A 
 
 
 (= 
 
 A 
 
 o 
 
 n 
 
 1 
 
 -r 
 
 
 
 Tl 
 
 1 
 
 m 
 
 4 
 
 
 
 5 
 
 
 3 
 
 LIBR 
 
 7 
 
 ARY 
 
 3 
 
 
 6 
 
 
 9 
 
 
 Report 
 
 OF THE 
 
 Public School Administrative 
 Code Commission 
 
 OF THE 
 
 State of Washington 
 
 delivered to the 
 
 Governor and the Legislature 
 
 at Olympia, Washington, 
 January 11. 1921 
 
 DESIGNED TO ACCOMPANY SENATE BILL No. 10 
 
 OLTMPIA 
 FRANK M. LAMBORN "^t^^^ PUBLIC PRINTER 
 
 1921 
 
 / /
 
 This book is DUE on the last date stamped below 
 
 Southern Branch 
 of the 
 
 University of California 
 
 Los Angeles 
 
 Form L-1 
 
 2523
 
 iJNIVERSITY OF CAUFOHNIA, 
 
 LIBRARY, 
 
 NGELES. CAUK '^ 
 
 OF THE 
 
 Public School Administrative 
 Code Commission 
 
 OF THE 
 
 State of Washington 
 
 delivered to THE 
 
 Governor and the Legislature 
 
 at Olympia, Washington, 
 January 11, 1921 • 
 
 DESIGNED TO ACCOMPANY SENATE BILL No. 10 
 
 OLYMPIA 
 FRANK M. LAMBORN o^^^ li PUBLIC PRINTER 
 
 1921 
 
 6120G
 
 INDEX. 
 
 Page 
 
 Introduction 3 
 
 Chapter I. The District System 6 
 
 Chapter II. The Rural School Problem 8 
 
 Chapter 111. Many States Abolish the District System 10 
 
 Chapter IV. The County Superintendent 12 
 
 Chapter V. Limitations on the County Superintendency 15 
 
 Chapter VI. State Department of Education 17 
 
 Chapter ^VII. The Larger Unit 21 
 
 Chapter •vrilj*'. Reformatory and Special Institutions. . 24 
 
 Chapter. .V.IX,* "financial Support and Educational Opportunity 25 
 
 Chapter*' .^ X.' ' 'Recommendations 29 
 
 Chapter -XLj . .Statement by Expert Adviser 29 
 
 Chapter' ^)cri' '.'Educators on the Larger Unit 34 
 
 ChapterJ'^^II; '."Graphs and Statistics 39 
 
 CHAPTEp'XIvr.'^nalysis of Senate Bill No. 10 112 
 
 CHAPTEi^..^XVyc'^ynopsis of Senate Bill No. 10 114 
 
 Chapter. XVI. Purpose of Proposed Code 118
 
 
 REPORT OF PUBLIC SCHOOL ADMINISTRATIVE 
 CODE COMMISSION 
 
 To His Excellency, Governor L. F. Hart, 
 
 Olympia, Washington. 
 
 Dear Sir: The Senate Joint Resolution under which the Public School 
 Administrative Code Commission, appointed by you, was created, makes 
 the following statement of the purposes of the Legislature: 
 
 Senate Joint Resolution No. 1. 
 
 Relating to the Revision of the Common School Code of the State of 
 
 Wasliington. 
 
 Whereas, the common school laws of the State of Washington are in 
 great need of revision and readjustment to existing conditions; and 
 
 Whereas, several different plans have been proposed for correcting 
 existing evils in our present system; for the purpose of giving this im- 
 portant matter proper consideration. 
 
 Be it Resolved by the Legislature of the State of Washington: 
 
 I. 
 
 That a Commission be immediately appointed by the Governor. 
 
 II. 
 
 That said Commission shall make a comprehensive and exhaustive 
 study of the common school system and incorporate its findings and con- 
 clusions in a bill, or bills, which shall be presented to the Legislature of 
 1921, not later than January 11, 1921. 
 
 Passed the Senate March 23, 1920. 
 
 Passed the House March 23, 1920. 
 
 Signed: P. H. CARLYON, 
 
 President of the Senate. 
 
 Signed: FRED A. ADAMS. 
 
 Speaker of the House. 
 
 In conformity with the above Resolution your Commission met at 
 Tacoma on June 11th and organized by electing W. J. Sutton, chairman. 
 The Commission has held numerous regular and special meetings, has made 
 a thorough study of the common school system of the state of Washington, 
 through special representatives has visited other states and observed the 
 administration of their school systems, and has profited by the services of 
 Dr. Elhvood P. Cubberley who was employed in an advisory capacity to 
 review the findings and recommendations embodied in our preliminary 
 report. 
 
 The school system of the state of Washington contains much of which 
 its citizens may be justly proud. A recent report, based upon two groups 
 of factors which are primarily quantitative ("attendance" and "expendi- 
 tures") ranks the school system of this state sixth in the United States. 
 While these factors do, in some measure, indicate qualitative value, no 
 qualitative study and rating of the school systems of the different states 
 has yet been made. However, enough is known to inspire confidence in 
 the. belief that our schools rank well, taking the country as a whole. The 
 above report shows that, for the entire United States, our present school 
 system is only 64 per cent effective. High averages do not indicate actual
 
 School Code Commission Report 
 
 conditions in the many small, low grade, units of school administration that 
 are considered in arriving at those averages. The weakest deserves con- 
 sideration. The Commission presents accurate detailed facts concernintc 
 the schools of all parts of the state, so arranged as to clearly indicate 
 actual conditions of support, burden and efficiency. 
 
 Certain features of our present scliool system are shown to be ill de- 
 vised and inadequate to present day needs. Weaknesses are disclosed in 
 matters of organization, administration, finance and equality of educational 
 opportunity. Parts of the present system do not appear to function to a 
 degree commensurate with the expenditure of time, energy and money 
 devoted to our great enterprise. Greater effectiveness is possible and neces- 
 sary now. 
 
 These recommendations are based upon the facts presented and upon 
 the commission's interpretation of their meaning. Reorganization toward 
 efficiency in administration is the aim of the legislative proposals. Every 
 effort has been made to know actual present conditions and to so mould 
 our present school organization as to afford a more nearly equal educa- 
 tional opportunity to the children of all the state, to insure the most effective 
 expenditure of the financial support of the school and to distribute the 
 burden of that support equitably and at the same time enlarge the interest 
 of the people in their schools. , 
 
 Your Commission is confident if the recommendations are enacted into 
 law that conditions favorable to a thoroughly modern, practical and pro- 
 gressive system will have been established. 
 
 Respectfully submitted, 
 
 W. J. SUTTON, Chairman. 
 A. S. BURROV/S, Secretary, 
 W. M. KERN, 
 ALFRED LISTER, 
 MRS. MARK E. REED.
 
 America's Educational Problem 
 
 WE HAVE BEEN DEPLORABLY DELINQUENT 
 
 Warren G. Harding, President-elect. 
 
 We have just awakened to the fact that the educa- 
 tion of the American child has fallen below the standard 
 necessary for the protection of our future. We have 
 to face the fact that our school teachers are underpaid; 
 that in physical training, in the teaching of American 
 civil government and American history, in the principles 
 of Americanism and Americanization we have been de- 
 plorably delinquent. But nowhere is there more cause 
 for alarm than in the fact that the rural-school term is 
 far too short and that four-fifths of the rural schools 
 are one-teacher schools, resulting in hasty and careless 
 teaching, and that the opportunity for country boys and 
 girls to have high school education is all too slight. 
 We owe it to the childhood of the Nation 
 and the childhood of the agricultural districts of our 
 land to place at its disposal the utmost in educational 
 facilities.
 
 Chapter I. 
 THE DISTRICT SYSTEM. 
 
 The district school had its origin in primitive New England. It arose 
 as a purely local undertaking. The motive underlying its establishment 
 was essentially religious. The course of study was meager, primarily read- 
 ing, writing and arithmetic. 
 
 Communities desiring a school met and organized. The parents helped 
 build the school house, constructed and installed the furniture, determined 
 the length of term, ofttimes selected the teacher, fixed the salary and planned 
 for "boarding 'round." As conditions changed and communities became 
 less compact the school was "rotated" from place to place to meet the de- 
 mands of all the parents. To facilitate classification "attendance lines" were 
 drawn. 
 
 At first the district school was supported by voluntary contributions. 
 In 1642 and 1648 the Colonial Legislature of Massachusetts declared that 
 the state had a right to compel proper provisions for education, to de- 
 termine the kind, and to provide for it at public expense. These laws fur- 
 nished the basis for legislation in all the other New England Colonies, 
 Rhode Island alone excepted; they have deeply influenced education through- 
 out the United States. 
 
 In New England the town, an irregular area of from 20 to 40 square 
 miles, was the unit for civil affairs. As new settlements arose and popula- 
 tion became scattered, it became necessary to subdivide the towns into in- 
 dependent school districts, each authorized to elect school trustees, levy 
 district-school taxes, select a teacher, etc. Shortly after the close of the 
 Revolutionary war the "district system" was legalized in all the New 
 England States. In 1789, it received full legal sanction in Massachusetts in 
 a law which Horace Mann, one of America's foremost scholars and educators, 
 pronounced "the most unfortunate law on the subject of the common schools 
 ever enacted in the State." 
 
 From New England the district system spread over the greater portion 
 of the United States. Gradually it underwent certain changes. New sub- 
 jects were added to the three R's: geography at first, then grammar; later 
 history and civics to train for citizenship; physiology, to train in the art of 
 living; manual training, domestic science and art, and agriculture are com- 
 paratively recent additions. In many places the district school became 
 a "community center" for spelling bees, literary societies, singing schools 
 and debating clubs. 
 
 Since the day when the district system was organized and established, 
 great and fundamental changes have taken place in American life. Steam,, 
 electricity, improved machinery, cheap and rapid transportation and com- 
 munication, the factory system, the growth of manufacture and the phe- 
 nomenal growth of cities have created a new order. 
 
 In 1800, 4 per cent of our population was urban; 96 per cent rural; 
 In 1920, 52 per cent is urban, 48 per cent rural. Domestic industry has 
 been replaced by the factory system which conditions home environment 
 and home life. The stage coach has been supplanted by the automobile, the 
 interurban and the limited express. The telephone, telegraph, submarine 
 cable and wireless have annihilated time and space.
 
 School Code Commission Report 
 
 These changes have brought such a fire of criticism upon the district 
 school, its organization and administration, that today we have what is 
 known as the "rural school problem." 
 
 In August, 1908, President Roosevelt appointed a Community Life 
 Commission to make a study of rural life and its needs. This Commission, 
 headed by L. H. Bailey, of Cornell University, reported in February, 1909. 
 
 In transmitting the Commission's report to Congress, President Roose- 
 velt stated that, from all that had been learned, there were three great and 
 immediate needs of country life,, one of which was "A new kind of school 
 in the country which shall teach the children as much outdoors as indoors 
 and perhaps more, so that we will prepare for country life and not, as at 
 present, mainly for life in town." 
 
 ^ In its report, the Rural Life Commission said: 
 
 •'The subject of paramount importance in our correspondence and in 
 the hearings is education. In every part of the United States there seems 
 to be one mind, on the part of those capable of judging, on the necessity of 
 re-directing the rural schools. There is no such unanimity on any other 
 subject. The schools are held to be largely responsible for ineffective 
 farming, lack of ideals and the drift to town." The rural schools "are in 
 state of arrested development and have not put themselves in consonance 
 With the recently changed conditions of life."
 
 Chapter II. 
 THE RURAL SCHOOL PROBLEM. 
 
 Among the conditions that have aroused criticism and have created 
 the "rural school problem" are the following: 
 
 (1) The physical surroundings under which the pupils are educated 
 are unattractive and in a vast number of instances insanitary — often re- 
 pelling. The building is commonly weather-beaten, inhospitable, and with- 
 out architectural beauty; the grounds are desolate; the windows dirty; the 
 walls without decoration. Such conditions are intolerable and indefensible. 
 
 (2) The course of study is patterned after that of the city school. 
 The instruction is not adapted to the particular needs of rural pupils. The 
 school fails to provide a twentieth century course of study and a teacher 
 trained to interpret it. 
 
 (3) The rural school is no longer a community center for rural life. 
 The "literary societies" and "spelling bees" of primitive times are almost 
 unknown. The rural school is no longer a stimulating, organizing, socializ- 
 ing force in the community. 
 
 (4) In general, rural teachers are the least educated, the least ex- 
 perienced and the poorest paid of any engaged in educational work. It is 
 not uncommon to find untrained girls from the city schools employed to 
 teach in the rural schools. Such teachers have no knowledge of country 
 life and little interest in country boys and girls. 
 
 (5) Owing to the large number of recitations and the meager time 
 at her disposal the teacher is unable to do efficient work. One teacher in- 
 structs all classes from the A, B, C's through all grade subjects, often in- 
 cluding one or more of the high school branches, with from 2 5 to 30 reci- 
 tations per day. 
 
 (6) The multiplication of small districts results in small, inefficient 
 schools lacking money, equipment and enrollment. In some districts the 
 total assessed valuation is too small to maintain a first-class school. The 
 total assessed valuation in one-room rural school districts in the state of 
 Washington is as low as $12,000. In one county there are 37 rural schools 
 in which the average daily attendance is from one to six. Several schools 
 report an average daily attendance of one pupil. 
 
 (7) The system is wasteful in both effort and money. Numerous 
 school systems employing 100 or more teachers are managed by single small 
 boards of from five to seven members. In the city of Spokane, a single 
 board of five members employs 6 51 teachers and directs the entire system. 
 In Spokane county, outside of the city of Spokane, it requires 153 school 
 boards made up of 459 members to employ 233 teachers. In 1,500 districts 
 in this state in 1918-19 it required the services of over 4,000 directors to 
 employ 1,500 teachers. At the same time one board of five members, in 
 the city of Seattle, was capable of employing over 1,500 teachers. 
 
 Moreover, the per capita cost of educating pupils in the rural schools 
 is greater than in the cities. The per capita cost in the elementary grades 
 of all flrst-class districts in the state compared with the per capita cost in 
 rural and village schools in the same counties for the year 1919-20 was 
 as follows:
 
 School Code Commission Report 
 
 PER CAPITA COST — ELEMENTARY GRADES 
 Based on Average Daily Attendance. 
 
 COUNTY 
 
 CITY 
 
 Per Capita 
 Cost 
 
 King 
 
 Pierce 
 
 Spokane 
 
 Snohomish. . . 
 
 Whatcom 
 
 Yakima 
 
 Grays Harbor 
 Grays Harbor 
 Walla Walla.. 
 
 Seattle 
 
 Tacoma 
 
 Spokane 
 
 Everett 
 
 Bellingbam.. 
 
 Yakima 
 
 Hoquiam 
 
 Aberdeen .... 
 Walla Walla. 
 
 $76 00 
 56 52 
 61 73 
 67 30 
 
 66 05 
 60 85 
 52 28 
 59 29 
 
 67 07 
 
 Per Cap. Cost 
 in Rural and 
 
 Village 
 Schools, Same 
 
 County 
 
 $77 91 
 74 97 
 76 64 
 71 15 
 63 89 
 67 86 
 84 76 
 84 76 
 95 70 
 
 The per capita cost of educating pupils in the rural schools of the 
 state of Washington runs as high as $918. A per capita cost of from $200 
 to $400 is not unusual. 
 
 (8) A small unit, such as the district, is unable to pay for pro- 
 fessional supervision. At the present time, successful business enterprises 
 are operated on the basis of expert supervision. In no important industrial 
 organization are young and inexperienced workers assigned to difficult 
 technical tasks without adequate supervision. Under present conditions 
 the effectual supervision of the district teachers is impossible because of 
 the large area assigned to the county superintendent and the inadequate 
 provision for supervisory help. 
 
 (9) The rural school fails to hold the pupils who enroll and who 
 might well be expected to find the instruction interesting and profitable. 
 *"0f the 12,000,000 rural school children, constituting a clear majority of 
 the youth of school age, less than 2 5 per cent are completing the work 
 of the grades." In a vast number of cases farmers move to town primarily 
 to educate their children. By this means the most ambitious boys and 
 girls are drawn away from the country. 
 
 Because of its many defects the rural school starts a stream of country 
 boys, upon whom its influence is strongest, towards the city, and, by di- 
 recting attention to the advantages of urban life, robs the rural community 
 of their leadership. 
 
 (10) Glaring inequalities exist not only in the educational opportuni- 
 ties afforded urban and rural children but in expenditures for services sup- 
 posed to be of approximately equal merit. In certain rural districts the 
 local tax levy is 50 times as great as in others. District boundary lines are 
 fixed and maintained by persuasion and pressure. The county superintend- 
 ent is not free to adjust district lines so that equality of taxation shall pre- 
 vail. It is manifestly unfair for one district to be compelled to tax itself 
 from two to fifty times as much as another in order to do its share in a 
 task which belongs primarily to the state. 
 
 * Annual Report, E. T. Fairchild, state superintendent of Kansas.
 
 Chapter III. 
 MANY STATES ABOLISH THE DISTRICT SYSTEM. 
 
 Criticisms of the district system and the demand for efficiency, economy 
 and equality of educational opportunity have led various states to curtail 
 the powers of the district meetings and trustees, and to take steps to 
 more effectively organize and administer their public schools. 
 
 (1) The powers of which the district meeting and the trustees have 
 been deprived are as follows: 
 
 The district meeting has been deprived of the right — I 
 
 (a) To designate the teacher. j 
 
 (b) To select the text-books. fi 
 
 (c) I'o make out the course of study. 
 
 (d) To determine, except within limits, the length of the school term 
 
 (e) To specify the subjects to be taught. 
 
 The trustees have been shorn of the power: 
 
 (a) To examine and certificate teachers. 
 
 f 
 
 (2) It was early recognized that the most serious obstacle in the ' 
 
 way of all educational progress and reform lay in the district system. Cer- 
 tain powers originally exercised by the district, such as the certification of 
 teachers and the formation of courses of study, have been delegated to the 
 state; other powers, relating to inspection and supervision of schools, have 
 been taken over by the county; in many instances the district has been made 
 to yield its authority to the consolidated city. Administrative and taxing 
 functions, at first exercised by the district, have been transferred from 
 smaller to larger areas. More than half the states have either abolished the 
 district system entirely or have made it possible for the counties to abolish 
 the system, as follows: 
 
 RURAL SCHOOL PROGRESS IN OHIO. 
 
 Vernon M. Biegel, State Supt. 
 Ohio now has had six years under her rural school code and 
 the time has been ample to permit judging of results. Its purpose 
 was to give Ohio a co-ordinated system of state, county and district 
 supervision, to require normal or college training of all teachers and 
 above all to pave the way for speedier centralization and consolida- 
 tion of the one-room district schools. Results have been beyond 
 the expectations of school men, opposition to the system has passed 
 away, and it may truthfully be said that it is considered by the 
 people of the state as the most important constructive legislation 
 enacted in Ohio in recent years.
 
 School Code Commission Report 11 
 
 Pennsylvania (Tp.) 1834 Alabama (Co.) 1903 
 
 Indiana (Tp.) 1852 Rhode Island (Tp.) 1904 
 
 Iowa (Tp.) 1858 Tennessee (Co.) 1906 
 
 Louisiana (Co.) 1879 Connecticut (Tp.) * 1909 
 
 Massachusetts (Tp.) 1882 Michigan (Tp.) (Op.) 1909 
 
 North Dakota (Tp.) 1883 Utah (Co.) 1915 
 
 New Hampshire (Tp.) 1885 Nebraslta (Co.) (Op.) 1915 
 
 North Carolina (Co.) 1885 Maryland (Co.) 1916 
 
 Georgia (Co.) 1887 Kentucky (Co.) 1918 
 
 Florida (Co.) 1889 Virginia (Co.) 1919 
 
 Ohio (Co.) 1892 Montana (Co.) (Op.) 1919 
 
 New Jersey (Tp.) 1894 New Mexico (Co.) 1919 
 
 All the above states were originally organized on the district basis. 
 They have had the vision and courage to definitely abandon a system under 
 which neither the burdens nor the advantages of education are justly and 
 fairly distributed and to establish school units of a larger size. At present 
 in every state organized on the district plan there is agitation in favor of 
 a larger unit for both supervision and administration. 
 
 The cities early eliminated their school districts, abolished the dis- 
 trict system, and organized as a single unit under one board. To this one 
 fact more than all others, may be attributed the great progress made in 
 urban education. 
 
 The commission believes that the solution of the rural school problem 
 lies in profiting by the experience of the older states and in providing that 
 the rural schools shall have the same general plan of administration now 
 prevailing in a large number of our older states and in all of our cities.
 
 Chapter IV. 
 THE COUNTY SUPERINTENDENT. 
 
 (A) HISTORY. 
 
 The position of county superintendent of scliools grew out of the de- 
 mand, on the part of the state, for some form of state control of local educa- 
 tion. Someone was needed to look after the school lands granted by the 
 Federal government; to keep a record of the district boundary lines; to 
 apportion the income from state school funds to the various districts; to 
 collect and report for the state statistics as to attendance, expenditure, levies, 
 length of school term, etc.; to see that each teacher possessed a teacher's 
 certificate, and finally, to visit the schools, advise with teachers and trustees 
 and in every way encourage public education. 
 
 Not all of these duties were required at first. The original and primary 
 need was for someone to look after the school lands. Thus the office, as it 
 exists today, represents an evolution. In some states it was gradually 
 evolved out of some other county office. Indiana represents fairly well the 
 development of the office of county superintendent of schools: In that state 
 a county school commissioner was provided for in 1835 to look after the 
 school lands; in 1841 these duties were transferred to the county auditor 
 who thus became the chief county school officer; in 185 3 a county examiner 
 of teachers was provided who at once took over the school functions of 
 the county auditor; and in 1873 the office of county superintendent of 
 schools wat< created. 
 
 At first the duties of the office were simple, required no professional 
 training and little in the way of education. Since any clerk of ordinary 
 ability could transact the business of the office, the position could be filled 
 by popular election the same as any other office. In twenty-five states this 
 method of selecting the county superintendent of schools is stiil in force. 
 When Washington became a state in 1889 this plan of choosing the chief 
 county school officer was borrowed from the older states and incorporated 
 in our state constitution. 
 
 (B) CHANGED FUNCTIONS. 
 
 During the last two decades marked changes have taken place in the 
 demands made upon the office of county superintendent of schools. A posi- 
 tion at first clerical and statistical has gradually become professional and 
 technical in character. New duties are required of this official. Certain of 
 these duties have been imposed from above by the state; others have come 
 up from the districts; still others have come about as a result of the changed 
 conceptions of public education. 
 
 Originally the county superintendent of schools was primarily a clerk; 
 today he is judged by the degree to which he delegates the simple clerical 
 work of the office to a subordinate and becomes the real educational leader 
 in his county. He must be able to select and recommend teachers; to 
 evaluate methods of instruction, to hold examinations, to conduct surveys 
 and interpret results, to organize, stimulate and direct all the educational 
 forces of his county. Such service, to be effective, demands education, pro- 
 fessional training, skill and experience.
 
 School Code Com/mission Report 
 
 (C) CONSTRUCTIVE CRITICISMS. 
 
 There are fundamental reasons, so far as the county superintendency 
 is concerned, why the rural schools are the laggards in our educational 
 system. One chief reason lies in the fact that a political instead of an 
 educational basis has been fastened upon the school in the selection of a 
 county superintendent. 
 
 At present, in the state of Washington, choice of a superintendent of 
 the county schools is confined exclusively to local candidates. The position 
 is regarded as clerical and political rather than as educational and pro- 
 fessional. Moreover, two states out of forty-eight apply the principle of 
 "rotation in office" to the position of county superintendent of schools — 
 Washington is one of the two. In this state a county superintendent who 
 has served two terms is ineligible for re-election, regardless of competency 
 and efficiency, until the office is rotated about and someone else has "had 
 a chance." There are no better reasons for selecting the county superin- 
 tendent of schools by a direct vote of the people than for selecting the city 
 superintendent in the same way, yet practically every city and town in the 
 United States long ago abandoned the plan of selecting the superintendent 
 of their schools at the polls after a political canvass. Today school super- 
 intendents in cities and towns are selected by a board of directors without 
 reference to their residence and upon merit alone. , 
 
 Equality of educational opportunity for all children is one of the 
 basic tenets of democracy. This condition does not prevail in the state 
 of Washington at the present time and there is no prospect that it will 
 under the present law. Our city schools demand a higher grade of teachers 
 than our rural schools. To secure a position in the grades of a city system 
 a teacher must usually be a graduate of a four-year high school course and 
 of the advanced course of a state normal (or its equivalent) and must have 
 had successful teaching experience. In striking contrast are the low stan- 
 dards set for the rural schools. At present the rural schools are generally 
 considered the training ground for city positions. 
 
 A lower standard is likewise fixed for the rural superintendent whose 
 task is vastly more difficult than that of the city superintendent with aa 
 equal number of teachers under his supervision. 
 
 Why this glaring inequality in favor of the city school? Are not the 
 country children as intelligent, interested, earnest and deserving as the 
 city children and are they not entitled to as good teachers and as efficient 
 a superintendent? There is nothing in the law compelling the city district to 
 demand trained, experienced teachers and the rural district to accept poorly 
 trained, inexperienced teachers. One primary cause is found in the way the 
 different school systems, urban and rural, are organized and administered. 
 The entire city, regardless of the number of schools, is organized as a 
 single unit; the county is composed of as many different units as there 
 are districts. Thus the thirty-eight different schools of the city of Ta- 
 coma, employing 6 30 teachers, are managed by a single board of directors; 
 the second- and third-class districts in Pierce county (rural and town, 
 outside the city) employing only 351 teachers, are managed by 99 dif- 
 ferent boards of directors. The city superintendent is chosen from any 
 city or state in the country and upon merit; the position is considered tech- 
 nical and professional; the board of directors uses the utmost care in his
 
 14 School Code Commission Report 
 
 selection. The county superintendent is chosen from one spot — the county 
 in which he resides; he is elected at the polls on a partisan ticket; the po- 
 sition is considered clerical and statistical. 
 
 At the primaries the average voter is expected to select, for a pro- 
 fessional position, a candidate of his own political party about whose real 
 fitness for the position he is generally uninformed. The city superintend- 
 ent is commissioned to organize, supervise and direct the schools under his 
 guidance; the county superintendent is authorized to collect statistics, make 
 reports, act as truant officer and apportion funds. 
 
 The opinion is widespread that the present method of selecting the 
 county superintendent of schools is radically wrong and should be changed. 
 At present, over 10,000 teaching and supervisory positions in the state of 
 Washington are filled by boards of directors elected by the people, that is, 
 on the principle of representative government. It is only when we come 
 to selecting the superintendent of the rural schools that this principle is 
 violated. If the present method of selecting the county superintendent is 
 right, why is it that, in all our best schools, the city superintendent is in- 
 variably appointed by a board of directors and not elected at the polls on a 
 partisan ticket? 
 
 The commission is of the opinion that we will have poor schools just 
 so long as political availability rather than education, training and com- 
 petency prevail in selecting our county superintendents. 
 
 II
 
 Chapter V. 
 LIMITATIONS ON THE COUNTY SUPERINTENDENCY. 
 
 No system of schools will become efficient without adequate super- 
 vision. Trained and experienced supervisors are needed to unify and direct 
 the work. This is especially true in the rural schools where the teachers 
 are youngest, both in years and experience, and in a vast number of cases, 
 lack the education and training for the task at hand. The state of Wash- 
 ington is spending millions of dollars annually in its rural schools which 
 are administered practically without supervision. Aside from the handicap 
 of partisan politics, other limitations tend to deprive the county superin- 
 tendent of those incentives which lead to ambitious endeavors. 
 
 One of these is the lack of power which the office confers. The county 
 superintendent has no power that enables him effectively to superintend 
 the schools of his county. His functions are largely neutralized by the 
 power of the directors of the local districts into which the county is di- 
 vided. He cannot direct the methods of teaching; cannot dismiss a teacher 
 for any cause whatever; cannot condemn a building because of inade- 
 quate heating, ventilating or sanitary conditions; cannot even arrange the 
 school desks or require efficient janitor work. His most important functions 
 are advisory in character. With his numerous clerical duties the task of 
 supervision which the law requires is an impossibility. At present such 
 supervision consists principally in visiting, once each year, the schools under 
 his guidance and direction, and in meeting, once each year, the teachers of 
 his county in a county institute. In the average county it would be a physi- 
 cal impossibility for the county superintendent to efficiently supervise the 
 schools. Money spent for such irregular, perfunctory and spasmodic su- 
 pervision is the grossest extravagance and accomplishes little that is worth 
 while. 
 
 Again, the salary and tenure of office which the position provides are 
 not such as to attract the degree of ability which the rural schools, above 
 all others, so greatly need. 
 
 *There are in the United States approximately 3,000 county superin- 
 tendents of schools. More than 500 of them each has supervision over the 
 work of 250 or more teachers. The average paid 3,087 county superintend- 
 ents in 1919 was $1,375, while 2,134 city superintendents, in all districts of 
 2,500 or more population, were paid on an average of $2,260. 
 
 There are thirty-nine counties in the state of Washington. During the 
 past school year there were in this state fourteen counties with from 50 to 
 250 or more teachers, and in which the county superintendent of schools 
 was paid only one-half as much salary (or less) as the city superintendent 
 at the county seat with less than one-half as many teacheis. In four of 
 these counties the county superintendent of schools was paid only one-third 
 as much as the city superintendent at the county seat with less than one- 
 half as many teachers. In ten counties the county superintendent of schools 
 was paid less salary than the city superintendent at the county seat, although 
 the county superintendent had six times as many teachers under his su- 
 pervision. In six counties the county superintendent was paid less than the 
 
 Bulletin, U. S. Bureau of Education, 1917-33.
 
 IG School Code Commission Report 
 
 city superintendent at the county seat although the county superintendent 
 had ten times as many teachers under his supervision. In one county he 
 was paid less than one-half as much although with thirteen times as many 
 teachers to supervise and direct. 
 
 The first task in promoting rural supervision lies in freeing the county 
 superintendency from its present limitations. The county superintendent 
 should be appointed by a non-partisan county board of education and the po- 
 sition taken out of politics; the salary should be increased; the tenure 
 should be based upon efficiency; and adequate clerical and supervisory help 
 should be provided. 
 
 The superiority of the appointive plan is no longer questioned. In 
 twenty-three states the county or other rural superintendents are at present 
 appointed officers. A recent (*) report of the United States Bureau of Edu- 
 cation compares the education, experience and term of service of county 
 superintendents who have been appointed with those who have been elected 
 at the polls. The results are strongly in favor of the appointive plan. For 
 instance, among the appointed county superintendents at the time the report 
 was made, 36 per cent were serving their first term and 35 per cent had 
 served two or more terms; among the elected superintendents 52 per cent 
 were serving their first term and only 19 per cent had served two or more 
 full terms. Nor did this report Include the rural superintendents of New 
 England, many of whom have served many years. As to education, among 
 the county superintendents appointed in various ways, 1.7 per cent were 
 limited to an elementary education only, while among those elected at the 
 polls approximately 8 per cent had elementary education only. Moreover, 
 of the appointed county superintendents 44 per cent had had full standard 
 college education, while among the county superintendents elected at the 
 polls less than 15 per cent were college graduates. In the New England 
 states approximately 83 per cent of the rural superintendents had had four 
 years of standard college education. 
 
 The states are gradually abandoning the plan of a county or rural 
 superintendent chosen at the polls after a political canvass. In twenty-three 
 states the county or other rural superintendents are now appointed officers; 
 in twenty-five states they are still elected political officers. 
 
 The commission believes that under the present system the country 
 children are not getting a square deal. It believes that one of the things 
 the schools most need is a profession of county superintendents divorced 
 from partisan politics, offering opportunity for effective leadership, a rea- 
 sonable salary and a prospect for promotion. After thirty-one years under 
 our present system there is no profession of county superintendents in this 
 state and no promise of such a profession. The position is of such im- 
 portance that it should offer opportunity for a life's work. 
 
 • Bulletin No. .'>, 1917, U. S. Bureau of Education.
 
 Chapter VI. 
 STATE DEPART:\tENT OF EDUCATION. 
 
 In the state of Washington there are two centralized state agencies 
 by means of which the public school system is administered. These are 
 the state board of education and the state superintendent of public in- 
 struction. 
 
 (A) THE STATE BOARD OF EDUCATIOX. 
 
 The law provides that the state board of education "shall consist of 
 the state superintendent of public instruction, the president of the Univer- 
 sity of Washington, the president of the State College of Washington, the 
 principal of one of the state normal schools elected by the principals of the 
 state normal schools, and three persons holding life diploma? issued under 
 the authority of this state and actively engaged in educational work, ap- 
 pointed by the governor, one of whom shall be a superintendent of a district 
 of the first class, one a county superintendent of schools, one a principal of 
 a fully accredited four-year high school." The superintendent of public 
 instruction is ex-officio president of the board. 
 
 The state board of education thus constituted is essentially an ex-oflicio 
 and professional organization, since a majority of the members hold their 
 positions thereon by virtue of other positions to which they have been 
 elected. According to accepted standards and the best administrative prac- 
 tice, the method at present employed in selecting the state board is open 
 to the following criticisms: 
 
 (1) As at present organized the state board of education, chosen In 
 three different ways, has no responsibility for its official acts either to 
 the people themselves or to any single branch of the state government cre- 
 ated by them. Of the four ex-officio members, the state superintendent alone 
 is directly responsible to the people, but his responsibility relates primarily 
 to other duties than those the state board is given power to exercise. The 
 remaining three ex-officio members owe direct responsibility to the trustees 
 of their respective institutions. The three appointive members owe direct 
 responsibility to the chief executive. 
 
 It would be difficult to frame a plan which more effectively annuls direct 
 responsibility either to the people themselves or to any single branch or 
 department of state government. 
 
