does not take an 
 actuary to see that the funds of the Peoria city pension system are 
 utterly inadequate to meet normal demands upon it. 
 
 If the signs of the immediate present do not fail the prospects 
 are that expenditures both for services and for materials are bound 
 to increase. It will be necessary to exercise a wholesome economy, 
 and to do this will require a vigilant foresight. In carrying out 
 such a policy it will be best to make adjustments gradually instead 
 of resorting to drastic measures in effecting needed changes. And 
 such adjustments can be made only if they follow plans looking 
 farther ahead than the brief period of a year or two, for which 
 reason the superintendent of schools ought to be elected for a 
 longer period than at present. 
 
 Need of a Modern System of Accounting 
 
 Economy and attendant efficiency in the administration of a 
 citv school system are impossible in the absence of a system of 
 accounting that readily reveals significant distributions of important 
 items or classes of expenditures. In the first part of this 
 report, several illustrations were given to show how the present 
 svstem of accounting fails conveniently to show the real amounts 
 of different classes of expenditures. A system of books that makes 
 it difficult to determine, at anv time when such information is 
 wanted, the total expenditures for administration, for instruction, 
 for operation, etc., is a direct and positive hindrance to efficiency 
 in administration. A modern system of school accounting, would 
 provide such needed information in a few minutes. Such a system 
 has been devised and is in use in many places. Such a system 
 would make it possible for the superintendent or the secretary to 
 make out absolutelv reliable reports to the Commissioner of Educa¬ 
 tion and to the State Superintendent of Public Instruction, some¬ 
 thing that can not be done in connection with the present system 
 of accounting. 
 
 The fact that reports hitherto sent to Washington from Peoria 
 were uniformlv full of inaccuracies and the further fact that for a 
 number of vears no reports or onlv incomplete reports were sent 
 to Washington is due to the svstem of accounting in use. And as 
 was pointed out above, in the report of the Secretary to the 
 Pioard there are a number of places where it was impossible to 
 furnish absolutelv reliable data with regard to certain items, even 
 after the most painstaking efforts to secure them. This is not to 
 b^ taken to reflect in any way, either on the present Secretary 
 of the Board or on his predecessor. The system of accounting 
 used is to blame. As citizens of Peoria know, it was devised 
 
 50 
 
 4 
 
I 
 
 primarily for a different purpose: to make it impossible for the 
 superintendent of schools or other employee to defraud the district 
 of any of its funds. And this purpose it does not fail to realize. It 
 includes a sysetm of double and even triple checks that would 
 practically'frustrate any extensive fraudulent practices; for detec¬ 
 tion would be inevitable in short order. There are only two 
 channels that could permit exceptions : the petty cash account and 
 the handling of supplies. As regards the first a negligibly small 
 amount of money was handled in this way. With reference to the 
 second factor, however, there is decided room for improvement over 
 the practice obtaining during the school year 1915-1916. As was 
 explained above, instructional supplies to the value of $9,679.85 
 were purchased, but of this amount only $4,316.39 was charged 
 against specific schools—less than half. No supplies ought to leave 
 the supply department without being previously requisitioned and 
 without being charged to the schools obtaining them. 
 
 The failure to make charges to individual schools in all cases 
 in which supplies were sent to such schools was doubtless due to 
 the fact that it was impossible in many cases to determine the cost 
 of supplies. It seems that in the purchase of a large share of the 
 supplies, unit bids are not secured. It is a bad practice, when pur¬ 
 chasing large quantities of a great variety of supplies, to accept 
 bids for the supplies in lump. Unit bids ought to be insisted on. 
 If this is not done, the supply office cannot reasonably be held 
 responsible for making complete and accurate charges for all sup¬ 
 plies sent to the different schools or to the office. Furthermore, 
 it is evident that dealers can take advantage of the Board under 
 the system of lump bids. 
 
