Sea ceascagd sso bounoooooanouaa SEP 1 9 1932 ATA ets VOL. XI, NO. 3 SEPTEMBER, 1933 PERIODICAL ROOM GENERAL 14 “Research Bulletin OF THE National Education Association Z —— © ©) B@SSSGGGSoGoGoooooooooaas 9969690969899 980665585 —-- — ——— Constructive Economy in Education — = No Research Bulletin was issued in May, 1933. The Research Bulletin immediately preceding this one was Volume XI, No. 2, March, 1933, “Salaries in City School Systems, 1932-33.” It is hoped that an extra bulletin to substitute for the omitted May issue can be published later this year. 3308 We FLFVA) 4 MA er ee os a "pr af 12 BBaSE os ht mm cae ——-— <4 PUBLISHED BY THE RESEARCH DIVISION OF THE NATIONAL EDUCATION ASSOCIATION 1201 SIXTEENTH STREET NORTHWEST, WASHINGTON, D. C. ot php £} S SS vey Wi: ge Wa; NP NP, ea” Se, ead eed. SB) Research Bulletin of the National Education Association Published five times each year in January, March, May, September, and November by the Research Division of the National Education Association of the United States. President, Jessie Gray Secretary, J. W. CRABTREE The payment of the $5 membership fee of the National Education Association entitles one to receive the Research Bulletin, the Journal, the Annual Volume of Ad- dresses and Proceedings, and certain other publications of the National Education Asso- ciation for one year. One dollar of each $5 membership fee is for a year’s subscription to the Research Bulletin. The Research Bulletin may be subscribed for separately at a subscription price of $1 per year. Copies may be purchased for 25 cents, and in quantities at a reduced rate. Those entitled to receive the Research Bulletin regularly are asked to report at once any change of address, giving old as well as new address. Entered as second-class matter February 10, 1923, at the Post Office at Washington, D. C., under Act of August 24, 1912. Acceptance for mailing at special rate of postage provided for in Section 1103, Act of October 3, 1917, authorized February 10, 1923. Director of Research: William G. Carr; Associate Director: Frank W. Hubbard Assistant Directors: Richard R. Foster, Ivan A. Booker Executive and Editorial Offices - - - 1201 Sixteenth Street N. W., Washington, D. C. How to Secure Additional Copies Additional copies of this issue of the Research Bulletin may be obtained at the following prices, postpaid if remittance accompanies order: Single copies of this issue 25¢ 2 to 9 copies—10% reduction 10 to 99 copies—25% reduction 100 or more copies—33 1/3% reduction. Orders for Research Bulletins not accompanied by remittance are subject to trans- portation charges. Make checks payable to National Education Association. Subscriptions to Research Bulletins The Research Bulletin may be received regularly through a special subscription at $1 per year. Many of the early issues of the Research Bulletin are already out of print. The special subscription at $1 per year offers an opportunity to maintain a complete file of future Research Bulletins. Reproduction of Material in Research Bulletins Mat service: The Division of Publications will, on request, prepare and supply mats of charts which appear in the Research Bulletin at cost. Material appearing in Research Bulletins may, with the usual acknowledgments, be reproduced for the advancement of education. No authority other than this notice is needed previous to such reproduction. For further information concerning the work of the Division, address the Research Division, National Education Association, 1201 Six- teenth Street N. W., Washington, D. C. TABLE OF CONTENTS Foreword . An Efficient Staff: A Prerequisite for Economy Some Basic Principles of Economy.... . The Budget as an Instrument for Economy.... 7, Economy and the Unit of Administration 7, Economy and School Organization JI. Supervision as a Means of Economy... . Number of Pupils Enrolled Per Janitor in 1929-30 in 79 Cities Over 100,000 in Population ¥ . Economy in the Management of School Supplies... .. . Economy in the School Insurance Program . The Management and Protection of School Funds.... . Teachers’ Salaries and Teacher Load.... LIST OF TABLES Page . Number of Teachers Compared With Administ.ative Officers and Other Employees, . Standards Compared With Practice in Certain School Services . Recent Practice and Proposed Standards for Distribution of Current School Expenses . School Budgetary Practices in Cities Below 100,000 Population, 1931-32 . Standards for Administering School Budgets............. . Comparative Prices Under Individual and Cooperative Purchasing as Reported by i aa oa ia oh iy nig ain gee we wai Re PRS EA . Estimated and Actual Economies in School Fire Insurance . Size of Class in City School Systems, 1930-31 . Salaries Paid Teachers in the United States, 1932-33 LIST OF CHARTS Page 63 . Number of Pupils in Average Daily Attendance per School Clerk, 1930-31 in 84 Cities Over 100,000 in Population . Number of Pupils in Average Daily Attendance per School Nurse, 1930-31 in 66 Cities Over 100,000 in Population Number of Children of School Age per Attendance Officer, 1929-30 in 59 Cities Over 100,000 in Population . Comparisons of Achievement in Large and Small Rural Schools FOREWORD the pressure of current financial conditions since then have stimulated a large amount of research bearing on economical school administration. It is not the primary purpose of this bulletin to add to this body of material, but rather to review the findings of some of the more important studies already completed by the Research Division and other agencies and to organize the material so as to show its bearing on school economy. Te RISING responsibilities and costs of public education prior to 1930 and Other studies by the Research Division show the extent and nature of curtailments already made. In some communities, retrenchments in school funds have been so severe that all idea of economy has necessarily been sacrificed and the only question has been whether or not it would be possible to operate the public schools at all. In more fortunate communities, however, there remains room for choice as to the types of retrenchment that will be put into effect. Whether school budgets are to be reduced at all and, if so, by what amount, are very largely local problems which must be locally decided. However, regardless of the amount of money available for schools, there are efficient ways and inefficient ways of spending it. There is a vast difference both in theory and in practice between arbitrary slashing of school budgets and a sound policy of securing the utmost value from the expenditure of school funds. The former is easy but destructive; the latter, difficult but constructive. The problem of economy in public education is as wide as education itself. On the theoretical side, economy touches the entire basis, scope, and function ot the public school system. On the practical side, economy is co-extensive with the field of school administration in general. Clearly, a publication of this type and size must be limited to a few issues. For this reason, capital outlay and plant management have been practically omitted. It is hoped that the material pre- sented in this bulletin will be useful to school officials in studying local prob- lems of financial and educational adjustment, and arriving at sound conclusions with respect to them. J. W. Crastree, Secretary, National Education Association [ 58] Su n ni rm I. Some Basic Principles of Economy Economy has to do with getting value re- eived for money expended. Retrenchments are simply policies which result in spending less money; savings bring about the spending of less money without loss of efficiency ; economies result in greater efhiciency for every dollar spent. Certain general principles as to the nature of real economy have been developed by recent writers on educational and governmental ad- ministration. Before proceeding to review more detailed aspects of economical school adminis- tration, eight of these general principles will be listed. |. Education a basic function—Education is a basic social, economic, and political function. Its importance demands adequate and continu- ous financing from public sources (1, 8, 13, 15, 16, 20, 21, 23).* 2. Economy and efficiency—Economy is a concept inseparable from efficiency. If reduced expenditures mean lowered educational effi- ciency, there has been no economy (3, 6, 7, 12, 13, 16, 22). 3. Economic ability a limiting factor—The support of public enterprises, as a whole, can- not safely exceed the economic ability of the nation to pay for them (9, 12, 14, 15, 23). 4. Professional judgment needed in making fiscal adjustments—While the determination of the total appropriation for education rests with the people and their representatives, the choice among various services which might be elimi- nated or curtailed should involve professional experience and judgment. Antiquity is not a safe basis for retaining some services and cur- tailing others. Some of the so-called fads may really be more important than other phases of the school program which have been inherited from the needs and problems of the past (3, 6, 9, 16, 22). 5. Welfare of childhood the primary cri terion—Economies should be effected only with the ultimate educational welfare of children as 6. Planning for the future—Economies should be considered in the light of a well- devised plan for the future needs and develop- ments of public education (7, 8, 11, 22). 7. Economy must be related to services de manded take into consideration the volume and urgency of Economy in education should the demands made upon the schools, as com- pared with the demands upon other agencies (4, 8, 18, 23). 8. Civic responsibility of The support of education out of public revenues is justified by the contribution of the schools to well-balanced, complete, and effective citi- zenship (2, 8, 11, 17, 22). made education References on Basic Principles . Bocan, Witt1aAM J. “The Insurance Policy of Democracy.” Journal of the National Education Association 21: 213-15; October, 1932. . Briccs, THomas H. The Great Investment. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1930. 143 p. (The Inglis Lecture, 1930). . Camp, Freperick §S., chairman. Report of Spe- cial Committee on Emergency Finance. New Haven: Connecticut Association of Public School Superintendents, 1932. Mimeographed, 17 p. . Carr, Witt1am G. “More Schooling for Chil- dren as an Unemployment Relief Measure.” Re- printed from the New York Heraild-Tribune, Sunday, December 28, 1930. 8 p. . Cooper, WILLIAM JoHN. Economy in Education. Stanford University: Stanford University, 1933. 82 p. . CUBBERLEY, ELtwoop P. Public School Adminis- tration. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co., 1929. p. 526-31. . Henzuix, F. E.; Ricnarps, W. M.; IRevanp, CLiFForD J.; and others. Practical Economies in School Administration, Lincoln: University of Nebraska, Extension Division, March, 1932. p. 7-9, (Educational Monographs, No. 3.) . Jupp, CHARLEs H. “Education, the Nation’s Safe- guard.” Official Report. Washington, D. C.: Department of Superintendence, National Edu- cation Association, February, 1932, p. 35-43. Kinc, Crype L., editor. “Competency and Econ- omy in Public Expenditures.” The Annals 113 1-366; May, 1924. Philadelphia: American Acad- emy of Political and Social Science. Linn, H. H. Practical School Economies. New York: Teachers College, Columbia University, 1933. In press. . Miter, H. J. “The Problem of Reducing School Costs.” American School Board Journal 83: 33 34; December, 1931. NATIONAL EDUCATION ASSOCIATION, DEPARTMENT OF SUPERINTENDENCE AND RESEARCH DIVISION, Some Trends in City School Finance, 1932-33. Educational Research Service, Circular No. 5, 1932. Washington, D. C.: the Association, May, * Numbers in the text throughout refer to the numbered list of references at the end of each main section. [ 59] ae ns 15. 17. 1932. 34 p. See also Supplement to Circular No. 5, May, 1932, issued September 30, 1932. 6 p. . NATIONAL EpucaATION ASSOCIATION, RESEARCH Division. Childhood and the Depression: A Look Ahead. Washington, D. C.: the Association, November, 1931. 42 p. . NATIONAL EpucaTION ASSOCIATION, RESEARCH Division. “Facts on School Costs.” Research Bul- letin 10: 203-26; November, 1932. Washington, D. C.: the Association. NATIONAL EpucATION ASSOCIATION, RESEARCH Division. “Investing in Public Education.” Re- search Bulletin 8: 166-219; September, 1930. Washington, D. C.: the Association. . New Jersey ANNUAL CONFERENCES OF COMMIS- SIONER OF EDUCATION AND SUPERINTENDENTS OF Scnooits. Economy in School Administration. (Education Bulletin, Vol. 18, No. 7.) Trenton: State Department of Public Instruction, March, 1932. 742 p. Norton, JoHn K. “Education and the Economic Depression.” School and Society 34: 271-78; August 29, 1931. 18. 19. 21. 22. 23. ProrFitr, Maris M. “The Schools and | ployment.” School Life 17: 41-42; Nove: 1931. Reavis, WILLIAM C. “Improvement and Econom, in Secondary-School Administration.” 4 me; School Board Journal 85: 27-28; April, 1933 . STRAYER, Georce D. “Adequate Support of Ed cation, the Condition of an Effective Servic: Official Report. Washington, D. C.: Departmen; of Superintendence, National Education Associa tion, February, 1932. p. 83-86. WATERMAN, IvAN R. and HEFFERNAN, He: Maintaining Educational Efficiency Durin Emergency. Sacramento: California Department of Education, March, 1933. 26 p. Wec EIN, Davin E., chairman. Report. Commit- tee on School Costs. Washington, D. C.: Depart ment of Superintendence. National Education Association, February, 1932. 36 p. Wizsur, Ray LyMAn, chairman. Report of P) ceedings. Citizens’ Conference on the Crisis Education. Washington, D. C.: American C cil on Education, 744 Jackson Place, 1933. 112 For further bibliography, see especial], erences 13 and 22, above. ) ptm EDUCATION cannot adjust its program to the economic cycle as readily as can private business. Production or services to be rendered cannot be curtailed o1 stopped. A new generation of children enters the schools each year irrespective of the current financial conditions. The schools must carry on. If the fundamental democratic conception of education is to be applied fairly and if all children are to benefit equally in terms of their capacity from the services provided, then the opportunities offered in times of depression cannot be different from those made available during times of prosperity for a child entering school during a financial depression may be deprived of the educa- tion to which he is entitled. Considered from this point of view, educational service may be compared with perishable products. Financial management has for its duty and obligation the preservation of these vital and fundamental opportunities.—N. L. Engel- hardt and Fred Engelhardt. Public School Business Administration, p. 14. [ 60] — -—- * - wa ner on 1933 f Edu rvice rtment $S$OCia [ELEN During rtment ym mit- epart cation f Py SIS in Coun 112 ; ref ret 3 is sips Se cae II. An Efficient Staff: A Prerequisite for Economy Efficient organization of the public school -taft determines the effectiveness of the school eystem. To be adequate for its responsibilities, the staff must be composed of a sufficient num- ber of capable members. On methods of assign- ing authority and duties depends how smoothly the staff will function. Working conditions, office equipment, and clerical assistance are also important factors. Competent leadership—aAn efficient staff de- pends upon trained professional leadership. ‘he 1933 Yearbook of the Department of Super- intendence includes information on require- ments for admission to administrative positions in public education, and a scale for evaluating educational leadership (20). Following ap- pointment, consideration of economy requires skillful allotments of time and responsibility. Henzlik and many others have prepared sched- ules to assist the superintendent to make the most of his time (12). Adequacy—Although financial and other conditions may indicate the need for a reduction in administrative or teaching personnel, there is a point beyond which reducing the size of the staft should not go. The number of pupils en- rolled, the distribution of these pupils among the grades, the number of teachers employed, and the size of the school buildings are among the most important factors determining the number of administrative staff members desir- able. Actual practice in city schools is summa- rized in Table 1. However, in smaller school systems many employees reported as principals and supervisors have in addition some teach- ing duties. The table shows that for every cen- tral administrative officer in the large cities with over 100,000 population there are 138 teachers. This ratio drops suddenly with the transition to the cities of Group II and de- creases more evenly for the remaining groups of smaller cities. McGinnis found that at least ten factors con- ditioned the type, size, and efficiency of the ad- ministrative staff. These factors are: the re- quirements of state laws, the division of execu- tive and legislative functions between the school board and the superintendent, the status of the superintendent, the recommendations made by school surveys, the aggressiveness of the super- intendent, the financial ability of the com- munity, the plan of school organization, the edu- cational needs of the community, the educa- tional offerings of the school system, and the general efficiency and relative cost of the schools (17). Standards and practices compared —V arious authorities have proposed certain standards fot the number of school nurses, school janitors, school clerks, and attendance officers, as well as for certain other employees. Obviously, the higher the standard, either in quantity or qual- ity of service, the more satisfactory the program. Table 2 shows several of these proposed stand- ards, and compares these standards with the average of practice in the larger cities of the country. A picture of the trends in practices in these cities together with average of practice and the standards fixed is displayed in Charts I, II, III and IV. It is clear that the general average of practice employs fewer persons than would be required by the standards set up as desirable for clerical, janitorial, health, and at- tendance services by authorities in these fields. The average practice falls short of the staad- ards, proposed by 66 percent in the case of janitor service, by 80 percent in the case of clerical workers, 55 percent in the case of nurses, and 114 percent in the case of attend ance officers. All of the charts reveal wide ranges in practice. The distributions are all scattered out along the right of the base line, showing in each case a few extreme cases where the serv- ices concerned are very meagerly supplied. Delegation of responsibility—Agreement is quite general with respect to the efficient and economical assignments of authority and re sponsibility. That the board of education should adopt general policies; that the superintendent should execute these policies and report back to the board ; that the superintendent’s staff, in all except the smallest communities, should in- clude an assistant trained and skilled in the management of business affairs; that the super- intendent, as the chief executive officer of the board, should be the responsible agent for the entire school program in its educational, busi- ness, and legal aspects—these are among the widely accepted general principles which, if adopted everywhere in American school sys- tems, would save large sums of money and in- crease school efficiency at the same time (4, 10, 13, 17, 21, 24). Remuneration of school officers and tax col- lectors—A special phase of administration on which small economies may be effected has to [61] TABLE 1.