tives to look after their interests, they would merely adopt a more efficient system for the exercise of a particular governmental function and would surrender not one iota of the power now lodged in them. ***

Each of our cities is managed by a single board of education. Now if the district system alone is democratic the people of these cities of our state have been deprived of the rights which naturally belong to them as members of a democratic community. Each ward should be a separate district with its own board of directors.1 They should, therefore, divide these cities into as many districts as there are schools, and the people in the small divisions containing a school should elect their own directors. Why don't they do it? Because they know that in making the entire city a single district they have adopted a system of organization far more efficient than a small district system could possibly be.

3. Opinions of State School Officers

[Quoted in Final Report of Illinois Educational Commission, pp. 129-131. Names and titles those of 1907.]

Kansas has 13,000 public school teachers and an army of 28,000 officers to direct and manage these teachers an anomalous condition, and one that means a great waste of energy and a decided lack of unification and coordination in educational matters. A large unit means a more economical and business-like administration. It is the small district and the varying conception of school work that are responsible for most of the weakness of our system. The district plan is apparently the last remnant of the old-time conception of the widest distribution of business, and is at war with every modern thought of classification and organization.-E. T. Fairchild, Supt. Publ. Instr., Kansas.

In my opinion, and I find it to be the opinion of the leading educators of this state, the small unit, such as we have in the district, is not producing the results that could be obtained by means of a larger unit. Personally I am strongly in favor of the county unit. My next choice would be the township unit. I am firmly of the opinion that with a township or county unit the net result of our educational effort would be increased fifty per cent. It is not what we put into a system, but what comes out of it, that should count, and hence, as I have before indicated, the greatest question

1 Many cities once had just this condition, but abandoned it in the interests of better education. One of the main reasons why the cities have developed such strong school systems is that the school system has been treated as a unit.

before the American people is that of a changed unit of administration. We are using a method that is more than one hundred years old, without any change, and for that reason the country schools have not kept pace with the city schools. The city schools have forged ahead because they have used a larger unit for educational purposes. J. H. Ackerman, Supt. Publ. Instr., Oregon.

I am most emphatically in favor of the township system. It makes for efficiency in education which assists materially in consolidation. It brings upon the district school board men of better qualifications; it makes a more satisfactory school, and in this state materially reduces the cost of school management. I think that the objection that it would mean increased taxation is not sound, unless indirectly better schools mean increased taxation. We have 45 counties in our state, 40 of which have the township system and five of which have the district system, and I am sure that it would be greatly to the advantage of these five, educationally, if they could make the change.-W. L. Stockwell, Supt. Publ. Instr., North Dakota.

In this state we have both the township organization and the single district organization. The township organization lends aid to centralization of schools, and there is a likelihood of having better school officers in the township system than in the single district system. Local disturbances in the district seem to be more satisfactorily handled by a township school board who are unlikely to be parties to other factional affairs so frequent in the single school district. — H. A. Ustrud, Supt. Publ. Instr., South Dakota.

I am very certain your educational commission has acted wisely and in the interests of efficient and progressive school administration, in recommending a change from the district to the township unit of organization. One of the things which most hampers the rural schools of Minnesota is the small school district. C. G. Schultz, Supt. Publ. Instr., Minnesota.

The change proposed from your district system to the township system is unquestionably a step in the direction of the permanent improvement in the organization of your schools. Any territorial unit that is smaller than the township is in almost every interest too weak to provide adequate school facilities for the children. Larger units are, as a rule, stronger units, because of the increased amount of taxable property upon which they rest and the greater degree of intelligence possible in the management of the schools. R. B. Cousins, Supt. Publ. Instr., Texas.

Pennsylvania has always had the township system of managing schools. From the start the schools have been in charge of six directors. In our opinion this results in economy. My notion is that a county system is more economical even than a township system. The superintendent of one county claims that if he could locate the schoolhouses, he could accommodate all the children as well as they are now accommodated and save the salaries of fifty teachers. —N. C. Schaeffer, Supt. Publ. Instr., Pennsylvania.

