feel that it was safe to use eight or ten thousand dollars for each schoolroom unless in a very wealthy city, a city with plenty of money, where the people would not feel the expenditure to be a heavy burden. It may be, in the time to come, that we can afford things of that sort in all cities, but it is better to be careful and to build upon a safe financial basis. While prosperity reigns it is all right, but we do not always have prosperous times and it is far better to be on safe ground all the time.

W. T. HARRIS, Washington, D. C.-Assume that each state in our nation provide for public education in schools, making not only as states a general tax for education, but re-enforcing the general tax by local taxes in cities and villages, in counties and townships, in towns and districts-as the case may be. Assume this and you will assume your public-school finances.

Now, what should you do with the vast sum of money raised for schools in this country? You should build new buildings and improve their plans. You should select better lots and have larger playgrounds. You should have more and better furniture, better outhouses, better provision for light, heat, ventilation, and the general health of school children. You should pay better salaries to the teachers.

The United States pays 260 millions a year for its public schools, a sum equal to 26 cents on each $100 of true valuation of its wealth. The amount collected from each dollar has been increased from year to year at a rate of about 4 cents each decade since 1880. We should increase this expenditure by an equal or greater amount each decade because the more accumulated wealth there is the better able it is to spare for schools a larger tax on the dollar.

The per capita of wealth increases from decade to decade. For the United States it had reached $1,036 in 1890, more than three times what it was in 1850. This mere increase per capita would alone cause vast increase of revenues for schools without raising the tax on each dollar. But as a fact all sections of our country have increased not only in wealth but in the tax rate per dollar devoted to schools.

The north Atlantic states, for instance, have been accumulating wealth for the longest time and have the largest accumulations, and yet they have increased the amount collected for schools on each $100 from 16 cents in 1880 to 27 cents in 1903. In 1880 their total valuation of property was seventeen and one-half billions; in 1903 it was more than double, being nearly thirty-seven billions. The south Atlantic and south central states increased their rates per $100, the former from 14 cents to 23 cents and the latter from 13 to 24 cents. The north central division increased its pro rata on each $100 from 22 to 28 cents for schools and the western division from 19 cents to 21 cents. The pro rata for the western division for schools has always been high. California was paying 21 cents on the $100 in 1880 and has raised this pro rata to 23 cents in 1903.

As wealth increases the amount pro rata for schools has been increased so that publicschool finances are doubly augmented, deriving an increment directly from the increase in taxable property and a second increment from the higher rate of taxation.

It was vastly easier to pay a school tax in 1900 with an average per inhabitant of $1,235 of wealth than it was in 1850 when the wealth was only $308. The greater the wealth the greater the ability to pay high rates of taxation. The United States citizen of 1900 is represented by four times as much realized wealth and therefore can bear a burden of taxation equal to four times that of 1850 with greater ease, because the larger the income from vested property, the greater the tax possible, without stinting the individual in his necessities.

The property that goes down from one generation to the next consists mostly of the machinery of production, of improved farms, of city buildings and lots on graded and sewered streets, of railroads and steamships, of mines, of mills for textile goods and for iron and steel.

Supposing therefore that we have our finances for public schools, it remains for us to make a wiser and wiser use of them so as to increase the efficiency of the school system.

One of the important matters which concern the economy of resources is the twofold grading of salaries so as to recognize, in the first place, the improvement of the teachers thru experience and length of service, and secondly, the improvement of teachers that comes from assuming greater responsibilities and making extraordinary efforts to master difficulties. There should be a grading of salaries according to mere length of service with increase of fifty or one hundred dollars a year. In some cities salaries for the lowest grade of assistants begin at $500 or even $400, and increase at the rate of $50 or $100 up to the maximum, which may be as high as $600, $700 or even $800 a year.

