other administrative powers, such as building and repairing. Thus again we are employing the combination unit-county and district. This does not preclude the idea of consolidation of districts when at all practicable, and which should be encouraged by all legitimate means.

2. The County as a School Unit

[State Supt. W. T. Carrington, in 55th Mo. State School Rept., 1904, p. 9.]

In civil and local government, township organization is not popular. It is considered expensive; good service is not secured. One thousand clerks, assessors, collectors, and trustees are too many for a state. Township officers are less competent than county officers. There is not enough to do, and not enough responsibility to develop efficiency. So it is in school matters. The little sub-district does not command sufficient attention to insure competent management. The consolidated district or township organization is good, but county organization would be better. Were it possible to have all taxes levied by counties, all schools of the county supported out of a common fund apportioned by a county board and a certain part of it devoted to high schools controlled entirely by this county board, we would approach that much-desired end, - equal taxation for school purposes and equal school opportunities for all children. This county board could be entrusted to employ a county superintendent, and to exercise a general supervisory power over all the schools of the county. The present State Superintendent will, perhaps, not see such an organization effected; but it will come sometime.

3. Recommended Legislation

[State Supt. W. T. Carrington, in 57th Mo. State School Rept., 1906, p. 5.]

Provide for efficient supervision of rural schools. Give every county a school supervisor. For large and populous counties provide at least one assistant. Fix the qualifications high and safeguard the selection so as to put only trained and experienced teachers in the position. Better not have it than to fill it with timeservers and persons lacking in scholarship, leadership, and pedagogical training. Fix the salary high enough to command the

best talent, and demand results. Make the duties of the office more administrative and pedagogical than clerical. Give this county supervisor authority to nominate teachers and transfer them, such as is given to city superintendents. Constitute a special county board, composed of business men, to employ a supervisor on merit, as one who would build a good house would employ an architect to make plans and superintend its construction. Do not shift the responsibility to the people to determine whether they want such a position. It should not be treated as an office. It should be filled by the employment of an expert to perform technical duties.

4. The Advantages of a County Board of Education

[From the Final Rept. of the Illinois Educ. Com., 1909, pp. 95-96.]

The general purpose to be served by a county board of education is to assist the county superintendent in carrying out his educational policies and in the performance of the work necessary to operate the general educational system of the state. The county board bears about the same relation to the county superintendent as does the state board to the state superintendent. County boards, it would seem, are needed to complete the educational administrative system of the state. They would extend that system from the general supervising agencies at the capitol of the state and at the county seat to the remotest rural districts. They would serve as an avenue of communication between the various educational authorities of the state and the people of each township.

But it is not for the sake of systematic state organization alone that county boards of education should be constituted. They may be made the direct means of increasing the general efficiency of the schools and the school system of the county. The county superintendent has general supervision of the schools of the county as the superintendent of public instruction has general supervision of the schools of the state. For practically the same reasons which make it advisable to have a state board of education to assist the state officer in the performance of his duties it is also advisable to have a similar body to assist the county superintendent in directing and improving the work of the county schools. The county superintendent is required "to labor in every practicable way to elevate the standard of teaching and improve the condition of the common schools of his county.' Now, it would be of the greatest assistance to him when he has devised plans looking to

this end to be able to call together the county board, explain to its members his ideas and policies and secure their coöperation in carrying his plans into effect. It would be necessary, of course, for him to convince the members of the board that his plans are wise and expedient, but if he is unable to persuade them that what he proposes to do is calculated to promote the welfare of the schools, it will be evidence that his plans are untimely or at least that they need modification. If on the other hand, he is able to develop in the county board an active interest in school administration and school teaching he will have at his command a strong force to bring into operation in the development of public sentiment favorable to advanced ideas in regard to the conduct of schools. It will be well for him and for them to meet at intervals to discuss educational needs, problems and expedients, and the benefits derived by them from exchange of ideas and opinions would be reflected in the welfare of the schools.

It is not alone, then, as an avenue of communication and a means of developing public sentiment in favor of wise educational policies that county boards are desirable. Their members would be the direct agents of the county superintendents in promoting the efficiency of the schools. Moreover, there are certain definite powers and duties which are usually assigned to them by law. Among these are the power to adopt and enforce rules and regulations for the management of schools not inconsistent with the regulations prescribed by the state board of education; to direct what branches of study shall be taught and what text books and apparatus shall be used in the several schools; to prescribe a uniform series of text books and to enforce their use in the schools over which they exercise control; to select the books for district libraries and in general to coöperate with the county superintendent in devising and carrying out plans for promoting the educational work of his county.

