Issued Bi-monthly. Published by the University, Eugene. November, 1905. Entered January 2, 1904, at Eugene, Oregon, assecond class matter under Act of Congress of July 16, 1894. U.of !. DUPS. UNIVERSITY OF NEW SERIES VOL. 2 m UNIVERSITY PUBLICATIONS. Public School Libraries - September, 1903 Beowulf - - - January, 1904 Water Power on the McKenzie River - - March, 1904 Mineral Resources and Mineral Industries of Oregon May, 1904 Water Power on the Santiam - November 1904 Tendencies in Recent American Road Legislation January, 1905 General Register of the University of Oregon - March, 1905 General Announcements May, 1905 STATE NORMAL SCHOOL SYSTEMS OF THE UNITED STATES Compiled by DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION University of Oregon UNIVERSITY OF OREGON BULLETIN NEW SERIES VOL. 2 NO 6 Published by the University, Eugene, Oregon. Issued Bi-Monthly NOVEMBER, 1905 Digitized by the Internet Archive in 2017 with funding from University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign Alternates https://archive.org/details/statenormalschoo00univ_0 PREFACE. It is the aim of the present paper to present the most im- portant facts, statistical and otherwise relating to state systems of normal schools in the United States in brief and convenient form. In order that all the facts upon which the conclusions are based may be as accessible to the public as to the writer, the statistical summary and the replies to the circular letter on normal school systems are printed in full in the appendix. At first sight, it may seem strange that the figures for tne vear 1902-03 should be the latest obtainable. The United States bureau of education which furnishes these statistics works with all possible dispatch, but the enormous magnitude of the task and the difficulty of securing prom pt returns pre< 1 u de m ore rn pid tabu la- tion and publication. The writer is also indebted to the following books for information : Gordy, J. P., Rise and Growth of the Nor- mal School Idea in the United States; Washington, 1891, Dexter, .E G., A History of Education in the United Stater, New York, 1904 and Hinsdale, B. A., Training of Teachers in Butler’s Mono- graphs on Education, Vlo. I„ Albany, 1900. In some cases, the writer has referred to certain states as having one normal school, when very recently this policy has been departed from and one or two new institutions established. These schools are too new to have effected conditions, so that in com- paring results, there is no injustice in classing these common- wealths with states which have never departed from the one central school idea. STATE NORMAL SCHOOL SYSTEMS IN THE UNITED STATES. The first legislative recognition in America of the necessity of special training schools for teachers was given by the state of New York in the year 1835 and took the form of a small appro- priation for the support of teachers’ training classes in a few of the academies of the commonwealth. Four years later, Massa- chusetts, having small faith in the efficiency of the academy idea, founded, at the old historic town of Lexington, the first in- stitution in America having for its sole purpose, the preparation of teachers. For some years Massachusetts found few imitators. New York was the first to follow in 1844, Connecticut founded a normal school in 1849, Michigan 1850, Rhode Island 1852, Illin- ois, 1857, Pennsylvania, Minnesota, New Jersey 1859. Py I ^75 normal schools were establisheed as an integral portion of the educatioanl system, in all the states of the union save eight. At that date there were seventy schools in operation training more than fifteen thousand students. The normal school system of the country has been rapidly gaining strength in the last few years. In the period from i88g- 90 to 1902-03 the number of public normals increased from 135 to 1 77, the number of students in strictly normal courses from 26,917 to 49,175 and the number of graduates from 4,413 to 8,782. While the attendance did not quite double in this period of thirteen years, the sum total of appropriations more than doubled, as the commissioner of education records $1,312,419 total annual appropriation for current expenses of normal school at the beginning of this period as against $3,582,- 168 at the end. These sums do not include special appropria- tions for buildings and repairs. 6 University of Oregon Bulletin Separate normal schools are established by law and sup- ported by appropriations in forty-four out of the fifty states and territories constituting the continental possessions of the United states. Of the six without separate normal schools, three, Wy- oming, Utah and Nevada provide for normal training in con- nection with their state universities. Delaware, the fourth, sends her normal students to the institutions of the otiier states for their training, leaving only Alaska and Indian Territory without provision for the training of teachers. Of the more important states of the Union, Ohio alone, for many years stood out against the establishment of public normals, but within the last two years, this attitude has been changed and two institutions for the training of teachers founded. Among the states of the union, two divergent lines of policy in regard to the location and size of normal schools have been followed. In many states, number of moderately sized schools have been established, each school ministering to the needs of one particular section. Among the advocates of the policy are New York with nineteen public normal schools, Pennsylvania with fifteen, Massachusetts ten, Wisconsin nine, West Virginia and Minnesota six, California and Illinois five and numerous other states having more than one school. Twenty years ago there was an almost equally long list of states concentrating their energies on one strong central school. This list included such important and influential states as Michigan, New Jersey, Connecticut, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas and Colorado. In recent years, the increase of population and wealth together with pressure of localities remote from the central school, has caused a number of these states to reverse their policy, so that now Michigan and Connecticut each support four schools. A num- ber of these states, however, still maintain their former policy. The number of normal schools in a state has small meaning until we know the size of the constituency. For instance. New York, (19 normal schools), having an estimated population in in 1903 of 7,659,814 persons has only one normal school for ap- proximately every 400,000 persons, while Idaho with two nor- mal schools has one for every 90,000 persons. In Pennsylvania there is one normal school for every 450,000 of population Mass- University of Oregon Bulletin 7 achusetts, one for every 300,000; Wisconsin, one for every 230,- 000; California one for every 300,000; Illinois one for every 1.000. 000. One normal school for each 400,000 persons represents the average in those states which have been, for many years committed to a policy of local schools. As to the cost of maintaining schools, there is the widest possible variation from Mississippi with an average annual out- lay of $1,435 P er school and Vermont with $6,723 at one end of the scale to the great central school of Iowa enjoying a revenue of more than $140,000 per year at the other. The average income in 1902-03 per normal school in some of the larger northern states devoted to the policy of local school is as follows: New York, $38,000; Pennsylvania, $43,000; Illinois, $42,000; Massachusetts, $33,000; California, $38,000 and Wisconsin $39,000. States de- pending on one large central school, naturally appropriate to a single school larger sums than the foregoing. In this class chiefly are Indiana, $72,500; Kansas, $70,000; Colorado, $67,000 and Rhode Island, $64,000. The $3,500,000 spent by the states of the union on normal education is distributed by no means evenly. Of the states which possess systems of such efficiency as would entitle them to consideration, there is a vast difference. It costs Indiana only $28 and Nebraska $31 per 1,000 persons to support their normal school systems. Washington on the other hand spends $225 per 1,000 persons or almost ten times as much. Wisconsin Avith an outlay of $164 per 1,000, Colorado $117 per 1,000, California with $121 per 1,000, Oklahoma $181 per 1,000 and Rhode Island $140 per 1,000 are among the highest in the union. The average is represented by Massachusetts, $89 per 1,000, Michigan $61 per 1.000. Minnesota $77 per 1,000, New York $80 per 7,000. Pennsyl- vania $78 per 1,000, South Dakota $75 per 1,000 and Iowa $60 per 1.000. A truer test of the economy of the system is found in the cost per year of training each student enrolled. The factors de- termining this are, first, the amount of support and secondly, the number of students. A state appropriating a large sum to nor- mal education if it has a large number of students, may have a lower rate per student than a state with small appropriation and 8 University of Oregon Bulletin few students. Here again we find most startling contrasts be- tween extremes. Kansas trains teachers at an annual cost of $36 per student, Rhode Island pays $294 for the same service. Among the more expensive states are Colorado, $248 per student, Mass- achusetts $150, Oklahoma $141, South Dakota, $192, Washington $189, Wisconsin, $140. In the group of moderate expense are Michigan $98 per student, Minnesota $115, New York $106, Pennsylvania $84, Illinois $75 and West Virginia $98. Another question of fundamental importance is the capacity of the normal schools to meet the demand for trained teachers. If the testimony of the state superintendents and normal school principals