RECOMMENDATIONS.

In several of the States an effort is making to secure a more effective supervision of rural schools. I am convinced that such improvement is one of the most urgent of our present educational needs. It is accordingly recommended to the serious consideration of State and Territorial legislatures and of those concerned in the educational administration of States and Territories.

The usefulness of supervision in school affairs is generally recognized in our city school systems. It took many years to learn its value, even for the cities. But that point is now secure. The men

of affairs who are found on our city boards of education would no sooner expect the schools to be made efficient without adequate supervision than they would expect any great industry to succeed without thorough organization. Broadly speaking, from 6 to 12 per cent of the expenditures for city schools, exclusive of permanent improvements, is now commonly devoted to the payment of salaries of supervisory officers. The principle back of such expenditures is the very simple one, that competent supervision adds to the efficiency of every person working under such supervision. This is true of schools and industries alike. When a large number of persons has come to be employed in work of the same kind within a comparatively small area, there is more to be gained by the addition of a supervisory officer than can be gained at the same expense by the addition of one or more workers doing work of the same kind as that which all of the others are doing. And as long as supervision is not overdone, the money spent upon it serves to secure and to increase the returns upon all expenditures for the employment of individual workers. This is all obvious enough. But it is by no means easy, as experience shows, to carry this general principle over into the actual management of schools in our rural districts.

There have been numerous movements directed to the improvement of rural schools. In the early eighties of the nineteenth century some of these movements bore especially upon the strengthening of county supervision, and gains were made at that time which have not been lost to the present day. Even before that decade, in New England good beginnings had been made in supervision with the township for its unit. Supervision by groups of townships has followed. The historic report of the committee of twelve on rural schools, presented to the National Council of Education in 1897, offered strong recommendations touching the work of rural school supervisors. The trend of recent legislation upon this subject may be seen in important enactments in the States of Maine (1905), Vermont (1906), and Wisconsin (1905). The selected list of publications which is appended to this introduction will give some indication of discussions in this field covering nearly a quarter of a century.

It must be assumed in any consideration of such supervision that only competent supervisors are to be chosen. Where adequate provision has not been made for limiting employment in supervisory offices to persons of proved competency, this is one of the first points to be guarded. But, passing over this question, there are two additional points to which I would respectfully invite attention. These are the provision of supervisors in sufficient number to meet the actual needs of the schools, and the union of general supervision with the work of supervisors in special subjects.

In speaking of the number of supervisors needed, it will be well to consider only those who spend practically all of their time in the schools. In this reckoning a county superintendent of schools who must give half of his time while schools are in session to his office duties, and has only the remaining half for school visitation, will be counted for only half of one supervising officer.

There is no settled agreement as to the number of teachers who may be properly supervised by one inspector. The committee of twelve declared that "as a general rule * * * every rural school ought to be visited at least once in two months," and added that "an ideal system of supervision would give 1 supervisor from 50 to 75 teachers to supervise." The Vermont law of 1906 for the establishment of unions of towns for supervisory purposes relates to "neighboring towns having an aggregate of not more than 70 nor less than 30 schools." The Maine law of 1905 sets the corresponding limits at "not less than 20 nor more than 50 schools." The numbers should indeed vary according to the distance of the schools one from another, the proportion of young or untrained teachers employed, the frequency of change in the teaching force, the settled or changing character of the prescribed course and methods of instruction. Generally speaking, however, I think it desirable that the average time available for the actual visitation of each school by a supervisory officer should be not less than one half-day for every month that the school is in session, and one full day a month would be far better. For a backward or a rapidly developing system of schools, with many new and only partially trained teachers each year, this would be an extremely conservative estimate. Stated in other terms, it would mean the employment of one supervisory officer for from 20 to 40 teachers, such officer spending all of the school time in the schools.

If so much of supervision as is here proposed is to be accomplished, it will be necessary either to make the supervisory districts comparatively small or to organize groups of supervisors in districts of larger size. There are advantages in both methods, and the one to be adopted in any given State must depend upon the prevailing system of local government in that State. In New England the system of supervision by small units-towns or groups of towns-is firmly

established. In the South and West the county is found to be the generally recognized unit; and there are various intermediate and combined systems which offer advantages of their own.

