and $52.63 for Utah County. This amount varies from year to year, as new buildings are erected and a greater or less number of teachers are employed.

ECONOMY IN PURCHASE OF ALL SCHOOL SUPPLIES AND EQUIPMENT.

Consolidated counties have the advantage of purchasing school supplies in large quantities at lowest wholesale prices. In Salt Lake County two boards control all purchases. In Utah County 23 school boards purchase supplies for their separate districts. A single district seldom buys quantities in excess of its immediate want, or for the term or year, for fear of loss by theft or deterioration. Consolidated districts, on the other hand, having central offices and storerooms where ample supplies are well kept and well guarded, buy in quantities and secure better prices. Economy is much greater, not only in the purchase of school supplies, but in the distribution as well. Supplies in the consolidated districts are sent upon requisition of the teachers, in such quantities as are actually needed. There is little waste of material or delay in transportation. In an unconsolidated county it frequently happens that teachers must wait for needed supplies until the individual member of the board having charge of the purchasing goes to town and returns with the supplies. Data of the complete savings in Salt Lake County are not available, but it is recognized that these savings have amounted to considerable. However, from Weber County, consolidated, comes a comparison which will serve to give some idea of the saving in school supplies when purchased by a single board for the entire county. The figures were compiled by the county superintendent.

TABLE 6.-Cost of supplies in Weber County.

COMPENSATION OF SCHOOL BOARDS.

Utah is one of the few States where school boards are paid a direct salary. A considerable saving results in the counties of that State upon consolidation.

In 1905, before consolidation, Salt Lake County paid school trustees more than $1,000 in excess of that paid in Utah County, but in 1912 this condition was reversed: Utah County paid trustees $5,188.80, while Salt Lake County paid $3,041. It must also be taken into consideration that this means the compensation of two school boards in Salt Lake County; one board would have cost less. Trustees in consolidated counties are allowed by law per year a compensation not to exceed $300 for each member, and expenses not to exceed $100. District trustees may fix their own salaries. Utah County in seven years paid school trustees $9,612.15 more than was paid to the trustees of the consolidated county of Salt Lake in the same seven years. This saving alone in trustees' salaries was sufficient to pay more than half of the salary of the county superintendent. TABLE 7.--Compensation of school boards.

VI. THE COUNTY v. THE DISTRICT UNIT IN TENNESSEE. By S. G. GILBREATH, President East Tennessee State Normal School.

"The county board of education" law was enacted by the Tennessee Legislature in 1907. This act provides that each county should be divided into five school districts and that one member from each school district should constitute the county board of education, the county superintendent of schools being named as secretary of the board.

The members of the board of education in each district are elected by the qualified voters of the district. Any person is eligible to election who is qualified by at least a primary education, who is a resident of the district, and a qualified voter therein.

The board is required to hold four regular meetings in each year and may hold as many special meetings as may be thought necessary. It is made the duty of the board to select all teachers, fix their salaries, erect school buildings, repair and furnish schoolhouses, fix all wages and incidental expenses, and control the expenditure of the public-school fund. It is further made the duty of the board to run

the public schools in the county, as nearly as practicable, the same length of time; to locate schools where deemed most convenient, having due regard to lessening the number; to receive monthly reports from the teachers; to issue certificates for warrant for salaries; to visit the public schools; to act on cases of appeal of pupils; to dismiss teachers for cause; to take care of, manage, and control all school property; and to buy, transfer, or sell school property, and make or take proper conveyances for the same.

Before the enactment of the county board of education law, in 1907, the public schools of Tennessee were under the management, control, and supervision of district boards of directors. Each county was divided into a number of school districts usually corresponding to the civil districts of the county. In some cases, however, school districts had been multiplied by action of county courts until counties with 15 or 20 civil districts had been subdivided into 40 or more school districts. Each school district had three directors who were charged with practically the same duties transferred in 1907 to the county board of education. Some of the general results of the operation of the county board of education law may be shown by the following comparative statistics for the scholastic years ending June 30, 1907 and 1913.

