In his last report, Supt. Spaulding, of Newton, Mass., makes the following statement on efficiency in school management:

The progressive improvement of a school system demands that these essentials of scientific management be applied incessantly: The measurement and comparison of comparable results; the analysis and comparison of the conditions under which given results are secured-especially of the means and time employed in securing given results; the consistent adoption and use of those means that justify themselves most fully by their results, abandoning those that fail so to justify themselves.

The measurement of measurable educational results by suitable standards need limit those results to the dimensions of the standards no more than the measurement of a child's height limits his growth to the dimensions of the yardstick.

The city of Newton has no formally organized efficiency bureau, yet the annual report for 1912 well exemplifies the principles the superintendent has laid down with regard to the essentials of scientific management as applied to schools.

The last Rochester report includes an exceedingly suggestive chapter descriptive of the activities of its efficiency bureau. The Newton report for 1912 is the best example of careful analysis of statistics and expenditures that has come to hand from any city not maintaining an efficiency bureau.

IV. PROFESSIONAL INVESTIGATIONS.

The reports of the work of efficiency bureaus will be awaited with much interest. Their function in part is that of a continuous survey. A single survey made by experts within or without a given school system can at most only set forth the historical development of the system, its present condition, and the direction in which it is moving. Often a survey sets forth only the second of these three items, namely, the present condition of the system examined. This, if carefully done, is often of great service to the community, but no single survey can perform the function of the continuous survey carried on by a permanent bureau within the system.

This has been a notable year in respect to the number of surveys made, and it is evident that many more will be made within the next few years; but the need of a continuous survey within the system itself is not yet fully realized by school boards. There has been so much criticism of the schools, some fair and some unfair, that many school boards and the public which they represent, feeling some uncertainty as to the real condition of the schools for which they are responsible, naturally seek the best estimate they know how to command.

Two years ago the National Council of Education took note of the increasing tendency to institute surveys and appointed a committee of five to study and report upon the question, "By what standards and tests may a school or a system of schools be judged?" The

report of this committee, made at the Philadelphia meeting in February, 1913, by its chairman, Prof. Strayer, led to the formation of a larger committee to continue the study of the problem. This committee numbers 15. The members are: Prof. George Drayton Strayer, Teachers College, New York, chairman; Prof. Paul Hanus, of Harvard University; Dr. F. E. Spaulding, superintendent of schools, Newton, Mass.; Dr. J. H. Phillips, superintendent of schools, Birmingham, Ala.; Miss Adelaide S. Baylor, assistant superintendent of schools, Indianapolis, Ind.; Dr. William H. Maxwell, city superintendent of schools, New York City; Prof. Edward L. Thorndike, Teachers College, Columbia University, New York; Prof. E. P. Cubberley, Leland Stanford University, California; Prof. C. H. Judd, University of Chicago, Chicago, Ill.; Hon. C. N. Kendall, commissioner of education of the State of New Jersey; Miss Katherine D. Blake, principal of public school No. 6, New York City; Mr. Ben Blewett, superintendent of schools, St. Louis, Mo.; Prof. E. C. Elliott, University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wis.; Mrs. Ella Flagg Young, superintendent of schools, Chicago, Ill.; and Mr. James H. Van Sickle, superintendent of schools, Springfield, Mass.

One of the first tasks undertaken by this committee was the formulation of principles which should guide in conducting school surveys. The principles adopted by the committee are as follows:

A school inquiry should be described in such terms that the community will recognize that it is supplementary to the regular supervisory machinery in the schools. In general in the large systems it is best for the superintendent's office to secure from the board of education the necessary funds to maintain a bureau or department of special statistical information and special tests whereby the efficiency of the school system may be reviewed at all times in a way which will add to the routine reports and the routine observation possible under the usual organization that now exists. In small systems and in all systems on special occasions this will not be possible. Therefore other measures must be adopted.

Where any special questions arise calling for expert knowledge which can not easily be supplied by the superintendent or school officials, as for example, in the matter of architectural plans, in the matter of expert revision of accounting systems, and in cases where new and elaborate subjects are to be introduced into the curriculum, as, for instance, industrial education, art education, and commercial education, the community should be led to recognize the fact that it is wise to bring in specialists who can advise the superintendent's office and the board in these particular matters. Such specialists should make a careful examination of the whole community, including the facilities which are offered for the special type of work that is needed, also discovering the difficulties, if any exist, in the introduction of the new subject. The survey in this case might be termed a general economic survey of the whole community with reference to a special school subject.