If this graded increase is continued too long it brings with it a salary too high for that quality of teachers' work which does not improve beyond the stage of mere routine and which commonly reaches its highest level in the fourth year of service. After this period mannerisms begin to creep in, and in some cases an affected style of behavior, such as has been caricatured in literature as belonging to the pedagogue.

More important, therefore, is the second grading of salaries, based upon difficulty of work, upon high skill in teaching, or upon superior learning. At least one-fourth of the corps of teachers should stand out above the stratum of teachers who are graded merely by length of service. They should form a class apart which preserves the traditions of good teaching and continually purifies them.

The second grading of salaries starts with promotions from the time-graded lowest class and rewards the teachers of earnest character, skill, and successful instruction by promotion from rank to rank up to the directive power in the schools and the highest grades of salaries.

While according to length of service there may be a range of salaries from $500 for the first year to $700 for the fourth year-an annual increase of $50, the salary of this grade of teachers may range from $550 to $1,000 or $1,200. The first promotion may change the rank of ordinary assistant (perhaps called third assistant) to that of second grade assistant, receiving a salary of $100 a year higher than the rank and file, and with annual increase of $50, beginning at $600 and rising year by year up to a maximum of $860.

Next higher in rank would be a first assistant, beginning at $700 and rising to $900, and after that a head assistant with advances of salary of $100 each over the next grade below, beginning at $800 or $900 and rising to $1,000 or $1,100.

There should be no promotion except to an actual vacancy existing in the schools. There should be marked out in the beginning the important places: In the lowest primary a first assistant's place; then, next, a second assistant's place; and after that four third assistant's places; and then a second assistant; then four third assistants, and then for twelfth, thirteenth, and fourteenth teachers, respectively, a second assistant, a first assistant, and a head assistant, and over all these a principal of the school. This is an example of a graded school of fourteen rooms.

This second grading of salaried teachers, that is based on skill and learning, saves the schools from losing their best talent by promotion to better salaries in other cities. The reaction of this class of teachers on the class of teachers who rise only by time of service is very wholesome in preserving the professional spirit of the schools; and their good devices of instruction and discipline become the possession of their less progressive neighbors.

F. B. COOPER, superintendent of schools, Seattle, Wash.—I have just two points to raise, one in regard to the position taken by Mr. Greenwood, who is such good authority with me that I am almost inclined to hesitate over my own judgment when I differ with him. This is whether those cities which are spending the money necessary to secure good and well-equipped school buildings do not also pay their teachers salaries proportionate to their expenditure for buildings. I don't mean to say that any cities pay their teachers enough. While I do not know that such a comparison has been made, I think it would be found that generally a fair proportion of the gross expenditures is for teachers' salaries. I believe it is a fact, that cities that are spending the most money for

school buildings in order to have them rightly meet the needs of the school children, are also paying the best salaries for teachers.

Over-economy in equipment is wasteful of teaching energy. In our city an eightroom building costs about $30,000. If it were necessary to spend $4,000 more than this for a building in order to make every dollar spent for teachers' salaries worth one hundred cents, by giving the teacher everything that she needs to work with, to provide the ordinary sanitation and light and everything necessary to make the children do their best work, it would be an economical investment. This would mean that an outlay of the interest upon four thousand dollars at 4 per cent., or one hundred and sixty dollars a year, would give full value to the six thousand dollars a year paid as the salaries of eight teachers. That is an argument, I think, that no reasonable school-board member can withstand. When once the fact of building and equipment in its true relation is clearly understood then it is more likely that the teacher in her true relation will be understood and her salary will be the more fairly adjusted.

There is another thing which has been pointed out here this morning, and which ought to be figured out and published so that assessors and taxpayers may know it. I refer to a comparison of the increase in our wealth with the increase in the cost of school maintenance. A great disproportion will be found here. Why, this country has increased in wealth many, many fold, but it can easily be shown that the increase for school maintenance has not been at all proportionate to the increase in the country's wealth. And this, for the reason that so much of our wealth in this country is not touched by taxation-and the more wealth that is produced, the greater the proportion that is not so touched.