—NUMBER OF TEACHERS COMPARED WITH ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICERS AND OTHER EMPLOYEES, 1932-33 | | Number of Teachers per: | } Size of Cities Number e: | Central Centra of cities | Princi- or School | School | School | Attendance | adminis- | supe: reporting pal! dept. | nurse clerk janitor officer | trative | visory data | | head | Officer ? Officer 1 | ‘ee OF ee we ae er 6 7 8 9 | 10 ee fo | Se — I Over 100,000 in | | Population........ 88 21 78 138 18 15 148 138 95 | IL 30,000 to 100,000 a | in Population...... 210 18 54 100 27 9 405 44 | 42 III 10,000 to 30,000 | in Population. ..... 457 14 a Oe 42 9 388 22 23 IV 5,000 to 10,000 in | Population........ 508 12 ..| 144 64 9 234 15 19 V 2,500 to 5,000 in | Population. ....... 648 14 | ae | 134 79 m | 213 13 Read table as follows: In 88 cities over 100,000 in population, there are 21 teachers to every principal, 78 teach for each Department head, 138 to every school nurse, etc. Data assembled by Research Division, in connection with its biennial salary survey. 1 Includes both supervising and teaching principals. 2 Includes superintendents of schools, associate, assistant or deputy superintendent, business managers, secretar of boards of education, superintendents of buildings and grounds, chief attendance officers, secretaries to superintendent's head janitors, miscellaneous other administrative officers, and all executive assistants of such officers. * Includes directors, assistant directors, supervisors and assistant supervisors of research, tests, and measureme: vocational education, manual training, home economics, physical education, health, art, music, penmanship, continuat schools, evening schools, Americanization classes, kindergartens, primary grades, intermediate grades, junior high scho and senior high schools, head nurses, and miscellaneous other supervisory officers. TABLE 2.—STANDARDS COMPARED WITH PRACTICE IN CERTAIN SCHOOL SERVICES Standards Proposed Average Practice in Cities Over 100,000 Population, 1929-31)! Type of Service Meas he ol Authority Standard Practice Number of | cities reporting 1 2 3 4 5 Janitors Engelhardt, Reeves, | One janitor-engineer per 16,000 | One janitor per 414 79 and Womrath (8) sq. ft. floor area pupils enrolled a One janitor-engineer per 2 acres ground space? One janitor-engineer per 250 pupils enrolled } School Clerks Cubberley (2) One school clerk per 12 to 15 | One clerk per 539 | 84 teachers (approximately one pupils in average | | clerk per 300 pupils in average daily attendance | daily attendance) | | School Nurses McGinnis (17) One school nurse per 1200-1500 | One school nurse per 66 | pupils* 2,318 pupils in | } Stoddard (26) One full-time nurse per 1500 average daily at- | pupils tendance } Attendance Officers | Gideon (10) One officer per 3000 pupils of | One officer per 6,432 59 school age pupils of school Emmons (3) age 1 Calculated from data of the U. S. Office of Education. ? Excluding area covered by buildings. * Represents standard set up by Division of Field Studies, Institute of Educational Research, Teachers Colles: Columbia University. [62] CHART I NUMBER OF PUPILS ENROLED PER JANITOR IN 9929-30 IN 79 CITE VER 100,000 IN POPULATION 7 ) be E ; 28 | , Standard Proposed by Engelhardt mt 4 a I j f7-————- Average 79 Citie 4 f 4 | 4 ' ee ' ss 4 { me ; sai j ! { | ntra 4 24 —an| > é ptt per : S j ory gs 87 j ms cer . , fi ty, “4 f yyy, Whom 0 p Z 4 Gorrrrrees = [zzz ff oo , : 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 «6 800 900 1000 L100 1200 1300 400 1500 1600 1,0 MX 32x 5 Pupils Per Janitor | CHART II 4 NUMBER OF PUPILS IN AVERAGE DAILY ATTENDANCE PER SCHOOL CLERK, 1930-3! IN 84 CITIES OVER 100000 IN POPULATION 1-4 Bm ™ Standard Proposed. by Cubberley 4 | Average 84 Cities a ¥ 16> | s) 1 } 2-4 . 4 } 5 * f aia § 6 .” 4 = $4 V7 lm 1V7 za o- . 2 Yttb ds 4 SII LZZ2 r i = 400 800 oo dC 200% 240 fi i. 800 12,800 : CHART III IL P ae en NUMBER OF PUPILS IN AVERAGE DAILY ATTENDANCE PER SCHOOL NURSE. 1930-3! IN GG CITIES OVER 100,000 IN POPULATION | 4 ~ Zi —~Standard Proposed by White House Conftrence a 2 = Average 66 Cities = 6 J F: § 9 = ——— ig . Pe » 644 , \ 4 ; : 34 2 . on, d 7 WY, Ps Ms 77» V7 mis Lis 12,000 17000 §6©44,000 - | eae ee eae - NUMBER OF CHILDREN CF SCHOOL AGE PER ATTENDANCE OFFICER, 1929-30 IN 59 CITIES OVER 100,000 IN POPULATION ai. ~~ Standard Proposed by Emmons and Gideon 8- WA, J Z Uy 4 Average 59 Cities < YY d S 64 - OY 4 44 | y y GY j ¢* Y i ZG YY | 3 2- J Ys GA V4 Y7, ¥. YZ U |_| j WZ « 4 « F Z Qo T T T T T ’ + s a} f Lee gem <4 (be Aan 8,000 1Q000 {2000 14,000 16000 18000 20,000 29,000 31,000 «51,000 59,000 ; Children Per Officer [ 63 ] do with the salaries and fees paid to school board members, school board attorneys, and tax collectors. The Indiana Rural Survey found that in 1924 salaries paid township trustees and city school board members reached a total of 763,700 (14). If a board of education leaves, as it should, executive and professional func- tions to the superintendent, there is little occa- sion for paying salary to the members (5, 10). After a survey of municipal and county expen- ditures in New Jersey, Lutz concluded that, “In most cases the officers of the districts and the county superintendents could satisfactorily perform the functions exercised by the attorney and without cost to the district” (15). As for the cost of tax collections, it has been shown in Pennsylvania, for example, that the cost of collecting $100 in school taxes varies from sixty cents up to as much as $12.50, or one- eighth of the money collected (23). Henzlik found that, in Nebraska, the fees of the county treasurers for collecting school taxes amount to nearly $250,000 a year (12). According to Engelhardt, there are communities in the United States where the annual fees paid to the school tax collector exceed the annual salary paid to its chief executive (6). Such expenses could often be greatly reduced by a proper co- ordination and direction of the tax-levying and collecting machinery. Overn, (22) after a study of methods and results in school tax collections in twelve states, concludes that a centralized References on 1. CAMPBELL, FALLEN. “Filing Equipment and In- dexing for County Superintendents’ Offices.” American School Board Journal 78: 96, 98, 100, 102; April, 1929. . Cuppertey, Ettwoop P. The Principal and His School. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co., 1923. p. 191. 3. Emmons, Freperick Earwe. City School Attend- ance Service. Contributions to Education, No. 200. New York: Teachers College, Columbia University, 1926. 173 p. 4. ENGeLHARDT, Frep. Public School Organization and Administration. Boston: Ginn and Co., 1931. 595 p. Chapters 2, 17-19. 5. ENGLEHARDT, Frep.; Overn, A. V.; and SACKETT, E. B. The Cost of Collecting School Taxes in Minnesota. Minneapolis, Minn.: University of Minnesota, College of Education, 1926. 17 p. 6. ENcLeHArnT, N. L. “Financial Economies Which May Be Effetted Through Improved Business Administration.” School Executives Magazine 51: 99-101, 132, 136; November, 1931. 7. Encernarpt, N. L.; Kincaw, W. A.; and Parker, J. C. Selected and Annotated Bibli- bh plan is more economical than the use of s school tax collectors. Clerical services—Retrenchment in cl; assistance for the professional staff of a ; system may or may not be a real econon such retrenchments require the staff to nevlec: part of their professional work in ord: handle jobs that could be done better and : cheaply by clerical workers, then obvious) waste rather than economy has resulted. ‘[) lack of clerical services in smaller cities j parent (see column 6, Table 1). Some sc! have been successful in the use of student cle cal assistance, drawn from the comme training classes. Pupils should be used in +! way only when the educational values received vy them are at least as great as would be ol tained otherwise (12). Clerical employees should be carefully and impartially selected and standards for their service and performance should be set up and enforced (4, 11). Office equipment and working conditions The progress of school work can be facilitated or retarded by the office equipment provided and the spirit of cooperation among the staff members. With the development of adminis. trative technic has come the demand for more and better equipment of the school executives’ offices. The Department of Elementary Schoo! Principals and other agencies have made useful reports and recommendations concerning office practice and equipment (1, 13, 18). Efficient Staff , ography on School Attendance, School Census, and Related Topics, 1900-1932. Circular No. 59 Washington, D. C.: U. S. Department of the Interior, Office of Education, November, 1932 38 p. 8. ENGELHARDT, N. L.; Reeves, CHARLES E.; and WomratH, Georce F. Survey Data Book for Public School Janitorial-Engineering Service New York: Teachers College, Columbia Uni versity, 1932. p. 13. 9. GiwEON, Henry J. “How Shall the Number of Attendance Officers in a Community Be Deter- mined and Selected?” American School Board Journal 74: 45, 148, 150; February, 1927. 10. Graves, FRANK Pierrepont. The Administration of American Education. New York: Macmillan Co., 1932. 631 p. 11. Henperson, Louise H. “Clerical Service in City School Systems.” Bulletin (Eighth Yearbook 318-26; April, 1929. Washington, D. C.: Na tional Education Association, Department 0! Elementary School Principals. 12. Henzurk, F. E.; RicHarps, W. M.; IReELAN», * Currrorp J.; and others. Practical Econom:es [ 64] A ae SI CS » ' f | } ee eee nate 5 ied aie ey BEN AEEE v= set oe > rder to in this ceived be ob- ylovees ed and mance ons - itated vided, » staff miNis- more Itives’ chi ol iseful office secs NMA haan ae PMSA Kl a nll SASH sas sei Ry 20. 3. NATIONAL . NATIONAL in School Administration. Lincoln; University of Nebraska, Extension Division, March, 1932. p. 10-19. (Educational Monographs, No. 3.) Hunkins, R. V. The Superintendent at Work in Smaller Schools. Boston: D. C. Heath and Co., 1931. 401 p. Especially Chapters 3, 7. INDIANA RuRAL EpucCATION SuRVEY COMMITTEE. Report. Indianapolis: State Department of Pub- lic Instruction, 1926. p. 77-78. $. Lurz, Harvey L., director. 4 Report on Educa- tional Services and Costs. Report No. 8. Tren- ton, N. J.: Commission to Investigate County and Municipal Taxation and Expenditures, 1932. p. 45-46. McGee, RALPH K. “The Working Schedule of the Superintendent of Schools.” American School Board Journal 76: 66, 144, 146; May, 1928. . McGinnis, WILLIAM C. School Administrative and Supervisory Organizations in Cities of 20,000 to 50,000 Population. Contributions to Education, No. 392. New York: Teachers Col- lege, Columbia University, 1929. p. 66. EDUCATION ASSOCIATION, DEPART- MENT OF ELEMENTARY SCHOOL PRINCIPALS. “The Elementary School Principalship.” Bulletin (Seventh Yearbook) 7: 132-638; April, 1928. Washington, D. C.: the Association. EDUCATION ASSOCIATION, DEPART- MENT OF ELEMENTARY SCHOOL PRINCIPALS. “The Principal and Administration.” Bulletin (Ninth Yearbook) 9: 129-731; April, 1930. Washing- ton, D. C.: the Association. Chapter 4, p. 193- 216. NATIONAL EDUCATION ASSOCIATION, DEPART- MENT OF SUPERINTENDENCE. “Educational Lead- 26. nN ership.” Eleventh Yearbook. Washington, D. ¢ the Association, February, 1933. 528 p NATIONAL EpUCATION ASSOCIATION, RESEARCH Division. “The School Board Member.” R, search Bulletin 11: 1-42; January, 1933. Wash- ington, D. C.: p. 22-33. Overn, A. V. “A Determination of the Cost of the Association. See particularly Collecting Taxes for Schools.” American School Board Journal 74: 46-47, 158, 161; March, 1927 . Rute, JAMes N. Suggested Economies in School Administration to Meet the Financial Emergency. Harrisburg, Pa.: Superintendent of Public In- struction, Department of Public Instruction, March 12, 1932. Multigraphed, 8 p. SMITH, Harry P. Business Administration of Public Schools. Yonkers-on-Hudson, N. Y World Book Co., 1929. Chapter 4. “Some School Attendance Problems.” American School Board Journal 81: 36; December, 1930. Stopparp, A. J., Chairman of Sub-Committee, White House Conference on Child Health and Protection. The Administration of the School Health Program. New York: Century Co., 1932 p. 18. STRAYER, GeorGE D., director. Report of the Sur- vey of the Schools of Chicago, Illinois. New York: Teachers College, Columbia University, 1932. Vol. 5. p. 9-31. WEGLEIN, Davin E., chairman, Report. Commit- tee on School Costs. Washington, D. C.: Depart- ment of Superintendence, National Education Association, February, 1932. 36 p. For additional bibliography, ences 5, 7, 10, and 24. consult refer E OWE so much to our public schools and so readily take them for granted that we may fail \ V to recognize how careful we should be in any projected program of economy The people of our nation have gone through an economic crisis of great severity spite of it retained good health, good order, and stability. For this we may certainly credit our public school system more than any The American school has brought about in each community a mutual understanding which has permitted unusual cooperation in these times of difficulty. in our public school system, then, we must be sure that we are not damaging it, for it provides the best guaranty of continued national life that we have. Now that we have come to the point where there must be some reduction in the educational charge upon the taxpayer, at least for the time being, we must first of all exhaust those oppor- tunities for saving which involve no serious damage to the school child. Whatever else we may do to meet the present crisis we must maintain and build up our It is inevitable that the school system should develop all along the line, and particularly at the top, in order to meet the increasing responsibility thrust upon it by our Economy we must have. that economy must not and need not be made at the expense of the child—Ray Lyman Wilbur. Foreword, p. iii-iv, Economy in Education, by William John Cooper. public. public school system. advancing civilization. in education and have in an informed other factor This is evidence of Before we change any essential element Every dollar must be made to count. But III. The Budget as an Instrument for Economy The budget as a means of financial control— The Committee on School Costs states that few factors contribute more effectively to economy and to efficiency than sound budgetary pro- cedure. A good school budget exemplifies in financial terms the major phases of the com- munity’s educational policy. It involves a care- ful, scientific estimate of the costs and income. The balancing of the budget as between esti- mates of income and expenditure goes far to guarantee solvency. When a school system oper- ates under such a budget, the board of educa- tion should, by its own rules, require that ex- penditures shall not be made in excess of budgetary appropriations, except as the matter has been brought before it for reconsideration. Such a policy, the Committee adds, will tend to eliminate hasty and ill-conceived additions to the program, or those even less justified expendi- tures which arise from the enthusiasm of the moment or the desire to satisfy some person or group bringing pressure to bear upon the ad- ministrative officer (22). Comparing budgets—After a plan of ex- penditures has been worked out by a given school district, comparison with budgets formu- lated by other school districts is helpful. Re- cent practices and proposed standards are shown in Table 3. Standards for the school budget—Useful standards for appraising the school budget, as developed by Clark (2), Linn (11), Moehl- man (12), and Soper (19) are summarized in Table 5. Procedures used in preparing budgets have been studied by Twente (21), Engel- hardt (5), De Young (4), and Featherstone (7). Attempts to determine standard budgetary allotments for the various school services have been made by Toothaker (20), Dawson (3), Hunter (9), and Moehlman (13). School budgetary practices—How do current school budgetary practices correspond to the standards proposed in Table 5? De Young re- cently analyzed procedures in 821 school sys- tems during 1931-32. The schools included in his study are located in cities of from 5,000 to 100,000 population, and represent every state. Information on 18 practices has been adapted from De Young’s study to make up Table 4. 1. Preparation—Most superintendents (99 percent in 1931) take part in preparing at least the statement of educational policies under}, ing the budget. Seventy percent of the schools studied in 193} prepare the budget prior to the beginning of the fiscal year. Twelve percent prepare, in addj- tion, a tentative budget for more than a year jp advance. 2. Form of the budget—Analysis of budget details in 821 school systems showed that the percent of systems including certain items were (1) Estimated expenditures, 97.5 percent ; Estimated receipts, 90.1 percents (3) Esti mated expenditures, as compared with previous years, 76.1 percent; (4) Estimated receipts, a: compared with previous years, 67.8 percent (5) Capital outlay, 76.8 percent; (6) Deb service, 71.8 percent; (7) Probable balance 62.8 percent; (8) Tax rate necessary to secur the levy, 60.5 percent; (9) Assessed valuation of school district, 57.6 percent; (10) Tax rate in comparison with previous years, 45.7 per- cent; (11) Written explanations of decreases and increases, 42.5 percent ; (12) Assessed valu- ation in terms of per capita or per pupil wealth 10.8 percent. 3. Presentation—Table 4 shows that the board of education generally knows in advance that the budget is to be presented. On trans mitting the budget, 349 out of 817 schools provide written explanations of decreases 01 increases. Newspaper reporters attend board meetings when the budget is presented in 26/7 out of 689 schools. 4. Adoption—The board of education in half the systems adopts the budget before the fiscal year begins. The same proportion adopts the budget at the meeting when first presented. 