Slike strani

tained with communities either through local committees as is the case in 8 institutions, or through individual representatives as in 13.

Local committees are sometimes appointed by local groups of interested persons and sometimes by extension administrators for the execution of their projected programs. Individual representatives also are chosen by groups or appointed by extension administrators in the same manner. Selection by groups of people interested in extension work is reported by 13 institutions and selection by the extension administrators by 12. Appointment by school superintendents is reported by five schools and an equal number report cooperation by individuals who, on their own responsibility, represent the local exten. sion interests of the institution. Naturally such a representative may or may l'ot be a satisfactory person with whom to deal.

The most usual method by which contact is established and maintained with local representatives is through correspondence, although 17 land-grant colleges report conferences held in local communities and 10 report conferences on the home campus. Nominal compensation is paid local representatives by six institutions and four allow remission of service charges for assistance given. Most local representatives serve temporarily.

Practically all of the land-grant colleges offering general extension service utilize to a great extent the resources of local communities, most of which provide space for classrooms, conferences, and lectures, together with heat and light without charge. Undoubtedly this cooperation coming from the people contributes greatly to the success of extension programs. It is helpful, not only for the actual money values thus contributed, but also for the interests and enthusiasms that develop from the participation of local people in college and university projects.

It is good policy for universities to require that local communities provide housing and incidental service as a condition for the offering of university work. However, there may be some exceptions to this rule. This is particularly true in large cities where general extension programs have developed to an extent that assumes the proportion of a branch institution. This is occurring in many urban centers and is particularly true in the case of universities that offer a rather complete educational program. These branch developments are in effect junior colleges in some States. They are even more than that in some instances where extension courses are offered quite generally on even the graduate level of instruction.

Financial Organization Democratic education in the United States owes its great progress to the fact that it is supported largely by taxation and is open to all at a minimum cost. The original conception of the land-grant college was based on this principle. In accordance with this conception agricultural and home economics extension, supported by liberal Federal and State appropriations, has made notable progress. But

the principle of relatively free education has not been applied to general extension to the degree that is the practice in public higher education and in Smith-Lever extension. That this is true is evident from the fact that the total excess of expenditures over fees collected from users of service for general extension in all the land-grant colleges reporting is less than $300,000. The most striking fact relating to the financing of general extension work in the land-grant colleges is the discovery that the expenditures are so small.

General extension budgets are handled in the same general way as are the budgets of the schools and colleges of the institution. The president, or the president acting jointly with the director, has final decision with respect to allotment and appropriation of general extension funds in 25 of the 30 institutions reporting on this question. Only 3 schools report an extension-budget committee although 16 state that the needs of the different service units, including salaries, are set up by the respective heads of these divisions. In 26 institutions general-extension funds are disbursed through the regular university office while only 2 make such disbursements through the general extension office. General extension divisions of half the institutions are permitted on their own responsibility to order books, magazines, office equipment, films, slides, and current supplies, while half make such orders through the office of the general purchasing department.

The fact that so much dependence has been placed upon the fee system in order to finance general extension has led to the development of some phases of the work to the neglect of other phases. Many useful services are not sufficiently promoted because they lack the popular and, in some instances, the somewhat cheap appeal necessary to secure money in the form of fees. Certain extension services are expanded to considerable proportions because the clientele which they reach is more easily organized into groups for the purpose of extension study. This is particularly true of class extension work among public school teachers. At the same time, there


be difficulty in extending other phases of extension work which may be of equal or of even greater value to the people, and especially to the people who are not in a position to profit so much from the work offered by the usual educational agencies. Lack of money, in other words, has had too much influence on the trend of general extension.

Plant, Housing, Equipment

All 29 land-grant colleges reporting state that their general-extension divisions have office space on the home campus which with one exception is provided without charge against the extension budget. This office space is adequate in 16 of the institutions and inadequate in 13. In local centers housing facilities including space, light, heat, and service for administration, short courses, and extension classes are provided both by public and private agencies. The very general practice is for local communities to provide such facilities without charge. General extension divisions are usually supplied with mimeograph and multigraph machines, but less than a third have printing equipment. Films and slides are owned by more than half the institutions but fewer than half of them have cameras.

Of greater importance than the form of organization is personnel and its management. While it is not within the province of a survey to attempt to evaluate the worth of any member of a staff, it is possible to inquire concerning factors commonly regarded as important in determining staff efficiency. Extension staffs are usually made up of two different groups. These are the extension staff proper composed of those who devote full time, or practically full time to the work of extension; and the supplementary group of instructors who are employed to assist in extension teaching.