A corporation that I know of was formerly assessed for seventy thousand dollars. This year the assessor, who affirms that he must assess it righteously because he has taken an oath of office to perform that duty, assessed that corporation for five hundred and sixty thousand dollars. In this single city, the assessed valuation has gone from seventy millions up to one hundred and twenty-five millions in a single year not merely because there has been an increase in wealth, but because a just assessor has brought more wealth to view upon his books. This makes it easier for schools to enjoy a proper and legitimate support.

EDWIN G. COOLEY, superintendent of schools, Chicago, Ill.-Commissioner Brown has explained that we are to discuss the question "What Next ?" as a supplement to the investigations of teachers' salaries of some three or four years ago. He believes that the matter collected then should be put into more definite form that it might lead to definite action.

I am not familiar with the situation in the country schools. I can speak for a city like Chicago. There, as in other large cities, we are struggling with deficient revenues. We have been increasing the demands upon the schools from year to year, accompanied by the dislike on the part of the taxpayers to submit to a higher rate of taxation. The taxpayers go to the legislature from year to year to fight every attempt to increase the taxation for the schools and for other city purposes. In Chicago they have had the best of us up to date.

In our large cities we are laboring with crowded rooms, with insufficient supplies of materials to work with, with salaries lower than they ought to be-certainly too low for capable teachers.

There is one thing that should, I think, receive attention. That is the increased demands made upon the common schools today. Twenty-five years ago the people paid far less than they do now for school purposes, and many of them cannot see why they should pay more at the present time. They fail to realize the tremendous increase in the demands made upon the schools. They fail to appreciate that the public is demanding better teachers, better buildings, better equipment, and a very much larger list of subjects must be taught. Some of the people seem to expect all of these things with an expenditure of the same amount of money that was formerly adequate.

One important line of work for us in the future is to educate the taxpaying body as

to the needs of the schools, as to the reasons why we must have larger revenues. We must point out that with the departure from the purely academic scheme of education there must go increased expenditure. The business man and the manufacturer of today are not satisfied with the old scheme of education. While we are somewhat uncertain as to just what the future will expect of us, we are sure that the day of the Three R's is over. Industrial and commercial education has come to stay.

These increasing demands cannot be met by mere manipulation of the finances of our cities. They cannot be met by changes in methods of supervising and handling the schools. They can only be met by larger expenditures of money. We must pay larger salaries, we must continue to equip our schools better and better, and we must do this in the face of protests against increased expenditures.

CARROLL G. PEARSE, superintendent of schools, Milwaukee, Wis.-I wish to say in connection with the remarks made by the gentleman from California, that I believe some regulation will be necessary if the basis of payment by the state is to be made on teachers and not on pupils. The problem of the consolidation of the schools, and the question of the conditions under which they ought to be consolidated, especially in the smaller communities, must be carefully considered if the basis of, or the distribution of, the state appropriations should come to be the number of teachers.

I agree entirely with what Mr. Cooley and others have said, that we do not have enough funds for the purposes of our schools. Teachers do not receive adequate salaries, and there are other things for which we do not have enough money. But, on the other hand, there are some things for which we expend too much money; and it seems to me that these matters should be looked into. Some classification should be made of the various kinds of expenditures similar to that made by the committee that went into this matter some years ago and those reports should be studied carefully by those charged with responsibility for school finances.

In some cases there is a waste of money on schoolhouses. Sometimes thousands of dollars are spent on elaborate balustrades and the decorations for the buildings, which add nothing whatever to their actual value for school purposes, but result from the fancy of the architect, or are suggested by someone without any real knowledge of the necessities of a schoolroom or of a schoolhouse. Very likely by concerted effort we might gain accurate knowledge of the needs of the schoolhouse; we might determine clearly the demands of the schoolroom in furnishings and equipment; we might "standardize” the schoolroom for the United States; we might "standardize" the schoolhouse. We might learn what are the standard essentials of a school building and how these might be had for the least expenditure of money; we might include every necessary thing that a schoolhouse should possess; and thus we might settle what a schoolroom should contain, and about what it should cost.