is to be relied upon, the percentage of trained teachers is rapidly increasing throughout the country. Of the common- wealths replying to circular letter, Arizona leads with 60 per cent of teachers trained in normal schools, Utah follows with 50 per cent. The percentage for the other states replying runs as follows : Massachusetts 46 per cent, California 38 per cent, Connecticut 36 per cent, Indiana 20 per cent, Illinois 10 per cent, Iowa, 12J4 per cent, Kansas 10 per cent, Louisiana 33 1-3 percent, Maine 23 per cent, Minnesota 25 per cent, Missouri 15 per cent, New Jersey 33 1-3 percent, New York 25 per cent, South Carolina 25 per cent, Vermont 24 per cent, Wisconsin 35 per cent. These figures are in nearly all cases approximate and in some instances pure estimates, so that too much importance should not be at- tached to them. However, there is no good reason for rejecting the general conclusion from them that of the 450,000 elementary teachers in the United States in 1902-03, about 100,000 or in the neighborhood of 22 per cent have had considerable normal train- ing and that probably 15 per cent are normal graduates. The significant fact that less than 25 per cent of our teachers are properly prepared for their work does not mean that we should be compelled to establish four times as many normal schools costing four times as much money in order to prepare the other 75 per cent. Many of the normal schools are new and have a proportionally small percentage of graduates, others could accommodate a considerably larger number of students without extra expense. There is also a slow tendency toward a longer term of service, particularly in large towns and cities, so in the University of Oregon Bulletin 9 future not so many new teachers will be needed. That more new schools will be needed especially in rapidly growing* sections of the country and in those states where the existing normals are not adequate to the needs, is of couse, evident, but it may serious- ly be questioned whether it would at present be advisable at one stroke of the pen to double the number of normal schools, were such a step possible. A fact of considerable significance in this connection is re- ported by a number of superintendents and principals, viz. that nearly the entire product of the normal school is absorbed by the graded schools, leaving the country schools largely untouched by normal school influences. Thus the state superintendent of Iowa reports that there are many normal school graduates in town, few in the country. According to the state superintendent of Montana, the normal graduates after a term or two of exper- ience in the country, all settle in the town schools In Wiscon- sin one of the normal school principals estimates that of 9,000 country school teachers in that state, only 1,000 are normal grad- uates, 3,500 others having attended without graduation. On the other hand nearly all of the 3,500 teachers in graded schools have received a normal training. In states like California where good wages are paid in the country districts, many normally trained teachers are found there. It is hardly necessary to point out that this undesirable state of affairs in regard to country schools is in no manner due to the normal school, but to the ordinary laws of business and trades by which the most efficient workers go where wages are highest and conditions best. At the present time, it is undoubtedly true that the wages paid in the country districts of many states would hardly justify any person spending three years of time and $800 in cash in preparation for service in them. Yet nowhere is further training more needed than among the country teachers. The best temporary solution of this problem is to be found in the establish- ment of brief summer schools with course of xo to 12 weeks in length, one for each county or small group of counties. As these schools would be in session during the summer months, the faculties of normal schools and outside schoolmen of experience, could be utilized at moderate expenses to the state. An appro- io University of Oregon Bulletin priation of $10,000 spent in this manner would produce ? more immediate and powerful effect for good on the rural school than any other measure which could be devised. However, such a measure must necessarily be regarded as temporary, a twelve weeks review of element subjects and methods can never be the equivalent of a good normal school course. In order to secure the experience of other states, the depart- ment of education in the University of Oregon issued a circular letter to the state superintendent and normal school principals of the country. Twenty state superintendents and fifty-two princi- pals answered the letter. The replies are printed in the appendix to this bulletin. Nearly all the most important normal school states are well represented in the list of answers, notably New York, Michigan, Massachusetts, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas and California. The two most important questions asked in the circular were the following: 1. Is one large central normal school preferable to a number of normal schools? Why? 2. If a state supports a number of normal schools, should they be controlled by one central board, by separate local boards for each institution or by a combination of the two? It was not supposed that the categorical replies one way or another, would be particularly valuable as there would be a strong tendency for each superintendent or principal to defend the system in vogue in his own state. In the arguments and facts advanced to support these views, it was hoped that some light might be thrown on the general principles of the subject which might embody the best experience. The actual replies more than satisfied this hope as we shall see. While there were all pos- sible shades of individual opinion, there emerges from the dis- cussion a very generally accepted body of conclusions. These conclusions can, perhaps, be most clearly stated as arguments pro and con. One of the strongest arguments in favor of a system of local schools, is the fact that in most states, the students of a nor- mal school come from closely adjacent regions, so that in general a system of local schools reaches more students and therefore trains more teachers than can a single central school. All the more populous states having a large percentage of normally train- / University of Oregon Bulletin i 1 ed teachers like Wisconsin, Massachusetts and California are states which maintain a system of local schools. There is much testimony to this effect from the replies. One of the most inter- esting written by the principal of the Milwaukee normal, dis- cusses conditions in Michigan. “My native state is Michigan where for years they have had one large normal school. Investi- gation showed that ninety per cent of its attendance was drawn from adjacent counties. It was not big enough to make itself felt throughout the state. Within the past eight years three new normal schools were established in Michigan. The attendance at the central school has materially increased and the three other schools are full. Each one of the schools draws largely from its own locality.” There are one or two striking exceptionstothisgeneralization. Iowa and Kansas at the time of the publication of the last com- missioner’s report had practically only a single school, yet the number of normal students trained was relatively large, Iowa having 2,231 students or 1 for each 1,047 population. Kansas 1,954 students or 1 for each 752 of population. California with five normal schools had an attendance of 1,604 students or 1 for each 975 of population. Wisconsin with nine schools, 2,514 stu- dents or 1 for each 857 of population. Just why Iowa and Kansas should succeed where other states have failed is not clear, Kansas at one time paid the traveling expenses of students beyond a radius of one hundred miles from a normal school. Iowa al- though almost equally successful had no such provision. It is worthy of note, however, that while Iowa and Kansas have an unusally heavy percentage of normal students, they have a relatively small percentage of normally trained teachers : Iowa 1 2 .y 2 per cent and Kansas 10 per cent, which must mean that either their graduates enter other professions largely or migrate; probably the latter. The point most frequently made in support of the small local normal school is found in the statement that their training or practice school facilities are more likely to be adequate than those of a large school. The training school is to the normal what a laboratory is to a man of science ; it fs the place where observa- tion and experience, the future teacher learns her art. Without a 12 University of Oregon Bulletin practice school for this essential work, a normal school is but little better than a specialized high school. Most state normal schools are located in but moderately sized towns, and there is always the danger that the number of normal students will in- crease more rapidly than the available supply of children for the training department ; the larger the school, the greater the danger. Says the principal of the Chico, California, normal school, “The great feature in the preparation of teachers is their practice teaching which cannot be effective in large schools.” The prin- cipal of another California normal (San Diego) writes: “If the normal school is too large there is difficulty in securing ample training school facilities.” These happen to be the first two state- ments of opinion on the list but twelve other witnesses testify to the same effect. There is also a general consensus of opinion that, after a certain number is reached, there is a sure loss of institutional efficiency. The