 (2) Three of the ex-officio members of the board are the chief ex- 
 ecutive officers of state educational institutions. Permitting institutional 
 representatives to serve as members of a board which determines state 
 educational policies is contrary to sound administrative practice, since such 
 members must necessarily pass upon important measures which may easily 
 affect their own institutions. 
 
 (3) Four of the seven members of the state board are representatives 
 of secondary or higher institutions of learning. But two members are con- 
 cerned equally with elementary and secondary education. But one member. 
 the county superintendent, is concerned primarily with the rural elementary 
 school. It would seem that the elementary and rural schools, because of 
 their supreme importance, would deserve greater representation on a board 
 composed exclusively of experts in public school education.
 
 18 School Code Commission Report 
 
 (4) The best educational thought and practice demand that the state 
 superintendent should not be a member of the state board of education, 
 much less its presiding officer. 
 
 (5) Modern administrative practice calls for a "lay'" board of edu- 
 cation. The present plan is based on the theory of a state board composed 
 of "experts" in public school education. The assumption that institutional 
 heads are necessarily "experts" in the field of elementary and secondary 
 education and its administration is without foundation in fact. 
 
 (6) Experience elsewhere demonstrates that continuity of educational 
 policy and administrative efficiency are best maintained when the personnel 
 of the state board tends to remain relatively constant. A "revolving" board, 
 composed of members who enter and leave office at definite times and after 
 long periods of service, is highly desirable. At present, in this state, a 
 complete change of six of the seven members is possible within a single year. 
 
 The principal school administrative boards of the several states are 
 variously constituted. The boards composed wholly of appointed members 
 or in which the appointed members constitute a majority are most nu- 
 merous. 
 
 The most common practice is to have the members appointed by the 
 governor, thus definitely fixing responsibility for the appointees. 
 
 The United States Bureau of Education classifies state boards of edu- 
 cation, which have functions relating to the common schools, as follows: 
 Forty-two states have state boards. Of these, nine states have ex-officio 
 boards. In four other states the ex-officio members predominate. In twenty- 
 nine other states the appointed or elected members predominate. (Special 
 Report, U. S. Bureau of Education, January 3rd, 1921.) 
 
 The commission is convinced that, in the interest of greater efficiency, 
 the state board of education should be reconstituted and its powers en- 
 larged. 
 
 (B) STATE SUPERINTENDENT OP PUBLIC INSTRUCTION. 
 
 The constitution provides that the state superintendent of public in- 
 struction shall be "chosen by the qualified electors of the state at the same 
 time and place of voting as for the members 'of the legislature" for a term 
 of four years. The only qualifications required of the individual who is to 
 direct the education of the children of the state are that he must be "a citi- 
 zen of the United States and a qualified elector of this state." 
 
 No special educational qualifications are required. The state superintend- 
 ent of public instruction may not have completed the elementary grades 
 of the common schools, he may not have taught school a single day, he may 
 be ignorant of the public school system, its organization and administra- 
 tion, and yet, elected on a partisan political ticket, he is authorized "to 
 have supervision over all matters pertaining to public schools." 
 
 The practice of electing the state superintendent of public instruction 
 by popular vote, on a partisan ticket and after a political canvass, is un- 
 sound in principle and is gradually being replaced by the method of having 
 the state superintendent chosen by the state board of education. A few 
 principal arguments against the present plan are as follows: 
 
 (1) Under the existing plan the most important educational position 
 in the state is a matter of partisan politics and subject to all the vicissi- 
 tudes of a political campaign. Where election or re-election is the primary
 
 School Code Commission Report 19 
 
 object sought, as is too often the case, safe and sane educational policies 
 are modified to meet the demands of political expediency. A state super- 
 intendent of public instruction, elected at the polls on a partisan ticket, is 
 subjected to strong political pressure which must, in some degree, influence 
 his official acts. 
 
 (2) The election of the state superintendent on a partisan political 
 ticket requires not only that the choice be confined to electors of this state 
 but limited, moreover, to adherents of the dominant political party. The 
 number of individuals in this state who are adequately trained to have 
 supervision over the education of its children is small. The choice is 
 therefore limited. Washington should be privileged to select its state su- 
 perintendent without reference to state lines or political affiliations and 
 solely upon the ground of professional and expert fitness. 
 
 (3) Success on a partisan political ticket consists more in the ability 
 to direct a publicity bureau and conduct a political campaign than in the 
 ability to organize, supervise, direct and administer a system of schools. 
 Success at the polls bears little or no relation to ability in educational work. 
 
 (4) The constitution provides that the salary of the state superin- 
 tendent shall be a fixed sum which shall not be increased or diminished dur- 
 ing the term for which he is elected. The present salary ($3,000) is lower 
 than is paid in a number of mediocre educational positions in this state and 
 is not sufficient to command high-class efficient service. Moreover, the pro- 
 vision that the salary cannot be changed during a period of four years 
 neeessarilj^ further limits the choice of individuals for this highly im- 
 portant post. 
 
 (5) Under the law in this state the only educational qualification 
 required of the superintendent of public instruction is that he shall be a 
 "qualified elector of this state"; that is, he "must be able to read and speak 
 the English language." On the other hand, the assistant superintendent of 
 public instruction and the deputy superintendent of public instruction, both 
 of which positions are appointive, must each "be the holder of not less than 
 a first-grade certificate." They must also have had successful teaching ex- 
 perience. 
 
 The practice of requiring assistants and deputies to be qualified and 
 experienced educators and to exempt the head of the department of edu- 
 cation from any such qualifications whatever is not only illogical and absurd 
 but at once stamps the position of state superintendent of public instruction 
 as primarily political and the plan of popular election as intimately bound 
 up with the "spoils system" of politics. 
 
 (6) The state superintendent of public instruction should be the 
 technical expert of the state board of education just as the president of the 
 state university is the technical expert of the board of regents or the gen- 
 eral manager or superintendent is the technical expert of the board of di- 
 rectors of a business corporation. There is no more reason for selecting 
 the state superintendent of public instruction at the polls than there is for 
 selecting the president of our state university in the same way. 
 
 State superintendents are variously chosen. *In thirty-one states they 
 are elected by popular vote. In seventeen states they are appointed. The 
 modern trend is towards a state board of education and an appointed state 
 
 * Bulletin, 1919, No. 4; U. S. Bureau of Education.
 
 20 School Code Commission Report 
 
 superintendent. In 1919 three states, Minnesota, Delaware and New Hamp- 
 shire, provided that the state superintendent should be chosen by the state 
 board of education. 
 
 The commission believes that the state superintendent should be chosen 
 by a state board of education removed as far as possible from partisan poli- 
 tics. He should be chosen without regard to state lines, should be well 
 endowed and thoroughly trained and experienced in the field of public edu- 
 cation and under its direction he should inspect, supervise and administer 
 public education. 
 
 i ■
 
 Chaptee VII. 
 THE LARGER UNIT. 
 
 Democracy in education means equality of educational opportunity 
 for all children, rural as well as urban. Under the district system this is 
 an impossibility. No one will argue that ihe boys and girls who live in 
 the country and who attend the rural district schools are receiving the 
 same efficient instruction and thorough education as boys and girls who at- 
 tend our village and city schools. They are not provided with teachers of 
 equal education and training nor with educational aids and facilities in any 
 respect equal to those found in our urban centers. How long will the state 
 of Washington continue to penalize and handicap the farmer's children for 
 sticking to the farm? 
 
 There are at present in Washington two school systems — a city system 
 and a rural (district) system. The district system, such as prevails in this 
 state, long ago proved itself inefficient and has been abandoned by all of 
 our cities and by a large number of states. The general plan of administer- 
 ing city schools is the same in all the states. They are organized and ad- 
 ministered as a single unit under a single board and no city thinks of re- 
 turning to the obsolete district system. 
 
 The first step in bettering conditions in our rural schools lies in en- 
 larging the administrative and taxing unit, in apportioning the funds of 
 this large unit or district according to needs, and in providing efficient busi- 
 ness management and expert supervision for all schools alike within the 
 district. On this point there is unanimous agreement not only among the 
 leading educators of Washington, but universally throughout the United 
 States. The plan is simple, democratic, thoroughly in harmony with sound 
 administrative principles, and has been so thoroughly tested in both rural 
 and city schools as to command the support of thoughtful persons every- 
 where. At present there is a strong tendency in all states having the dis- 
 trict system in favor of the larger unit. 
 
 A NATIONAL OBLIGATION. 
 
 Herbert Hoover. 
 The Nation, as a whole, has the obligation of such measures 
 toward its children, as a whole, as will yield to them an equal 
 opportunity at their start in life. This responsibility and duty is 
 not based alone upon human aspirations, but it is also based on 
 the necessity to secure physical, mental and moral health, economic 
 and social progress by the Nation. Every child delinquent in body, 
 education, or character, is a charge upon the community as a whole 
 and a menace to the community itself. The children of strong 
 physique, of sound education and character, are the army with 
 which we must march to progress.
 
 22 School Code Commission Report 
 
 (A) TYPES OF THE LARGER UNIT. 
 
 By "the larger unit" of organization and administration is meant the 
 territory, made up of two or more smaller districts, in which are found the 
 schools constituting one system and under the direct management and con- 
 trol of a single board. Three distinct types of "the larger unit" are at 
 present found in various states. These are the town, the townsliip and the 
 county, and may be described in general terms as follows: 
 
 The town unit is the type of school organization found in the New 
 England states. All the schools in the town (answering to the township in 
 other states) are under the direction and control of a single board of di- 
 rectors of from three to nine members, elected by the voters or appointed, 
 and known as the "town-school committee." A uniform tax is laid on all 
 property in the town, collected and expended by this committee according 
 to the needs of the various schools. The committee has full power to em- 
 ploy teachers, principals, supervisors and superintendents, to establish new 
 schools, to close small schools and transport the pupils to the other schools. 
 Cities and incorporated towns are usually a part of the town system. 
 
 Under the township unit all the schools of the township are managed 
 and controlled by a single trustee or a board of directors elected by the 
 people. Pennsylvania and Indiana are types. All schools in the town- 
 ship, outside of cities and incorporated towns and villages, are maintained 
 in part by a uniform tax levied on the township and expended by the board 
 of directors according to the needs of the individual schools. The powers 
 and duties of the board of directors are similar to those of the town school 
 committee. The township unit has been tried and abandoned in several 
 states — usually for a larger unit. Tennessee and Ohio are examples of 
 states which have abandoned the township for the county unit. 
 
 Under the county unit all the schools of the county, omitting generally 
 cities of the first-class, are managed and controlled by a single elective or 
 appointive county board of education. Maryland, Tennessee and Utah are 
 types. The county unit is known as the county school district. A uni- 
 form tax is assessed against all property in the county school district and 
 used by the county board of directors in maintaining the schools. The 
 county board of directors appoints the county superintendent without re- 
 gard to residence or politics and on merit alone, determines his term of 
 office and salary, and, upon the recommendation of the county superintend- 
 ent, appoints teachers, supervisors and principals, and determines their 
 duties and salaries, locates, builds and equips schools wherever necessary, 
 and in general exercises the powers and duties of boards of directors in 
 city districts. 
 
 Of the above "larger units" the county unit has most to commend it 
 and has met with the greatest favor especially in states where the county 
 is the unit of local civil government. In thirty-nine states the county is 
 already the unit of local supervision. In 1914 the state superintendents in 
 their annual meeting at St. Paul adopted a resolution in favor of the county 
 unit. In no instance has a state trying the county unit ever returned to 
 the district, town or township system. 
 
 The commission believes that the schools in each county, outside of 
 districts of the first, second and third class (population over 1,500) should
 
 School Code Commission Report 23 
 
 be organized and administered as a single unit known as the county school 
 district. Some of the advantages of the proposed plan are as follows: 
 
 B. ADVANTAGES OP THE COUNTY UNIT. 
 
 (1) Equalizes educational opportunity by apportioning the funds of 
 the county school district to each school according to its needs. 
 
 (2) Equalizes educational opportunity by providing a superintendent 
 for the rural schools who is selected solely on the grounds of 
 education, training and successful experience. 
 
 (3) Equalizes educational opportunity by providing for efficient 
 supervision of the rural schools. 
 
 (4) Guarantees to each child in the county school district that which 
 rightfully belongs to him — an equal number of days' school- 
 ing with every other child. 
 
 (5) Equalizes the burden of school support by providing a uniform 
 tax levy for the entire county school district. The big district 
 and the little district, the rich land and the poor land, are all 
 taxed uniformly. 
 
 (6) Abolishes the present system whereby, because of purely arbi- 
 trary boundary lines, a large and prosperous district with few 
 pupils pays a small school tax while small and poor districts are 
 compelled to pay a large tax. 
 
 (7) Favored districts which, under the present pernicious plan, 
 escape with little or no taxation will be compelled to pay their 
 just share for the support of the schools. 
 
 (8) Eliminates partisan politics and local residence in selecting the 
 most important school official in the county — the county super- 
 intendent of schools. 
 
 (9) Favors the consolidated, graded, equipped, and supervised rural 
 school. Consolidation has made the greatest progress in states 
 with the township or county system. 
 
 (10) Permits the wholesale buying of school supplies and the elimina- 
 tion of expensive small-unit business transactions. 
 
 (11) Enables every county to establish and maintain a good system 
 of schools. 
 
 (12) Stops forever the dispute about boundary lines and eliminates 
 petty neighborhood dissensions. 
 
 (13) Provides for better teachers and a longer tenure. The average 
 school director has no standards by which to judge the applicant 
 for a teaching position. 
 
 (14) Produces a greater return for every dollar expended. 
 
 (15) Groups both the burden and advantages of education on a large 
 scale and provides a comprehensive and efficient plan for the 
 whole country.
 
 Chapter VIII. 
 REFORMATORY AND SPECIAL INSTITUTIONS. 
 
 The state of Washington has provided for the following reformatory 
 and special institutions: The Training School for Boys at Chehalis; the 
 Training School for Girls at Grand Mound; the School for the Deaf and the 
 School for the Blind at Vancouver, and the Custodial School at Medical 
 Lake. These institutions are primarily educational and custodial. They 
 are designed to provide temporary or permanent care and educational fa- 
 cilities for such delinquents and defectives as are socially, mentally and 
 physically irresponsible. The custodial school is overcrowded and con- 
 gested and is unable to meet the demands made upon it. Increased facilities 
 are needed either at Medical Lake or at some point west of the mountains 
 and nearer the center of population. A rational constructive program should 
 be formulated for the care and training of the delinquent and defective 
 children of the state. The minimum requirements for this important task 
 would be as follows: 
 
 (1) The educational work of this group of institutions should be 
 placed under the supervision of the state department of education. A 
 special division should be created for the purpose of directing and super- 
 vising this instruction. 
 
 (2) A central clinical bureau should be established with facilities 
 for the physical and mental diagnosis and classification of delinquents and 
 defectives committed to the training and custodial schools. Such bureau 
 should be in charge of a clinical psychologist and educator who has had 
 training and experience in the mental and physical diagnosis, social care and 
 educational treatment, of backward, defective, feeble-minded and delinquent 
 children. 
 
 (3) Such bureau should serve as a clearing house in segregating de- 
 linquents and defectives and should advise and recommend as to their 
 hygienic and social care and education. 
 
 (4) Such bureau should be a public service institution. It sliould 
 assist the juvenile courts in determining the mental capacity and responsi- 
 bility of special classes; should aid the public schools to diagnose and classify 
 abnormal children; should advise with probation officers and police courts; 
 and should co-ordinate the work of all agencies now concerned with special 
 classes of delinquent, defective and dependent children and youth. 
 
 (5) This bureau should be affiliated with the state department of 
 education. Such a program would net an investment vastly in excess of 
 the haphazard plan now in vogue. Until such central bureau can be pro- 
 vided a clinical psychologist and educator should at least be provided for 
 the custodial school.
 
 Chapter IX. 
 
 FINANCIAL SUPPORT AND EDUCATIONAL 
 OPPORTUNITY. 
 
 The lessening of the purchasing power of money and the correspond- 
 ing increase in the cost of all commodities have vitally affected the opera- 
 tion of the public schools of the state and nation. The general progress of 
 civilization and the greater demand on the character of education call for 
 different and better schools, more and better qualified instructors, more 
 diversified equipment and supplies, and make a greater demand upon the 
 taxpayers than ever before in their history. There was a time when it seemed 
 proper to devote a small proportionate amount of the public funds to edu- 
 cation, but this has been changed and we must now pay for the type of citi- 
 zenship we would have in the future. 
 
 A. FINDS NOW RAISED FOR EDUCATIOX. 
 
 Up to the present time funds for the common schools of the state have 
 been derived from the following sources: 
 
 (1) Interest and other income from the permanent school fund, sup- 
 plemented by a state tax sufficient to produce a sum equal to $10 per child 
 of school age residing within the state. For the year 1919-20 this amounted 
 to $3,634,997.20 and was equivalent to $17.10 for every pupil in average 
 daily attendance. 
 
 (2) From a county tax to produce a sum equal to $10 per child of 
 school age residing within the county. For the year 1919-20 this amounted 
 to $3,593,564.77 and was equivalent to $16.92 for every pupil in average 
 daily attendance. 
 
 (3) From special district taxes levied upon all the property in the 
 separate school districts, not, however, exceeding ten (10) mills of the as- 
 sessed valuation, except by a vote of the electors, when it may be increased to 
 twenty (20) mills. For the year 1919-20 this sum for all the local districts 
 amounted to $10,567,687 and was equivalent to $49.76 for every pupil in 
 average daily attendance. 
 
 The total amount from these three sources was $17,796,248.97 and was 
 equivalent to $83.78 for every pupil in average daily attendance. 
 
 For comparison we find that in 1909-10 the state contributed $2,625,823 
 or $16.82; the county $1,695,144 or $10.86; and the local districts $4,284,- 
 623 or $27.45; making the total from all sources $8,605,590 or $55.13 for 
 every pupil in average daily attendance. 
 
 The greater demand for school funds was recognized by the legislature 
 at the special session held in March, 19 20, when it increased the amount 
 which should be contributed by the state from $10 to $20 per child of school 
 age, but even with this additional aid few of the districts in the state are 
 enabled to operate without recourse to special elections and asking the 
 voters to permit levies beyond the ten mills (10) authorized by the statute. 
 
 B. INEQUALITY OF PRESENT SYSTEM. 
 
 While there is a demand for more money for education, there is no 
 doubt that the present methods of raising and apportioning the funds have 
 much to do with the unequal opportunities afforded the children of the state
 
 26 School Code Commission Report 
 
 to gain that education. Under the present system of taxation there are 
 school districts which, either because of a larger amount of wealth and a 
 greater extent of territory within their boundaries, or because of small 
 school population, are enabled to provide modern buildings, pay good sal- 
 aries and maintain efficient schools and yet escape with little or no local 
 tax levy, while adjoining districts without this wealth and property must 
 tax themselves to the utmost limit and then can only inadequately provide 
 for the children in their districts. 
 
 It is really amazing to note the difference in the matter of valuation and 
 taxation in different parts of the state. For instance, we have a valuation 
 per pupil in average daily attendance in counties, as follows: 
 
 Franklin County $12,670 Kitsap County $1,652 
 
 Adams County 12,630 Island County 2,110 
 
 Skamania County 11,800 Stevens County 2,692 
 
 Grant County 10,290 Whitman County 2,905 
 
 Valuations per teacher vary as follows: 
 
 Adam.s County $171,200 Island County 541,080 
 
 Franklin County 166,400 Wahkiakum County. . 47,900 
 
 King County 141,900 Okanogan County 48,750 
 
 And tax levies as follows: 
 
 Kitsap County 24.42 mills JefL'er.son County 10.19 mills 
 
 Stevens County 22.66 mills Columbia County 11.25 mills 
 
 Snohomish County 21.67 mills Clallam County 10.58 mills 
 
 In different districts in the state the disparity is greater than the 
 county averages. For instance, district 86 in Adams county has a valuation 
 of $286,440 and an average daily attendance of only four (4) pupils, while 
 in district 69 of Cowlitz county the valuation is only $21,940 and an average 
 daily attendance of twenty-four (24) pupils; the valuation on average dally 
 attendance being in one district over $70,000 per pupil and in the other under 
 $1,000 per pupil. Again, in district 57, in Lincoln county, which has a one- 
 teacher school, the assessed valuation is only $18,218, while district 101 in 
 the same county, which has also a one-teacher school, has an assessed valua- 
 tion of $657,280, or thirty-five (35) times as much as In the other district. 
 There are twontj^-one (21) districts in the state which are levying a one-mill 
 tax, or less, sixty-nine (69) districts levying not more than a two-mill tax, 
 and on the other hand, there are one hundred eighty-eight (188) districts in 
 the state which are levying twenty (20) mills and over. 
 
 These high and low valuations and the high and low tax levies are re- 
 flected, not only in the unequal opportunities for education afforded the 
 children, but to a great extent also. In the unequal cost of education in differ- 
 ent parts of the state. For instance, the cost per pupil in average daily at- 
 tendance for eight different counties was as follows: 
 
 Franklin County $121.82 Kitsap County $49.19 
 
 Grant County 118.94 I.sland County 53.82 
 
 King County 103.61 Stevens County 61.03 
 
 Skamania County 103.29 Asotin County 62.28 
 
 And in eight different local districts the cost per pupil in average daily 
 attendance was as follows: 
 
 No. 117 Grant County $918.10 No. 21 "V^'ahkiakum County. . $27.57 
 
 No. 25 Franklin County... 845.75 No. 51 Stevens County 28.21 
 
 No. 2 Lincoln County 573.75 No. 21 San Juan County 28.30 
 
 No. 42 Walla Walla Co 569.10 No. 29 Kitsap County 29.36
 
 School Code Commission Report 27 
 
 Because of purely arbitrary boundary lines and varying wealth why 
 should one district have a low tax levy, spend a large amount for its schools 
 and provide lavishly for the children within its borders, while a neighboring 
 district, because of these same arbitrary boundary lines and less wealth, 
 is called upon to pay a high tax levy and yet have only sufficient funds to 
 maintain a poor school? The contrast between wealthy districts with good 
 schools and poorer districts with scarcely any support is too great. It is a 
 condition that prevails generally throughout the state and should be 
 remedied. 
 
 OBLIGATION OF SOCIETY. 
 
 William C. Bagley. 
 Society cannot insure to every child a good home, a devoted 
 and intelligent mother, and a wise and provident father, but society 
 can insure to every child a good school and a competent teacher. 
 This is by all odds the most direct and effective channel through 
 which the forces of social control can operate. To provide these 
 advantages is by all odds the most serious of social obligations 
 Furthermore, by making such provisions now, the proportion of 
 good homes and wise and provident parents will be vastly increased 
 in succeeding generations. Investment at this point will not only 
 return large dividends in the immediate future; the interest will 
 be compounded at a rate unparalleled by any conceivable form of 
 material investment. 
 
 C. HOW CONDITIONS MAY BE REMEDIED. 
 
 What remedies can be suggested that will overcome the present inequal- 
 ity in acquiring the funds for the common schools and give greater and more 
 nearly equal educational opportunities to all the children of the state? 
 
 (1) A more equitable system of taxation that will not only be spread 
 upon the property now upon the assessment rolls, but upon other property 
 or forms of wealth which is now escaping its just share of the cost of edu- 
 cation and other burdens of state. While the commission does not con- 
 sider this as one of its problems, it does feel that measures to this end 
 should be considered by the legislature. 
 
 (2) Raising a larger portion of the cost of education by a tax levied 
 equally upon all the property within the state. By constitutional enactment 
 the state guarantees to all the children of the state an equal opportunity 
 for education, but because of the difference in value of property, this is 
 impossible when the funds are raised in the several school districts. In 
 1909-10 the state contributed $16.82 per pupil or 30.5 per cent of the total 
 amount of $55.13 per pupil paid for education in the common schools; in 
 1919-20 the state contributed $17.10 per pupil or 20.4 per cent of the total
 
 28 School Code Commission Report 
 
 amount of $83.78 paid for education in the common schools. With $20 
 per census child this would have made $34.20 per pupil or 41 per cent of the 
 total for 1919-20. This amount and percentage will not hold good, how- 
 ever, for the year 1920-21, because the cost of the schools for the present 
 year, as shown by the estimates of the different districts, will approximate 
 $100 per pupil. On this basis the contribution from the state would be the 
 same, viz.: $34.20 per pupil, but only 34.2 per cent of the total cost of the 
 schools. $30 per census child would yield about 50 per cent under the 
 present cost of operation. 
 
 (3) By apportioning the money derived from the state not only upon 
 the basis of attendance, but also upon the basis of teachers. Last year there 
 were two hundred fifty-two (252) schools with five pupils or less and there 
 will always be schools where the attendance will be small, but because of the 
 small attendance they should not be deprived of having a good teacher and 
 the pupils of having the opportunity to acquire a good education. The appor- 
 tionment upon teacher basis more nearly guarantees a good school. The 
 county fund is now apportioned two-thirds on the basis of attendance and 
 one-third on teacher basis, and the apportionment of a share of the state 
 fund the same way will give a more nearly equal opportunity to the pupils 
 in the small schools of the state. 
 
 (4) Changing the method of administration in the smaller districts 
 of the state by placing them under the control of a county board which 
 would have charge of all the schools in the county except those in the larger 
 cities. Take for instance, King county; here we have twenty-two districts 
 levying a tax of twenty mills or more and seventeen districts levying a tax 
 of five mills or less; in one district the tax was only two mills while another 
 district which was connected with a union high school, paid a thirty-nine mill 
 tax. Under a larger district plan there would have been no district or 
 locality levying a high millage tax on a low valuation and no district or lo- 
 cality levying a low millage tax on a high valuation, because the tax would 
 be spread over all the districts and a nine-mill tax would have produced all 
 the money expended in this enlarged county district last year. This plan of 
 administration and taxation would certainly effect a great saving in the pur- 
 chase and distribution of supplies, would standardize many phases of school 
 work, and even though all the smaller schools were continued, would re- 
 sult in better schools, better supervision, better teachers, longer tenure for 
 teachers, better opportunity for the pupils and would place all the schools 
 in the state upon a higher standard of efficiency. 
 
 ( 5 ) By increasing the statutory provision of levying taxes in the local 
 district from ten to fifteen mills on the assessed valuation. Under" the pres- 
 ent laws nearly all districts are required to hold special elections for 
 authority to levy beyond the ten mills, and even though greater state aid 
 is provided, it will undoubtedly be necessary for many districts to levy 
 more than ten mills to continue their schools upon the present basis. 
 
 I
 
 Chapter X. 
 RECOMMENDATIONS. 
 
 In view of the above findings the commission submits the following 
 recommendations: 
 
 (A) COUNTY AND DISTRICT SCHOOL ADMINISTRATION. 
 
 First: That the county and district school administration be reorgan- 
 ized to provide: 
 
 (1) That each county outside of the districts containing cities of the 
 first, second or third class (population over 1,500), employing twenty- 
 five teachers and a superintendent, be organized for educational purposes as 
 a single unit known as the county school district. 
 
 (2) That districts containing first, second or third class Cities (popu- 
 lation over 1,500) shall be first class districts with the option of becoming 
 a part of the county school district. 
 
 (3) That in each county a county board of education of five mem- 
 bers be elected from as many sections of the county with power to appoint 
 a superintendent of the county school district, who shall also perform the 
 duties now assigned to the county superintendent of schools. 
 
 (4) That the county board of education provide, at the county seat, 
 adequate office room, clerical and supervisory assistants. 
 
 (5) That all present school districts that do not contain cities of the 
 first, second or third class (population over 1,500) shall become sub-districts 
 with one or more appointed sub-district trustees with well defined powers. 
 
 (6) That as far as practicable, there be uniformity in the matter of 
 elections, taxation, distribution of funds, the powers of boards and super- 
 intendents, the selection of teachers and business management for first class 
 districts and for the county school districts. 
 
 (B) STATE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION. 
 
 Second: That the state department of education be reorganized to 
 provide: 
 
 (1) A State Board of Education of seven lay members to be appointed 
 by the Governor for terms of seven years, said board to have legislative and 
 judicial powers in educational matters as provided by law. 
 
 (2) A State Superintendent of Public Instruction appointed by the 
 State Board of Education without restriction as to place of residence or 
 political affiliation and for such term and for such salary as the board may 
 determine. 
 
 (3) A state department with adequate supervisory divisions to com- 
 pletely cover the field of educational effort. 
 
 (C) FINANCIAL, SUPPORT. 
 
 Third: That legislation be enacted to provide: 
 
 (1) That a larger per cent of the cost of common school education 
 be raised by a state-wide tax. 
 
 (2) That the state school funds and the county school funds be appor- 
 tioned one-half on the basis of teachers and one-half on the basis of attend-
 
 30 School Code Commission Report 
 
 ance, the attendance of all pupils in high school to be counted as one and 
 one-half times the actual attendance. 
 
 (3) That all the school districts in each county, except those in cities 
 of the first class and other cities containing a greater population than 1,500, 
 be administered as one county school district, and the funds for the opera- 
 tion of all the schools in this district be levied equally upon all the prop- 
 erty within this district. 
 
 (4) That school districts be allowed to levy up to fifteen (15) mills 
 of the assessed valuation of the property within the district for current 
 expense, instead of up to ten (10) mills as now authorized, 3 mills of which 
 must be used for sites, buildings and equipment. 
 
 In formulating bills to meet the above recommendations, the Commis- 
 sion has provided for a minimum school term, parental schools, building 
 requirements, health education, classification of defectives, free text books 
 and other matters of school administration.
 
 Chapter XI. 
 
 Statement by Dr. Ellwodd P. Cubberley, Who Acted as Adviser and Critic in 
 
 the Consideration of the Preliminary Report of the Commission 
 
 and in the Formulation of the General Plan of the 
 
 Changes in the School Code. 
 
 Stanford University, California, December 10, 1920. 
 Senator W. J. Sutton, Chairman Educational Code Commission, Cneney, 
 Washington. 
 
 Dear Sir: In compliance with your request that I put in writing my 
 impressions as to the work of the Educational Code Commission, I take 
 pleasure in herewith stating: 
 
 That I spent approximately ten days with your Commission in council 
 on the School Code, in the discussion of right principles of action, in the 
 formulation of conclusions, and in conference with prominent school officials 
 and citizens of your state. I have also studied carefully your existing School 
 Code, and am familiar with the history and development of your state's 
 school system. 
 
 My conclusion is that the revised School Code, as you had worked it 
 out and we amended and changed its details in conference, represents both 
 a possible and a very desirable advance in educational finance and organ- 
 ization for your state, and should be accepted by the people and the legis- 
 lature and enacted into law. I was impressed, in the numerous conferences 
 with your Commission, with the care you had taken to secure accurate data 
 upon which to base your recommendations, the moderation and good sense 
 which your proposals embodied, and the absence of personal considerations 
 in the proposals for changes. It has seldom been my pleasure to work with 
 a body of citizens interested so singly in what Avas best for the children of 
 a state. 
 
 The conclusions we have all arrived at seem to me to be thoroughly 
 sound, and in keeping with the best of our American state school adminis- 
 trative experience. The State Board of Education you have provided for 
 could not be arranged for in a better way, its powers and duties are well 
 assigned, the plan is capable of expansion as the future needs of the state 
 may require, and it puts your state educational organization, for the first 
 time in your history, on an educational instead of a political footing. With 
 no reference to persons, the best experience and the best theory alike require 
 that a state board of education, when created, be permitted to select its 
 chief executive officer instead of having this person elected by the people. 
 In providing for an efficient State Department of Education you are pro- 
 viding an organization that will render service to the people and children 
 of this state to an extent that will make its small excess cost seem insig- 
 nificant. 
 
 The most far-reaching and fundamental and important change in organ- 
 ization proposed in your new code is the plan to substitute the county unit 
 for town and rural-school administration for the long-outgrown district 
 system. This will mean the reduction of the number of school districts, out- 
 side of the cities which would continue as they are, from approximately* 
 2,500 to 39; that is, one for each county, while the total of all districts 
 including cities would be under 100. One County Board of Education to be
 
 32 School Code Commission Report 
 
 elected by the people, exactly analogous to a City Board of Education for a 
 city, would then supplant the dozens, or hundreds of little district boards 
 in each county; it would employ an educational expert as county school 
 superintendent, as do the cities a city school superintendent, to organize 
 and supervise the schools of the county school district; and the whole 
 organization, employment of teachers, contracting for supplies, erection of 
 buildings, and supervision of instruction would be managed with the unified 
 needs of the county as a whole in mind, instead of, as now, with no unity 
 of purpose or economy of funds. Such a change in rural-school organiza- 
 tion is no untried or theoretical plan, but is now in successful operation in 
 a number of our American states. In Utah, Maryland and Georgia it has 
 been remarkably successful. Everywhere it has resulted both in economy 
 in operation and an increase in efficiency, and it offers the only plan under 
 which boys and girls living in rural communities may be given a square 
 deal in the matter of education. It equalizes both the opportunity for and 
 the cost of education as can no other administrative plan; gradually elimi- 
 nates small and unnecessary and expensive schools, and builds up large and 
 better schools; and would soon save your state educational funds now wasted 
 that could be spent in improving the education of country boys and girls. 
 
