CHAPTER IV. CURRENT PROGRESS IN SCHOOLS OF CITIES OF 25,000 POPULATION OR LESS. By W. S. DEFFENBAUGH, Chief of Division of School Administration, Pureau of Education. CONTENTS.-Introduction-Administration-City superintendents: Length of time served; salariesTeachers: Measuring efficiency-Professional investigation-Organization and course of study: Reorganization; reorganization in the seventh and eighth grades; credit for work outside of school; vocational subjects; agriculture; short-term courses-Interesting the community-Wider use of school plant-Vacation schools-Evening schools-Special schools and classes-Health of the child-Openair schools-Janitors-Playgrounds-Classification and promotion. INTRODUCTION. Since this is the first attempt of the Bureau of Education to make a survey of educational progress exclusively for cities of 25,000 population and less, much space must necessarily be devoted to conditions as they exist at the present time in the schools of this group of cities without immediate regard to the year under consideration. By discovering what conditions are, a general idea will be had of recent progress and present tendencies, and a starting point will also be established, so that future articles relating to educational progress in the smaller cities may show more definitely just what advancement these cities have made. That the smaller cities need to be considered in any survey of conditions in city schools is evident from the following: There are only 229 cities of more than 25,000 population, while there are 2,173 of between 2,500 and 25,000 population; of the 42,623,383 people who live in cities, 14,079,567, or one-third of the total urban population, live in the smaller cities. This group of cities shows as rapid increase in population as the other groups. From 1900 to 1910 the per cent of increase in cities of over 100,000 was 32.8; in cities from 25,000 to 100,000 it was 37.9, and in cities from 2,500 to 25,000 it was 36.1. In school enrollment and school expenditure the smaller cities present rather significant conditions. The total enrollment in city schools for the year 1913 was 6,370,023; of this number, 1,878,713 were in cities of between 5,000 and 25,000 population; 1,361,843 in cities between 25,000 and 100,000, and 3,129,467 in cities above 100,000. All the cities of more than 25,000 reported enrollment statistics to this bureau, while 86 of those between 5,000 and 25,000 did not. If these 86 cities and all under 5,000 had reported, the approximate enrollment in cities between 2,500 and 25,000 would be 2.500,000, or one-third of the total enrollment in all city schools. The total expense for instruction and maintenance in all cities was $199.264,299, of which $40,240,059 was for the cities between 5,000 and 25,000; $40,643,345 for those between 25,000 and 100,000, and $118,380,895 for those over 100,000. All but two of the larger cities reported regarding these expenditures; 200 of those between 5,000 and 25,000 did not report, and none of those from 2,500 to 5,000. If statistics were available from all these, the total expenses for the smaller cities would be at least $60,000,000, or from one-fourth to one-third of the total amount expended for instruction and maintenance of city schools. The amount expended in 1912-13 for new buildings, equipment, and other indebtedness was $48,641,380; of the total amount, $10,447,588 was expended in the group of cities between 25,000 and 100,000; $29,318,344 for those of more than 100,000, and approximately $12,000,000 for the smaller cities, or about one-fourth of the total expenditure for new buildings and equipment. The number of teachers reported employed in city schools was 164,877; of this number, 51,802 were in cities between 5,000 and 25,000, and, approximately, at least 60,000 were employed in those between 2,500 and 25,000. The number of supervising officers in all cities over 5,000, not including building principals, was 3,649, of whom 1,950 were in cities between 5,000 and 25,000. If one supervisor is added for each of the cities between 2,500 and 5,000, the total number of supervisors will be 3,200. There is thus approximately one supervising officer, not including building principals, for each 1,200 pupils in the smaller cities and one for each 2,600 pupils in the larger cities. It is evident, therefore, that any discussion of progress in urban education must consider the progress made in the smaller city schools. Certain movements in education may not be so widespread as is popularly supposed when all towns and cities above 2,500 population are taken into consideration. For instance, there is much said of vocational training in city schools, yet investigations show that in the smaller cities this movement has progressed but little. To measure the real progress of the smaller schools, one should note to what extent they are turning out a better product. Often too many lines of endeavor do not denote progress, especially in a school system whose budget is limited. No doubt some of the best schools in the country are those that are doing one or two things well, rather than those that are, on a small appropriation, attempting many things. What is true educationally of one city of more than 25,000 population is likely to be true of most other cities of the same size. In the smaller cities, on the contrary, there is wide variation. To illustrate: In one State there are two towns of 4,000 population each, a street forming the dividing line. There are large manufacturing plants in the one town, and many of the citizens are highly paid superintendents, bosses, and skilled workmen. The tax rate for school purposes is only 3 or 4 mills on the dollar. In this city the school superintendent receives a good salary, and the teachers are efficient and well paid. On the whole, the schools are above the average for cities of the same size. The population of the other town is made up largely of unskilled laborers who live in cheaply constructed houses. The school tax rate is 15 or 16 mills; yet with this high rate the schools are less efficient, since the higher rate produces less revenue than the lower one in the wealthier town. Similar instances are not uncommon. Many of the smaller cities are adjacent to a large city; one may be a wealthy suburb that can maintain better schools than the large city itself, while other suburbs of the same city may be so poor that their schools are very inferior. A small city remote from the metropolitan district may be a manufacturing center with large mills, railroad shops, etc., able to maintain much better schools than cities that are mere trading points for an agricultural region or residential centers for retired business men or farmers whose wealth is often invested in other cities and in farms. In one small city of 12,000 population there are 25 millionaires, yet the assessed valuation of the city is only $10,000,000. The only property these men own in that city is their homes, their money being invested in mines in a neighboring State. If the statistics in this chapter showing conditions in the smaller cities are not as flattering as might be wished, it must be remembered that financial conditions are in many cases responsible for the lack of progress. ADMINISTRATION. Relatively few changes have been made within the last few years in the smaller