(Front Cover) BULLETIN OF THE STATE TEACHERS COLLEGE KIRKSVILLE, MISSOURI Organization of State Departments of Education A Study made by a Committee of the Council of the Missouri State Teachers Association WM. H. ZEIGEL, Chairman, DEAN STATE TEACHERS COLLEGE, KIRKSVILLE, MISSOURI. DR. A. G. CAPPS, School of Education, UNIVERSITY OF MISSOURI, COLUMBIA, MISSOURI. and GEO. W. REAVIS, Chief Assistant, STATE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, JEFFERSON CITY, MISSOURI. Vol. XXI NOVEMBER, 1921 No. 11 Enterd as second class mail matter April 29, 1915, at the post office at Kirksville, Missouri under the Act of Congress of August 24, 1912. Accepted for mailing at special rate of postage provided for in section 1103, Act of October 3, 1917, authorised July 26, 1919 (Page i) ERRATA In seventh line under (C) page 10, the words, “board members elected” should read instead, “board members appointed or elected. ” In fourth line from foot of page 27, the words “Missouri ranks tenth” should read instead “Missouri ranks ninth.” In second and third lines under “a. Size of Staffs” page 30, the numbers 391 and 456 should be respectively 450 and 520. (Page 1) TABLE OF CONTENTS I. Purpose............................................3 II. Historical Development of State Boards of Education...4 III. Illustrative Types of State Boards of Education.....5 A. Ex officio B. Appointed C. Board elected by legislature D. Mixed Boards a. Ex officio and appointed b. Appointed and elected IV. Present Status of State Boards of Education......7 A. Method of Selection B. Personnel of State Boards C. Number of Members on State Boards and Term of Office D. Compensation of State Board Members E. Organization of State Boards F. Annual Meetings of State Boards G. Functions of State Boards V. Digest of Previous Studies made of State Departments of Education......16 VI. Consensus of Opinion............................19 A. Questionnaire B. Interpretation of Data a. Methods of Selecting Members of State Board b. Personnel of State Boards c. Methods of Selecting the State Superintendent of Public Instruction d. Summary of Opinions VII. Present Status of State Departments of Education..........24 A. Salary and Budget Statistics a. Superintendents of Public Instruction appointed by: (1) State Board (2) Governor b. Superintendent of Public Instruction elected by: (1) Popular vote B. Salaries of Superintendents of Public Instruction C. Budgets of State Departments of Education D. Term of Office -1- (Page 2) E. Educational Qualifications of Superintendents of Public Instruction a. College Degrees b. Minimum Statutory Qualifications F. Staffs of State Departments of Education a. Size of Staffs b. Staff Organization VIII. Common Arguments Pro and Con....................32 A. State Boards of Education On Basis of Selection a. Appointed Board (1) Advantages (2) Objections b. Board elected by State Legislature (1) Advantages (2) Objections c. Board elected by Popular Vote (1) Advantages (2) Objections d. Ex officio Board (1) Advantages (2) Objections B. State Boards of Education on Basis of Personnel a. Lay Board (1) Advantages (2) Objections b. Professional Board (1) Advantages (2) Objections c. Mixed Boards—Unspecified and Lay-Professional C. State Superintendent of Public Instruction a. Elected by Popular Vote (1) Advantages (2) Objections b. Appointed by State Board (1) Advantages (2) Objections IX. Quotations.....................................35 A. Remarks from Questionnaires B. Opinions of Authors and Writers X. Recommendations for a School Code Committee......37 XI. General Summary.....................38 -2- (Page 3) A STUDY OF THE ORGANIZATION OF STATE DEPARTMENTS OF EDUCATION I. PURPOSE Following the suggestion of the Chairman of the Council of the Missouri State Teachers Association a committee was appointed to study the organization of the state departments of education in America. Such a study is timely because our state is to have a chance at a new constitution, which, if adopted, could easily lead to a revised school code. Among the educational problems that would arise is that of the organization of our state department of education. This thought was doubtless uppermost in the mind of the chairman of the Council of the State Teachers Association when he asked your committee to make a study of the above named topic. The same thought, as a compelling incentive, finally induced your committee to undertake the task, though reluctant because of the magnitude of the study and the brief space of time, only eight weeks, that was at our disposal for collecting data, and organizing this report. It is needless to say that your committee in making this study lays no claim to originality or to an intensive type of research investigation. No funds were at our command nor was sufficient time at our disposal for such procedure. Therefore, your committee made use of all available material in United States Bureau reports and drew freely from surveys and reports of Foundations and reports of State legislative investigating committees, from the writings of recognized educational authorities, school codes and reports of state boards of education. *We hereby make full acknowledgement of our indebtedness to these sources. We hope to give the facts without bias or prejudice and to report them in such a way that they may serve as a base of departure in our consideration of the provisions for education that should appear in our new constitution and in our revised school code. If we are to place Missouri in the forefront educationally we should know definitely the needs, agree on them, and stand as a unit in our advocacy of them for our new constitution. In the County Unit Bill, our state made commendable progress. This advance should be made secure through the coming referendum ______________________________ *We are also indebted to Mr. W. J. Saupe, Instructor in Education, University of Missouri and to Mr. Fred Bruner, graduate student, University of Missouri, for assisting in clerical work; also to Messrs. H. G. Swanson and S. E. Smith of the Kirksville State Teachers College for suggestions and criticisms. -3- (Page 4) vote. Do we need changes in our state organization of education to parallel these changes in county and district organizations? There are many persons who say we need to do this very thing, while others say we have what we need and that we should let well enough alone. However in the last half dozen years, Alabama, Maryland, Vermont, New Hampshire, Oklahoma, and other states have made changes in the organization of their state departments of education that have attracted national attention. Further sweeping changes have been made recently in Louisiana, which adopted a new constitution that provided for a combination appointed and elected board of education and a state superintendent appointed by the state board of education. Other states have made investigations and are considering changes in the organization of state education,—for instance, California, Washington, Pennsylvania, Kentucky, and Wisconsin. For the present, the State of Washington has decided against any changes California made some changes; Pennsylvania and Kentucky are seeking to amend their constitutions, so that the state boards of education may appoint superintendents of public instruction. Does the State of Missouri wish to line up with these states that are re-organizing the administration of public education or is she content with the organization that she has at the present time? This is the question the people of the state must answer in the new constitution or bind themselves to the past for another quarter century. II. HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT OF STATE BOARDS OF EDUCATION Dr. P. P. Claxton says of our state departments of education: “Few of them can look back to any definite birth as state departments of education. Very few, if any, except those that have been re-created by recent acts of legislatures or constitutional amendments, have been thoughtfully created and organized in full consciousness of the function they should perform. From small and inadequate beginnings they have grown by accretion rather than by development from any central idea of functions to be performed, as the small, independent schools of separate and individual communities have coalesced to form county and state systems. Probably a majority of them had their origin in a state school officer under the title of superintendent of public instruction, superintendent of schools, or other similar title, who took over work mostly of a clerical nature formerly performed by the state auditor or treasurer and an ex officio board of education made up of political officers elected or appointed for other and very different functions, whether or not they were such men as state boards of education should be made of.” -4- (Page 5) III. ILLUSTRATIVE TYPES OF STATE BOARDS OF EDUCATION From the standpoint of selection, boards of education may be classified as ex officio, appointed, elected, or mixed boards. From the standpoint of personnel, they may be classified as lay, as professional, as combinations of lay professional, or as unspecified. A—Ex Office Board. The state ex officio board is well illustrated by the state board of education of Missouri. The state officers that make up the board are: the governor, secretary of state, attorney general and superintendent of public schools. The governor cannot succeed-himself as governor, therefore cannot succeed himself in the capacity of governor on the board. Also, the second and third members of the board change at each presidential election unless they are again elected to the office of secretary of state or attorney general. The state superintendent of public schools is also elected for a period of four years but in the biennium between presidential elections. Therefore, unless the state superintendent is re-elected, the fourth member of the board also changes with the vicissitudes of party politics. Each of the members of the board is elected to a party office which has definite and prescribed functions. He is incidentally, whether he wishes it or not, a member of the state board of education. The state superintendent is president of the board. His salary is $3000 per year. The powers and duties of the Missouri state board of education are, in brief: To supervise entire educational interests of the State; direct investment of all moneys received by the state for educational purposes; see that all moneys are applied as intended by grant, devise or law; see that proper distribution is made of school lands; see that county school funds are expended according to law; prescribe conditions for approved summer schools; appoint state library board; establish standards for the establishment and maintenance of part time schools for employed children. Eight states have state ex officio boards similar to that of Missouri. One other, Nevada, has on its state board of education, in addition to the state ex officio officers, the president of the state university. B—Appointed Board. A good example of the appointed board is to be found in the State of Maryland. The board consists of seven members, each appointed for a term of seven years so that there is one new member appointed each year. This is the typical revolving board since it always has a -5- (Page 6) majority of experienced members. The board appoints its own officers including the state superintendent who is the executive officer of the board. The superintendent is appointed for a term of four years at an annual salary of $8000. However, five states having appointed board members select the state superintendent for an indefinite period. Maryland has regular quarterly meetings of its board. The membership of the board is unspecified as, to lay or professional. In Maryland, the powers and duties of the board are as follows: To enact bylaws for administration of the public school system; have general control of all other school boards; prepare rules for grading and standardizing public schools; define colleges and high schools; prescribe minimum requirements for diplomas and degrees; adopt courses of study and general regulations governing teachers’ certificates; make reports to governor and recommendations in form of bills to general assembly; serve with state superintendent as trustees for state normal schools; adopt blank forms for records and reports for all public schools; conduct investigations; and prepare public school budget.