5. Execution—The board of education con- trols the school budgetary administration }) keeping track of budget balances. The board is informed periodically concerning the current condition of the funds, balances, and overdrafts in 91.4 percent of the 819 school systems re- porting. Budget balances are reported month) in three-fourths of the systems. Almost 60 per- cent of the systems follow the practice of trans- ferring funds from one main heading to other heading. Forty percent of the systems per- mit such transfers only upon vote of the board of education. To further safeguard budgetar administration, an independent audit is made each year, in 73.9 percent of the school systems [ 66] PR aS bias i Com WA < 3 inder| Z of the n addi- year in budget hat e > Were ee t2 Esti- revious pts, as recent Debt ilance secure uation X rate 7 per- reases | valu- ealth t the vance Trans- | he 01S Cs OF board 1 26/7 n in e the Jopts nted. con- n by rd is ‘rent afts, ; re- thly per- ans- an- per- TABLE 3.—RECENT PRACTICE AND PROPOSED STANDARDS FOR DISTRIBUTION OF CURRENT SCHOOL EXPENSES Percent of Total Current Expense Allotted to: Practice or Standard Mainte- Co-ordinate General Operation nance of Activities Fixed : strt | 7 oor Control Instruction of Plant Plant and Auxiliary Charges Agencies 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 48 States! oe 4.3 .3 5 3.9 5 3 A 65 Cities, over 100,000 in Popu ae 3.2 77.5 8.7 3.8 3.0 3.8 75 Cities, 30,000 to 100,000? 3.4 78.4 10.3 3.3 2.8 1.8 75 Cities, 10,000 to 30,0002... P 3.9 75.9 5 ee 3.5 3.0 » Oo 75 Cities, 2,500 to 10,0002 5.4 73.3 11.9 35 42 ‘9 MoehIman’ s ‘Stand: ards (13) sit 5.0 75.0 12.0 5.0 2.0 1.0 Toothaker’s Standards (20)..... 4.0 74.0 11.0 4.0 5.0 2.03 1 National Education Association, Department of Superintendence and Research Division Ex penditur Personnel for Public Elementary and Secondary Day Schools, State School System 1930-31. Educational Resear vice, Circular No. 11, 1932. Washington, D. C.: the Association, November, 1932. 22 p ? Comstock, Lula Mae. Per Capita Costs in City Schools for 1931-32. \ . Department of the Interior, Office of Education, Circular No. 73. Washington, D. C.: the Office of Education, ped ary, 1933. Mimeographed, 12 p 4 Item listed under heading ‘‘ Miscellaneous TABLE 4.—SCHOOL BUDGETARY PRACTICES IN CITIES BELOW 100,000 POPULATION, 1931-32 Number Schools Following Practices of Practice Replies Number Percent 1 2 3 4 I. Preparation and form of budget: 1, Prepared before the fiscal year begins . 816 566 70.0 2. Estimated expenditures determined on basis of unit costs 794 230 28.9 3. Based on adequate accounting NRE Se ae 794 601 75.6 4. Major classifications same as in annual financial report at end of year 794 691 87.0 II. Presentation of budget: 5. Board of education knows in advance budget is to be presented.. : 817 723 88.5 3 Written explanations of increases and decreases submitted. . . ar (| 349 42 Newspapers print articles regarding the budget prior to its adoption 689 | 232 33.8 Ill. Ocal adoption of the budget: 8. Before fiscal year begins................. 816 435 53.3 9. In meeting at which first presented.... ieawes ‘ 802 431 53.7 10. Within 14 days following initial presentation. 2 3 ‘ , 802 555 69.2 EP ree : ve 808 391 48.4 12. Adoption formally recorded in ‘board minute book......... ; 808 687 85.0 13. Copy of complete budget recorded in minutes. pmraala 808 576 71.3 IV. Administration y budget: 14. Board of education informed wcommmuaneh as to current condition of funds, balances, and overdrafts .... eft pits 819 750 91.4 15. Emergency fund included. : me ‘ 819 293 35.8 16. Funds placed under one main heading (i. e., maintenance), transferred to another main heading only upon vote of board of education 819 331 40.4 17. Independent audit each year. : ae 794 587 73.9 18. Accrual system used for supplies and purchases ae, 794 133 16.7 Information on budget practices adapted from Tables 4, 8, 10, 12-16, 19-20, in De Young, Chris. A., Budgelary Prac- tices in Public School Administration. [ 67 ] TABLE 5.—STANDARDS FOR ADMINISTERING SCHOOL BUDGETS' Standards Clark (2) Linn (11) Moehlman (12) Soper (19) 1 2 3 4 ‘a I. Preparation 1. By whom pre- | Superintendent | Superintendent and Superintendent or staff | Superintendent and par in charge staff business manager 2. Basis of esti- | Experience of at least 5 | Experience of preced- | Educational policies | mate of ex- years as shown by ing years translated into finan- years with data penses data on unit costs, cial terms | unit costs, weal Averages for previ new services, prob- and population tre: able enrolments, sal- ary schedule . Basis of esti- | Experience of past as | Experience of preced- |.................. ‘ Forecasted on a cor mate of reve- revealed by data on ing years | bination of revenu nues wealth, valuation, tax rates, incomes | from fees and sub- sidies, and debts out- standing . Whén prepared As near nding time |...... P A fixed budgetary as possible, but early endar prepared enough to allow full | advance discussion. Two months in advance } 4 of fiscal year is sug- : gested - Time and cost | Budget uses a mini- |.................... Mut demdatisesesca See Ace reer of preparation mum of labor and | material and results in real savings. Rel- atively little time consumed. In small- er cities (below 30,- 000) not more than 3 weeks of superin- tendent's time ow — wn Il. Form of the budget Standard and uniform 6. Forms used I a. 5 nko ci ou SMES Oe ae Eb aad eeabuwSaewe << budget book blanks in conformit with bookkeeping procedure 7. Amount of de- | All necessary informa- | Anticipated receipts | Activity analysis with |.............. tail tion for comprehen- and expenditures supporting detail on sion and control in- given in detail salaries, supplies, cluding twenty to and equipment; sub- fifty or more sub- analyses for main- divisions suggested. tenance, outlay and No item of expense, debt service; gen- however small, eralized summary z omitted 5 8. Requests a. 6 ko dha ndbewdinnnehedeeente eaaeeekees baa Consistent with antici- F actually needed pated needs III. Presentation 9 In terms of educational |............ Se eer eee eee eer rer policy rather than 4 directly from finan- : cial angle 7) Sey NI Bod a Ucn ee es & saeelale 6 wnalcecdse oct anes dan dee erent ete’ Before close of fisca : tation year 11. Provision for | Public notice should be | Public encouraged to | Introductory state- |.............. discussion and given and hearings participate in plan- ment should explain publicity allowed ning budget. services and costs Budget should supply | Annual statement of 7 should lend it- | Adequate publicity publicity information receipts and expendi- self easily to full in- through newspapers without additional tures in printed re- formation and ade- labor. Data from port or given news- quate publicity other cities and for paper publicity. other years available IV. Voting and ap- proval We eS 12. Approving > Bes sa Sew we She ee hed 6s chose ges ccccs oeceuesesbseeneneeekeY is dict nin Board of education thority 13. Method of vot- | Not by small divisions |...................055 In terms of large educa- |.............. } ing tional policies and ° 5 not by small financial a items ee : 14. Changes by ap- | Does not change at all, |.. 2.2.2.0... cece cee ee cfe cc euecscccccesuceeace Insignificant proving body but requires the ex- F ecutive to adjust de- ad tails 15. Expenses not | Not incurred; or if in- | Some elasticity allowed | Board should specifi- |.................. foreseen curred handled by inadministering fn upon all emergency appro- budget, with limited, = jitures not pro- priations as pean vided for in budget of the 1 Pe RNSEMINRSE Note ! The entire discussion of these writers may be consulted for many important details which cannot be summarized i: tabular form. [68 ] .r Cal orm nity ping LIcl- ity ers leis. 0 LIE Or a cn chet tayo een rt a te ae SARA a MR INET aR IP 5 TABLE 5.—STANDARDS FOR ADMINISTERING SCHOOL BUDGETS (Continued) «ig l Standards Clark (2) Linn (11) " - 1 | 2 3 Execution ‘ r , 16. Administration | Executive or staff | School officials of budget | 17. Control of ex- | Monthly statements of | penditure disbursements against each appro- | priation. All requisi- board | tions compared with check of | unencumbered _bal- tures, | ances before ap- orders, proved and Monthly statements of | Expenditures should be receipts and expend- itures submitted to Monthly expendi- outstanding obliga- tions, compared with appropriations show unencumbered balances under each heading of the budget Properly handled trans- fers 18. Provision for deficiencies | None should be neces- | sary, except what is included in budget | Should not exceed 1% 19. Borrowing 20. Surplus or deficit of budget agree with budget of budget within 2% 21. Accounting and | Complete audit by in Audit by professional Budget should be keyed | Audit by disinterested auditing dependent agent re- auditors at least once to accounting system accountants annually porting direct to a year; case of board. Appropria- smaller school sys- tions charged when bills are incurred tems, biennial audit may be sufficient Moehlman (12) Soper (19 4 5 Superintendent is re- | Superintendent and sponsible agent staff Administration held responsible for limit ing expenditures appropriation carefully and con- stantly checked against policy, need, and appropriation Departments should be informed of funds available before to opening of fiscal year Cared for by legitimate transiers r contin gency appropriations No borrowing Expenditures should | Should not exceed 1% . Buck, A. E. Public Budgeting. . CLARK, . HUNTER, References on the Budget New York: Harper and Bros., 1929. 612 p Haroitp F. “Suggestions for Scoring School Budgets.” American School Board Jour- nal 71: 47-48, 133-34; October, 1925. . Dawson, Howarp A. Standards of Expenditures for the Principal Items of City School Costs. Nashville, Tenn.: George Peabody College for Teachers, 1927. 173 p. . De Younc, Curis A. Budgetary Practices in Public School Administration. Evanston, IIl.: Northwestern University, 1932. 152 p. . ENGELHARDT, N. L. “Superior School Budgets.” School Executives Magazine 50: 309-10; March, 1931. ENGELHARDT, N. L., and ENGELHARDT, FRep. Public School Business Administration. New York: Teachers College, Columbia University, 1927. 1068 p. See especially Chapter 22. . FeatHerstone, W. B. “An Analysis of 112 Rep- resentative City School Budgets.” School Execu- tives Magazine 50: 307-09; March, 1931. . Hunkins, R. V. The Superintendent at Work in Smaller Schools. Boston: D. C. Heath and Co., 1931. 401 p. Especially Chapters 3, 7. Frep M. “Efficient Expenditures of School Moneys.” Proceedings, 1928. Vol. 66. Washington, D. C.: National Education Asso- ciation, 1928. p. 713-17. . Linpsay, E. E. Problems in School Administra- tion. New York: Macmillan Co., 1928. Chapter 4, “School Budgets,” p. 77-98. . Linn, H. H. Practical School Economies. New York: Teachers College, Columbia University, 1933. In press. See American School Board Jour- nal $7: 31-32, 62-63; July, 1933. 12. 13. . NATIONAL MoewHLMAN, ArTHUR B. “The _ Public-School Budget.” Review of Educational Research 2: 105-07; April, 1932. Washington, D. C.: Ameri- can Educational Research Association. MoEHLMAN, ARTHUR B. Public School Finance. Chicago: Rand McNally and Co., 1927. p. 482-83. EpUCATION ASSOCIATION, DEPART- MENT OF SUPERINTENDENCE. “Five Unifying Fac- tors in American Education.” Ninth Yearbook. Washington, D. C.: the Association, February, 1931. 543 p. 15. NATIONAL EDUCATION ASSOCIATION. Some Trends in City School Finance 1932-33. Educational Re- search Service. Supplement to Circular No. 5, May, 1932. Washington, D. C.: the Association, September 30, 1932. 6 p. 16. REEDER, Warp G. The Business Administration of a School System. Boston: Ginn and Co., 1929. 454 p. See especially Chapter 4. 17. SEYFRIED, JOHN E. Public-School Budgetary Pro- cedure in New Mexico. Albuquerque, N. Mex.: University of New Mexico Press, 1932. 27 p. 18. SmirH, Harry P. Business Administration of Public Schools. Yonkers-on-Hudson, N. Y.: World Book Co., 1929. Chapter 5. 19. Soper, Wayne. “By Their Budgets You May Know Them.” School Executives Magazine 49: 310-12, 343; March, 1930. 20. ToorHakrr, O. H. “A Basic Standard for the 22. [ 69] School Budget.” American School Board Journal 67: 47-48; September, 1923. . Twente, JoHN W. Budgetary Procedure for a Local School System. Montpelier, Vt.: Capital City Press, 1923. 184 p. Wectein, Davin E., chairman. Report. Commit- tee on School Costs. Washington, D. C.: National Education Association, February, 1932. 36 p. IV. Economy and the Unit of Administration Among the most expensive schools now main-_ ditional savings due to increased educat tained in America, in proportion to number of _ efficiency and decreased overhead expenses ( | 2 pupils served, are the 148,000 one-room rural An estimate by Burris predicted a total ne schools and the 12,000 small rural high schools savings for the same state, through admini of less than 100 pupils. Sparseness of popula- tion on the county unit basis, of $3,782,000 tion requires that many of these schools be main- representing reduced costs for salaries of trus. tained, relatively expensive and limited though _ tees, office expense, supplies, equipment, perma they may be. But many of these schools could be nent improvements, and teachers institute operated with greater economy by consolidat- but excluding transportation costs (4). MM. ing their services at a single center or by ad- Clellan estimated that a financial saving of ministering a large group of them as a single percent could be realized in one Ohio count unit. by adoption of the county unit of school organi. Rural school units—Studies in this field zation (20). Elimination of the 1858 rural and have recently been summarized by Reeder and village boards of education in this state would Holmstedt (20). Cook showed that in Con- make possible a saving of $371,600 (23 necticut consolidated schools actually cost less Smart calculated a saving of 12 percent through per child than one-room schools, in spite of the consolidation in one Kansas community (2! fact that the consolidated schools provided and Williams estimated a similar saving of § transportation and paid higher salaries to bet- percent for one county in California (25). ter trained teachers (6). In Indiana a survey While the mere consolidation of rural schools committee estimated that cash savings of or adoption of a large unit of administration $1,796,000 would be achieved by a county unit is not in itself a guarantee of either savings plan for the schools, this sum not including ad-__ or increased efficiency, a large number of stud- CHART V COMPARISONS OF ACHIEVEMENT IN LARGE AND SMALL RURAL SCHG@DLS ACHIEVEMENT IN ACHIEVEMENT IN ACHIEVEMENT IN READING ARITHMETIC SPELLING / bx 89 % Based. on 51 Comparisons Based on 82 Comparisons Based. on 31 Comparisons [—) Percent of comparisons in which children from large rural schools showed superior ability. GB feccent. of comparisons in. which children from small rural schools showed. superior abuaty Seesearch Dusasion Aatonal Lduoation Assi: - wrt ~~ MNetuevements of One~teacker aad of Lamer Sucal fducational Scttoas, U.S. Department of the Interior, Office of Education, Bulletin . 1926, No.{5, p.9 [70] ee ‘ational ) tal net inistra- 32,000, f trus- perma- titutes, Me. ») Or 22 s ( ] county rgani- al and would (23), rough (21 ot 5 — ww shools ration ings stud- nen iden in wets pice vena ™ " ih eae eS ies (17, 18) indicate that pupils in the larger 11 schools are learning more, as shown by obiective measures of school achievement. See Chart V. However, some writers contend that type of school organization is a relatively in- significant factor in determining school achieve- ment, particularly in the lower grades ( 15, 26). Rural high schools—Nanninga showed that in the smaller high schools of California per pupil costs decreased and curricular offerings increased with the size of the school, a high degree of efficiency being attained in schools of about 600 pupils (16). A study of 226 high schools in Oregon (22), 10 high schools in Illinois and Indiana (13), and 423 high school districts in Wisconsin (8) showed that the larger schools have advantages in economy. Hood, after studying instruction costs in 56 small Massachusetts high schools, suggests a curriculum for the small high school which aims to offer good educational opportunities at References on the Uni 1. ALTHAUS, C. B., and Twente, J. W. “The Or- ganization and Financing of Rural High Schools in Kansas.” Bulletin of the University of Kansas 33: 1-48; July 1, 1932. Lawrence, Kansas. . BoLTon, Freperick E. “Is the County Unit Neces- sary for Effective Rural School Development?” School and Society 35: 237-43; February 20, 1932. . Broapy, Knute O.; Piatt, EArt T.; and BELL, Miutarp D. Practical Procedures for Enriching the Curriculums of Small Schools. Lincoln, Nebr.: University of Nebraska, Extension Division, June, 1931. 88 p. (Educational Monographs, Number 2.) 4. Burris, BENJAMIN J. “Necessity of the County Unit for the Efficient Administration of Rural Schools.” Journal of Rural Education 2: 304-11; March, 1923. See p. 310. §. Caste, A. W. “Enrichment of Secondary School Courses of Study by the Use of Correspondence Courses.” Proceedings, 1931. Vol. 69. Washing- ton, D. C.: National Education Association, 1931. p. 331-39. 6. Cook, KaTHERINE M. “By What Standard Shall School Costs Be Measured?” School Life 11: 35; October, 1925. 7. DiaMonD, THOMAs. “Cooperation Between a Correspondence School and a Public High School.” Educational Review 71: 37-41; Janu- ary, 1926. 8. FowLKes, Joun Guy. “Lowering School Costs and Raising the Quality of Instruction.” Na- tion’s Schools 10: 66-67; September, 1932. 9. Gaumnirz, WALTER H. The Smaillness of Amer- ica’s Rural High Schools. U. S. Department of the Interior, Office of Education, Bulletin, 1930, No. 13. Washington, D. C.: Government Print- ing Office, 1930. 78 p. he w a reasonable cost. His plan calls for the elimi- nation of certain advanced courses not required for college entrance, the substitution of courses in commercial subjects, household arts, and agriculture, the alternation of elective courses, and the use of correspondence courses (11). Althaus and Twente recommend preparation of a maximum and minimum list of subjects, to be offered in rural high schools of various sizes (1). Broady, Platt, and Bell suggest schedules to fit conditions in small elementary schools and high schools (3). Gaumnitz (9) and Windes (27) have suggested, in addition, the possibility of itinerant teachers paid out of state or county funds and the cooperative employment of cer- tain teachers by two or more small high schools. Besides the writers mentioned, correspondence courses in small high schools have been de- scribed and studied by Diamond (7), Castle (5), Long (14), Broady, Platt, and Bell (3), and by Wooden and Mort (28). t of Administration 10. HENZLIK, F. E.; RicHarps, W. M.; IRELAND, CLIFFORD J.; and others. Practical Economies in School Administration. Lincoln, Nebr.: University of Nebraska, Extension Division, March, 1932. p 151-59. (Educational Monographs, No. 3.) 11. Hoop, J. T. “Instruction Costs in Typical Small High Schools—a Study.” Nation’s Schools 4: 63- 68, 38-42; September, November, 1929. 12. INDIANA RuRAL EpUCATION SURVEY COMMITTEE Report. Indianapolis: State Department of Pub lic Instruction, 1926. p. 108. 