personal influence of the president and leading professors becomes less evenly diffused, their place is taken by cheap assistants. The student societies become large and un- wieldy and therefore inefficient ; the building up of a school spirit which reaches the lives and ideals of the students, is increaseingly difficult. The idea is well expressed by the president of the Madison, South Dakota normal. “The great school has a mass of students and educates, trains and graduates in mass. Th^ school of from 200 to 500, graduating from 40 to 80 each year knows, educates and trains every individual and is sure of its work ; it developes character and power.” Another statement to the same effect comes from the principal of the Whitewater normal school, Wisconsin. “A large central school is too much of a machine. Pupils have too little contact with the administration and stronger members of the faculty. Too much of the instruc- tion in such cases is done by subordinate and comparitively cheap instructors. The school cannot accomplish any such work in the way of character building and personal moulding of students as is done in smaller schools.” There is no agreement as to the exact point at which a nor- mal school becomes unwieldy. One correspondent puts it as low as 300 and another as high as 1,000. The weight of opinion would University of Oregon Bulletin 13 place the line neared the lower than the higher figure, perhaps at about 500. A normal school, by the outside work of its professors and through the influence of its students should act as a general stimulus to the schools of the communities adjacent to it. Amer- can normal schools as a rule do not undertake to advise and direct their graduates as in France and Germany, but in the main they should be expected to exert a steady and uplifting influence on the common schools nearest to them. Most American states are too extensive geographically and too populous to be reached in this way by a single school, no matter how efficient it may be. The entire population of Rhode Island, New Hampshire and New Jersey are in the immediate neighborhood of one school, but not so with New York and Pennsylvania and the great common- wealths of the west and south. As put by the state superintend- ent of Missouri, “Several schools, located in different parts of our state will come more directly in contact with teachers and influence them more. The faculty of a normal school having about twenty counties in its district will in some measure super- vise the schools of that district, while one large central school will not reach the teachers of the outlying counties and will not exert the same influence on these counties as upon those nearer its location.” Some other agruments are mentioned by the superintendents and principols, such as that a number of normal schools can se- cure appropriations easier than one and that competition is neces- sary to secure efficiency, which advantages either miss the mark or are purely incidental in their nature. The case for a system of small normal schools rests on the ground that in large and popu- lous states such a system trains more teachers, provides more adequate practice school facilities, moulds the lives of the stu- dents to a greater extent and exerts a stronger beneficial influence on the school system than could one large central school. On the other hand, there is no reasonable doubt that a central school could train the same number of students more cheaply. Many of the advocates of a system of small schools admit this fact. For instance the state superintendent of Minnesota writes : “From the standpoint of economy to the sta+e, I think it pre- University of Oregon Bulletin ferable to maintain only one large central school. From the standpoint of those in attendance, however, I think it better economy to have several located in different sections of the state.” Such a quotation could be multiplied. States with only one school or which perhaps, have very recently added one or two weak in- stitutions with small appropriations and few students, so that for practical purposes there is only one school show a comparative- ly large gain in economy. The following brief statistical sum mary between two typical groups tells the tale. Group of states having in 1902-03 practically one school : Cost of Normal School Cost per Year of per 1000 Persons. Each Student. Iowa $60 $63 Kansas 48 36 Nebraska , 31 62 Indiana 28 52 Group of states having a system of small local schools : Cost of Normal School Cost Per Year of per 1000 Persons. Each Student. Wisconsin $164 $140 New York 80 106 Massachusetts 89 150 California 121 118 When a central school fails to attract large attendance, it then is usually more expensive proportionally than a system of local schools. Colorado is a case in point where the cost of train- ing a student for a year reaches the high figure of $248 per year, a rate higher than that of some of the most efficient universities which have a much omre extensive plant. Another advantage in concentrating all the state’s effort in one school is found in the correspondingly superior equipment and plant which such a concentration renders possible. The gain is represented by better gyjnnasium and museums, excellent manual training and kindergarten departments, more advanced and specialized courses of instruction. The principals of the large schools take particular pains to emphasize this point. The fol- lowing quotation from a letter written by the principal of the Iowa school at Cedar Rapids represents others: “There are many University of Oregon Bulletin 15 reasons why a good strong normal school is to be prelerred to several weak ones, among which the privilege of having gradu- ating classes at the end of every term, to place upon the schedule of recitations each term, the varieties and divisions of class work and to have many specialties such as music and art, as well as to maintain a superior lecture course that a small school could never afford. We are able to have the Theodore Thomas Or- chestra come to this school to give three concerts costing $2,300. Such a transaction could not occur were the school small.” It is quite possible to over emphasize the importance of this advantage. There is a limit to the amount of equipment neces- sary for a normal school. In spite of the testimony of two or three correspondents to the contrary, there is no reason why a normal school should have the equipment of a good university. The normal school has a single definite aim, the training of ele- mentary teachers, while a university aims to train men for a half dozen professions, all requiring more specialized work than preparation for elementary teachers and also attempts to encour- age original research at the same time. The implication of the writer quoted in the previous paragraph, that a number of normal schools means necessarily weak schools is refuted by the systems of Wisconsin, Massachusetts, Illinois and California, where the schools are on an efficient basis. Up to a certain point the argu- ment for a central school on the ground of better equipment has great weight, but after that point is reached, the addition of fur- ther equipment adds comparitively little to the real efficiency of the school. Another argument for a central school is that it has much greater prestige. The greater number of normal schools, the less the esteem in which they are held. As one writer expresss it : “The smaller schools do not rise to the dignity a normal school should possess/’ A still further objection to a system of small schools is the fact that these schools by competing among them- selves lower the standard of admission and scholarship and bring normal school education into bad repute. This difficulty is easily remedied by putting all the normal schools under one strong cen- tral board which by uniform standards will prevent rivalry and its attendant ills. i6 University of Oregon Bulletin To strike a balance between the merits of the two systems which will be equally applicable to all states is obviously imprac- ticable in states where a central normal school is readily ac- cessible to the entire population and its influence as easily dif- fused the balance readily inclines to a single strong school. In commonwealths having vast populations like New York and Pennsylvania or of almost continental proportions like California or Texas, the establishment of a number of central schools be- comes a necessity. In case of states of considerable extent, but as yet possessing little wealth and contain a small population, yet growing rapidly, states like Oregon, Washington and Idaho, the problem becomes more intricate. 