* Therefore, it is seen that the powers of the Maryland board are largely legislative. C—Board Elected by Legislature. New York has its whole board of twelve members elected by the state legislature and each member serves for a period of twelve years. The board is a revolving board and elects the commissioner of education for an indefinite period and at an annual salary of $10,000. The commissioner is executive officer of the board. The board is a lay board. It provides both for regular and call meetings. The board exercises the general management and supervision of all the public schools and educational interests of the state. The board controls and directs education. It is organized under the following divisions: (1) degrees; (2) examinations; (3) registration; (4) incorporation; (5) extension; (6) visitation; (7) departments—higher education, secondary education, elementary education, science and library. D—Mixed Boards. a. Ex Officio and Appointed. Kansas is typical of the combined ex officio-appointed boards composed entirely of professional members. The board consists of nine members. The ex officio members are: the state superintendent of public instruction, chancellor of the State University, president of the State Agricultural College, presidents of each of the three state normal *U. S. Bureau Education Bulletin, No. 46. -6- (Page 7) schools, and three others appointed by the governor from those engaged in school work. The state superintendent is elected by popular vote for a term of two years at an annual salary of $3000. The state superintendent is ex officio chairman of the board. The appointed officers serve for two years. The main duties of the board are to prescribe courses of study, issue and revoke state certificates and diplomas, prepare examination questions and distribute state funds to approved schools.* b. Appointed and Elected. Louisiana offers an example of a combined appointed-elected board. The State of Louisiana has recently adopted a new constitution which affects materially the organization of the department of education. The board of education consists of eleven members, eight elected by popular vote, one from each of eight congressional districts and three appointed by the governor. The elected members serve eight years each and constitute a revolving board with two members retiring each year. The appointed members serve for four year periods. The members appointed by the governor are professional educators. All members serve for travelling expenses and per diem allowance. The board elects the state superintendent of public instruction for four years at a salary of $5000 to $7500 and he serves ex officio as secretary of the board. The board controls public schools, prescribes qualifications of teachers, approves private schools, supervises schools for defectives and delinquents, and supervises higher institutions including normal schools, but not the university and agricultural and mechanical colleges. There are thirty-three states that have state boards of education with some or. all their members appointed or elected. There are many types of board members as to lay and professional. However it is thought that the five boards described above cover the field reasonably well. IV. PRESENT STATUS OF STATE BOARDS OF EDUCATION A—Methods of Selection. The state board of education, as the administrative head of the public school system, has grown steadily in popular favor and has made for itself a secure place in educational organization. In 1915 there were eleven states that had no state boards of education exercising functions relating to the common schools; in 1921 there are only six states that do not have such boards. The six states are: Iowa, Nebraska, Ohio South Dakota, Illinois and Maine. Even these states have boards with restricted functions. Table I below will help us to understand the composition of boards of education. *U. S. Bur. Ed. Bui. No. 46. -7- (Page 8) TABLE I. Composition of State Boards of Education. Ex OFFICIO APPOINTED ELECTED STATES Lay Professional Total Lay Professional Unspecified Total Lay Unspecified Total Total Members Term of Office in Years Alabama......1 1 2 6 6 8 12 Arizona......1 4 5 3 3 8 Indefinite Arkansas.....1 1 7 7 8 7 California.......0 7 7 7 4 Colorado .....2 1 3 0 3 Connecticut ...2 2 9 9 11 6 Delaware.......0 5 5 5 5 Florida .....4 1 5 0 5 Georgia......1 1 2 3 1 4 6 4 Idaho........1 1 5 5 6 5 Indiana .....7 7 2 3 1 6 13 4 Kansas.......6 6 3 3 9 2 Kentucky.....2 1 3 0 3 4 Louisiana....0 3 3 8a 8a 11 4-8 Maryland.....0 7 7 7 7 Massachusetts...1 1 1 5 6 7 3 Michigan.....1 1 0 3a 3a 4 6 Minnesota....0 5 5 5 5 Mississippi...2 1 3 0 3 Missouri.....3 1 4 0 4 4 Montana......2 1 3 8 8 11 4 Nevada.......1 2 3 0 3 New Hampshire...1 1 5 5 6 5 New Jersey...0 8 8 8 8 New Mexico...1 1 2 3 2 5 7 4 New York..... 0 0 12b 12b 12 12 North Carolina...6 1 7 0 7 North Dakota....1 1 2 3 3 5 Oklahoma.....1 1 2 4 6 7 6 Oregon .....2 1 3 0 3 Pennsylvania...1 1 11 11 12 6 Rhode Island....2 2 0 6b 6b 8 6 South Carolina...1 1 2 7 9 4 Tennsessee....1 1 9 9 10 6 Texas.........3 3 0 3 Utah..........3 3 5 6 9 Vermont...... 0 5 5 5 5 Virginia......2 1 3 5c 5 8 2-4 Washington....4 4 3 3 7 2 West Virginia ....1 1 3 3 6 7 6 Wisconsin.....1 1 2 8 8 10 6 Wyoming ......1 1 6d 6 7 6 ..............42 49 91 14 32 131 177 18 11 29 297 KEY (a) Election by popular vote. (b) Election by legislature. (c) Appointed by state and board. (d) Appointed by state superintendent. All other appointments are made by governor. Unspecified- means may or may not be in educational work. We observe that nine states have boards of education that are entirely ex officio. They are Colorado, Florida, Kentucky, Mississippi, Missouri, Nevada, North Carolina, Oregon and Texas. In all of the -8- (Page 9) above named states, except Nevada, state elected officers are the ex officio members of the state board of education. In Nevada, in addition to the state officers the president of the state university is an ex officio member of the state board of education. Six states have boards of education that are entirely appointed by the governor and one state has a board that is elected by the state legislature. The six states with appointed boards are: California, Delaware, Maryland, Minnesota, New Jersey and Vermont. New York has the board elected by the state legislature. Twenty-three states have boards consisting of both ex officio and appointed members. They are: Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Connecticut, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Massachusetts, Montana, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee, Utah, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin, and Wyoming. Two states, Michigan and Rhode Island, have boards consisting of ex officio and elected members. One state, Louisiana, has appointed-elected board members. Thirty states have one or more appointed board members. In all cases but two the appointments are made by the governor. Four states have one or more elected board members. In two of these states election is by popular vote and in two by the state legislature. Thirty-three states have one or more appointed or elected board members. Thirty-four states have one or more ex officio board members. In the last six years the number of boards having some ex officio members has increased three; the number of boards having some appointed or elected members has increased five. All told there are ninety-one ex officio board members, one hundred seventy-seven appointed board members and twenty-nine elected board members. Thus appointed and elected board members are more than twice the ex officio board members. In twenty-nine states the appointed and elected board members exceed the ex officio board members. During the last six years the total number of ex officio members has remained stationary while the elected and appointed board members have increased forty five. It thus appears both in type of board and in number of board members that there is a movement in the direction of appointed board members— mainly appointed by the governor. B—Personnel of Boards. By referring to bottom of Table I the reader will note that the total number of lay-exofficio board members is forty-two. The total number of professional-exofficio members is forty-nine. The total number of definitely prescribed lay-appointed board members is fourteen; the total number of definitely prescribed professional-appointed board members —9— (Page 10) is thirty-two; the total number of optional lay and professional board members is one hundred thirty-one. The total number of lay-elected board members is eighteen; the total number of elected members unspecified as to lay or professional is eleven. Data collected show that boards unspecified as to personnel are made up in the ratio of 3 lay to 1 professional. The present legal requirements concerning the personnel of ex officio boards keep lay and professional members approximately equal. Considering total numbers of board members in boards of various types it appears that the tendency in boards having appointed and elected members is in favor of the unspecified as opposed to the professional member. But since the unspecified boards are lay to professional approximately in the ratio of 3 to 1 and since there are 32 definitely pi escribed lay-appointed and lay-elected members the tendency the country over is in favor of the lay board member. C—Number of Members on State Boards and Term of Office. In the nine states having only ex officio board members, the average number of members per board is 3.8 and the average term of office is 3.6 years. In the six states having only appointed boards the average number of board members is 6.2 and the average term of office is 5.7 years. New York with its board elected by the legislature has twelve members and the term of office is 12 years. For the thirty-three states having all or a part of their board members elected, the average number of board members is 7.7 and the average term of office is 5.4 years. In the forty-two states having state boards of education, the number of board members varies from three to thirteen. The median is 7 members and the arithmetic mean 6.9 members. The term of office varies from 2 to 12 years. The median is 5.5 years and the arithmetic mean 5.4 years. Appointed and elected boards average above two members more to the board, and two years more to the term of office than do the ex officio boards. Moreover, the appointed and elected boards are revolving boards that always have a majority of their membership with experience while lay boards change of times completely with the fortunes of politics and political parties. The revolving appointed board is usually for periods sufficiently long that the appointing agent cannot appoint a majority of its membership. The central tendency points to a board of seven or eight members with a term of office slightly less than the number of board members. D—Compensation of State Board Members. Table II on following page shows compensation of board members. Thirty-two states allow travelling and other necessary expenses of their board members. Fifteen states allow per diem pay varying from $3.00 in Michigan to $15.00 in California. Three