13. Karns, Loren V. “Analyzing Instructional Costs in Ten Small High Schools.” Nation’s Schools 10: 35-40; December, 1932. 14. Lonc, Forrest E. “Correspondence Study in the Small High School.” Junior-Senior High School Clearing House 4: 236-42; December, 1929. 15. Myers, CHArves Everetr. “The One-Teacher School, Front and Center.” Journal of Rural Education 3: 439-49; May-June, 1924. 16. NANNINGA, S. P. “Costs and Offerings of Cali fornia High Schools in Relation to Size.” Jour- nal of Educational Research 24: 356-64; De cember, 1931. 17. NATIONAL EpUCATION ASSOCIATION, RESEARCH Division. “The Outlook for Rural Education.” Research Bulletin 9: 230-302; September, 1931. Washington, D. C.: the Association. “Efficient Units of Administration,” p. 238-44. 18. NATIONAL SOCIETY FOR THE STUDY OF EDUCATION “The Status of Rural Education.” Thirtieth Yearbook, Part I. Bloomington, IIl.: Public School Publishing Co., 1931. p. 193-206. 19. On1o EpucaTion ASSOCIATION, COMMITTEE ON PossisLE EcoNoMIES IN EDUCATIONAL ADMINIS- TRATION. Report. Columbus, Ohio: the Associa- tion, 1931. Mimeographed, 10 p. [71] ‘ if } a peractet.ccxbecweegs ne ee see ee 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. Reever, Warp G., and Hovimsrept, R. W. 25. Wituiams, J. Harovp. Reorganizing a County “Financial Economies in Business Management System of Rural Schools—Report of a Study oj of Schools.” Review of Educational Research 2: the Schools of San Mateo County, California 139-47; April, 1932. Washington, D. C.: Amer- U. S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of ican Educational Research Association, National Education, Bulletin, 1916, No. 16. Washington Education Association. Chapter 8. SMART, THOMAs J. “How Better Schools for Less Money May Be Made Available for a Kansas 76 WiLson, Frank T. “Achievement in Fundamen Community.” University of Kansas Bulletin of tal Subjects in Some Rural Schools in Connecti- D. C.: Government Printing Office, 1916. 50 p Education 3: 3-19; February, 1931. See p. 4. cut.” Journal of Rural Education 3: 19-27 Stetson, F. L. “Instructional Costs in 226 Stand- September, 1923. ard High Schools.” University of Oregon Pub- 27. Winves, E. E. “Possibilities of Individualized lication 2: 301-24; August, 1931. Eugene, Instruction in Small High Schools.” Schoo! and Oregon. Society 21: 489-93; April 25, 1925. Warts, Locan A. “A Waste of Public Funds.” 9. Wooven, H. Z., and Mort, Pauw R. “Super American School Board Journal 85: 42-43; vised Correspondence Study for High School December, 1932. te” : 7_6 : ‘ Pupils.” Teachers College Record 30: 447-52; Wec ein, Davin E., chairman. Report. Commit- February, 1929 tee on School Costs. Washington, D. C.: Depart- ys : ment of Superintendence, National Education For additional bibliography, see references Association, February, 1932. p. 18. 10, 17, 20, 24. CONOMY means getting your money’s worth. It means getting the maximum service for every dollar expended. One test of economy is the relation of the service to the price paid for it. If the same or better service can be obtained for less money, then present practice entails waste. If, by paying less, the quality of the service declines, to reduce expenditures involves curtailment, even waste. This is true as well in the field of education as in the field of government or of business. Evidently, then, to the extent that a school system is operated in accordance with sound administrative practices, economies are being achieved. This being true, we must be careful at present not to penalize those schools which are already being administered with a high degree of effectiveness. A school which has been carelessly operated is sometimes asked to make no greater reduction in its budget than is a well-managed school. The poorly-managed school may make large reductions, thereby satisfying the public demands for budgetary reductions, and yet not be reduced to the state where efficient service is impossible. On the other hand, the better- managed school may be forced into taking such reductions in appropriations as will undermine its effectiveness. Equality of educational opportunity for rich and poor alike, for those who receive their schooling during periods of prosperity and for thase who attend school during the lean years, is a principle of education which is accepted by every thinking individual. This is no time for panic, for thoughtlessly slashing the school budget. Every proposal for saving must be weighed in the light of its effect upon the educational opportunities of the children who are now attend- ing school or will attend in the future—F. E. Henzlik; W. M. Richards; Clifford J. Ireland; and others. Practical Economies in School Administration, p. 7-8 [72] C unty Study of lifornia reau of hington, 1damen- onnect}- 19-27 ualized p0l and ‘Super- School 147-52: Prences PT NAI SS ls Aba Radha ses as. rst at ass cs sons ta V. Economy and School Organization A number of changes in the organization of public education have been suggested as meth- ods for bringing about worthwhile economies. \mong the more prominent of these sugges- tions are the adoption or extension of a platoon school program, the discarding of semi-annual promotions to. return to annual promotions, and the operation of schools on an all-year plan. ; The platoon school—According to Case (2), there were in 1929, 1,068 platoon schools in the United States, located in 202 cities and enrolling 729,924 pupils. This is about 6 per- cent of all pupils enrolled in city school systems. Differences of opinion exist regarding the fiscal aspects of this movement. The arguments for the platoon school from the standpoint of econ- omy have been thus summarized by Case (2) : 1. The capacity of buildings is increased by tak- ing children from regular classrooms and teaching them part of the time in auditorium, gymnasium, or library. A study of 18 platoon schools in Birming- ham, Alabama, shows an increase of 18 percent in the total capacity of these schools. 2. The equipment in platoon schools is used more completely and less duplication of expensive appa- ratus is required. It has been estimated that New- ark, New Jersey, saved $15,120 on classroom seats and desks alone by changing 12 schools to the platoon basis. 3. A saving is effected in instructional costs be- cause of: (a) reduction in supervisory needs; (b) use of fewer teachers; (c) lowering of teacher turnover; and (d) increased efficiency. Platoon organization is said to have in- creased the capacity of schools in Detroit, and in Birmingham. In the case of seventy-five new or remodeled buildings, the increase amounted to about 33 1/3 percent. In old buildings, not remodeled, it was from 5 to 25 percent. To replace the savings in capacity would have re- quired erection of fifteen buildings, at an esti- mated cost of over $6,500,000 (9). In a gen- eral statement concerning the platoon plan, the U. S. Office of Education indicates that a 30- class school organized on this basis would re- lease $180,000 for other activities (10). Wil- son (12) summarizing the arguments against the platoon school, questioned its economy and cited the Gary Survey (5) as indicating that the cost per pupil for buildings in a platoon school is about equal to that in a non-platoon school. His argument, insofar as it applies to economy and efficiency, may be abstracted as follows: 1. The first distinctive feature claimed for the platoon school is that any plant of a given size, if organized as a platoon school will serve more pupils. . . . Figures indicate that the per pupil cost for providing a plant for a platoon school is about equal to, or somewhat greater than, that for a non platoon school. . . . Much more serious than this is the large number of different pupils, running into the hundreds, each special subject teacher must care for per day and per week. Correspondingly serious is the number of different teachers each child must meet. ... There is further the health menace of seating pupils of all grades in seats of a given size ... [The platoon school] was not originated to supply better learning conditions, but to take care of the increasing numbers in rapidly growing cities 2. The second distinctive feature of the platoon school consists in the plan and extent of depart- mentalizing the work. ... The almost inevitable result ... is an absence of natural working and learning conditions. ... With the drill work di vorced from the more cultural subjects... it is very apt to be formal, routine-like, and mechanical, lacking in fundamental motive... . 3. The third distinctive feature of the platoon school is that all pupils and classes in a building change types and places of work at the same time. ... The great danger is, of course, that the me- chanics ... may be so magnified and given such right of way as to lessen greatly the very results the. school seeks to accomplish. This is just what is in danger of happening in the platoon school. Natural ways of working with resulting learning can hardly be programmed with such mathematical, mechanical, machine-like accuracy. .. . Promotions—According to the Ninth Year- book of the Department of Superintendence of the National Education Association (6), semi- annual promotions are the rule in more than 80 percent of cities over 100,000 in population. In smaller cities, however, the great majority of schools promote pupils annually. About half of all cities report that in the elementary schools they promote “a considerable number of special cases at any time during the school year.” A review of the opinions of 555 city school superintendents reveals two points of view with respect to the relation between economy and frequency of promotion (6). Many super- intendents believe that semi-annual promotion is expensive, especially in small schools, because mid-year classes are small and thus the employ- ment of more teachers is required. On the other hand, it is argued that semi-annual pro- motions reduce operating expenses because when pupils must repeat work, it is more eco- nomical to have the repetition restricted to a [73] half year. There appears to be no conclusive study as to the relative merits of these two con- tentions. It seems probable, however, that, in the smaller school systems particularly, annual promotions supplemented by a liberal use of special promotions and placements would be the most economical kind of organization. All-year schools—Maintaining schools for twelve months each year has been tried in Newark, N. J.; Nashville, Tenn.; and Ali- quippa, Pa. Research as to results has been summarized by Reavis (7). There is disagree- ment as to whether this practice effects econo- mies. It should be remembered that the insti- tution involved is not an ordinary summer school, but the approximately complete main- tenance of all school facilities throughout the year. Bachman (1) reported that the al! school in Nashville increased instructio; costs by 21 percent without comparable in achievement. On the other hand, Roe concluded that an all-year school in New cost + percent more than a ten-month sch AlN irk dh but produced 44 percent more graduates. The cost per graduate was computed at $857 in : all-year school and $1349 in the ten-month school. A more elaborate survey of the san problem by O’Shea and Farrand (4) comput that all-year schools in Newark increased thy cost by only $150,000 out of a total budget of $9,000,000. In Aliquippa, pupils generally a: he i] he ed + t tend school for any three out of the four qua: ters. The superintendent estimated an annual saving on current expense of $15,523 (11 References on School Organization 1. BACHMAN, FRANK P., director. The All-Year School of Nashville, Tennessee. Nashville: Division of Surveys and Field Studies, George Peabody College for Teachers, 1931. Chapter 9. 2. Case, R. D. The Platoon School in America. Stanford University, Calif.: Stanford Univer- sity Press, 1931. 283 p. 3. Diemer, G. W. “The Platoon School.” Elemen- tary School Journal 25: 734-44; June, 1925. 4. FARRAND, Witson, and O’SHEA, M. V. The All Year Schools of Newark, N. J. 96 p. (Publisher and date not specified) ington, D. C.: American Educational Research Association, a department of the National Edu cation Association. 8. Roz, Warren A. “Comparative Costs of In tegrated All-Year Schooling and of Part-Ti: Schooling.” Educational Method 10: 350-5 March, 1931. 9. Spain, CHartes L. “The Platoon Schoo! Advantages.” 733-44; June, 1926. 10. U. S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, BUREAU | Elementary School Journal 2 ne Its ™“ . GENERAL EpucaTion Boarp. The Gary Public Schools. New York: the Board, 1918. 8 volumes. Vol. 1, “A General Account ;” Vol. 3, “Costs.” . NATIONAL EpucaTion AssoctaATION, DEPARTMENT OF SUPERINTENDENCE. “Five Unifying Factors in American Education.” Ninth Yearbook. Wash- ington, D. C.: the Association, February, 1931. p. 65-67, Tables 10 and 11. Reavis, W. C. “Evaluation of the Various Units of the Public School System.” Review of Edu- cational Research 1: 173-99; June, 1931. Wash- 12. EpucaTion. General Statement in Regard to t/; W ork-Study-Play or Platoon Plan. Washingto: D. C.: the Department. No date. Mimeographed 2 p. . Vanoerstice, H. R. “The All-Year Schoo! i: Aliquippa, Pennsylvania.” Elementary Scho Journal 30: 576-85; April, 1930. Witson, H. B. “The Platoon School—Its Dis advantages.” Proceedings, 1926. Vol. 64. Wash ington, D. C.: National Education Association 1926. p. 800-09. HE QUESTION which we shall consider primarily is virtually the question of re- trenchment versus economy. Retrenchment can be made at any time. Incomes can be cut off. If it is now necessary to give a school less income than it had, shall this be done by retrenching or by economizing? Retrenchment can be made by anyone who has the power to levy the taxes. Economies can be practiced only by the professional experts . . . Retrenchment may occur suddenly. Economy requires much study. Retrenchment is simply a reduction in expenditure. Economy also involves reduction, but it means wiser spending of the money that we have, including some consideration of what is essential in public education.—William John Cooper. who have charge of the school system. Economy in Education, p. 5. } ‘tional e gain € (o) ewark choo] . The in the nonth same puted d the Zet of ly at- quar- nnual 1). earch Edu- f In- Time 0-58: i—Its 1\U o the gton, phed, thool Dis- ‘ash- tion, at ¥ Bekok Aig ppt sbek ser VI. Supervision as a Means of Economy [he value of proper supervision in both rural and city school systems has been clearly shown by a series of investigations (1, 7, 12, 14. 17, 18, 19, 20). Good supervision will do more than merely increase the scores of chil- dren on standard achievement tests. It should develop the teaching corps into “a group of professional workers who attack their prob- lems scientifically” (17). It should eliminate waste of time and money due to the failure of pupils to progress steadily through the school system (7, 11, 24). "Number of supervisors—No general for- mula can be proposed for the proper number of supervisory officers in city school systems. ‘he quality of the teaching staff, the extent and diversity of the educational needs of the com- munity, the way in which the staff is organ- ized, and the size and location of school build- ings are among the factors which complicate the situation (1, 12, 17). However, it may be stated that, in general, the payment of higher salaries to supervisors is predicated on the fact that these officers are enabled to carry on supervisory functions. This general statement would apply to all types of supervisors, but especially to school principals and department heads. These officers should be expected to do constructive supervisory work and their responsibilities should be adjusted so as to make this possible. For example, a com- posite of several expert judgments suggests that elementary school principals should devote ap- proximately forty percent of their time to su- pervision, whereas studies of the actual dis- tribution of their time show that many princi- pals cannot or do not meet this standard (12, 14). These facts suggest the need for careful local surveys of the amount of supervisory serv- ice being secured by the expenditures made for this purpose. If the survey indicates a need for adjustment, the solution may lie in the direc- tion of better budgeting of the principal’s time (15), or of relieving him of clerical or other duties which he should not be carrying. After analyzing the educational staffs of cities be- tween 20,000 and 50,000 in population, Mc- Ginnis suggests these ten supervisory officials as the “minimum number for desirable prac- tice’: one general supervisor, a director of re- search, a supervisor of atypical classes, one su- pervisor each for art, music, health, manual arts, household arts, and two for physical edu- cation (11). Ayer and Barr, studies of opinion and practice by Halnon and sumMmMAarizing Daily, tentatively suggest that the desirable number of teachers per supervisor is less than 100 (1). For rural areas, Reynolds suggests not more fifty (23). The between teachers and supervisors in 1932-33 is summarized in col umns 3 and 10, Table 1, page 62. In the smaller cities many employees classified as principals than teachers per superviso! average ratio or supervisors also carry teaching duties. The ratio between supervisors and teachers, which is 1 supervisor to 95 teachers in the largest cities, decreases rapidly with size of city, except that the cities of Group V tend to resemble those of Group III. In cities of 2500 to 5000 population there are 22 teachers to each supe: visory officer. The same trend is evident fo: principals. Types of adjustment—Among the more spe- cific methods suggested by recent writers for the reduction of supervisory costs are: substi tution of the home-room plan for the house principal plan (13), using “key teachers” in stead of highly-paid department heads (13, 26), having the superintendent in small school systems carry a principalship as well (22), integration of the supervisory staff and reliev- ing supervisors of administrative responsibili- ties (3, 27), elimination of vice-principalships and assistant principalships, the combination of elementary schools in large districts for su pervisory purposes (8, 22), reduction in the number of special subject supervisors by re quiring the regular classroom teachers to be responsible for these subjects (1, 5, 12), as- signing some teaching duties to principals in 25), small schools employing special super- visors jointly with other systems (25), and making the supervisory staff conscious of the need for economy (4). Increasing the super visory load in larger school districts, as sug- gested by Kersey, involves possible assignment of elementary school principals as supervisory principals of several schools, decrease in the number of supervisory officers maintained in the central administrative staff, and substitu- tion of supervisors in general fields rather than in special subjects (10). Few of these policies can be recommended for all Many of them doubtless involve a sacrifice of efficiency for temporary financia! retrenchment. circumstances. [75] we 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. References on . Ayer, Frep C., and Barr, A. S. The Organiza- tion of Supervision. New York: D. Appleton and Co., 1928. Chapters 3-9. See also p. 93. . Camp, Freperick S., chairman. Report of Spe- cial Committee on Emergency Finance. New Haven: Connecticut Association of Public School Superintendents, 1932. Mimeographed, 17 p. . GoovyKoonTz, Bess. “The Integration of the Activities of Various Supervisors Dealing with the Same Groups of Teachers.” Nineteenth Annual Schoolmen’s Week Proceedings, March 9-12, 1932. Philadelphia: University of Penn- sylvania Press, 1932. p. 87-92. . Gossett, J. O. “Interests of Principals and Cur- rent Economical Measures in California High Schools.” California Quarterly of Secondary Education 5: 184-87; January, 1930. . GraHAM, Ben. “Balancing the Budget Through Professional Adjustments.” Nineteenth Annual Schoolmen’s Week Proceedings, March 9-12, 1932. