« AnteriorContinuar »
their facilities. In some such cases the schools continue to try to take care of all comers, with resulting deterioration in the quality of the instruction provided. Other States place limits on the number of students that may be accommodated in the schools. In order to keep the schools from being filled up entirely by students from the immediate vicinity, an equitable allotment of students to the several counties in the normal school district is sometimes provided. The effect of both of these arrangements is seen in the following excerpt from the report of the principal of the Trenton (X. J.) State Normal School. He says (An. Rep. State Bd. of Ed., 1913, p. 439):
We took for the year a larger enrollment than we really should have taken, considering the size of our building and the number of our teachers, and yet we were not able to receive more than half of those who wished to come. The provision of the law that secures the rights of the more distant counties to their proportion of the enrollment is wise, but it is especially hard that those living near us can not all be received.
Railroad fares of students paid in a few States.—In a very few cases the disadvantages of communities located at some distance from a State normal school are balanced by the payment of the railroad fares of students. For example, in the 1913 report of the board of trustees of the Rhode Island State Normal School (p. 10) we find the following paragraph:
Students' mileage and car fares.—Obviously to promote, in some degree, an equality of opportunity among students of the Normal School residing in different parts of the State, an annual appropriation for mileage has been made by the general assembly since 1871. The first appropriation of $1,500 was increased to $2,000 in 1896, to $3,000 in 1900, and to $4,000 in 1902. The appropriation for mileage is apportioned among students who reside farther from the Normal School than a distance practically indicated by a car fare of 5 cents, according to the distance traveled and the number of days of attendance. Though there has been a large increase in the number of students, there has been no increase since 1902 in the amount of mileage annually appropriated by the general assembly. The trustees, however, have found it essential, In view of the extension of the system of training schools to different parts of the State, to provide, from the general appropriation for the school, car fares for student teachers in cases not covered by mileage. Though not perhaps a pressing need, an increase in the amount allowed for mileage would prove of pronounced advantage.
This paragraph is followed in the Rhode Island report by 12 rules governing the apportionment of mileage and car fares.
Similarly, in the New Mexico Normal University bulletin for 191-4, we find the following paragraph:
Railroad fare.—A student that will sign a declaration of residence in New Mexico and an intent to teach in New Mexico may have railroad fare, less $3, returned after eight weeks' attendance at the Normal University. Students must travel over shortest practicable route. Take a receipt for every ticket you buy.
Maintenance of normal schools usually parallels general educational policy of a State.—In most States the establishment of normal schools has paralleled the general educational conditions and educational policies of the State. Consequently, in States like Massachusetts, New York, Michigan, Wisconsin, and California, we find strong normal-school systems. In other States, such as some of those in the South, the development of normal schools has been retarded, paralleling in this respect the development of general educational conditions. The recent intense revival of educational progress in these sections, however, is generally paralleled by similar interest in normal-school education.
Exceptions.—In a few States the adequate development of State normal schools was retarded for a long time even though the general educational conditions were fairly good or even excellent. Examples of such States are Pennsylvania, Ohio, Indiana, and Iowa. In some of these cases one important factor in retarding the development of adequate public normal schools was the existence of a large number of private and denominational colleges or normal schools. In the Report of the Commissioner of Education for 1912 Ohio is shown to have some 37 such colleges; Pennsylvania has practically the same number and until recently had in addition about 13 private (but so-called "State") normal schools, the latter receiving State aid. Iowa has only about 22 private and denominational colleges in the list and Indiana only 17, but in each of these States a single powerful State normal school is an additional factor to be considered in determining why these highly developed States have relatively inadequate State normal-school facilities for many parts of the States. The situation in Pennsylvania was thoroughly described in the study by E. O. Holland, in 1912, which was referred to above on page 9. About the time that this study was published, reforms in the administration of the so-called State normal schools were begun, which will probably eventually result in these schools serving the purposes of the State as State normal schools do in most places. In Ohio two State normal schools were opened in 1902, but grew very slowly, owing to the fact that private-school interests opposed the development of an adequate scheme for granting teachers' certificates to the graduates of the State schools. These difficulties were eventually overcome, however. Moreover, the State recently opened two new State normal schools. Indiana still has only one State normal school, but several very powerful private normal schools or colleges. From the list in the Eeport of the Commissioner of Education for 1912, it would appear that the State of Iowa has no State normal school, but this is merely due to the fact that the institution at Cedar Falls is now ranked as a State teachers' college; hence it appears in the list of colleges instead of normal schools.