 In the matter of equalizing the burden of taxation for education, to 
 which you have given long and careful statistical study, the revised plan of 
 taxation and apportionment which you propose could hardly be improved 
 upon. Education is 'primarily a business of the state, and the most thor- 
 oughly just plan for support would be that, up to a certain high level, all 
 education should be maintained by a state tax. In your state your state 
 support, as the tables and graphs show, has been too small, and in conse- 
 quence the local burden imposed on householders and farmers has in many 
 cases been excessive. Extremes of 1 and 2 mills on the one hand for good 
 schools, and 25 to 42 mills on some territory and often for relatively poor 
 schools, are unjust and not in the interests of the welfare cf a state. An 
 increase of the state tax from $20.00 to $30.00 per census child, as the 
 figures show, would result in but a small increase of the state tax on all 
 and a very great reduction of the local tax for schools for many. The total 
 amount paid for education would not be increased — in fact, the county unit 
 for school administration, by pooling costs over a whole county, will result 
 in an actual reduction of costs — but the burdens for school maintenance 
 would be far better distributed and equalized than now. This would be 
 fair to all, and after all a matter of simple justice, and what is both fair 
 and just and at the same time will insure for better schools without mate- 
 rially increasing costs anywhere ought to be accepted gladly by the people 
 of a state. By revising the basis of apportionment used for the state money, 
 to make it correspond with the better plan used in distributing the county 
 school tax, as you have done, and by using the counties and cities as units 
 for the distribution instead of the little school districts, the result will be 
 that even the cities will get back nearly all the increase they pay, and have 
 their local school taxes correspondingly reduced. 
 
 I hope the legislature may accept without serious difficulty the impor- 
 tant and thoroughly fundamental work you have done. 
 
 Very sincerely yours, 
 
 ELLWOOD P. CUBBERLEY. 
 Dean of the School of Education, Stanford University, California. 
 
 i
 
 School Code Comtnission Report 33 
 
 statement Made by Dr. George D. Strayer, Professor of Educational 
 Adniinisti-ation, Teachers' College, Columbia University. 
 
 January 12, 1921. 
 
 "I have read with a great deal of interest the report of the Public 
 School Administrative Code Commission, a copy of which you so kindly sent 
 to me. I find myself in heartiest agreement with the recommendations there 
 made. If Washington is to have the advantage of an adequate administra- 
 tion of her public schools the changes recommended with reference to the 
 constitution of the State Board of Education, the selection of state and 
 county superintendents, and the abandoning of the district school system 
 should be carried into effect at the earliest possible moment. In like man- 
 ner, the inequalities arising from the present system of financing education 
 can be met best in the manner suggested in this report. 
 
 "I think the State of Washington is very fortunate in having prepared 
 for the consideration of the Legislature a report which is so sound and so 
 adequate." 
 
 Statement by Dr. Leonard P. Ayers, Former Head Educational Bureau, 
 Russell Sage Foundation, New York. 
 
 January 3, 1921. 
 "I have carefully read the manuscript of the preliminary report of the 
 Public School Administrative Code Commission and I am convinced that 
 this body has done an unusually good piece of investigation and reached 
 sound and sagacious conclusions. I find myself in thorough accord with all 
 of the main recommendations of the report and with most of its details. In 
 those minor matters in which my own judgment diverges from that ex- 
 pressed by the Commission I am prepared to believe that this lack of com- 
 plete accord is caused by my relatively slight knowledge of local conditions 
 in different sections of your state. I am sure if the recommendations of 
 the Commission are followed the schools of the state will benefit greatly by 
 the changes that will ensue." 
 
 Statement Made by Dr. J. F. Bobbitt, Professor of Educational Administra- 
 tion, University of Chicago. 
 
 "I have just read with care the report of your Public School Adminis- 
 trative Code Commission. Its major recommendations are without excep- 
 tion exactly in line with the best current practice in our most progressive 
 states. Naturally, it therefore complies with the administrative theory of 
 state school organization and administration. 
 
 "There can be no doubt that state and county organization and admin- 
 istration 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 appoint- 
 ment by this board, whether county or state, of a specially qualified super- 
 intendent at a salary and for a term determined not by statute but by the 
 board itself; and still following the plan of the large city levying taxes upon 
 all the wealth of the territorial area without regard to local concentration 
 of wealth for the common good of all the children of the entire area. 
 
 "These matters are well reduced to detail in the specific recommenda- 
 tions at the close of the Commission's report. 
 
 "The state is to be highly congratulated if it makes the advances therein 
 recommended." 
 
 — 2
 
 Chapter XII. 
 
 statements by Prominent Educators on the Question of the Larger Unit 
 lor Administration and the Form That Such Unit Should Be. 
 
 Do you 
 
 favor the 
 
 "larger 
 
 unit"? 
 
 ( 1 ) P. P. Claxton Yes. 
 
 U. S. Commissioner of Education, Washington. 
 
 (2) Henry Suzzallo. 
 
 President State University of Wasliington. 
 
 "One of the most constructive documents I liave 
 ever seen on the organization of a state scliool 
 system." (Seattle Times, Dec. 17, 1920.) 
 
 (3) E. O. Holland. 
 
 President State College, Pullman, Washington. 
 
 "If we are to make progress in this state we must 
 organize in larger educational and fiscal units." 
 
 ( 4 ) Frederick E. Bolton Yes. 
 
 Dean of Education, University of Washington. 
 
 "Heartily commend the Commission's Report." 
 
 ( 5 ) A. A. Cleveland Yes. 
 
 Department of Education, State College of Wash- 
 ington. 
 
 "The larger unit would give the smaller and 
 more remote communities the benefit of expert 
 educational leadership and much better schools." 
 
 ( 6 ) G. W. Nash Yes. 
 
 President State Normal, Bellingham, Washington. 
 
 ( 7 ) George H. Black Yes. 
 
 President State Normal School, Ellensburg, Wash. 
 
 "I believe the recommendations of the Commis- 
 sion, insofar as I have been able to interpret 
 them, are good and scarcely debatable." 
 
 (8) N. D. Showalter. 
 
 President State Normal, Cheney, Washington. 
 
 "I am well pleased with the report of the Public 
 School Code Commission." 
 
 ( 9 ) A. C. Roberts Yes. 
 
 President State Normal School, Chehalis, Wash. 
 
 ( 10 ) W. C. Wood Yes. 
 
 State Superintendent of Schools of California. 
 
 (11) 
 
 (12) 
 
 J. A. Churchill. 
 
 State Superintendent of Schools of Oregon. 
 
 "I am in favor of the larger unit, and here in 
 Oregon prefer the County Unit." 
 
 Ethel Redfield 
 
 State Superintendent of Schools of Idaho. 
 
 Yes. 
 
 (13) May Trumper Yes. 
 
 State Superintendent of Schools of Montana. 
 
 "The only system which will adjust the great in- 
 equalities in the opportunities of the children 
 and at the same time be fair to the taxpayers." 
 
 Town- 
 ship 
 or 
 County 
 
 County. 
 
 County. 
 
 County. 
 
 County. 
 County. 
 
 County. 
 County. 
 
 County. 
 County.
 
 School Code Commission Report 
 
 Do you 
 
 favor the 
 
 "larger 
 
 unit"? 
 
 (14) Edith K. O. Clark Yes. 
 
 State Superintendent of Schools of Wyoming. 
 
 "Sentiment is growing in its favor.' 
 
 (15) Mar J' C. Bradford. 
 
 State Superintendent of Schools of Colorado. 
 
 "We believe the County Unit is our most vital 
 need." 
 
 ( 16 ) Samuel A. Baker Yes. 
 
 State Superintendent of Schools of Missouri. 
 
 (17) J. L. Bond Yes. 
 
 State Superintendent of Schools of Arkansas. 
 
 (18 ) J. M. McConnell Yes. 
 
 State Commissioner of Education of Minnesota. 
 
 (19) Thomas Finnegan Yes. 
 
 State Superintendent of Schools of Pennsylvania. 
 
 (20) Payson Smith. 
 
 State Commissioner of Education of Massachusetts. 
 
 "Under the conditions obtaining in Washington 
 
 it is my belief that the county is the most accep- 
 
 able local unit. There is a very strong tendency 
 
 in the direction of the larger unit." 
 
 (21) Annie Webb Blanton. 
 
 State Superintendent of Schools of Texas. 
 
 "I am recommending that the county be made 
 the unit." 
 
 (22) L. A. Kalbach. 
 
 Acting Clerk U. S. Bureau of Education, Wash- 
 ington, D. C. 
 "The Bureau of Education recommends the 
 county unit plan of school administration." 
 
 (23) Henry W. Holmes Yes. 
 
 Dean Graduate School of Education, Harvard Uni- 
 versity. 
 
 "The larger unit has every advantage and no 
 disadvantages that cannot be overcome by a 
 little forethought." 
 
 (24) F. E. Spaulding Yes. 
 
 Dean of Education, Yale University. 
 
 "A strong tendency in favor of the larger unit." 
 
 (25) Harlan Updegraff Yes. 
 
 Professor Educational Administration, University of 
 
 Pennsylvania. 
 "Present tendency is in favor of the larger unit." 
 
 (26) Mabel Carney, Most decidedly. 
 
 Professor of Education, Teachers' College, Columbia 
 
 University, New York. 
 "There is a tendency in favor of the larger unit 
 everywhere among people who have studied the 
 question." 
 
 Town- 
 ship 
 or 
 
 County 
 
 County. 
 
 County. 
 County. 
 County. 
 County. 
 
 County. 
 
 County. 
 
 Combined 
 
 County 
 
 and local 
 
 County.
 
 36 
 
 School Code Commission Report 
 
 Do you 
 
 favor the 
 
 "laixer 
 
 unit"? 
 
 (27) Charles H. Judd Yes, larger the better 
 
 Dean of Education, University of Chicago. 
 
 "I am, of course, very enthusiastically in favor 
 of a larger taxing unit for schools. I think 
 there can be no question at all on this matter. 
 I am glad you have started a campaign; any- 
 thing I can say to encourage you in it I am glad 
 to say." 
 
 (28) Edward F. Buchner Yes. 
 
 Dean of Education, Johns Hopkins University, 
 
 Baltimore. 
 "Undoubtedly the County Unit is the type that 
 should be maintained. It equalizes the dis- 
 tribution of educational advantages without dis- 
 turbing the possibility of local initiative." 
 
 (29) A. Duncan Yocum Yes. 
 
 Professor of Education, University of Pennsylvania. 
 
 "Permits the strengthening of weaker districts, 
 with sufficient check on local authority, to pre- 
 vent any sacrifice of the common good." 
 
 (30) Bruce R. Payne Yes. 
 
 President Geo. Peabody College for Teachers, Nash- 
 ville, Tennessee. 
 
 (31) A. S. Whitney By all means. 
 
 Department of Education, University of Michigan. 
 
 "Equalizes the taxing unit and thus gives every 
 child in the county equal opportunity with every 
 other child — an undeniable right." 
 
 (32) J. A. Ackerman Yes. 
 
 President State Normal School, Monmouth, Oregon. 
 
 "Equalizes taxation and provides a more adequate 
 fund for all the children." 
 
 (33) Philip Soulen Yes. 
 
 Department of Education, University of Idaho. 
 
 (34) Ernest C. Moore Yes. 
 
 President State Normal School, Los Angeles, Calif. 
 
 "The district system is the low water mark of 
 democratic efficiency." 
 
 (35) Milton Bennion Yes. 
 
 Dean, School of Education, University of Utah. 
 
 (36) Ellwood P. Cubberley Yes. 
 
 Department of Education, Stanford University. 
 
 "Best thought and best experience is for the 
 county unit." 
 
 (37) F. J. Kelly Yes. 
 
 Dean School of Education, University of Kansas. 
 
 "Logical and proper. Inequalities cannot be re- 
 moved with units smaller than the county." 
 
 (38) J. H. Shriber Yes. 
 
 Specialist in Rural Education, Colorado Agricul- 
 
 LDral College. 
 "The charms of tradition are all that stabilizes 
 our district unit of administration. It is a 16th 
 century system applied to 20th century condi- 
 tions." 
 
 Town- 
 ship 
 
 County .1 
 
 County. 
 
 County. 
 
 County. 
 County 
 
 County, 
 
 County. 
 County. 
 
 County. 
 County. 
 
 County. 
 
 County.
 
 School Code C ommission Report 
 
 Do you Town- 
 favor the ship 
 "larger or 
 
 unit"? County 
 
 (39) Thomas M. Balliet Yes. County. 
 
 Formerly Dean of Pedagogy, New York University. in general. 
 
 "By all means get rid cf the district unit. A 
 county board can pull up backward districts. 
 They don't pull themselves up." 
 
 ( 40 ) V. A. C. Hennon Yes. County. 
 
 Director School of Education, University of Wis- 
 consin, Madison. 
 
 "Unquestionably the developments the country 
 over are away from the district system and 
 toward the county system." 
 
 (41) H. H. Foster Yes. County. 
 
 Department of Education, University of Vermont. 
 
 (42) W. W. Black Yes. County. 
 
 Professor Rural Education, University of Indiana. 
 
 (43) Alex F. Lange Yes. County. 
 
 Department of Education, University of California, 
 
 Berkeley. 
 
 (44) Elmer E. Jones Yes. County. 
 
 Department of Education, Evanston, 111. 
 
 (45) W. S. Deffenbaugh Yes. County. 
 
 Specialist in School Administration, Bureau of Edu- 
 cation, Washington, D. C. 
 
 (46) E. S. Evendon Very much. County. 
 
 Asst. Professor Education, Teachers' College, N. Y. 
 
 "It tends to equalize the burden of giving every 
 boy and girl the chance at the kind of education 
 we as a Nation have promised them." 
 
 (47) T. C. McCracken Yes. County. 
 
 Department of Education, State Teachers' College, 
 
 Greeley, Colorado. 
 
 (48) Charles Fordyce Yes. County. 
 
 Department of Education, University of Nebraska. 
 
 (49) H. H. Horner, Albany, New York. 
 
 Dean New York State College for Teachers. 
 
 "A real school in 1920 is made up of numbers 
 and equipment and library and laboratory and 
 spirit, all of which cannot be generated by an 18 
 year old girl around a wood stove in a 14x16 
 room with seven children distributed over eight 
 grades." 
 
 (50) F. C. Ensign Yes. County. 
 
 Department of Education, University of Iowa. 
 
 "The old fancied objection was that of taking 
 the schools away from the people. A campaign 
 of education removes this objection in an intel- 
 ligent community." 
 
 (51) William H. Sutton Yes. County. 
 
 Department of Education, University of Texas. 
 
 (52) H. D. Shelton Yes. County. 
 
 Department of Education, University of Arizona. 
 
 "Equalizes differences in wealth in a more satis- 
 factory manner." 
 
 tii2UG
 
 38 School Code Commission Report 
 
 Do you 
 
 favor the 
 
 "largei- 
 
 unit"? 
 
 (53) Joseph Kennedy Yes. 
 
 Department of Education, University of North Dakota. 
 
 "It seems to me tlie only efficient plan." 
 
 (54) O. Edgar Reynolds Yes. 
 
 Department of Education, University of Rochester. 
 
 "There is but one logical move to make and that 
 is to adopt the County Unit." 
 
 (55) J. E. Bullern Yes. 
 
 Department of Education, University of Wyoming. 
 
 ( 56 ) G. W. Walters Yes. 
 
 Department of Education, State Teachers' College, 
 Cedar Falls, Iowa. 
 
 (57) W. W. Charters Yes. 
 
 Department of Education, University of Illinois. 
 
 (58) J. R. Jewell Yes. 
 
 Dean College of Education, University of Arkansas. 
 
 "No other system gives real equality of oppor- 
 tunity to all the children of any unit, large or 
 small." 
 
 (59) Lotus D. Kauffman Yes. 
 
 Department of Education, University of Minnesota. 
 
 (60) John A. Thackston By all means. 
 
 Department of Education, University of Tennessee. 
 
 "Results have proved to be better (in Tennessee). 
 This convinces me." 
 
 Town- 
 ship 
 or 
 County 
 
 County. 
 
 County. 
 
 County. 
 County. 
 
 County. 
 County. 
 
 County. 
 County.
 
 Chapter XIII. 
 
 A Statistical Statement, Study and Inteii^retation of Educational Conditions 
 in AVashington — Quantitative and Qualitative. 
 
 IXTRODUCTORY TO STATISTICAL MATERIAL. 
 
 In order to have value, a decision must be based on fundamental evi- 
 dence and fact. It is easy to assume that a thing may be true or not true, 
 it is easy to come to a conclusion — using as a basis individual opinion. But 
 it has wisely been said "that one opinion may be just as good as another, 
 but hard facts are necessary to fundamental judgment." Therefore, to 
 make sure of its ground the Educational Code Commission found it neces- 
 sary to make a detailed study of the statistical matter, pertaining to our 
 public schools, found in the state records. 
 
 All material offered herewith in evidence of conditions has been taken 
 from the latest records obtainable and includes the information found in 
 the school reports of last year. The figures and tables have been arranged 
 in a form to make them easily comparable so that a detailed study may be 
 made without undue time requirement. In order to further simplify the 
 study, graphs have been made for each table which will enable one to see 
 at a glance many of the irregularities and inequalities as they exist. Each 
 graph simply represents a picture study of the statistical table bearing the 
 same name and number. To provide the greatest convenience in study, 
 statistical matter and graphs are placed upon opposite pages. This will 
 enable one to refer from one to the other for verifications or for supple- 
 mentations. Each graph is largely self-explanatory, but a few suggestions 
 may aid in the quick comprehension of the material depicted. 
 
 The general title of the graph should first be read, then the sub-title 
 with careful consideration given to the legend. The small figures at the 
 left-hand side and at the bottom indicate the name and the denominations 
 pictured in the graph. The different hatches used indicate different divi- 
 sions of denominations portrayed in their relative values. The very simplest 
 portrayal of graphic art has been used with the smallest number of differ- 
 ent types, all in the interest of saving time in the study to be made. Only 
 a brief analysis is made of each chart, wherein only the salient facts are 
 pointed out. Added time and study will bring out many fundamental truths 
 which cannot be listed in a brief explanation. Altogether the plan of pres- 
 entation is meant to be in the interest of the busy legislator who desires to 
 have the best possible evidence, and who finds it necessary to get this evi- 
 dence in the quickest and easiest possible way. The order of presentation 
 will be a statistical table and the graph of that table on opposite pages, while 
 a brief explanation of the graph either precedes or follows this combination.
 
 40 
 
 School Code Commission Be port 
 
 STATISTICS FOR GRAPH NO. 1. 
 
 STATE (VXD EDUCATIOXAL FIXAXCES. 
 
 THE STATE DOLLAR. 
 Source of State Revenue for 1919. 
 
 Railway track and right-of-way 
 
 Railway rolling stock, etc 
 
 Telegraph lines and property ... 
 Telephone lines and property . . . 
 
 Electric railways 
 
 All other real property 
 
 All other personal property 
 
 Distribution of 1919 Ta.xes. 
 
 Education — 
 
 State apportionment . . 
 County apportionment 
 
 District funds 
 
 Higher education 
 
 Cities 
 
 Roads and highways 
 
 Counties , etc 
 
 State general 
 
 District and other funds 
 State Capitol buildings . . 
 State military 
 
 3.66 
 6.03 
 21.83 
 
 2.82 
 
 34.. 34 
 
 THE DOL-LAU FOR EDUCATIOX. 
 
 Source of School Revenues for Tear 1919-20. 
 
 State apportionment 
 
 County apportionment 
 
 District taxes- 
 Special levy 
 
 Building fund 
 
 Bond redemption fund 
 
 From other sources 
 Sale of bonds 
 
 Warrant and Capital Disbursements for 1919-20. 
 
 45.64 
 1.02 
 9.54 
 
 56.20 
 
 General control 
 
 Teachers' salaries — 
 
 Snp"rvision, etc. 
 
 High school 
 
 Graded schools . 
 Rural schools . . . 
 
 Operation, maintenance and supplies 
 
 Sit°s. buildings and equipment 
 
 Interest on bonds 
 
 Interest on warrants 
 
 Bonds paid 
 
 8.42 
 10.90 
 25.70 
 
 6.46 
 
 51.48
 
 ScJiool Code Commission Report 
 
 41 
 
 The State Dollar and the School Dollar. 
 GRAPH NO. 1. 
 
 SOURCE OF REVENUE 
 
 DISTRIBUTION 
 
 STATE DOLLAR 
 
 SOURCE OF R E\/ £ N U £ 
 
 Dl S TR I BUTION 
 
 SCHOOL DOLLAR 
 
 G r aph No I . 
 
 STATE AND SCHOOL r INANCES 
 
 DOLLAR GRAPHS 
 
 Wm M C <
 
 42 School Code Commission Report 
 
 GRAPH NO. 1. 
 
 Kxplunatiou. 
 
 The general title "dollar graphs' indicates at once that each one of the 
 circles at the top of the page represents the state dollar from the standpoint 
 of both revenue and distribution. This state dollar is derived from taxes 
 paid on all of the divisions of state property and used for the general ex- 
 penses covering all phases of government. Those at the bottom are meant 
 to represent the school dollar in the same way. In our educational study 
 two things are important as connected with the state dollar. First, the 
 source from which revenue is derived, and second, in the distribution of 
 state revenue the portion that is appropriated to education. 
 
 A number of important facts may come from a study of the school 
 dollar, only a few of which will be mentioned. Note especially the small 
 amount of levy the state has appropriated for the maintenance of our public 
 schools, the amount which the county has provided, and the very large 
 amount that has been coming from the individual district levies. The great- 
 est inequalities really come from this latter source. With nearly twenty-five 
 hundred separate districts in the state, and with each one representing a 
 different valuation per child, we have the variable tax levies ranging any- 
 where from one-half of one mill to the constitutional limitation of twenty 
 mills. Reference to graphic chart number eight shows these two extremes 
 together with the state medium, which indicates the levy required if all 
 taxable property paid the same pro rata for public education. In the dis- 
 tribution dollar it should be noted that just a little more than one-half of 
 the entire expense of public education goes to teachers' salaries. In this 
 connection the cost of rural and graded schools should be compared. The 
 general upkeep of our schools has been high because many new buildings 
 have been built, new sites have been purchased, and bonds and bond interest 
 have amounted to a considerable sum. 
 
 I 
 
 Equity depends upon source and distribution
 
 School Code Commission Report 43 
 
 GRAPH NO. 2. 
 
 Elxplanation. 
 
 Graph No. 2 is a double chart which compares two factors which enter 
 into financing. The lower chart shows the increased cost of education in 
 our state during the last twenty years. It shows the amount contributed 
 by the state, and beginning with 1910 the amount contributed by the county, 
 and finally the amount provided by special district levy, which was neces- 
 sary to provide the per capita cost. 
 
 In the upper chart is shown the state's assessed valuation in relation 
 to the child's average daily attendance in the public schools. While the 
 valuation of the state has increased somewhat during the last ten years, It 
 has not increased in proportion to the increase in the number of children 
 to be educated. It may be seen, then, that the per capita valuation back of 
 each child in the state has been growing less during the last eight years. 
 Since the basis of revenue has actually grow-n less each year, and since dur- 
 ing these same years the cost of education has constantly increased, it is 
 easy to determine why the millage tax rate for public education has gone 
 higher and higher each year. Just as long as these two extremes work 
 against each other, tax levies must continue to increase in amount. There- 
 fore, some plan must be found in the administration and maintenance of 
 our public schools which will at least neutralize the cost with the necessary 
 revenue. 
 
 It may be said that in several other states which have been studied, the 
 assessed valuation per capita has increased very much more rapidly than 
 the cost of education. Where such a condition exists the problem of financ- 
 ing is easy. 
 
 Referring again to the valuation chart it may be noted that beginning 
 with 1907 and continuing for seven years, the assessed wealth of our state 
 increased more rapidly than the cost of education. During these years we 
 find no question arising relative to financing the schools. Immediately fol- 
 lowing that time or beginning with 1913, a reversal of the order has come 
 about until we are compelled to recognize the fact that such condition can- 
 not go on indefinitely. The purpose then must be perfectly clear — not a 
 higher rate of taxation and more money for our schools, but a better utiliza- 
 tion of the money already provided. 
 
 It is essential too that means be provided for raising the amount of 
 revenue necessary for the maintenance of public schools in the most equi- 
 table manner, making the taxable wealth of the state pay proportionately 
 into this fund. 
 
 Valuation per child decreasing, costs increasing
 
 44 
 
 School Code Commission Report 
 
 STATISTICS FOR GRAPH NO. 2. 
 
 TAVEXTV YEAKS OF DEVKL,OPME^'T. 
 
 PER CAPITA ASSESSED VALUATION. 
 State Resources per Child in Average Daily Attendance. 
 
 TEAR 
 
 Railway 
 
 Personal 
 
 Real 
 
 Total 
 
 1901 
 
 $300 
 218 
 204 
 199 
 226 
 210 
 327 
 306 
 .561 
 606 
 614 
 779 
 790 
 750 
 723 
 735 
 718 
 712 
 700 
 647 
 
 $434 
 564 
 416 
 454 
 435 
 452 
 542 
 643 
 642 
 654 
 695 
 704 
 687 
 678 
 651 
 642 
 646 
 700 
 798 
 846 
 
 $2,186 
 2,069 
 1,960 
 1,847 
 1,851 
 1,915 
 3,187 
 3,078 
 3,759 
 3,802 
 4,252 
 4,135 
 4,383 
 4,196 
 4,024 
 3,985 
 3.731 
 3,707 
 3,730 
 3,479 
 
 $2,920 
 
 
 2,851 
 
 
 2,580 
 
 1904 
 
 2,500 
 
 
 2,.512 
 
 1900 
 
 2,577 
 
 1907 
 
 4,056 
 
 1908 • 
 
 4,027 
 
 1909 
 
 4,962 
 
 1910 
 
 5,062 
 
 1911 
 
 5,561 
 
 1912 
 
 5,618 
 
 191.3 
 
 5,860 
 
 1914 
 
 5,624 
 
 1915 
 
 5,398 
 
 1916 
 
 5,362 
 
 1917 
 
 5,095 
 
 191S 
 
 5,119 
 
 1919 
 
 5,228 
 
 1909 
 
 4,972 
 
 
 
 PER CAPITA REVENUE. 
 Growth in Revenue per Child in Average Daily Attendance. 
 
 TEAR 
 
 State 
 
 County 
 
 District 
 
 Total 
 
 Per Cent 
 Contribut- 
 ed by State 
 
 1901 
 
 $11 82 
 
 13 85 
 16 63 
 
 14 74 
 
 15 16 
 15 07 
 15 16 
 
 15 96 
 
 14 68 
 
 16 S2 
 
 16 09 
 
 17 30 
 
 15 25 
 15 52 
 
 14 97 
 
 15 36 
 
 16 47 
 
 16 08 
 15 91 
 
 17 10 
 
 $2 17 
 
 1 31 
 
 1 15 
 
 1 01 
 
 99 
 
 92 
 
 92 
 
 1 38 
 
 93 
 
 10 86 
 
 15 21 
 
 16 20 
 15 48 
 15 20 
 
 14 37 
 
 15 04 
 15 77 
 15 48 
 
 15 02 
 
 16 92 
 
 $14 17 
 13 65 
 
 13 91 
 
 14 88 
 
 16 07 
 
 17 85 
 
 23 33 
 
 24 99 
 32 66 
 
 27 45 
 
 28 11 
 26 32 
 
 25 81 
 
 26 92 
 
 28 55 
 
 29 48 
 
 30 80 
 32 90 
 37 62 
 49 76 
 
 $28 16 
 28 81 
 
 31 69 
 30 63 
 
 32 22 
 
 33 84 
 39 41 
 42 33 
 48 27 
 
 55 13 
 59 41 
 59 82 
 
 56 54 
 
 57 64 
 55 89 
 59 88 
 63 04 
 61 46 
 68 55 
 83 78 
 
 42.0% 
 
 1909 
 
 48.0% 
 
 1903 
 
 52.5% 
 
 1904 
 
 48.1% 
 
 1905 
 
 47.0% 
 
 1906 
 
 44.5% 
 
 1907 . . 
 
 38.5% 
 
 1Q08 
 
 37.7% 
 
 1909 
 
 30.4% 
 
 1910 
 
 30.5% 
 
 1911 
 
 27.1% 
 
 1912 
 
 28.9% 
 
 1913 
 
 27.. 5% 
 
 1914 
 
 26.9% 
 
 1915 
 
 26.8% 
 
 1916 
 
 1917 
 
 1918 
 
 1919 
 
 1920 
 
 25.6% 
 26.1% 
 
 24.9% 
 23.2% 
 20.4%
 
 School Code Co^nmission Report 
 
 45 
 
 Twenty Years of Dovelo|>nient. 
 GRAPH NO. 2. 
 
 50 
 
 L e ccNi 
 
 500 ZOOO ISOO JOOO 
 
 Sfeorn Railways. 
 Personal Property. 
 
 00 4500 sooo ssoo 
 Real Property Valuation 
 
 STATE R £15 OUR C E S "£" CHILD "^AVERAGE DAILY ATT E N DANC E 
 
 PER CAPITA /ASSESSED VALUATION 
 
 3 State opport ionment. 
 County apportionment. 
 
 Special district levy. 
 
 CR 
 
 G raph 
 
 OWTH if^ REVENUE "f* C H I LD "^ AV E RAG E DAILY ATTEr^lDANCE 1901-20 
 
 PER CAPITA RE\/£NUES "
 
 46 
 
 School Code Commission Report 
 
 STATISTICS FOR GRAPH NO. 3. 
 SCHOOI. TAX LKVIKS, 
 
 STATE, COUNTY AND SPECIAL DISTRICT LEVIES. 
 
 I 
 
 Rank 
 
 10 
 11 
 12 
 13 
 14 
 15 
 16 
 17 
 18 
 19 
 20 
 21 
 22 
 23 
 24 
 25 
 26 
 27 
 28 
 29 
 30 
 31 
 32 
 33 
 34 
 35 
 36 
 37 
 38 
 39 
 
 COUNTY 
 
 Kitsap 
 
 Okanogan 
 
 Island 
 
 Snohomish 
 
 Yakima 
 
 Thurston 
 
 Wahkiakum 
 
 Stevens 
 
 Benton 
 
 Pierce 
 
 King 
 
 Clarke 
 
 Ferry 
 
 San Juan 
 
 Asotin 
 
 Whateom 
 
 Pend Oreille ... 
 
 Skagit 
 
 Clelan 
 
 Spokane 
 
 Mason 
 
 Grant 
 
 Lewis 
 
 Franklin 
 
 Grays Harbor . 
 
 Pacific 
 
 Walla Walla ... 
 
 Kittitas 
 
 Douglas 
 
 Klickitat 
 
 Clallam 
 
 Cowlitz 
 
 Whitman 
 
 Lincoln 
 
 Skamania 
 
 Jefferson 
 
 Adams 
 
 Columbia 
 
 Garfield 
 
 State average 
 
 State Levy 
 
 2.06 
 2.06 
 2.06 
 2.06 
 2.06 
 2.06 
 2.06 
 2.06 
 2.06 
 2.06 
 2.06 
 2.06 
 2.06 
 2.06 
 2.06 
 2.06 
 2.06 
 2.06 
 2.06 
 2.06 
 2.06 
 2.06 
 2.06 
 2.06 
 2.06 
 2.06 
 2.06 
 2.06 
 2.06 
 2.06 
 2.06 
 2.06 
 2.06 
 2.06 
 2.06 
 2.06 
 2.06 
 2.06 
 2.06 
 
 2.06 
 
 County Levy 
 
 5.22 
 5.40 
 5.56 
 4.58 
 4.84 
 4.72 
 5.90 
 4.20 
 2.60 
 4.74 
 3.19 
 4.74 
 4.85 
 4.42 
 4.28 
 4.46 
 3.22 
 3.76 
 3.33 
 3.18 
 2.44 
 1.82 
 •4.19 
 1.79 
 3.90 
 2.45 
 3.01 
 2.87 
 2.24 
 3.09 
 2.23 
 3.10 
 2.24 
 2.20 
 1.91 
 2.59 
 1.50 
 1.84 
 2.01 
 
 3.39 
 
 District 
 Special Levy 
 
 17.14 
 14.57 
 14.40 
 11.90 
 11.53 
 11.14 
 
 9.76 
 11.41 
 12.80 
 10.29 
 11.71 
 
 9.81 
 
 9.82 
 9.47 
 
 10.28 
 9.53 
 9.95 
 9.34 
 
 10.06 
 
 10.66 
 8.17 
 
 10.52 
 8.35 
 9.66 
 7.92 
 7.71 
 8.00 
 8.08 
 7.94 
 6.80 
 7.54 
 7.56 
 7.13 
 6.27 
 7.07 
 6.28 
 5.29 
 
 9.96 
 
 Total 
 
 24.42 
 22.03 
 
 22.02 
 18.54 
 18.43 
 17.92 
 17.72 
 17.67 
 17.46 
 17.09 
 16.96 
 16.61 
 16.39 
 16.37 
 16.16 
 15.99 
 15.56 
 15.35 
 15.34 
 14.58 
 14.56 
 14.54 
 14.42 
 14.37 
 14.. 31 
 14.26 
 12.99 
 12.64 
 12.30 
 12.23 
 12.23 
 11.96 
 11.84 
 11.82 
 11.10 
 10.92 
 10.63 
 10.18 
 9.36 
 
 15.41 
 
 Note— Tax levies for operation only, calculated upon equalized assessed valuations.
 
 School Code Commission Report 
 
 47 
 
 Scbool Tax Levies. 
 GRAPH NO 3. 
 
 20 22 24 Total 
 
 Mills 2 4- 6 8 
 
 I- evies oasect upon equalized 
 
 MVAUtWM state School Levy 
 
 IB /■* 
 
 a I uat I ons 
 
 L- E G E NO : 
 
 ■>ty School L e vy 
 
 20 22 2'4- 
 operation only. 
 
 ipecial District Levy. 
 
 C O MPARATI\^E STUDY OP THE 
 
 ST/4TE , COUNTV ^DISTRICT- 
 SCHOOL TA X LE.V I ES 
 
 Crap h f\i Q. 3 . 
 
 wm. M. C ornor
 
 48 School Code Commission Report 
 
 GRAPH NO. 3. 
 
 Kxi>l:iii:itioii. 
 