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1932. p. 7-13. See p. 10. . Haccarp, W. W. “Where Not to Economize in Secondary Education.” Bulletin (Proceedings) 30: 38-45; March, 1930. Berwyn, Ill.: Depart- ment of Secondary-School Principals, National Education Association. . HALL, Sipney B. “Some Economies in Public School Administration.” Virginia Teacher 13: 1-4; January, 1932. . JENSEN, FRANK A. “Increasing Efficiency and Reducing Cost in the Administration and Su- pervision of Elementary Schools.” American School Board Journal 82: 41-42, 129; June, 1931. . Kersey, Viertinc. “The Cost of Cheap Educa- tional Programs.” California Schools 3: 109-17; April, 1932. Kersey, Viertinc. “First Things First in Edu- cation.” California Schools 3: 59-80; March, 1932. p. 67-68, 76-77. McGinnis, WittiaM C. School Administrative and Supervisory Organizations in Cities of 20,000 to 50,000 Population. Contributions to Education, No. 392. New York: Teachers Col- lege, Columbia University, 1929. 103 p. See p. 65-66. Me sy, Ernest O. 4 Critical Study of. the Exist- ing Organization and Administration of Super- vision. Bloomington, IIl.: Public School Publish- ing Co., 1929. 158 p. Miver, CHesTer F., chairman. School Econo- mies Through Efficient Administration and Management. Committee on Public School Economies. Lansing, Mich.: Michigan Educa- tion Association, March 26, 1931. Bulletin No. 22. p. 20-23. NATIONAL EpucaTion AssoctaTION, DEPARTMENT OF ELEMENTARY SCHOOL Principats. “The Ele- mentary School Principalship.” Bulletin (Sev- Supervision 15. 16. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. [76] . NATIONAL EpucaTiIon AssociATION, enth Yearbook) 7: 132-638; April, 1928. \ ington, D. C.: the Association. Chapter § > tribution of the Principal’s Time,” p. 204 NATIONAL EpucATION ASSOCIATION, DEPARTM:\ oF ELEMENTARY SCHOOL PRINCIPALS. “Th: cipal and Administration.” Bulletin (Ninth } book) 9: 132-731; April, 1930. Washing: D. C.: the Association. Chapter 4, “The Prip. cipal’s Time Budget and Work Habits,” | 216. NATIONAL EpucaTION AssociATION, DEPARTMr\ OF SUPERINTENDENCE. “Meeting the Emergen News Letter, Nos. 1-5, January 28, February 13 March 11, April 15, and May 27, 1933. Was! ington, D. C.: the Association. DEPARTMENT OF SUPERINTENDENCE. “The Superintendent Sy; veys Supervision.” Eighth Yearbook. Washing ton, D. C.: the Association, 1930. 472 p. Chapte: 4, “Types of Supervisory Organization,” , 49-85, and Chapter 6, “Evidences of the Value of Supervision,” p. 98-140. NATIONAL EpucaTiION ASSOCIATION, RESEARCH Division. “The Outlook for Rural Education Research Bulletin 9: 230-301; September, 1931 Washington, D. C.: the Association. p. 295-302 NATIONAL EDUCATION ASSOCIATION, RESEARCH Division. “The Principal at Work on His Prot lems.” Research Bulletin 9: 94-159; Maret 1931. Washington, D. C.: the Association. | 117-27. NATIONAL SOCIETY FOR THE STUDY OF EpUCcATION “The Status of Rural Education.” Thirtict/ Yearbook, Part I. Bloomington, IIl.: Publi School Publishing Co., 1931. 272 p. Nutr, HusertT Wivsur. Current Problems the Supervision of Instruction. New York Johnson Publishing Co., 1928. Chapter 9, p. 153 57. “Reducing Supervision Costs in the Cities.” Nation’s Schools 4: 80; September, 1929 REYNOLDS, ANNIE. Supervision and Rural Schoo! Improvement. U. S. Dept. of the Interior, Office of Education, Bulletin, 1930, No. 31. Washing ton, D. C.: Government Printing Office, 193 p. 4-5. Roupesusn, G. E. “Some Practicable Economies in School Administration.” American S. Board Journal 78: 41-42; June, 1929. Scott, Cecitr W. “Economies in Public-Scho Expenditures for Instruction.” American Sc! Smaller Board Journal 84: 39-40; 50-51; Februa: March, 1932. SmirH, Nita Banton. “The Key-Teache: Scheme of Supervision.” Elementary Sv! Journal 28: 576-86; April, 1928. STRAYER, GeorGE D., director. Report of | Survey of the Schools of Chicago, Illinois. New York: Teachers College, Columbia Universi 1932. Vol. 3. p. 113-40. oi) ‘ @U4-09 *ARTMENT ‘he Prip. tth Y ear. ag shingtor he Prin- . p. 193 ARTMENT 'rgency fuary 13 l, Wash ARTMENT ent Sur- Yashing- Chapter ion,” p e Value ESEARCH cation.’ r, 193] 295-302 ESEARCH s Prob- March, tion. p CATION hirtieth Public ems in York p. 153- maller - 1929 School - Office shing- 193 1oOmMI!es Y h School School ruary, VII. Economy in the Management of School Supplies Small but important economies may result from improved methods in the management of school supplies and textbooks, for which 7 to 10 percent of the total budget is required (9, 16). Four possibilities for economy deserve consideration; namely, the selection, purchase, care, and use of supplies and equipment. Economy in the selection of supplies—To provide the teacher with instructional supplies so limited in amount and poor in quality that she cannot do effective work is obviously false economy (1); but among the questions which should be raised in connection with each pro- posed item are the following: How important is the function which it serves (7, 13, 16)? Will its purchase increase the effectiveness of school work (7, 16)? How many pupils will use it (7) ? How frequently is it needed (7)? Does its purchase mean that a more important item cannot be purchased (7)? Can the dis- trict afford it (7) ? What is its probable use- ful life (10)? Unless those who actually use materials are given a voice in their selection, items may be purchased for which there is little demand. Therefore, it is sound policy to consult teach- ers and other employees who use equipment and supplies as to the items wanted (9, 10, 11, 17). Establishment of a standard list of items is particularly important (9, 11, 12, 17, 20). One school system reduced the number of different items to be purchased from 1985 to 1790 by this method (9) and reported that in so doing the purchasing department saved the time of seven clerks for ten to twelve days in making up orders, records, and inventories. A uniform list of supplies also saves time in placing orders and simplifies storage. The quality of any item should be as good as, but no better than is required by its purpose (16, 17, 20). Purchasing agents alert for sub- stitutes that are equally good are able fre- quently to make important savings (9). Vari- ous brands and qualities of merchandise should be used comparatively under controlled condi- tions (6, 8, 9, 10, 15). Feinstein and West (8) describe a method for determining the relative efficiency of coals which illustrates this recommendation. When quality standards are determined, they should be incorporated into definite specifications in terms of which all purchases can be evaluated (6, 8, 9, 11, 12, 16, 20). The United States Bureau of Stand- ards publishes detailed specifications for sev- eral hundred different commodities, many of which are used in schools (21). Economy in the purchase of equipment and supplies—It is more economical for the super- intendent—or in a large city, a skilled school purchasing agent working under his direction to purchase supplies for the entire school system than for employees individually to purchase needed materials (3, 5, 9, 16, 20). Cooperative buying by a group of school systems has proved advantageous in many in- stances (2, 3, 9, 13, 16, 17, 18, 19). ‘Table 6 summarizes results of two of these studies. Shipley (18) compared prices on 376 put chases and found that as a result of cooperative buying the following savings were made: from 10 percent to 100 percent saving in more than half of the purchases; 100 to 200 percent in one-third of the purchases; 200 to 300 percent in 4 percent of the purchases; 300 to 400 per- cent in 2 percent of the purchases; and more than 400 percent in 0.26 percent of the pur- chases. Individual districts secured better prices in only 1.33 percent of the purchases. Better prices can be obtained by purchasing in relatively large quantities (5, 12, 13, 16, 17). Therefore, it is extremely important that an accurate estimate of supplies needed during the coming year be made before the close of the current year (5, 7, 9, 12, 14, 17, 20). In making that estimate, the quantity used during the current year (7, 12, 16, 17, 20), the enrolment for the coming year (16, 17), and possible economies and omissions (7, 16) should be considered. On the basis of an accurate estimate supplies for an entire school year can be ordered; but the purchase of sup- plies for more than one year is generally re- garded as unwise (17, 20). Other factors to be considered are: amount of storage space available (17), market prices at the time (10, 17), and the proportion of the school budget that is being devoted to this purpose (1, 7, 17). In one study a range in the cost of in- structional supplies per pupil in average daily attendance from $0.42 to $5.44 was discov- ered (1). Likewise, the cost of janitorial- engineering supplies ranged from $0.17 to $1.11 per pupil in average daily attendance. The averages were $2.14 and $0.38, respec- tively. The authors suggest, as a “zone of [77] ro safety,” $1.50 to $2.71 (per pupil in average daily attendance) for instructional supplies, and 30 to 60 cents for janitorial-engineering supplies. Pupil-quotas for standard supplies have been developed (1, 10). If costs vary greatly from these limits, the administration would do well to seek the cause. Since prices on school supplies are by no means standardized, the purchaser should al- ways compare those of one firm with those of others (3). When purchasing in quantity, re- liable firms should be asked to submit bids (9, 16, 17, 20), preferably item-by-item bids (3, 5). One school system saved $160 on glass by asking for bids; another was given a bid 20 percent lower than the firm’s catalog prices (9). A study of school warrants in a single county revealed the following comparisons (3): A standard brand of paper towels had been pur- chased at eleven different prices ranging from $7.00 to $14.50 per case. Similarly, crayons at seven different prices ranging from $0.60 to $1.20 per dozen boxes, and chalk at six differ- ent prices, $0.42 to $0.90 per box. One firm had charged seven different prices for a well- known brand of pencils. These data show the importance of securing bids. However, this method can be used to best advantage only when the supply list is standardized and ac- companied by complete and accurate specifica- tions. In comparing prices, shipping charges should not be overlooked (13). Payments should be made promptly in order to take ad- TABLE 6—COMPARATIVE PRICES UNDER INDIVIDUAL AND COOPERATIV®E vantage of the discounts offered (9, 13 17, 20). In this connection, authorities recommend that purchases be made with; direct action on the part of the school | That is, authorization of the purchase i budget should authorize payment for the chandise. The audit supplies the school b with a final check. Direct action on each } received may prevent effective purchasing 16, 20). All commodities should be purchased at ¢! season when prices are lowest; for exam, coal in summer (5, 9, 12, 17). The data pr sented by Clark and Fowlkes (4) show ¢ ; ; instructional supplies can be purchased to bes: advantage during the spring months befor supply houses receive heavy orders. Anothe: factor to be considered is the time of year whe: ) cash is available (16). Unless prices are rising rapidly, it is uneconomical to buy supplies at a time when a short-tetm loan must be a: ranged to pay for them. When possible, supplies should be purchase direct from manufacturers and publishers, o: at least from wholesale firms (5, 9, 20). It j good policy to deal only with reliable firms and, provided fair prices are maintained, deal with the same ones regularly so that o: ders will receive more careful attention (13 Commodities should be purchased from loca! firms only when their prices are no higher tha: those of other firms (9, 16). PURCHASING AS REPORTED BY TWO STUDIES Prices as Reported by | q | Calif. Dept. of Ed. (19 | Articles Bought Atkinson (2) | Cooperative | dividual | Cooperative | Individual buyi district sr district | uying buying ying buying 1 2 | 3 4 5 ER eer ee. eee | Seratch paper, per Ib... ...............5.. $0.04 Foolscap #12, per ream (half sheets). ....... 0.62 | i Se a eee RO a. 0 base howee oa 0,4 vues 2.40 i Se = ee go ia a's Soe ne Evi ees 0.50 1.25 0.60 1.5 SSS Sa ee ero ee ee 0.45 1.25 0.50 1.50 Athletic goods........... PO eae aie ee 40% dis. SS ro eee i OE a a eee irae Sincere 0.45 1.00 Drawing paper, per ream................. ERR EY A : 63 3.28 -4i ° to best before nother "WwW hen rising lies at be ar- ‘hased Economy in the care of supplies—The most economical and efficient point for f. o. b. ship- ment depends on school transportation facili- ties, location of storehouse and manufacture (10). Losses can be avoided only by inspecting and checking carefully all merchandise re- ceived against the specified requirements and by keeping accurate records of all receipts (7, 9 16, 17, 20). Although a single order for the year’s supplies is properly given, deliveries may be scheduled at various intervals through- out the year (10). The labor involved in re- ceiving and caring for supplies is thereby re- duced and spread more evenly, less storage space is required, and at any one time, a smaller cash investment is withdrawn from an interest- bearing account (10). Orderly arrangement in a storeroom that is clean and safe is the first essential (9, 13, 16, 17, 20). Whether supplies should be kept in a central storeroom from which they are de- livered at regular intervals or stored at each building in the school system depends on local circumstances. The Committee on Supply Re- search concluded that the central storehouse is desirable in a system of over 10,000 population (10). The central storeroom makes it possible to operate on a somewhat smaller invoice, for there is a pooled surplus instead of the many small margins (16). There should be a system of continuous accounting (5, 16, 20), and periodic invoices of both supplies and equip- ment (16). Records of all losses should be required as an incentive to the careful preserva- tion of materials (16). The distribution of supplies from the cen- tral storeroom on schedule rather than on call saves labor (16, 20). All deliveries should be carefully entered on suitable record forms (7, 16, 20). Distribution within each sch should be handled by a clerk, janitor, or othe: responsible adult. Prompt attention to minor repairs often in creases the useful life of bonks and equipment, thereby effecting substantial economies (9). One school rebinds books in the Industrial Arts Department at a cost of only five cents a book (9). Another has them repaired and rebound by a paid employee at an estimated cost of 26.8 cents per volume (22). All good parts of discarded equipment and _ supplies should be salvaged and stored in an orderly manner (9). If employees know that supplies and equipment are likely to be inspected at any time, they tend to store and maintain mate- rials more carefully (20). A periodical inspec tion of the classrooms and individual storage rooms will show whether the materials are being properly and economically used (10). Economy in the use of supplies—When requisitions originate with the user but must be approved by the building principal, a definite line of responsibility is established by means of which economical use of materials can be accomplished (16, 20). The cooperation of employees is necessary if any significant econ- omy in the use of supplies is to be achieved (9, 13, 17). Not only must they be willing to cooperate personally, but they must be able to secure the cooperation of pupils and to su- pervise them in their use of materials (7, 9, 13, 16). The oldest materials should be used first in order to avoid losses through deteriora- tion or obsolescence (17). There should be standard quantities for essential supplies based on accurate cumulative records and continu- ous comparisons (9, 10, 15, 16, 17, 20). References on Management of School Supplies . ANDERSON, C. J.; Fow kes, JoHN Guy; and Jones, L. F. Study of Budgeting and Allotment of School Supplies. National School Supply As- sociation, 1929. 43 p. . ATKINSON, CARROLL. “The County Superinten- dent as a School Supply Distributor.” School Executives Magazine 50: 413-14; May, 1931. . BucKALew, Harry L. “The Purchase of School Supplies.” American School Board Journal 75: 66-67; July, 1927. . CLARK, Harotp F., and Fow kes, JoHN Guy. “Index Numbers for School Supply Prices.” Nation’s Schools 2: 46-48; September, 1928. . Conrad, C. W. “School Supply Management.” School Executives Magazine 50: 416-17; May, 1931. 6. Demary, R. C. “Purchasing Coal for Schools.” American School Board Journal 79: 45-46; August, 1929. . Douctass, Hart R. Organization and Adminis- tration of Secondary Schools. Boston: Ginn and Co., 1932. p. 441-51. . Fernstern, H. L., and West, J. C. “A Simple Method for Determining the Relative Efficiency of Coals.” American School Board Journal 83: 34; November, 1931. . Henzuik, F. E.; RicHarps; W. M.; IRELAND, C. J.; and others. Practical Economies in School Administration. Lincoln: University of Nebraska, Extension Division, March, 1932. p. 27-59; 173- 77. (Educational Monegraphs No. 3.) [79] . Hippert, R. W., chairman. Selection, Purchase, Storage, and Distribution of Supplies. Bulletin No. 1, Committee on Supply Research. Trenton, N. J.: National Association of Public School Business Officials, 1932. 58 p. - Hispert, Russect W. The Why and How of a Semi-Standard Supply List. Proceedings of the National Association of Public School Business Officials, 1931. p. 55-67. . Kery, C. V. “Buying School Supplies.” 4 meri- can School Board Journal 81: 43-44; July, 1930. . Knox, Rose B. School Activities and Equipment. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co., 1927. p. 312-39. - Loomis, ArtHur Kirkwoop. A Technique of Estimating School Equipment Costs. Contribu- tions to Education, No. 208. New York: Teach- ers College, Columbia University, 1926. 112 p. . Lovejoy, Puitie C. “Saving Money in the Sup- ply Budget.” Nation’s Schools 7: 84, 86, 88; June, 1931. . Morrison, Henry C. The Management of the School Money. