When we compare the per-pupil expenditure, calculated in this gross way, with the expenditure computed separately for night schools, kindergartens, elementary grades, high schools, and special schools, we see at once the misleading character of the gross figure. The following figures were calculated from data given in the school reports of the cities named:

A comparison of the items for any one of the six cities in this table will show that each of the several kinds of school is a type by itself. To say that the cost per pupil for current expenses in New York city and Paterson, N. J., is $40 and $25, respectively, is not altogether unlike stating that the average value per head of the live stock on two neighboring farms is $40 and $25, respectively—the live stock on one farm consisting of a few thorobred horses and a large flock of domestic geese; that on the other, of a number of ordinary work horses and a flock of Angora goats. As arithmetical results, the averages in all of these cases may obviously be true; but as statements of significant facts they are clearly inadequate.

The elimination from the reports of the two fallacies referred to would remedy most of the positive errors of method, and make it possible to give definite and intelligible interpretation to any item. If provision could then be made for something approaching uniformity and accuracy in accounting, we should have at hand a mass of material upon the basis of which standards of administrative practice might be ascertained.

With a system of accounting following modern business principles, and a properly organized plan for measuring educational results, it should be possible in schoolwork, as it already is in well-conducted commercial enterprises, to compare varying expenditures for a given purpose with the corresponding degrees of excellence in results. It should, furthermore, be possible to ascertain the educational advantage, if any, of high salaries for teachers or principals; to determine the most advantageous distribution of expenditure as between primary, grammar, and high-school grades; to find what is a reasonable expenditure per capita of population for school purposes, and what percentage of total city expenditures may economically be devoted to school purposes. These and hundreds of similar problems must constantly be solved by school officers if the next steps in public-school finance are to be in a permanently right direction. Without scientific experiment,

comparison, and verification, there is no possible basis for the determination of such problems except that of mere tradition or of individual opinion. Expenditures for school purposes, which are now classified according to most varied and often inexact systems, should be reported in accordance with a perfectly definite, exact, and uniform system. No unclassified heading such as "miscellaneous expenditures" should be introduced, but the specific nature of expenditures should, in every case, be indicated. The expenditures, classified under proper general headings such as capital outlay, decrease of school debt, salaries, educational supplies, and maintenance of plant, should furthermore be distributed in such a way as to give separately the expenditures for high school, elementary school, kindergarten, and other grades of school which, as we have seen, constitute distinct species for purposes of accounting. Until we have put into practice such some scheme of classification as this, we shall be unable to speak with definiteness concerning public-school finance, and shall find it impossible to make comparisons that can serve as safe practical guides in administration.

By lack of co-ordination and co-operation and for other reasons, school administration has thus far failed to take the place that it should oc upy among the directive activities of the world. It can take this place only when it comes to recognize the value and the necessity of expert scientific knowledge and of exact method. Superintendents and other school officers are in positions to provide a body of facts covering a wide range of educational experience. This can be made useful only by properly organized co-operation. A definite and intelligent plan, pursued by even a small number of men working consciously toward a common end, would soon enable a school superintendent to face his problems with a body of established facts, rather than with a mass of conflicting opinions.

To settle educational questions by adequate tests would mean immeasurable advance in educational practice. The random and ill-controlled work of many of our schools could be as far surpassed as the conventional devotion to authority in mediaeval Europe is surpassed by modern experimental methods. Under such conditions no one need mistake even experienced judgment for proof, and the number of questions in regard to which men will plunge into controversy instead of resorting to investigation will have been reduced to a minimum. The social significance of education and a widely recognized demand for a reorganization of education emphasize the importance of co-operation, on the part of all students and directors of education, in an effort to establish, at every possible point, a scientifically verified basis for practice.

II

GEO. C. PARDEE, FORMER GOVERNOR OF CALIFORNIA, OAKLAND, CAL. "Public School Finance-What Next?" is the subject we are asked to discuss in this symposium. I shall consider it from the standpoint of the

state. In order to come to any sort of conclusion as to what the "next" shall be, it is necessary, first, to know what the present conditions are. That, fortunately, has been set before us in the very able investigations covering the school finances of the various states. An attempt to summarize these investigations would be a task of supererogation. At any rate, I shall content myself by saying that it appears from these investigations that there is no working-plan of school finances that seems entirely satisfactory. "What next?" therefore, might be answered by saying that some plan ought to be devised which would be entirely satisfactory. What that plan shall be, no man or woman can, I think, assert, with any degree of a priori certainty. For the best-laid theoretical plan would be found to have many flaws, imperfections, and inequalities, when put to the test of actual practice. Then, too, the conditions surrounding educational matters differ so radically in different. states and even in different parts of the same state, that it would be a very difficult matter for this, or any other similar, body to evolve a plan which would fit all the conditions in all the states.

The best that can be done, it seems to me, is to keep up a persistent, insistent agitation of the question of school finances, an unsparing exposure of such bad conditions as may exist, in order that, being brought to the attention of those who are directly and by law intrusted with the solution of such problems, better and more satisfactory results may be gradually obtained. For, with all deference, it appears to me that here in California, at least, quite an appreciable percentage of our school people, both lay and professional, are too much disposed to say that, because a certain condition is, it ought to continue to be.

