« PrejšnjaNaprej »
TABLE 13.—Expenditures for undergraduate home economics in 17 land-grant
The 17 land-grant institutions represented in Table 13 are not the same as those shown in Table 12. Therefore, no attempt should be made to balance the figures presented by the two tables. It was not possible on account of incompleteness and inaccuracy to assemble enough of the same institutions to show trends in income and expenditures with any degree of accuracy.
More than 75 per cent of the total expenditures for home economics in 17 institutions was for salaries throughout the period 1915–16 to 1927–28. This is considerably above the proportion spent for this item by land-grant institutions as a whole, but it should be remembered that the home economics budget is not charged with many elements of institutional expenditures that must be included in getting similar percentages for the entire institution. For 1927–28, home economics expenditures for materials and supplies was 9 per cent of total expenditures. The capital outlay for equipment and apparatus for home economics in 1927–28 was 7.5 per cent of all expenditures. In these cases, as in the case of salaries, no comparison can be made properly with the figures for institutional expenditures as a whole.
More important than amounts and proportionate distribution of expenditures are the methods used in making allotments of available income to the different subject-matter fields. It is at this point especially that the correlation between financing and objectives should be especially evident.
Among 42 institutions reporting on the methods used for allotting funds to various home economics subject-matter departments, clothing and textiles, home management, foods and nutrition, and others, 25 indicate funds divided according to the requests of the heads of these departments. The majority of the 25 indicate that in so far as possible the allotments for the various departments are equalized. All indicate conferences in staff meetings where the needs of the departments are discussed and adjustments made when necessary. One institution reports funds allotted following the conferences between deans of other divisions, the president, and comptroller of the institution. Another reports that each department spends first, according to its earned income, and secondly, that any excess is allotted as needs are presented by each department. Another institution, where the earned income basis for the allotment of funds is reported, the amount of laboratory fees paid into the general college fund is used as a gauge of expenditures to be incurred. One institution reports that since no increase in department funds except for research has occurred in the 5-year period previous to 1928, the problem of the director of home economics has been one of following existing allotments.
The occurrence in a number of reports of the expressions, “minimum needs,” “ most urgent needs,” and similar phrases, indicates not only the care with which funds are allotted and used but suggests retarded development and, therefore, curtailment of service.
Expenditures by Subject-Matter Departments In reports from 41 institutions showing expenditures by subjectmatter departments, that is, applied art, foods and nutrition, textiles and clothing, and others, 24 report funds so divided for the year 1927–28; 16 that funds are not subdivided on this basis; 1 that no systematic record is kept. But 3 institutions among the 41 show expenditures by subject-matter departments for 1910–11; 4 for 1915–16; 12 for 1920-21; 22 for 1925–26; and 24 for 1927–28. The practice of keeping records of expenditures by departments seems to be coming into general use, although analysis of the reports shows that figures given under many of the headings do not show the emphasis that the institution is putting upon the subject. For instance, in one institution the equipment and supplies for family life and child development are listed with those purchased for home management. In a number of instances expenditures for applied art and textiles and clothing are grouped. Comparisons have little value, therefore, because of the large number of variable factors and combinations presented.
Table 14 shows the amounts spent, both for permanent equipment and consumable supplies by 10 institutions during 1920–21, 1925–26, and 1927–28, for certain subject-matter departments. Too much weight, however, should not be given to the figures and facts presented by the table. They are indicative rather than conclusive.
TABLE 14.- Home economics expenditures by subject matter departments in 10
1 Consumable supplies
$8,907 $26, 873 $5, 478 $32, 395 $4, 743 $22, 982 $1, 116
$32, 305 $100, 493 $24, 970 $98, 899 $30, 372 $64, 099 $1, 131 $352, 29 Per cent of total.