Where the superintendent or the lay members of the school administration feel uncertainty with regard to any phase of the school work, it ought to be possible, without embarrassment to the officers of the school system, including the superintendent, to bring in competent persons who can supplement the routine observation of the schools and confirm or modify the recommendations that are under consideration. Such persons constituting a survey committee ought to be recognized by the com

munity as a temporary extension of the supervisory machinery of the school. In special cases a survey can be resorted to as a means of deciding points which are under dispute. Thus it is easily conceivable that several members of the board of education would not agree with regard to the wisdom of certain policies under consideration. They ought to be brought to recognize the value of advice from representatives of the educational profession outside the particular school system in question. The community and the educational profession should be educated to recognize that consultation is not a reflection upon the efficiency of the superintendent, board of education, or members of the teaching staff, but rather a recognition of the teaching profession as a large and complex group, the members of which are capable of supplementing each other, even where there is not absolute agreement on methods of procedure. Temporary additions to the supervisory staff in the fashion above described are justified by the fact that schools are continually facing administrative emergencies for which it is not necessary to provide permanent additions to the staff. Furthermore, these temporary situations very frequently call for a broader view than can be supplied by a single supervisory officer. The teaching profession itself needs the kind of opportunity which would be furnished by such surveys to enlarge its own views and to try out many of the experiments which are necessary in order to secure the best adjustment within the complicated school situation.

The superintendent very frequently needs the support of the general educational profession to make a community clearly aware of needs which he sees, but which the community is slow to recognize. For example, he frequently needs more funds than he can easily obtain without the cooperation of some outside advice for the benefit of the community itself.

Finally, the community may be in doubt as to the efficiency of its school officers. When criticism has once become the fashion in a given community it is very likely to undermine the efficiency of the school system, and the superintendent ought to welcome some type of investigation which will either give him the support which he needs in dispelling the criticism or give the community the suggestions which it needs in order to cure the situation.

From the above discussion it will be seen that a survey can be most advantageously initiated by the school officials. If the citizens wish to have a survey made, they ought to be able to secure it through their regular representatives on the board. Groups of citizens who can not get it through the board should be provided with means of carrying out a survey. Furthermore, the superintendent ought to be in a position at any time to call in impartial professional advisers in case he finds school interests seriously jeopardized. Whether the investigation originates with the superintendent or board or interested groups of citizens, its purpose should be to protect and advance the interests of the children and youth of the community.

An inquiry will naturally aim to deal with those phases of school organization which are capable of exact objective review. Thus the financial management of the school should be taken up. The physical equipment of the school should be examined. The attendance on schools, including the question of enforcement of the compulsory attendance laws, can be definitely known. The number of children in a given classroom should be ascertained; the provisions that are made for exceptional children, including defectives.

The method of training teachers, their qualifications, the method of their appointment, and the method of getting rid of inefficient teachers, should be investigated. Their salaries and the rules governing their tenure of office, the provisions that are made for the improvement of teachers during the period of their service, should also be investigated.

The organization and functions of the supervisory staff and the efficiency with which they carry out their work, especially with reference to their contact with the classroom exercises.

The efficiency of instruction: This will include an examination of the course of studies and the time devoted to each one of the subjects in the course of study; the methods of class instruction, including the variations in these methods which are to be observed in the different parts of the system. There should also be made an examination of the provisions which exist within the system for recording the individual history of children as they pass through the grades.

Any report concerning school conditions should be so planned and arranged as not to mislead educational officers or the public concerning the general and special methods of any important feature of the work of the schools within its scope; for example, if the scope of the inquiry, includes the work of the department of physical education, and if the physical growth of pupils is below what should be expected, while the moral and social atmosphere of the school playgrounds is admirable, the latter fact should be made as clear as the former. In general certain topics should be chosen for measurement and report, and the result should be reported in the case of each such topic without selection for purposes of the support of any interest within or without the school.

Any school inquiry should, so far as is practicable, observe, measure, and report the conditions of the community's political, industrial, social, and educational life which favor or interfere with the work of the schools.

If the community can afford it, the survey should be made by a committee of two or more persons. This committee should invite and secure cooperation of the teaching staff.