 It may be seen from Graph No. 3 that the taxable wealth of the state 
 is not distributed in the different counties according to school population. 
 By referring again to Graph No. 8, it will be apparent that the taxable 
 wealth of a single county varies very greatly within the districts of the 
 county when considered from the standpoint of the valuation per child in 
 average daily attendance. With the state's taxable wealth in the different 
 counties varying so greatly, and with the districts' valuation varying even 
 more than this, it is at once evident that the state unit of taxation forms 
 the very best basis for providing revenue. 
 
 For ten years the counties have provided an additional ten dollars 
 (providing this amount could be secured from a live-mill levy). The black 
 portion of this chart shows the proportionate amount which has actually 
 been levied on the individual districts of the counties averaged for each 
 county of the state. 
 
 The millage requirement for each county made up from the average 
 district totals may be noted in the column of figures to the right. The 
 variable district levies within each county may be seen by referring again 
 to Graph No. 8. It may be of interest to note that four counties varied from 
 the statutory provisions and levied more than the five mills allowed. Since 
 this was done in the interest of better education, it probably may be per- 
 missible and is only mentioned to show the extreme measures which have 
 been resorted to in many instances to provide even the meager educational 
 necessities. 
 
 Inequalities in district levies even more marked 
 
 I 
 
 I
 
 School Code Commission Report 49, 
 
 GRAPH NO. 4. 
 
 Explanation. 
 
 Here we have depicted the variable cost in tlie different counties of tiie 
 state per child in average daily attendance. There is good reason for some 
 variation because of different conditions existing. But on the whole it is 
 clearly evident that the agricultural counties are spending very much more 
 for education, while in the main they are getting a much poorer type of 
 education than other counties; however, it should be noted that we mean 
 cost in dollars per pupil and not cost in the rate of millage levied. See 
 Chart No. 3. 
 
 Please refer to Graph No. 18 which shows the variable length of term 
 for the state; to Graph No. 17 which shows the variable per capita cost in 
 the different counties of the state; to Graph No. 15 which shows the type 
 and kind of school maintained relating especially to the number of pupils; 
 to Graph No. 16 which shows that the salaries of the rural teacher are the 
 least in the state, and to Graph No. 19 comparing the efficiency of the 
 teacher according to preparation. If the agricultural counties are meeting 
 the highest per capita cost in education, there ought to be some way found 
 to give them a higher type of school facilities. 
 
 Coming back again to Chart No. 4, a number of legitimate questions 
 can be raised. The quality and efficiency of all of the schools could well be 
 compared. The length of the school term, the kind and character of instruc- 
 tion given, incentives provided, final achievements measured. 
 
 We can also raise a question concerning the proper administration of 
 the school fund, the kind and type of supervision given, to what extent equal 
 educational opportunity is afforded. We may ask too if this variable range 
 of cost in the several counties may be fully justified; and furthermore can 
 the variable costs within the districts of each of the counties be justified as 
 shown by Chart No. 9. There is quite a range of difference between the 
 lowest per capita cost and the highest per capita cost of the same county. 
 All these things may possibly be justified but we believe they are pertinent 
 questions to ask when we are considering an "equal educational opportunity 
 for all the children of the state." 
 
 Highest levies produce least per capita
 
 ,50 
 
 School Code Commission Report 
 
 STATISTICS FOR GRAPH NO. 4. 
 scHooi, rkvexi;es. 
 
 Income from State, County and District per Child in Average Daily Attendance. 
 
 Rank 
 
 COUNTY 
 
 State 
 Apportion- 
 ment 
 
 County 
 Apportion- 
 ment 
 
 Special 
 
 District 
 
 Levy 
 
 Total 
 
 1 
 
 9 
 
 Franklin 
 
 Grant 
 
 $19 15 
 21 93 
 
 18 66 
 
 19 94 
 
 14 82 
 
 18 43 
 
 19 96 
 
 19 48 
 18 42 
 
 18 55 
 
 16 56 
 
 20 08 
 
 19 75 
 
 17 06 
 
 17 98 
 
 20 39 
 
 21 56 
 
 18 16 
 16 96 
 16 87 
 
 16 75 
 
 17 37 
 
 15 01 
 
 15 36 
 
 16 42 
 
 15 64 
 
 16 88 
 
 17 51 
 
 14 00 
 
 15 52 
 
 16 20 
 16 58 
 
 16 50 
 
 17 52 
 
 16 62 
 
 17 90 
 15 81 
 15 48 
 14 52 
 
 $21 80 
 
 20 04 
 19 75 
 23 52 
 
 16 85 
 
 15 98 
 
 17 38 
 
 19 67 
 
 18 40 
 17 24 
 
 19 21 
 
 21 13 
 
 17 29 
 
 16 41 
 
 16 14 
 
 20 07 
 
 18 15 
 
 17 23 
 
 17 92 
 
 13 58 
 
 20 17 
 
 18 58 
 
 16 19 
 
 17 35 
 
 16 74 
 
 17 80 
 
 18 33 
 
 14 79 
 
 19 73 
 16 71 
 
 15 05 
 19 82 
 
 16 55 
 15 39 
 15 28 
 13 39 
 13 34 
 10 70 
 
 8 24 
 
 $128 40 
 117 30 
 93 07 
 87 97 
 82 70 
 73 22 
 71 75 
 67 45 . 
 61 93 
 61 66 
 61 39 
 55 64 
 
 59 07 
 
 60 23 
 57 41 
 48 42 
 
 47 82 
 
 50 55 
 
 48 08 
 
 51 58 
 43 17 
 43 87 
 48 42 
 46 75 
 43 50 
 
 38 98 
 
 39 78 
 
 40 19 
 
 38 59 
 
 39 75 
 38 20 
 32 78 
 34 20 
 32 67 
 29 77 
 
 29 91 
 
 30 61 
 27 69 
 27 00 
 
 $169 35 
 159 27 
 
 3 
 
 
 131 48 
 
 i 
 
 
 131 43 
 
 5 
 
 
 114 37 
 
 6 
 
 Klickitat 
 
 110 63 
 
 7 
 S 
 9 
 
 Mason 
 
 Lincoln 
 
 109 09 
 
 106 60 
 
 98 75 
 
 10 
 11 
 
 12 
 
 Douglas 
 
 Pend Oreille 
 
 Walla Walla 
 
 97 45 
 97 16 
 96 85 
 
 13 
 
 
 96 11 
 
 14 
 15 
 
 King 
 
 Clallam 
 
 93 70 
 91 53 
 
 16 
 
 
 88 88 
 
 17 
 
 Garfield 
 
 87 53 
 
 18 
 
 
 85 94 
 
 19 
 
 Kittitas 
 
 82 96 
 
 20 
 
 Pacific 
 
 82 03 
 
 21 
 
 
 80 09 
 
 22 
 23 
 
 Thurston 
 
 Ch°lan 
 
 79 82 
 79 62 
 
 24 
 
 
 79 46 
 
 25 
 
 
 76 66 
 
 26 
 
 Cowlitz 
 
 73 42 
 
 27 
 
 Pierce 
 
 74 99 
 
 28 
 
 Stevens 
 
 72 49 
 
 29 
 30 
 
 Ferry 
 
 Yakima 
 
 72 32 
 71 98 
 
 31 
 32 
 33 
 34 
 
 Skagit 
 
 Wahkiakum .• 
 
 Clarke 
 
 Whatcom 
 
 69 45 
 69 IS 
 67 25 
 m 58 
 
 35 
 
 Lewis 
 
 61 67 
 
 36 
 
 
 61 20 
 
 37 
 
 Asotin 
 
 59 76 
 
 38 
 
 Island 
 
 53 87 
 
 39 
 
 Kitsap 
 
 49 76 
 
 
 State averag" 
 
 
 
 $17 10 
 
 $16 92 
 
 $49 76 
 
 $83 78 
 
 
 
 Note— Revenues indicated were for operation o nly. 
 
 (
 
 School Code Commission Report 
 
 51 
 
 ^iRATH XO. 4. 
 School Revenues.
 
 52. 
 
 School Code Commission Report 
 
 STATISTICS FOR GRAPH NO. 5. 
 
 ASSESS1<:D VALIATION PKR TKACHKR. 
 
 PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANIES' PROPERTY. 
 Levy to Raise $1,200 per Teacher Without State Aid. 
 
 Rank 
 
 COUNTY 
 
 Assessed 
 
 Valuation all 
 
 Property per 
 
 Teacher 
 
 Employed 
 
 Assessed 
 Valuation 
 Pub. Ser. 
 Co.'s Prop- 
 erty per 
 Teacher 
 
 Per Cent 
 
 of Public 
 
 Service 
 
 Property 
 
 Levy Neces- 
 sary to 
 Raise $1200 
 per Teacher 
 Without 
 State Aid 
 
 
 
 $193,000 
 
 170,100 
 
 167,500 
 
 166,400 
 
 159.000 
 
 1.55,500 
 
 150,900 
 
 149,500 
 
 147,900 
 
 143,600 
 
 142,600 
 
 135,900 
 
 135,500 
 
 . 134,100 
 
 131,100 
 
 130,900 
 
 125,900 
 
 123,300 
 
 114,400 
 
 106,000 
 
 105,700 
 
 102,800 
 
 102,100 
 
 99,800 
 
 99,300 
 
 98,450 
 
 92,180 
 
 92,000 
 
 91,300 
 
 88,200 
 
 85,040 
 
 81,900 
 
 74,800 
 
 74,600 
 
 71,530 
 
 68,780 
 
 61,860 
 
 54,000 
 
 53,920 
 
 $67,000 
 82,900 
 25,790 
 
 5,160 
 20,370 
 25,620 
 
 9,9154 
 22,290 
 48,360 
 
 4,600 
 43,380 
 51,620 
 19,910 
 35,530 
 40,770 
 
 7,9S0 
 15,100 
 
 3,820 
 10,300 
 
 3,072 
 
 7,082 
 22,810 
 10,210 
 10,480 
 18,160 
 13,190 
 20,290 
 11,130 
 10,225 
 17,200 
 10,710 
 
 8,920 
 149 
 
 34.7% 
 
 48.7% 
 
 15.4% 
 
 3.1% 
 
 12.8% 
 
 16.5% 
 
 6.6% 
 
 14.9% 
 
 32.7% 
 
 3.2% 
 
 30.4% 
 
 38.0% 
 
 14.7% 
 
 26.5% 
 
 31.1% 
 
 6.1% 
 
 12.0% 
 
 3.1%, 
 
 9.0% 
 
 2.9% 
 
 6.7% 
 
 22.2% 
 
 10.0% 
 
 10.5%, 
 
 18.2% 
 
 13.4% 
 
 22.0% 
 
 12.1% 
 
 11.2% 
 
 19.5% 
 
 12.6% 
 
 10.9% 
 
 0.2% 
 
 6.22 mills 
 
 
 
 7.06 mills 
 
 3 
 
 
 7.16 mills 
 
 Garflt'ld 
 
 7.21 mills 
 
 
 
 7.54 mills 
 
 
 
 
 7.72 mills 
 
 7 
 
 
 7.96 mills 
 
 
 8.03 mills 
 
 
 
 S.ll mills 
 
 
 Clallam 
 
 8.35 mills 
 
 
 
 8.41 mills' 
 
 
 
 8.84 mills 
 
 
 
 8.85 mills 
 
 14 
 
 Klickitat 
 
 8.95 mills 
 
 15 
 
 Kittitas 
 
 9.15 mills 
 
 
 
 9.17 mills 
 
 17 
 
 
 9.54 mills 
 
 18 
 
 
 9.74 mills 
 
 
 
 10.50 mills 
 
 20 
 
 
 11. ,32 mills 
 
 
 
 11.35 mills 
 
 
 
 11.67 mills 
 
 9'} 
 
 
 11.75 mills 
 
 94 
 
 
 12.02 mills 
 
 
 Ch°lan 
 
 12.09 mills 
 
 0(3 
 
 Sl^agit 
 
 12.20 mills 
 
 27 
 
 
 13.01 mills 
 
 'S 
 
 
 13.05 mills 
 
 29 
 
 
 13.15 mills 
 
 30 
 
 
 13.60 mills 
 
 31 
 
 Clarke 
 
 14.10 mills 
 
 39 
 
 
 14.66 mills 
 
 
 
 16.05 mills 
 
 34 
 35 
 
 
 16.09 mills 
 
 
 18,600 
 8,600 
 
 26.0% 
 12.5% 
 
 16.78 mills 
 
 36 
 
 
 17.45 mills 
 
 37 
 38 
 39 
 
 
 19.40 mills 
 
 
 
 
 22.21 mills 
 
 
 162 
 
 0.3% 
 
 22.25 mills 
 
 
 
 
 
 $117,000 
 
 $15,150 
 
 12.95%o 
 
 10.25 mills 
 
 
 
 
 Note— Calculations based upon equalized as.sessed valuations. 

 
 School Code Commission Report 
 
 Assessed Valiisition Per Teacher. 
 CR APH NO. ,1. 
 
 Ms 
 
 Adams 
 
 F r a nk I 
 
 W a I la Wa 1 1 a 
 
 C a rf I e I d 
 
 Columbia 
 
 Whitman 
 
 C r ay s Harbor 
 
 Lincoln 
 
 S k a m a n 
 
 Clallam- 
 
 Grant 
 
 Benton 
 
 C o vv I / tz 
 
 Klichitaf. 
 
 K I tti tas 
 
 K I n g 
 
 Spokane 
 
 J effers on 
 
 Douglas 
 
 Mason 
 
 P a c i f I I 
 
 P e n d Oreille 
 
 Pierce 
 
 Y a h I m a 
 
 Chelan 
 
 Skagit 
 
 Triurston 
 
 Whatcom 
 
 L e wvi s 
 
 S n o h o rn i5h 
 
 C I or k e 
 
 5 t e V e ns 
 
 Asotin 
 
 W a hk I a Hum 
 
 Per ry 
 
 O k a n o ga n_ 
 
 San J uan^ 
 
 Island 
 
 Kitsap 
 
 S TAT E 
 
 20 
 
 10 
 
 Ills 
 
 SO 5 0.0 10 0,000 150.000 
 
 L e V y to raise $1200. Assessed valuation per teacher. 
 
 I : -:::-:■) Public Service property. Levy to raise %I200 
 
 ■^■■B Real S[ Personal property 
 
 without state 
 
 LEVY TO RAISE &I200 PER T C A C H E R , W IT H O U T A I D 
 
 PUBLIC SERVICE PROPERTY 
 ASSESSED VALUATION PER TE/KCHER 
 
 Graph No 5 . 
 
 Wn-i M. Coman
 
 54 School Code Commission Report 
 
 Assessed Valuation Per Teacher. 
 
 (Varying levies to raise $1,200.00.) 
 
 GRAPH NO. 5. 
 Explanation. 
 
 Since the cost for the state shows that the median cost per teacher 
 equals practically twelve hundred dollars, we have used this as a basis to 
 determine what levies would be necessary in each county to provide that 
 amount for each of the teachers now in service. If each county therefore 
 was required to pay this salary to each of its teachers, and would be com- 
 pelled to levy a special tax on all of the property within the county to pro- 
 duce that sum, the variable levies are shown in the number of mills on the 
 left-hand portion of this "two-way graph." The light-colored hatching in 
 the right-hand portion indicates public service property. In some of the 
 counties public service property would pay one-half of the revenue levied 
 against the property of the county while some of the counties have little and 
 some have no public service wealth. This helps to increase the variables 
 and makes a changing difference from one to four in percentage of value. 
 At the same rate of taxation, one county would be able to pay four times 
 as much for its teachers as would those counties at the other extreme. 
 "Nearly one-half the counties in the state would pay less than ten mills, 
 while a goodly number of them would approach twenty mills and two coun- 
 ties would be compelled to levy a tax exceeding that amount. The inequali- 
 ties in the distribution are easily compared with the inequalities in the rate 
 of taxation. 
 
 Note ratio of inequality between counties
 
 56 School Code Commission Report 
 
 Analytical Study of State, County, and District Tjevies. 
 
 GRAPH NO. 6. 
 
 K.vplntiation. 
 
 This triple graph is intended to show how the local district tax levies 
 lessen as the state unit increases in amount. The variability of the local 
 tax is very much lessened by the enlargement of the state unit. In each of 
 the three plans the amount of revenue is identically the same. Fifteen mills 
 including state, county, and district levies, and each evenly distributed, pro- 
 vides a sufficient amount of money to care for all of the schools of the state 
 on the present basis of cost. 
 
 If thirty dollars per census child were provided by the state and ten 
 dollars by the county this would make a fairer distribution of tax levies so 
 far as the counties are concerned. However, there would still be a great 
 variation of levies within the local districts of a county, unless the whole 
 basis of administration were changed so that these inequalities could be 
 overcome. Any plan therefore which shall prove fair to all the children of 
 the state must provide, not only for equitable revenue collection, but also 
 for equitable distribution carried out through proper administration. Graph 
 No. 10 may be referred to as showing the means of distribution which the 
 Commission believes will be fair to the small school and to the larger school 
 alike. As we change the taxing unit we must necessarily change the admin- 
 istrative unit to correspond. Both are necessary in any scheme of equality. 
 
 Larger unit shows greater equity
 
 it s:
 
 58 School Code Commission Report 
 
 Three Plans for State Aid Showing Per Capita Revenue. 
 
 GRAPH NO. 7. 
 
 Ki:i>la?ia(ioii. 
 
 This graph presents three plans of raising scliool revenue, which would 
 provide necessary funds to give each child in the state the required amount, 
 and based upon the present equalized cost of education. The first hatching 
 indicates the amount which the state would provide under present valua- 
 tion. The varying lengths of the state hatching are caused by constructive 
 attendance according to present apportionment. If actual attendance only 
 were used, the state hatching would all be the same length. This plan pro- 
 poses to provide a revenue equal to the amount now expended for schools, 
 but distributing or apportioning the funds equitably to each of the counties 
 of the state according to the number of children to be educated. If pro- 
 vision be made for the proper administration and use of all school revenues, 
 then the 30-10 plan would be the most equitable, the most fair, and produce 
 the best results in the interests of equality in opportunity. On the other 
 hand, if the 30-10 plan should be inaugurated into law with no administra- 
 tive machinery which would guarantee proper business management, it would 
 be better to continue wholly on the old plan. This decision is made in the 
 light of. the fact that already we have great wastage in many districts as 
 shown in Graph No. 9. We further find that more money and high cost 
 does not necessarily mean greater efficiency and better schools. It would be 
 wrong, therefore, to establish a plan which would make possible great ex- 
 penditures on the one side, with only slight assistance given to needy dis- 
 tricts on the other. The greater need then lies in better business adminis- 
 tration planned in a manner to insure equality. 
 
 The same money properly distributed
 
 — M'nt^«'^<D<^*^~-'^'^**'^«'^^*'*^ 
 
 -- fMn^lO-OKOJOi O^ CVin^lO-ON (DO. 
 
 c 
 
 TTIlt 
 
 lllllllllllllMliU 1 9 
 
 
 E 
 
 
 T T 1 IT 
 
 llll I' 'I'll] M'll 1 
 
 u 
 
 1 1 i 1 1 
 
 I'll.!.' 1 ' . i-|o 
 
 z^ 
 
 ; 
 
 i 1 
 
 ! ' 
 
 o ■■. 1 '. . . 
 
 ! |- - - - -2c<^ 
 
 
 ■^ 
 
 ? J o 
 
 
 
 
 \l 
 
 
 ^" "- r^Tn' ' ' 
 
 :.::::::::: o. 
 
 , : '■ ' I '■ '" '■ '■ 
 
 i °-^ !,. 
 
 
 
 Zyl 
 
 
 >, ; : 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 o.''.:.'A^: -■-':-':- - -i -ifJ-':- L; _:;_ -:- 
 
 
 
 , - jL^ :[ J: : 
 
 :''l i . -L ;. -L; ffl. ,.:-..: . . o '^ 
 
 01 
 
 E 
 
 i c 
 
 Q 
 
 
 
 
 
 (0 
 
 liiiifiitiiiiiiiiiiiiet 
 
 — _ _ _ - ^ ^ 
 
 
 s 1 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 o ^ 
 
 1 
 
 2:: 
 
 .VjJ 
 
 
 K 
 
 
 o 
 
 
 
 Ml 
 
 « 
 
 
 ^d'i 
 
 o 
 
 - - - - - - -: - ------ , :: lo 71- 
 
 lo 
 
 o , ■ J ■ 
 
 
 : 1 ^ 
 
 1 D 
 
 
 _ ^:J /J _';-Lp:-:_'_:-::_|. - :_: - _o 
 
 i: : : : '■]■:■': ' : : 
 
 : <= 5 
 
 a U ^ 
 
 
 - - > :- i- -':-::-: - : ° ^ f" « 
 
 u UJ J 
 
 •:■':: '':'■'•'''■:'■: ' 
 
 h M § .3 
 
 "l-Q. 
 
 oU :■ : ' 'L' " ■ "■ - I \ 1 
 
 ;,.::J,. :. :.ii Jlj;.i-tJlJ .: . .o^ 
 
 3 c 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Q 
 
 
 L 
 
 3'"U 
 
 
 OJ 
 
 
 
 
 
 u) fl: 
 
 O 
 
 
 
 
 I 
 
 
 f^ 
 
 o 
 
 0^ i; 
 
 V- 
 
 
 f2e 
 
 
 o 
 
 
 ^ < !; 
 
 
 •o 
 
 1^ 
 
 
 - Jt 
 
 
 o 
 
 ota § 
 
 
 ''■ 
 
 ' |2S 
 
 
 
 UJ ^ 
 
 
 O _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ 
 
 . _ .0 w^ 
 
 ' 
 
 
 o 
 
 TO 
 
 '- z s- 
 
 
 t t - ■ "^ I 
 
 'll 1 
 
 F '' ' F 
 
 ■;.:':■■ : '• 
 
 o : : i: : : 
 
 i ■ i: : of ^ " 
 
 
 ;; : 1 
 
 1; ;1 iM i f 
 
 
 
 .:;. ;..:...;.; q ° 
 
 
 « 1 J? 1 ^ 1 1 ^ 
 
 ' C 3 ' w J a 
 
 °oio%ocE °,_ 
 
 
 N 
 
 6 
 
 2 
 
 icnuat(noSiQ-iiic-jOuou.W<?; U) 
 
 +- 
 
 
 2 
 
 
 
 1. 
 
 
 ^(\Jf-^Tjl^vONCD(r,0— ^VJn^•O»0Nt0O^ 
 
 0-Nn■<t■lo^oN(D<^0-~<^Jn■♦lo-o^(0<^ 
 ^jAJ'\l^J^y(\|f\Jr\i(\J(^J^*)^»lI-l(^(*>nnn'^^^ 

 
 60 
 
 School Code Commission Report 
 
 STATISTICS FOR GRAPH NO. 8. 
 
 Sl'KCIAL, DISTRICT LEVIES. 
 
 Inequality and Inefficiency Within County Indicated by 
 LOWEST, AVERAGE AND HIGHEST LEVIES. 
 
 Rank 
 
 COUNTY 
 
 Lowest Levy 
 
 Average Levy 
 
 Highest Levy 
 
 1 
 
 
 3 mills 
 2 mills 
 5 mills 
 3.6 mills 
 
 1.3 mills 
 2 mills 
 0.66 mills 
 2 mills 
 2 mills 
 
 2 mills 
 
 1.5 mills 
 
 2.6 mills 
 
 4 mills 
 
 3 mills 
 1.9 mills 
 
 6.7 mills 
 
 2 mills 
 1 mills 
 
 3 mills 
 0.5 mills 
 
 2.4 mills 
 1 mills 
 0.9 mills 
 
 1.3 mills 
 1.97 mills 
 0.5 mills 
 
 1 mills 
 
 2 mills 
 2.74 mills 
 
 1 mills 
 
 1.4 mills 
 
 2 mills 
 1.6 mills 
 2 mills 
 
 1 mills 
 
 2 mills 
 
 1 mills 
 2.67 mills 
 
 2 mills 
 
 17.14 mills 
 14. .57 mills 
 
 14.40 mills 
 12.80 mills 
 11.90 mills 
 11.71 mills 
 11.53 mills 
 
 11.41 mills 
 11.14 mills 
 10. G6 mills 
 10.52 mills 
 10.29 mills 
 10.2.S mills 
 10.06 mills 
 
 9.96 mills 
 9.98 mills 
 9.82 mills 
 9.81 mills 
 9.76 mills 
 9.66 mills 
 
 9.53 mills 
 9.48 mills 
 9.47 mills 
 
 9.34 mills 
 
 8.35 mills 
 8.17 mills 
 8.08 mills 
 8.00 mills 
 7.94 mills 
 7.92 mills 
 7.71 mills 
 7.56 mills 
 
 7.54 mills 
 7.13 mills 
 7.07 mills 
 6.80 mills 
 
 6.28 mills 
 6.27 mills 
 
 5.29 mills 
 
 22 mills 
 
 o 
 
 
 20 mills 
 
 3 
 
 
 20 mills 
 
 4 
 
 
 20.5 mills 
 
 5 
 
 
 19.7 mills 
 
 6 
 
 
 20 mills 
 
 7 
 
 Yakima 
 
 20.66 mills 
 
 8 
 
 
 20 mills 
 
 9 
 
 
 20 mills 
 
 10 
 
 Grant 
 
 20 mills 
 
 11 
 
 
 12.3 mills 
 
 12 
 
 
 20 mills 
 
 13 
 
 Pend Oreille 
 
 20 mills 
 
 14 
 
 
 20 mills 
 
 15 
 
 Chelan 
 
 20 mills 
 
 16 
 
 
 16 mills 
 
 17 
 
 
 14 mills 
 
 18 
 
 Clark" 
 
 20 mills 
 
 19 
 
 
 20 mills 
 
 20 ■ 
 
 
 20 mills 
 
 21 
 
 Skagit 
 
 20 mills 
 
 22 
 
 
 20 mills 
 
 23 
 
 
 18 mills 
 
 24 
 
 
 20 mills 
 
 25 
 
 
 20 mills 
 
 26 
 
 
 20 mills 
 
 27 
 
 
 25 mills 
 
 28 
 
 
 20 mills 
 
 29 
 
 Clallam 
 
 19.74 mills 
 
 30 
 
 
 20 mills 
 
 31 
 
 Kittitas 
 
 20 mills 
 
 32 
 
 
 17 mills 
 
 33 
 
 
 20 mills 
 
 34 
 
 
 10 mills 
 
 35 
 
 
 20 mills 
 
 36 
 
 
 20 mills 
 
 37 
 
 Columbia 
 
 20.5 mills 
 
 38 
 
 
 10 mills 
 
 39 
 
 Garfield 
 
 20 mills 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 9.96 mills 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Note— Levies indicated were for operation only. Averages based upon equalized assessed valuations.
 
 School Code Commission Report 
 
 Variation of Distriot Le'xies. 
 GRAPH SO. 8. 
 
 61 
 
 Mills 5 10 15 2 A, 
 
 V eraqt 
 
 1 
 
 2 
 
 3 
 
 4 
 
 5 
 
 6 
 
 7 
 
 8 
 
 9 
 
 10 
 
 1 1 
 
 12 
 
 13 
 
 14 
 
 15 
 
 16 
 
 1 7 
 18 
 19 
 20 
 
 2 1 
 12 
 23 
 24 
 25 
 26 
 27 
 28 
 29 
 30 
 
 3 1 
 32 
 33 
 34 
 35 
 36 
 37 
 38 
 39 
 
 Kit'sap 
 
 
 
 
 
 17. 1 4 
 t4.57 
 I4.40 
 1 2.80 
 1 1.90 
 1 1 7 } 
 
 I 1 .53 
 .1141 
 
 II 14 
 lO. 6 6 
 10.52 
 1 0.29 
 
 .I0.28 
 
 .10.06 
 
 - 9.95 
 
 9 89 
 
 Okanogan 
 
 y 
 
 
 ,„.^^ 
 
 ^ 
 
 1 < land 
 
 
 ! / 
 
 1 
 
 R Rnt an 
 
 ^ 
 
 ! ^ 
 
 \ 
 
 Snohomish _ 
 King 
 
 ^^ 
 
 ! / 
 
 / 
 
 > 
 
 ! / 
 
 \ 
 
 Y ak in-i a 
 
 y 
 
 : / 
 
 
 \ 
 
 Stevens 
 
 
 ; / 
 
 
 / 
 
 T h ur St on 
 
 1 
 
 ■ / 
 
 
 
 Grant 
 
 1 
 
 : / 
 
 
 
 r r anh 1 i n 
 
 ( 
 
 !/ -=— ■ 
 
 ■ 
 
 
 P i p n r P 
 
 
 7 ^^ 
 
 ■ 
 
 
 Rend Oreille 
 
 ^ 
 
 !/ 
 
 
 
 / 
 
 i/ 
 
 
 fc 
 
 r. H f> 1 n n 
 
 X 
 
 ' 
 
 
 - 
 
 S^n xj u en 
 
 
 
 ■ 
 
 - 
 
 Asotin 
 
 _, — ^ 
 
 "" " ^ 
 
 K-' 
 
 
 _ 9.82 
 9.81 
 
 r. 1 ankP 
 
 / 
 
 
 ' ' ____ 
 
 t 
 
 Wahk i a H um . 
 P a cifir. 
 
 
 
 
 >> 
 
 L 9 76 
 
 
 • 
 
 
 
 _ 9.66 
 -9 53 
 ..9 48 
 _ 9.47 
 _ 9.34 
 8.35 
 
 a t< agit 
 
 *^ 
 
 |! 
 
 
 (b 
 
 r prry 
 
 ^ 
 
 \\ 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 Whatcom 
 
 1 
 
 1 1 
 
 ^ 
 
 K 
 
 <=, pn k n n p 
 
 \ 
 
 J I 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 Grays Harbor 
 
 ^ 
 
 y 1 
 
 
 
 f^ 
 
 f 1 
 
 
 
 .-8.17 
 
 _ 8.08 
 
 8.00 
 
 K lir.k itnt 
 
 \ 
 
 / ! 
 
 
 
 Douglas 
 
 V 
 
 / [ 
 
 
 
 C 1 all a nn 
 
 ^ 
 
 1 ' 
 
 / 
 
 _ 7. 94 
 
 _ 7.92 
 
 7. 71 
 
 Walla Walla 
 
 ^' 
 
 j ! 
 
 V 
 
 Kittitas 
 
 \ 
 
 / I 
 
 1 
 
 L i n r ol n 
 
 \ 
 
 / ; 
 
 ,^^1 
 
 - 7.56 
 _ 7.54 
 _ 7.1 3 
 -7.07 
 6.60 
 
 Whitman 
 
 { 
 
 j } 
 
 ^^1 
 
 S k,c mania 
 
 > 
 
 / 1 
 
 
 
 y 
 
 1 ' — " 
 
 1 
 
 r o wv ; / 1 3' 
 
 V, 
 
 / ; 
 
 1 
 
 Columbia 
 
 
 / j 
 
 \ 
 
 6.28 
 
 J efferson 
 
 '-^, 
 
 J 1 
 
 
 
 6.27 
 
 a arf i PI d 
 
 / 
 
 / I — ■ 
 
 . 
 
 
 -5.29 
 -9.96 
 
 .S TA T r 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Mills O 5 
 Note. Special ie\^ies for 
 
 L owe St 
 
 Highest 
 
 /O 15 2 
 operation. Av erages upon equ 
 
 2 
 
 aliz ed bai 
 
 Vy av er a qt 
 
 average. 
 
 lis. 
 
 
 INCQUALITY §- 1 N E r F 1 C 1 E N CV WITHIN COUNTY 
 LOV^E ST, AVERAGE ^ HIGHEST 
 
 SPECIAL. DISTRICT i^EVY 
 
 Crapn No. 8. Wm.M.C 
 
 Oman.
 
 62 School Code Commission Report 
 
 Special District Levies Showing Great Inequalities. 
 
 GRAPH NO. 8. 
 
 Explanation. 
 
 We show here the wide range of levies which are necessary to be made 
 by the different districts within each of the counties. Tlie extreme left-hand 
 irregular line indicates how little some districts are required to pay in 
 order to provide the necessary educational facilities. The extreme right- 
 hand irregular line shows that many of the districts are compelled to levy 
 a tax up to the constitutional limit of twenty mills. In the different districts 
 within each of the counties the variable moves along anywhere between 
 these two extremes. Plea.se refer to Graph No. 14 for detailed information 
 concerning these variable rates. If all property in the state paid alike for 
 education, and the present amount were levied on the state's taxable wealth, 
 the dotted line at the point of 10 mills shows the rate that would be re- 
 quired for producing the Special Funds for present operation. The heavy 
 black line which crosses this state median near the center indicates the rate 
 each county would have to pay to produce the present Special Operative 
 costs. It is clearly evident, that as conditions now exist, some property is 
 contributing more than forty times as much for education as other property 
 within the same county. And in addition to this the variation between the 
 counties again multiplies even these extreme variables. 
 
 District taxation least equitable
 
 School Code Commission Report 
 
 District Per Capita Cost Show-ing Inequalities of Expenditures Per Cliild. 
 
 GRAPH NO. 9. 
 
 Kxplanation. 
 
 In this graph the state average is again indicated by the dotted line 
 representing present expenditure. The heavy black line which crosses the 
 state median near the center indicates the variable within the counties 
 based on the present average cost. The extremes between the low cost and 
 the high cost per pupil in each of the counties are indicated by the broken 
 line at the extreme left and the jagged line at the extreme right. It may 
 be noted that the amounts range from a very low cost of thirty dollars per 
 pupil to several hundred dollars per pupil per year. The range of difference 
 is so great that the wastage represented by the extreme high cost is too 
 apparent to need further explanation. On the one hand money is lavishly 
 expended, while on the other the bare necessities only can be provided. 
 Investigation again shows that these extreme high costs do not always mean 
 greater efficiency. The only way to bring these two extremes together is 
 through means of good administration and good business management, with 
 a taxing plan which will require all property to pay its just portion for the 
 support of public school education. 
 
