appointment, but the number is not large. In several States where efforts have been made to pass from the elective to the appointive plan the legislatures or the people themselves have rejected the innovation, and popular election continues. Perhaps the people have not yet been educated to appreciate properly coordinated school administrative machinery. It is conceivable that they do not understand the legislative nature of the board and the executive nature of the superintendent, who should be a professional expert. A second probability is that the people are very loath to give up the election of an officer closely connected with the administration of their schools. Possibly it is the State board of education that should be elected. In city school administration the board is in most cases elected and in turn appoints the superintendent, and the tendency is toward the same in county administration. Properly organized State administration does not differ very much in kind.

In the period 1923-24 the body of legislation relating to State departments of education was not very large. Two States, Oklahoma and Kentucky, provided for larger and better organized State education offices. An Oklahoma act of 1923 created in the department of education the following positions: Assistant superintendent, chief clerk, rural school supervisor, agricultural assistant, chief high-school inspector, two assistant high-school inspectors, secretary of the State board of education, and several stenographers' positions and clerkships.

A noteworthy act of constructive legislation was that of the Kentucky legislature of 1924. This act recognizes the State department of education as a department and provides that it shall include "at least the following divisions": (1) Office of superintendent, to include an assistant superintendent and clerical force, (2) statistics, (3) inspection and accounting, (4) certification and examination, (5) rural school supervision, (6) high-school supervision, (7) negro education, (8) vocational education, and (9) additional departments as the superintendent may determine and funds permit. A bill, which in the legislature was a companion bill, proposed to displace the present er io State board of education with an appointive board of larger membership, but this failed to become a law.

A type of legislation which has appeared in several States in recent years is the "administrative code." This is a legislative act which reorganizes the executive and administrative branch of the State government by abolishing various departments, boards, commissions, and offices, establishing State "departments" in their place, and completely codifying the administrative law of the State. In such a code the department of education is made coordinate with

others, as, for example, the department of agriculture, banking, or health. Two States in 1923 passed acts of the nature of administrative codes. These were Pennsylvania and Tennessee. Usually the department of education has not been very materially affected by this type of law, but has been merely set in the administrative code in substantially the same form in which it appears in the school law.

Within the period here under consideration, important acts affecting the State board of education were passed in Alabama and Wisconsin: Alabama's board was by act of 1923 increased from 8 to 12 in membership. The governor and State superintendent are retained as ex officio members, and the rest of the members are to be appointed by the governor, one from each congressional district, of which there are 10. Alabama makes other educational use of its congressional districts, as, for example, for the maintenance of district secondary agricultural schools and for the appointment of members of the administrative boards of its higher institutions; so the change made in its State board of education need not be considered radical.

A Wisconsin act of 1923 abolished the State board of education of that State. A certain duality of control and responsibility in the school system of Wisconsin had existed for several years, and this probably entered as a consideration in the repeal here noted. Prior to the passage of the repealing act of 1923 there were a general State board of education and a board created especially for vocational education, and, moreover, there were both a superintendent of public schools and a secretary of the State board of education. The repeal abolished the general educational board and dispensed with its secretary.

With respect to State superintendents, only a few acts of secondary importance were passed in the period reviewed here. Maine and Tennessee changed the titles of their respective school executives to "commissioner of education"; and Illinois and Alabama raised the salaries of their superintendents, the former to $7,500 and the latter to $6,000. No State change the mathod of choosing its chief State school officer.

COUNTY SCHOOL ORGANIZATION

With respect to the "county unit" of administration, it would appear that in discussions of this subject the approach to it has sometimes been unhappily chosen. By this it is meant that possibly too much interest has been focused on the "unit" and the county administrative machinery. If the whole field of county participation in the provision of public schools were thoroughly

studied, without special emphasis on the "unit" or like single phase, the result should prove informing. Some of the facts relative to this subject are as follows:

Number of States having county school administrative boards_‒‒‒‒‒
Number having county superintendents of schools_----

21

Number providing for assistant county superintendents or other supervisory assistants____.

30

བཆེ ཆེས་ii

39

27

36

25

29

Number providing for county school taxes_

Number in which the county has functions in school-fund apportionment_
Number authorizing counties to maintain high schools.
Number authorizing counties to maintain public libraries____

Here is evidence that the county is already an important factor in the public-school system. And why should it not be? In the affairs of civil government, the county is used for various purposes. Elections are held and returns made, courts are convened, taxes are levied and collected, records are preserved, public buildings are provided, roads and bridges are constructed, the poor are cared for, the public health is safeguarded, by means of the county as a unit for such purposes. And notwithstanding aspersions on the county from some quarters, it is performing its civil functions about as well as other governmental units. The point therefore is that it can be used intelligently for school purposes. There would seem little reason why it can not be used as successfully for running schools as, for example, for holding courts or administering health laws.