cities in the size of school boards, length of term, and manner of election. The tendency has been, however, toward smaller boards, longer terms, and election at large. In 1911 Pennsylvania reduced the number of members of school boards in nearly every city and borough, the ward system of election giving way to election at large. Some of the cities of less than 25,000 population had as many as 21 members. All cities in that State between 5,000 and 30,000 now have boards composed of seven members, and all of 5,000 and less have boards of five members. The general verdict is that the change has rendered the school boards more efficient. Much that was formerly done by committees is now disposed of in open board meetings. In only one or two instances is it reported that election at large has secured a less satisfactory class of men. Statistics collected by this bureau show that of 1,272 cities reporting, the board members are elected by popular vote in 1,087; in 44 they are appointed by the mayor; and in 141 by the city council. In 951 cities they are elected for the entire city. In several States the boards are elected at large, but the members represent their respective wards. The ward system of election has been universally condemned and will no doubt soon pass away. In cities of between 2,500 and 30,000 population the number of board members varies from 3 to 24, most boards being composed of from 5 to 7 members. Of 1,271 of these cities reporting, 179 have boards of 3 members; 4 of 4 members; 365 of 5; 236 of 6; 306 of 7; 27 of 8; 97 of 9; 20 of 10; 8 of 11; 19 of 12; 3 of 13; 2 of 14; 2 of 15; 1 of 16; 1 of 19; 1 of 24. Only 181 have more than 7 members. The tendency is toward fewer committees, though some boards still have as many committees as there are board members, so that each member may have a chairmanship. In cities where there are three board members, there are usually no committees. Boards composed of five members usually have two or three committees. Most cities elect for a term of three years. Of 1,224 cities of between 2,500 and 30,000 population reporting, 4 elect for a term of one year, 115 for two years, 714 for three years, 157 for four years, 50 for five years, 192 for six years, and 2 for seven years. There is a tendency to increase the term of school board members, Pennsylvania having increased the term from three to six years and New Mexico from two to four years. In the smaller cities, especially those below 15,000 and 20,000, the business management of the schools is conducted by the board and the superintendent. In some of the cities of between 15,000 and 25,000 population a secretary devotes all his time to the schools and acts as business agent for the board. There is undoubtedly room for improvement in the management of the business affairs of the schools in the smaller cities; of 1,350 cities reporting to the bureau, only 250 are keeping accounts in accordance with the forms recommended by the Department of Superintendence of the National Education Association. CITY SUPERINTENDENTS.1 The office of city superintendent is of comparatively recent origin. Not until 1883 was there a superintendent of schools in Philadelphia, Pa. Now every town and city of over 2,500 population has a superintendent or supervising principal who devotes all or part of his time. to problems of supervision and administration. In a few other cities the superintendent does not have the same authority over the high school that he does over the grades; in 125 of the cities reporting, superintendents have no control over the high school. Before school boards fully understood the function of a superintendent, he was required to teach all or part of the time. Conditions have so im 1 In this chapter the term "city superintendents" includes all heads of a city school system, whether legally empowered as superintendents or only as supervising principals. The exact date is in dispute; see Education Bulletin, 1913, No. 8, p. 50, note. proved in the smaller cities that of 1,300 superintendents reporting, only 319 are required to do any teaching. It has taken school boards some years to realize that the only logical person to nominate and select teachers is the superintendent. Of 1,300 cities reporting, the superintendent nominates teachers in 955; in 501 cities he sometimes selects them. In only 205 cities, however, are superintendents permitted to dismiss employees. In 955 cities books are adopted upon the recommendation of the superintendent; in 854 he recommends changes in salaries. It might be supposed that all superintendents attend board meetings, but 75 report that they attend only when invited. As yet few State laws define specifically the powers and duties of city superintendents. In several States the superintendent has a seat on the board, but no vote. In only a few States does the law give him the power to recommend the appointment and dismissal of teachers. Whatever power a superintendent in any city has is usually delegated to him by the school board. On the whole, the power of the superintendent in the smaller cities is increasing. In reply to a questionnaire to which 756 superintendents responded, 614 say that their boards are inclined to give them more power. The following rules recently adopted at Long Beach, Cal., indicate the trend of opinion as to the powers and duties of the superintendent: 1. The superintendent of schools shall be the chief executive officer of the board of education and shall have general coordinating authority and oversight over the work of all executive officers and employees of the school district. 2. He shall prepare and recommend to the board for adoption the courses of study for the elementary schools, and any changes that he may from time to time deem advisable. 3. He shall select and recommend suitable textbooks (other than State books) and supplementary books for the elementary schools. No book shall be selected by the board which is not recommended by the superintendent. 4. He shall recommend suitable principals, special supervisors, and teachers for the elementary schools. No principal, special supervisor, or teacher shall be elected by the board who is not recommended by the superintendent. 5. He shall have full responsibility for the promotion, assignment, and transfer of principals, special supervisors, and teachers. He shall submit to the board full information relating to these matters. 6. He shall be responsible for the general efficiency of the school system, for the development of the teaching force, and for the growth and welfare of the pupils. 7. He shall be responsible for all rules and regulations governing the admission transfer, classification, and promotion of pupils. 8. He shall prepare, distribute, and collect all blanks and reports required by law and such other blanks and reports as he shall deem necessary for the intelligent and systematic conduct of the schools. 9. Jointly with the principal of the high school he shall recommend to the board courses of study, textbooks, and teachers for the high school. No textbook shall be adopted, or teacher elected, that has not been jointly recommended by the superintendent and high-school principal. 10. He shall monthly and annually make reports to the board relative to conditions in the schools and recommendations for their increased efficiency. |