 Variable costs extreme
 
 64 
 
 School Code Commission Be port 
 
 STATISTICS FOR GRAPH NO. 9. 
 
 DISTRICT PER CAPITA COSTS. 
 
 Inequality and InefBciency Within Countios Indicatsd by 
 
 LOWEST, AVERAGE AND HIGHEST COST 
 Per Child in Average Daily Attendance. 
 
 Rank 
 
 COUXTT 
 
 Lowest Per 
 Capita 
 Cost 
 
 Average 
 
 for 
 County 
 
 Highest Per 
 
 Capita 
 
 Cost 
 
 1 
 
 Franklin 
 
 $7.5 &i 
 38 2.5 
 
 46 22 
 64 08 
 73 65 
 
 33 33 
 
 36 30 
 35 54 
 
 34 43 
 .36 2« 
 
 50 14 
 
 47 S6 
 43 99 
 
 51 78 
 49 97 
 49 39 
 46 82 
 
 34 96 
 46 38 
 58 93 
 
 52 65 
 33 06 
 
 35 91 
 33 81 
 
 32 30 
 
 33 83 
 40 17 
 30 62 
 35 74 
 
 37 .58 
 35 88 
 
 27 57 
 37 17 
 45 74 
 
 28 30 
 
 29 81 
 ■ 28 21 
 
 35 42 
 29 36 
 
 $121 90 
 118 00 
 105 43 
 104 70 
 99 OO 
 96 71 
 95 20 
 95 16 
 95 03 
 93 52 
 90 62 
 88 85 
 87 45 
 86 OS 
 84 90 
 84 48 
 82 60 
 SO 52 
 80 20 
 78 98 
 78 41 
 78 18 
 74 20 
 73 37 
 n 88 
 71 43 
 68 98 
 66 28 
 64 73 
 64 65 
 63 82 
 63 21 
 63 16 
 62 23 
 61 00 
 60 42 
 58 52 
 53 82 
 49 41 
 
 ?845 75 
 
 2 
 
 Grant 
 
 918 10 
 
 3 
 
 
 3«4 25 
 
 4 
 
 
 495 96 
 
 
 Benton 
 
 367 23 
 
 6 
 
 Klickitat 
 
 525 32 
 
 7 
 
 King 
 
 290 34 
 
 8 
 
 
 
 9 
 
 
 3-51 54 
 
 10 
 
 Douglas , 
 
 306 78 
 
 11 
 
 
 511 48 
 
 12 
 
 Whitman 
 
 420 47 
 
 13 
 
 Grays Harbor .' 
 
 476 93 
 
 14 
 
 Clallam '. 
 
 .560 92 
 
 15 
 
 Walla Walla 
 
 569 10 
 
 16 
 
 Kittitas 
 
 
 17 
 
 
 276 43 
 
 18 
 
 Chelan 
 
 277 26 
 
 19 
 
 Psnd Oreills 
 
 248 61 
 
 20 
 
 Pacific ■ 
 
 423 79 
 
 21 
 
 Garfield 
 
 312 22 
 
 99 
 
 Spokane 
 
 2.30 36 
 
 2.3 
 
 Snohomish 
 
 337 78 
 
 24 
 
 Pierce 
 
 428 98 
 
 2.5 
 
 Okanogan 
 
 277 30 
 
 26 
 
 Thurston 
 
 993 .36 
 
 27 
 
 Yakima '. 
 
 313 96 
 
 28 
 
 Cowlitz 
 
 329 15 
 
 29 
 
 Whatcom 
 
 1.38 .36 
 
 30 
 
 Skagit 
 
 274 15 
 
 31 
 
 Perrv 
 
 162 27 
 
 32 
 
 
 552 .50 
 
 33 
 
 Lewis 
 
 160 22 
 
 34 
 
 
 ISO 46 
 
 3.5 
 
 San .luan 
 
 95 98 
 
 3C 
 
 Clarke 
 
 207 S3 
 
 37 
 
 Stevens 
 
 978 72 
 
 38 
 
 Island 
 
 84 27 
 
 39 
 
 Kitsap 
 
 163 99 
 
 
 State Average 
 
 
 
 
 ?S1 37 
 
 
 NOTE.— Costs indicated were for operation only.
 
 School Code Commission Report 
 
 65 
 
 District Per Capita Cost. 
 GRAPH NO. 9. 
 
 S 100 eOO 300 ■^00 300 6OO 700 aOO Average] 
 
 1 
 
 2 
 
 3 
 
 A 
 
 5 
 
 6 
 
 7 
 
 8 
 
 9 
 
 1 
 
 1 1 
 
 1 2 
 
 13 
 
 14 
 
 15 
 
 1 6 
 
 1 7 
 
 18 
 
 1 9 
 20 
 
 2 / 
 22 
 23 
 24 
 25 
 26 
 27 
 2B 
 29 
 30 
 
 3 1 
 32 
 33 
 34 
 35 
 36 
 37 
 38 
 39 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 121 90 
 
 
 /< 1 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ^1 1 e 00 
 
 1 05 43 
 
 
 <■ J 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 \ I 
 
 f 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 104.70 
 
 
 \ ! 
 
 / 
 
 
 _— —" 
 
 
 
 
 
 9 9 00 
 
 Klickitat 
 
 y ' 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 96.71 
 
 King 
 
 1 
 
 I 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 _ 9S .20 
 
 
 1 1 
 
 
 
 
 > _ 
 
 
 
 
 
 95.1 6 
 
 
 1 1 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 95.03 
 
 
 1 • 
 
 
 y 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 93.52 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 90.62 
 
 
 
 
 1 J^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 SB 85 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ^V^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 ^ 87.45 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ^, 
 
 
 
 
 ^86.08 
 
 V^a 1 1 a Wal 1 a 
 
 
 
 
 
 \ 
 
 
 
 
 84^.90 
 
 K itt it (]<=. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 84 4S 
 
 
 
 • 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ^ 82.60 
 
 
 
 
 J 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1^80.52 
 
 P e n d Oreille 
 
 — { — 
 
 
 / 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 80.20 
 
 ... ^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 78.98 
 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 
 * 
 
 
 
 
 
 78 41 
 
 
 
 
 ^^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 78.18 
 
 
 f 
 
 
 *--- 
 
 ..^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 74 PO 
 
 
 1 1 
 
 
 
 
 ■», 
 
 
 
 
 ; 7.1 37 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ^7 1 .88 
 
 
 
 : \ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 71 43 
 
 
 
 
 
 K 
 
 
 
 
 
 i ftfl 9fll 
 
 
 
 
 
 \ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 66 28 
 
 
 — f ' 
 
 . 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 6 4.7J 
 
 
 1 ' 
 
 *~~-~ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 64.65 
 
 
 1 ; 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 _ 63.82 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 63.2/ 
 
 
 \ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ■ 
 
 
 
 
 63.16 
 
 
 \ 
 
 \ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 62.23 
 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 6 / .00 
 
 
 ( 
 
 ^^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 60.42 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 58.52 
 
 
 \ 
 
 __^_-^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 53.82 
 
 
 / 
 
 '■"-^^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 • 49 4l\ 
 
 S TA T F 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 % 81 37 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 « 
 Note. Figures inc 
 
 00 200 300 400 S 
 
 ude operation only per 
 
 00 600 7 
 
 pupil in av 
 
 JO BOO Average 
 erage attend an c e 
 nty average 
 ite average 
 
 L 
 
 E G C M . 
 
 Highest per capita cost 
 
 
 
 
 
 1 N EQUALITY ^ INE FF ICIE NCV WITHIN COUNTY 
 
 LOWEST, AVERAGE §• HIGHEST 
 
 DISTRICT PER CAPITA COST 
 
 Graph No. 9. ^"^ '^ Co-non
 
 66 
 
 School Code Commission Report 
 
 STATISTICS FOR GRAPH NO. 10. 
 
 THRKE PLAXS FOR APPORTIONMENT. 
 
 STATE AID TO PUBLIC SCHOOLS UNDER PROPOSED 
 "THIRTY-TEN" PLAN. 
 
 Number of Pupils in 
 
 A. D. A. 
 
 in District or 
 
 Room 
 
 Apportioned 
 
 on 
 
 Attendance 
 
 Only 
 
 Apportioned One-Third on 
 
 Basis of Teachers Employed, 
 
 Two-Thirds on Attendance 
 
 Apportioned One-Half on 
 
 Basis of Teachers Employed, 
 
 One-Half on Attendance 
 
 Teacher 
 Basis 
 
 Attend- 
 ance 
 Basis 
 
 Total 
 
 Teacher 
 Basis 
 
 Attend- 
 ance 
 Basis 
 
 Total 
 
 5 
 
 $257 15 
 
 308 58 
 
 360 01 
 
 411 44 
 
 462 87 
 
 514 30 
 
 565 73 
 
 6]7 16 
 
 668 59 
 
 720 02 
 
 771 45 
 
 822 88 
 
 874 31 
 
 925 74 
 
 977 17 
 
 1,028 60 
 
 1,080 03 
 
 1,131 46 
 
 1,182 89 
 
 1,234 32 
 
 1,285 75 
 
 1,337 18 
 
 1,388 61 
 
 1,440 04 
 
 1,491 47 
 
 1,542.90 
 
 1,594 33 
 
 1,645 76 
 
 1,697 19 
 
 1,748 62 
 
 1,800 05 
 
 $357 30 
 357 30 
 357 30 
 357 30 
 357 30 
 357 30 
 357 30 
 357 30 
 357 30 
 357 30 
 357 30 
 357 30 
 357 30 
 357 30 
 357 30 
 357 30 
 357 30 
 357 30 
 357 30 
 357 30 
 357 30 
 357 30 
 357 30 
 357 30 
 a57 30 
 357 30 
 357 30 
 357 30 
 357 30 
 357 30 
 357 30 
 
 $171 55 
 205 86 
 240 17 
 274 48 
 308 79 
 343 10 
 377 41 
 411 72 
 446 03 
 480 34 
 514 65 
 548 96 
 583 27 
 617 58 
 651 89 
 686 20 
 720 51 
 754 82 
 789 13 
 823 44 
 857 75 
 892 06 
 926 37 
 960 68 
 994 99 
 1,029 30 
 1,063 61 
 1,097 92 
 1,132 23 
 1,166 54 
 1,200 85 
 
 $528 85 
 
 563 16 
 
 597 47 
 
 631 78 
 
 666 09 
 
 .700 40 
 
 • 734 71 
 
 769 02 
 
 808 33 
 
 837 64 
 
 871 95 
 
 906 26 
 
 940 57 
 
 974 88 
 
 1,009 19 
 
 1,043 50 
 
 1,077 81 
 
 1,112 12 
 
 1,146 43 
 
 1,180 74 
 
 1,215 05 
 
 1,249 36 
 
 1,283 67 
 
 1,317 98 
 
 1,352 29 
 
 1,386 60 
 
 1.420 91 
 
 1,455 22 
 
 1,489 53 
 
 1,523 84 
 
 1,558 15 
 
 $536 OO 
 536 00 
 536 00 
 536 00 
 536 00 
 536 00 
 536 00 
 536 00 
 536 00 
 .536 00 
 536 00 
 536 OO 
 536 00 
 536 OO 
 536 00 
 536 00 
 5.36 00 
 536 OO 
 536 OO 
 536 00 
 536 00 
 536 OO 
 536 00 
 536 OO 
 536 OO 
 536 00 
 536 00 
 536 00 
 536 00 
 536 OO 
 536 00 
 
 $128 60 
 154 32 
 180 04 
 205 76 
 231 48 
 257 20 
 282 92 
 308 64 
 334 36 
 360 08 
 385 80 
 411 52 
 437 24 
 462 96 
 488 68 
 514 40 
 540 12 
 565 84 
 591 56 
 617 28 
 643 00 
 668 72 
 694 44 
 720 16 
 745 88 
 771' 60 
 797 32 
 823 04 
 848 76 
 874 48 
 900 20 
 
 $664 60 
 
 6 
 
 690 32 
 
 7 
 
 716 04 
 
 8 
 
 741 76 
 
 9 
 
 767 48 
 
 10 
 
 793 20 
 
 11 
 
 818 92 
 
 12 
 
 844 64 
 
 13 
 
 870 36 
 
 14 
 
 890 08 
 
 15 
 
 921 80 
 
 16 
 
 947 52 
 
 17 
 
 973 24 
 
 IS 
 
 998 96 
 
 19 
 
 1,024 68 
 
 20 
 
 1,050 40 
 
 21 
 
 1,076 12 
 
 22 
 
 1,101 84 
 
 23 
 
 1,127 56 
 
 24 
 
 1,153 28 
 
 25 
 
 1,179 00 
 
 26 
 
 1,204 72 
 
 27 
 
 1,2.30 44 
 
 28 
 
 1,2.56 16 
 
 29 
 
 1,281 88 
 
 30 
 
 1,307 60 
 
 31 
 
 1,333 32 
 
 32 
 
 1,3.59 04 
 
 33 
 
 1,384 76 
 
 34 
 
 1,410 48 
 
 35 
 
 1,436 20 
 
 
 
 NOTE.— Calculations presuppose a uniform school term, and allow no constructive attend- 
 ance other than high school.
 
 00»— ^ ^0<^ — ^^0^f\J^K<^'^J^rJKOnJU^NO'-l^^JQ^O'*>lo<^)— •*) 
 
 -« 
 
 k 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ■ 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ■ 
 
 ■ 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ul 
 
 I 
 
 
 C «j 
 
 a> I I 
 
 C ^ 
 
 C «> <u 
 
 
 .^ :: -^ t: i £ ?. ? c ^ 5. c c c c 
 
 >^>> 
 
 - 3 
 
 0. c , ^ ^ , ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ 
 
 r - 
 
 ■t- V **• 
 
 ^ ^ ^ 
 
 u^o^nuiZ^--UJ^-^-uu.u)U)'MJ^^-^-^-^-l~,'~^-t-l~^-K^-^- 
 
 ~ ^^ ^ i i 
 
 b V !. I. ; V 
 
 c j: c 
 
 K I- K 
 
 (0 u 
 
 au 
 
 I ^ o 
 r f- en 
 
 2h^ 
 
 
 
 ^ *< „^ 
 
 I I ♦- 
 lij Ul ° 
 
 o o ^ 
 
 (niu 
 
 
 
 o-o 
 
 41 
 
 uiZ 
 
 
 T'^ 
 
 D 
 
 l)0 
 
 D 
 
 <2 
 
 
 (u Id 
 
 1- 
 
 hH- 
 
 a 
 
 ^ h 
 
 
 t< 
 
 i 
 
 -^ (/) 
 
 o 
 
 ^a 
 
 3 
 
 fta: 
 
 1. 
 
 II 
 
 C 
 
 hh 
 
 o 
 
 ^1 
 
 ol- 
 
 2 ° 
 
 -C 
 
 O ° 
 
 Q S 
 
 15 
 
 tth 
 Q. 
 
 a 
 
 2 t
 
 68 School Code Commission Report 
 
 Three Plans for Apportionment of All School Revenue. 
 
 GRAPH NO. 10. 
 E^xplsination. 
 
 We present in this chart three ways of distributing the money to the 
 different schools of the entire state. The first plan at the left indicates 
 the state money distributed on attendance only, a plan similar to that used 
 at the present time for apportioning state money. The second plan proposes 
 that one-third of the money be apportioned on the basis of the number of 
 teachers employed, and that the remainder be apportioned according to 
 average daily attendance. The third plan proposes that one-half of the 
 state money be apportioned on the basis of the number of teachers employed 
 and the remainder according to the average daily attendance of pupils. 
 This latter plan is the one most equitable and provides the fairest appor- 
 tionment for all schools. In order to have a school, a teacher must be 
 provided no matter what number of children may be assembled to make 
 up the school attendance. When the basis of revenue is divided between 
 the teachers and the pupils equally it makes provision for the care of 
 the small school and at the same time works no hardship on the district 
 where a larger number of pupils can be assembled in each schoolroom. 
 This plan of distribution has been figured for each of the counties in order 
 to be certain that no injustice be done anywhere, and with this assurance 
 the Commission has provided that all state and all county money be appor- 
 tioned on this basis. 
 
 Distribution must be equitable
 
 70 School Code Commission Report 
 
 County Reorganization Plan. 
 
 GRAPH NO. 11. 
 
 Explanation. 
 
 In the county reorganization plan we propose no new scheme for ad- 
 ministration and supervision. But we do propose the rearrangement of the 
 county district organization to conform in a large way to the better organ- 
 ized, and thoroughly tried city plan. The left-hand division of this chart 
 shows the present plan or organization which has worked so well in the 
 urban centers. Schools have increased in efficiency under this plan, and the 
 people of the cities have never questioned it from the standpoint of good 
 business practices. 
 
 In order to make equitable all the conditions affecting our rural 
 schools, it is necessary to provide an administration plan which will react 
 to that same need. If good administration and supervision is important for 
 a portion of our schools, we hold by analogy that it is important and neces- 
 sary for the other portion. The plan proposes nothing new in government, 
 but does propose one of the most effective means in school government that 
 has been used in our own country. Such an organization leaves the gen- 
 eral direction of the school in the hands of the people, and makes it re 
 sponsive in every particular to the people's needs and wishes. Representa- 
 tive government can not be questioned unless we apply our criticism to all 
 phases of our republican form of administration and direction, nationally 
 and state as well as local. 
 
 
 Good organization compared
 
 School Code Commission Report 
 
 71 
 
 County Keor^nnlzatlon. 
 GRAPH IVO. 11.
 
 72 School Code Commission Report 
 
 state AdniinistratiTe Reorganization. 
 
 GRAPH NO. 12. 
 
 Explanation. 
 
 The management and direction of public education in any state requires 
 a great deal of responsibility. It represents a phase of government which 
 requires specialists with technical training and special adaptation. Educa- 
 tional foresight of the highest type is necessary to carry into effect a pro- 
 gram which will respond in all of its parts to the needs of educational 
 equality. In securing this leadership, we believe it will be an advantage not 
 to depend upon political affiliation or political majority for such choice. "We 
 think there is an advantage in not being restricted to local state limits, but 
 that the constituted state authorities be free to secure this wherever it may 
 be found. This does not mean that we question leadership within our own 
 state, but means simply that the privilege be given to go outside if it 
 proves an advantage to do so. 
 
 It must be admitted at once that our present elective plan depends upon 
 political affiliation and the ability to get votes, while the proposed plan 
 offers the larger opportunity of leaving the whole matter of choice open 
 to the best talent that can be procured for such work without reference to 
 locality or political affiliation. All of our city schools, all of our public- 
 and state institutions choose administrative officers on a non-political basis. 
 Our entire public school system has been freed in this respect except for 
 the state and county executive officers. 
 
 We propose a State Board of Education, composed of seven lay members 
 to be appointed by the governor. Our present State Board is appointed in 
 the same way except for the fact that we have certain ex-officio members. 
 The present mixed plan creates a board which is really responsible to no one 
 and constitutes it entirely upon professional basis. We believe that a lay 
 board appointed on a non-political, non-sectarian basis will be much more 
 responsive to the people's wishes and to the school's needs. Regents and 
 trustees of state institutions are appointed in this way, and the state has 
 never questioned the propriety of the plan or accused any such board of 
 being irresponsive to the work in charge. A lay board composed of worthy 
 citizens would at once find a personal interest in the important work of 
 administering to the needs of three hundred sixty-five thousand children, 
 and such a board would use the greatest care in finding the best talent 
 obtainable for a commissioner of education, who must needs become the 
 chief executive educational officer of the state. 
 
 The graph shows the division heads with the function of each, planned 
 to make the whole scheme of education responsible to every need in oiu\ 
 state. 
 
 fl 
 
 Unity is necessary to good organization
 
 School Code Commission Report 
 
 73 
 
 state Admlulxitrutive RcorKanixution. 
 GRAPH XO. 12. 
 
 U 
 
 J 
 
 a 
 
 
 
 u 
 a 
 
 a. 
 
 o 
 
 2 
 q: 
 u 
 
 o 
 o 
 
 ^>« 
 
 of- J 
 
 o 
 
 OD 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 u 
 > u 
 
 U) 
 
 / 
 
 
 
 \DK 
 
 <0 
 
 
 
 \ 
 
 
 u-J 
 
 \ 
 
 J 
 
 »-$ 
 
 \ 
 
 < 
 
 «)2 
 
 \ 
 
 j: 
 
 Daw 
 
 \ 
 
 Ct (0 
 
 It O J 
 
 \ 
 
 O-J 
 
 H2o 
 
 u. o 
 
 1 
 
 ZO 
 
 o 
 
 ull 
 ho 
 
 
 
 t w 
 
 <U) 
 
 
 h 
 
 o 
 
 o 
 
 
 U) 
 
 
 
 ? X S" 
 
 
 
 
 Q- in 
 
 l^i 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 t 2 
 z t- 
 
 < 
 
 / 
 
 a: 
 
 u < 
 
 
 
 
 \ 
 
 ■0 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 / 
 
 El 
 
 
 
 / 
 
 
 ^1 
 
 2 - 
 
 
 / 
 
 
 (- (J 
 
 
 
 O u, 
 
 \ 
 
 E - 
 E ^ 
 
 
 
 \ 
 
 
 
 
 
 2 
 
 D 
 
 J 
 
 z 
 
 \ 
 
 ■^ u 
 
 
 
 
 
 -1 
 < 
 
 o 
 
 -J 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 / 
 
 ^2 
 
 ^1 
 
 / 
 
 / 
 
 
 
 
 
 \ 
 
 
 
 
 \ 
 
 o -^ o 
 
 
 
 
 
 ^1! 
 
 
 
 Uj 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ^ - ? 
 
 a f w 
 
 
 
 «i ": 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ^ 1 ^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 •- - « 
 ? "^ *« 
 
 
 
 " V. r 
 
 
 
 
 z 
 
 o 
 
 h 
 
 N 
 
 Z 
 
 o 
 a 
 o 
 
 Ui 
 
 a. 
 
 u 
 > 
 
 q: 
 
 h
 
 74 School Code Commission Report 
 
 Administrative Units. 
 
 GRAPH NO. 13. 
 
 Explanation. 
 
 In 1810, the National government, through congressional action, placed 
 the responsibility of public school education upon the several states. The 
 provision declared that the state should ever be free to administer free 
 schools in a manner to best meet the needs of its people, but that each state 
 should write into its constitution a declaration assuming this responsibility. 
 Since that time, no state has been admitted into the Union "without assum- 
 ing this obligation. Because of this, we have the state unit of control with 
 a national subsidy. The subsidies were first given in the form of one sec- 
 tion of land in each township. This was afterwards Increased to two in some 
 of the western states, and finally increased to four in a very few of the states 
 admitted into the Union. The subsidy has usually been intended as a 
 stimulus in providing adequate educational facilities and shows forth the 
 national faith in our free school system. 
 
 The district system was first organized in the extreme eastern states 
 and moved westward with the pioneers, who found it necessary to establish 
 education on an emergency basis. Our population has increased very rap- 
 idly through the years, and with this increase has come greater and greater 
 demands for increased educational facilities. The old system which served 
 a good purpose in the earlier days failed to give proper results as the system 
 became more complex. As the cost increased, it became necessary to find 
 a way to increase the efficiency on an economical basis. 
 
 The southern states and some of the eastern states felt the financial 
 pressure first and out of this need came a new type of organization based 
 on closer administration and better business methods. The West, with its 
 great resources and abundance of taxable wealth, is now paying much more 
 per capita cost for education than most of the eastern states, but even the West 
 has begun to feel financial pressure and better financing is strongly urged 
 upon us. 
 
 The map shows the different types of organization that have grown out 
 of this needed change. Some states seem more adaptable to the county 
 unit plan than to the township plan, while the semi-county unit plan or the 
 permissible plan is being tried in other states. In our own state the cost 
 of public education has now reached about twenty-two millions per year and 
 so any means which will give to us added facilities with equal educational 
 opportunity and at the same time keep the cost down to the minimum 
 should be looked upon with favor. 
 
 I 
 
 Financial Crises demand equity
 
 School Code Commission Report 
 
 75 
 
 School Artininistrative Units in Different States. 
 ORAPH >'0. 13.
 
 76 
 
 School Code Commission Report 
 
 I 
 
 STATISTICS FOR GRAPH NO. 14. 
 SPECIAL, niSTRICT LEVIES. 
 
 Proportion of Districts in Each County Levying Millage Indicated. 
 
 Rank 
 
 COUNTY 
 
 0-5 
 Mills 
 
 5.1-10 
 Mills 
 
 10.1-15 
 Mills 
 
 Over 
 15 Mills 
 
 Per Cent. 
 
 10 Mills 
 
 and 
 
 Under 
 
 1 
 
 9 
 
 
 33.3% 
 
 26.1 
 
 19.5 
 
 41.0 
 
 23.3 
 
 24.1 
 
 36.2 
 
 40.0 
 
 12.3 
 
 19.3 
 
 7.1 
 52.0 
 41.4 
 44.2 
 36.8 
 24.1 
 17.2 
 17.9 
 
 8.6 
 20.0 
 19.5 
 23.1 
 41.4 
 13.4 
 
 8.7 
 
 8.3 
 12.3 
 25.9 
 
 7.9 
 16.1 
 ■ 4.8 
 21.4 
 
 5.6 
 
 7.2 
 13.4 
 
 6.3 
 
 2.9 
 
 5.0 
 
 5.0 
 
 66.7% 
 
 73.9 
 
 80.5 
 
 56.4 
 
 73.3 
 
 72.4 
 
 58.1 
 
 53.8 
 
 80.8 
 
 73.5 
 
 83.8 
 
 65.3 
 
 48.3 
 
 44.2 
 
 50.0 
 
 62.1 
 
 69.0 
 
 67.9 
 
 77.2 
 
 65.4 
 
 65.8 
 
 58.5 
 
 40.0 
 
 67.2 
 
 71.0 
 
 70.4 
 
 65.0 
 
 50.0 
 
 67.3 
 
 56.8 
 
 66.6 
 
 45.2 
 
 52.8 
 
 50.7 
 
 42.5 
 
 43.8 
 
 44.1 
 
 35.0 
 
 25.0 
 
 0.0% 
 
 0.0 
 
 0.0 
 
 0.0 
 
 0.0 
 
 3.5 
 
 1.9 
 
 4.1 
 
 5.8 
 
 4.4- 
 
 2.0 
 
 6.5 
 
 0.0 
 
 9.3 
 
 1.3 
 
 8.6 
 
 3.5 
 
 7.1 
 
 8.5 
 12.8 
 
 7.4 
 10.7 
 17.9 
 10.5 
 11.6 
 
 9.2 
 13.9 
 13.0 
 
 7.0 
 14.2 
 
 9.6 
 28.6 
 12.8 
 
 5.9 
 21.3 
 19.6 
 14.7 
 30.0 
 35.0 
 
 0.0% 
 
 0.0 
 
 0.0 
 
 2.6 
 
 3.4 
 
 0.0 
 
 3.8 
 
 3.1 
 
 2.7 
 
 3.6 
 
 7.1 
 
 4.2 
 10.3 
 
 2.3 
 
 2.9 
 
 5.2 
 10.3 
 
 7.1 
 
 5.7 
 
 1.8 
 
 7.3 
 
 7.7 
 
 0.7 
 
 8.9 
 
 8.7 
 12.1 
 
 8.8 
 11.1 
 17.8 
 12.9 
 19.0 
 
 4.8 
 28.8 
 36.2 
 22.8 
 31.3 
 35.3 
 30.0 
 35.0 
 
 100.0% 
 
 
 100.0 
 
 3 
 
 
 100.0 
 
 Garfield 
 
 97.4 
 
 5 
 
 
 96.6 
 
 
 96.5 
 
 7 
 S 
 9 
 
 
 94.3 
 
 Walla Walla 
 
 93.8 
 
 Clark" 
 
 93.1 
 
 10 
 
 Klickitat 
 
 92.8 
 
 
 90.9 
 
 12 
 
 
 90.3 
 
 13 
 
 
 89.7 
 
 
 Kittitas 
 
 88.4 
 
 15 
 16 
 
 
 86.8 
 
 Cowlitz 
 
 86.2 
 
 17 
 
 
 86.2 
 
 18 
 
 
 85.8 
 
 19 
 
 P°nd Oreill" 
 
 85.8 
 
 90 
 
 
 85.4 
 
 21 
 
 Clallam 
 
 85. 3 
 
 22 
 
 
 81.6 
 
 23 
 
 
 81.4 
 
 24 
 
 
 80.6 
 
 ''o 
 
 Skagit 
 
 79.7 
 
 26 
 
 
 78.7 
 
 27 
 
 Chelan 
 
 77.3 
 
 28 
 
 
 75.9 
 
 29 
 
 
 75.2 
 
 SO 
 
 
 72.9 
 
 31 
 
 
 71.4 
 
 32 
 
 
 66.6 
 
 33 
 
 
 58.4 
 
 34 
 
 
 57.9 
 
 35 
 
 
 55.9 
 
 36 
 
 
 50.1 
 
 37 
 
 
 47.0 
 
 38 
 
 
 40.0 
 
 39 
 
 
 30. 
 
 
 
 
 
 20.1% 
 
 59.1% 
 
 10.2% 
 
 10.67% 
 
 79.2% 
 
 
 
 
 NOTE.— Data based upon special levies for operation only.
 
 School Code Commission Report 
 
 11 
 
 Special District Levies. 
 GRAPH NO. 14.
 
 78 School Code Commission Report 
 
 Special District Levies. 
 
 GRAPH NO. J 4. 
 
 Rxplanntioii. 
 
 The intention here is to show the percentage of the districts in each 
 county which are able to operate on levies siiown in the legend. Quite a 
 percentage of all the districts of the state are able to maintain their schools 
 on district levies of five mills or less. There is, however, a considerable 
 percentage of the districts in the different counties of the state that must 
 levy from ten to fifteen mills. A study of the chart shows at once that in 
 most counties there are many wealthy districts whose tax levies are very 
 low. In most all counties there are many districts having low valuation with 
 high tax levies. The inequalities as shown in the aggregate for each county 
 tell an important story. 
 
 In order to get the greatest significance from the illustration here 
 given, it is important to refer to the efficiency graphs Nos. 18 and 19 to 
 ascertain the relative importance of high valuation compared with low; and 
 again to note the effect of good administration and good organization in 
 connection with the amount of money available. 
 
 Small units multiply inequalities
 
 School Code Commission Report 79 
 
 District Attendance Statistics. 
 
 GRAPH NO. 15, 
 
 F.xplanation. 
 
 The organization of a school has a significant effect upon the cost of 
 education. Schools widely scattered with small enrollments necessarily cost 
 more than do the schools of the more populous centers. In the main, too, 
 these schools have the poorest type of education, and educational incentives. 
 This probably can not be overcome entirely, but a much better condition can 
 be brought about by better organization with proper supervision and control. 
 It is not enough to pass such a condition by with a mere statement that 
 nature has made this condition necessary. We must at least attempt to 
 provide good supervision and control, as well as good teachers for all the 
 schools. A careful study of the situation shows that the well organized 
 counties are getting very much more for the money expended for education 
 than are others. We again call attention to the efficiency charts, and 
 would emphasize the need for good business management applied to all the 
 schools and irregular situations now existing. 
 
 It is interesting to see how some counties lowest in taxable wealth have 
 adapted their school organizations in a way to secure good results, and im- 
 proved school efSciency with the revenues at their disposal. 
 
 Direct supervision necessary to improvement
 
 80 
 
 School Code Commission Report 
 
 STATISTICS FOR GRAPH NO. 15. 
 
 DISTRICT ATTKN'DAXCE STATISTICS. 
 
 Proportion of Districts in Each Coun ty Having Indicated Number of Pupils 
 in Average Da ily Attendance. 
 
