attending school daily, twenty-first in the average number of days attended by each child of legal school age, twenty-fifth in the average annual expenditures per child, and twenty-ninth in the ratio of high school attendance to total attendance.

Attendance

The attendance law of the State was not generally enforced. The methods employed under local supervision failed to keep the children in school. Moreover, the law provided that in districts of the fourth class pupils over 12 years of age might be excused from school three-tenths of the time for domestic or farm service. There was also in many parts of the State local sentiment against the enforcement of attendance. Consequently the average daily attendance in 1919 for the entire State was about 74 per cent. One child in every four who should have been in school was absent every day throughout the school year, and of the total enrollment of 1,800,000 children at least 450,000 were continually out of school-a number more than equal to the total enrollment of Pittsburgh and Philadelphia combined.

The loss in morale and in the general effectiveness of instruction due to this excessive absence and irregularity of attendance represents a waste of educational effort of the most serious character. Besides, there was a financial loss of more than $15,000,000 per annum from State and local funds for the support of education; for it cost practically as much to operate the schools with 26 per cent of the children absent as it would have cost had those children been in school. Proper cooperation of local school agencies with the State department of education, supported by effective supervision of the health of school children and the sanitation of school buildings, should have secured an average daily attendance of at least 90 per cent. Within one year after the present program of education went into operation the average daily attendance in rural Pennsylvania was increased nearly 10 per cent, thus saving to the State in fourth-class districts alone nearly $1,500,000 on its annual school investment.

Length of school year

The school year, especially in fourth-class districts was only seven months. This fact, combined with poor attendance, brought about the unfortunate result that the children of Pennsylvania who were from 6 to 12 years of age were spending less than 10 per cent of their total waking time in school each year, and those from 12 to 16 years slightly more than 8 per cent. Examination of the records of attendance in all the rural schools of the State for the period from 1910 to 1919 shows that the average attendance of children from 6 to 12 years of age was less than 109 days and of those from 12 to 16 years of age only 89 days.

Qualifications of teachers

The standards for the preparation and certification of teachers were also exceedingly low. Approximately 175,000 children representing a total population of more than 1,000,000 people living for the most part in rural districts, were being taught in 1918 by teachers who had no more than an elementary school education, no professional training, and the majority of them no teaching experience. Nearly 600,000 children also living chiefly in rural communities and in districts of the third and fourth classes were being taught by teachers who had not had more than a high-school education. Practically half of the teachers of the State had had no professional training except what they had gained through practical experience. Of those who were supervised by county superintendents, 23 per cent were new teachers without experience, and only 31 per cent had had any normal-school training. 39 per cent of the teachers of one-room rural schools had never attended high school, 32 per cent were without teaching experience, only 38 per cent had taught in the same position the preceding year, and only 15 per cent were normal-school graduates. In the cities of the State, 37 per cent had had normal-school training, and only 11 per cent were college graduates. The annual turnover among the trachers of the State was approximately 5,000, which together with the additional positions that had to be filled on account of the natural growth of the school population made it necessary to place approximately 6,000 new teachers in the schools of the State each year. 105682-28- -34

Teachers' salaries

Low salaries and inadequate facilities for the training of teachers were the two causes chiefly responsible for this unfortunate condition.