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1932. Chapter 17. p. 360-90. . Reeper, Warp G. The Fundamentals of Public School Administration. New York: Macmillan Co., 1930. p. 280-300. . SHipLey, A. H. “A Comparison of Prices by Central Purchasing and Individual D Buying for School Supplies.” American § Board Journal 79: 50, 142, 144; July, 1929 . STATE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, CALI: Thirty-Second Biennial Report of the Superin. tendent of Public Instruction, for the Schoo) Years Ending June 30, 1925 and June 30, 1926 Sacramento: the Department, 1927. p. 29-31 . Taytor, Ropert B. Principles of School Supply Management. Contributions to Education, No 228. New York: Teachers College, Columbia University, 1926. 145 p. . U. S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, BuREA Stanparps. Alphabetical Index and Numerica List of United States Government Master Spec: fications, Promulgated by the Federal Specifica- tions Board. Circular No. 319. Washington D. C.: Government Printing Office, 1928. 138 ; . We.its, D. N. “How Pueblo Schools Red School-Book Costs Through a Book-Repair D¢ partment.” American School Board Journal 7 46, 154; July, 1928. See also references 6, 8, 11, 13, 16, and 18 in the section on “The Budget As an Instrument for Economy.” p. 66-69. 6 er is no disposition on the part of those engaged in education to be callous or indifferent to the demands for relief from excessive tax burdens. ‘The schools, more than any other agency of government, have reduced expenditures to meet demands of reduced incomes. But there is a point beyond which reductions cannot be made without permanent damage to the institution which has contributed most significantly to the state and national welfare. The future welfare of our democratic social order is dependent upon the efficiency of our public schools. Drastic reductions in educational services are dangerous to public welfare. Social, civic, and economic problems which are proving baffling to the present adult generation are becoming increasingly complex and promise to present new diff- culties to the youth of today who will soon be charged with their solution as adults. The only reasonable hope that today’s youth will be able to cope successfully with these problems lies in an effective program of education. While reasonable retrenchments in school expenditures are necessary to meet cur- rent economic conditions, the efficiency of the school system must not be entirely sub- ordinated to financial considerations—Helen Heffernan and Ivan R. Waterman. Maintaining Educational Efficiency During Emergency, California Department of Edu- cation Bulletin, p. 16. rices Paid il D trict an Scho | 1929 ALIF( RNIA Superin. le § hool 30, 1926 29-31 ol Supply tion, No -olumbia REAU Of umerical er Sheci- peci Nica- shington 8. 18 p Redu e air De- rnal 77: id 18 in trument bit ia Ft aI ss VIII. Economy in the School Insurance Program Opportunities for economy appear in the organization of the school insurance program. Surveys of existing programs indicate possi- bilities in reduction of premiums and redis- tribution of coverage. The insurance now writ- ten applies to losses from fire, tornado or wind- storm, burglary, or theft; boiler, automobile, and sprinkler leakage; workmen’s compensa- tion, liability, or elevator insurance. The Com- mittee on Insurance Research has assembled data on the insurance practices and experience of 380 city school districts (21). Its report, re- ferred to in succeeding pages, suggests many means of savings. Reeder and Holmstedt (19) have surveyed various methods of economy in maintaining fire insurance for school property. Since most of the available information on school insurance programs relates to school fire insurance, this topic receives the chief emphasis in this chapter. Elimination of hazards—lIt is often possible to reduce the cost of fire insurance by removing fire hazards. The cost of removing such hazards often amounts to less than the annual saving on insurance premiums. Heating apparatus, storage vaults, flues and chimneys, electrical wiring, electric machines, ash heaps, and rub- bish heaps should be subjected to careful study, primarily because of added safety to the chil- dren, but also as a means of lowering the in- surance premiums (5, 6, 12, 17, 21, 24, 25, 26). Installing protection—The presence of a regularly organized local fire department low- ers premiums required for fire insurance: (5, 17). Rates can often be lowered by installing the ordinary type of small chemical fire extin- guisher. These should always be on hand in laboratories, furnace rooms, kitchens, and the other places where fire is used. Automatic sprinkler systems may also be effective in re- ducing both hazards and premiums (3). The secretary of one schoo! district cut $1,000 per year from insurance costs by correcting hazards about the schools (21). State insurance—-Smith found that three states—South Carolina, Wisconsin, and North Dakota—have established funds and provide for the insurance of public school buildings against loss by fire (25). After a study of re- sults in these states, Smith concluded that their experience indicated that “state fire insurance would result in material saving over the pres ent method of insurance.” Beyer’s article, how- ever, questions this recommendation (2). In North Dakota the rates paid to the state are approximately 75 percent of company rates. In Wisconsin, current rates are approximately 49 percent of company rates (9). The Association of School Board Secretaries in Pennsylvania suggested that some state insurance plan, simi- lar to the self-insurance plan adopted in Phila- delphia, be tried for school districts through- out the state. During one year, 184 districts spent $278,691 fire losses for that period had amounted to $49,447, or less than 20 percent of the pre- miums paid (7). on insurance premiums; the Self-insurance—The 49 city school districts that in 1931 had insured their public-school properties represent a total population of 22,- 916,937, and school properties valued at $1,- 274,729,897. Survey reports from additional cities indicate that funds are now being accu- mulated in order that a plan of self-insurance may be put into effect later (21). Provided that funds are properly managed, savings should accrue through self-insurance in any large city having a large number of school buildings well scattered throughout the city, and without fire hazards (17, 18, 24, 25). This is apparent from a consideration of the ratio of fire losses to premium costs. In Penn- sylvania approximately twenty cents was paid back as insurance for every dollar paid toward fire protection by 627 school districts during 1922-27 (11). The payments returned during 1921-30 on account of fire losses in 42 cities and villages of New York, averaged 12.7 cents for each dollar paid in premiums (21). Dur- ing 1931 Ohio school districts paid $465,077 in premiums and received $47,386 on account of fire losses (9). In 1932 rural districts and incorporated villages having a population of less than 5,000 paid $239,884 in premiums and reported fire losses amounting to $31,795 (10). The Cornmittee on Insurance Research made a state by state survey of insurance coverage for school properties. Premiums paid for fire protection on some 9,213 school buildings dur- ing 1921-30 totaled $14,045,839; fire losses paid during this period amounted to $4,171,041, or 29.7 percent of the premiums paid (21). [81] Writing five-year policies—Since the rate of insurance for five years is usually only four times the rate for a single year, it is obviously economical to buy policies running for a five- year term. The policies can be spread out so that all do not fall due in a single year and so that approximately equal annual appropria- tions for insurance purposes may be made (12, 25). Adequate appraisals—In a study of school insurance in eight New Jersey cities, Smith found that five of the eight had no reliable appraisal of the value of the school property (25). Brunstetter found expert appraisals in three out of nine New Jersey cities (4). Skaa- land found that less than six percent of Minne- sota school districts had adequate property appraisal (23), and Melchior found a corre- sponding figure in New York state of only three percent (12). Obviously, an accurate knowledge of the value of property is a prereq- uisite for a business-like plan of insurance (25). Smith has compiled the opinions of nine insurance experts as to the best method of ap- praising school property (24). Sometimes state insurance officials can assist in getting accurate appraisals made for local school districts (20). Mutual insurance—While city school sys- tems have not taken out fire insurance with mutual companies to any extent, the Commit- tee on Insurance Research found that the re- ports from school districts using this prote were favorable. The Committee pointed that mutual insurance protection is furn at a cost averaging less than in the ca insurance with stock companies. The ‘my: companies showed more favorable loss and pense ratios than the stock companies. At |eas; thirty-nine mutual companies write non-a: sessable contracts, and many other companies have never had occasion to levy assessments addition to regular premium payments (2! Estimated and actual economies—Estimates and reports from different states and |o communities show that annual amounts frop below $100 to over $300,000 were saved through eliminating hazards, installing fire protection, eliminating unnecessary coverag: writing 5-year policies, securing proper praisal, or insuring through a state fund Table 7 shows these estimated or reported savings. Other property insurance—While schoo! districts do not uniformly favor tornado and windstorm insurance, the Committee on Insu: ance Research suggested the desirability such protection in sections of the country sub ject to such storms. No special recommenda tions appear in the Committee’s report, con- cerning economical methods of organizing the various forms of property insurance other than fire. Only limited losses had occurred from TABLE 7.—ESTIMATED AND ACTUAL ECONOMIES IN SCHOOL FIRE INSURANCE Savings Estimated or Reported in: New Jersey (25) (27) Penna. — Alabama | Iowa Mich, Kans.| S.C. (13) (20) (22) (16) | (21 City} Ci Cora- EF poli Rural | Sioux Dis- | City Ci Man- Wy ‘ #2608376 ooes Eliminating hazards. Installing fire t eee Eliminat- ing un- ' An adversely critical analysis of these estimates has been published by Beyer (2). [82] losses. Several districts Carrying automobile boiler explosions; only one district reported any substantial loss from sprinkler leakage. No school districts reported that they had es- tablished sinking funds for protection against burglary or theft insurance limit this coverage to school vaults, safes, and principals’ offices (Zi). References on the Insurance Program ’. “Some Social and Economix BeacH, Frep F. “Saving Thirty Per Cent on 15. Insurance.” American School Board Journal 82: 59; June, 1931. Beyer, WALTER F. “The Practicability of State Insurance Funds.” American School Board Journal 83: 48, 116, 119; September, 1931. Buss, VINCENT R. “Recent Measures That Have Lowered the Cost of Fire Protection.’ Nation’s Schools 6: 73-75; August, 1930. BRUNSTETTER, M. R. Business Management in School Systems of Different Sizes. Contributions to Education, No. 455. New York: Teachers College, Columbia University, 1931. p. 45-52. ENGELHARDT, N. L, and ENGELHARDT, FREp. Public School Business Administration. New York: Teachers College, Columbia University, 1927. p. 386-406. . “Fire Insurance and Fire Prevention.” 4 meri- can School Board Journal 74: 136, 139; April, 1927. . “Fire Insurance for School Property.” American . HENZLIK, School Board Journal 70: 101-02; April, 1925. F. E.; RicHarps, W. M.; IRELAND, CLIFFORD J.; and others. Practical Economies in School Administration. Lincoln: University of Nebraska, Extension Division, March, 1932. * p. 127-33. (Educational Monographs No. 3). . Hoty, T. C., compiler. Comparison of School Plant Insurance Premiums and Reported School Fire Losses in Ohio Cities and Counties for 1930 and 1931. Columbus, Ohio: Bureau of Educa- tional Research, April, 1933. Mimeographed, 9 p. . Hoty, T. C., compiler. Information on School Plant Insurance in Ohio. Columbus, Ohio: Bu- reau of Educational Research, May, 1933. Mimeographed, 10 p. KeiTH, Joun A. H., and Taccart, MatTrHew H. Study of the Economical Insurance of School Property. Harrisburg, Pa.: Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, January, 1, 1929. 12 p. . Metcuior, WiLitiAM T. Insuring Public School Property. Contributions to Education, No. 168. New York: Teachers College, Columbia Uni- versity, 1925. 187 p. . Micver, CuHester F., chairman. School Econo- mies Through Efficient Administration and Mangaement. Committee on Public School Economies. Lansing, Mich.: Michigan Educa- tion Association, March, 1931. Bulletin No. 22, p. 12-15. . Morton, W. H. “School Property Insurance.” School Executives’ Magazine 51: 305-06; March, 1932. . Prarra, P. K. . Reever, Warp G., and . “Rewriting School Property . TRAUTSCHOLD, . Werner, J. C. OLIVER, STANLEY ( Aspects of School Fires and Fire Insurance.” American School and University, 1929-30. New York: American School Publishing Corporation, 1929. p. 156-62. “Does State Insurance on School Property Pay?” American School Board Jour nal 83: 59; July, 1931. ReEepER, Warp G. The Business of a School System. Boston: 1929. Chapter 14, p. 287-318. ReEEDER, Warp G. “Community School Buildings.” Educational Research Bulle- tin 4: 161-63; April 15, 1925. Hotmstept, R. W. “Fi nancial Economies in Business Management of Schools.” Review of Educational Research 2: 139-47; April, 1932. Washington, D. C.: Ameri can Educational Research Association, a de- partment of the National Education Association See p. 141-43. 1dministration Ginn and Co., Insurance of Man hattan, Kansas.’ American School Board Jour- nal 76: 172; June, 1928. Roperts, H. C., chairman. Insurance Practices and Experience of City School Districts of the United States and Canada. Bulletin No. 2. Com- mittee on Insurance Research. Trenton, N. J.: National Association of Public School Business Officials, 1932. SHERARD, J. L. “Free Insurance for School Build ings.” American School Board Journal 73: 40; 1926. Insurance at 230 p. November, . SKAALAND, S. G. “Public-School Property Insur ance.” American School Board Journal 75: 41 42; October, 1927. Summary of Master’s thesis, University of Minnesota, 1926, entitled: dn Analysis of the Practices and Procedures Fol- lowed in Insuring School Property in Minnesota SMITH, Harry P. Business Administration of Public Schools. Yonkers-on-Hudson, New York: World Book Co., 1929. Chapter 11, p. 245-66. . SmirH, Harvey A. Economy in Public School Fire Insurance. Contributions to Education, No 428. New York: Teachers College, Columbia University, 1930. 113 p. REGINALD. “School and Building Fire Losses.” American School Board Journal 71: 108: August, 1925. “Economy and Equalization in Insurance Expenditures.” American School Board Journal 81: 44; November, 1930. Additional bibliography is available in refer- ences 5, 12, 17, 19, 24, 25. College ee ene peas ee ROOD aes = = TEC TO e — g tp Be RT he cama IX. The Management and Protection of School Funds Greater efficiency in the management of school revenue results in important economies in many school systems. Opportunities for economy are often found in dealing with one or all of the following problems: (1) collect- ing and managing the available revenue, (2) obtaining the optimum amount of interest on deposited funds, and (3) protecting school funds against loss. Collecting and managing the revenue— Funds that the school district is entitled to re- ceive are not always turned over to it auto- matically. District authorities should be alert to prevent losses in revenue because of under- valuated property; property not on the tax roll; uncollected state and federal aid; undis- tributed license fees, fines, delinquent taxes, and interest on money; and uncollected tuition fees, breakage fees, receipts from the sale of supplies, profits from non-academic school ac- tivities and enterprises, rentals, and receipts from the sale of miscellaneous property and equipment (8). When school funds are col- lected by an officer of the local government, they should be obtained from him regularly and as frequently as the law permits so they may earn interest for the school district (8). Because taxes are ordinarily collected an- nually, or at most semi-annually, obligations of the school district frequently fall due at a time when revenue is not in hand. In that event the district is forced to adopt one of three plans: (1) it may carry a reserve large enough to anticipate expenditures, (2) it may resort to short-term loans, or (3) it may defer the payment of its obligations. None of these plans is desirable. The shorter the interval between the time when funds are collected and the time when expenditures are made the more econom- ical it is to the taxpayer. Several years ago in- vestigators in the state of New York (18) estimated that the following annual loans could be traced directly to the fact that taxes were paid in September for a fiscal year be- ginning the previous January 1: Amount borrowed annually which City was attributed to this factor New York $3,000,000 Syracuse 50,000 20,000 By advancing the date of tax collections, the city of Troy saved $42,000 a year Young (20) found that the interval betwee the beginning of the fiscal year and the day of tax collections ranged from 0 to 220 ¢ in the New York cities which he studied, |, eight cities and four villages short-term |oans of $5,000 to $1,750,000 could be attributed ; the span between the beginning of the fisca! school year and the tax year. In many stances, delay in the payment of bills resu); in the loss of cash discounts. Better coording tion between the fiscal year and tax yea; can sometimes be effected;* if not, arrange ments should be made whenever possible ; Authorities on school administration are gen. erally agreed that borrowing money habitual|; for current operating expenses is an undesirable practice. Yet because of the situation described above, and for other reasons, the practice con- tinues. Halsey (7) found that thirty-one fifty-one counties in Florida were borrowing from $100 to $500,000 annually at interes: rates ranging from three to eight percent. One district had arranged a twenty-five year loan at eight percent. Without compounding the in- terest, this loan would cost the district more than three times the amount borrowed. The average interest payment on short-term loans in the fifty-one counties studied was more than $5,000 per year. Agencies of the local government are some- times authorized by law to exercise control ove: school revenue. A decade ago Frasier (| ranked 169 cities on an index of efficiency. Little more than one-fourth of the fiscally d: pendent cities exceeded the median rank of the independent cities. A negative correlation (—.27) was found between dependence and efficiency. These conclusions find support in the studies of McGaughy (13) and Young (20 The former found that the per capita bonded indebtedness was higher in dependent cities and that taxable property was assessed at a higher percentage of its real valuation. Young found that school boards were frequently inconven'- enced in dealing with important affairs because of long delays on the part of city councils. As much as 138 days elapsed between the time the budget was submitted and the time of its ap- proval. In spite of the clear cut evidence t! 1 Change in the fiscal year may require a change in school law, but, with an important economy at stake, even this task canno! well be ignored. [ 84 ] sepe ploy met amy dist $73 taxe cou! $10 one: is n dist into this the ther coul tric! ( Lin posi thre 000 inte reve sona Flo sche wer cour cent in t earn ury independent school districts manage their af- fairs efficiently and economically, school dis- tricts have by no means been released from the control of governmental agencies. For example, sixty cities in the state of New York are classi- fied as follows (20) : Partially dependent cities.......... 