Some little time ago the governor of California had occasion to examine into the manner of the distribution of the school money of the state. He found, much to his surprise, that the teachers employed in the various counties of the state were receiving, under the then governing law, varying amounts of the state's money. For instance, each of the three teachers in one of the smaller, poorer, mountain counties was receiving only $275 per annum of the state's money, while each teacher in the richest and largest city of the state was receiving something over $700 per year of that money; while between these two extremes the teachers of the other counties were receiving varying sums from the state treasury. Now, as the state school money in California can be used only to help pay teachers' salaries, the governor referred the matter to the school people and wanted to know why this unequal distribution of the state's money was made. The answer was to the effect that it was the law; that it had been the law for many years; that it had received the tacit, if not the active, approval of all school people since it was enacted, and, therefore, being the law, and being ancient, and being with the consent of the school people all these years, it must be right and proper.

The investigation was continued, and it was found that, altho the state's money was distributed to the counties on the theory that it was to equalize

the educational burdens of the poorer counties, one of the poorest counties in the state was compelled to levy a county school tax of fifty cents on the hundred dollars, the limit allowed by law, in order to maintain her rather inadequate schools; while the richest county in the state, in order to support its very good schools, was compelled to tax herself but six cents on the hundred dollars. This condition appeared to be absurdly, if not wickedly, unfair; and it was also referred to the school people to be met, as before, with the reply that it was the law; had been the law for many years; had received the support of school people all these years, and, therefore, because it was the law, was ancient, and had been approved by successive corps of school people, must, of course, be right and proper.

These answers were not satisfactory, and a campaign of agitation and education was inaugurated looking to the amendment of the law by the legislature. And, rather to his surprise, the governor found that there was considerable opposition from some of the school people, who, quite good-naturedly, seemed to think that a layman ought not to attempt to interfere in a matter with which the professional school people were satisfied, because it was, had been for a long time, and, therefore, ought to continue to be.

The problem, however, was worked out. It was found that the vice of the law lay in starting with the daily average attendance, and not with the teacher, as the basis for the distribution of the state's school money. In other words, the state paid a certain sum for each child attending school; and this money went to help pay the teachers' salaries. In San Francisco, where it was possible to have one teacher for every forty pupils, the state's money went far toward paying the teachers' salaries; but in little Alpine County, for instance, where, because of the dispersion of the sparse population, it was necessary to have three teachers, in as many schools, to teach forty pupils, the state money, paid for the use of forty pupils, had to be divided among three teachers and was, therefore, nowhere near enough to pay their salaries. The result was that Alpine County, one of the poorer counties of the state, was taxed very heavily to maintain comparatively poor schools, while San Francisco, the richest county in the state, was enabled, with the state's aid, to carry on good schools at a very slight cost to herself. The legislature, however, greatly, tho not entirely, reformed this inequality; and every California teacher now receives nearly the same amount of the state's money for the support of the public schools.

You will, I hope, pardon me for this somewhat lengthy account of the difficulties encountered in the attempt to right what seemed to be a great wrong on the country teachers and the country children of this state. It appears to me, however, that it will serve as an illustration of what I meant when I said that in order to ascertain what the "next" shall be in school finances, it is necessary, first, to ascertain what present conditions are. Those conditions being ascertained for each state, they may be bettered, as a preliminary step, without the imposition of any heavier burdens of state taxation.

To illustrate: We all know that the teachers of California, especially the country teachers, were (and, for that matter, still are) poorly paid. To reform this condition it was proposed by some of the school people to increase the money raised by state taxation for the payment of public school teachers. One-half of the net income of this state being annually paid out for education, and the state paying 46 per cent. of the cost of the public schools, while the average state pays only 16 per cent. of that cost, any increase of state taxes for school purposes, before the existing evils had been remedied, would have added another burden to the taxpayers' already heavy one, but it would not have achieved the desired result, viz., the equalization of that portion of the teachers' salaries paid by the state.

I take it that you will agree with me that, even tho "the whole state is interested in the education of the children of the state," that education should be so bestowed as not to add any unnecessary burden to those already so cheerfully borne by the taxpayer, and that the first step toward the "next" should be the proper and economical use of the finances already placed at the disposal of the school people. By "economical" I do not mean "niggardly," but a proper, fair, and equal use of the money appropriated, so that every child of the state, whether he be in a big school or a little one, whether his teacher has a class of forty or one of ten, shall receive from the state an equal amount of educational advantages from the money of the state. In other words, I mean that the teacher, and not the pupil, should be the unit upon which the state school money should be apportioned. I mean that a teacher, in a sparsely settled county, where, because of the sparse population, a dozen children constitute a school, should receive just as much of the state's money as does the teacher of a class of forty in a densely populated city. The natural advantages of the wealthy cities will easily enable them to add enough to the state's money to enable them to pay their teachers larger salaries than the sparsely settled and, therefore, poorer districts can pay theirs, by adding to the contribution of the state. The state will be giving every teacher a "square deal" when it provides that, so far as it is concerned, the teachers with country schools of a dozen pupils shall be paid as much of its money as the city teachers with classes of forty. For the state to thus look after the pecuniary interests of the teachers is equivalent to looking after the educational advantages of the children. For, after all, good teachers require, and ought to have, good pay, while poor teachers ought to have no pay at all. Cubberly says:

In a majority of the states of the Union the methods in use for distributing state funds for schools are not based on the best principles, and do not afford the relief which should be given; and, further, that the adoption of a better method of distribution would enable many states, with no material increase in the funds at their disposal, to relieve the burdens of those communities least able to bear them and to increase materially the length of school term, and to do this without unduly increasing the burdens of local support on any community.

Cubberly, School Funds and Their Apportionment, p. 19.