1 he first requisite is, in all cases, efficency. What is the smallest appropriation which will support a first-class school of from 150 to 250 students? This question was included in the circular letter sent to the principals and superintendents above mentioned. The replies varied from $15,000 a year at one limit to Siooooo at the other, the great majority, however, placed their estimates between $25,000 and $40,000. When we compare these figures with the actual expense in some of the most successful normal school states such as Wisconsin $39,000; Massachusetts, $33,000 ; New York and California $38,000, we can safely conch: de that under ordinary conditions no normal school can be put on an efficient basis for less than 25,000 for current expenses. The salary schedules which many principals kindly eu* lesed in their replies to the circular letter form an interesting study. From them, we learn that in the states possessing the most efficient normal schools, the principal receives $3,000 a yea'’, men professors of experience from $1,400 to $2,200 per year; women professors in the normal school proper from $1,000 to $r.6oo, women teachers in the training department $750 to $1,000. These salaries may seen excessive to some, yet the fact that states as far apart as Massachusetts, New York, Michigan, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Kansas and California all pay at this rate, furnishes strong presumptive evidence that such salaries are necessary to secure first-rate talent and that lower salaries (than these) mean less efficient service. An easy method of economizing sometimes adopted is to University of Oregon Bulletin 17 eliminate the men with the exception of the principal. This at first glance does not seem to touch the standard of efficiency as $1,200 will secure a strong woman professor, while at least $1,600 or $1,800 is necessary to secure a man of equal ability. In the end this policy destroys the balance and vitality of the school and impairs its administrative effectiveness. At the schedule quoted above, the following budget would meet the needs of a school of not to exceed 300 students. President $3,0000 Four men at — $1,750 7,000 Four women at 4,800 Two women at 1,000 2,000 Four critic teachers at .... 800 3,200 20,000 Janitor, supplies, library . . . . 5,000 $25,000 In regard to the organization of the governing machinery in a system of local schools there is a great variety of opinion Most of the educators favor the plan which happened to be in vogue ni their own states. The argument for separate local boards rests on the assumption that conditions are likely to be quite different in different sections of a state ; one section may be old and wealthy, another portion poor and undeveloped. A standard suitable to a normal school in the first might strangle a struggling institution on the frontier. Central boards tend to rigid uniform- ity in standards and rules, a number of local boards favors flex- ibility. Thus the principal of the De Kalk normal school, Illinois, replies “Separate boards if the localities vary greatly in condi- tions. ” In a local board, however, there is always a strong danger of a subordination of state interests to the financial interest of the particular localities. A local board frequently wants a large num- ber of students at any cost and as large an expenditure of money as possible in improvements. A local board is often favorable soil for germination of faculty, neighborhood and sectarian quarrels, a steady policy is a difficult matter for the president to attain, hampered as he is likely to be by numerous local interests. The i8 University of Oregon Bulletin principal of the Mankota normal school, Minnesota represents this opinion when he writes : “We decided prefer our system of one central board as giving large freedom to the president and freedom from local interference.” The principal of the New York City normal school speaks more sharply : “By a central board, local boards are chiefly interested in local graft.” Some corre- spondents favor a compromise scheme by which the apopintment of teachers and business management is left in local hands while all matters are regulated to course of study, certification and stan- dard of admission are regulated by a central committee, consist- ing of certain members of the different local committees. While a successful management of normal schools is possible under a number of different local boards the mass of argument and testimony inclines to the other side, the most successful nor- mal school states have either one central board of the compromise plan in which a central board controls scholastic conditions. The state as a state should have a normal school policy consistently carried out, not a number of different policies to suit the business interests of various towns. As local condition need some atten- tion, a local member from each normal school town on the central board secures this nesessary safeguard. A point of interest which was raised by several correspond- ents was the economy of the state paying the railway fare of stu- dents at a great distance from central school instead of founding local schools. In order to elicit all inforamtion possible on this interesting problem, a letter was sent to a large group of states, Colorado, Kansas, Nebraska, Iowa, Michigan, Michigan and In- diana, asking for information on this point. No state but Kansas has apparently ever tried this scheme, and from Kansas, no reply could be obtained although from private sources it is known that at one time, this plan worked well there. INTRODUCTORY NOTES TO STATISTICAL TABLE. These statistcs are taken from the reports of the United States commissioner of education for 1902-3. The estimated pop- ulation by states is found in vol- 1 p lxxvii. The number of schools is found in table 1, vol. 11, p 1756; the number of student^ in table 2, vol. 2, p. 1757, this number includes only the statement in normal courses, about 5,000 students in business and other courses are excluded. The amount of income by states is given in table 5, p. 1760, vol. 2. The other items in the following table, viz : Aver- age income per school, cost of normal schools per 1000 inhabi- tants, cost of educating each normal student and the ratio of nor- mal students to entire population are not given in the commis- sioner’s report but have been compiled from the other items by the present writer. The total income represents all possible resources for current expenses, not merely the legislative appropriations. Thus the total income of the Oregon normals was $56,458, while the legisla- ture appropriation was $40,350 ; the difference represents tuition fees and miscellaneous sources of income. In some states, a few schools failed to report income : the number actually reporting is put in brackets to the right of the total income. The financial statistics are therefore incomplete but not to such an extent as to destroy their usefulness. When they are incomplete the figures as to the cost of normal education per 1,000 of population and cost of training each normal student are only approximately correct. This is true of New York and Pennsylvania, but not of Illinois, Michigan, Wisconsin or California. The institutions included in this list are the public normal schools of the United States and consist of municipal as well as state normal schools. In only a few states do municipal normal schools exist. 20 University of Oregon Bulletin Is One Large Central School Preferable to a Number of Smaller Schools Alabama 1. Florence N. S. 414 Students. One is best until system is well established, two or more are prone to work against each other. 2. Jacksonville N. S. No; the closer you put a school to the people the more of them you reach. Arizona 3 State Super. No, in large states and territories where distances are so great. 1 Flagstaff N. S. j No, just a reasonable number well distributed will reach a much larger student body and thus reach the home life of many more. Do not centralize. j. Tempe N. S. Depends upon conditions. If the central normal school is so located as to be able to secure unlimited training school facilities, then one large school is preferable, because better faculty and equipment can be procured at same cost. California. 6. State Super. One large school would make more expense to the people in sending their students so far than it takes to run four or five schools. 7. Chico, N. S. One large central normal school is not prefer- able to several smaller schools, the great feature | in the preparation of teachers is their practice train- ing, which cannot be effective in large schools. University ot Oregon Bulletin 21 Central vs. Local Boards. Appropriation sufficient for| Small Normal School. |Per Cent of Nor- mal trained Teachers. Salary Schedule By separate state boards with Supt of P. Instruction on each board. A combination of local and state board. By a separate board for each school as condi- tions may vary in different lo- calities. $25,000 1 1 Rapidly increas- ing. $15,000 to $20,000 | Rapidly increas- ing. President $2,250 2 profs 1,500 2 profs. 1,000 4 profs 900 This is a hard question but I would say $25,000 per year. 1 60 per cent large- ly increasing. 1 1 i President $2,250 Heads of depts. 1,250 Assistants 500 to 600 Let the Supt. of public instruction be the chairman of each local board, hot more than five in num- ber. From $25,000 to $30,000. 45 per cent. Yes, Very noticeably. 1 President $2,250 Lowest 1,100 Separate local boards acting- un- der the same general laws re- lating to normal schools. $40,000 for run- ning expenses in- cluding repairs. 60 per cent in- creasing very rapidly in last 2 years. iPrincipal ..$2,250 lprof. 1,750 1 prof. 1,650 3 profs. 1,300 5 profs. 1,250 3 profs. 850 1 prof. 750 Joint board from all the schools should govern course study, lo- cal boards em- ploy teachers and attend to local matter. 20,000 is suffi- cient if only high school graduates are admitted as in case of San | Francisco. 38 per cent. I prefer idea of a central board with respect to standards of ad- mission minimun requirements of course of study, graduation and the like but I pre- fer considerable local autonomy in order togive prin- cipal and faculty freedom as re- gards details and and adaptation to locality. From $30,000 to $40,000 for run- ning expenses. Refer to state superintendent’s report. 1 1 1 President $3,400 2 profs. 1,800 2 profs. 1,700 1 2 profs. 1,500 |1 prof. 1,400 |2 profs. 1,300 1 5 profs. 1,200 5 profs. 1,000 |1 prof. 900 1 1 22 University of Oregon Bulletin 1 Is One Large Central School Preferable to a Number of Smaller Schools? 8. Los Angeles ! 1 One I think has greater strength; has less diver- sion of sentiment, can better meet university opposi- tion which is shown by the state universities. 