. 15607°—16 3
THE ADMINISTRATIVE CONTROL OF STATE NORMAL
Control to be determined by purpose of serving the State.—Since the purpose of a State normal-school system is to serve the whole State in the training of teachers, the question of the administrative control of the State schools in the interests of the State is of vital importance. The issues which arise in determining the best type of control are the same as arise in the case of any other State educational institutions. The problems are somewhat simpler, however, in the case of normal schools, because the purposes of these schools may be clearly defined and restricted, namely, to training teachers for the public schools of the State. Since the number and kind of teachers needed in each State can be very easily and very definitely determined, the larger outlines of the tasks of the normal schools can also be easily drawn. Consequently there should be less scope for variation in opinion concerning normal-school policies than concerning the policies of other educational institutions. As a matter of fact, however, there exists a great variety among the different States. These forms of control will be discussed in this chapter in two sections. The first section contains some of the results of an elaborate inquiry conducted by Mr. D. R. Henry during the spring of 1915 by means of correspondence with State educational officials and normalschool presidents and by an examination of the latest available printed State codes of school laws. The second section contains an interpretative discussion by the authors of the bulletin.
Section I. A STUDY OF STATE NORMAL SCHOOL CONTROL.
Types of control.—Though the systems of control in State normal school systems differ in details, there seem to be four clearly defined types. These are:
I. The type in which the authority to control is vested in a separate local board of trustees for each normal school. Examples of this type of control are'Arizona, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Missouri, New Mexico, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Washington. In practically all cases there are ex officio members on these boards who serve to connect the local and State control.
II. The type in which the authority to control is vested with a State board of normal school trustees or a State board of education which has supervision of normal schools, but of no other educational activities in the State. In Alabama, Arkansas, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Nebraska, New Hampshire, South Carolina, Virginia, and Wisconsin the State normal schools are placed under the management of such a State board. The members of these boards are usually chosen from various parts of the State. To insure a representative body, many of the States have passed measures relating to the political, residential, and sex qualifications of members. For example, the Minnesota law provides that " there shall be one director resident in each county in which a normal school is located, and no two shall be residents of the same county." Some States determine the number by congressional district.
III. The type in which the control is vested in a State body usually termed board of education or board of regents which controls at the same time other educational activities in the State. Examples of this type of control are Connecticut, Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Dakota, and Tennessee. The authority in this type rests with this State board as the administrative head of the State school system or of the higher institutions. The titles of the body are somewhat confusing. For example, the functions of the Iowa State Board of Education are limited to State institutions of higher education. In New York the State board of regents is the administrative head of the public school system, acting in all matters not in conflict with statutes.
IV. The type in which there is a dual or cooperative scheme of control. This type of control is less common and fewer examples can be offered. Though the dual characteristic is common to all of these examples, the following cases will show that they vary considerably in detail. Montana has a State board of education in charge of all State educational institutions. As relates to State normal school control, there is also a local board of trustees consisting of three members, two appointed by the governor and the president of the normal school serving as ex officio chairman. In theory the State board has general control and delegates such powers to the local board as it sees fit. California until recently has offered another peculiar system of control. A board of trustees was over each school, and paralleling somewhat the Montana State board was a " Joint Board of State Normal School Trustees" composed of the governor, the superintendent of public instruction, and the presidents of the State normal school boards. The joint board has been abolished by the recent session of the legislature, and its powers have been lodged in the State board of education. Kentucky still retains a similar type of control. A local board of regents has general control and management of a normal school, adopting needful rules and regulations, appointing or dismissing officers, fixing compensation, etc., while the duty of the "Normal Executive Council" is to "prescribe the course of study to be taught in each.State normal school and the educational qualifications for admission to and graduation from the same." The council is composed of the State superintendent of public instruction and the "head executive" of each State normal school. West Virginia offers a typically dual type of administration. The State normal schools are under the management of two State bodies, the " State board of regents" and the "State board of control." The former board consists of four members appointed by the governor and the State superintendent of public instruction. The State board of control is composed of three members, all appointed by the governor. It is to be noted that the State board of control is in charge of the business management of the State normal schools, while the board of regents is the administrative head in all educational matters.
In theory New York has the State-local type of control. Local boards of " not less than 3 nor more than 13 " members are placed over each of the 10 State normal schools. As was stated in a paragraph above, the State board of regents is actually the administrative head of the public-school system. The local boards are purely advisory bodies and their local management is subject to the commissioner of education and the board of regents. In commenting on the place of the local boards Mr. Thomas E. Finegan says:
Local boards were established when these institutions were first organized and before the State board of regents had general supervision of all educational matters throughout the State. Since the educational work of the State was unified and the State board of regents was made the general legislative educational body of the State, there is not the reason for local boards in charge of educational institutions that previously existed. You will readily understand, however, how difficult it is to abolish local boards after they have once been established.
Appointment, tenure, and size of boards.—The following methods of appointment were noted: Appointment by governor; by governor, with confirmation of one of the houses; by governor, with approval of both houses; by legislature; by State board of education; and by popular vote. The predominant method is to recognize the governor as the executive head of the State and the one responsible to the public, and to check the arbitrary exercise of the appointing power by requiring confirmation by the legislative department of the State government and specifying certain qualifications. South Carolina