Investigators should dwell upon the achievements of the school system, especially noting the direction in which it is moving.

The report should be prepared as a document intended for the information of the school officials. The further use of the report should depend upon the agreement of these school officials and the surveyor who is employed by the board. If the report is to be published, agreement should be reached in this matter at the time when the Survey is first organized. In every case there should be an explicit understanding between the parties as to the method of treating the report. In the absence of such a specific agreement before the report is prepared, publication should depend upon explicit agreement between the parties involved.

V. SCOPE AND CHARACTER OF SURVEYS ALREADY MADE.

Two educational surveys have been referred to in previous reports of this bureau, the Baltimore Survey, which was made in 1911, and the New York Survey, which has been completed during the present year. All of the city surveys so far made which are accessible will be briefly summarized. The descriptions which follow are based on statements prepared for the Committee of Fifteen on "Standards and Tests" by Prof. Charles H. Judd, the secretary of the committee.

THE FIRST BOISE SURVEY.

During one week in November, 1910, Supt. Calvin N. Kendall, at the request of Le school board and the superintendent, made a survey of the schools of Boise, Idaho. The report was published in a local newspaper, the Idaho Statesman, on December 18, 1910. It deals with (1) school buildings, (2) teachers, (3) course of study, (4) organization of schools, and (5) attitude of the community. The facts on which conclusions are based were collected through six days of personal observation. There are no tables in the report. Recommendations based on personal observation are made, and the report concludes with a brief statement by the superintendent to the effect

that board action was taken along the various lines recommended. The report is favorable and the recommendations are all in the direction of enlargement: Enlargement of the staff; enlargement of the course, especially by including more industrial courses; enlargement of the organization by adding ungraded classes. The report is six pages in length.

THE MONTCLAIR SURVEY.

In May, 1911, Prof. Paul H. Hanus reported to the board of education of Montclair, N. J., on the schools of that city. The report deals with (1) general survey, (2) teachers and teaching, (3) program of studies in (a) elementary schools and (b) high schools. The report was printed in a pamphlet. The body of the report is 21 pages in length and contains numerous tables and reports of personal observations, the latter apparently based on four days of visiting in the schools. Criticisms are made in detail and numerous recommendations are made.

The tables include: (1) A table of marks in the high school, comparing Montclair grades with those in other high schools; (2) a table of time distribution of subjects in grades, comparing Montclair and Newton, Mass.; (3) general tables of retardation, average ages and reasons for leaving school; for one school a full detailed table of ages and a table of nationalities.

The recommendations on course of study are specific and detailed. The criticisms on general organization are based on the tables. The high school is criticized in its material equipment and in its course of study.

Prof. Hanus notes explicitly at the end of his report that he has laid stress on what seemed to be the shortcomings of the Montclair schools and not on their many obvious merits.

THE BALTIMORE SURVEY.

In June, 1911, a commission consisting of Commissioner E E. Brown, Prof. E. P. Cubberley, Supt. C. N. Kendall, with two assistants, namely, Messrs. N. B. Hillegas and Harlan Updegraff, rendered a report to the board of school commissioners of the city of Baltimore on the schools of that city. The report was published as Bulletin No. 4, Whole Number 450, of the United States Bureau of Education. The body of the text contains 102 pages. A summary of 8 pages precedes the detailed tables and reports and presents the findings of the commission. The body of the report consists of five chapters. Chapter I (6 pages) describes the plan and history of the survey itself. Chapter II (26 pages) gives a history of the Baltimore school system and an outline of the social and legal relations of the system. Chapter III (44 pages) deals with the following topics: (a) System of supervision; (b) teaching force and its training; (c) the elementary curriculum. Chapter IV (10 pages) deals with the physical conditions in the schools. Chapter V (9 pages) deals with various general topics.

The text includes numerous tables and charts. In many of these charts the Baltimore schools are compared with schools in the other leading cities of the United States.

This report contains much matter dealing directly with the problems of administration and supervision and with the criticisms of the administration. It is evident from the whole tone of the report that the commission was expected to pass judgment, either favorable or unfavorable, upon the administration.

In point of method it may be noted that comparison with other cities is much emphasized. Personal inspection is recorded as having been made in one-half of the schools and in 250 classrooms. The statement regarding the scope of the report is especially full and suggestive for the use of those engaged in the study of surveys (pp. 18-19).

The report is fully indexed.