 Rank 
 
 COUNTY 
 
 1-10 
 
 11-20 
 
 21-30 
 
 31 and 
 Over 
 
 Per Cent. 
 20 and 
 
 Under 
 
 1 
 
 Garfield 
 
 60.6% 
 
 50.0 
 
 60.7 
 
 59.2 
 
 71.0 
 
 53.8 
 
 60.2 
 
 67.6 
 
 47.6 
 
 41.4 
 
 56.5 
 
 35.9 
 
 31.0 
 
 45.4 
 
 44.2 
 
 55.2 
 
 50.9 
 
 24.6 
 
 35.1 
 
 25.9 
 
 36.7 
 
 .38.1 
 
 26.6 
 
 25.8 
 
 27.3 
 
 6.2 
 34.5 
 18.2 
 15.1 
 20.4 
 11.3 
 12.0 
 
 6.2 
 11.1 
 10.3 
 
 9.8 
 16.4 
 
 5.6 
 
 3.7 
 
 33.3% 
 
 37.5 
 
 25.0 
 
 25.0 
 
 12.9 
 
 30.0 
 
 23.1 
 
 14.7 
 
 32.9 
 
 37.3 
 
 21.7 
 
 35.9 
 
 37.9 
 
 22.7 
 
 23.1 
 
 10.3 
 
 14.5 
 
 39.1 
 
 28.1 
 
 34.5 
 
 23.3 
 
 21.4 
 
 32.5 
 
 32.2 
 
 27.3 
 
 43.7 
 
 13.8 
 
 29.1 
 
 21.9 
 
 16.3 
 
 25.3 
 
 22.0 
 
 25.0 
 
 15.3 
 
 15.5 
 
 14.7 
 
 6.6 
 15.5 
 
 7.4 
 
 0.0% 
 
 5.7 
 
 0.0 
 
 5.3 
 
 6.4 
 
 6.7 
 
 3.9 
 
 8.9 
 
 8.5 
 
 4.7 
 13.1 
 10.2 
 10.4 
 19.2 
 
 7.7 
 
 0.0 
 
 7.3 
 
 7.3 
 
 8.7 
 15.5 
 23.3 
 19.1 
 14.3 
 13.0 
 13.6 
 31.4 
 
 6.9 
 14.5 
 19.2 
 12.3 
 18.3 
 11.0 
 12.6 
 11.1 
 15.6 
 11.5 
 11.4 
 15.5 
 29.6 
 
 6.1% 
 
 6.8 
 14.3 
 10.5 
 
 9.7 
 
 8.5 
 12.8 
 
 8.8 
 11.0 
 16.6 
 
 8.7 
 18.0 
 20.7 
 22.7 
 25.0 
 34.5 
 27.3 
 29.0 
 28.1 
 24.1 
 16.7 
 21.4 
 26.6 
 29.0 
 31.8 
 18.7 
 44.8 
 38.2 
 43.8 
 51.0 
 45.1 
 55.0 
 56.2 
 62.5 
 58.6 
 64.0 
 65.6 
 63.4 
 59.3 
 
 93.9% 
 
 
 
 87.5 
 
 3 
 
 
 85.7 
 
 4 
 
 
 84.2 
 
 
 
 83.9 
 
 g 
 
 
 83.8 
 
 
 Klickitat 
 
 83.3 
 
 
 
 82.3 
 
 9 
 
 
 80.5 
 
 10 
 11 
 
 
 78.7 
 
 
 78.2 
 
 12 
 
 Clallam 
 
 71.8 
 
 13 
 
 
 68.9 
 
 14 
 
 
 68.1 
 
 15 
 
 Chelan 
 
 67.3 
 
 16 
 
 
 65.5 
 
 17 
 
 18 
 
 Walla Walla 
 
 65.4 
 
 
 63.7 
 
 -19 
 
 Cowlitz 
 
 63.2 
 
 20 
 
 
 60.4 
 
 21 
 
 
 60.0 
 
 92 
 
 
 59.5 
 
 23 
 
 
 59.1 
 
 24 
 
 95 
 
 
 58.0 
 
 
 54.6 
 
 26 
 
 
 49 9 
 
 27 
 28 
 
 Pacific 
 
 48.3 
 
 
 47.3 
 
 99 
 
 
 37 
 
 30 
 
 
 .36.7 
 
 31 
 
 Clark" 
 
 36.6 
 
 32 
 
 
 .34 
 
 33 
 
 
 31.2 
 
 34 
 
 
 26 4 
 
 35 
 
 Kitsap 
 
 25.8 
 
 36 
 
 
 24.5 
 
 37 
 
 
 23 
 
 38 
 
 Skagit 
 
 21.1 
 
 39 
 
 
 11 1 
 
 
 
 
 
 .32.. 3% 
 
 25.4% 
 
 11.0% 
 
 31.3% 
 
 57.7% 
 

 
 School Code Commission Report 
 
 81 
 
 Difitriet Attenilaiice. 
 GRAPH NO. 15. 
 
 Yc 
 
 90 Unaer2\ 
 
 z 
 
 3 
 4 
 
 5 
 6 
 
 7 
 8 
 9 
 I O 
 t I 
 I 2 
 / J 
 ( 4 
 (5 
 / 6 
 I 7 
 18 
 
 1 9 
 
 2 O 
 2 I 
 2 2 
 2 3 
 2 A 
 2 5 
 26 
 2 7 
 2 8 
 
 2 9 
 
 3 
 3 I 
 32 
 33 
 34 
 35 
 36 
 3 7 
 3 8 
 3 9 
 
 Garfield 
 
 Douglas 
 
 Asotin 
 
 Grant 
 
 Frank 1 1 n 
 
 Lincoln 
 
 K I ichitat. 
 
 Columbia 
 
 Adams 
 
 Wh itm an 
 
 Skamania 
 
 C I a 1 1 a m 
 
 Ferry 
 
 Jefferson^ 
 
 Chelan 
 
 Benton 
 
 U/a 1 1 a Wall a 
 
 Okanogan 
 
 Cowlitz 
 
 Stevens 
 
 Mason 
 
 K ittitas 
 
 Spokane 
 
 P e n d Oreille. 
 
 W a Ink I ak a m^ 
 
 S a n J u an 
 
 P a c i f 
 
 Thurston 
 
 L e tv 
 
 C r ay s Harbor 
 
 Clarke 
 
 Pierce 
 
 Island 
 
 Snohomish 
 
 Kitsap 
 
 Hi ng 
 
 Ya k I rn a 
 Skagit 
 
 Whatcom 
 
 S T^T E 
 
 1-30 pupils 
 
 60 70 80 90 
 
 ly attendance 
 
 I 2 1 - 30 pupils . 
 v,;;;-,; ^ 3 1 pupils and over. 
 
 100 fo 
 
 PROPORTION OF DISTR 
 
 HAVI NG FROM ON 
 
 DISTRICT ATTE 
 
 G r a ph No IS. 
 
 icrs IN EACH COUNTY 
 E TO TW ENTY - NE. 
 
 NDANCE STATISTICS 
 
 M C o rn a n
 
 82 
 
 School Code Commission Report 
 
 STATISTICS FOR GRAPH NO. 16. 
 TfJACHIfIRS' SALARIES. 
 
 A CLASSIFIED SCHEDULE. 
 
 Rank 
 
 COUNTY 
 
 King 
 
 Pierce 
 
 Spokane 
 
 Grays Harbor. 
 Walla Walla... 
 Snohomish. .. . 
 
 Takima 
 
 Kittitas 
 
 Whatcom 
 
 Thurston 
 
 Franklin 
 
 Benton 
 
 Chelan 
 
 Skagit 
 
 Pacific 
 
 Clallam 
 
 Whitman 
 
 Clarke 
 
 Adams 
 
 Kitsap 
 
 Lincoln 
 
 Lewis 
 
 Jefferson 
 
 Columbia 
 
 Grant 
 
 Asotin 
 
 Douglas 
 
 Skamania 
 
 Pend Oreille. . . 
 
 Mason 
 
 Klickitat 
 
 Cowlitz 
 
 Garfield 
 
 Stevens 
 
 Wahkiakum. .. 
 
 Okanogan 
 
 Island 
 
 San Juan 
 
 Ferry 
 
 All 
 Teachers 
 
 State average. 
 
 $1,554 
 
 1,255 
 
 1,205 
 
 1,204 
 
 1,196 
 
 1,129 
 
 1,115 
 
 1,105 
 
 1,060 
 
 1,041 
 
 1,032 
 
 1,020 
 
 1,013 
 
 1,005 
 
 1,001 
 
 1,000 
 
 997 
 
 978 
 
 973 
 
 962 
 
 955 
 
 950 
 
 942 
 
 939 
 
 915 
 
 913 
 
 910 
 
 901 
 
 870 
 870 
 851 
 845 
 840 
 833 
 809 
 806 
 
 Supt. 
 Prin. 
 Super- 
 visors 
 
 $1,160 
 
 $2,032 
 1,655 
 1,574 
 1,814 
 1,577 
 1,383 
 1,337 
 1,662 
 1,225 
 1,310 
 1,544 
 1,365 
 1,359 
 1,609 
 1,417 
 1,197 
 1,345 
 1,188 
 1,293 
 1,209 
 1,435 
 1,360 
 1,430 
 1,429 
 1,269 
 1,418 
 2,075 
 1,366 
 1,125 
 2,100 
 1,180 
 1,178 
 1,231 
 1,280 
 
 926 
 1,368 
 
 940 
 1,065 
 1,121 
 
 H. S. 
 Teachers 
 
 $1,500 
 
 $1,764 
 
 1,458 
 
 1,473 
 
 1,414 
 
 1,392 
 
 1,325 
 
 1,373 
 
 1,285 
 
 1,251 
 
 1,186 
 
 1,208 
 
 1,178 
 
 1,184 
 
 1,178 
 
 1,115 
 
 1,300 
 
 1,129 
 
 1,124 
 
 1,126 
 
 1,171 
 
 1,111 
 
 1,005 
 
 1,130 
 
 1,153 
 
 1,074 
 
 1,146 
 
 1,270 
 
 776 
 
 998 
 
 955 
 
 1,010 
 
 942 
 
 1,150 
 
 1,115 
 
 855 
 
 1,066 
 
 873 
 
 890 
 
 967 
 
 Graded 
 
 School 
 
 Teachers 
 
 $1,395 
 
 $1,442 
 
 1,150 
 
 1,113 
 
 1,112 
 
 1,098 
 
 1,024 
 
 980 
 
 1,000 
 
 947 
 
 942 
 
 1,018 
 
 938 
 
 976 
 
 908 
 
 912 
 
 1,026 
 
 913 
 
 947 
 
 942 
 
 897 
 
 906 
 
 895 
 940 
 834 
 1,031 
 875 
 856 
 821 
 869 
 810 
 926 
 866 
 795 
 828 
 791 
 762 
 874 
 
 $1,119 
 
 Rural 
 
 School 
 
 Teachers 
 
 901 
 799 
 920 
 886 
 875 
 772 
 867 
 815 
 890 
 883 
 789 
 662 
 860 
 826 
 793 
 864 
 731 
 872 
 855 
 825 
 815 
 737 
 790 
 797 
 680 
 810 
 815 
 824 
 905 
 790 
 796 
 766 
 734 
 839 
 684 
 778 
 765 
 660 
 
 Propor- 
 tion 
 of all 
 Teachers 
 in Rural 
 Schools 
 (1 Room) 
 
 2.2% 
 
 6.7 
 12.0 
 14.1 
 15.2 
 
 9.1 
 
 3.6 
 18.1 
 
 7.0 
 18.3 
 42.2 
 21.9 
 19.4 
 11.8 
 13.4 
 35.6 
 33.6 
 18.6 
 48.9 
 14.1 
 48.9 
 23.9 
 35.6 
 36.4 
 52.0 
 32.0 
 70.2 
 48.6 
 39.7 
 41.8 
 53.8 
 37.2 
 62.0 
 49.0 
 50.0 
 47.4 
 34.0 
 51.6 
 51.0 
 
 18.0% 
 
 NOTE — Data includes salaries of both men and women.
 
 School Code Commission Report 
 
 Teachers' Salaries. 
 GRAPH \'0, Hi. 
 
 $ 600 BOO tOOO ISOO 1400 1600 1800 Average 
 
 1 
 
 a 
 
 3 
 
 A 
 
 5 
 
 6 
 
 7 
 
 8 
 
 9 
 
 1 
 
 / / 
 
 / 2 
 
 / 3 
 
 \4 
 
 15 
 
 1 6 
 
 ; 7 
 
 IB 
 
 1 9 
 20 
 Z 1 
 22 
 23 
 24 
 Z5 
 26 
 
 2 7 
 26 
 29 
 30 
 
 3 I 
 32 
 33 
 34 
 35 
 36 
 37 
 38 
 39 
 
 K , n q 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 / 554 
 
 ;255 
 
 / 2 05 
 
 I 2 04 
 
 1 / 96 
 
 1129 
 
 1 1 IS 
 
 1 1 05 
 
 1 060 
 
 (04/ 
 
 10 32 
 
 / 020 
 
 10 13 
 
 1 05 
 
 1 OO 1 
 
 1000 
 
 997 
 
 9 78 
 
 973 
 
 962 
 
 955 
 
 950 
 
 942 
 
 9 3 9 
 
 9 / 5 
 
 9 1 3 
 
 9 1 
 
 9 1 
 
 899 
 
 8 94 
 
 882 
 
 8 70 
 
 8 70 
 
 8 5 1 
 
 845 
 
 840 
 
 833 
 
 8 09 
 
 806 
 
 1 1 60 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 
 .__»-»-r:^ 
 
 f , ^ 
 
 — ■-2____ 
 
 , -^ 
 
 
 
 ^^ 
 
 A 
 
 /■^ 
 
 — r^ 
 
 / 
 
 
 
 
 
 '^^'S^S^ 
 
 (' 
 
 
 • 
 
 
 
 
 Wo II a Wo 1 1 a 
 
 
 / 
 
 f 'J 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 jl 
 
 y y 
 
 y 
 
 ^,^- — 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ^ l\ 
 
 '^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 K i-tti t a^ 
 
 
 N 5 
 
 /! 
 
 /^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ? -^ 
 
 / 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 '^, t 
 
 / 1, 
 
 /\3 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1 ^ 
 
 J ! 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ^ X 
 
 7 V 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 \ 
 
 / ! 
 
 / 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 -^ -^ 
 
 ' \] 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 y, 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 / ^ 
 
 
 -js—-""^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ^ -"^ 
 
 -r 
 
 ^"^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 r. 1 nr U p 
 
 C^ 
 
 \ / 
 
 1 I 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 *^ 
 
 *°*=~i 1 / 
 
 1 I 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 / x / 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 / \ f 
 
 •1 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 II c 1 
 
 -'^ [ 
 
 y 
 
 y 
 
 
 
 
 . J p -f-Ff 1- «t o n 
 
 
 \ / 
 
 
 S 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 \I 
 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 
 a r a nt 
 
 
 
 y. 
 
 ^-^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 .^ 
 
 
 ^^I 
 
 ^- 
 
 
 
 
 
 n o Lj g 1 a ■; 
 
 ~*^ 
 
 
 
 --^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ?---i- 
 
 ^^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 Pe n d Oreille. 
 
 
 'V'T'~ *? 
 
 
 ^^^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 Klickitat 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ■ 
 
 ^— 
 
 r r)\Ay 1 it y 
 
 J 
 
 Jl y 
 
 :l 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 n n r -fi P 1 d 
 
 / 
 
 
 
 \ 
 
 
 
 
 
 ^tp\yptn'i 
 
 / 
 
 
 
 ,\ 
 
 
 
 
 
 Wa hk i ak um . 
 
 ^ 
 
 i«<T — — LII 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 M ~~ "~ - 
 
 ^[ ~ — 1— 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1 <i 1 n r-i H 
 
 
 // ^-- 
 
 ;;^^___-}— 
 
 - — " ^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 Son Juan 
 
 
 
 -.^ ' 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 \ 1^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 <=? -TAT F 
 
 
 
 
 :r:r:::-~_ 
 
 . 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 $ 6 
 
 00 8C 
 
 '000 IZOO 14 
 
 1 Te a ch e r s 
 ed School Teacher 
 
 DO (600 18 
 
 00 ?000 
 
 3fs,, Prins , S upw-r 
 
 n t y overage 
 ate overage 
 
 L 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 G raph N o. 1 6 
 
 A C0h1PARATI\^E STUDY OF 
 CLASS/F/ED Afs/NUAL 
 
 TEACHERS' SALARIES 
 
 Wm. M C Oman.
 
 84 School Code Commission Report 
 
 Teachers' Salaries. 
 
 GRAPH NO. 16. 
 
 l^xplanation. 
 
 Teachers' salaries do not vary in every case according to the taxable 
 wealth or the ability to pay. Some counties have a larger number of un- 
 trained teachers, and even this does not always insure that the lowest 
 salaries are paid. In other words, there is no real standard for teachers' 
 salaries, or schedule of salaries outside of the city schools. This may be a 
 wise provision, but at least there would be some advantage in having less 
 variation than is shown by this chart. 
 
 Rural teachers are paid least, and yet the work required of the rural 
 teachers is the most difficult found in our educational organization. Even 
 this varies tremendously in the different counties, as well as in the different 
 districts within the counties. The same comment may be made concerning 
 the salaries paid for high school work and the salaries of the graded schools. 
 The conclusion must be that little or no attempt has been made to harmonize 
 salaries either upon a professional basis or upon the basis of the kind and 
 character of service rendered. If it seems proper to attempt any remedy 
 here, the whole situation must rest with the administration plan. 
 
 I 
 
 Rural teachers paid least --most difficult task
 
 t 
 
 School Code Commission Report 85 
 
 District Per Capita Cost. 
 
 GRAPH NO. 17. 
 
 Ii^xplanation. 
 
 The varying cost of education in ttie several counties of the state malies 
 a most interesting study. There are so many things that may enter into 
 this situation that much time and thought is required before a sound con- 
 clusion can be rendered. One point can be at once decided, that organiza- 
 tion has much to do with the cost of our public schools, as well as the kind 
 and type of public school service. 
 
 About two-fifths of the schools in the state cost $100 or more per pupil 
 each year. One-third or more of the schools cost $60 per pupil per year or 
 less. Varying costs between these extremes make up the total percentage 
 of the districts remaining outside of the two lists. A complete analysis 
 can not be offered because it would require too much printed material to 
 point out the many influences bearing upon this condition of affairs. The 
 graph itself pictures the situation as it now exists, and each one may con- 
 sider the matter in the light of the very best information that he has, and 
 that which may be obtained from other related charts presented herewith. 
 
 Hi^h costs do not prove efficiency
 
 86 
 
 School Code Commission Report 
 
 STATISTICS FOR GRAPH NO. 17. 
 
 DISTRICT PER CAPITA. COST. 
 
 Proportion of Districts in Each County Having Per Capita Cost Indicated. 
 
 Rank 
 
 COUNTY 
 
 $60.00 
 and 
 
 Under 
 
 feo.io 
 
 to 
 
 $80.00 
 
 $S0.10 
 
 to 
 $100.00 
 
 Over 
 
 $100.00 
 
 Per Cent 
 
 $SO.0O 
 
 and 
 
 Under 
 
 9 
 10 
 11 
 12 
 13 
 14 
 15 
 16 
 17 
 18 
 19 
 20 
 21 
 22 
 2S 
 24 
 25 
 26 
 27 
 28 
 29 
 30 
 31 
 32 
 33 
 34 
 35 
 36 
 37 
 38 
 39 
 
 San Juan 
 
 Island 
 
 Kitsap 
 
 Clarke 
 
 Whatcom 
 
 Skagit 
 
 Stevens 
 
 Yakima 
 
 Lewis 
 
 Okanogan 
 
 Snohomish 
 
 Ferry 
 
 Pierce 
 
 Wahkiakum 
 
 Thurston 
 
 Spokane 
 
 Cowlitz 
 
 King 
 
 Pend Oreille 
 
 Asotin 
 
 Pacific 
 
 Grays Harbor 
 
 Mason 
 
 Clallam 
 
 Garfield 
 
 Chelan 
 
 Douglas 
 
 Jefferson 
 
 Lincoln 
 
 Walla Walla 
 
 Grant 
 
 Adams 
 
 Klickitat 
 
 Whitman 
 
 Columbia 
 
 Kittitas 
 
 Benton 
 
 Skamania 
 
 Franklin 
 
 State average 
 
 18.7% 
 37.5 
 17.2 
 32.4 
 26.8 
 29.6 
 20.7 
 43.4 
 23.2 
 27.9 
 31.1 
 27.6 
 29.0 
 18.2 
 32.7 
 29.2 
 19.3 
 26.2 
 29.0 
 17.9 
 34.5 
 26.5 
 26.7 
 15.4 
 30.3 
 19.2 
 18.2 
 13.6 
 15.5 
 19.3 
 17.3 
 11.0 
 14.1 
 13.6 
 8.8 
 9.3 
 10.3 
 8.7 
 3.2 
 
 6.7% 
 
 6.7 
 
 3.5 
 
 7.0 
 14.3 
 14.1 
 11.2 
 14.9 
 15.9 
 14.8 
 16.2 
 10.4 
 12.0 
 
 4.5 
 16.4 
 13.0 
 12.3 
 23.0 
 16.2 
 14.3 
 17.3 
 18.4 
 
 6.7 
 15.4 
 15.2 
 21.1 
 18.1 
 
 0.0 
 14.7 
 
 7.0 
 12.0 
 18.2 
 17.9 
 25.5 
 11.8 
 23.2 
 20.7 
 39.1 
 
 6.4 
 
 23.4% 
 
 22.1% 
 
 15.5% 
 
 0.0% 
 
 0.0 
 10.3 
 
 8.5 
 10.7 
 12.7 
 18.1 
 16.7 
 17.4 
 19.1 
 18.0 
 24.1 
 32.0 
 40.9 
 29.1 
 33.8 
 35.1 
 25.4 
 38.7 
 46.4 
 44.8 
 44.9 
 56.6 
 51.3 
 51.5 
 46.2 
 52.3 
 72.8 
 58.2 
 66.7 
 66.7 
 61.0 
 61.6 
 55.6 
 70.6 
 60.5 
 69.0 
 52.2 
 90.4 
 
 39.0% 
 
 93.7% 
 
 93.7 
 
 86.2 
 
 84.5 
 
 75.0 
 
 73.2 
 
 70.7 
 
 68.4 
 
 66.7 
 
 66.1 
 
 65.8 
 
 65.5 
 
 56.0 
 
 54.6 
 
 54.5 
 
 53.2 
 
 52.6 
 
 51.6 
 
 45.1 
 
 39.3 
 
 37.9 
 
 36.7 
 
 36.7 
 
 33.3 
 
 33.3 
 
 32.7 
 
 29.6 
 
 27.2 
 
 27.1 
 
 26.3 
 
 21.3 
 
 20.8 
 
 20.5 
 
 18.9 
 
 17.6 
 
 16.3 
 
 10.3 
 
 8.7 
 
 3.2 
 
 45.5% 
 
 NOTE — Data based upon cost of operation only per child in average daily attendance.
 
 School Code Commission Report 
 
 87 
 
 District Per Capita Cost. 
 
 GRAPH -XO. 17. 
 
 / z 
 
 I 3 
 I A 
 I 5 
 I 6 
 / 7 
 I 8 
 
 1 9 
 20 
 
 2 / 
 22 
 2 3 
 2 4 
 2 5 
 2 6 
 2 7 
 2 8 
 
 2 9 
 30 
 
 3 / 
 32 
 3 3 
 34 
 35 
 36 
 3 7 
 3 8 
 39 
 
 Klickitat 
 Whitrnan 
 Columbia 
 Kittitas 
 B en ton 
 
 Skamania 
 
 Frank 1 1 n 
 
 S T/\T E 
 
 Note 
 
 i_ £ G E /M 
 
 % 10 20 30 40 50 
 
 Data based upon cost of o pe r at i 
 i-<-- ■-- ■ - ■ I $60°° and under. I 
 
 ^^IBIB $601° to $80°°. ^S 
 
 60 
 o n 
 
 70 80 90 100 % 
 
 T/y per child in ADA. 
 : 80 1° to $100°°. 
 i I 00 13 and over. 
 
 PROPORTION OF DISTRICTS IN EACH COUNTY 
 
 HAVING PER CAPITA COST ^80 OR LESS 
 
 DISTRICT PER CAPITA. COST 
 
 Graph No; 7. 
 
 Wrn. M C ornar
 
 School Code Commissiou Pieport 
 
 t 
 
 STATISTICS FOR GRAPH NO. 18. 
 THK SCHOOIj VF.AR. 
 
 Rank 
 
 COUNTY 
 
 Actual Number 
 
 Days Schools 
 
 in Session 
 
 Months of 
 School 
 
 1 
 
 
 179.4 
 177.1 
 170.8 
 170.0 
 170.0 
 168.1 
 168.0 
 168.0 
 167.1 
 166.0 
 165.6 
 165.4 
 165.0 
 165.0 
 164.0 
 163.3 
 162.0 
 162.0 
 161.6 
 161.6 
 160.2 
 159.1 
 159.0 
 1.58.3 
 158.2 
 157.6 
 156.0 
 155.8 
 155.0 
 154.7 
 154.0 
 152.5 
 149.0 
 147.5 
 147.1 
 147.0 
 145.0 
 137.8 
 134.0 
 
 9.4 
 
 
 
 King 
 
 9.3 
 
 3 
 
 
 9.0 
 
 4 
 
 Skagit 
 
 9.3, 
 
 
 
 9.0 
 
 
 
 8.9 
 
 
 
 9.0 
 
 8 
 
 
 9.0 
 
 q 
 
 
 9.0 
 
 
 
 9.0 
 
 n 
 
 
 8.8 
 
 19 
 
 
 8.8 
 
 13 
 
 Clarke 
 
 8.7' 
 
 14 
 
 Walla Walla 
 
 8.8 
 
 15 
 
 
 8.8 
 
 16 
 
 
 9.1 
 
 17 
 
 
 8.8 
 
 IS 
 
 
 8.5 
 
 19 
 
 
 8.7 
 
 20 
 
 
 8.6 
 
 21 
 
 
 8.5 
 
 22 
 
 
 8.6 
 
 23 
 
 
 8.4 
 
 24 
 
 
 8.5 
 
 25 
 
 
 8.3 
 
 26 
 
 Kittitas 
 
 S.8 
 
 27 
 
 
 8.5 
 
 28 
 
 
 8.4 
 
 20 
 
 
 8.4 
 
 30 
 
 
 8.3 
 
 31 
 
 
 8.8 
 
 32 
 
 Klickitat 
 
 8.6 
 
 33 
 
 
 8.5 
 
 34 
 
 
 7.7 
 
 35 
 
 
 7.S 
 
 36 
 
 
 8.3 
 
 37 
 
 
 7.9 
 
 38 
 
 
 7.4 
 
 39 
 
 
 7.2 
 
 
 
 
 
 159.© days 
 
 8.8 months 
 
 

 
 School Code Commission Report 
 
 89 
 
 I 
 
 Liengtli of Term in Diiferent CountieM. 
 GRAPH NO. 18.
 
 90 School Code Commission Report 
 
 Days of School Varying Lengths of School Term. 
 
 GRAPH NO. 18. 
 
 Elxiilnnntion. 
 
 Since the length of the school term indicates one type of equality and 
 efficiency in educational opportunity, we undertake here to show the varia- 
 tions existing in different counties. Of course, there are variable conditions 
 existing between the lengths of term in the districts of a single county, but 
 this we have not attempted to show here because it would add complication 
 to the study. With the average condition shown for each county it is easy 
 to see that all schools are not maintained on the same basis. In some 
 instances newer counties of the state have the shorter school term. But in a 
 larger way it is perfectly evident that the strictly rural counties are affected 
 more than are the counties more thickly populated. 
 
 The commission proposes that the school term be the same for all the 
 children, because this is one of the means which offers at the very beginning 
 equality of opportunity. If it is important to keep the schools open for a 
 standard length of time for a portion of the children, there can be no 
 reason why such a standard can not be maintained for all of the children. 
 Should an imaginary line designating a county, or an imaginary line desig- 
 nating a district boundary make such a great difference in the educational 
 opportunity offered to the children on the one side or on the other? If 
 good citizenship representing self-sustaining ability is the aim and object of 
 public education, how then can we justify such discrepancies and such in- 
 equalities? Good administration must be applied here, just as we would have 
 it applied in every other branch of government. 
 
 Time necessary to achievement
 
 School Codii Commission Report 91 
 
 Certification of Teacher. 
 
 (Professional training shows efficiency in our schools) 
 
 GRAPH NO. 19. 
 
 Elxplanatioii. 
 
 It is fair to expect greater efficiency in schools where only thoroughly 
 trained teachers are employed. At the present time only about one-half of 
 all of the ten thousand teachers employed in the state have had adequate 
 preparation for the important work which they have in hand. College and 
 university graduates are found principally in our high schools. The teachers 
 from the normal school are found mostly in the graded schools, with a few 
 scattered here and there in the rural schools. The youngest teachers with 
 no experience are compelled to go first into the rural communities to estab- 
 lish a reputation and to secure experience. This is the hardest place in our 
 whole system because of the varied curricula where we find the largest 
 number of classes and no supervision. Indeed, the one-room school with its 
 meager facilities requires the very best possible service to be rendered. The 
 well-trained young teacher but without experienece could well be admitted 
 into a good graded system where direction and careful supervision are already 
 available. But the order is entirely reversed and the situation under our 
 present plan is entirely inequitable. Is there any reason why fifty per cent 
 of the children of any state should be well trained and have competent 
 teachers while the other fifty per cent of the children are compelled to take 
 transient, inexperienced, and poorly prepared teachers? 
 
 Professional spirit important to service
 
 92 
 
 School Code Commission Report 
 
 STATISTICS FOR GRAPH NO. 19. 
 CERTIFICATION OF TEACHKRS. , 
 
 Proportion of Teachers Having Professional Training. 
 
 Rank 
 
 COUNTY 
 
 College and 
 
 University 
 Graduates 
 
 Normal 
 School 
 Certifica- 
 tion 
 
 By 
 Examina- 
 tion 
 
 Emergency 
 
 Temporary 
 
 Special 
 
 Etc. 
 
 % of Pro- 
 fessional 
 Trained 
 Teachers 
 
 1 
 2 
 3 
 4 
 5 
 
 Kitsap 
 
 Grays Harbor 
 
 Kittitas 
 
 Whatcom 
 
 Walla Walla 
 
 12.9% 
 
 16.2 
 
 22.2 
 
 10.2 
 
 27.7 
 
 16.7 
 
 20.9 
 
 25.3 
 
 13.7 
 
 20.1 
 
 16.6 
 
 9.4 
 19.4 
 20.0 
 
 7.7 
 18.8 
 23.6 
 12.7 
 
 4.0 
 17.9 
 11.6 
 15.2 
 17.2 
 12.7 
 20.1 
 
 7.2 
 12.3 
 14.7 
 17.0 
 
 7.5 
 10.0 
 13.5 
 11.1 
 
 S.O 
 
 4.3 
 
 3.8 
 
 7.7 
 
 8.5 
 
 71.:?% 
 64.5 
 .50.0 
 61.2 
 41.3 
 50.0 
 45.7 
 41.2 
 51.6 
 45.1 
 48.5 
 50.0 
 38.7 
 38.0 
 50.0 
 38.2 
 33.0 
 43.6 
 52.0 
 37.9 
 41.8 
 37.3 
 32.4 
 36.5 
 • 29.1 
 40.7 
 33.2 
 28.0 
 24.5 
 33.0 
 27.1 
 23.4 
 25.6 
 27.2 
 27!l 
 22.8 
 17.3 
 6.4 
 
 9.9% 
 14.5 
 16.7 
 20.8 
 27.3 
 27.8 
 28.7 
 27.4 
 22.4 
 
 30.8 
 29.2 
 32.3 
 37.4 
 38.5 
 35.6 
 .37.4 
 38.1 
 34.0 
 37.9 
 37.3 
 36.3 
 46.9 
 43.0 
 48.5 
 37.8 
 49.1 
 44.1 
 .30.2 
 47.5 
 54.3 
 48.9 
 51.2 
 48.8 
 45.7 
 63.6 
 63.4 
 70.2 
 
 5.9% 
 
 4.8 
 11.1 
 
 7.2 
 
 3.7 
 
 5.5 
 
 4.7 
 
 6.1 
 12.3 
 
 2.3 
 
 4.1 
 11.4 
 
 9.6 
 
 4.6 
 
 3.8 
 
 7.4 
 
 6.0 
 
 5.6 
 10.0 
 
 6.3 
 
 9.3 
 11.2 
 
 3.5 
 
 8.8 
 
 2.3 
 14.3 
 
 5.4 
 13.2 
 28.3 
 12.0 
 
 8.6 
 14.2 
 12.1 
 16.0 
 22.9 
 
 9.8 
 11.6 
 14.9 
 
 84.2% 
 
 80.7 
 
 72.2 
 
 72.0 
 
 69.0 
 
 6 
 7 
 8 
 9 
 10 
 
 Snohomish 
 
 King 
 
 Pierce 
 
 Skagit 
 
 Whitman 
 
 66.7 
 66.6 
 66.5 
 65.3 
 
 65.2 
 
 11 
 12 
 
 Thurston 
 
 Clallam 
 
 65.1 
 59.4 
 
 13 
 14 
 
 San Juan 
 
 58.1 
 58.0 
 
 15 
 
 
 57.7 
 
 16 
 
 
 57.0 
 
 17 
 
 Oholan 
 
 56.6 
 
 18 
 
 
 56.3 
 
 19 
 
 
 56.0 
 
 20 
 
 Grant 
 
 55.8 
 
 21 
 
 Garfield 
 
 53.4 
 
 22 
 
 
 52.5 
 
 23 
 
 Clarke 
 
 49.6 
 
 24 
 
 
 49.2 
 
 25 
 
 
 49.2 
 
 26 
 27 
 
 Adams 
 
 Spokane 
 
 47.9 
 45.5 
 
 28 
 
 
 42.7 
 
 29 
 
 
 41.5 
 
 30 
 
 
 40.5 
 
 31 
 
 
 37.1 
 
 32 
 33 
 
 Klickitat 
 
 Okanogan 
 
 35.2 
 36.7 
 
 34 
 
 
 35.2 
 
 35 
 
 Pend Oreille 
 
 31.4 
 
 36 
 
 Stevens 
 
 26.6 
 
 37 
 
 
 25.0 
 
 38 
 
 
 14.9 
 
 39 
 
 Skamania 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 15.5% 
 
 41.6% 
 
 35.2% 
 
 7.7% 
 
 57.1% 
 
 
 
 
 * No report. 
 
 NOTE— Data from flrst-class cities not available; therefore, not included.
 
 School Code Com/mission Report 
 
 93 
 
 Profcstiional Trniniiig: of Teachers. 
 GRAPH SO. 1». 
 
 '^0 
 
 Note 
 
 L C GC NO 
 
 %0 10 ZO 3 40 5 
 
 Data from first class cities not 
 3 College graduates. 
 I Normal certificates. 
 
 60 70 80 90 100% 
 
 available; not included. 
 I ] By examination. 
 
 iriYi'iViv* E m e r g e ncy I et c . 
 
 Graph No. 19 
 
 PROPORTION OF TEACHERS 
 HAVING PROFESSIONAL. TRAIN ING 
 CERTIFICATION OF TEACHERS 
 
 M Cornan.
 
 94 
 
 School Code Commission Beport 

 
 School Code Commission Report 
 
 95 
 
 Professional Training. 
 
 (Supplementing Chart No. 20.) 
 
 We show herewith the teachers of the state according to thorough 
 preparation and professional training. This map does not include teachers 
 of the first-class cities because we were unable to secure that data. Definite 
 reports, however, were secured for each county in the state except one 
 which is marked accordingly. Since the qualification of teachers is indicative 
 of school efficiency, this offers one means in determining standards main- 
 tained in the schools of the state. 
 