For more than a quarter of a century prior to 1919 the average monthly salaries of the teachers of Pennsylvania had been lower than the average for the United States as a whole, and increasingly so as the period advanced. For men, the average was 8 per cent below that for the United States in 1888 and 24 per cent below in 1916. For women, this average was 13 per cent below in 1888 and 32 per cent below in 1916. In the year 1918 the average annual salary of all the teachers in the elementary schools of the State was only $388. In the cities, as shown by the report of the committee on salaries of the National Education Association prepared for 1913 salaries were lower than for cities of the same size throughout the United States, and much lower than those of New York and New Jersey. Superintendents in both small and large cities were also paid less than the average for such positions in the United States, Pennsylvania ranking thirty-ninth among the States in this respect. Under these conditions it was but natural that many of the best teachers and superintendents could not be kept in the State and that often even the most promising graduates of the State normal schools, though trained at the expense of Pennsylvania, were induced to leave without serving the schools of the State because of more attractive salaries and more favorable conditions for professional advancement elsewhere. The normal schools were wholly inadequate to meet this situation. In spite of poor equipment, inadequate support and unorganized cooperative effort, these schools had during their long career rendered valuable service to the State, having supplied it with many of its best teachers, but the poor salaries and low standing of the teaching profession in the State made it impossible to attract to these schools a sufficient number of students of good ability and adequate preparation, or to maintain proper standards of admission or of graduation. This would have been true even if the normal schools had been well equipped and adequately supported, but they were not. They were established at first as private institutions of academic grade, and were not taken over and controlled by the State until 1911. From that time until the present program was adopted they were very poorly supported, the State paying only a tuition fee of $60 per annum for students over 17 years of age who signified their intention of teaching. This fee was increased to $80 in 1919 and the appropriation of $10,000 per annum to each of the normal schools for maintenance was also authorized. Nothing, however, was provided for the erection and equipment of new buildings or for the reconstruction and repair of old ones. Many of the buildings were consequently out of repair, uninviting and unsanitary, and few, if any, of them were of fire proof or fire resistive construction.

Meeting the conditions

Here, then, were the primary problems of the new program of education. It was recognized by those who were responsible for this program that an indispensable requirement of any school system is an adequately equipped teacher in every classroom and for every school child, and that such teachers can not be secured in sufficient number to meet the requirements of the State without providing salaries sufficient to command their services. Either the salaries paid must be enough higher than those of other States to rob them of a sufficient number of well-qualified teachers, or, what is really more economical and certainly more ethical, adequate facilities for the training of teachers must be provided by the State itself.

Another indispensable requirement of a good school system is competent leadership in education in every community. Without this even a well-trained teaching staff will be relatively inefficient. Such leadership can not be supplied unless the salaries of superintendents, spervisors and principals are high enough for this purpose. Failure to secure and hold such leadership is certainly not economy. It has been said that Pennsylvania had been securing in her school system under the above conditions just what she had been paying for. This, however, is not true, for the overhead expense of a large school system is the same whether the staff employed is competent or incompetent. The saving of money by not spending it for necessary expert service in the classroom or in administrative and supervisory positions is not economy but actual extravagance.

A better school attendance was also recognized as a prime necessity. It was obvious folly to call upon the State for more money for the extension and improvement of the schools without providing effective means in the State department

of education for guaranteeing, through the enforcement of attendance, that thẹ children of the State would actually receive the benefits of such increased appropriations.

School laws of 1921

To meet these conditions, the school laws of 1921 were so framed as to provide: (1) For raising the standard qualifications of teachers; (2) for establishing a higher schedule of salaries; (3) for adding to the support of the normal schools, increasing their facilities and improving their work; (4) for increasing the length of the school term, especially in fourth-class districts; (5) for reinforcing compulsory school attendance; (6) for establishing State aid to local communities for the maintenance of new and higher standards, basing such aid upon the principle that those districts least able to bear the burden should be most generously supported; (7) for establishing a budget system in every school district thereby putting school finances throughout the State on a business-like basis; (8) for encouraging, but not requiring, the consolidation of rural schools through the provision of State aid for transportation and a fixed allowance for every school closed for this purpose; and (9) for centralizing and unifying State school administration by abolishing the State board of education and the college and university council, and creating in their place the State council of education.

The effective administration of those laws through cooperation of the State department of education with the educational leaders of the State and with local school agencies is rapidly restoring Pennsylvania to its proper place in the front rank of American States in public education.

Results of program

One of the finest evidences of the success of the program is the remarkable response of the teachers of the State to the new demands for improved qualifications. For nine weeks during the summer vacation of 1922, more than 25,000 teachers attended summer schools, taxing the colleges and normal schools of the State to their utmost capacity to accommodate them. Fully one-third of the 45,000 teachers of the State are attending extension courses on Saturdays and after school hours during the present school year. The remarkable fact that nearly 60 per cent of the entire corps attended summer schools and spent every dollar of their increase of salary, and sometimes more, for professional improvement is a magnificent-tribute to the fine professional spirit of the teachers of Pennsylvania. Nothing at all approximating this has ever occurred before in State education. It can not be too highly commended or too greatly appreciated by the people of the State.