 Another matter that calls for a change of policy in the purchase 
 of supplies is the need of more definitely localizing responsibility. 
 Even a superficial examination of the stock of supplies in the supply 
 department shows that supplies purchased at the request of super¬ 
 visors are not always used before their usefulness has expired, due 
 to changes in educational fashions or in devices in vogue. Some 
 supplies were either purchased in unconscionably large quantities 
 or else the supervisor who asked for their purchase had a change 
 of heart with regard to the advisability of their use. The supervisor 
 may be gone, but the supplies are still there. 
 
 The question of the advisability of the purchase of any particu¬ 
 lar class or quantity of supplies is first of all a professional one, 
 not a business one. Only a professional man is qualified to decide 
 as to what supplies need to be purchased and in what quantities. 
 Hence, the request for supplies should come through the superin¬ 
 tendent of schools to the supply committee instead of coming, as 
 it now does, from the members of the supervisory staff directly 
 to the supply committee. The question as to how much money is 
 
 51 
 
available for the purchase of instructional material is, of course, a 
 business one, and the professional administration needs to govern 
 itself accordingly. But when it comes to the determination of 
 what supplies ought to be purchased and in what quantities, the 
 question is clearly one for the professional administration. Any 
 other machinery makes for irresponsibility and resulting ineffi¬ 
 ciency. 
 
 In the case of citizens of Peoria it would indeed same strange 
 if, after the deplorable experience with a trusted superintendent 
 of schools some years ago, there should not be left even now more 
 or less of a disposition to hesitate about entrusting either a profes¬ 
 sional or a business administrator with seemingly unlimited powers. 
 But, if the educational interests of the communtiy are to be truly 
 promoted it will be necessary to localize responsibility more defin¬ 
 itely than at present, mainly through extending* the powers of the 
 superintendent of schools with reference to both professional and 
 business matters, as well as giving the superintendent of repairs 
 greater freedom of action. 
 
 Members of any board of education render a valuable com¬ 
 munity service gratuitously, a service calling for the expenditure 
 of a great amount of time and energy. But in case of a large board, 
 the work is necessarily done under a handicap. It is for this reason 
 that the movement favoring smaller boards has been rapidly gaining 
 in strength. This has been true even in the case of cities with 
 populations of more than 100,000. Of the fifty cities in the United 
 States which in 1910 had populations of more than 100,000, thirty- 
 two have reduced the size of their school boards within the last 
 twenty years, while only four have increased the size of their 
 boards. Twenty years ago there were fourteen cities with larger 
 boards than the Board of School Inspectors of Peoria; today there 
 are only five, namely New York City, Chicago, Detroit, Providence, 
 and Worcester, and the indications are that Chicago will drop out 
 of the group. Thirty-three of the fifty referred to above have 
 boards of 5, 7, or 9 members. The fact that fully two-thirds of the 
 cities of the country that are larger than Peoria have decreased the 
 size of their school boards would indicate that something is apt 
 to be gained by the change. In the same way the tendency has 
 been more and more to adopt the system of election at large instead 
 of that of representation by wards. 
 
 Educational Costs And Social Responsibility 
 
 In educational circles we hear a great deal of talk about social 
 education. And in the country at large there is a wide-spread 
 sentiment to the effect that somehow we have not succeeded very 
 
 52 
 
well in the past in imbuing the rising generation with a sufficient 
 sense of social responsibility. Is it not possible that the very 
 generosity of the community helps to engender in our young people 
 the idea that everything is there for them, without giving them a 
 chance to become fully conscious of what they owe to the com¬ 
 munity? It would be a mistake to try to measure the value of all 
 things in dollars and cents. And yet, ought it not to be possible 
 to impress the rising generation with the idea of what a debt they 
 are placed under to society by what society has done for them? 
 There are some things about our educational practices that need 
 to be changed. Too many children in too many communities grow 
 up with the idea that what costs them nothing costs nobody any¬ 
 thing. Far too many fail to respect public property. Far too many, 
 when grown to maturity, look upon the public coffer as an object 
 for exploitation. Frequently the very citizen that complains about 
 the burden of taxation is ready to enhance that burden by helping 
 to create a sinecure for a friend or relative. 
 