states pay an- —10— (Page 11) TABLE II. Compensation of Board Members Traveling Expenses and Necessary Exp. Per Diem Annual Salary Limited in (1), (2), and (3) Alabama X X O L Arizona X O O L Arkansas X O O O California X X O L Colorado O O O L Connecticut X O O O Delaware X X O L Florida O O O L Georgia O O X L Idaho X O O L Indiana X X O L Kansas X O O O Kentucky O O O L Louisiana X X O O Maryland X O O O Massachusetts X O O O Michigan X X O O Minnesota X X O Mississippi O O O L Missouri O O O L Montana X O O O Nevada O O O L New Hampshire X O O O New Jersey x O O O New Mexico X X O O New York X O O O North Carolina X O X O North Dakota O O O L Oklahoma X X O O Oregon O O O L Pennsylvania x O O O Rhode Island x O O O South Carolina X X O L Tennessee X X O O Texas O O O L Utah X X O O Vermont X X O O Virginia X O O O Washington X X O O West Virginia X O X L Wisconsin X X O L Wyoming X O O O .......32......15......3......19................... KEY (X) indicates kind of compensation and (L) means compensation limited in columns (1), (2) and (3). (O) means absence of compensation in columns (1), (2) and (3) and absence of limit in 4th column. When no salary is allowed it is counted as limited in the table. Table reads: Alabama allows board members traveling expenses, perdiem allowance but no annual salary; compensation limited in traveling expenses and per diem. nual salaries from $100 to $3000. Eighteen states limit the amount of compensation in expense accounts, salaries, or both. In eight states having ex officio board members no provision is made for compensation. However, North Carolina allows contingent travelling expenses. For appointed and elected board members the evident tendency is to allow travelling and necessary expenses with a limited per diem allowance. —11— (Page 12) E—Organization of State Boards. The organization of the forty-two state boards of education differs widely. The officers of the boards are variously denominated rind their functions do not by any means coincide in different states even though the title is the same. Table III below shows the organization of state boards. TABLE III, Officers of State Boards of Education and Annual Meetings Chairman Executive Officer President Secretary Treasurer Annual Meetings Alabama Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware Florida Georgia Idaho Indiana Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming ...............12.....16.....23.....29.....3.....15................ Key to Table B.P.—Board provides. C—Call, in column 6. G—Governor. Ma-—A member of the board appointed to position by superintendent, president or governor. Me—A member of the board elected to position by board. Pa—Person other than board member appointed by superintendent, executive or governor. Pe—Person other than board member elected by board. Sa—State superintendent appointed by state board of education. Se—State superintendent elected by popular vote. Sg—State superintendent appointed by governor. Ts—State Treasurer. -12- (Page 13) Twelve state boards of education have chairmen distributed as follows: seven are superintendents of public instruction; four are board members appointed or elected and one is the governor. Of the sixteen state boards having executive officers, in every case that executive is the superintendent of public instruction. Twenty-three state boards have presidents distributed as follows: nine are superintendents of public instruction; eight are governors and six are elected board members. Twenty-nine state boards have secretaries distributed as follows: eighteen are superintendents of public instruction; seven are persons elected by boards or appointed; four are elected or appointed board members. Three state boards have treasurers. Of the sixteen state boards of education having officers designated as executive officers, nine are in the states having board members entirely appointed or elected, while seven of the sixteen boards have a majority of appointed board members, and in no case do the ex officio members number more than two. Five state boards have presidents in addition to their executive officers; and these officers are the same persons in two instances. As previously stated these sixteen executive officers are all superintendents of public instruction. Not one of the nine states with wholly ex officio boards has an executive officer. Seven of the nine states having ex officio boards of education have presidents, three of whom are superintendents of public instruction and four are governors. Thirteen of the seventeen remaining state boards have a majority of their members appointed or elected. Twenty-nine states have secretaries for boards of education; eighteen of whom are the superintendents of public instruction and in seven cases is the same person as the executive officer but in no case the same person as the president of the board. These seven boards have all or a majority of their members appointed or elected. Thirteen of the eighteen superintendent-secretaries are from states that have a majority of their board members appointed or elected. Four superintendent-secretaries are from states having a majority of their board members ex officio, and one other from a state having a majority of its members ex officio. Of the eleven remaining boards that have secretaries, four have members as secretaries and seven have other persons selected for the position. The qualifications of the president of a state board are not so definitely drawn as those of the executive officer of the board. This is shown by the three classes of persons holding the office of president and by the types of boards having this officer. It also appears that ex officio boards almost uniformly have presidents of boards while no such board has a designated executive officer. The appointed and elected boards appear —13— (Page 14) to lodge responsibility more than other boards do in an executive officer who may also be secretary of the state board of education. F—Annual Meetings of State Boards. In fifteen states the minimum number of annual meetings of state boards of education is prescribed. The number of meetings varies from one to twelve. The average number is five per year. In New York the state board of education is empowered to provide for both regular and call meetings. In the remaining states there appear to be no definite provisions made for prescribed annual meetings, though in six states the meetings of the board are subject to call. Oregon alone of the eight states having state ex officio boards prescribes a minimum number of annual meetings. Nevada, which also has the president of the state university as an ex officio board member, prescribes two annual meetings. Three of the state ex officio boards may have meetings subject to call, while four of the states having ex officio boards seemingly have no prescribed provision for board meetings. Of the thirteen remaining states that prescribe annual meetings, five have boards composed entirely of appointed members, and one of elected members; six have a majority of their board members appointed and one a majority elected. There is an evident connection between the type of state board and the prescribed number of annual meetings. It appears that states with appointed and elected boards have made more definite provision for a minimum number of annual meetings than have states with ex officio boards. G—Functions of State Boards. The functions of boards of education vary greatly. In some states their powers and duties are small indeed; in others, they practically control the educational system of the whole state, including normal schools, technical schools and institutions of higher learning. The two extremes are respectively represented by the state boards of Colorado and New York. Table IV shows the principal powers and duties of the state boards of education. —14— (Page 14a) Table IV. Chief Functions of State Boards of Education. (After U.S. Bur. Ed. Bul., 1920, No. 46) Certification Supervision and. Control Public Schools Courses of Study Text Books Administer Vocational Education Control or Supervision of Normal Schools Grading and Standardizing Schools School Libraries Control School Funds and Apportionments School Reports Appoint State Superintendents Control Schools for Defectives Control or Supervise Institutions of Higher Learning Control Schools for Delinquents School Health and Sanitation Teachers meetings Plans for School Buildings Decide appeals from County & State Superintendents Appoint H. S. Inspectors or Classify High Schools School studies and Investigations Provide for Vocational Schools Provide Part Time Schools Recommend School Legislation Accredit Schools for Certificate Purposes Prepare Educational Budgets Prescribe Admission Requests to Normal Schools. & Univ. Fix Requirements for Diplomas and Degrees Provide Physical Education Alabama Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware Florida Georgia Idaho Indiana Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming (Page 14b) (Page 15) Twenty-eight, state boards of education have general supervision and control of the public schools of the state; twenty-nine have powers for certification of teachers by examination or otherwise. Twenty-three state boards have the power of determining courses of study; twenty- two have some authority as to the selection of textbooks. Nineteen state boards administer vocational education; eighteen control normal schools, supervise them, or have some voice in their management. Fifteen state boards have authority in grading and standardizing schools; fifteen have some authority as to libraries for state and school purposes. Nine state boards provide for school reports and furnish blank forms; nine appoint superintendents of public instruction; nine control schools for the blind, deaf and dumb. Eight state boards control or supervise institutions of higher learning. Eight state boards control penal institutions of a reformatory character; eight are concerned with school health and sanitation. Seven state boards provide for teachers meetings; seven distribute or approve plans for school buildings; seven decide appeals from state and county superintendents; seven appoint high school inspectors or classify high schools. Six state boards make investigations and studies of educational problems and conditions; six provide for vocational, technical and agricultural schools. Five state boards control or provide for evening or part time schools; five recommend school legislation; five accredit normal schools, universities and summer schools for certification purposes; five prepare educational budgets. Four state boards prescribe admission requirements to normal schools and universities; four prescribe requirements for diplomas and degrees; four provide for physical education; four have prescribed legislative functions; four charter institutions of learning; four provide for instruction in citizenship; four receive reports from private, parochial and denominational schools. Three state boards administer teacher pension laws. Two state boards fill vacancies in county superintendencies; two issue professional licenses; two aid in plans for consolidating schools; two provide and supervise courses of instruction for rural schools; two enforce rules for compulsory attendance. One state board prescribes normal training high schools; one provides for a school census. It is thus seen that the range of duties and powers of state boards varies greatly. Yet most of them may be grouped under fairly well established heads. In the enumeration of functions, it is difficult to differentiate in favor of one type of board and against another type. Nevertheless there are certain important functions with which boards have concerned themselves too little. We observe: 1. That nine state boards control schools for defectives; only one of these boards is entirely ex officio. —15— (Page 16) 2. That eight boards control penal institutions of a reformatory character; only one of these is ex officio. 