In order to group the communities for supervisory purposes it is suggested that a state commission of three be established; this to consist of the Commissioner of Education and two persons living under the rural education law to be appointed by the Governor. The state commission would have general supervision of the work of the county committees, adjust differences between committees of different counties, and hear appeals of patrons that are dissatisfied with the action of their committees. It would also be empowered to recommend the number of supervisory units that should be maintained after 1926. The committee suggested 208 until then because that number was elected a year ago and their terms run until 1926. (Details of this topic will be found in Rural School Survey of New York State, pages 192-211.)

3 Proposals for school support

Under the present system of financing schools it was found that there are two places at which injustices are worked:

a Local taxation. The present unit of taxation—the district — is so small and the variations in wealth so great that it is a common thing to find districts that have a true tax rate that is twenty or twenty-five times as great as the rate in other districts in the same community. These differences are general throughout the State. Their primary cause is the great difference in the value of the property that different districts have for the support of their schools. To meet this situation it is suggested that a larger local unit of taxation be established so that poor and wealthy districts will pool their resources in their efforts to provide their children with schooling.

b State aid. The present system of distribution of state aid is such that the rural districts as a group are placed at a disadvantage. It costs more to maintain the same grade of school in the open country than it does in centers of population. The farmer should not be penalized because it is necessary for him to carry on his business under these conditions. As a means of meeting this condition it is recommended that a fund be raised for the equalization of educational opportunity in rural communities as contrasted with those of city and village. This fund should be distributed to the rural districts primarily with reference to their ability to support schools. The average wealth a teacher in each school district of the State is taken as the starting point. The further a district falls below this average, the more assistance it would receive from the state fund.

The first of these changes would reduce the differences in local tax rate and the second would tend to bring local units in all sections

of the State to approximately the same tax rate for the maintenance of the same school facilities.

4 Consolidation by local vote

As a result of its consideration of the problem of school consolidation, the committee decided to recommend that in the future schools should be consolidated only on the basis of a majority vote of each district in a proposed consolidation. This does not mean that the committee does not believe in consolidation of schools. There are undoubtedly communities in the State where it could be brought about advantageously. It does mean, however, that the committee believes it is a matter that should be left to the people to determine.

5 Suggestions as to teachers

The most important factor in determining the character of a school is the teacher. Maturity, experience and preparation are three rough. measures of a teacher's efficiency. It was found that in these respects. the teachers in the one-teacher schools fall below the standards of the larger schools. It is recommended that beginning with 1927 no new teachers should be admitted to the service who have not had at

least 2 years of preparation beyond high school. It is suggested that departments be established in the normal schools equipped to train teachers for service in the rural schools of the State and that scholarships of $200 a year be given the more capable young men and women from rural districts who desire to prepare themselves for service in the rural schools. These scholarships are to be given on condition that the candidate agree to serve in the rural schools of the State for 3 years.

As a further means of assisting rural districts to secure strong teachers, it is recommended that a state grant of $20 a month be given to teachers of either of the following groups who teach in the one-teacher school: (a) a normal school graduate or equivalent with 3 years of teaching experience; (b) a graduate of one of the rural teacher training departments of the normal school.

These then are the fundamental principles on which the committee would build a program for rural school improvement. In our report we have gone into some detail with further suggestions, but if I say nothing else worth while today, I want to emphasize the thought that every member of the committee fully realizes that, when it comes to actual operation, some of its detailed suggestions will be found impractical and not workable. The committee as a whole or any

member of it, will not make a stand for any of its detailed suggestions which any one can prove are wrong or which actual use will show to be impractical. There is a decided and unanimous spirit in the committee of cooperation to get some kind of rural school improvement program, and it will not imperil such a program by obstinately standing out upon small details.

We are, however, unanimously for the fundamental principles which I have read to you; that is, to summarize, first, a community unit for administration and taxation; second, a change in the supervisory unit; third, an equalization of the tax rate with more features of state aid; fourth, a better-prepared and better-paid teaching personnel; fifth, a gradual consolidation of many of the smaller districts, such consolidation to be brought not by compulsion, but by local vote. With such a program once in operation and backed by the educational personnel and the rural patrons of the State, we shall have a mighty machine which will take care of its own details and which will work all the time for the real educational interests of young America.

For this program I bespeak your help and cooperation. If there are some of the minor suggestions with which you do not agree, I remind you again that the committee will meet you all of the way in working them out. With everyone of you, with every other sincere educator in this State, with every member of the Committee of Twenty-one, and with every thinking school patron, there is but one common ideal on this school problem, and that is to give the children the best there is. No matter how our points of view may differ because of our different training and experience, we are all sincere and we all have a common object. Therefore, there can be no doubt of full cooperation on the part of everyone of us when we once understand one another and what the other is trying to do.