16 Budget approved by vote of people... 10 Two very different plans are followed in the collection of school taxes: (1) collection of school taxes along with others by the regular tax official of the city or county, and (2) the separate collection of school taxes by an em- ployee of the school district. The former method is the more economical (20). For ex- ample, in Pennsylvania in 1926, fourth class districts paid $973,552 and third class districts $732,348 for the separate collection of their taxes. It was estimated that regular officials could have collected them for not more than $100,000—a possible saving of about one and one-half million dollars (1). The first method is not without its abuses, however, for school districts are often required to pay excessive fees into the treasury of the local government for this service; for example, one percent during the first month of collection and five percent thereafter (20). Such an arrangement in one county meant that the cost to the school dis- tricts was $250,000 (8). Obtaining optimum interest on deposits— Linn (11) estimates that the combined de- posits of school districts in the United States throughout the year would be at least $500,- 000,000. Hence an increase of one percent in interest rate would add $5,000,000 to school revenues. Nor is such an increase an unrea- sonable objective. Halsey (7) found that eight Florida counties received no interest at all on school deposits although four of these counties were carrying time deposits. In thirty-one other counties the banks were paying only two per- cent on daily balances. Young (20) found that in twenty-four of forty-three cities all interest earned by school funds went into the city treas- ury instead of into the school fund.’ Replies to a recent inquiry from thirty-eight cities of more than 150,000 population revealed two in which the board was receiving less than one percent; nine in which the rate was lower than two percent; ten in which it was between two and three percent; and only one in which it was four percent? (14). Another study (5) re ported that sixty-one out of seventy-five banks paid no interest on daily balances. Ordinarily the board may exercise discretion in choosing depositories for school funds and, since banks are interested in any deposit as large as that of a school district, higher rates of interest may sometimes be obtained by ask- ing for bids (8, 10, 11, 20). The mere arousal of public opinion may be sufficient to obtain a fair rate (20). Linn commends the North Dakota law (10, 11) which fixes both a mini mum and maximum rate for daily balances (1% and 3 percent) and a minimum and maxi- mum rate for time deposits (34 and 5 percent). Larger use of time deposits, carrying small balances in the operating account, would result in larger interest returns in many districts (11, 20). Protecting school funds against loss After all available sums have been collected, their protection from loss is a matter of first impor- tance. Linn (10) lists twenty-four causes of loss in revenue, twenty of which were losses from cash in hand: (1) failure to moneys definitely appropriated, (2) failure to receive collect various sums available locally, (3) bank failures, (4) improper bonding of officials, (5) lack of proper accounting procedures, (6) lack of prompt and proper audits, (7) depreciation of securities, (8) transfer of funds from proper accounts, (9) (10) failure to collect interest on securities and deposits, (11) extravagance, (12) waste, (13) insufficient legislation, (14) general mis- management, (15) graft and fraud, (16) em- bezzlement, (17) theft, (18) forgery, (19) absconding of school fund officials, (20) pad- ding payrolls and bills, (21) manipulating accounts, (22) improper sale of bonds and se- curities, (23) diversion of interest moneys, and (24) improper investment of funds. The findings of Fleetwood and Richardson (5) in improper letting of contracts, 1In some ‘instances, interest moneys go into the treasury of the local government because the law provides that they shal! When that is true, the school board cannot secure this revenue until the law is modified In other instances, the law is indefinite and the practice has simply arisen. In the absence of specific legal regulation, the courts have favored school districts and allowed them to recover interest on school funds (20). ? Seven of the replies were blank with respect to this item and one asking for the basis of calculation used in computing in- terest. This may, or may not, mean that the school district is getting mo interest on its deposits. Six other replies were indefinite for example, “agreement between city and bank. [ 85 ] their study of seventy-eight school districts in Missouri show that many school districts leave their funds unprotected. They found that: 1. More than one-third of the districts were with- out a bended treasurer. - More than half the bonded treasurers gave personal bonds. . Not more than thirteen depositories had been designated in compliance with the law. 4. Four-fifths of the depositories were not bonded. Replies to a recent inquiry from thirty-eight cities over 150,000 in population gave addi- tional evidence of the need for better protection (14). Of the thirty-four cities giving definite information on this point, eight cities reported that their funds were unprotected. Protection in the twenty-six remaining cities varied from “bonded officials” to ‘‘bonded officials: surety bond and collateral security given by bank.” Officials charged with the custody and man- agement of public funds are commonly required to furnish bond. The minimum of protection for public money provided by this method should never be neglected. Linn (10) points out that requiring a bond does not question the official’s honesty ; it protects him and the public against inefficient subordinates, robbery, and all unavoidable losses and does decrease the temptation to misuse funds. As a result of his study of the problem Linn (10) makes the fol- lowing recommendations : 1. Require a bond of all officials who handle funds, such as, tax collectors, treasurers, board mem- bers who handle funds, business officials, audi- tors, clerks, cafeteria managers, storeroom keepers, and custodians of special funds. . Determine the amount of the bond in terms of (a) the total sum handled, (b) the amount han- dled at any one time, (c) accounting and audit- ing procedures followed, (d) extent to which others share the responsibility with the official in question. . Require corporate (not personal) bonds. 4. Pay bond premiums with public funds. . Beware of clauses written into bonds to limit the liability of the company. . Accept and approve bonds promptly and in the proper manner. . Have bonds properly recorded and safely pre- served. 8. Cover special funds with special bonds. Large sums of money have doubtless been lost in bank failures, particularly since 1930. In- complete data from Nebraska in 1928 showed that about two and one-half million dollars were then involved in bank failures (8 percent recovered is unknown, but the lo. undoubtedly serious. Such losses can be a\ in two ways: (1) by the careful selectio, depositories, and (2) by requiring the bank ; give a surety bond or collateral sufficien: ; cover the amount deposited. The following items are among the in tant ones used by surety companies in . mining the strength of a bank: 1. Paid in (not merely authorized) capita least $25,000. 2. Surplus and undivided profits—at least twen percent of the capital; should show a tenden to increase. . Deposits—at least $100,000 in any comme bank. . Public deposit ratio—public funds on deposi should not exceed twenty-five percent of th total deposits nor fifty percent of the combined capital and surplus. . Ratio of deposits to capital funds (Numb: and 2, above)—not more than 10 to 1; pref: ably, not more than 4 to 1. . Bills payable and rediscounts not more tha: fifty percent of capital and surplus nor m than fifteen percent of its loans and discounts . Loans and discounts—diversified and not in excess of deposits. . Bonds and securities—substantial part of th: bank’s resources should be invested in bonds and securities that are readily marketable . Fixed assets—not in excess of fifty percent capital funds. 10. Reserves—not less than fifteen percent of de posits. Not only should care be used in selecting depository, but the bank should be required ¢ furnish a surety bond, collateral, or both, sufh cient to cover all deposits of the school distr: (5, 8, 10, 16). Bonds, notes, and all important financial documents should be preserved safety deposit boxes which can be opened on by the use of two keys (8, 10). In that wa; they are protected from fire and burglars and no one individual has access to them. Desirable office practices, adequate and curate records, and frequent audits of al! ac- counts are essential in the correct management of public funds (8, 10, 12). Among others, following business methods are important 10): (1) keep little cash on hand, (2) make all payments by checks which must be signed by two individuals, (3) use safety paper checks and a check protector, (+) use water proof ink on important documents, and (> d ‘ [ 86] 10 one employee solely responsible for eceiving and paying out money. Pub- with respect to financial matters is an effective control (10). Similarly, the monthly statement, showing how the budget is being followed, is an incentive to economy (9). Ac- counts should be audited by competent persons, preferably by certified public accountants (8, 10 Legal provisions with respect to school finance are far from uniform and the laws in many states carry provisions that are contrary to widely accepted principles (10, 11, 15, 19 Of course, school authorities should work for better legislation, but in the meantime, know] edge of existing laws and careful conformity to them should protect the school district from needless litigation (19). References on Management and Protection of School Funds i. “The Cost of School Tax Collection in Pennsyl- vania.” School and Society 23: 775; June 19, 1926. Dewey, CHARLES S. “The Deposits of Public Moneys.” American Bankers Association Jour- nal 18: 129-30; September, 1925. EconoMic Poticy Commission. “The Causes of Bank Failures and Some Suggested Remedies.” American Bankers Association Journal 20: 304- 08; November, 1927. FEDERAL Reserve Boarp. Eighteenth Annual Re- port Cowering Operations for the Year 1931. Washington, D. C.: Government Printing Office, 1932. 316 p. 5. FLeEETWOoop, H. L., and RicHArpson, G. D. “Safe- guarding Local School Funds in Missouri.’ School and Community 18: 252-54; September, 1932. . Frasrer, GeorGE W. The Control of City School Finances. Milwaukee: Bruce Publishing Co., 1922, 132 p. . Hatsey, Henry Row Lanp. Borrowing Money for the Public Schools. Contributions to Educa- tion, No. 368. New York: Teachers College, Columbia University, 1929. 127 p. 3. HENZLIK, F. E.; RicHArps, W. M.; IRELAND, CiiFForD J.; and others. Practical Economies in School Administration. Lincoln: University of Nebraska, Extension Division, March, 1932. p. 19-27. (Educational Monographs, No. 3.) . LEAVENWORTH, P. E. “Financial Statements as a Means of Control.” American School Board Journal 78: 43-44; March, 1929. . Linn, H. H. Safeguarding School Funds. Con- tributions to Education, No. 387. New York: Teachers College, Columbia University, 1929. 187 p. . Linn, H. H. “What Interest Shall School De- posits Bring?” American School Board Journal 80: 51-52; February, 1930. 12. Lovejoy, Puitip. ‘Administering Revenue Funds Other Than Taxes.” Nation’s Schools 5: 81-82 84, 61-64; February, March, 1930. McGauany, J. R. The Fiscal Administration of City School Systems. Report of the Educational Finance Inquiry Commission, Vol. 5. New York Macmillan Co., 1924. 95 p. NATIONAL EpUCATION ASSOCIATION, DEPARTMENT OF SUPERINTENDENCE AND RESEARCH DIVISION School Funds on Deposit: Protection and Inter est Rates. Educational Research Service, Ci: cular No. 8, 1932. Washington, D. C.: the As sociation, June, 1932. 7 p. Patry, W. W. “Legal Provisions for Custody of, and Liability for, Public Funds for Second ary School Support.” American School Board Journal 72: 47-48, 144; 73: 130, 132; March April, 1926. . QUENELLE, BERTRAM P. “How To Protect School Funds.” School Executives Magazine 51: 302 05; March, 1932 Rocers, G. A. “Why Lose Money on Public Funds in Banks?” .4merican Bankers Associa tion Journal 18: 606, 644; March, 1926, SPECIAL JOINT COMMITTEE ON ‘TAXATION AND RETRENCHMENT OF THE NEW YorK STATE LEGIS- LATURE. Legislative Document, No. 80. Albany, N. Y.: J. B. Lyon and Co., 1920. p. 19-20 YAKEL, RALPH. The Legal Control of the Ad ministration of Public School Expenditures Contributions to Education, No. 388. New York Teachers College, Columbia University, 1929 167 p. Younc, Dare S. Control of Available Publt School Income. Contributions to Education, No. 305. New York: Teachers College, Columbia University, 1928. 110 p. "Da SCHOOLS belong to the people. Society clearly defined needs. Reductions in educational expenditures are not a matter of concern to school people alone. The public must bear the ultimate responsibility if any community deter- mines to set aside competent professional advice and reduce the amount of school resources below the level of safety. There are two decisions to be made: First, what total sum shall be allotted for educational purposes? The final responsibility for this decision rests with the entire commu- nity. Second, what is the most advantageous distribution of the amount provided for schools by public decision? ‘This second decision, as has already been pointed out, should be vested in the professional staff of the schools, reporting to the board of education —David E. Weglein, chair- man. Report of the Committee on School Costs, p. 16-17. has established public schools to meet certain [ 87 ] a ee ik i i v ; i ) I i + or Pee Sa kd SP Me a ce TER ee gt see ore, X. Teachers’ Salaries and Teacher Load A heavy portion of the current reductions in school budgets is being borne by the teachers. Emergency increases in size of class, heavier teaching loads, and lowered salaries have been common (13, 15). Teachers’ salaries—A joint national commit- tee of educators and laymen recently made this recommendation (23): There is one irreducible minimum for effective education. This one basic requirement is good teach- ing. Such service can be expected only from men and women of broad training and high personal qualities. Such people are everywhere and always in demand. If the schools cannot compete with other agencies to secure this type of teacher, the most im- portant single element of educational efficiency is lost. Retrenchment in teachers’ salaries tends ulti- mately to retain the poorest teachers and to drive the best teachers into other careers. It is sometimes stated that teachers’ salaries should be reduced in proportion to the reduc- tion in the cost of living. If this statement is accepted, it should be remembered that the fig- ures published by the U. S. Bureau of Labor Statistics on living costs are based on the cost of living for laborers and are not reliable meas- ures for the equitable adjustment of the salaries of teachers or other professional workers (2, 6, 10). A controlling purpose of the measures now being taken by the National Recovery Admin- istration to improve economic conditions is the increasing of salaries and wages. Yet during 1933-34 there will be many teachers receiving salaries below the minima fixed by the Presi- dent’s Reemployment Agreement. Students of contemporary conditions point out the wisdom of reducing the number of persons employed in the directly productive material industries and increasing employment in such social services as education. There are many competent but unemployed teachers who might be used in the public schools to advantage. Effective participa- tion in the recovery program by public schools requires that no further reductions in salaries be made, that salaries of employees below the code minima be at once increased, that the salaries of teachers be quickly restored to more normal levels, and that additional teaching service be used wherever desirable for the wel- fare of the schools. Class size and teacher load—The studies of Stevenson (20), Hudelson (7), Smith (19), and others (3, 5, 25) have shown that the achievement of students on standardized ject matter tests does not vary significantly with size of class. If the routine learning of suc! facts and dexterities—names, dates, numbers definitions, and the like—is the sole, or even the basic, aim of education, the size of clas: probably is a matter of no great importance If, however, education is expected to take a its major responsibility the development of pe: sonality and character, the scores registered on standard tests tell only part of the story Most educators, therefore, favor at least some small groups permitting close and friendly con tact between teachers and pupils. Where large; classes are formed because of economic pressure on public school budgets, all possible adjust- ments should be made to compensate for the additional load carried by the teachers in order that harmful results to teachers and pupils may be avoided. A list of such adjustments is pre. sented by Lewis (8). In a survey of opinio: Scott found that, if classes must be enlarged, th: increasing of class sizes only at certain levels and in certain subjects is more generally favored than the establishment of a standard class for the entire school system (18). Sometimes desirable to readjust schedules and classes s that the average teaching load remains appro) mately constant, while inequalities in load ar reduced or removed (26). That it is possible, especially in large sch and cities, to spend less money by increasi: class size has been demonstrated (7, 21, 24 that such retrenchments are real economies 's open to serious question ; carried to an extrem they may weaken or destroy the most important values of education. Reports of present practi: with respect to size of class and teachers’ salaries have been issued by the National Education Association (11, 12, 16). See Tables 8 and ° Miscellaneous retrenchments in instruction —Reducing or eliminating pay for teachers on sick leave or absent from active service for othe: reasons, is presumably only a temporary meas- ure. In 1931, 90 percent of city school systems granted some salary during leaves of absence for personal illness ; 80 percent for death in the immediate family ; 63 percent for visiting other schools; and 65 percent for attending educa- tional meetings (14). Withholding special salary increments 0: advanced study, and direct aid to teachers tak [ 88 ] ing additional college courses, is reported by a_ cent. The trend was most marked among the few cities. This also may be a temporary ad- small school systems (14). justment, since the trend between 1928 and Paying salaries in twelve monthly install- 1931 was in the opposite direction. In 1928, 12 ments has been used in some cities as an economy percent of city school systems granted special measure. Whether this plan will save money honuses for summer school attendance, while or not depends in large part on the tax-collec in 1931, the corresponding figure was 19 per- tion policies of the school system concerned. TABLE 8.