The fact that the teachers of the State, through their State association, a professional organization to which more than 99 per cent of them belong, should order at their own expense, a survey of the present State program of education that they may know whether or not their efforts in behalf of the children are being wisely directed, also sets a new professional standard in State education and among teachers' organizations.

It is inconceivable that the people of Pennsylvania will fail to give most cordial support to the leadership and the program of education that has called forth such a response when they have come to understand fully what is being, and will continue to be, accomplished for the children of the State.

It is the State department of education properly organized and manned? The committee's answer to this question is also affirmative. The present organization is a good one. It is, however, capable of improvement. This fact is apparent to no one more than Superintendent Finegan. As a consequence of the conditions which had to be met in setting up the present State program of education, the complete reorganization of the department in full harmony with the new demands that would be made upon it, was delayed until the more urgent needs of the State school system could be provided for. This was done for three reasons: (1) The magnitude of the State school problem was such as to require a considerable period of time to accomplish its satisfactory solution. As already pointed out, it was necessary that such a solution must be a progressive achievement. (2) The need of remedial effort was more important and far more urgent in other parts of the system; and (3) it was obvious that the most desirable and efficient form of organization of the department was dependent upon the new and somewhat unusual demands made upon it by the new program of education. These demands could not be fully determined in advance of the actual operation of the program.

The present organization of the department is, therefore, mainly but not wholly, determined by legislation enacted prior to 1921, and is in some of its features a form worked out to meet the needs that have arisen in the gradual evolution of the State school system. It is similar in these respects to the plan of organization that has been found best in other States. However, the subject directors included in the personnel of the department are not commonly found as a part of the State organization elsewhere, but are provided for in harmony with the new conception of the function of the State department involved in the present program and with the urgent need for this type of service in the schools of Pennsylvania.

The underlying principle which has determined the reorganization of the department thus far, and will doubtless control its further development, is the same as that which has determined the form of administrative and supervisory organization that has been found through long experience to be most satisfactory in city school systems. It provides not only for effective school administration, but also for the supervision and improvement of instruction. In the State department of Pennsylvania, therefore, three types of service are recognized: (1) The definition of policies for the improvement of the schools of the State and the presentation of these policies to the legislature for the legal authority to put them into effect; (2) the administrative enforcement of school legislation; and (3) the rendering of expert professional service in the supervision of school work in any part of the State where such service is needed and requested by local school authorities. In all of these respects there is abundant evidence that the department is rendering unusually efficient service. It is extremely fortunate in those of its staff who have been chosen for each type of service. In all cases, men and women have been selected because of their fitness for the special lines of work in which they are employed and because of their achievements in these lines. They are in almost every case men and women of such outstanding ability and professional equipment as to command as they should the respect and confidence of teachers and schools officials throughout the State. The desirability and economy of employing such persons are evident. The salaries which the department has been able to pay and the opportunities for increased professional service which it offers, have proved sufficient thus far to secure this type of men and women. The department has not, however, been able to hold many of its strongest members because of the call to higher positions and better salaries elsewhere. During the last three years 14 per cent of its members have been lost in this way. Such latitude should be granted to the State superintendent of instruction in determining the salaries of the staff as would enable him to prevent this serious loss in the efficiency of the department.

The subject directors have been of great service in promoting a professional spirit among the teachers of the State and in stimulating the improvement of instruction. They are rendering assistance where it is most needed and most effective and their services are constantly demanded not only by the smaller towns and rural districts but also by the larger cities of the State. No State or city school system can be highly efficient, no matter how well organized and equipped it may be from an administrative point of view, if it fails to provide sufficient help in the class room where the real work of the system must be done. The State department of Pennsylvania is to be highly commended for the recognition it has given to tais fact, which is almost universally neglected in State departments of education.

The various bureaus of the department are also rendering highly efficient service to the schools of the State. In several instances they have saved the State in actual money value many times the cost of operating the bureaus. This is notably true of the bureaus of school buildings and of school attendance. The actual saving to the State brought about by the increased attendance due to the efficiency of the attendance bureau has already been pointed out.

There is great need in the department of an editorial staff which could relieve the heads of bureaus, subject directors and the superintendent himself, of the work of putting in form for publication the various reports and statements issued by the department to the public. Such a staff could also put in form for distribution throughout the State, wherever it may be needed, information concerning interesting educational progress in any part of the State or from any part of the United States. Improved facilities for the immediate publication of the reports and other documents issued by the department should be provided. At present the publication of this type of material is too long delayed.