9. San Diego N. S. Central vs. Local Schools. No each normal school has an influence on educa- tion "in surrounding country. If the school is too large there is difficulty in securing ample training school facilities. Students in small schools arc better known by faculty. 10. San Francisco It is not; normal education, is a local matter. 1 11. San Jose N. S. I think it better if attendance in any normal school could be kept under 300. Faculty get personally acquainted with all etc. Colorado. 12. Greeley N. S. | Central school is preferable until the state is well developed and has plenty of money to keep fully equip others. Connecticut. 13. State Super. In a small state like Connecticut a single normal school is preferable, if model schools and practice fa- cilities can be secured, the question was before the state board of education several years ago and we advised the legislators to enlarge the single school then in existence. The legislature did not follow our jadvice but established another school and now we |have four. Reasons for consolidation are economy of | expense and unity of organization and purpose. 14. New Britain N. S. No. Smaller schools if well supported can look 1 after the training of the pupils; bettor success of a [normal school depends on schools for practice. 15. Willamette N. S. It is my belief that a number of schools of a moderate size are preferable to one large school be- cause of the difficulties involved in providing training facilities for large classes of normal students. University of Oregon Bulletin 23 Boards. Central vs. Local Appropriation 1 sufficient for | Small Normal | |Per Cent of Nor- 1 mal trained Teachers. Salary Schedule Combination. $26,000 for run- ning expenses. 38 per cent. Central vs. Local board. Not prepared to say. Appropriation. $33,000. Per Cent of Nor- mally Trained Teachers. 33 1-3 in 1903 to 38 in 1904. 1 President $3,400 3 profs. 1,800 1 prof. • 1,700 4 profs. 1,600 2 profs. 1,500 [1 prof. 1,400 1 prof. 1,200 1 prof. 1,000 3 profs. 900 This depends wholly on the board. $25,000 to $30,000 for current ex- penses. 46 per cent. Is in- 1 creasing rapidly. 1 1 1 President $3,400 [2 profs. 2,000 \2 profs. 1,800 1 prof. 1,620 2 profs. 1,500 1 prof. 840 12 prof 780 1 prof. 720 Combination; lo- cal too much in-| fluenced by local conditions. . 1 $30,000 to $35,000. . 1 30 per cent; in- creasing. President $3,400 1 prof. . 2,200 2 profs. 1,800 1 prof. 1,700 4 profs. 1,600 7 profs. 1,500 !3 profs. 1,300 1 4 profs. 1,200 1 prof. 1,100 1 prof. 900 1 Should one board with a local member where school is located to work with. $25,000 to $30,000 Large and in- creasing. Schools should be controlled by a single board and perhaps by a single person. $30,000 is not too large for a school of 250 students with a good plant, i 1 1,550 teachers out |of 4,300. 36 per I cent. 1 I j Central Board. $25,000 33 1-3, is increas- ing. 1 1 1 Control by cen- tral board satis- factory. j Less than 50 per cent. 1 24 University of Oregon Bulletin Is One Large Central School Preferable to a Number of Smaller Schools? Idaho. 16. Albion N. S. “There should be two or more in a state if state is too large for one school tc- get in close touch with all parts of the state.” 17. Lewiston N. S. “One school is preferable up to an attendance limit of about 400. If the attendance runs higher than about that number, it is practically impossible to get good results for teachers in the training school as there are too limited opportunities for teaching. To the state it is made more economical to have one large school. (Remarks on transportation accompany thi's.) Illinois 18. Carbondale N. S. “No. Because of the advantages of local patronage which is always a factor of more or less importance, is increased by having more than one institution. The local interest is helpful. As a rule the larger number of sections interested, the easier to secure appropria- tions from the legislature. 19. Charleston, N. S. No. The area most adjacent to a normal school is most effective. Hence there is a greater stimulus from a number of schools.” 20. DeKalb N. S. “No. Too big.” 21 Normal, 111. “Several small ones will secure more careful training. The large schools give excellent instruction and are full of enthusiasm.” University of Oregon Bulletin 25 Central vs local Boards. Appropriation sufficient for Small Normal |Per cent of Nor- mal Trained Teachers. Salary Schedule. “By separate boards.” $30,000 to $40,000 for biennial pe- riod for mainte- nance alone. 20 per cent, in- creasing. 1 President $2,250 2 profs. 1,200 2 profs. 1,100 1 prof. 1,000 2 profs 900 1 profs 750 1 prof. 500 This is a difficult question to an- swer satisfactor- ily. Wisconsir does weil with one board. In other states it has hampered the work and put the school into politics. It goes back to a consid- eration of the] personnel of the; board. $25,000 a year for maintenance. [ Increasing. (President 2,400 4 profs. 1,350 1 prof. 1,500 1 prof. 1,150 1 prof. 1,100 1 prof. 1,000 1 prof. 950 1 prof. 780 1 prof. 600 There are ad-| vantages in each| method. In Illin- ois there is a| separate board! for each schoolj and it works well. About $40,000. | • I 10 percent, in- creasing slowly. 1 (President $3,700 1 prof. 2,350 5 profs. 2,000 1 prof. 1,900 2 profs. 1,500 2 profs. 1,300 2 profs. 1,200 3 profs. 1,100 1 prof. 900 I do not know. II $35,000 have had eleven] years experience under our central! board and six un-| der separatej boards. Each plan] has its advant-| ages. 1 | | I From $2,250 down to $805. That depends | !$40,000 to $60,000. 10 per cent, in- creasing slowly. Profs. $1,500 to $2,000. I believe a single] $45,000. board is best al- tho I know noth-l ing personally of its workings. | Graduates not more than 5 per cent, possibly 20 per cent have at- tended 3 months. 26 University of Oregon Bulletin Is One Large Central School Preferable to a Number of Smaller Schools? Indiana. 22. State Supt. 1 “I would say that one large normal school is preferable to a number of smaller normal schools. I think we need one large normal school in order to 1 train teachers for teaching in district and town [schools of state, so long as the school is sufficient to I do the work. When other normal schools are neces- jsary I think they should be smaller and a part of | the normal school system of which the large normal school, first named, is the head. There should be a sufficient number of these smaller normal schools lo- cated in such a way as to meet the needs of teachers in the various localities. I should say that these smaller schools should give about a two y ars’ course, one to the study of common branches ai 1 the other to professional work. The admission shoul 1 be limited to high school graduates or to persons of known ability. Full credit should be given for two years work in these smaller schools in the large central school.” Iowa. 23. State Supt. “We have but one normal school in this state. There is an advantage in having one great library, one strong department of domestic economy, physical training, kindergarten, etc., etc., and the strength in many ways that comes from numbers. The expense travel from remote parts of the state to the one school is considerable and no doubt prevents many attending who would be enrolled in a school nearer at hand, that is the aggregate attendance in a, number of schools would doubtless be much greater than attendance in one school, however strong.” 24. Cedar Palls N. S. “Do not know which is preferable. Iowa at present, has only one and proposes to make it a valuable institution by fine plant, a superior equip- ment and variable courses. It is not considered in- ferior to the agricultural college or the state univer- sity, but is essentially different in all respects. Its limitation is the preparation of teachers for the public schools.” 25. Woodbine N. S. “A number of small ones. Accommodate more pupils and keep in better touch with common schools.” Kansas. 26. Emporia N. S. “Yes. The smaller schools do not rise to the dignity a normal school should possess. There is no more reason for multiplying normal schools than for multi- plying state universities or state agricultural colleges.” Central school is establishing branches. University of Oregon Bulletin 2 7 Central vs. local| Apropriation |Per cent of Nor-|Salary Schedule. Boards. | sufficient for I mal Trained | [ small Norm al [ Teac hers. | If the state sup-|$20,000 to $25,000 ports a number | would be suffi- of normal schools cient amount to as above. they | put a small nor- should be con- mal school on an trolled by one! efficient basis, central board. 1 1 1 1 ! 1 1 1 1 1 1 |Abcut 20 per ceni have had norma] training, a, larger per cent have hac some normal training. t [ l | | t i 1 ! 1 One board would| Appropriation in b s preferable. Ilowa is $130,000| (for 2,000 students. | 1 1 1 1 ! I Many in town, few in country. “Do not know| “$25,000, $35, 000 1 Increasing' in Illinois prefers! according- to var-| better paying) separation, Wis-|iety of work at-jpositions, no cen-| consin u n i o n, [/tempted. Generallsus taken, both are satisfied! courses might be| and equally suc-l maintained onj cessful.” | $15,000 a year I Ithe school would! (only be fair as to| | opportunity un- (der the latter.” Printed report. “One Central|$25,000 as mostllO to 15 per cent.| board to prevent state schools are) Probably, yes. [ rivalry.” managed $10„000| 1 should do it.. | | $500 tcT$ 1,400 for each teacher. ! By one board. | Annual income! Probably 10 per| !$30,000 to $50,000.! cent Normally! 1 trained teachers Istay longer in [profession, in- creasing. 1 1 i Important full professors $1,890, exclusive of summer session. Assoc. $1,450 a year, exclusive of summer school. |Some exceptions full salary roll en- dorsed. 