 Ought we not to be able to get children to take as good care 
 of supplies furnished by the schools as they do of those for which 
 they pay themselves? Are teachers always careful enough them¬ 
 selves to prevent waste and extravagance? And aren’t there some 
 parents who might be reminded of the expense to which the com¬ 
 munity goes in giving an education to their children? A study of 
 Tables I. and II. shows that, up to the present year, it costs the 
 city of Peoria nearly $1000 to send a child through school. 
 
 One year in the kindergarten: 
 
 Current expenses. 
 
 $49.99 
 
 
 
 Interest and depreciation_ 
 
 12.62 
 
 
 $62.61 
 
 Eight years in the elementary grades: 
 
 Current expenses for one year ... 
 
 Interest and depreciation for one year 
 
 45.38 
 
 12.45 
 
 57.83x8 
 
 462„64 
 
 Four years in the high school: 
 
 Current expenses for one year.. 
 
 Interest and depreciation, one year.... 
 
 87.55 
 
 23.26 
 
 110.81x4 
 
 443.24 
 
 $968.49 
 
 At present the expenditures are greater. Estimating the average 
 daily attendance at the Peoria High School to be 740, the current 
 expenditures per pupil for the school year 1916-1917 will be about 
 $7.00 more than they were last year. The cost of instruction per 
 pupil will be about $2.00 less than it was last year. But the in¬ 
 creased expenditures for janitors’ and engineers’ wages, for coal, 
 light and power will raise the cost per pupil about $11.00. The 
 maintenance cost will be less than it was. Cost per pupil for over¬ 
 head charges will be less. On balance this will mean an increase of 
 not far from $7.00 per pupil. The cost per pupil for interest on 
 
 53 
 
the investment and for depreciation is $53.55, making the total 
 annual cost in the Peoria High School for the present school year 
 about $145.46. 
 
 In the case of the Manual Training High School the cost per 
 pupil is likewise higher this year than it was last year. Estimating 
 the average daily attendance to be 495 the cost per pupil for instruc¬ 
 tion will be at least $19.00 more than it was last year, making the 
 total cost for the year, including cost for interest on investment and 
 depreciation, about $143.74. The cost for four years of schooling 
 in the high schools would be increased correspondingly, making 
 the total cost for thirteen years’ attendance more than $1,100.00. 
 
 Is there any reason for believing that it is impossible to arouse 
 in the rising generation more of a sense of personal obligation to 
 the community which has thus helped to equip them for the strug¬ 
 gle of life? It would seem that a correct reading of the signs of 
 the times would show that we are in the beginning of a new era, 
 an era in which every individual is becoming more fully conscious 
 of what he owes to the whole community, an era in which we are 
 learning more fully than ever before, that we need to remain 
 cognizant not merely of our rights, but as well,' of our duties. 
 Everywhere, in connection with public education and public life 
 generally, we need to revise our attitude. And as regards the 
 school, created and maintained by the community to preserve intact 
 the best in the community life, isn’t there an especial need that 
 everyone in any way connected therewith : teacher, pupil, parent, 
 dealer, contractor, take pride in the thought of serving the com¬ 
 munity ? 
 
 The peculiar work of the Board of School Inspectors, seems 
 on last analysis to be the promotion of such a spirit in the city 
 school system. For this its members render their gratuitous ser¬ 
 vice, a service which is never an easy one, and at the present 
 moment a peculiarly onerous one, but in the rendering of which it 
 is hoped they may receive the hearty co-operation of every citizen 
 of the community. 
 
 54 
 


cry lord - 
 
 PAM PHLET BINDER 
 
 Syracuse, N. Y. E 
 Stockfoa, Colif. 5 
 
UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS-URBANA 
 
 379.773SCH76A 
 
 
 C001