We find that the township system works admirably in New Jersey. It has clearly demonstrated the wisdom of those who were its advocates, and has prepared the way for other reforms. We have been enabled to greatly strengthen our schools in the matter of supervision by the appointment of township supervising principals, and to make a much closer approach to providing "equality of opportunity" for the school children of the state. - C. J. Baxter, Supt. Publ. Instr., New Jersey.

By an Act passed at the biennial session of the General Assembly of Vermont in 1892, the educational system of the state was changed from the district system to the town system. Prior to that Act, the towns in their annual town meetings, voted on the adoption of the town system. Each year about 80 % of the voters voted against the system, and at the time the law was made compulsory by statutory enactment there were only 12 towns in the state which had voluntarily adopted the town system. At the biennial term of 1894, an attempt was made in the General Assembly to revert to the district system, but the attempt failed. Since then no attempt has been made to revert to the previous system, and for the past ten years I have known of no attempt to return to the previous condition of administration. The principle involved is that education is a common good; therefore equal advantages should be furnished all, and the expense of maintenance should also be equal. As a result of the town system, there is much better administration of schools, better teachers are employed, and better results are obtained. · Mason S. Stone, Supt. of Educ., Vermont.

This state began agitation of the abolition of the district system in 1826 and continued it until the system was finally abolished, root and branch, in 1882. No question has arisen since in regard to the wisdom of the movement, nor is it ever likely to arise. The township is, in the judgment of the people of this state, the only system under which public schools of a satisfactory character can

be maintained. - Geo. H. Martin, Sec. State Bd. of Educ., Massachusetts.

We Marylanders think it (the district system) prevents the essential features of uniformity and hinders proper supervision. As it seems to me your people will make a mistake should the township system be disregarded.-M. Bates Stephens, Supt. Publ. Instr., Maryland.

This state has had a "township" system of administration of schools for many years. It has proved so satisfactory that there is little disposition to change it. Of recent years there has been some agitation on the proposition to adopt a county limit for taxation, so that the poorer and more sparsely populated communities might have an equal length of term with the richer communities. — M. P. Shawkey, Supt. Publ. Instr., West Virginia.

The district school system was abolished in this state only after prolonged agitation and discussion. At the time of the abolition of the district system there was strong opposition to the measure. This opposition continued for a number of years to disturb the schools. However, it is now the very general verdict of our people, and the nearly unanimous opinion of our educators, that the step was one of the most important that has been taken in the direction of progress. Under our former district system the average citizen had little interest in the schools of his town, except in the one located in his own district. This interest of the local school unfortunately often took the form of interference with the details of school management, even to the extent of interference with the rights and privileges of the teacher. Under that system also the distribution of school funds was most unfair, and there could be nothing resembling equality of opportunity so long as it prevailed. Of course, it would be too much to say that the difficulties I have mentioned disappeared entirely with the abolition of the districts, but I believe I speak conservatively when I say that at the present time a much better educational policy prevails throughout the state as a result of the township system. I may add that recently there has been a growing tendency to enlarge the school unit in the direction of making it that of the state rather than the township. I do not believe that in itself the township system is more expensive than the district system. Indeed, it is my opinion that there is greater waste under the latter. It may be true, however, that the disposition to consider the school problems of a town as a whole tends to enlarge the sense of responsibility on the part of the towns toward education, and thus ultimately to increase school

expenditures. I regret that I can give you no exact figures on this point. Of course, our school expenditures have been increasing from year to year, but there is no reason to believe that they would not have increased had the district system continued in force. I feel very sure that any proposal to return to the district system in this state would be met with very general and emphatic opposition. Payson Smith, Supt. Publ. Instr., Maine.

To one like myself who has experienced the change from district to town system of schools in two New England states, the district system seems archaic and absolutely inadequate to meet the requirements of the times for public schooling, in distinction from private education. The district system is only one step from home or private schooling. You can educate efficiently all the children of a town only by having uniformly good schools throughout the town. Under the district system I never knew a town of good schools anywhere, or a town maintaining a reasonable equality of school advantages among different districts.-W. E. Ranger, Commissioner of Publ. Schools, Rhode Island.