2 8 University of Oregon Bulletin Is One Large Central School Preferable to a Number of Smaller Schools? Louisiana. 27. State Super. “Yes, one school can be better equipped and made more efficient unless the state is rich and willing to spend money for normal school work.” Maine. 28. State Super. Several. 29. Gorham N. S. “Three hundred students is enough for a school and that number only in a city which can give 3,000 children in practice schools. Less than that if you have not enough pupils in lower grades for practice schools.” Massachusetts. 30. State Super. Your first question must be answered by each state for itself in accordance with its own local con- dtions. Rhode Island finds one central school sufficient for its purposes. Massachusetts has nine and finds them none too many to provide the teachers whom it needs.” 1 31. Fitchburg N. I S. 1 i 1 ! “No. Several being easier of access :raw pupils who can attend only by living at home.” 32. Framingham | N. S. 1 1 I 1 1 I “This state has nine schools, all comparatively small. We evidently tend to small schools.” 33. Hyannis N. S.| 1 “No. In smaller schools there is better oopor- tunity for individual instruction and practice work.” Massachusetts.! 34. Salem. 1 I 1 “No. The smaller normal schools are preferable, because of the greater ease of thorough acquaintance of student by teacher, and of providing a proper sup- ply of model and practice schools.” University of Oregon Bulletin 29 Central vs. Local Boards. Appropriation sufficient for Small Normal Per Cent of Nor- mal trained Teachers. Salary Schedule r 1 Almost the samelOne-third slowly as for large) increasing, school salaries! alone, $30,000. | One board. $15,000. I 1 33 per cent, in- creasing at rate of 10 per cent a year. One board. $20,000 a year for| | running ex-| 1 |penses. 1 1 1 Increasing, but] very slowly. “I should say) Gives facts for | that it is better! Massachusetts, j that all the nor- (Bridgewater, mal schools of! $45,7811 the state he un-j Salem 29,886! der the control of|Fitchburg 30,000 1 one central boarcjrange from $22,- [ some members of 1 000 to $45,000. which should be assigned as aj special commit-! tee for each school.” |< 46.8 per cent, grows at rat of about 2 per cent a year. 1 1 _ _ 1 Central Board. | 1 | 1 1 $30,000 a year. Increasing. Principal $3,000 Male teachersi $2,200, $2,000 Female, $1,600, $1,000 Both. 1 1 1 1 ! I 1 $35,000 a year. Don’t know. Principal 1 prof. 1 prof. 1 prof. 5 profs. 2 profs. 1 prof. 1 prof. 1 prof. $3,000 1,750 1,400 1,200 1,000 800 750 650 600 Combination off the two. $30,000 a year. I 1 Probably a com-| bination of two methods wouldi work work best in practice. State apropria- tion $30,975-$4,- 750 paid by city for model teach- ers, $35,500. | About 50 per|Men who work |eent, increasing. | full time are paid | $ 2,300 ; women Ifrom $800 to $1,- | 1 200, $1,000 being !the average. 30 University cf Oregon Bulletin Is One Large Central School Preferable to a Number of Smaller Schools? 35. Worcester “I should say decidedly not.” Michigan. 36. State Supt. • “Our experience shows that it is preferable to have several normal schools in the state rather than one large central school. Our experience also shows that the practice teaching or the work of the training school department is one of the most important fea- tures and that if your school is so large as to reduce the amount of possible practice teaching, you have decreased the efficiency of the institution. Our state normal college enrolls about a thousand students and that is all it ought to accommodate. We have three other normal schools, one in the peninsula, one in the southwest part of the state and another in the north central part.” County normal training classes in rural districts. 37. Ypsilanti N. S. 1 | 1 “One central with others more elementary in character acting as feeders for the central one seems to be the best system.” Minnesota. 38. State Supt. I 1 1 “From the standpoint of economy to the state, I think it preferable to maintain only one large cen- tral school. From the standpoint of those who are in attendance, howbver, I thi'nk it better economy to have several located in different sections of the state. I think also from the point of good administration and best results in work, the smaller school is to be pre- ferred.” 39. Duluth S. N.| S. . I “I think not for the reason that the smaller student body and faculty can do more satisfactory work and because variation in points of view is likely to f’irni'sh a stimulus not otherwise obtainable.” 40. Mankato S. N.f S. 1 I 1 1 “We prefer the smaller schools on account of the closer touch possible between student and teacher, and the better opportunity for practice teaching.” 41. Moorehead S.| “We have five normal schools in Minnesota.” N. S. University of Oregon Bulletin 31 Central vs. Local Boards. Appropriation (Per cent of Nor- sufficient for | mally Trained Small Normal j Teachers. Salary Schedule. A combination. Not far from $30,000. “All our normal schools are under the control of one state board of education which is by far prefer- able to having- a each institution board to control separately be- cause you then secure uniform- ity, harmony and economiy in ad- ministration.” The annual ap- propriation for our northern peninsula school which enrolls! about 200 stu- dents is for each of the ensuing two years $44,- 000; for the western normal school its $39,000. 50 per cent grad-| ed schools, in- creasing each year. [ One board in control over all is decidedly the best plan. Do not know. Increasing rapid- 1 iy. 1 1 I I 1 ! President $5,500 Heads of depart- ments 2,500 Assistant profs. 2,000 (Instructors 900 [ to 1,400 Assistants 500 [ to 800 “1 think the onei central board is decidedly to be preferred as it gives unity and economy of ad-'| ministration. [After necessary! 25 per cent of building and per- [normal graduates manent equip- [a still further ment $25,000 an- (number have a nuaJly. [partial normal 1 training. | i 1 1 By a central board with a lo- cal member. |For maintenance not less than $35,000 to 40,000. On the increase. $3,000 to $ 8,00. | 1 We decidedly| prefer our system of one central board as giving large freedom to the president and freedom from lo- r al interference. ($30,000 to $35,000.| Increasing, Nor- mal schools can- Inot meet the de- Imands. 1 I 1 1 Men teachers $1,- 400 to $1,800; women $800 to $1,200. We have one board and system is satisfactory. [$25,000 to $30,000.|Per cent is large, [great demand for [graduates. 1 i [Average of $1,800 for men and $1,- 200 for women, 1 entire list given. University of Oregon Bulletin 3« 42. St. Cloud N. S. Is One Large Central School Preferable to a Number of Smaller Schools? S.| “I do not believe in one large central school. First, schools should be near people; second, schools have more political prestige if different parts of the state are represented; third, for practice purposes schools should not be too large.” 43. Winona S. S. Missouri. 44. State Supt. Montana. 45. Dillon N. N. “We have five schools in this state and I think the attendance i's larger and the work accomplished better than in one central school. Students who at- jtend a normal school are not inclined to travel the | longer distance necessary in reaching a central school.” Missouri believes in several normal schools rather than one large central school. Our legislature has recently voted to establish two new normal schools in addition to the three already in existence. Several schools located in different parts of the state will come directly in contact with teachers and influence them more. The faculty of a normal school having about 20 counties in its district will in some measure supervise the schools of that di'strict, while one large central school will not reach the teachers of the out- lying counties and will not exert the same influence on these counties as upon those nearer its location. One large school will assume to itself the function of preparing teachers for the city schools and high schools and not adjust itself to the rural and village school conditions as readily and positively. Yes. It is too hard to get sufficient funds to main- tain several. S. “In reply to No. 1., it seems to me that the burden of proof rests with those who would have more than one normal school. Why have several any more than several universities or several agricultural colleges? It is desirable to have the facilities within easy reach but suppose you try to locate institutions in Oregon | so that one would be more than a hundred miles from la normal school It would cost the state less to pay I the railroad fare of all the students who would be | more than one hundred miles from a central normal j school than it would to maintain the additional I schools. Besides this a is very much more efficient Ifaeulty could be maintained because of the possibility |of more thoroughly organized systematizing the work. | Where a state has already made heavy investments in plants at various points, the practical problem is, jhowever, seriously modified.” University of Oregon Bulletin 33 Appropriation sufficient for Small_Normal $28,000. |Per cent of Nor-| Salary Schedule I mally Trained j | Teachers. | (About 33 perlPresident $3,000 cent, is increas- 1 Director of train- ing-. | ing depart 2,000 (Heads of departs | $1,000 to $1,600 (Assistants 900 | to 810 _(.__ | | “I prefer the c-en- (After plant is| Graduates 10 perPresident $3,000 tral board which,] established it|cent, Normal! Men 1,800 to 2,000 however, extends) would requirel teachers notj( Women 600 Central vs. Local| Boards. 