IV. THE MARYLAND FORM OF COUNTY EDUCATIONAL

ORGANIZATION

The Maryland form of county educational organization represents a good type of the county-unit for school administration. This form of organization, with variations in details, is found in a number of the Southern states. For details as to its organization see the School Laws of Maryland, chapters I, II, IV and V. For laws relating to other county-unit

R

organizations, see the school laws of Louisiana, Florida, and Utah.1

One of the Maryland county systems has recently done rather remarkable work, and the following article, dealing with the possibilities of the Maryland county-unit form of organization, was written as a comment on the published statement that the county superintendent of this county had been offered the city superintendency of one of our large city school systems.

Possibilities of Maryland's School Organization

[By J. Montgomery Gambrill, in the Baltimore Sun of January 9, 1914.]

The thoroughgoing county organization of the school system of Maryland is all but unique, and offers splendid possibilities that only a very few of the counties of the State show any signs of recognizing. It is common in all sections of this country for the urban communities, even in many cases those of 3,000 or 4,000 inhabitants, to have separate school systems, each with its own administrative and supervisory officials. Village and semi-rural communities too poor for even a part-time superintendent frequently elect a school board and manage after some fashion their own affairs. As a result the county superintendent is usually little more than an executive clerk with merely nominal supervision over a few small districts, or he is, perhaps, in charge of a purely rural community which is unable to do much for itself even if it were advised free of charge by a more competent superintendent than it can employ. It is easy to see, then, why relative feebleness and inefficiency should exist in a large proportion of school systems outside cities of at least moderate size, and why ordinarily the drift of the more efficient professional people is toward the cities. Yet the education of these village and rural communities is a matter of vital importance from every point of view, a prime factor in the much-discussed problems of rural life.

The Maryland plan, however, provides the strength of union. By uniting in one system all the rural and urban communities of a large county like Baltimore, Allegany, Washington or Fred

1 Also see CUBBERLEY, E. P., State and County Educational Reorganization, Chaps. II and III and Appendix D, for the detailed working out of a plan for changing from the district to the county-unit system of school administration.

erick, ranging from rural districts and small villages to cities of 10,000 to 40,000 inhabitants, public education rests upon a vastly stronger basis, financial and social. It becomes possible to provide for each of these communities an expert professional service much beyond what it could pay for alone (except in the case of a few of the larger cities, perhaps). Imagine any one of these counties split up into three to five or six school systems and all except the urban subdivided again, each looking out for itself, and you have a picture of the other state of affairs.

Fortunately a few of the counties of Maryland in recent years have shown a dawning consciousness of what might be done under this excellent plan of county units of administration and control. For various reasons Baltimore county has gone much beyond any other, and since it is the superintendent of that county who has come to be professionally known beyond the bounds of the State and the loss of whose services is threatened, the results there may appropriately be summarized. The school authorities have gradually built up a very interesting and efficient organization and have brought together a supervisory body much above the average in competence. There is the usual supervision of grade work and special subjects common in city schools; there is a specially trained supervisor of rural schools; 15 or 16 persons are devoting their time as supervisors or special teachers to home economics and manual and industrial work. The spirit animating this supervision is one of constructive helpfulness. It is loyally supported by the teaching body, which seems to be quite free from ugly spirit or warring factions. Such professional duties as the selection of textbooks and the preparation of courses and methods of study are left wholly in professional hands. The coöperation of the people, essential to the financial and moral support of such a system, has been secured and maintained.

Now, the point to be strongly emphasized is that there is no genuine promotion in going from such a system of county education to a city system. The ordinary standards of comparison as between cities and counties evidently do not fit. Indeed, the Baltimore county problem is the more complex and difficult and offers wider scope for personal and professional ability. That being the case, why should the superintendent of such a county be called upon to consider a change of the kind now under discussion? Should not the county position be given suitable recognition and dignity by providing an at least equal salary? Should not other Maryland counties spend a great deal more than they are now spending on supervision?