The county system is widely adopted in different parts of this country. Where this system accords with the governmental traditions of a Commonwealth, it presents possibilities in the way of educational administration which, in my opinion, have not yet been fully realized. The most of our counties are too large for any close inspection of all of the schools each year by the county superintendent. In many instances, too, the county superintendent is not provided with sufficient clerical assistance and must accordingly give to office routine much time that is needed for the schools. Even under these limitations many of our county superintendents have done a work of great value. But remedies should be found for such hampering restrictions, and two of these remedies are obvious at once: The first is the employment of a sufficient clerical force in the superintendent's office, and the second is the employment of deputy or assistant superintendents for the express purpose of school visitation, very much as supervisory assistants are employed in city systems of schools.

The suggestions offered above, to which I would invite particular attention, bring us to a consideration of the employment, for country schools, of supervisors of special subjects. Under a system of township supervision such special supervisors may best be employed by the State, either for the State as a whole or for districts within the State. Under a county system it should be possible in any of the larger counties to employ one or more supervisors of special subjects as members of the county supervisory force. A union of smaller counties for the employment of special supervisors might be found advisable.

In the cities many difficulties have appeared in the adjustment of the service of special supervisors to the general work of supervision. Such difficulties will undoubtedly reappear in the supervision of rural schools. They are inherent in the educational situation of the present time. But real progress in education is to be achieved through working adjustments between the views and purposes of competent specialists and of more general supervisory officers. Both are necessary and cooperation between them is necessary. By a bringing together of these two, the work of the specialist and the work of the general educator, the instruction in our city schools has been greatly enlarged and enriched. A similar advantage is to be sought most earnestly for the benefit of our rural schools.

While this reference to special supervisors points to such provision for the subjects of drawing, music, and other branches in which special supervisors are employed in city schools, it points also to provision for a group of subjects of the greatest interest to rural com

munities. The effort which is now making to introduce instruction in agriculture into our district schools may mean the addition of new subjects to the school curriculum, but it means a great deal more. It looks to such remaking of the form and spirit of rural education, as shall bring country life into vital connection with school life. If special supervision is needed when a new subject is added to the school curriculum, it is doubly needed when the new addition is so broad in its content and in its influence as this new group of subjects is intended to be. I think it is not too much to say that an extension and improvement of country school supervision is imperative if the new movements in agricultural education are to be made altogether successful.

The question of adequate school supervision, accordingly, is proposed for the consideration not only of teachers and school officers, but of legislators and of farmers and of all who are concerned with the making of better conditions of living and of life in all our rural communities. The fact is not to be concealed that the carrying out of such a programme as is sketched in these paragraphs will involve an increase in expenditures for education. But so much of increase, at least, is urgently needed. Already in some of the States the added cost is borne by the State at large in cooperation with the local districts concerned. This arrangement does not lessen the cost for the State as a whole, but it does equalize the burden as between the richer and the poorer localities. It is not unlikely that such an arrangement may be found practicable in other States.

All of which is respectfully submitted.

ELMER ELLSWORTH BROWN,

The SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR.

Commissioner.

LIST OF REFERENCES ON COUNTY AND RURAL SCHOOL

SUPERVISION.

1885.

Stevenson, R. W. City and town supervison of schools. In National education association. Journal of proceedings and addresses, 1884. Boston, 1885. p. 283

292.

1886.

Holcombe, John W. The county superintendency.

In National education association. Journal of proceedings and addresses, 1885. New York, 1886. p. 162170.

McElroy, E. B. County superintendents. In National education association. Journal of proceedings and addresses, 1886. Salem, 1887. p. 337-345.

cation.

Kiehle, D. L. Duties of county superintendents. In United States. Bureau of eduCircular of information no. 2, 1886. Washington, Government printing office, 1886. p. 89-93. 8°.

1887.

Higbee, E. E. City and county supervision. In National education association. Journal of proceedings and addresses, 1887. p. 102-5.

1888.

Hancock, John. School supervision in the United States and other countries compared. In National education association. Journal of proceedings and addresses, 1887. Salem, Mass., 1888. p. 512-520.

1890.

Pickard, Josiah Little. School supervision. New York, D. Appleton and co., 1890. xiv, 175 p. 12°.

County superintendency discussed on p. 28-37.

1894.

Waller, D. J. Supervision of country schools. In National education association. Journal of proceedings and addresses, 1894. p. 368-72.

1896.

Fellow, Henry C. A study in school supervision and maintenance. Topeka, Kansas, Crane and co., 1896. 173 p. Tables. 8°.

County supervision discussed on p. 44-48.

1897.

Evans, Lawton B., chairman. Report of the subcommittee on supervision. In Report of the Committee of twelve on rural schools. tion. Journal of proceedings and addresses, 1897.

National education associap. 437-456.