1 There should be] one central board) thus to prevent) livalry, dissen-j sion, etc. Onej Resident director! to represent local| conditions is aj wise idea. some freedom to|$30,000 annually] graduates 10 per separate schoolsjfcr running ex-|'cent. to meet local|penses. conditions.” to 1,650 Under boards c*ur nor mal schools work very harmonous- ly and co-operate as far as courses of study and re- quirements for| entrance and] graduation are| concerned, the| state superin -( tendent is a* member of each] of the boards and] is the harmoniz-| ing influence of these boards. separate] After school is) Is increasing, 15 1 equipped it] per cent are nor-) should have an)mally trained, 30 ( anual appropria-jper cent come in] tion of support of about $25,000. contact with nor- mal schools • They should havellt costs us $27, -(From 10 to 15 per local board and|000 annually. |cent. central governing! boards. My answer to No.| 2 must be purely] theoretical as I| have no experi-l ence to throw| light on that] point, I should] prefer, however! to try the centrall board. Graduates all go( Figures in report to graded schools.|sent. I I i 34 University of Oregon Bulletin ils One Large Central School Preferable to a Number of Smaller Schools? Nebraska. | “A number of small scnools preferable. Experience 46. State Super. |cf older states.” 47. Peru St. N. | ‘‘We prefer having two in this state.” i New Jersey 48. Trenton N. S. New York 49. Cortland N. S. “I think the number of normal scnools in any state should be decided by the clearly expressed conditions of the state, territory, and as to population. Those I who are to take up the work of teaching, as a rule, | have limited means, hence we find that railway dis- tances very much effects their attendance upon the I normal schools. Any normal school will find its | largest percentage of attendance relatively speaking, from the nearby sections. • “Secondly: Normal schools are educe tional insti- tutions of the higher order and as such follow the general principles of educational institutions. For instance, they must be large enough to be able to get strong faculties and a well planned department or- ganization, good, laboratories, libraries, etc., and a good institutional spirit something akin to that spirit reached in many of the colleges: If the normal schools are too small and too personal, they come short in these features. I should say that a normal school should enroll about four hundred students and that after this enrollment is reached, it i's better to establish other schools in different population centers than to go on increasing the size of a school beyond this point.” “No. Because it cannot conveniently accomodate so many students.” 50. Fredonia N. S.| “In a state as large as Oregon there should be more than one normal school to elict interest in dif- ferent parts of the state as well as for convenience.” 51. Amaica N. S. | “One central school of higher grade for secondary jteachers; others for elementary teachers.” University of Oregon Bulletin 35 Central vs. Local Boards. Appropriation sufficient for | Small Normal I I Per Cent of Nor- mal trained Teachers. ! Salary Schedule 1 I i Controlled by one central board. $25,000 a year for|See junior nor-| salaries. |mal bulletin. I 1 By one board. $60,000 for sal- aries and mainte-, nanc,e. Is increasing rapidly. Can’t give percentage, but low. Pres. $2,500 to 1,000 2 profs. 1,400 to 900 2 profs. 1,200 2 profs. 1,100 Must receive 1,100 I think the nor- mal schools of a state should all be under the same board of education, other- wise there are bound to be leg- islative rivalries, this board can appoint as many committees on local schools as it likes. 1 | ! $30,000 a suffi-| cient annual ap- propriation for a school of 250 pu- pils. L j . ' 1 1 33 1-3 per cent, is increasing. 1 1 ' i ! ( i 1 ; , 1 1 A combination of two, the fiist will secure uniform- ity, the second will take care of local interests. | $35,000. t 1 I ! |Princi'pal $3,300 |5 men 1,100 to 2,200 2 receive 1,900 Women 650 | to 1,200 j mostly 1,000 Separate boards|$15,000 to $25,000. with central con-1 trol. I 1 ! 25 per cent in|Principal $3,300 ! 1899 it was 23 per|4 men 1,600 cent. I to 2,000 1 12 women 400 | to 1,300 | mostly oth- j er 700 or 800. By a central board. 1 1 1 1 (About 65 per cent|Men $1,900 to $2,- |500. jWomen $800 to 1 | $ 1,400. 36 University of Oregon Bulletin Is One Large Central School Preferable to a Number of Smaller Schools? 52. New Paltz “No. Competition is as necessary in developing ideals in educational institutions of efficiency as in business.” 53. New York N.| “No. Several schools accessible to students in S. | different parts of the state will be more largely at- tended and each will exert an uplifting influence in its own locality.” 54. Oneonta N. S.| I consider several smaller schools preferable, com- | petition is a good thing, traveling expenses ofi | students lessstudents less. Plattsburg' | “No. Smaller schools are able to give better train - ■N* jing in observation and practice work end more indi- vidual attention. Of course equal faculties and (equipment are presupposed.” North Dakota. 56. Valley City. 1 “Yes. If independent of university or other con- trol and is properly located. Its aim should be to It ’in out a number of highly trained teachers ” 1 I Oklahoma. 57. State Supt. “The prevailing sentiment among educators in the territory is that we should emphasize the schools for secondary education and decrease the number of normal schools to one (from three). At the present our normal schools are doing about fourteen years’ work. We feel that a great good could be done to a greater number if this change were made. University of Oregon Bulletin 37 Central vs. Local| Boards for Nor-| mal Schools. j Appropriation | sufficient for | Small Normal | Per cent of Nor- mally Trained Teachers. Salary Schedule. Combination ofj the two provided that the local boards have some real power vested in them and not centralized pow- er, otherwise one central board as in Massachusetts is preferable. Not less than 1 $40,000. 1 I 1 1 1 1 | 1 Principal $3,000 1 house 750 1 prof. 1,700 2 profs. 1,600 2 profs. 1,400 2 profs. 1,200 1 prof. 1,000 1 prof. 900 Grade supervisors $800 to $1,000, critic teachers $550 to $650. By a central board, local board are chiefly interested in lo- cal graft. $25,000. 1 I •1 Increasing. 1 1 I Principal First ass’t Ass’t to $5,000 3,500 1,900 2,400 Combination. $40,000 annual maintenance. I Increasing 25 to| 30 per cent. Principal Men Women $3,300 2,000 1,000 On average. Would favor cen- tral board of con- trol with perhaps a local board of visitation. $40,000 to $50,000. j I 1 1 I 1 Principal 4 men to Women to mostly $3,300 1,500 1,800 500 800 800 A combination of two, one board tends to mechan- ism and horizon- tal rules. School should be inde- pendent enough to encourge in- indispensible in- itiative in man- agement. | $40,000 f 1 1 1 i ! Increasing slowly • 1 Principal 4 men to 9 men to 1 $2,800 1,200 1,600 600 1,300 At the present|For 150 students time, the threej $20,000. normal schools| 1 Is fair. are c- o n - 1 . trolled by one central board of regents. In some ways this is very satisfactory, in l j 1 others very detri- mental. Our peo- ple serve without comp e n s a t i o n practically and the length of time required to transact the bus- iness of the board detains them too long from their regu- lar vocations. Either system will have its ad- vantages. 1 38 University of Oregon Bulletin Is One Large Central School Preferable to a Number of Smaller Schools? Pennsylvania. | 58. State Supt. “I prefer several schools.” South Carolina. | 59, State Supt. | “Yes, for economy and efficiency’s sake.” South Dakota. 60. Madison N. S. “It is not. The great school has a mass of stu- dents and educates, trains and graduates in mass. The school of 200 to 500, graduating from 40 to 80 each year, knows, educates and trains every individ- [ ’al and is sure of all its work, develops character [and power. The state cannot be reached by one as by three or four. The work of all is needed badly.” Texas. 61. State Supt. “In Texas, several preferable because of the con- tinental proportions of the state.” Vermont. 62. State Supt. “No. Several schools located in different parts of the state will graduate manv more teachers than one .school. In seeking- to increase the per cent, of trained teachers numbers constitute an important element. One school would be of higher standard, bue 300 fairly trained etachers will co a state more good than 100 finely trained teachers.” 63. Johnson S. N. S. 1 1 1 “We have three in this small state of Vermont but this is due more to historical than practical rea- sons I fancy. If the founding of a normal school came up as a new proposition I doubt if there would be more than one. Certainly not more than two, one for the eastern and one for the western side of the state.” Virginia. 64. Petersburg S.l N. S. “Smaller schools are preferable because of ac- cessibility and because more personal work can be done for the students.” Washington . | 65. State Supt. 1 1 1 “In answer to your first question I will simply |ask which you think preferable, a large university well supported or a small affair which has vio stand- ing anywhere in the union? If the state supports several normal schools will they rank as highly as one well supported and well equipped normal school? My opinion is they will not.” I University of Oregon Bulletin 39 < Antral vs. Local Boards. Appropriation | sufficient for Small Normal Per cent of Nor-I mally Trained | Teachers. | Salary Schedule.^ I prefer central board. $15,000 a year. Its increasing! percentages mis-| lead. One central board. $100,000. 