3. That four state boards require reports from private, parochial and denominational schools; none of these boards is ex officio. 4. That five state boards recommend school legislation; none of these is ex officio. 5. That three state boards administer teachers pensions; none of these is ex officio. 6. That five state boards prepare an educational budget; none of these is ex officio. 7. That five state boards provide for and control evening and part time schools; only one of these boards is ex officio. The state boards that are exercising the foregoing functions are entirely appointed or elected or mainly so, with only the exceptions already mentioned. This indicates that the appointed and elected boards are attacking some of the important problems that confront our schools. One of these problems is the proper administration of our educational institutions for defectives and delinquents. In some states these schools, instead of being the spoils of party politics, are being administered for the good of the public by boards of education. Moreover, some of our appointed and elected boards are at least beginning to exercise legislative functions. V. DIGEST OF PREVIOUS STUDIES MADE OF ORGANIZATION OF STATE DEPARTMENTS OF EDUCATION There were available for use of the committee seventeen studies that dealt in whole or in part with the organization of state departments of education. Seven of these studies were made by the United States Bureau of Education. Three of them were of a general character and four dealt with particular states. Three were made by the General Education Board; two by the Carnegie Foundation; three were made by educational commissions and legislative investigating committees one is a state board of education report which embodies the findings of a legislative commission appointed by the governor; and one is a study made by Doctor Ellwood P. Cubberley. Many of the most eminent educators of the United States assisted in and directed these studies. The staffs included such men as Cubberley, Haggerty, Inglis, Bagley, Ayres, Learned, Monahan, Bachman, Flexner, Foght, Russell, Capen, Hanus, Terman and hundreds of others. In many cases also the findings of the experts were approved by boards of laymen who had general charge of the studies. Table V gives some of the salient conclusions reached in these reports. —16— (Page 16a) TABLE V.-SUMMARY OF PREVIOUS STUDIES CONCLUSIONS REACHED AS TO BOARDS OF EDUCATION - CONCLUSIONS REACHED AS TO FUNCTIONS OF STATE BOARDS OF EDUCATION - CONCLUSIONS REACHED AS TO SUPERINTENDENTS OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION (1) - (2) - (3) - (4) - (5) - (6) - (1) - (2) - (3) - (4) - (5) - (6) - (1) - (2) - (3) - (4) - (5) - (6) Study Made - Manner of Selecting Board - Compensation - Number of Members - Qualifications - Personnel of Board-Lay or Professional - Term of office - Function Type - Control sch. for delinq. & defectives - Supervise or approve private; parochial - Relations to higher institutions - Relations to Normal Schools - Relations to Libraries & Museums - Selection State Supt. - Function - Residence - Qualifications - Compensation - Term of office State and County Organization - By Cubberley - Appointed by Governor. (N.P.) - Travelling expenses & $200 per yr. - 7 - Merit - Unspecified - 7 year Revolving board - Legislative - Gen. supervision Education Depts. - Allows separate Board - Separate boards - Control - Appointed by Board - Executive Supervising - Country at large - Experienced & competent Ed. - Left to Board - Left to Board U.S. Bureau Bul. No. 46, By A. L. Kalbach & A. O. Neale (1920) - Appointed by Governor. - 5-9 - Fitness - Unspecified - 4-6 year Revolving Board - Supervise - Appointed by board - Executive - At large - Left to Board - Left to Board Public Education in North Carolina. Gen. Ed. Board. F. P. Bachman (1920) - Appointed by Governor - Lay Board - Long term Revolving Board - Control small Nor. sch. & negro Nor. sch. - Appointed by Board - Executive - Best - Left to Board - Left to Board Educational Study of Alabama H. W. Foght, etc., U. S. Bur. Ed. (1919) - Appointed by Governor (C.S.) (N. P.) - 9 - Worth - Primarily Lay - 12 year Revolving Board - Legislative - Control - Supervise - Permits separate Boards - Control - Appointed by Board - Executive - At large - Prof. ability & exec. exp. - Left to Board - Left to Board State Board of Education Report, New Hampshire (1920) - Appointed by Governor (N. P.) - Without pay - 5 - Public spirited & competent - Laymen - 5 year Revolving board - Legislative - Approve - Control - Appointed by Board - Executive - At large - Skilled in Educ. work - Left to Board - Left to Board Public State Commission Report, State of Washington (1921) - Appointed by Governor (N. P.) - 7 - Lay Board - 7 year Revolving board - Legislative and Judicial - Supervision - Separate Boards - Separate Boards - Appointed by Board - Executive - At large - Well endowed, tr. Ex. in Ed. - Left to Board - Left to Board United States Bureau of Ed. Bul. Manual Ed. Administration. (1919) - App. by Gov. or elec. pop. v. (N. P.) - Per diem & Trav. Ex. - 5-7 - Worth - Primarily Lay - 5-7 year Revolving Board - Legislative - Control - Approve - Control - Control - Control - Appointed by Board - Executive - At large - Best man - Left to Board - Left to Board Inquiry into Admin. of Colo. Public School System. U. S. Bur. Ed. Report (1917) - App. by Gov. (C.S.) or elec. (N.P.) - Per diem & Trav. Ex. - 7 men and women - Persons of affairs, Bus. ability. Sch. - Unspecified - 8 year Revolving Board - Legislative - Control - Appointed by Board - Executive - At large - Fitness - Left to Board - Left to Board Professional Prep. of Teachers Carnegie Foundation Bul. No. 14 Learned & Bagley (1920) - Appointed or elected (N.P.) - Unpaid - 5-7 - High & varied ability - Laymen - 10 year Revolving Board - Legislative - Control - Control - Appointed by Board - Executive - At large - Best Obtainable - Left to Board - Left to Board Ed. System of South Dakota U. S. Bur. Ed. (1918) - Appointed by Governor (N.P.) - Per diem & Trav. Ex. - 8 - Worth - Primarily Lay - 8 year Revolving Board - Legislative - Control - Approve - Control - Control - Control - Appointed by Board - Executive - At large - Prof. ability and experience - Left to Board - Left to Board Ed. Conditions in Arizona U. S. Bur. Ed. (1918) - App. by Gov. or elec. by p. vote (C.S.) - Per diem & Trav. Ex. - 7 - Especially fitted to men & women - Primarily Lat - 8 year Revolving Board - Legislative - Control - Control - Appointed by Board - Executive - At large - Qualified & suitable - Left to Board - Left to Board Study of Ed. in Vermont- Carnegie Foundation Bul. 7, (1914) - Appointed by Governor - Trav. & necessary expenses - 5 - Ability to serve. - Lay - 5 year Revolving Board - Legislative - Control - Control - Control - Appointed by Board - Executive - At large - Breadth of Educ. exper. - Left to Board - Left to Board Public Ed. in Maryland, Gen. Education Board-F. P. Bachman, Abraham Flexner (1916) - App. by Gov. (W.C.S.) (N.P.) - Interest and Knowledge - Primarily Lay - Legislative - Control - Appointed by Board - Executive Superv'n Inspect. - Left to Board - Left to Board Report Special Legislative Committee, Calif., Will Wood, Sen. H. C. Jones, Cubberley (1920) - Appointed by Governor - Laymen - Legislative - Supervision - Leaves to future, but favors control - Leaves to future, but favors control - Appointed by Board - Executive - At large - Left to Board - Left to Board Ed. Commission and Survey Pub. Schools -Va., Inglis and Haggerty (1919) - Appointed by Governor (C.S.) - Trav. Ex. & per diem &8. per day - 7 - Essentially Lay - 7 year Revolving board - Legislative Judicial - Control - Control - Appointed by Board - Executive and administrative - At large - Fitness & best available - Left to Board - Left to Board Investigation of Delaware Pub. Schools -By General Ed. Board (1919) - Appointed by Governor - Lay - Revolving Board - Legislative - Appointed by Board - Executive U. S. Bureau Bul. No. 6-By A. C. Monahan (1915) - Appointed by Governor (N.P.) - 8-11 - Fitness - Unspecified - 6-11 year Revolving Board - Appointed by Board - Executive - At large - Left to Board - Left to Board 17 - 8; 1 unpaid - 13 - 8 - 5 - 17 - 17 - 14 - 16 - 16 KEY: N.P., Non-political; C. S., Consent Senate; W.C.S., Without Consent Senate (Page 16b) (Page 17) The seventeen reports agree that the state board of education should be appointed by the governor. Two give the alternate method of selection by popular vote. In five cases the appointments by the governor are to be approved by the senate. In two others appointments by the governor are to be made with proper restrictions. In all other reports save that on Public Education in Maryland such limitations or restrictions on appointing power is not denied and in most instances is fairly inferred. In ten reports the board is to be non-partisan, or kept free from political influence. Of the nine studies discussing compensation of board members five recommend traveling expenses and per diem; one traveling and necessary expenses; one traveling expenses and $200 per year; and two no pay. However, in the two latter cases the expression without pay probably means without annual salary or per diem allowance. The number of board members ranges from five to eleven, with an average of seven. Twelve of the reports demand of board members some such qualifications as merit, fitness, worth, public spirit, varied ability, business ability, knowledge and interest. The personnel of boards of education stands in the reports as follows: seven recommend lay boards; six, primarily lay boards; and four, boards unspecified, as to lay or professional members. In fifteen reports a revolving board is advocated. The other two reports imply the same. The term of office recommended ranges from four to eleven years. The average is seven years. Fourteen reports describe the functions of the board of education as being legislative and occasionally judicial. The same idea is inferred from the other reports. Nine of these studies would place schools for defectives and delinquents under the state board. Eight reports do not express a view on the subject. The five reports which discuss private, parochial and denominational schools would have the state supervisor approve such schools for accrediting purposes. Three of these reports would place institutions of higher learning under the state board of education; in one other, California, the idea is favored but deferred to the future, while three would allow separate boards of control for institutions of higher learning. Of the thirteen reports discussing control of normal schools, nine would place them under the state board of education, one would place the smaller normal schools of the state and the negro normal schools under the state board, while leaving the larger normal schools under individual boards; one would leave the decision for the control of normal schools to the future, but favors placing them ultimately under the state board, while two would place the normal schools under separate boards. Four of these reports would put state libraries and museums under control of the state board. —17— (Page 18) The seventeen reports agree that the superintendent of public instruction should be selected by the state board of education. The seventeen reports also agree that the function of the superintendent is executive. A few also add administrative, inspectional and supervisory functions. Fifteen reports agree that the chief school officer should be selected from the country at large. Twelve reports describe his qualifications in such terms as experienced and competent educator, professional ability and executive experience, well endowed, trained and experienced in educational affairs, breadth of educational experience and best person available. In the sixteen reports discussing the compensation and in the fifteen discussing term of office of the superintendent it is in every instance left with the state board of education to make the decision. These studies as they apply to state boards indicate: 1. That the state board of education should be appointed by the governor with the consent of the senate. 