It appears that some would make the county unit of administration too hard and fast; it has sometimes been urged that the county be made as effectually a school district as the city now is. But this would mean the submergence of the local community district. County school organization should be more flexible than city, so that a measure of local autonomy and local participation may be left to the community.

Within the past two years several legislative acts relating to county school systems were passed. On the administrative side, the county board of education was the subject of legislation in six States.

An Oregon law of 1923 requires that in a county operating as a county unit the county school district must be divided into five divisions, and that one of the five county school directors must reside in each of these divisions.

The State of Texas, which already had county boards of education for high-school purposes, made a beginning in 1923 with the plan of county-unit control of all public schools. The Texas act permits certain counties to submit to a vote of the people the question

whether the county unit of control will be adopted. The act applies to any county having a population of 100,000 or more and therefore affects only the five most populous counties of the State.

A Montana act of 1923 was of the nature of amendment of an earlier local option county unit law of that State. It sought to make the older law more workable. It provides against subdistrict trustees making expenditures in excess of their budgets, authorizes a 1-mill county tax to create a building fund, and defines more clearly the duties of subdistrict trustees as well as those of the county board. Three other acts of 1923 affected county school administration. One in Tennessee extended the provisions of that State's county unit law to all counties, there having been some counties to which the older law did not apply. The new school code of New Mexico abolished county boards of education and transferred their powers and duties to existing county boards of commissioners, which are to be ex officio county boards of education. The third act of this group was that of North Carolina. That State's county school boards were not changed in composition or organization by the new school code, but the board's functions in relation to the county school budget were materially affected. This budget is now prepared by joint action of the county board of education and the county commissioners, and in case of disagreement appeal may be taken to the superior court.

THE COUNTY SUPERINTENDENT

The county superintendent of schools represents the supervisory and executive side of the county school system. No very important legislation in this field was passed in either 1923 or 1924. However, provisions were made for higher salaries for superintendents in several States. Among these were Colorado, Illinois, Iowa, and Mississippi.

The tendency to raise the qualifications required of county superintendents was noticeable in a few States. Among these were Alabama and New Mexico in 1923 and Kentucky and Mississippi in 1924.

One State in 1923 passed from popular election of the county superintendent to appointment of this important officer by the county board of education. This was New Mexico. Unquestionably the idea of placing in this office only properly qualified and professionally trained persons is a growing one, and the kindred idea that the county superintendent should bear relation to a county board similar

to the relation between city superintendents and their city boards is likewise growing, but State legislatures come slowly to abandon the idea that the county superintendency is an old-time county office, such, for example, as the office of county treasurer.

LOCAL SCHOOL UNITS-CONSOLIDATION

Within the two-year period 1923-24 no organic change was made in any State's system of local school administration. By this it is meant that no State changed from the district system to the township or from district or township to county-unit organization; nor was any change made contrariwise. The most noteworthy legislation respecting local units smaller than the county was the body of legislation relating to the consolidated school.

There would seem to be three or four reasonably well-defined tendencies with respect to the consolidated central school. These are toward the provision of more generous State subvention of this kind of rural school, the adoption of the "county-wide plan" for consolidating districts, the enlargement of the area of the consolidated unit, and better regulation of the conveyance of pupils to school. Several legislatures of 1923 passed acts relating to one or another of these phases of consolidated district organization. Since this kind of school district is treated elsewhere in the Biennial Survey of Education, extended treatment is not included here.

PUBLIC-SCHOOL SUPPORT

There has within the past two years been no marked change in tendencies with respect to public-school support. A few States as such have shown inclination to increase their contributions to the schools, county taxes have remained about as formerly, and the tendency to permit the local district to levy higher rates has appeared in the enactments of a few States.

Some examples of increased State participation in school support within the two-year period were the enactments of Pennsylvania, Illinois, and Oklahoma in 1923 and that of Massachusetts in 1924. The Pennsylvania act was of the nature of an amendment to a teachers' minimum salary law of 1921, which contained a provision for part payment by the State of the minimum salaries required to be paid. Additional aid is provided in the act of 1923 for districts of unusually low assessed valuation, and State subvention of pupil transportation is extended.