25 per cent rap-| idly increasing. By one single! From $15,000 up board for all un-|to $20,000 be questionably, thejstrictly normal other plan was| schools not col-| tried in this state leges or miscel-| and was a fail-[laneous schools, j ure. One board j for all state insti-| tutions is our practical plan. Is increasing de-| mand is for more. 1 President $2,000 3 men 1,300 to 1,400 8 women 900 to 1,200 mostly 900 1 A combination of the two. Not counting p’ant, $20,000. No statistics, number is rapid- ly increasing. By a central board with local representation on the board. $15,000 minimum. ; i i 1 24 pet of normal [graduates 8 per [cent have attend- ed normal schools 8 per cent are college graduates 60 per cent high school graduates 90 per cent have attended either college, normal or high school. 1 The control is in a central board of which the state supt. of education is a member plus one resident] member in each of the towns where the nor- mals are located. It represents all interests and works well. j $ 22,500 would be | enough for one, is mow divided |among three. 1 1 1 About 30 per cent Is increasing, de- mand greater than supply. i ! ! Principal $1,800 Ass’ts 500 to 800 I 1 ! ! Combination of| $20,000. local and state board. If increasing per- centage unknown. 1 1 Should be under the control of one board of trustees or regents for the reason that if you have a single board you get uniform results while with a lln Washington |from $74,000 to $55,000 including repairs. Statistics are in- accurate, so not given. 1 4 board for each normal school ,|you do not. 4 o University of Oregon Bulletin I i i 66. Bellingham N.| “In my opinion a normal school does its best S. | work when it does not have more than three or four | hundred students. The personal element is of much ] importance in normal school work. [ should think | that one normal school in eastern and one in Western j Oregon would be sufficient for many years to come.” I West Virginia. I “A central school is less expensive on the whole 67. State Supt. |and therefore more likely to be able to supply train- 'ing of the highest grades. As schools are educators, land therefore benefits the community, the more the 1 better.” I Wisconsin 68. Milwaukee N. S. ‘‘In regard to question No. 1, I have but one opinion, and that is that a number of smaller normal schools would be preferable to one large centrally lo- cated normal school. My native state is Michi- igan where for years they had one large normal school. Investigation showed that ninety per cent, of its attendance was drawn from adjacent counties. Remote parts of the state were not drawn upon. The factor of expense became an important one. Moreover the remote parts of the state did feel the touch of the normal school. It was not big enough to make itself felt through the entire state. Within the last eight years three normal schools have been established in Michigan. The at- tendance at the central school has materially increased and the other three schools are full. Bach one of the four schools draws largely from its own locality. Wisconsin is so thoroughly committed to tbo several school plan that the legislature now in session has authorized the establishment of an eighth school. Eight schools ministering to the eight sections of the state can do nearly eight times as muon good for the educational interests of the sante as can one.” 69. Oshkosh N. S.| “I think not. In a large school all individuality I is in danger of being lost. Classes are much too large | generally.” 70. Platteville N.| “W.e like our system of a number of small schools. S. | We have seven of them in Wisconsin. The smaller I schools give better opportunity for personal conta« . | with individual students.” University of Oregon Bulletin 4i Central vs. Local! Boards. I Never have boards in charge of same school. In Washington we have separate boards, but I rather favor one central board. Appropriation sufficient for Small Normal two $60,000 to erect and equip, $20,000 to $22,000 annual- ly for support. | Per Cent of Nor- mal trained Teachers. Small. Is in- creasing, but not rapidly on ac- count of growth of state. By a centralEnclose list of board by all means. The sys- tem of a state should be har- monious and be- sides the multi- plication of the unnecessary ex pense. I am thoroughly convinced that one board is bet ter than several. appropriations. Per cent is small but increasing very rapi'dly at present. $35,000 to $40,000. Do not think is increasing. Salary Schedule President $3,000 Teachers 800 to 1,400 One central boardl$35,000 to $40,000. for all. |N. S. supply graded schools but only about 10 per cent of teach- ers in ungraded schools. President Men to Women to 1 woman ceives By a board. central $35,000. Is increasing but percentage is un- known. $3,200 1,500 2,200 825 1,200 re- 1,800 42 University of Oregon Bulletin 71. Whitewater N . j S. “We are thoroughly convinced in Wisconsin that one large normal school is not preferable to a number of smaller normal schools. Of course certain things can be accomplished in a large school more easily and effectively, just as in a large factory; but these are not the things which are most worth accomplishing. A number of schools distributed judiciously about the state will reach a large number of people who cannot be reached by one central school. Thus the schools of the state will be more generally served, in the way of providing teachers. Again a large central school is too much of a machine. Pupils have too little con- tact with the administration and the stronger mem- bers of the faculty. Too much of the instruction is done in such cases by subordinate and comparatively cheap instructors. The school cannot accomplish any such work in the way of character building and per- sonal molding of its students as it is done in smaller schools. Doubtless 2000 pupils when once gathered can be more economically taught in a large school, but they will not be as effectively taught. The ele- ment of personal influence, so important in the in- spiration and training of teachers cannot be whole- saled to the best effect. I I University of Oregon Bulletin 43 Central vs. Local Boards. Our «even nor- mal schools in Wisconsin are controlled by onej $30,000. board. We believe that this is a much better plan than the on e fol- lowed in New York and Penn Appropriation [Per cent of Nor- sufficient for | mally Trained Small Normal j Teachers. Smallest schools|Of 9,000 county in Wisconsin! teachers 1,000 costs more than Perhaps schools of the size you indicate could be main- tained at an an- nual expense of $25,000 each, cer sylvania, where tainly not for any local boards have too much In- fluence and the schools are run too much in the interest of the locality and not enough in th e in- terests of the state at large. In our state, one member of the state board is ap- pointed from each of the towns where normal schools ' are lo- cated. This givesj the locality . all the representa-| tion to which it | is really entitled. | less, in any ade- quate manner have graduated, 1,500 attended without gradua- tion in city schools, 3,500 mostly normal graduates about 35 per cent. Salary Schedule. ' ' i o be State. Estimated Population in 1902-03. Number of Noi mal Schools. Total Income Re ported. No. of Schools Reporting. Average Income Per School. Number of Nor- mal Students er rolled. Cost of Normal Schools Per 1,0C Inhabitants. One Normal School Student for every Population Cost of Trainin Average Norma] Student. 1. Alabama .... 1,923,284 6 $ 75,201 (6) $ 12,540 1,696 2. Arizona 133,338 2 29,595 (2) 14,797.5 212 3. Arkansas .... 1,366,119 2 12,036 (2) 6,018 139 4. Colorado . 574,030 1 67,600 67,600 272 $117 2,110 $248 5. California . . . 1,564,286 5 189,617 (5) 37,923 1,604 121 975 118 6. Connecticut . . 956,789 4 38,797 18,398 596 7. 8. Columbia dist Florida 293,217 566,885 2 2 32,000 (1) 32,000 231 9. Georgia 2,336,404 4 58,873 ( 3) 19,624 690 10. Idaho 183,738 2 28,290 (2) 14,145 290 11. Illinois 5,117,036 5 213,740 (5) 42,748 2,816 41 1,217 75 12. Indiana 2,614,223 2 72,500 (1) 72,500 1,376 28 1,899 52 13. Iowa 2,336,484 2 141,887 (1) 141,887 2,231 60 1,047 63 14. Kansas 1,469,969 2 70,636 (2) 35,318 1,954 48 752 36 15. Kentucky .... 2,230,619 2 14,580 Cl) 7,290 133 16. Louisiana .1.460,237 2 32,200 (1) 32,000 686 17. Maine . 702,875 5 10,830 (2) 5,415 969 18. Maryland . . . . .1,231,739 1 24,441 24,441 322 19. Massachusetts 2,974,021 10 266,658 (8) 1,777 89 1,674 150 20. Michigan 2,510,647 4 155,363 (3) 38,820 1,581 61 1,588 98 21. Minnesota .1,857,462 6 144,749 (5) 24,124 1,248 77 1,488 115 22. Mississippi . . . 1,629,771 5 7,175 (5) 1,435 323 23. Missouri 3,227,214 3 96,500 (3) 32,166 2,262 .... 24. Montana 277,102 1 22,428 (1) 22,428 133 25. Nebraska 1,098,139 1 35,000 (1) 35,000 557 31 1,953 62 26. N. Hampshire .422,109 1 26\800(1) 26,800 119 27. New Jersey . . . ,2,016,797 4 ',9,000 (1) 79,000 (?) 900 28. New Mexico . . , 205,819 2 40,900 (2) 20,450 83 29. New York 7,659,814 1,976,571 19 613,084(16) 69,635 (4) 5,784 1,261 80 1,324 106 30. N. Carolina... 6 17,408 31. North Dakota . . , 357,594 2 17,900 (1) 17,900 664 ’ 50 538 32. Ohio .4,302,860 , 495,285 4 519 33. Oklahoma 4 90,000 (3) 30,000 638 181 776 iii 33. Oregon 437,302 4 56,458 (4) 14,114 409 129 1,069 138 35. Pennsylvania . ,6,606,747 15 519,048 (12) 6,100 78 1,082 84 36. Rhode Island. . 454,629 1 64,000 (1) 64,000 217 140 2,094 294 37. S. Carolina . . . .1,397,067 1 660,944 (1) 60,944 312 44 4,477 192 38. South Dakota . .443,927 3 33,733 (2) 16,866 515 75 862 65 39. Tennessee .2,095,233 1 70,000 70,000 568 40. Texas 3,285,474 . 295,404 , 347,007 1,919,103 581,626 4 143,441 (4) 30,500 (1) 20,169 (3) 217,336 (3) 130,880 (3) 35,840 30,500 6,723 72,445 43,026 1,407 643 293 313 692 40 2,335 ioi 41. Utah 2 42. Vermont 3 43. Virginia 3 44. Washington . . 3 *225 * 840 189 4 5. W. Virginia . . 1,021,106 6 94,493 (6) 15,747 957 92 1,066 98 46. Wisconsin . . . . 2.155.441 9 353,495 (9) 39,276 2,514 164 857 140