 GRAPH NO. 21. 
 Survivals. 
 
 %0 10 ^0 JO 40 50 60 70 80 90 Perce'ntX 
 
 First C i=ia o e 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 , 
 
 
 
 1 00 o 
 
 7 1 
 
 ^^^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 
 ^^^^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 7 O 8 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ^i.^.^^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 r 1 r -r i-i 
 
 ^^1 
 
 
 
 ^^^ 
 
 
 _^_ 
 
 
 
 
 69 
 
 
 ^^.^ 
 
 
 
 ._^ 
 
 
 ^_ 
 
 
 
 
 6 4 8 
 
 
 ^^gpg 
 
 
 
 _l^^_ 
 
 
 ■ 
 
 
 
 
 62.0 
 
 
 _^^_ 
 
 
 
 ^^^^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 5 6 4- 
 
 
 ^^^ 
 
 
 
 ^^^g 
 
 ■ 
 
 
 
 
 
 ■4 1.2 
 
 
 H^^g 
 
 
 ^_ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 2 5.3 
 
 El E VENTH 
 
 Tw £ t_ F T H 
 
 ^■H 
 
 ^^H 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1 7 4- 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 13 7 
 
 ^^^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 %0 10 20 30 40 30 60 70 80 90 100% 
 /\ 5 UR\yiVAL. OF THE F ITT EST 
 
 SCHOOL MOR T A LI TV 
 
 C r aph isi o 2 1 . W m t^ C Oman. 
 
 GRAPH NO. 21. 
 
 El.xplaiintion. 
 
 This little chart is meant to portray what used to be largely termed 
 "The Survival of the Fittest." Modern educational thought does not accept 
 the situation on that basis. But it is not the intention here to try to offer 
 any argument or to give any reason for this situation. It is simply a con- 
 dition which will have to be accepted on that basis for the time being.
 
 96 
 
 School Code Commission Report 
 
 Complete School Attendance. 
 GRAPH NO. 22. 
 
 lial.k 
 
 County 
 
 Per Cin; 
 
 Rank 
 
 County 
 
 Per Cent 
 
 Hank 
 
 County 
 
 Per te.l 
 
 1 
 
 Pend Orielle 
 
 93.3 V 
 
 /I 
 
 Pacific 
 
 "'\ 
 
 /I 
 
 Wahldakum 
 
 782 
 
 2 
 
 Chelaa 
 
 902 \ 
 
 h 
 
 Adams 
 
 63.0 \ 
 
 h 
 
 Orayi Harbor 
 
 77.2 
 
 3 
 
 
 90.0 ^ 
 
 ^r 
 
 Jefferson 
 
 63.3 
 
 \ h 
 
 Rjny 
 
 761 
 
 4 
 
 Fraoklui 
 
 88. J 
 
 i ' 
 
 Skagit 
 
 63.J 
 
 1 ' 
 
 PierM 
 
 78.8 
 
 
 
 
 \i 
 
 
 62.7 . 
 
 hi 
 
 Pacific 
 
 75.8 
 757 
 
 6 
 
 Doug]£« 
 
 87.8. 
 
 / ' 
 
 Kittitas 
 
 
 ' 
 
 If land 
 
 7 
 
 Stevens 
 
 86 \ , 
 
 ' r 
 
 Lincoln 
 
 *18>~^ 
 
 i ' 
 
 Scobomuh 
 
 76.U 
 
 8 
 
 Jeffersoa 
 
 86 6 \ / 
 
 h 
 
 Chelan 
 
 61.6 \ 
 
 h' 
 
 Z^coln 
 
 74.9 
 
 9 
 
 Aiotin 
 
 86 4 \ / 
 
 h 
 
 Whitman 
 
 61.6 \ 
 
 / ' 
 
 Bka«1t 
 
 74.C 
 
 10 
 
 Oraat 
 
 86.0 y 
 
 /lO 
 
 Asotin 
 
 61.i I 
 
 / '" 
 
 OowUU 
 
 74.5 
 
 11 
 
 CUllun 
 
 85.(J A 
 
 / " 
 
 Clallam 
 
 60.7 \ 
 
 / " 
 
 ftaTi Jusn 
 
 74.4 
 
 12 
 
 Wlutman 
 
 84 9 / \ 
 
 / '' 
 
 Columbia 
 
 60.3 \ 
 
 1 « 
 
 Kitsap 
 
 74.0 
 
 13 
 
 
 
 / " 
 
 Lewis 
 
 60.0 \i 
 
 13 
 
 
 74.n 
 
 14 
 
 Skagit 
 
 81.1 \ 
 
 / » 
 
 Island 
 
 599 y 
 
 14 
 
 Kittitas 
 
 73.6 
 
 
 ITittitAi 
 
 84.1 y 
 
 83.9 N^^ A 
 
 16 
 
 
 59 8 A 
 
 15 
 
 
 
 16 
 
 Benton 
 
 16 
 
 Stevens 
 
 69 8 \ 
 
 .16 
 
 Whatcom 
 
 72.8 
 
 17 
 
 Klickitat 
 
 83.7 ^|(^ 
 
 17 
 
 Franklin 
 
 595 / 
 
 In 
 
 Whitman 
 
 72.J 
 
 18 
 
 Okanogan 
 
 83 4 / 
 
 \ 18 
 
 Kitsap 
 
 59 1 / 
 
 1 " 
 
 Lewis 
 
 72.5 
 
 19 
 
 Columbia 
 
 832 / 
 
 \ \l9 
 
 Benton 
 
 58 9 J 
 
 1 / '^ 
 
 Columbia 
 
 72 J 
 
 20 
 
 Lewis 
 
 82.8 / 
 
 \ 1^" 
 
 Wahkiakum 
 
 68 8 \ 
 
 1/20 
 
 Clarke 
 
 72.^ 
 
 21 
 
 Lincoln 
 
 82.3' 
 
 \ /^' 
 
 King 
 
 583 \ 
 
 \L.21 
 
 Spokane 
 
 72.U 
 
 22 
 
 Mason 
 
 81.:> 
 
 JLi.22 
 
 Spokane 
 
 68.0—-^ 
 
 T7 22 
 
 Walla Walla 
 
 71.9 
 
 23 
 
 Spokane . 
 
 81.4--''^ 
 
 \j 2^ 
 
 Cowliti 
 
 68.5 
 
 m/ " 
 
 Asotin 
 
 71.6 
 
 24 
 
 Clarke 
 
 80.6 
 
 A ^* 
 
 Klickitat 
 
 58.S 
 
 \ ^* 
 
 Clallam 
 
 71.4 
 
 25 
 
 Thurston 
 
 804 
 
 A 25 
 
 Grant 
 
 58.2 
 
 ^ 25 
 
 Skamania 
 
 70./ 
 
 26 
 
 Garfield 
 
 803 
 
 / \ 26 
 
 Snohomish 
 
 682 
 
 /\\ ^* 
 
 Adams 
 
 70.6 
 
 27 
 
 Skamania 
 
 80.2 
 
 / \ 27 
 
 Clarke 
 
 58,2 
 
 / \ 
 
 Benton 
 
 70.3 
 
 28 
 
 Kitsap 
 
 70,3 j 
 
 ( \ 28 
 
 Yakima 
 
 58 
 
 / \ 28 
 
 Thurston 
 
 70.2 
 
 29 
 
 Walla Walla 
 
 791 / 
 
 >29 
 
 Douglas 
 
 67 3. 
 
 \ 29 
 
 Garfield 
 
 70.2 
 
 30 
 
 Island 
 
 . 79.0 / 
 
 3D 
 
 Grays Harbor . 
 
 676\ 
 
 \ 30 
 
 Klickitat 
 
 69.8 
 
 31 
 
 Cowliti 
 
 78.6 / 
 
 31 
 
 WalJa WaUa . 
 
 67.; \/ 
 
 I '^ 
 
 Stevens 
 
 69.6 
 
 32 
 
 Snohomish 
 
 . 77.7 / 
 
 32 
 
 Skamania 
 
 567 Y 
 
 L32 
 
 Perry 
 
 69. i 
 
 33 
 
 King 
 
 .... 77.3 / 
 
 33 
 
 San Juan 
 
 «^ A 
 
 /I 33 
 
 Grant 
 
 68.4 
 
 31 
 
 Terry 
 
 .... 76.1 J 
 
 34 
 
 niurvton 
 
 664 / 
 
 V V* 
 
 Chelan 
 
 683 
 
 35 
 36 
 37 
 
 
 75 9 rv 
 
 35 
 
 36 
 
 \ 37 
 
 Garfield 
 
 Pierce 
 
 Okanogan 
 
 66 2 y 
 
 A '35 
 \ 36 
 
 Pend Onellft 
 
 Franklin 
 
 Okanogan 
 
 Yakima 
 
 67.3 
 67.2 
 
 Wahkiakum .. 
 
 ' /\ 
 
 
 
 38 
 
 Bierce 
 
 .. 74.0 
 
 \38 
 
 Perry 
 
 62.6/ 
 
 \ 38 
 
 66.0 
 
 39 
 
 Whatcom 
 
 
 
 Whatcom 
 
 62.0' 
 
 \39 
 
 Douglas 
 
 ■95.7 
 
 
 
 
 STATE AVEBAOE 
 
 79.i 
 
 
 STATE AVEBAQI 
 
 58.6 
 
 
 STATE AVERAGE 
 
 73,2 
 
 Bank 
 
 Prcportioii of CcnsuB Childre 
 in Public Schools 
 
 Per Cent 
 1 Enrolled 
 
 Rank 
 Pro,,o 
 
 lion of Census Chil.l 
 Daily Attinilan 
 
 Per Cent 
 en in Averai? 
 
 Rank 
 Propor 
 
 ionofC1i.l.lrenEnr..ll.-.lin 
 Pally Altenilante 
 
 Per Cenl 
 Averaj^' 
 
 
 ATTEN 
 
 DA 
 
 .NCE 
 
 STA1 
 
 nsTics 
 
 
 Ciiaijh 
 
 S-o. 22 
 
 
 A COMPARATIVE STUDY 
 
 

 
 School Code- Commission Report 
 
 97 
 
 Hij^h School Attendance. 
 GRAPH XO. 23. 
 
 Rank 
 
 County 
 
 Per Con: 
 
 Kaiik 
 
 County 
 
 Per Cent 
 
 Rank 
 
 County r.- 
 
 C*.n 
 
 1 
 
 Aaotin 
 
 16.1 _ 
 
 il 
 
 Blaaon ^. . 
 
 835 
 
 1 
 
 Sl-j^man,* 
 
 48.8 
 475 
 
 
 3 
 
 
 14 8 
 
 / ' 
 
 TCing' 
 
 82.y 
 
 1 3 
 
 w&iiA WftUr 
 
 46.2 
 
 4 
 5 
 
 Chelan __ 
 
 14.6 
 
 /,4 
 
 Rnnhnmish 
 
 Lincoln 
 
 82.5 1 
 
 __ 82.4 K 
 
 1 4 
 
 1 ° 
 
 San Juan „„ 
 
 Grays Harbor _ „ _ 
 
 46je 
 4S.2 
 
 Whitman _„ 
 
 14.4 
 
 6 
 
 Benton 
 
 -__ 13.0 
 
 I 6 
 
 CowUti .. _. 
 
 __. 81.4 \ 
 
 \ 1 ' 
 
 Kittitas 
 
 44.4 
 
 7 
 
 
 12.6 1 
 
 
 
 812 1 
 
 
 King _ 
 
 Lincoln 
 
 
 8 
 
 Tf'ng 
 
 119 \ 
 
 // * 
 
 Ovfleld 
 
 80.1 1 
 
 N * 
 
 44.0 
 
 9 
 10 
 
 Franklin 
 
 Ska^t „ 
 
 -I Z \i 
 
 / / 9 
 
 Grant 
 
 Grays Harbor 
 
 __ 80.0 1 
 __ 79.9 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 "* 
 
 
 43.x 
 
 42.9 
 
 Benton ^ 
 
 11 
 
 Ovteld 
 
 -__ 11.8 y 
 
 / ^ 
 
 Dotiglaa 
 
 _„ 79.1 
 
 / " 
 
 
 42.8 
 
 13 
 
 Klickitat 
 
 _-. U6 A 
 
 / /" 
 
 WahlriftVnm 
 
 — ^S.'iv 
 
 1 ^ 
 
 Padflc 
 
 42.8 
 
 13 
 
 Pien» 
 
 „_ 11.5/ \ 
 
 / /" 
 
 W«lla Wall* 
 
 _ 78..A 
 
 / " 
 
 Adanu 
 
 42.7 
 
 
 _ . - . 
 
 1L3' 
 
 
 
 77.9 \ 
 
 1 .14 
 
 
 42J 
 
 
 KittitM 
 
 
 
 
 - "3 \ 
 
 1/15 
 
 
 43.4 
 
 16 
 
 TharBton 
 
 11.0 v^ 
 
 \ / 16 
 
 
 _._ 77.1 M 
 
 1/ ^^ 
 
 Onnt ™ 
 
 42.1 
 
 
 
 
 \ / 17 
 
 
 788 ' 
 
 / " 
 
 
 42.0 
 
 
 
 
 nV 1* 
 
 
 76 .S 
 
 U 13 
 
 
 41.8 
 
 19 
 
 20 
 21 
 
 
 10.7 \ / 
 
 ^19 
 
 /\ ^ 
 / \21 
 
 / '22 
 
 Thurston 
 
 _ 76. J . / 
 76 4 \/ 
 
 y\ 20 
 
 I \ 21 
 
 II \ 22 
 
 fihftlAn 
 
 Whitman 
 
 41.0 
 41.S 
 41.2 
 41.0 
 
 
 
 
 10.6 \ 
 
 Jefferwn 
 
 76.4 X 
 76^/ \ 
 
 
 
 23 
 
 Grays Harbor . 
 
 100 / 1 
 
 1/ ^ 
 
 Clark« 
 
 76.1 \ 
 
 1 \ ^ 
 
 Prftnlrljn 
 
 40.9. 
 
 24 
 
 Grant 
 
 9.9 / 
 
 \ " 
 
 T«I«n>i 
 
 75.7 
 
 \1 
 
 
 40.9 
 
 
 P .- 
 
 9.3 / 1 
 
 \ ** 
 
 
 7.'i .1 1 
 
 
 
 
 26 
 
 Clarke 
 
 \ 26 
 
 KlUltAfl 
 
 75.2 1 
 
 \ 26 
 
 Yakima „ 
 
 40.a 
 
 
 o. 
 
 ■ 9.2 / / 
 
 9.J jf / 
 
 9.0^ / 
 3.0 \ / 
 
 \ ^ 
 
 nialUm 
 
 75.1 1 
 
 
 Skagit _ .. _. 
 
 
 
 qWmmatii* 
 
 \ 28 
 
 
 75.U / 
 
 
 
 29 
 30 
 
 MAsnn 
 
 CowlJU 
 
 »29 
 30 
 
 Colombia „ 
 
 __ 75.0 . 1 
 74 1 Ny 
 
 1 ^29 
 
 1 30 
 
 
 39.0 
 39.4 
 
 nnn^lft.4 
 
 31 
 
 Sitiap 
 
 8.7 V 
 
 31 
 
 Klickitat 
 
 73.7 P 
 
 \ 1 ^* 
 
 Klickitat 
 
 33.3 
 
 
 Adams 
 
 8J h 
 8.J— r\ 
 
 77 / 
 
 7.6 / 
 
 ^^32 
 
 
 7.1 7 . 1 
 
 
 Okanogan „ 
 
 38.9 
 
 33 
 
 
 33 
 
 
 73l> \ 
 
 
 34 
 
 Okanofan 
 
 San Joan 
 
 ^ 34 
 
 
 730 |\ 
 
 
 ClaUjnn _.._ _ 
 
 G&rfleld 
 
 3B.6 
 
 35 
 
 \ " 
 
 Okanogan 
 
 71.0 1 \ 
 
 . 1 35 
 
 36 
 
 
 
 \ 36 
 
 
 717 1 
 
 \ 36 
 
 KitjuLn 
 
 38.4 
 
 3SJ 
 
 37 
 
 Iilaad „„_ 
 
 6.6 / 
 
 \" 
 
 
 71.0 1 
 
 \ 1 
 \ 37 
 
 Ferry 
 
 38 
 
 Dou^lai 
 
 6.4 / 
 
 \38 
 
 Kit«ap _ 
 
 70 i / 
 
 \l3« 
 
 Aaotin _ _._ 
 
 37.8 
 
 39 
 
 
 2.!.' 
 
 11.7 
 
 \39 
 
 Skamania 
 
 60.6 ' 
 
 ^39 
 
 Pend Orielle 
 
 STATE AVERAGE 
 
 367 
 42.G 
 
 
 STATE AVSRAGE 
 
 
 STATE AVERAGE 
 
 78.0 
 
 Hank 
 
 l'ro|K)rtion of l>ii9us CliiWren 
 HiKh Schools 
 
 Per Cont 
 Enrollnl in 
 
 Rank Per fent 
 Proportion of Enrolment in Average 
 Daily Attendance 
 
 Rank Per Cent 
 
 Proportion of Boys in ToUl Average Dail.- 
 
 Attendance 
 
 
 
 A 
 
 COMPARATIVE STUDY O 
 
 F 
 
 
 
 I 
 
 Graph 
 
 IIGH S< 
 
 No. a 
 
 ::hoo] 
 
 L ATTENDANCE 
 
 \ ST 
 
 ATISTICS 
 
 1
 
 98 
 
 School Code Commission Report 
 
 STATISTICAL TABLE NO. 24. 
 
 NUMBIOR OK DISTRICTS WITH PUPILS IN AVERAGE DAILY ATTENDANCE 
 
 AS INDICATED. 
 
 COUNTY 
 
 
 NUMBER OF PUPILS 
 
 1 
 
 2 
 
 3 
 
 4 
 
 5 
 
 6 
 
 7 
 
 8 
 
 9 
 
 10 
 
 11 
 
 12 
 
 13 
 
 14 
 
 15 
 
 16 
 
 17 
 
 18 
 
 19 
 
 20 
 
 1 
 25 
 
 30 
 
 
 
 2 
 
 2 
 
 2 
 4 
 
 1 
 
 2 
 3 
 
 2 
 5 
 1 
 
 4 
 1 
 2 
 2 
 3 
 2 
 2 
 4 
 
 10 
 1 
 2 
 4 
 5 
 
 7 
 3 
 2 
 3 
 2 
 
 1' 
 6 
 7 
 2 
 
 4 
 4 
 2 
 
 8 
 6 
 3 
 2 
 1 
 1- 
 3 
 1 
 7 
 2 
 2 
 3 
 9 
 2 
 
 ' l" 
 1 
 3 
 3 
 
 2 
 1 
 3 
 4 
 
 2 
 2 
 4 
 
 10 
 2 
 1 
 3 
 2 
 
 4 
 2 
 6 
 
 2 
 
 1 
 7 
 4 
 
 4 
 
 1 
 2 
 
 '3' 
 5 
 
 1 
 4 
 2 
 
 'e' 
 1 
 i' 
 
 3 
 
 1 
 2 
 2 
 
 i' 
 
 i' 
 4 
 
 '2' 
 1 
 3 
 1 
 
 '2 
 
 6 
 
 1 
 
 5 
 
 1 
 
 2 
 1 
 
 4 
 
 1 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 1 
 2 
 1 
 
 2 
 
 2 
 
 1 
 
 7 
 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 
 Chelan 
 
 
 2' 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 8 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 2 
 
 2 
 
 2 
 
 1 
 
 4 
 
 1 
 1 
 2 
 
 1 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 2 
 
 1 
 1 
 1 
 4 
 
 5 
 
 2 
 2 
 
 1 
 
 4 
 3 
 
 1 
 3 
 4 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 2 
 1 
 
 1 
 1 
 1 
 
 1 
 "3" 
 
 1 
 2 
 3 
 
 3 
 3 
 9 
 3 
 2 
 2 
 3 
 1 
 
 
 Clallam 
 
 
 1 
 
 Clarke 
 
 
 s 
 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 i 
 
 6 
 2 
 5 
 
 
 
 
 
 3 
 
 2 
 
 1 
 1 
 
 3 
 
 6 
 3 
 
 5 
 
 
 
 
 Ferrv 
 
 
 
 
 Franklin 
 
 
 
 6 
 
 2 
 
 1 
 2 
 
 3 
 3 
 3 
 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 Oarfleld 
 
 
 1 
 5 
 2 
 
 1 
 2 
 2 
 
 1 
 
 "4' 
 1 
 1 
 3 
 5 
 
 2 
 2 
 
 i" 
 
 i' 
 
 '3' 
 2 
 3 
 
 '3' 
 
 2 
 2 
 
 2 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 2 
 1 
 
 
 
 
 Grant 
 
 
 
 2 
 
 1 
 2 
 1 
 5 
 3 
 2 
 1 
 4 
 
 10 
 2 
 3 
 2 
 1 
 4 
 3 
 2 
 
 5 
 
 17 
 5 
 3 
 2 
 2 
 3 
 5 
 2 
 
 110 
 
 20 
 
 2 
 4 
 
 l' 
 
 5 
 
 5 
 
 3 
 
 3 
 
 4 
 
 1 
 
 4 
 
 3 
 
 1 
 
 4 
 
 6 
 
 2 
 
 6 
 
 3 
 
 6 
 
 8 
 
 9 
 
 2 
 
 1 
 
 2 
 
 9 
 
 4 
 
 4 
 
 135 
 
 25 
 
 1 
 
 
 <> 
 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 2 
 4 
 
 '3' 
 
 6 
 
 3 
 
 '2 
 6 
 2 
 
 15 
 1 
 3 
 
 1" 
 
 2 
 
 3 
 
 1 
 2 
 
 's' 
 's' 
 
 3 
 3 
 1 
 1 
 3 
 
 ' l" 
 2 
 2 
 3 
 
 4 
 
 8 
 1 
 3 
 
 1 
 
 9 
 
 4 
 2 
 
 2 
 4 
 5 
 3 
 
 10 
 
 1 
 3 
 
 2 
 
 1 
 
 '3" 
 
 1 
 2 
 2 
 3 
 
 7 
 
 '3' 
 
 2 
 2 
 
 1 
 1 
 1 
 1 
 
 2 
 
 1 
 2 
 
 '4' 
 
 '2' 
 
 2' 
 3 
 3 
 1 
 2 
 1 
 1 
 4 
 
 1' 
 1 
 1 
 7 
 2 
 1 
 1 
 1 
 1 
 3 
 
 3 
 
 1 
 4 
 
 1 
 
 1' 
 
 1 
 2 
 
 i' 
 
 2 
 
 1 
 
 '3" 
 
 4 
 2 
 
 1 
 
 '4" 
 
 
 King 
 
 
 T* 
 
 
 
 
 
 1 
 1 
 6 
 
 <1 
 
 Kittitas 
 
 
 
 2 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 11 
 2 
 
 7 
 3 
 
 2 
 
 '3' 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 2 
 
 1 
 
 6 
 6 
 2 
 2 
 
 i 
 
 1 
 5 
 
 1 
 
 89 
 10 
 
 2 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 8 
 
 2' 
 
 1 
 2 
 
 2' 
 
 1 
 
 '4' 
 5 
 5 
 
 2 
 
 1 
 
 11 
 
 1 
 
 67 
 
 11 
 
 3 
 
 1 
 5 
 6 
 
 '2' 
 1 
 3 
 3 
 
 '{' 
 
 1 
 1 
 8 
 6 
 4 
 1 
 1 
 1 
 12 
 1 
 
 95 
 
 12 
 
 <> 
 
 Klickitat 
 
 
 9 
 
 Lewis 
 
 
 q 
 
 
 
 
 4 
 
 6 
 
 9 
 
 1 
 2 
 2 
 3 
 
 1 
 
 S 
 
 
 9 
 
 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 i 
 
 '^ 
 
 
 
 
 2 
 
 
 Pend Oreille 
 
 
 1 
 2 
 
 3' 
 
 '4" 
 
 7 
 1 
 
 1 
 1 
 
 
 
 
 1 
 2 
 
 9 
 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 3 
 
 2 
 2 
 
 3 
 '3' 
 
 4 
 
 1 
 2 
 
 9 
 
 
 
 
 
 Skagit 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 2 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 2 
 5 
 3 
 
 2 
 
 "3' 
 
 8 
 
 
 
 
 '2' 
 
 2 
 
 3' 
 3 
 
 2 
 
 3" 
 4 
 2 
 
 5' 
 
 2 
 1 
 12 
 5 
 2 
 
 e' 
 
 1 
 8 
 3 
 
 120 
 
 6 
 
 1 
 2 
 6 
 5 
 1 
 1 
 5 
 
 
 
 
 '5' 
 2 
 
 i' 
 
 1 
 
 5 
 2 
 2 
 
 4 
 6 
 6 
 
 i' 
 
 1 
 2 
 4 
 1 
 1 
 2 
 1 
 4 
 
 4 
 
 
 
 
 Y 
 
 
 
 
 2 
 
 10 
 
 Thurston 
 
 
 
 4 
 
 
 
 
 1 
 2 
 
 1 
 3 
 
 1 
 
 Walla Walla 
 
 
 Whatcom 
 
 
 9 
 
 
 
 2 
 
 5 
 
 2 
 
 46 
 3 
 
 4 
 2 
 
 72 
 4 
 
 9 
 
 1 
 
 101 
 5 
 
 16 
 
 123 
 
 7 
 
 12 
 
 81 
 
 8 
 
 9 
 1 
 
 101 
 
 9 
 
 6 
 
 72 
 13 
 
 8 
 
 61 
 14 
 
 6 
 1 
 
 60 
 
 15 
 
 5 
 
 5 
 
 Yakima 
 
 
 4 
 
 Total Districts 
 
 Pupils in Attendance 
 
 5 
 1 
 
 28 
 2 
 
 60 
 16 
 
 47 
 17 
 
 52 
 18 
 
 39 
 
 19 
 
 120 
 30 
 
 252 districts with 1 to 5 children. 
 514 districts with 6 to 10 children. 
 553 districts with 11 to 20 children. 
 
 1,319 districts with 30 or fewer children.
 
 School Code Commission Report 
 
 99 
 
 STATISTICAL, TABLE NO. 25. 
 
 PER CAPITA ASSKSSKD VALUATION. 
 
 PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANIES' PROPERTY. 
 Levy to Raise $85 Per Ca pita Without State Aid. 
 
 Rank 
 
 10 
 11 
 12 
 13 
 14 
 15 
 16 
 IV 
 18 
 19 
 20 
 21 
 22 
 23 
 24 
 25 
 26 
 27 
 28 
 29 
 30 
 31 
 32 
 33 
 34 
 35 
 36 
 37 
 38 
 39 
 
 COUNTY 
 
 Adams 
 
 Tranklin 
 
 Skamania 
 
 Grant 
 
 Garfield 
 
 Columbia 
 
 Lincoln 
 
 Klickitat 
 
 Whitman 
 
 Douglas 
 
 Clallam 
 
 Walla Walla 
 
 Jefferson 
 
 Cowlitz 
 
 Benton 
 
 Mason 
 
 Kittitas 
 
 Pend Oreille 
 
 Grays Harbor 
 
 Spokane 
 
 Pacific 
 
 Chelan 
 
 King 
 
 Yakima 
 
 Skagit 
 
 Stevens 
 
 Okanogan 
 
 Wahkiakum 
 
 Perry 
 
 Lewis 
 
 Thurston 
 
 Whatcom... 
 
 Pierce 
 
 Asotin 
 
 Clarke 
 
 Snohomish 
 
 San Juan 
 
 Island 
 
 Kitsap 
 
 State average 
 
 Assessed 
 
 Valuation 
 
 All Property 
 
 per Pupil 
 
 in A.D.A. 
 
 $14 
 12 
 12 
 
 n 
 11 
 11 
 11 
 
 10 
 10 
 9 
 
 8 
 8 
 8 
 7 
 7 
 7 
 
 ,250 
 ,950 
 ,520 
 ,960 
 ,910 
 ,350 
 ,070 
 ,485 
 ,400 
 ,180 
 ,650 
 ,530 
 ,002 
 ,606 
 ,458 
 ,353 
 ,750 
 ,700 
 ,490 
 ,778 
 ,677 
 ,660 
 ,338 
 ,490 
 ,456 
 ,447 
 ,400 
 ,373 
 ,335 
 ,308 
 ,298 
 ,220 
 ,100 
 ,018 
 ,017 
 ,951 
 ,420 
 ,691 
 ,108 
 
 $5,617 
 
 Assessed 
 
 Valuation 
 
 Public Service 
 
 Companies' 
 
 Property per 
 
 Pupil in A.D.A. 
 
 $4,941 
 
 6,304 
 
 4,095 
 
 3,6.39 
 
 369 
 
 1,458 
 
 1,650 
 
 2.779 
 
 1,715 
 
 826 
 
 277 
 
 1,313 
 
 248 
 
 1,118 
 
 2,838 
 
 213 
 
 2,100 
 
 1,475 
 
 428 
 
 693 
 
 380 
 
 1,035 
 
 325 
 
 472 
 
 596 
 
 485 
 
 550 
 
 1,126 
 
 482 
 945 
 510 
 410 
 8 
 5a5 
 770 
 
 $727 
 
 Per Cent 
 
 of 
 
 Public 
 
 Service 
 
 Property 
 
 Levy 
 
 Necessary to 
 
 Raise ¥85 per 
 
 Pupil in .^.D.A. 
 
 Without 
 
 State Aid 
 
 34.7% 
 48.7 
 32.7 
 30.4 
 
 3.1 
 12.8 
 14.9 
 26.5 
 16.5 
 
 9.0 
 
 3.2 
 15.4 
 
 3.1 
 14.7 
 38.0 
 
 2.9 
 31.1 
 22.2 
 
 'g.q 
 
 12.0 
 
 6.7 
 18.3 
 
 6.1 
 10.5 
 13.4 
 10.9 
 12.5 
 
 26.0 
 11.2 
 22.0 
 12.1 
 10.0 
 0.2 
 12.6 
 19.5 
 
 0.3 
 
 5.96 mills 
 
 6.56 
 
 6.79 
 
 7.10 
 
 7.14 
 
 7.49 
 
 7.68 
 
 8.11 
 
 8.17 
 
 9.26 
 
 9.83 
 
 9.97 
 10.63 
 11.17 
 11.40 
 11.55 
 22.60 
 12.69 
 13.10 
 14.72 
 14.99 
 15.01 
 15.94 
 18.93 
 19.08 
 19.10 
 19.31 
 19.44 
 19.60 
 19.72 
 19.77 
 20.13 
 20.72 
 21.18 
 21.18 
 21.50 
 24.85 
 31.58 
 40.36 
 
 12.95% 
 
 15.14 mills 
 
 NOTE — Calculations based upon equalized assessed valuations— 1919-20.
 
 100 
 
 School Code Commission Report 
 
 STATISTICAIj table no. 26. 
 PER CAPITA COST. 
 
 Cost of Operation and Capital Expended per Pupil in Average Daily Attendance. 
 
 Rank 
 
 COUNTY 
 
 1 
 
 Teachers' 
 Salaries 
 
 Cost of 
 Operation 
 Mainten- 
 ance and 
 Supplies 
 
 Total 
 
 Per Cent 
 
 of 
 
 Total for 
 
 Salaries 
 
 Capital 
 Expendi- 
 ture 
 
 1 
 
 
 $73 45 
 75 75 
 67 50 
 69 66 
 51.82 
 67 97 
 
 62 63 
 64 65 
 58 99 
 64 18 
 58 64 
 
 63 01 
 50 18 
 55 33 
 58 40 
 53 46 
 60 40 
 57 04 
 
 57 SO 
 50 78 
 
 58 58 
 55 28 
 49 02 
 49 22 
 48 50 
 
 47 78 
 
 48 21 
 
 45 05 
 
 46 22 
 
 43 19 
 
 49 07 
 49 65 
 
 42 22 
 
 44 73 
 
 43 67 
 43 47 
 
 45 84 
 40 SO 
 37 46 
 
 $48 45 
 50 50 
 37 93 
 
 35 04 
 47 18 
 
 28 74 
 32 57 
 
 30 51 
 
 36 04 
 
 29 34 
 
 31 98 
 
 25 84 
 
 37 27 
 
 30 75 
 
 26 50 
 
 31 02 
 
 22 20 
 
 23 48 
 22 40 
 28 20 
 
 19 83 
 
 22 90 
 25 18 
 
 24 15 
 
 23 38 
 23 a5 
 
 20 77 
 
 21 23 
 18 51 
 21 46 
 14 75 
 13 56 
 20 94 
 17 50 
 17 33 
 16 95 
 
 12 68 
 
 13 02 
 11 95 
 
 $121 90 
 lis 00 
 105 43 
 104 70 
 99 00 
 96 71 
 95 20 
 95 16 
 95 03 
 93 52 
 90 62 
 88 85 
 87 45 
 86 08 
 84 90 
 84 48 
 82 60 
 80 52 
 80 20 
 7S 98 
 78 41 
 78 18 
 74 20 
 73 37 
 71 88 
 71 43 
 68 98 
 66 28 
 64 73 
 64 65 
 63 82 
 63 21 
 63 16 
 62 23 
 61 CO 
 60 42 
 58 52 
 53 82 
 49 41 
 
 55.5% 
 
 64.2 
 
 64.0 
 
 66.5 
 
 52.4 
 
 70.2 
 
 65.8 
 
 68.0 
 
 62.0 
 
 68.6 
 
 64.7 
 
 70.9 
 
 57.4 
 
 64.4 
 
 68.8 
 
 64.1 
 
 73.0 
 
 71.0 
 
 72.0 
 
 94.3 
 
 74.6 
 
 70.8 
 
 66.0 
 
 67.2 
 
 67.4 
 
 66.8 
 
 70.0 
 
 68.0 
 
 71.4 
 
 66.8 
 
 76.9 
 
 78.6 
 
 66.9 
 
 71.8 
 
 71.6 
 
 72.0 
 
 78.4 
 
 75.8 
 
 75.8 
 
 $5 09 
 
 2 
 
 
 4 56 
 
 3 
 
 
 6 24 
 
 4 
 
 
 0.05 
 
 5 
 
 
 4.34 
 
 6 
 
 Klickitat 
 
 11.16 
 
 7 
 
 King 
 
 6 97 
 
 s 
 
 
 1 80 
 
 9 
 
 
 78 
 
 10 
 
 
 3 19 
 
 11 
 
 
 0.19 
 
 12 
 
 
 3.94 
 
 13 
 
 
 5 56 
 
 
 Clallam 
 
 5.62 
 
 15 
 
 Walla Walla 
 
 4 62 
 
 16 
 
 Kittitas 
 
 2 06 
 
 17 
 
 
 10 
 
 18 
 
 
 5 78 
 
 19 
 
 
 3 64 
 
 20 
 
 
 5 86 
 
 ''1 
 
 Garfield 
 
 73 
 
 29 
 
 
 8 05 
 
 23 
 
 
 2 65 
 
 24 
 
 
 1 45 
 
 25 
 
 
 4.54 
 
 26 
 
 
 5 08 
 
 27 
 
 
 5.03 
 
 28 
 
 
 1 31 
 
 ''9 
 
 
 4 09 
 
 30 
 
 Skagit 
 
 7 27 
 
 31 
 
 
 68 
 
 32 
 
 
 13 
 
 33 
 
 
 1 51 
 
 34 
 
 
 1 35 
 
 35 
 
 
 
 36 
 
 Clarke 
 
 6 19 
 
 37 
 
 
 2 68 
 
 38 
 
 
 34 
 
 39 
 
 
 1 43 
 
 
 
 
 
 $54 00 
 
 $27 37 
 
 $81 37 
 
 66.4% 
 
 $4 88 
 
 

 
 School Code Commission Report 
 
 101 
 
 Kussell Sage Foundation Ratings. 
 GRAPH NO. 27. 
 