In

There is another point that is important in this connection. I refer to the varying proportions of money raised for school purposes, compared with money raised for other public purposes. This makes it incumbent upon those of us who have something to do with determining the amounts to be raised for schools and how this money shall be expended to inform ourselves by means of comparison between different cities. A few superintendents have been engaged in this work, and have gathered facts concerning the different sources from which the school money comes and the methods of raising the same. some cities the money used for the schools is raised exclusively by taxation. The proportion devoted to this purpose varies in different places; in some 50 or 60 per cent. of what is raised by taxation is expended for the public schools, while there are other towns in which the proportion is only 20 per cent. Part of this variation is due to varying in come from licenses and other sources. Where funds come from these sources, a less amount of the necessary money is raised by direct taxation.

These things need careful study by all who have to do with the collection or expenditure of school moneys.

Some years ago the Department of Superintendence of the National Educational Association made some such inquiry and an investigation of the various lines of expenditures in city schools, and embodied the results in a form for financial reports that was intended to be of assistance to city superintendents of schools in comparing the expenses of one city with those in another. It is a wise saying of the old scientist that "all science is comparison," and it is well that this be remembered so far as city schools are concerned and in the comparison of the expenditures of one city with those of another.

In order to compare expenditures a common basis must be had and it seems to me especially desirable that those of us who are connected with city schools should look up this report. It is in the proceedings of the National Educational Association, and can be obtained through the Secretary of the Association. Every city superintendent's office should contain a copy of this report, and whatever else can be had on classification of expenditures to enable him to see how the expenditures and the revenues of one city compare with those of another.

TOPIC-PROVISIONS FOR EXCEPTIONAL CHILDREN IN THE PUBLIC SCHOOLS

DISCUSSION

WILLIAM E. HATCH, superintendent of schools, New Bedford, Mass.-It seems to me that this is one of the most important topics of the whole convention program. It may seem more important to me than to many, because I come from a district of New England, where we have a very large proportion of foreign people-people who are coming here every day by the thousands, and settling in our cities, especially in our textile manufacturing cities, in one of which I live. Their children furnish a problem which many of you who live in cities more remote from the coast do not meet, since, as I understand from the reports of the immigration commissioners, a large proportion of immigrants to this country, who have come here recently, are settling east of the Mississippi River, and in our cities.

Miss Julia Richman, assistant superintendent of schools in New York City, speaking of the great problems she has to meet in the schools there, said to me, “We have one problem that you haven't in Massachusetts." I said, "What is it?" She answered, "We have children of a great number of different nationalities to deal with." "But," I said, "in my city, we have children of at least fifteen or twenty different nationalities to deal with, who cannot, many of them, speak the English language at all.” They are exceptional children.

But I imagine that the children who were in mind when this topic was placed on the program were those who were defective either in mind or body, rather than foreign born. Without considering illiterates, exceptional children may be placed in two classes. One class includes those who stand above the normal child-the exceptional in ability; the exceptional in mental acumen; those who are physically strong, who have a great vitality, who have great home advantages.

These children are as important a consideration as those who are deficient. From these children are to come the leaders of our country; and if any nation has not a large percentage of intellectually strong, morally strong, and physically strong people, that nation must degenerate. The percentage of strong, Christian leaders determines the position of a nation in the world, and that nation which has a small percentage in relation to its mass must certainly become bankrupt morally, physically, politically, and economically.

J. H. VAN SICKLE, superintendent of schools, Baltimore, Md.—Without in any way seeming to undervalue the training of the delinquent and the defective, I wish to speak briefly of the training of exceptionally capable children.

In well-developed graded school systems, the needs of the ordinary pupils have been