The scholastic population of the State in 1907, as reported by the district directors, was 766,625; and in 1913, as reported by county boards of education, it was 767,585.

This tabular statement shows large improvement in public-school conditions in Tennessee, and much of the gain has been due to the county board of education law, changing the unit of administration from the district to the county.

The chief benefits which have come under the operation of this law are as follows:

1. A more efficient board of administration.-With three school directors selected from a small number of voters to manage one, two, or three schools, it was not possible to select as uniformly efficient men as is now possible under the county plan. The men then selected were interested only in the small interests of their respective schools or districts, and could not see or realize the larger field of public education.

2. The consolidation of schools.-The consolidation of the public elementary schools has been made possible through the county unit plan of administration. A board of directors managing one school could not consolidate it and did not often cooperate with neighboring boards. Under the county board of education law the school interests of the county are viewed as a whole, and as a result the consolidation of one-teacher schools is being carried forward. The latest report of the State superintendent of public instruction shows that there were, up to June 30, 1913, 1,183 county schools having two teachers each; 227 having three teachers each; 85 having four teachers each; 77 having five or more teachers each. In 1907 no report was made on consolidated schools.

3. More efficient teachers.-Under the district unit plan the selection of teachers was more often influenced by personal, official, or financial causes than is possible under the county unit plan. With the board of education charged with the employment of 50, 100, and 200 teachers, the tendency is to look more closely to the efficiency of the teacher, and to be influenced less by other considerations. There are probably as many incompetent applicants for positions in Tennessee to-day as ever before, but fewer of these find employment. With a larger board, representing a larger territory, and working officially with the county superintendent of schools, the salaries offered teachers show a substantial increase. This has made possible the employment of better teachers.

4. The equalizing of school terms.--Under the district unit plan each district was apportioned its per capita share of the school funds, with the result that in the same county some schools had a term of less than three months, while others had four, six, or eight months, depending entirely upon density of population and the number of children belonging to each district. The county board of education law provides that the schools in each county shall continue the same number of days regardless of the size of the school. This guarantees to each child that which rightfully belongs to him: an equal number of days' tuition with his county neighbor.

5. Economical expenditure of school funds.-District boards of directors purchased at retail from local dealers all school supplies needed, such as brooms, crayon, erasers, school furniture and apparatus. Under the county board of education law these supplies

are purchased on competitive bids in wholesale quantities and are distributed through the office of the county superintendent. This has effected a large saving in every county and has made possible an economical administration of expense and supply funds.

6. Better schoolhouses.-It was very difficult, if not altogether impossible, under the district unit system, to secure funds for the erection and repair of school buildings, as the demand for such funds was necessarily local. In Tennessee the county court is the authority regulating all school levies except those provided for by the State legislature. The demand for building funds on the part of the board of district directors did not influence any large section of the court. Under the county unit plan the reports and demands of the county board are of interest to the entire county. The county unit system, taken in connection with the authority granted county courts to issue bonds for building, repairing, and furnishing schoolhouses, has resulted in the very great improvement of public school property. All this was impossible under the old system.

7. School funds.--The taxes levied by county courts for the support of the public schools have shown a very large increase since the enactment of the county board of education law. The united board of education, representing the entire county, and having in harmony with its demands the sentiments of all the teachers, the county superintendent of schools, and many progressive taxpayers, is very influential in determining tax levies. This community of effort could not be had under the district unit system.

8. Unity of interest.-With the county as a unit the interest of the patrons in the progress and real worth of the schools has been intensified, and all have been given a clearer understanding of the problems that must be worked out through the public schools. There is a more intense interest on the part of the patrons in the activities and needs of the schools than could have been experienced under the old law where each school was a unit in administration, support, and interest.

The general results of the law have been most helpful: School funds have been enlarged; teachers are better and are better paid; better schoolhouses have been erected; a vitalized course of study has been made possible; consolidation of schools has been furthered; and the interests of the people have been enlarged and intensified through the operation of the county board of education law.