It is taken for granted that a general extension staff should compare favorably with the resident staff in training and experience. But it is not always necessary that the scholastic training should be the same.

Work carried on without reference to credit may in many instances be done most effectively by persons not hampered by academic tradition. Qualifications necessary for success in certain phases of general extension administration differ from those rated important for success in residence. In some respects, especially in personality requirements and in ability to deal with more mature people, qualifications necessary for success in extension work are more exacting than in resident teaching. Nevertheless, general extension work will gain acceptance among academic bodies to the degree in which extension staffs measure up to resident staffs with respect to scholarship, experience, and ability.

Whether or not the scholastic attainments of instructors as shown by their academic degrees is a satisfactory measure of the quality of teaching, especially of teaching a group of extension students at any rate the compilation of data in Table 38 giving the facts is interesting. TABLE 38.—Data in regard to educational qualifications of instructors of credit.

extension classes, 1927-28

[blocks in formation]

Management of Staff The general extension administrative staff is selected in much the same way as the members of the resident faculty. The usual procedure is for the head of the extension division to recommend appointments to the president. However, in the case of staff members who are to teach credit courses it is the general practice for heads of extension divisions and department heads to make joint recommendations. If district representatives teach, their selection and appointment are governed by this rule. However, they are usually considered only as community assistants and are not formally appointed.

One persistently difficult problem of general extension-staff personnel is that of securing instructors for extension classes. The demand for classes can not be satisfactorily provided for far in advance as requests for various courses may come at any time and from any section of the State. The general practice is to employ a permanent extension staff of a relatively small number of instructors for the lines of work in greatest demand and to draw on the resident staff of the institution for additional instructors as requests indicate need. In addition it is a common practice to employ capable instructors from other State institutions, non-State colleges, other educational agencies, and from the fields of business and professional pursuits in response to demands that the institution can not meet from its own faculty resources. This plan has merit in the possibility of serving parts of the State remote from the resident campus and also of providing types of instruction for which the institution may not be strongly equipped in teaching personnel. It has the apparent disadvantage of the probable lack of opportunity for harmonizing the subject-matter content and the method of teaching with those of resident instruction.

The ways by which the land-grant colleges have met the problem of providing a supply of extension instructors are shown by Table 39. TABLE 39.-Sources of supply for instructional staff of the general extension

division, 1927-28

[merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small]

Limitations on extension instructors. That resident instructors assume extension teaching for extra pay as an obligation in addition to their regular resident institutional work is a valid criticism of general extension. This practice is followed by 23 land-grant colleges while only 6 state that extension teaching is regarded as a part of the regular teaching schedule with a corresponding reduction in resident work. These institutions, with but two exceptions, practice both methods. Extension teaching for extra compensation, if engaged in to a very limited degree, may not be particularly bad. Perhaps it is no worse

, than is the general practice of college professors of supplementing their salaries by doing other “outside work.” It is, however, subject to grave abuse. The land-grant colleges have recognized this danger as is shown by the fact that the amount of extension teaching which full-time resident instructors may do is limited in 10 schools by the extension administration, and in 18 by the institutional administration.

The problem of limiting the amount of extra work that may be undertaken by extension instructors is, of course, closely related to the difficult general problem of securing extension instructors. That so little progress has been made in its solution may be accounted for by the fact that general extension has developed largely as expediency dictated. The land-grant colleges with a few exceptions have failed to recognize it as a movement of major importance justifying both personnel and financial support, commensurate with other major divisions of the institutions.

There is a well-defined belief that the measure of a university's appreciation of individuals or of staff units of its faculty is found in a study of its salary roll. Whether there is any basis for this belief or not, data giving the median salary, and salary ranges for members of extension staffs are of interest. See Table 40.

TABLE 40.-Salaries of the general extension staff, not including part-time

employees or part-time instructors

[blocks in formation]

Men Women Men Women Men Women Men Women Men Women

[merged small][merged small][subsumed][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small]

Median salary.

Salary range..

$4.500 $2,500 $1,500 $3,250 $2,500 $2,750
2, 000
500 500


1, 250 1,500 to to

to to to to
8,000 5,000 4, 000 6, 500 3,500 3,750

$1, 750 $1,250


to 3,000 3,000


500 to 1,000


500 to 1,000

$750 500

to 1, 750

« PrejšnjaNaprej »