I think one of the finest and most far-reaching results of the work of the Committee of Twenty-one is the greatly increased interest in the schools on the part of the rural patrons. There is coming to my desk a large number of letters every day on the school question, and they are entirely different from the letters the farm papers received not long ago. They are constructive. The people are awake as never before to the necessity of better schools.

The Committee of Twenty-one is holding community meetings in all the different rural counties of the State this fall. The suggestions and recommendations of the committee are being explained at these meetings and the people are asked to state their points of view and to give their suggestions. While there is splendid attendance at these

meetings and a large amount of interest, there is very little opposition or destructive criticism. This increased interest and the change from a destructive to a constructive attitude on the part of farm people toward the administration of their schools has been due, I believe, in no small degree to the fact that they feel they have been taken into consideration in working out a new program, and that they understand in some part, at least, what we think ought to be done. I have never yet known farm people to fail to respond to those things which were good, when they understand them.

Commissioner Graves already has won a real place in the hearts of his people because he is taking care to get people really acquainted with the work of the Department. Under his leadership and with the help the committee has been able to give, the people of the State have a new conception and a new appreciation of their Education Department, their educational leaders and a renewed interest in education itself.. With this better understanding and appreciation and with the new program suggested by the Committee on Rural Schools, I see all of us coming nearer to our common ideal of giving our children something that "neither moth nor rust can corrupt nor thieves break through and steal."

PRESIDENT GRAVES: Before continuing the discussion, some tables will be distributed that will give you considerably more light on the remarks of the next speaker. If you will take these tables and keep them before you, while the next speaker is discussing this question, I think you will understand more fully what he has to say.

I think we have all been deeply impressed by the strong paper that has just been read to us. In presenting the general recommendations of the committee, the first speaker has laid special emphasis on the desirability of cooperation on the part of all who are earnest and sincere in their desire to remedy the shortcomings of the rural schools. The speaker has touched upon the whole field of rural education. But in discussing the situation it has seemed well to devote the morning to the secondary phase of education in an attempt to show where the report is practical and where it may be improved. In casting about for a speaker, we could think of no one more appropriate, more fitting to the occasion than Dr Charles F. Wheelock, the Assistant Commissioner for Secondary Education, a man who is now rounding out a half century in the service of the State and who probably has had more experience than any other man in the State of New York in the line of secondary education.

RURAL SECONDARY EDUCATION

CHARLES F. WHEELOCK, ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER FOR SECONDARY

EDUCATION

Before I proceed to read the paper that I am going to inflict upon you, I think it is very appropriate that I should say a few words in explanation of the situation. First, let me say that I am not speaking today as an Assistant Commissioner of Education. I represent no one that I know of besides myself. Doctor Graves in his gracious kindness has told me to say whatever I felt like saying irrespective of whether it is favorable or unfavorable to the report of the Committee of Twenty-one, and you will therefore understand that what I say does not commit the Department of Education or the Board of Regents or anyone except myself to the facts that I shall present. Just consider me for today a farmer from Herkimer county, which is a correct situation, and remember that when the next Convocation is held, I shall be a real dirt farmer in Herkimer county and hope to attend the Convocation as an onlooker.

One other thing that I wish to say. I am not discussing today the district schools, the purely rural schools, except perhaps as it is a mere incident to the discussion. My topic is the rural high school, not the district school, and the paper that I shall read relates entirely to the high school field and not to the so-called district school or one-room rural school. It is important that you keep that in mind.

I am very glad indeed to hear from the previous speaker of the readiness of the Committee of Twenty-one to accept suggestions. I shall differ with some of the recommendations of the committee. I have every reason to believe that every member of the Committee of Twenty-one approached the task that he had with the view simply and solely of improving the educational condition of the State, and certainly the attitude expressed in the paper that I have just heard. confirms that opinion, and the readiness with which the committee is to receive suggestions encourages me to make some of the suggestions that I shall make.

A vitally important step in legislation relating to education in New York State was taken when the union free school law was enacted

January 18, 1853. As was definitely stated the object of this law was "to promote the interests of education, through the consolidation of districts and the improvement of the schools by increasing the number of pupils and the property liable to contribute to the support thereof." (Code of Public Instruction 1887, page 437.)

This act, which in its essential features has remained in force for 70

years, is preeminently democratic and American. It gives to any