Is the State department of education costing too much? From the standpoint of the type of service whch the department is rendering and the cost of State

departments of education elsewhere, the answer to this question must be negative. During the 15 years prior to 1920 the departments of public instruction in other States increased their personnel more rapidly than did Pennsylvania. In the present administration, because of the new demands occasioned by the present program of education, the personnel of the department has been considerably increased. However, the present number of staff officers, in proportion to the number of pupils enrolled, is near the average for 11 representative Northern States. The salaries of these officers are higher than the average for other States for two reasons: (1) These salaries in most of the other States were decided upon at a time when salaries of all kinds were low, consequently it is very difficult to secure high-grade service in these States at the present time. (2) It was very properly regarded in the Pennsylvania department as a distinct economy to pay for the highest type of service that can be secured. As already pointed out, the present salaries have not proved high enough to retain some of the best men and women that have been brought into the department. They are certainly no higher than they must be to secure the qualifications that are needed.

The entire cost of the State department of education in Pennsylvania was 5.1 cents per capita in 1922. This was somewhat higher than the corresponding costs in Ohio, Illinois, Indiana, and Michigan, but less than in Massachusetts, Wisconsin, Minnesota, New York, and New Jersey, and was 1.6 cents below the average of the States named. The administration cost per pupil in Pennsylvania was 27.5 cents. This was higher than in Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, and Michigan, but lower than in Connecticut, Massachusetts, Wisconsin, Minnesota, New York, and New Jersey, and was 8.3 cents less per pupil than the average of these States. These facts indicate that administration costs in Pennsylvania are probably below the average among Northern States and consideraly below those of Massachusetts, Connecticut, New York, and New Jersey.

The committee strongly recommends that larger sums be made available to meet the traveling expenses of the members of the department staff.

Is the State paying too much or too little for public education? This question should be considered from three points of view: (1) Is the State spending more or less than it should in view of its financial ability to support public education? (2) Is the State, as compared with the local communities, bearing a larger share of the financial burden of education than it should? (3) Is the ratio of the State's expenditures for education to its total expenditures for all purposes larger than it should be?

The latest investigation by the United States Government of the taxable wealth of the various States shows that in 1912 Pennsylvania ranked nineteenth among the States in the true valuation per capita of general property. The State's economic development since 1912 gives no reason to believe that its present rank is lower than it was at that time. A recently published report of the National Bureau of Economic Research shows that the annual income per inhabitant for Pennsylvania in 1919 was $683. This was 9 per cent higher than for the United States as a whole. In this respect also the State ranked nineteenth.

It follows, therefore, that from the standpoint of property value and income per inhabitant, Pennsylvania is financially more able to support public education than the average State of the Union.

How does its actual expenditure on education compare with the corresponding expenditures of other States? In 1870 the State was spending per capita of total population 35 per cent more on public education than the average for the United States, in 1900, 20 per cent more, in 1910, 17 per cent more and four-tenths of 1 per cent more in 1920. As compared with New York the State was spending 9 per cent more per capita in 1870, 16 per cent less in 1890 and 13 per cent less in 1920. And as compared with the North Atlantic States 2 per cent more in 1915, 5 per cent more in 1917, and 16 per cent less in 1919 than the average of this group. As compared with the North Central States Pennsylvania has been spending considerably less per capita than the average for the past 40 years. In 1920 Pennsylvania was spending 27 per cent less than the average of North Central group and 41 per cent less than the average of the Western States.

In expenditures per capita of average school attendance, Pennsylvania was spending 21 per cent more than the average of the United States in 1899, 16 per cent more in 1909, and 5 per cent less in 1919; as compared with New York 16 per cent less in 1899, 25 per cent less in 1909, and 27 per cent less in 1919; as compared with the North Atlantic States 17 per cent less in 1899, 13 per cent less in 1909, and 20 per cent less in 1919; as compared with the North Central States 17 per cent more in 1899, 4 per cent less in 1909, and 23 per cent less in 1920; and as compared with the Western States 36 per cent less in 1919. During that year