$16, 401 $107, 236 $22, 670 $65, 521 $20, 558 $34, 011 Number of institutions reporting in above figures
6 Consumable supplies
$11, 608 $75, 521 $6,813 $32, 868 $6, 164 $22, 932 $2,629 Number of institutions reporting in above figures..
$28, 009 $182, 757 $29, 483 $98, 389 $26, 722 $56, 943 $2, 629 $424, 932
Included in expenditures for subject matter departments shown in Table 14, are those for permanent equipment, office furniture, consumable supplies, and salaries. Light, heat, and room are not included. Some institutions included salaries under permanent equipment; others under consumable supplies. Percentages were worked out on the basis of total expenditures for permanent equipment and consumable supplies. In the department of household art, total expenditures decreased from 10 per cent of all subject-matter department expenditures in 1920-21 to 9 per cent in 1925–26 and to 7 per cent in 1927–28. Expenditures for cafeteria and lunch room decreased from 40 per cent of the total expenditures for all departments in 1920–21 to 29 per cent in 1925–26; an increase to 43 per cent is shown for the year 1927–28. The large proportion of expenditures shown for the year 1920–21 undoubtedly may be accounted for by the installation of equipment which was expensive, but which, once installed could be used over a period of years. It
is interesting and significant that the sales from cafeteria and lunchroom service have increased so perceptibly during these years, although the expenses, judging from a study of these 10 institutions, have not increased to any great extent.
Expenditures for equipment and consumable supplies in the department of family life and child development have increased notably since 1920–21, when they were but 1 per cent of the total expenditures. In 1925–26, they constituted 6 per cent of the total; and in 1927–28, 7 per cent. Expenditures for foods and nutrition work remain practically the same, increasing from 21 per cent of the total in 1920–21 to 28 per cent in 1925–26, and decreasing to 23 per cent in 1927–28. Home management department expenditures likewise have remained in about the same proportion. Eight per cent of the total subject matter department expenditures went into the home-management department in 1920–21; 9 per cent in 1925– 26; and 6 per cent in 1927–28. This drop may indicate the change in viewpoint regarding the teaching of home management from one in which the study of household equipment absorbed practically all the time of students to one which considers the economic and management problems to a much larger extent than formerly. Expenditures for the department of textiles and clothing have decreased from 19 per cent of the total in 1920–21, to 18 per cent in 1925–26; to 13 per cent in 1927–28. This may indicate not only that the expensive equipment bought in the earlier year is still in use, but that such equipment is less needed because less attention is given to construction and more to appreciation and selection of textiles and clothing. The figures for institutional management are very small.
Chapter VI. Courses
When this survey was planned many of the home economics heads and staffs in the land-grant institutions were requested to suggest phases of study that would be of special interest or value to their work. Of the suggestions made those that dealt with courses and curricula were more numerous and more insistent than those that concerned any other aspect of home economics work. Home economics displayed more concern about its offerings than did any other division of the institutions. Since home economics is in process of development this interest is, of course, natural, but the searching nature of the requests for study and the evidence afforded that the home economics staffs are conscious of the intimate relationship between offerings and definition of objectives seem to justify somewhat more detailed presentation of these matters than has been attempted with reference to other divisions of land-grant college activity.
The institutions cooperated so heartily in furnishing information about courses and curricula that a larger amount of detail has been assembled than can be presented in the space and time available. Much of the data must be treated by this report in a rather general and summary fashion. It is hoped, however, that the specific detail
, collected may be further studied and supplemented by graduate students and others interested in home economics matters. This report will consider in turn methods and means used by the institutions in determining what shall be offered, the number and types of courses listed, the organization of courses into curricula, and finally methods of instruction.
Determination of Offerings Five points related to determination of what subject matter shall be offered by home economics deserve separate treatment: First, the administrative processes and considerations that determine offerings; second, relationships to previous preparation of entering students; third, prevention of undesirable duplication between college home economics courses; fourth, means used to determine actual content of courses; and fifth, methods adopted to improve the quality of courses.