2. That the board should consist of approximately seven members and serve approximately seven years. 3. That the board should be lay or primarily lay and organized as a revolving board. (In practice a board unspecified as to lay or professional works out as primarily a lay board.), 4. That the qualifications should be merit, fitness and public spirit. 5. That the functions of the board should be legislative. 6. That there is at least a presumption raised in favor of the supervision and approval of private and parochial and denominational schools by the state board. 7. That there is a slight tendency shown to put institutions of higher learning under the state board, and a still stronger advocacy of placing normal schools under the state board of education. Local conditions in each state in which studies were made doubtless influenced the recommendations. These studies as they apply to superintendent of public instruction indicate: 1. That the superintendent of public instruction should be appointed by the state board of education. 2. That his functions should be mainly executive. 3. That he should be selected from the country at large. 4. That his qualifications are fitness, breadth of experience, ability and understanding of educational affairs. 5. That his compensation and term of office should be left entirely to the board of education. —18— (Page 19) VI. CONSENSUS OF OPINION A—Questionnaire. To find the consensus of opinion relating to certain phases of the organization of state departments of education, the following brief questionnaire was sent out: Oct. 3, 1921. Dear Sir: A committee of the Missouri State Teachers Association is making a study of the organization of state departments of education. This question is of vital interest to the State of Missouri. Your judgment is wanted. Will you not help in the solution of this problem by taking one minute right now to fill out this blank so that it may reach the committee by return mail? a. Selection of Members of State Boards of Education. Please indicate your opinion as to the best method of selecting state board members by placing a check mark (x) in one parenthesis after your preference in the group below. (1) Ex officio ( ) (2) Appointed by governor ( ) (3) Elected by popular vote ( ) (4) Elected by state legislature ( ) (5) Any combination, such as: ex officio and appointed ( ); ex officio and elected ( ) ; appointed and elected ( ). b. Personnel of State Board of Education. Please state your opinion as to the proper personnel of state boards of education by placing a check mark (x) in one parenthesis after your preference in the group below. (1) Members not engaged in school work (lay) ( ) (2) Members engaged in school work (professional) ( ) (3) Members in combination (lay-professional) ( ) (4) Members not specified as to lay or professional ( ) c. Selection of State Superintendent. Please indicate your opinion as to the best method of selecting state superintendents by placing a check mark (x) in one parenthesis after your choice in the group below. (1) Elected by popular vote ( ) (2) Appointed by state board of education ( ) (3) Appointed by governor ( ) d. Remarks Signature Position or title Wm. H. ZEIGEL, chairman, Committee State Teachers Association. The questionnaire was sent without any additional explanation to the following groups of persons: —19— (Page 20) 1. One hundred fourteen county superintendents in Missouri. 2. One hundred fifty town and city superintendents and principals in Missouri where five or more teachers are engaged in high school work. 3. Forty-six presidents, deans and professors of education of the state university, junior and senior colleges in Missouri. 4. Ninety deans of education, professors of education, normal school presidents, and educational leaders outside of Missouri. 5. Forty-eight state superintendents of public instruction. 6. Forty-eight governors of states of the Union. 7. Eighty-three bankers of Missouri, from all sections of the state. 8. Thirty-one judges of circuit courts in Missouri. Table VI gives the number of replies received from each of these groups and the number of votes for each method under A, B, and C. The number of votes under each main heading is not always equal to the number under another major heading nor to the total number, because occasionally two choices were made under a major heading, and both were counted; and once in a while it happened that a choice was made under one major heading and not under the others. However the answers were remarkably clear and easily interpreted and often interesting information and comments were made. A fine spirit of cooperation was shown and the committee is indebted to those who helped by answering the questions submitted. Six hundred and ten questionnaire forms were sent out and without any follow up letters three hundred sixty-nine replies were received. —20— (Page 21) TABLE VI. Concensus of opinion as to Personnel of State Boards of Education and methods of selecting Members of Boards and Superintendent of Public Instruction. A. Methods of Selecting Members of State Board of Education. B. Personnel of State Board of Education. C. Methods of Selecting State Supt. (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (1) (2) (3) (4) (1) (2) (3) Class groups of those to whom questionnaire was sent. Letters sent out. Ex officio. Appointed by governor. Popular vote. Legislature. Ex officio—appointed. Ex officio—elected. Appointed—elected Lay Professional Lay-Professional. Unspecified. Popular vote. State board. Appointed by governor. Replies received. % of replies received (a) County superintendents of Missouri. 114 1 21 26 3 6 7 4 4 30 30 3 28 39 1 70 61 (b) Town and City superintendents and principals of Missouri. 150 3 40 21 8 8 1 7 6 22 49 12 18 69 2 89 59 (c) Presidents, deans and prof. of ed. of University, junior and senior colleges of Missouri. 46 0 25 6 2 4 0 2 6 3 20 9 2 35 1 38 83 (d) Deans and prof. of education, normal school pres. & educational leaders outside Missouri. 90 1 42 18 5 7 4 3 24 2 26 13 4 60 2 66 73 (e) State Superintendents of Public Instruction. 48 1 18 4 1 8 1 2 11 1 15 5 8 27 3 38 80 (f) Governors of States 48 0 11 0 0 1 0 0 0 2 6 2 4 5 5 14 29 (g) Bankers of Missouri 83 1 20 10 1 1 0 4 4 9 21 2 10 20 6 37 45 (h) Judges of circuit courts of Missouri. 31 2 7 5 0 2 0 1 1 2 11 3 8 7 0 17 55 TOTAL 610 9 184 90 20 37 13 23 56 71 178 49 82 262 20 369 60 (Page 22) B—Interpretation of Data. In the first place, it is interesting to note from the column giving percent of replies that university and college educators of Missouri gave 83 per cent. Next come state superintendents of public instruction with 80 per cent; followed closely by university and college men from the country at large with 73 per cent. Governors of states rank lowest in replies giving only 29 per cent. Judges and bankers gave respectively 55 and 45 per cent. County superintendents, and town and city superintendents gave respectively 61 and 59 per cent of replies. Considering all the questionnaires sent out, 60 per cent of replies were received. a—METHODS OF SELECTING MEMBERS OF STATE BOARDS. We observe from table VI that items (2) and (3) under A alone receive serious consideration. In every class group, except (a), county superintendents, appointment by the governor is given preference above all other methods of selecting the state boards of education. The county superintendents however give a preference of five votes for electing the state board by popular vote rather than appointment by the governor. Under items: (b) town and city superintendents, (c) college educators of Missouri, (d) educational leaders of the country at large, (e) state superintendents, (f) governors, (g) bankers, (h) judges, the replies favoring appointment of state board by governor to those favoring election by popular vote stand respectively in the ratio of 2:1; 4:1:2:1; 4:1; 11:0; 2:1; and 7:5. The total preference for appointment by governor equals two times the total preference for election by popular vote. Preference for appointment of the state board by the governor approximately equals all other preferences combined. It is to be observed that only nine out of 369 express a preference for an ex officio state board which is the type of state board now in operation in Missouri. In groups (c) and (f) not a single person desires the ex officio board. However, the combined ex officio-appointed board receives all told, 37 votes; the combined appointed-elected 23; elected by state legislature, 20; and combined ex officio-elected 13. b—PERSONNEL OF STATE BOARDS. By referring again to table VI, we observe that every class group under B gives equal or higher preference for the lay-professional board. It is seen that group (d), educational leaders of the country at large, gives almost as many votes for the lay board as for the lay-professional board; while group (a), the county superintendents, give the same number of votes for the professional board as for the lay-professional. —22— (Page 23) Reports from thirteen of the twenty-six states having boards unspecified as to lay or professional show that in actual practice the unspecified board is lay to professional in the ratio of three to one, though five of these thirteen states reporting have no professional members on their boards. Thus in practice, the unspecified board almost always means a purely lay board or a lay-professional board. Therefore, the advocates of the lay, the lay-professional and the unspecified boards in general will oppose the advocates of the purely professional board. However, the total lay-professional preference alone more than equals the total of all other preferences combined; it also equals two and one half times the professional preference; while the professional preference is less than one fourth of all other preferences combined. c. Methods of Selecting the State Superintendent of Public INSTRUCTION. All class groups but two express preference for the state superintendent appointed by the state board of education. The exceptions are the governors and the judges of the circuit courts of Missouri. The governors are equally divided as to the selection of the state superintendent by state boards and by governors; the judges of circuit courts give selection of state superintendent by popular vote a majority of one over selection by state boards. The preferences in class groups for election of state superintendent by popular vote to that of appointment by state board vary in ratio from slightly greater than unity among circuit court judges; to the ratio of 2:35, among educators in the higher educational institutions of Missouri. Among leading educators of the nation at large, the ratio is 1:14 in favor of appointment of superintendent by the state board of education. Even among state superintendents, the ratio is 1:3. Ten state superintendents have not replied. Should these ten favor election of the state superintendent by popular vote, even then a majority of the state superintendents would favor appointment of the superintendent by the board. The total preference for appointment of state superintendent by state board of education equals two and one half times all other preferences combined. d. Summary of Opinion. From this active, thinking, sentiment moulding and sentiment interpreting body of men come these conclusions as far as the group is concerned: 1. That the state board of education should be appointed by the governor. The remark was frequently made that appointment should be by and with the advice and consent of the senate. —23— (Page 24) 2. The second choice for selecting a state board of education is by popular vote. It was frequently said that this should be done in a way and at a time to keep the election free from party politics. 