—SIZE OF CLASS IN CITY SCHOOL SYSTEMS, 1930-311 Median Class Size in: | Range of Approved? Class Size in: Type of Classes | | } 47 cities | 101 cities 56 cities 47 cities 101 cities 56 cities over 30,000 to under over | 30,000 to under 100,000 100,000 30,000 100,000 100, 000 30,000 Atypical classes... .. 19 16 10 to 20 12 to 20 15 or 16 25 to 40 20 to 35 20 to 35 Kindergartens 55 33 y 30 Elementary grades.... aan 39 : 32 27 to 41 25 to 40 25 to 35 Junior high schools. 34 29 20 to 402 | 20 to 355 20 to 408 Senior high schools... . 31 26 15 to 404 15 to 408 15 to 38¢ Senior high school classes in:’ Fine Arts... ... 15 20 to 31 20 to 30 15 to 30 Household Arts. 2 16 16 to 30 15 to 25 15 to 25 Manual Training. 2 19 15 to 30 15 to 25 1S to 24 Foreign Languages 22 20to 35 |) =«(20 to 30 15 to 30 - 25 20to40 | 20to 40 16 to 38 Science. cee eeeeee 28 25 20 to 35 20 to 30 15 to 30 Mathematics....... 29 7 27 20 to 35 20 to 31 15 to 30 English. 30 28 28 20 to 35 20 to 35 15 to 30 Commercial Studies 30 27 20 to 35 20 to 35 am 94 Social Studies....... 31 2 30 20 to 35 20 to 35 7 to 35 Physical Training 41 2 35 | 25 to 60 30 to 52 25 to 50 > 1 National Education Association, Department of Superintendence and Research Division Size of Cl Cities Over 100,000 in Population. Educational Research Service, Circular No. 1, 1931 Washington, D. (¢ ciation, January, 1931. 36 p. National Education Association, Department of Superintendence and Research Division. Size of Cla Cities 30,000 to 100,000 in Population and 56 Cities Under 30,000 in Population. Educational Research Service, lar No. 6, 1931. Washington, D. C.: the Association, May, 1931. 63 p. 2 Approved means the size of class which is sought as a matter of general administrative policy ? Except music, 25 to 48; physical training, 30 to 60. 4 Except physical training. 5 Except‘ music, 25 to 45 ; physical training, 30 to 50; household and man qual arts, 16 to 25 § Except physical tr: ining, 25 to 50; household and manual arts, 15 t ? The median size of class in senior high school subjects is not compute te 1e total distribution of classes reporte in each subject, but is a median of city medians. TABLE 9.—SALARIES PAID TEACHERS IN THE UNITED STATES, 1932-33! Median Salary Paid Teachers in: Population of Community Elementary | Junior high i Rural schools | schools schools schools Cities over 100,000........... ‘ $1, 947 20: | $2,479 Cities 30,000-100,000 ee 1,526 7 1,994 Cities 10,000-30,000.... Bee ) 1,360 52: 1,747 Cities 5,000-10,000.......... ee) ae 37 1,575 Cities 2,500-5, 000... iz ; Rural areas? (average: 1929. 30). Pie: Tene rege 2 chee $9263 1 National Education Association, Research Division. ‘Salaries in City School ‘Sete. 1932 )~ 33.” Research Bulletin 11: 43-55; March, 1933. Washington, D. C.: the Association. *Gaumnitz, Walter H. Status of Teachers and Principals Employed in the Rural Schools of the United States. U.S. Department of the Interior, Office of Education, Bulletin, 1932, No. 3. W ashington, D. C.: Government Printing Office, 1932. 122 p * During the period 1929-30 to 1932-33, monthly salaries of rural elementary teachers in 1,122 counties had an average decrease of 10.6 percent; salaries of rural secondary teachers in 1,013 counties had an average decrease of 10.3 percent. For further details see Gaumnitz, W. H. Some Effects of the Economic Situation Upon the Rural Schools. Circular No. 80, February, 1933. Wash- re, sie D. C.: U.S. Department of the Interior, Office of Education, 1933. Mimeographed. Tables [ 89 ] References on Teachers’ Salaries and Teacher Load . Carr, WiLtiaM G. “Research and the Best Class Size.” Proceedings, 1932. Vol. 70. Washington, D. C.: National Education Association, 1932. p. 143-45. Also see: Nation’s Schouls 10: 27-30; November, 1932. . Eecits, WALTER C. “It Would Be Unfair to Re- duce Teachers’ Salaries Now.” Nation’s Schools 10: 17-22; September, 1932. . Ewan, S. N. “Class Size.” Bulletin (Proceed- ings) 40: 124-29; March, 1932. Berwyn, III: Department of Secondary School Principals, National Education Association; also see Pro- ceedings, 1932. Vol. 70. Washington, D. C.: National Education Association, 1932. p. 509-10. . Henzuik, F. E.; Richarps, W. M.; IRELAND, Cuirrorp J.; and others. Practical Economies in School Administration. Lincoln: University of Nebraska, Extension Division, March, 1932. p. 59-88. (Educational Monographs, No. 3.) . Hicusmiru, J. Henry. “Effect of Class Size Upon the Efficiency of Instruction.” High School Quarterly 20: 165-74; July, 1932. . Hoty, T. C. “How Shall Teachers’ Pay Be De- termined?” School Executives Magazine 52: 243-44; March, 1933. . Hupetson, Earv. “Class Size Opinions, Evidence, and Policies in Secondary Schools.” North Cen- tral Association Quarterly 4: 196-208; Septem- ber, 1929. . Lewis, Ervin Eucene. Personnel Problems of the Teaching Staff. New York: Century Co., 1925. p. 243-46. . Lovejoy, Puiie C. “Saving Money in the Per- sonnel Budget.” Nation’s Schools 7: 96, 98, 100, 102; March, 1931. . NATIONAL EnucaTion AssoctATION, DEPARTMENT OF SUPERINTENDENCE AND RESEARCH DrVvIsION. Estimating Changes in Teachers’ Cost of Living. Educational Research Service, Circular No. 1, 1933. Washington, D. C.: the Association, Janu- ary, 1933. 15 p. . NATIONAL EpucaTIon AssocIATION, DEPARTMENT OF SUPERINTENDENCE AND RESEARCH DIVISION. Size of Class in 47 Cities Over 100,000 in Popu- lation. Educational Research Service, Circular No. 1, 1931. Washington, D. C.: the Association, January, 1931. 36 p. . NATIONAL EpucATION ASSOCIATION, DEPARTMENT OF SUPERINTENDENCE AND RESEARCH Division. Size of Class in 101 Cities 30,000 to 100,000 in Population and 56 Cities Under 30,000 in Popu- lation. Educational Research Service, Circular No. 6, 1931. Washington, D. C.: the Association, May, 1931. 63 p. . NaTIONAL EpucaTion AssocIATION, DEPARTMENT OF SUPERINTENDENCE AND RESEARCH Division. Some Trends in City School Finance, 1932-33. Educational Research Service, Circular No. 5, 1932. Washington, D. C.: the Association, May, 1932. 34 p. See also, Supplement to Circular No. 5, September 30, 1932. 6 p. 14. NATIONAL EpucATION ASSOCIATION, Res Division. “Administrative Practices Af Classroom Teachers, Part II.” Research PB letin 10: 33-76; March, 1932. Washington, | the Association. . NATIONAL EpucaTION ASSOCIATION, Res Division. Childhood and the Depressio) Look Ahead. Washington, D. C.: the Ass tion, November, 1931. 42 p. . NATIONAL EpvucaTION ASSOCIATION, RESFARcH Division. “Salaries in City School Syst 1932-33.” Research Bulletin 11: 43-55: M 1933. Washington, D. C.: the Association . NATIONAL EpucATION ASSOCIATION, Resi Division. What’s Ahead for Teachers’ Sala; Washington, D. C.: the Association, 1930. | . Scorr, Cecir W. “Economies in Public Sch Expenditures for Instruction.’ American § Board Journal 84: 39-40, 50-51; Feb March, 1932. : . SmiTH, Dora V. Class Size in High School En lish. Minneapolis: University of Minn Press, 1931. 309 p. . STEVENSON, P. R. Class-Size in the Elementar) School, Ohio State University Studies, Vo No. 10. Bureau of Educational Research Mo: graphs, No. 3. Columbus: Ohio State Universi: November 30, 1925. 35 p. . Tupper, CHARLES R. Rewised Teacher | Standards in San Diego Secondary Scho San Diego, Calif.: City Schools, Department Research, February, 1932. 7 p. - WarRREN, JuLius E. “Comparison ‘of Cost { Supervision, Kindergarten, Supplies, Medica Inspection, Attendance Department, Summe: School, Evening School, Community Centers and Playgrounds for Representative Cities 25,000 to 100,000 for 1929-30 and 1932-33 Official Report. Washington, D. C.: Nation Education Association, Department of Supe: intendence, March, 1933. p. 231-32. . Wectein, Davin E., chairman. Report. Commit tee on School Costs. Washington, D. C.: Depart ment of Superintendence, National Education Association, February, 1932. p. 19. . Wueat, Harry G. “Costs of Instruction in the High Schools of West Virginia.” School Review 26: 438-50; June, 1918. . Wuirney, Freperick L. The Trinidad-Pue! Experiment in Class Size in the Primary Sch Colorado State Teachers College, Education Series Number 12. Greeley, Colo.: the Colles 1931. See “Advantages of Small Classes.” Fred- erick L. Whitney and Gilbert S. Willey, in S: Executives Magazine 51: 504-06; August, 1932 ~ . Woopy, CLirForD, and BercMAn, W. G. ‘ Measurement and Equalization of the Teach: Load in the High School.” North Central 4: ciation Quarterly 1: 339-58; December, 192¢ ORDER BLANK Please send the following publications: copies of copies copies Check—Cash—Money Order attached Mailing Address—Street All orders for publications should be accompanied | " funds in payment are subject to transportation charges Make Association, 1201 Sixteenth Street N. W., Washington, D. C. The following discounts are allowed on quantities of the same book, except wl 10 percent; 10 to 99 copies—25 percent; 100 or more copies—33!/3 percent RESEARCH BULLETIN NATIONAL EDUCATION ASSOCIATION 1201 Sixteenth Street Northwest Washington, D. C. Subscription Blank Kindly enter my subscription for one year (5 issues) to the Research Bulletin of the National Education Association. I enclose herewith cash____ _.check : money order in the amount of $1.00 covering the subscription fee. Name___- N.E. A. PUBLICATIONS OF INTEREST SOON TO BE ISSUED Report of the National Conference on the Financing of Education. Held Under the Auspices of the Joint Commission on the Emergency in Education of the National Edu- cation Association and the Department of Superin- tendence. Available, September 15, 1933. Price, 25 cents. 1934 Yearbook of the Department of Superintend- ence. This yearbook will deal with problems of school administration. Available, February, 1934. Price, $2.00. Evaluating the School Program. A publication of the Joint Commission on the Emergency in Education appointed by the National Education Association and the Department of Super- intendence. A Handbook of Public Relations tor Teachers. Eighth Yearbook of the Department of Classroom Teachers of the National Education Association. Available, February, 1934. Price, $1.50. Orders for the above publications may be submitted now. - Research Bulletins Now Available The Problem of Teacher Tenure. Vol. Il, No. 5, November, 1924. 40 p. Price per copy, 25 cents. The Ability of the States to Support Education. Vol. 1V, Nos. 1 and 2, January and March, 1926. 96 p. Price per copy, 50 cents. Efficient Teaching and Retirement Legislation. Vol. IV, No. 3, May, 1926. 72 p. Price per copy, 25 cents. Major Issues in School Finance—Part I. Vol. 1V, No. 5, November, 1926. 32 p. Price per copy, 25 cents. Major Issues in School Finance—Part II. Vol. V, No. 1, January, 1927. 64 p. Price per copy, 25 cents. Salaries in City School Systems, 1926-27. Vol. V, No. 2, March, 1927. 64 p. Price per copy, 25 cents. The Scheduling of Teachers’ Salaries. Vol. V, No. 3, May, 1927. 64 p. Price per copy, 25 cents. The Advance of the American School System. Vol. V, No. 4, September, 1927. 32 p. Price per copy, 25 cents. School Records and Reports. Vol. V, No. 5, November, 1927. 132 p. Price per copy, 50 cents. Creating a Curriculum for Adolescent Youth. Vol. V1, No. 1, January, 1928. 80 p. Price per copy, 25 cents. The Advance of the Teacher Retirement Movement. Vol. V1, No. 3, May, 1928. 56 p. Price per copy, 25 cents. Practices Affecting Teacher Personnel. Vol. V1, No. 4, September, 1928. 52 p. Price per copy, 25 cents. Can the Nation Afford to Educate Its Children? Vol. VI, No. 5, November, 1928. 48 p. Price per copy, 25 cents. Can the States Afford to Educate Their Children? Vol. VII, No. 1, January, 1929. 44 p. Price per copy, 25 cents. The Principal and Progressive Movements in Education. Vol. VII, No. 2, March, 1929. 60 p. Price per copy, 25 cents. Salary Scales in City School Systems, 1928-29. Vol. VII, No. 3, May, 1929. Price per copy, 25 cents. The Questionnaire. Vol. VIII, No. 1, January, 1930. 52 p. Price per copy, 25 cents. A Self-survey Plan for State School Systems—Part 1: Checklists. Vol. VIII, No. 2, March, 1930. 36 p. Price per copy, 25 cents. A Self-survey Plan for State School Systems—Part 11: Handbook. Vol. VIII, No. 3, May, 1930. 76 p. Price per copy, 25 cents. Investing in Public Education. Vol. VII. No. 4, September, 1930. 56 p. Price per copy, 25 cents. Current Issues in Teacher Retirement. Vol. VIII, No. 5, November, 1930. 56 p. Price per copy, 25 cents. Ethics in the Teaching Profession. Vol. 1X, No. 1, January, 1931. 92 p. Price per copy, 25 cents. Salaries in City School Systems, 1930-31. Vol. IX, No. 3, May, 1931. 64 p. Price per copy, 25 cents. The Outlook for Rural Education. Vol. IX, No. 4, September, 1931. 76 p. Price per copy, 25 cents. Teacher Demand and Supply. Vol. 1X, No. 5, November, 1931. 102 p. Price per copy, 25 cents. Administrative Practices Affecting Classroom Teachers—Part I: The Selection and Appointment of Teachers. Vol. X, No. 1, January, 1932. 32 p. Price per copy, 25 cents. Administrative Practices Affecting Classroom Teachers—Part Il: The Retention, Promotion, and Improvement of Teachers. Vol. X, No. 2, March, 1932. 44 p. Price per copy, 25 cents. Estimating State School Efficiency. Vol. X, No. 3, May, 1932. 54 p. Price per copy, 25 cents. Crime Prevention Through Education. Vol. X, No. 4, September, 1932. 68 p. Price per copy, 25 cents. Facts on School Costs. Vol. X, No. 5, November, 1932. 24 p. Price per copy, 25 cents. The School Board Member. Vol. XI, No. 1, January, 1933. 44 p. Price per copy, 25 cents. Salaries in City School Systems. Vol. XI, No. 2, March, 1933. 16 p. Price per copy, 25 cents. SCHOOL FINANCE CHARTER Essentials of a Modern School Finance Program BELIEVING that the financing of schools is a paramount public concern, basic to the present and future welfare of our democracy, the following program is offered for action by the American people. Educational Opportunity Universal Education. Funds to provide every child and youth a complete edi cational opportunity from early childhood to the age at which employment is possible and socially desirable. This right to be preserved regardless of residence, race, or economic status and to constitute an inalienable claim on the resources of local, state, and national governments. Lifelong Learning. Educational opportunities at public expense for every adult whenever such opportunities are required in the public interest. Effective Teaching. In every classroom competent teachers maintained at an economic level which will secure a high quality of socially motivated and broadly trained professional service. Adequate Revenues Equitable Taxation. For the adequate support of all governmental activities, including the schools, a stable, varied, and flexible tax system, providing for a just sharing of the cost of government by all members of the community. Public Information. Accurate, intelligible, and frequent reports to taxpayers and the public on the management of the school money so that complete understanding and constructive attitudes with respect to school taxes and services may prevail. Constructive Economy School Board Independence. In every school system a board of education respon- sive to the will of the whole people and free to adopt and carry out truly efficient and economical financial policies for the schools. Economical Administration. A uniform and continuous policy of honest, eco- nomical, and productive spending of all school moneys. Local Management Adequate Local Units. In every community trained educational leadership and > other services secured through a local unit of school administration large enough to make such services financially possible and desirable. Community Initiative. For every school district the right to offer its children an education superior to state minimum standards and to seek and develop new methods intended to improve the work of the schools. State Responsibility Equalization of Educational Opportunity. For every school district, sufficient financial support from the state to permit the maintenance of an acceptable state minimum program of education and to relieve the local peepee tax when this tax, upon which local initiative depends, is carrying an unfair share of the cost of government. Professional Leadership. Competent leadership in every state department of education so that reasonable minimum financial standards may be established and educational progress encouraged throughout the state. Fiscal Planning. In every state a long-time financial plan for public education, comprehensive in scope, based on experienced judgment and objective data, coopera- tively developed, continually subject to review and revision, and reflecting faithfully the broad educational policy of the people. National Interest Open Schools. For every child deprived of education by emergency conditions beyond the control of his own community and state, immediate restoration of these rights through assistance from the Federal Government to the state concerned. Federal Support. Sufficient Federal support for the schools of the several states to protect the nation’s interest in an educated citizenship, without Federal control over state and local educational policies. IF AMERICA IS TO RECOVER PROSPERITY AND PERSIST AS A DEMOCRATIC NATION THESE ESSENTIALS MUST BE PROVIDED Note: The above School Finance Charter was adopted by the National Conference on the Financing of Education which met in New York City, July 31-August 11, 1933. This Conference was under the auspices of the Joint Commission on the Emergency in Education of the Nationa! Education Association and the Department of Superintendence. raananan nanan cA cA cA cA oe oe oe See De Se De De Dn Dn Dn Dn Dn Dn Dn a a