3. The lay-professional board is strongly favored. This type of board would not particularly conflict with present practice in the unspecified board. 4. The whole sentiment is strongly against the purely professional board. 5. The state superintendent of public instruction should be appointed by the state board of education. VII. PRESENT STATUS OF STATE DEPARTMENTS OF EDUCATION A—Salary and Budget Statistics. According to United States Bureau of Education Bulletin Number 46, 1920, the salaries of state superintendents and budgets "of state departments are as follows: -24- (Page 25) TABLE VII a. STATE SUPERINTENDENT APPOINTED BY: (1) STATE BOARD States Salary of Superintendent Budget Delaware . . . . . 5000.00 . . . . . $26,400.00 Louisiana . . . . . *7500.00 . . . . . 67,700.00 Maryland . . . . . 8000.00 . . . . . 55,900.00 Minnesota . . . . . 5000.00 . . . . . 87,210.00 New York . . . . . 10000.00 . . . . . 822,900.00 Vermont . . . . . 6000.00 . . . . . 21,260.00 Connecticut . . . . . 9000.00 . . . . . 233,875.00 New Hampshire . . . . . 5000.00 . . . . . 39,360.00 Rhode Island . . . . . 6000.00 . . . . . 28,840.00 (2) GOVERNOR Maine . . . . . 4600.00 . . . . . 36,646.00 Massachusetts . . . . . 7500.00 . . . . . 173,410.00 New Jersey . . . . . 10000.00 . . . . . 100,103.00 Pennsylvania . . . . . 12000.00 . . . . . 254,350.00 Tennessee . . . . . 3600.00 . . . . . 36,100.00 Ohio . . . . . 4000.00 . . . . . 52,036.00 b. State Superintendent Elected by: (1) POPULAR VOTE States Salary of Superintendent Budget Colorado . . . . . $ 3000.00 . . . . . $ 16,000.00 Florida . . . . . 3600.00 . . . . . 38,800.00 Kentucky . . . . . 4000.00 . . . . . 42,500.00 Mississippi . . . . . 4500.00 . . . . . 52,900.00 Missouri . . . . . 3000.00 . . . . . 44,500.00 Nevada . . . . . 3600.00 . . . . . 15,780.00 North Carolina . . . . . 4000.00 . . . . . 69,140.00 Oregon . . . . . 3000.00 . . . . . 20,440.00 Texas . . . . . 4000.00 . . . . . 113,590.00 Alabama . . . . . 5000.00 . . . . . 83,010.00 Arkansas . . . . . 2500.00 . . . . . 36,180.00 *California . . . . . 5000.00 . . . . . 89,780.00 Georgia . . . . . 4500.00 . . . . . 40,300.00 Idaho . . . . . 2400.00 . . . . . 34,850.00 Michigan . . . . . 4000.00 . . . . . 58,850.00 Montana . . . . . 3600.00 . . . . . 19,400.00 North Dakota . . . . . 3000.00 . . . . . 20,200.00 Oklahoma . . . . . 2500.00 . . . . . 26,600.00 South Carolina . . . . . 2500.00 . . . . . 54,600.00 Utah . . . . . 4000.00 . . . . . 33,380.00 West Virginia . . . . . 5000.00 . . . . . 31,260.00 Wisconsin . . . . . 5000.00 . . . . . 82,880.00 Wyoming . . . . . 3000.00 . . . . . 22,400.00 Arizona . . . . . 3300.00 . . . . . 24,800.00 Indiana . . . . . 5000.00 . . . . . 41,900.00 Kansas . . . . . 3000.00 . . . . . 27,350.00 New Mexico . . . . . 3000.00 . . . . . 22,850.00 Virginia . . . . . 4500.00 . . . . . 56,790.00 Washington . . . . . 3000.00 . . . . . 44,210.00 Illinois. . . . . . 7500.00 . . . . . 77,660.00 Iowa . . . . . 4000.00 . . . . . 44,420.00 Nebraska . . . . . 2000.00 . . . . . 33,500.00 South Dakota . . . . . 2400.00 . . . . . 32,426.00 A1 Fully appointed or elected state boards. *Maximum in new constitution, may not actually be paid. A2 Mainly appointed or elected boards. A3 *Fully appointed. Three boards are mainly appointed. Maine has no state board. Ohio board has limited functions. B1 Boards entirely exofficio and all members state officers except in Nevada. B2 *Fully appointed. Partially appointed state boards. B3 Mainly exofficio boards of professional men with some members also appointed. B4 Illinois has no state board. The other three boards have restricted functions. -25- (Page 26) B—Salaries of Superintendents of Public Instruction. Table VIII consists of frequency distributions along a single scale of unequal intervals, for the purpose of making comparisons of salaries received by superintendents of public instruction when elected by the people, appointed by the governor or appointed by the board of education. TABLE VIII—Salaries of Superintendents. ELECTED APPOINTED By people By governor By board Total Salary Frequency Frequency Frequency Frequency 2000 1 2400 2 2500 3 3000 8 3300 1 3600 3 1 - 1 4000 6 1 - 1 4500 3 4600 - 1 - 1 5000 5 - 3 3 6000 - - 2 2 7500 1 1 1 2 8000 - - 1 1 9000 - - 1 1 10000 - 1 1 2 12000 - 1 - 1 Total N=33 N=6 N=9 N=15 Average Salary A=$3,708.00 A=$6,950.00 A=$6833.00 A=$6,880.00 As seen from the tabulation nine states have superintendents of public instruction appointed by state boards of education, six have superintendents appointed by the governors. Therefore fifteen states have appointed state superintendents. Thirty-three states have elected state superintendents. Salaries range from $2000 in Nebraska to $12,000 in Pennsylvania. The upper limit is in a state having an appointed superintendent. The five highest salaries are paid to appointed superintendents. Two others, if we count Louisiana, tie Illinois. Eighteen states with elected superintendents pay salaries as low or lower than the lowest salary paid an appointed superintendent. The average salary of the state superintendent in fifteen states having appointed superintendents is $6880 —26— (Page 27) per year; the average salary in the thirty-three states having elected superintendents is $3708; and the average salary in the forty-eight states of the Union is $4700. The appointed state superintendent receives on an average $3172 more than the elected superintendent. In other words the appointed superintendent receives approximately twice the salary the elected superintendent receives. The elected superintendent receives on an average $1000 less than the average for all superintendents combined. The state superintendent of public schools in Missouri receives $3880 per year less than the average of the appointed superintendents, $1700 less than the average for all superintendents, and $708 less than the average for the elected superintendents. There are thirty-two superintendents that receive higher salaries than the superintendent of public schools in Missouri, and nine other states tie Missouri in the 33rd position. Statistically this would give Missouri rank thirty-eight among the states of the Union in the salary paid her superintendent. This is four points lower than Ayres placed Missouri educationally in his index rating. C—Budgets of State Departments of Education. Budgets for state departments of education range from $15,780 in Nevada to $822,900 in New York. The upper limit is in a state having an appointed superintendent. Four states that have appointed superintendents have larger budgets than any states that have elected superintendents. The average budget in the fifteen states having appointed superintendents of public instruction is $135,740; the average in the thirty- three states having elected superintendents is $44,038; the average for all states of the Union is $72,694. States having appointed superintendents are allowed three times as large budgets for their departments of education as states having elected superintendents. States having elected superintendents on an average have but little more than one- half the average budget for all states combined. *The budget for Missouri equals the average budget for states with elected superintendents; equals a little more than half the average budget for all states; equals less than a third of the average budget for states having appointed superintendents. Missouri ranks twentieth from the highest in the budget for the state department of education. Though Missouri ranks tenth in population and twelfth in assessed wealth, these data show that Missouri ranks twentieth in the budget for her department of education and thirty-eighth in the salary paid her superintendent of public schools. *The budget for Missouri for the year 1921 is $61,485. —27— (Page 28) D — Terms of Office. Table IX below gives the statutory term of office in years of state superintendents of public instruction elected by the people, appointed by the governor, and appointed by the board of education. TABLE IX Term of Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction ELECTED APPOINTED Term By people By governor By board Years Frequency Frequency Frequency 1 - - 2 2 - 13 1 - 3 - 1 - 4 20 2 2 5 - 2 - 6 - - 1 Indefinite - - 4 Total 33 6 9 Average 3.2 3.8 - Table IX shows that the average single statutory term of office of superintendents elected by popular vote is .6 of a year shorter than for those appointed by the governor. The average for those appointed by the board of education cannot be obtained since four of them are appointed for indefinite periods. Appointment of superintendents of public instruction for an indefinite period is solely a prerogative of state boards of education. The Bureau of Education Bulletin, 1917, No. 5 says: "A study of the length of terms served by the state superintendents in the United States shows that the terms of elected superintendents were almost universally short when compared with the length of terms served by superintendents appointed in various ways." In this quotation term is used in the sense of tenure of position. Moreover your committee has verified the above quotation in part. Data taken from the Educational Directory, United States Bureau of Education, and from Monroe’s Encyclopedia of Education show definitely the tenure of office of superintendents of public instruction. The period studied was from 1906 to 1921, or that portion of the period, dating from —28— (Page 29) the adoption of the existing plan in each state for selecting its state superintendent, up to 1921. This study shows that the average tenure of office of superintendents elected by the people is 4.3 years, of those appointed by governors 4.1 years, and those appointed by boards of education 5.9 years. In other words state superintendents appointed by boards of education serve on an average 1.6 years or 37 per cent longer than those elected by the people, and 1.8 years or 44 per cent longer than those appointed by governors. E — Educational Qualifications of Superintendents of Public Instruction. a. COLLEGE DEGREES. From “Who’s Who in America” these data are obtained as to the educational qualifications of 26 state superintendents of public instruction as expressed in resident college degrees. TABLE X College Degrees of Superintendents Degrees Elected Appointed By popular vote By Board By Governor Total Freq. Percent Freq. Percent Freq. Percent Freq. Percent No degree 1 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 A. B. 12 71 1 20 0 0 1 11 A. M. 3 17 3 60 2 50 5 56 Ph. D. 1 6 1 20 2 50 3 33 Total 17 - 5 - 4 - 9 - Average age 49 53 55 54 Data were not available from 22 states. But if we have a fair sampling from the 26 states studied, we note by taking the combined appointments of boards of education and governors that 6 per cent of elected superintendents have no degree, while 0 per cent of appointed superintendents have none; 71 per cent of elected superintendents have A. B. degree, while 11 per cent of appointed superintendents have it; 17 per cent of elected superintendents have A. M. degree, while 56 per cent of appointed superintendents have it; 6 per cent of elected superintendents have Ph. D. degree, while 33 per cent of appointed superintendents have it. In addition to these earned degrees, one of the above elected superintendents has an honorary degree, while five of the appointed superintendents have honorary degrees. The average age of the elected superintendent is forty-nine years; of the appointed superintendent, fifty-four years. From the preceding discussion it follows that the appointed superintendent in general has better educational preparation than has the elected superintendent. —29— (Page 30) b. Minimum Statutory Qualifications. A careful search of all the state school codes and most of the state constitutions show that eighteen states make some sort of educational requirement of the superintendent of public instruction. The list is likely incomplete. But as it stands, the minimum requirements are shown in Table XI below. TABLE XI Minimum Educational Qualifications Requirements State Certificate College Graduate 2 years Graduate Study Special Training and Experienced Educator Experience 1-5 years Number of States 5 6 2 5 9 Five states, Georgia, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota and Utah, have the state certificate as a minimum requirement. These states have elected superintendents. Six states, Alabama, Idaho, Iowa, Michigan, Nevada and West Virginia, have college graduation or equivalent normal school graduation as a minimum requirement. These states have elected superintendents. Two states, Delaware and Maryland, have a requirement of two years of graduate study beyond college graduation. These states have appointed superintendents. Five states require that the superintendent have special training and be an experienced educator. Two of these, New Mexico and Virginia, have elected superintendents; three of them, Maryland, Tennessee and Vermont, have appointed superintendents. Nine of the eighteen states have a minimum time requirement in number of years experience. Seven of the nine require five years experience as a teacher. This tabulation shows the present legal status of educational qualifications of superintendents of public instruction. F — Staffs of State Departments of Education. The staff of the state department of education is the instrumentality by which it carries on the work of the department. Powers and duties of departments of education are being enlarged with the ever widening circle of public school endeavor. a. Size of Staffs. The size of staffs of state departments of education ranges from six members in Arkansas and Nevada to 391 in New York. Including laborers, New York, in 1920, had 456 members on its staff. (U. S. Bur. Ed. Bulletin, No. 46). The average size of complete staffs of departments of education for all states of the union is twenty-seven members; the average number of clerical assistants such as secretaries, clerks, stenographers, etc. is thirteen. The median number of staff members —30— (Page 31) is nineteen, the median number of clerical assistants is seven. The average size of staffs, in the fifteen states having appointed state superintendents, is sixty members; the average number of clerical assistants is twenty-five. In this same group of states, excluding New York, the average size of staffs is thirty-seven members; the average number of clerical assistants is fifteen. The average size of staffs in the thirty- three states with elected state superintendents is eighteen members; the average number of clerical assistants is eight. The average number of members in staffs with appointed superintendents, including New York, is three times as great as in states with elected superintendents; with New York excluded, it is two times as great. It will be noted, in each class of states considered, that the whole staff averages from two to two and one-half times the number of clerical assistants. The department of education in Missouri has twenty-eight members on its staff; nine of these are clerical assistants and helpers. It is thus seen that the staff of the department of education of Missouri closely approximates the average for the states of the Union. C. P. Cary, former State Superintendent of Schools in Wisconsin, says that for real efficiency the state of Wisconsin should have a staff of forty members and that twelve of these should be clerical assistants. b. Staff Organization. The proposed organization of the Alabama state board of education is shown by diagram on page 59 of U. S. Bureau of Education Bulletin, No. 41. This is an instructive diagram. Alabama followed closely the proposed plan in organizing its state system of education. The ten divisions of its state department of education are as follows: Executive and business management, legal and school lands, teacher certification and placement, teacher training and educational extension, publicity and statistics, elementary education and school consolidation, secondary education, school health and physical education, vocational education and federal aid, exceptional education and adult illiteracy. Alabama has a staff of thirty-five members and a budget of $83,010.00 (1920) to carry on the work of these divisions. Alabama has a state board appointed by the governor and an elected superintendent who is a member of the board of education. The five divisions of the state department of education in Missouri are: High school, rural school, vocational, industrial rehabilitation, and statistical. Missouri has a staff of twenty-eight members and a budget of $61,485.00 (1921) to carry on the work of these divisions. The budget of Missouri was $44,500.00 in 1920. —31— (Page 32) VIII. COMMON ARGUMENTS PRO AND CON In our investigation of this question, we have found many arguments for and against different types of state boards, also for and against different methods of selecting state superintendents of public instruction. These arguments have appeared in previous studies made, in current literature, in conversation and in the remarks entered in the questionnaire that was sent out. These arguments are get down as the expression of opinion that has come to us, and do not necessarily indicate the views of any member of the committee. A — State Boards of Education on Basis of Selection. a. APPOINTED BOARD. (1) Advantages: 1. This method makes the board responsible to the governor and the governor in turn responsible to the public. 2. It definitely fixes responsibility. 3. Appointment with approval of senate provides against abuse of power and relieves the board from political interference. 4. It permits men and women best fitted for the office to be sought out. 5. It is a simple plan. 6. It can easily be made non-partisan. 7. The office seeks the candidate. (2) Objections: 1. It puts too much power in the hands of the governor. 2. Appointments will be made for political reasons. 3. It removes educational planning too far from the people. b. BOARD ELECTED BY STATE LEGISLATURE. (1) Advantages: 1. This method through publicity, insures good choice. (2) Objections: 1. It makes the office political. 2. Responsibility cannot be definitely centered in individuals. c. BOARD ELECTED BY POPULAR VOTE. (1) Advantages: 1. This method is democratic and gives the people a direct voice in selecting the persons who manage their schools. 2. It educates all the people to the needs of the schools through participation. —32— (Page 33) (2) Objections: 1. It cannot divorce elections from political, race, or religious considerations. 2. Public will not study fitness of candidates. 3. The candidate seeks the office. 4. Too expensive in time and money to conduct a campaign for an unremunerative office. d. Ex OFFICIO BOARD. (1) Advantages: 1. This method secures men of influence both lay and professional. 2. It permits educators of high rank in public school system to control education. (2) Objections: 1. No ex officio member is a member of the board because of peculiar interest or fitness. 2. Time of members is absorbed in official business which they have been elected to perform. 3. It often means a complete change of the board with each state election. B — State Boards of Education on Basis of Personnel. a. Lay Boards. (1) Advantages: 1. The lay board is preferred on the basis of analogy in the business world. 2. The lay man reflects the view of the public. 3. The lay man serves as a check and balance to the enthusiastic, professional executive. 4. The lay man can more successfully interpret school policies and executive actions to the public; for he is not interested in theories of education for theory’s sake. 5. The lay man sees things in the large and is not prone to meddle with details but is content to exercise legislative functions. 6. The lay man knows his own limitations and does not assume executive functions. (2) Objections: 1. Such a board needs the assistance of professional associates to give it a complete insight and understanding of educational interests and problems. —33— (Page 34) b. Professional Board. (1) Advantages: 1. Members are men who understand schools. 2. They can give expert advice to executive officer. 3. They can hold the executive officer to strict accountability. (2) Objections: 1. They interfere and assume executive functions when a business should have but one executive. 2. They are often interested in a single phase of education— their own. 3. They are not open minded but prejudiced in overlapping interests and functions. c. MIXED BOARDS—UNSPECIFIED AND LAY-PROFESSIONAL. Practically the same reasons are advanced for the board where its members are not specified as to lay or professional, as for the lay board. Boards with members unspecified are primarily lay, yet the professional educator is not excluded from membership if his services are needed. The lay-professional board has many of the same arguments advanced for and against it as are advanced both for the lay and professional boards separately. C — Selection of State Superintendent of Public Instruction, a. Elected by Popular Vote. (1) Advantages: 1. This method is democratic and gives the public a direct voice in determining the management of their schools. 2. It has an educational value for the public and creates an interest in education. 3. It makes the superintendent independent of other state officials and their equal. (2) Objections: 1. It limits field from which choice is made to the state. 2. The salary is fixed by law and usually inadequate. 3. The term of office is short. 4. Reelection is uncertain. 5. The person must seek the office. 6. Many very desirable persons will not spend the time or money to engage in an uncertain contest or political campaign. 7. This method makes the office partisan and subject to the changes of party politics. —34— (Page 35) b. Appointed by State Board. (1) Advantages: 1. Board is free to select superintendent from country at large. 2. It can pay him whatever salary is necessary to get the best person available. 3. It may keep the superintendent as long as he is serviceable. 4. It is patterned after the idea of commission government with an expert executive in charge. 5. Superintendent can be removed at any time if incompetent. 6. The office seeks the occupant because of proven worth, and educational qualifications. (2) Objections: 1. This method is undemocratic. 2. It puts the governor’s favorites in the superintendent’s office. Arguments in favor of appointment by the governor are much the same as for appointment by the board except that it is urged in opposition that the appointing authority should be the advising and legislative body which is the board. It is urged that if the board is to be held responsible for results, it must appoint for merit and dismiss for failure. In brief, these statements give the reasons pro and con for the different types of state boards and also the reasons for or against different plans for selecting state superintendents of public instruction. IX. QUOTATIONS A—Remarks from Questionnaires. The following comments are interesting and instructive because they are spontaneous outbursts coming straight from the souls of the writers: “A state board should be composed of business men.” —A Governor. “To most of us the Missouri state board exists only in name. ” —A County Superintendent. “I speak from an experience of thirty years in state departments where nearly all the various methods of your questionnaire have been employed. I prefer a board appointed by governor, unspecified as to lay or professional members and a state superintendent appointed by the board. ” —A State Superintendent. “A board appointed by governor, members lay-professional and state superintendent appointed by state board have produced excellent results in Connecticut.” —A Governor. “I am in doubt as to the method of selecting a state superintendent. I have always favored the appointment of the superintendent by the state board. However I have become doubtful about it recently in view of Massachusetts’ action abandoning —35— (Page 36) the plan. Whatever is done, the state superintendent should not be linked up with the state political machine.” —A State Superintendent. “A state board should have authority to go out of the state for a superintendent when such action would better serve the schools of the state.” —A City Superintendent. “State board should be non-partisan or bi-partisan and with superintendent should be entirely removed from political influences.” —A County Superintendent. “Above everything else a state superintendent should be selected by a state board of education.” —A County Superintendent. “A state board elected by popular vote and no salary." -A Dean, Agriculture College. “Let the people elect school boards and let the boards appoint school officials is a sound principle of action. School boards including the state board should be elected by the people at the annual school meeting." —Former College President. “We believe in taking schools out of politics as much as possible and also believe that more care will be taken to select an appointed officer than one elected on account of popularity." —Banker. “We believe that the type of board found in New Jersey and Massachusetts is most satisfactory.” —Dean of School of Education. “By all means non-partisan board should be selected. Energy, integrity, ability and knowledge should be required qualifications.” —Circuit Judge. “Really don’t see any necessity for state board at all. There is no state board to work with other state officers.” —A State Superintendent. “The board should be mixed—lay and professional; appointed by the governor, by and with the consent of the senate, and the commissioner should be appointed by - such a board.” —Dean of a Missouri Teachers College. B — Opinions of Authors and Writers. The following quotations from leading educational writers and authorities give their views on some of the questions under consideration. “There can be no doubt that state and county organization and administration must follow the plan proven by experience to be the best in the administration of our large, successful city school systems; namely, for both county and state the selection of a revolving or gradually changed lay board which performs legislative, judicial and inspectorial functions: the appointment by this board, whether county or state, of a specially qualified superintendent at a salary and for a term determined not by statute but by the board itself.” —Dr. J. F. Bobbitt, Professor of Education, University of Chicago. Washington Code Commission. “From the standpoint of continuity in educational administration, it would seem desirable to adopt throughout the Union the state board and the commissioner selected by the board plan. Our experience in city school administration seems to indicate that we may hope for the most adequate professional service and for the most consistent development of educational policies when we remove the state superintendent from politics and make him responsible to a board which will continue him in office as long as he is able to satisfy them of the soundness of his educational policies.” —Strayer & Englehardt. The Classroom Teacher. “Though the expert and professional character of .the office of state superintendent of public instruction is now somewhat generally recognized, the office itself, in most of our states is still in a backward state of development, and realizes but a small —36— (Page 37) fraction of its possible efficiency. In two-thirds of our American states we still trust to political nomination, and the popular election of residents of the state willing to enter political candidacy for the office, to secure the head of our state school systems, though not employing the method to select state geologist, state horticulturist, state highway engineer, state entomologist, state forester, secretary of the state board of health or president of the state university.” —Gubberly, Public Education in the U. S., pp 475-476. “Many university professors of educational administration say that the best way in which to select a state superintendent of public instruction, is by means of a state board of education appointed by the governor. Both this method and the method of having the governor appoint a state superintendent are certain to land a school system in politics sooner or later. The office of governor in every state in the union is in politics as everybody knows. Governors with rare exceptions want friends and political helpers in every department. The educators to whom I have referred seem to think that such a board would be free from politics and that they would select a man on merit and then in no wise interfere with him but would afford him support and backing in every emergency. It is perfectly obvious that they have idealized such a board. Such conditions very rarely come about or if they do come about are not lasting.” —C. P. Cary, Ex-State Superintendent of Public Instruction, Wisconsin, N. E. A. Report, 1920. “It is plainly unwise to make the office of state superintendent of public schools a football for politicians, either in a popular election or in an election by the legislature. He should be appointed by the board, and since it is wise to separate the legislative and executive functions of the board, he should not be a member of it. His term of service should be sufficiently long to enable him to acquire wisdom in the formulation and carrying out of plans,, and his tenure of office should be so secure as to make him free and independent in the discharge of his duties. After a trial service of a definite term he should be elected during the pleasure of the board.” —Prince-School Administration, p. 29. “The popular election of the state superintendent limits the number of available candidates to those able to finance a state-wide political campaign, to those able to secure political support (seldom without incurring political obligations), and to adherents of the dominant political party or faction.” —Virginia Report, p. 247. These quotations are fair samples of the positive opinions expressed in the questionnaires and also a fair index of what educational writers and authors believe. X. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR A SCHOOL CODE COMMITTEE Your committee is content to let the report speak for itself without any recommendations as to the subject matter therein. However, we do recommend further study of this important question. For this purpose we suggest that the Council of the Missouri State Teachers Association appoint a school code committee to study state constitutional provisions for education and state school codes. The proposed school code committee should be authorized to collaborate with and advise with the educational committee of the Constitutional Convention. There —37— (Page 38) will be needed in our new constitution a provision for education, and with it there may be need of a revised school code. If the organization of an appointed or elected state board of education is decided upon, there will immediately arise the question of the scope of the jurisdiction of the new state board of education. Inseparably linked with this question will be the question of control of state institutions of higher learning and state schools for defectives, and delinquents. Shall the institutions of higher learning be provided for under separate boards as at present, and shall the formerly much buffeted schools for defectives and delinquents be kept under the newly created boards; or shall both types of state institutions be placed under the management of a single state board of education? Another possibility is that there be three separate boards of the same type and character as the state board of education, and provided for in the same manner, which might be charged respectively with the control of public elementary and secondary education, public higher education, and schools for defectives and delinquents; or two of these interests might be combined under a single board leaving the whole system of public education under the control of two state boards. There can be no doubt, in case either two or three boards are provided to administer the entire educational interests of the state, that an executive council consisting of representatives and the executive officers of each of the boards should pass upon budgets, overlapping interests, and make combined recommendations to the General Assembly of the State. The size of the State of Missouri, its educational background, the large number of institutions of higher learning in its borders, its many and varied institutions of an educational character for delinquents and defectives make its problems in this respect more complicated than those of most states having the single board. A school code committee should be sent into some of the states that have appointed and elected boards to study the working of those boards in their relations to the public school systems and the various types of state institutions. Such an investigation should be made, and the facts so gathered when taken in connection with the whole problem of education in Missouri, should serve as a basis for formulating an educational policy in our new constitution and for the writing of a revised school code. XI. GENERAL SUMMARY From this study certain outstanding conclusions are reached with reference to state departments of education. -38- (Page 39) A — State Boards of Education. 1. The state board of education should be appointed by the governor, by and with the advice and consent of the senate. 2. Election of the state board by popular vote is favored as an alternative plan. 3. The board should consist of about seven members who should serve for about seven years each. 4. The board should be a revolving board which is changed slowly but continuously and in such a way that only a minority normally could be appointed by one governor. 5. Members of the board should be representative men and women chosen solely on the basis of fitness. 6. The state board should be primarily lay and should have wholly legislative functions which should be sharply differentiated from executive functions. 7. Members should serve for traveling expenses and other necessary expenses and limited per diem allowance. B — State Superintendent of Public Instruction. 1. The State Superintendent of public instruction should be appointed by the state board of education. 2. He should be selected from the country at large on the basis of merit, administrative ability, and professional preparation. 3. He should be the chief executive officer of the board but not a member of the board. 4. He should be invested with large authority for carrying on the work of his department and for the selection of an adequate staff and in turn held strictly accountable for results. 5. He should be selected for an indefinite term of office and his compensation left to the state board. 6. His functions should be executive. This concludes the study of your committee. The findings are respectfully submitted to the Council for its consideration. -39- (Page 40) (Page 41) (Back Cover)