 1S50 
 
 
 
 1900 
 
 
 1310 
 
 
 1918 
 
 1 Disl of Columbia 
 
 1 
 
 Massachusetts 
 
 /I 
 
 WASHINGTON ,^ 
 
 I 
 
 Montana 
 
 2 Massachusotts 
 
 
 2 
 
 New York 
 
 / = 
 
 California ^v,^^ 
 
 2 
 
 California 
 
 3 California 
 
 
 3 
 
 Dist of Columbia 
 
 / ' 
 
 Disl of Columbia ^V» 
 
 3 
 
 Arizona 
 
 4 New York 
 
 
 4 
 
 California . 
 
 f 4 
 
 Massachusetts 
 
 S^ 4 
 
 New Jersey 
 
 5 Rhode Island 
 
 
 5 
 
 Connecticut / 
 
 5 
 
 Nevada 
 
 ^\. 5 
 
 Disl of Columbia 
 
 6 Conncclicut 
 
 
 6 
 
 Rhode Island / 
 
 6 
 
 New Jersey 
 
 ^6 
 
 WASHINGTON 
 
 7 Colorado 
 
 
 7 
 
 Nevada / 
 
 7 
 
 Montana 
 
 7 
 
 Iowa 
 
 8 New Jersey 
 
 
 8 
 
 Colorado / 
 
 8 
 
 New York 
 
 8 
 
 Utah 
 
 9 Montana 
 
 
 9 
 
 New Jersey / 
 
 9 
 
 Utah 
 
 9 
 
 Massachusetts 
 
 10 Pennsylvania 
 
 
 10 
 
 Montana / 
 
 10 
 
 Rhode Island 
 
 10 
 
 Michigan 
 
 11 Nevada 
 
 
 11 
 
 Utah / 
 
 U 
 
 Illinois 
 
 11 
 
 Connecticut 
 
 12 Marjland 
 
 
 12 
 
 Ohio / 
 
 12 
 
 Connecticut 
 
 12 
 
 Ohio 
 
 13 Ohio 
 
 
 13 
 
 Illinois / 
 
 13 
 
 Colorado 
 
 13 
 
 New York 
 
 14 Arizona 
 
 
 • " 
 
 WASHINGTON ' 
 
 14 
 
 Ohio 
 
 14 
 
 Colorado 
 
 15 lU.nois 
 
 
 /l5 
 
 Pennsylvania 
 
 15 
 
 Oregon 
 
 15 
 
 North Dakota 
 
 16 Michigan 
 
 
 X 16 
 
 Indiana 
 
 16 
 
 Pennsyh-ania 
 
 16 
 
 Nevada 
 
 17 Wisconsin 
 
 J 
 
 ^ 17 
 
 Nebraska 
 
 17 
 
 Indiana 
 
 17 
 
 Indiana 
 
 18 Iowa 
 
 y 
 
 18 
 
 Michigan 
 
 18 
 
 Anzona 
 
 18 
 
 Idaho 
 
 19 New Hampshir 
 
 e / 
 
 19 
 
 Maryland 
 
 19 
 
 Michigan 
 
 19 
 
 Minnesota 
 
 20 WASHINGTON.^ 
 
 20 
 
 Vermont 
 
 20 
 
 Idaho 
 
 20 
 
 Oregon 
 
 21 Kansas 
 
 
 21 
 
 Minnesota 
 
 21 
 
 Minnesota 
 
 21 
 
 Pennsylvania 
 
 22 Wyoming 
 
 
 22 
 
 North Dakota 
 
 22 
 
 Nebraska 
 
 22 
 23 
 
 Nebraska 
 Illinois 
 
 23 Vermont 
 
 
 23 
 
 Iowa 
 
 23 
 
 Wisconsin 
 
 24 Maine 
 
 
 21 
 
 Wis;onsin 
 
 24 
 
 Kansas 
 
 24 
 
 Wyoming 
 
 25 Indiana 
 
 
 25 
 
 South Dakota 
 
 25 
 
 Wyoming 
 
 25 
 
 Rhode Island 
 
 26 Minnesota 
 
 
 20 
 
 New Hampshire 
 
 26 
 
 South Dakota 
 
 26 
 
 Kansas 
 
 27 Delaware 
 
 
 27 
 
 Maine 
 
 27 
 
 Norih Dakota 
 
 27 
 
 South Dakota 
 
 28 Utah 
 
 
 23 
 
 Oregon 
 
 28 
 
 New Hampshire 
 
 28 
 
 New Hampshire 
 
 29 riontla 
 
 30 Oregon 
 
 
 29 
 30 
 
 \&yoming 
 
 Missouri 
 
 29 
 30 
 
 Vermont 
 Iowa 
 
 29 
 30 
 
 New Mexico 
 Vermont 
 
 31 Nebraska 
 
 
 31 
 
 Kansas 
 
 31 
 
 Maine 
 
 31 
 
 Wisconsui 
 
 32 South Dakota 
 
 
 32 
 
 Arizona 
 
 32 
 
 Missouri 
 
 32 
 
 Missouri 
 
 33 Missouri 
 
 
 33 
 
 Delaware 
 
 33 
 
 Maryland 
 
 33 
 
 Maine 
 
 31 North Dakota 
 
 
 31 
 
 Idaho 
 
 34 
 
 Delaware 
 
 34 
 
 Oklahoma 
 
 35 Kii.luckjr 
 
 36 Texas 
 
 37 Idaho 
 
 
 35 
 33 
 37 
 
 West Virginia 
 Kentucky 
 New Mexico 
 
 35 
 36 
 37 
 
 Oklahoma 
 West Virginia 
 Texas 
 
 35 
 36 
 37 
 
 Maryland 
 Delaware 
 Texas 
 
 3S Virfinia 
 
 
 33 
 
 Texas 
 
 38 
 
 New Mexico 
 
 38 
 
 Florida 
 
 39 Miss-.ssippi 
 
 
 39 
 
 Oklahoma 
 
 39 
 
 Louisiana 
 
 39 
 
 West Virginia 
 
 40 West Virginia 
 
 
 40 
 
 Florida 
 
 40 
 
 Kentucky 
 
 40 
 
 Virginia 
 
 41 Tti:nes.'ee 
 
 
 41 
 
 
 11 
 
 Virginia 
 
 41 
 
 Tennessee 
 
 42 Arkansas 
 
 43 Louisiana 
 
 
 42 
 43 
 
 Virginia 
 
 42 
 43 
 
 Florida 
 Tennessee 
 
 42 
 43 
 
 Kentucky 
 Louisiana 
 
 44 Alabama 
 
 
 44 
 
 Georgia 
 Arkansas 
 
 44 
 
 Georgia 
 
 44 
 
 Georgia 
 
 45 North Carolina 
 
 
 45 
 
 45 
 
 Alabama 
 
 45 
 
 North Carolina 
 
 46 Georgia 
 
 47 South Carolina 
 
 
 46 
 47 
 
 Mississippi 
 South Carolma 
 
 46 
 47 
 
 Arkansas 
 Mississippi 
 
 46 
 
 47 
 
 Alabama 
 Arkansas 
 
 48 New Mexico 
 
 
 48 
 49 
 
 
 48 
 
 North Carolina 
 
 48 
 
 Mississippi 
 
 
 
 North Carolina 
 
 49 
 
 South Carolina 
 
 49 
 
 South Carolina 
 
 1890 
 
 
 
 J900 
 
 
 1910 
 
 
 1918 
 
 
 RANKS OF STATE SCHOOL 
 
 
 
 
 
 SYSTEMS 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 By LEONARD 
 
 P. AYRES 
 
 
 
 Crniili No 27 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 102 
 
 School Code Commission Report 
 
 STATISTICAIi TABLE NO. 28. 
 TWENTY VKARS OP DEVKL,OP3IE]VT. 
 
 ATTENDANCE STATISTICS 
 
 TEAR 
 
 Total 
 Enrolment 
 
 High 
 
 School 
 
 Enrolment 
 
 Per Cent. 
 H. S. 
 Enrol- 
 ment 
 
 of Total 
 
 Months 
 
 of 
 School 
 
 Actual 
 Days 
 School 
 
 in 
 Session 
 
 1900 01 
 
 123,391 
 136,624 
 149,753 
 161,651 
 170,3^ 
 179,994 
 188,989 
 198,214 
 205,566 
 215,688 
 220,461 
 224,410 
 229,993 
 238,663 
 240,521 
 245,419 
 251,612 
 262,829 
 272,325 
 290,109 
 
 4,830 
 
 5,633 
 
 6,192 
 
 7,202 
 
 9.060 
 
 10,919 
 
 13,087 
 
 14,715 
 
 17,640 
 
 19,928 
 
 22,042 
 
 24,534 
 
 27,494 
 
 31,321 
 
 32,244 
 
 35,253 
 
 37,451 
 
 36,985 
 
 37,317 
 
 42,419 
 
 3.9% 
 
 4.1 
 
 4.1 
 
 4.5 
 
 5. 
 
 6.1 
 
 6.9 
 
 7.4 
 
 8.6 
 
 9.2 
 10.0 
 10.9 
 11.9 
 13.1 
 13.4 
 14.4 
 14.9 
 14.1 
 13.7 
 14.6 
 
 6.08 
 
 6.02 
 
 5.9 
 
 6.7 
 
 6.7 
 
 6.9 
 
 7.0 
 
 7.09 
 
 7.38 
 
 7.67 
 
 7.9 
 
 8.1 
 
 8.3 
 
 8.37 
 
 8.5 
 
 8.5 
 
 8.5 
 
 8.6 
 
 8.5 
 
 8.8 
 
 119.5 
 
 1001 0' 
 
 116.3 
 
 190^ 03 
 
 116.0 
 
 1903 04 
 
 129.5 
 
 1904 05 
 
 130.0 
 
 1905-06 
 
 133.6 
 
 1906 07 
 
 134.2 
 
 1907 08 
 
 136.0 
 
 190S_09 
 
 141.8 
 
 1909-10 
 
 149.4 
 
 1910 11 
 
 153.0 
 
 1911 12 
 
 155.0 
 
 1912-13 
 
 159.0 
 
 1913 14 
 
 164.0 
 
 1914 15 
 
 160.9 
 
 1915 16 
 
 162.5 
 
 1916-17 
 
 162.2 
 
 1917-18 
 
 163.2 
 
 1918 19 
 
 * 139.3 
 
 1919 20 
 
 159.6 
 
 
 
 * Dne to influenza. 
 
 TEACHERS AND SALARIES 
 
 TEAR 
 
 Number of Teachers 
 
 Per Cent 
 
 Men 
 Teachers 
 of Total 
 
 Ave 
 
 rage Annual 
 Salaries 
 
 Men 
 
 Women 
 
 Both 
 
 Men 
 
 Women 
 
 Total 
 
 1900 01 
 
 1,073 
 1,039 
 1,069 
 1,131 
 1,228 
 1,297 
 1.257 
 1,382 
 1,387 
 1,434 
 1,478 
 1,545 
 1,664 
 1,711 
 1,792 
 1,883 
 1,946 
 1,655 
 1,344 
 1,624 
 
 2,796 
 3,120 
 3,376 
 3,644 
 3,951 
 4,480 
 4,952 
 5,142 
 5,331 
 5,736 
 6,111 
 6,496 
 6,795 
 6,928 
 7,276 
 7,412 
 7,546 
 8,094 
 8,426 
 8,573 
 
 3,869 
 4,159 
 4,445 
 4,775 
 5,179 
 5,777 
 6,209 
 6,524 
 6,718 
 7,170 
 7,589 
 8,041 
 8,459 
 8,639 
 9,068 
 9,295 
 9,492 
 9,749 
 9,770 
 10,197 
 
 27.7% 
 
 25.0 
 
 24.0 
 
 23.7 
 
 23.7 
 
 22.5 
 
 20.2 
 
 21.2 
 
 20.7 
 
 20.0 
 
 19.5 
 
 19.2 
 
 19.6 
 
 19.8 
 
 19.8 
 
 20.3 
 
 20.5 
 
 17.0 
 
 13.8 
 
 15.9 
 
 $333 
 334 
 339 
 404 
 432 
 468 
 505 
 536 
 578 
 610 
 677 
 707 
 884 
 886 
 861 
 847 
 894 
 974 
 1,430 
 1,532 
 
 $279 
 271 
 276 
 333 
 346 
 369 
 391 
 418 
 447 
 482 
 524 
 549 
 666 
 702 
 642 
 672 
 657 
 693 
 918 
 1,090 
 
 $294 
 
 1901 02 
 
 287 
 
 1902 03 
 
 292 
 
 1 903-04 
 
 350 
 
 1904 05 
 
 366 
 
 1905 06 
 
 392 
 
 1906-07 
 
 413 
 
 1907-08 
 
 444 
 
 1908 09 
 
 474 
 
 1909 10 
 
 508 
 
 1910 11 
 
 553 
 
 191119 
 
 580 
 
 1919 13 
 
 708 
 
 1913 14 
 
 738 
 
 1914 15 
 
 684 
 
 1915 16 
 
 708 
 
 1916 17 
 
 706 
 
 1917 18 
 
 740 
 
 1918 19 
 
 989 
 
 1919-20 
 
 1,160 
 

 
 School Code Commission Report 
 
 103 
 
 STATISTICAL TABLE NO. 29. 
 
 >'U>IBER OF DISTRICTS KXlT:\DIXCi IMJICATED AMOl.XTS I'ER PUPIL IN 
 WEUAiiE r>AlI,V ATTEMJA-NCE. 
 
 
 121 
 to 
 $30 
 
 $31 
 to 
 $40 
 
 $41 
 to 
 $50 
 
 $51 
 to 
 
 $60 
 
 $61 
 to 
 
 $70 
 
 $71 
 to 
 
 $80 
 
 $81 
 to 
 $90 
 
 19] 
 to 
 
 ?10O 
 
 noi 
 
 to 
 
 ^120 
 
 $121 
 to 
 
 $140 
 
 $141 
 to 
 
 $160 
 
 $161 
 to 
 
 $180 
 
 $181 
 
 to 
 
 $200 
 
 $201 
 
 to 
 
 $250 
 
 $251 
 
 to 
 
 $300 
 
 $301 
 to 
 
 $350 
 
 $350 
 and 
 up 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 4 
 2 
 
 2 
 3 
 
 7 
 2 
 3 
 8 
 5 
 
 13 
 1 
 4 
 8 
 2 
 1 
 4 
 
 10 
 5 
 4 
 1 
 
 17 
 2 
 3 
 2 
 6 
 
 12 
 6 
 8 
 4 
 4 
 
 16 
 1 
 8 
 1 
 9 
 
 14 
 
 12 
 9 
 1 
 4 
 7 
 
 13 
 
 11 
 
 10 
 1 
 4 
 7 
 3 
 4 
 2 
 5 
 8 
 3 
 2 
 3 
 2 
 5 
 1 
 
 "ri 
 
 "b 
 5 
 6 
 
 11 
 1 
 8 
 3 
 3 
 
 10 
 
 "s 
 
 8 
 
 8 
 
 11 
 
 10 
 
 4 
 
 1 
 
 3 
 
 7 
 
 23 
 
 7 
 
 5 
 3 
 2 
 4 
 3 
 1 
 2 
 2 
 8 
 
 "2' 
 
 7 
 4 
 
 14 
 4 
 4 
 
 11 
 5 
 3 
 
 10 
 1 
 
 15 
 6 
 2 
 3 
 
 12 
 
 . 6 
 
 9 
 5 
 2 
 3 
 2 
 
 "4' 
 3 
 9 
 
 8 
 2 
 1 
 3 
 3 
 1 
 3 
 9 
 8 
 
 7 
 2 
 1 
 2 
 3 
 1 
 2 
 4 
 1 
 1 
 3 
 2 
 4 
 2 
 
 2 
 
 6 
 
 3 
 
 1 
 
 2 
 
 82 
 
 
 
 
 28 
 
 
 
 
 3 
 
 "i' 
 i 
 "5 
 
 2 
 3 
 2 
 1 
 2 
 2 
 6 
 
 4 
 
 2 
 
 2 
 
 29 
 
 Chelan 
 
 
 2 
 
 
 5 
 7 
 8 
 2 
 9 
 8 
 7 
 
 2 
 
 1 
 10 
 2 
 7 
 8 
 6 
 
 52 
 
 Clallain 
 
 
 2 
 
 2 
 
 39 
 
 Clark" 
 
 1 
 
 12 
 
 16 
 
 71 
 
 
 2 
 
 "i' 
 
 
 
 34 
 
 Cowlitz 
 
 
 6 
 1 
 3 
 
 1 
 1 
 
 
 57 
 
 
 
 88 
 
 
 
 29 
 
 Franklin 
 
 
 3 
 
 1 
 
 8 
 4 
 
 2 
 8 
 7 
 1 
 
 3 
 
 4 
 4 
 
 5 
 2 
 3 
 
 2 
 
 1 
 1 
 3 
 
 1 
 
 3 
 
 6 
 
 31 
 
 Garfield 
 
 
 
 
 1 
 1 
 3 
 2 
 2 
 
 17 
 9 
 2 
 4 
 
 11 
 9 
 1 
 7 
 1 
 3 
 
 13 
 6 
 
 16 
 
 6 
 3 
 
 8 
 2 
 2 
 
 15 
 8 
 1 
 9 
 
 10 
 8 
 2 
 
 11 
 6 
 5 
 
 13 
 2 
 
 13 
 1 
 
 13 
 
 31 
 
 12 
 9 
 3 
 7 
 8 
 
 10 
 
 15 
 
 33 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 10 
 16 
 
 17 
 
 11 
 
 1 
 
 8 
 2 
 
 75 
 
 Grays Harbor 
 
 
 49 
 
 
 
 3 
 
 16 
 
 
 
 ie" 
 
 9 
 
 5 
 
 8 
 1 
 4 
 2 
 2 
 2 
 1 
 2 
 1 
 4 
 9 
 3 
 5 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 20 
 2 
 
 5 
 6 
 4 
 5 
 6 
 6 
 
 21 
 3 
 4 
 2 
 3 
 
 10 
 
 3 
 5 
 1 
 5 
 
 13 
 4 
 
 14 
 5 
 6 
 3 
 3 
 8 
 
 2 
 3 
 
 1 
 9 
 1 
 11 
 3 
 1 
 1 
 3 
 4 
 
 1 
 4 
 1 
 6 
 9 
 1 
 7 
 1 
 1 
 
 1 
 5 
 
 4 
 
 1 
 4 
 
 2 
 
 1 
 
 22 
 
 King 
 
 
 4 
 12 
 
 122 
 
 
 3 
 
 
 
 58 
 
 Kittitas 
 
 1 
 4 
 
 2 
 4 
 
 4 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 2 
 
 43 
 
 Klickitat 
 
 
 1 
 2 
 
 1 
 1 
 7 
 
 78 
 
 
 
 69 
 
 
 
 5 
 2 
 
 9 
 1 
 
 4 
 
 1 
 2 
 
 2 
 
 1 
 
 2 
 
 1 
 
 129 
 
 Mason 
 
 
 30 
 
 
 
 67 
 
 Pacific . . 
 
 
 
 1 
 1 
 3 
 
 1 
 
 3 
 
 29 
 
 pond Oreill" 
 
 
 
 2 
 10 
 
 2 
 13 
 
 1 
 4 
 
 1 
 2 
 
 31 
 
 Pierc 
 
 
 4 
 3 
 2 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 100 
 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 16 
 
 Skagit 
 
 3 
 
 2 
 
 1 
 3 
 3 
 9 
 1 
 2 
 
 "2 
 
 2 
 
 1 
 
 '3' 
 2 
 4 
 
 4 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 71 
 
 Skamania 
 
 
 
 3 
 
 23 
 
 
 
 3 
 
 8 
 
 12 
 
 1 
 
 2 
 
 10 
 16 
 
 25 
 4 
 3 
 
 1 
 10 
 1 
 9 
 
 12 
 
 13 
 
 19 
 
 7 
 
 2 
 
 3 
 
 15 
 
 8 
 
 5 
 
 4 
 
 25 
 10 
 7 
 6 
 7 
 4 
 21 
 2 
 
 2 
 
 10 
 
 5 
 
 1 
 
 2 
 
 
 72 
 
 
 
 3 
 1 
 
 1 
 2 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 7 
 
 
 
 154 
 
 St°v»ns 
 
 2 
 
 2 
 1 
 
 
 
 116 
 
 
 
 
 55 
 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 2 
 
 1 
 
 4 
 
 22 
 
 Walla Walla 
 
 2 
 
 2 
 
 21 
 
 3 
 
 4 
 
 1 
 
 4 
 
 5 
 
 55 
 
 
 
 2 
 
 56 
 
 Whitman 
 
 
 18 
 
 1 
 
 9 
 
 1 
 
 7 
 
 5 
 
 1 
 
 8 
 
 1 
 
 3 
 
 1 
 
 2 
 
 169 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 60 
 
 
 
 
 No. districts 
 
 8 
 
 94 
 
 206 
 
 244 
 
 264 
 
 24S 
 
 222 
 
 148 
 
 260 
 
 161 
 
 140 
 
 88 
 
 66 
 
 84 
 
 55 
 
 25 
 
 39 
 
 2360 
 
 
 $21 
 to 
 f30 
 
 $3i 
 
 to 
 
 $40 
 
 $41 
 to 
 $50 
 
 $51 
 to 
 
 $60 
 
 $61 
 to 
 $70 
 
 $71 
 to 
 
 $80 
 
 $81 
 to 
 $90 
 
 $91 
 to 
 $100 
 
 $101 
 to 
 
 $120 
 
 $121 
 
 to 
 
 $140 
 
 $141 
 
 to 
 
 $160 
 
 $161 
 to 
 
 $180 
 
 ?181 
 
 to 
 
 $200 
 
 $201 
 
 to 
 
 $250 
 
 $251 
 
 to 
 
 $300 
 
 $301 
 
 to 
 
 $350 
 
 $350 
 and 
 over 
 
 
 102 districts spent $40 or less per pupil. 
 
 450 districts spent from $41 to $60 per pupil. 
 
 190 districts spent from 8200 to $918 per pupil.
 
 104 
 
 School Code Commission Report 
 
 STATISTICAL TABLE NO. 30. 
 
 AUMBER OP mSTRICTS 3IAKIXG SPECIAL, LEVY IXDICATED IN MILLS — 
 
 1!)19-1020. 
 
 Mills 
 
 1 
 
 2 
 
 3 
 
 4 
 
 6 
 
 6 
 
 7 
 
 8 
 
 9 
 
 10 
 
 11 
 
 12 
 
 13 
 
 14 
 
 15 
 
 16 
 
 17 
 
 18 
 
 19 
 
 20 
 
 Adams .... 
 
 1 
 
 6 
 
 2 
 
 7 
 2 
 
 11 
 
 "4' 
 
 1 
 3 
 2 
 1 
 3 
 5 
 1 
 3 
 4 
 2 
 3 
 
 13 
 3 
 
 1 
 4 
 
 1 
 3 
 5 
 7 
 1 
 2 
 2 
 5 
 3 
 3 
 1 
 1 
 8 
 2 
 6 
 5 
 7 
 22 
 
 12 
 2 
 2 
 3 
 1 
 5 
 5 
 4 
 2 
 2 
 4 
 4 
 4 
 4 
 
 9 
 3 
 
 "5' 
 
 4 
 2 
 3 
 
 8 
 7 
 
 5 
 
 7 
 1 
 2 
 
 5 
 
 1 
 2 
 2 
 2 
 2 
 6 
 3 
 9 
 1 
 
 "q 
 
 7 
 3 
 
 10 
 
 "3' 
 3 
 2 
 1 
 2 
 8 
 1 
 6 
 2 
 1 
 6 
 
 23 
 15 
 14 
 24 
 17 
 48 
 16 
 19 
 57 
 18 
 13 
 
 3 
 55 
 IS 
 
 7 
 
 7 
 33 
 
 5 
 
 6 
 
 38 
 33 
 20 
 
 6 
 31 
 
 5 
 20 
 50 
 
 9 
 30 
 
 7 
 
 27 
 43 
 53 
 22 
 
 5 
 15 
 12 
 24 
 18 
 
 1 
 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 4 
 
 Asotin 
 
 1 
 1 
 2 
 1 
 2 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Benton . . . 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 2 
 
 1 
 
 X 
 
 Chelan .... 
 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 4 
 1 
 5 
 
 2 
 
 2 
 1 
 3 
 1 
 2 
 
 
 1 
 1 
 
 4 
 
 i 
 
 i 
 
 4 
 
 
 2 
 
 Clallam . .. 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 2 
 
 Clarke .... 
 
 1 
 1 
 
 2 
 
 '2' 
 
 1 
 1 
 
 4 
 2 
 
 Columbia.. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 2 
 
 Cowlitz.... 
 
 
 
 2 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 2 
 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 2 
 
 Douglas. . . 
 
 i 
 
 1 
 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 
 1 
 
 
 Ferrv 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 Franklin.. . 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Garfield.... 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 Grant 
 
 
 2 
 
 1 
 
 i 
 1 
 
 4 
 2 
 2 
 
 2 
 
 
 3 
 
 
 13 
 
 1 
 
 G. Harbor. 
 
 
 Island 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 2 
 
 3 
 
 Jefferson. . 
 
 
 
 2 
 3 
 
 1 
 7 
 2 
 4 
 12 
 1 
 
 3 
 4 
 
 "3' 
 6 
 3 
 
 17 
 
 2 
 5 
 3 
 7 
 8 
 2 
 14 
 1 
 2 
 
 i 
 
 2 
 
 4 
 
 2 
 10 
 4 
 2 
 7 
 3 
 9 
 1 
 1 
 3 
 2 
 7 
 4 
 5 
 5 
 3 
 11 
 1 
 
 4 
 4 
 3 
 2 
 3 
 4 
 11 
 5 
 1 
 3 
 3 
 S 
 1 
 4 
 3 
 2 
 7 
 8 
 2 
 
 2 
 2. 
 
 2 
 5 
 5 
 
 2 
 2 
 
 2 
 
 "e' 
 
 "9' 
 
 1 
 4 
 8 
 1 
 
 2 
 
 1 
 15 
 11 
 
 6 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 King 
 
 
 2 
 
 4 
 
 9 
 
 18 
 
 1 
 
 4 
 
 4 
 
 6 
 3 
 1 
 3 
 1 
 
 
 1 
 3 
 
 2 
 
 4 
 1 
 
 22 
 
 17 
 
 Kitsap 
 
 
 Kittitas — 
 
 
 3 
 2 
 3 
 
 7 
 
 2 
 
 
 1 
 
 Klickitat... 
 
 1 
 1 
 
 
 
 1 
 1 
 
 
 2 
 
 Lewis 
 
 
 
 3 
 
 1 
 
 i 
 
 
 2 
 
 Lincoln 
 
 24 
 
 1 
 
 "i' 
 
 
 
 
 Mason 
 
 
 1 
 
 3 
 
 3 
 
 1 
 2 
 
 3 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 7 
 22 
 
 Okanogan. 
 
 "3' 
 
 2 
 3 
 
 
 3 
 
 1 
 1 
 5 
 
 Pacific 
 
 4 
 
 1 
 2 
 3 
 
 
 
 3 
 
 Pd. Oreille. 
 
 
 
 1 
 2 
 
 i 
 2 
 
 1 
 
 2 
 
 7 
 
 "5 
 
 
 
 
 
 2 
 
 Pierce 
 
 
 
 2 
 
 
 
 4 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 
 11 
 
 San Juan. . 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 
 
 Skagit 
 
 
 2 
 
 2 
 2 
 10 
 1 
 2 
 1 
 
 "3' 
 9 
 7 
 
 3 
 
 2 
 2 
 8 
 1 
 2 
 
 1 
 3 
 5 
 9 
 4 
 2 
 
 1 
 
 "7' 
 12 
 
 3 
 
 3 
 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 . .. . 
 
 
 1 
 
 4 
 
 Skamania. 
 
 .... 
 
 1 
 
 '5' 
 1 
 
 8 
 
 
 
 
 Snohomish 
 Spokane... 
 
 Stevens. . . . 
 
 2 
 "2' 
 
 1 
 1 
 3 
 
 2 
 5 
 
 4 
 2 
 2 
 
 1 
 2 
 
 "2' 
 
 1 
 4 
 
 7 
 3 
 
 4 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 4 
 
 1 
 2 
 3 
 
 "3' 
 3 
 1 
 
 2 
 1 
 
 2 
 11 
 30 
 
 4 
 
 Thurston. . 
 
 
 Wahk'kum 
 
 
 
 
 
 6 
 
 W.Walla.. 
 
 5 
 
 1 
 
 "3' 
 
 8 
 1 
 2 
 
 7 
 
 3 
 
 21 
 
 4 
 
 7 
 2 
 32 
 
 1 
 
 3 
 6 
 25 
 4 
 
 12 
 2 
 
 22 
 2 
 
 3 
 3 
 
 8 
 7 
 
 "e' 
 
 1 
 3 
 2 
 
 
 
 
 
 3 
 
 Whatcom.. 
 
 1 
 8 
 
 
 
 1 
 3 
 3 
 
 3 
 
 
 
 Whitman. . 
 
 3 
 
 1 
 
 2 
 
 1 
 
 
 1 
 
 Yakima 
 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 
 
 No. of Dis- 
 tricts 
 
 21 
 
 69 
 
 111 
 
 138 
 
 185 
 
 169 
 
 174 
 
 148 
 
 131 
 
 869 
 
 43 
 
 46 
 
 49 
 
 28 
 
 67 
 
 22 
 
 19 
 
 25 
 
 16 
 
 138 
 
 Levy in 
 mills 
 
 1 
 
 2 
 
 3 
 
 4 
 
 5 
 
 6 
 
 7 
 
 8 
 
 9 
 
 10 
 
 11 
 
 12 
 
 13 
 
 14 
 
 15 
 
 16 
 
 17 
 
 18 
 
 19 
 
 20 
 
 524 districts levy 5 mills or less lor current expenses. 
 1491 districts levy 6 to 10 mills for current ex penses. 
 6{fi districts levy 11 to 20 mills for current expenses.
 
 School Code Commission Report 
 
 105 
 
 STATISTICAI. TABLE XO. 31. 
 NUMBER OF TEACHERS AT SALARIES INDICATED — 1919-1920. 
 
 COUNTY 
 
 $70 
 or 
 Less 
 
 $71 
 to 
 $80 
 
 $81 
 to 
 $90 
 
 $91 
 
 to 
 
 $100 
 
 5101 
 to 
 $110 
 
 $111 
 
 to 
 
 $120 
 
 $121 
 
 to 
 
 $130 
 
 $131 
 
 to 
 
 $140 
 
 $141 
 
 to 
 
 $150 
 
 $151 
 
 to 
 
 $160 
 
 $161 
 
 to 
 
 $175 
 
 $176 
 
 to 
 
 $200 
 
 $200 
 and 
 Over 
 
 Totals 
 
 
 
 
 6 
 
 8 
 
 7 
 24 
 18 
 49 
 
 9 
 43 
 13 
 11 
 
 4 
 
 8 
 17 
 
 8 
 18 
 
 8 
 39 
 65 
 
 4 
 17 
 37 
 30 
 
 9 
 75 
 
 5 
 
 11 
 
 55 
 
 10 
 
 ■ 28 
 
 9 
 79 
 83 
 43 
 
 8 
 
 6 
 10 
 88 
 28 
 19 
 
 35 
 39 
 31 
 29 
 33 
 58 
 23 
 54 
 69 
 30 
 22 
 19 
 53 
 48 
 23 
 33 
 
 166 
 38 
 23 
 71 
 
 162 
 61 
 27 
 33 
 25 
 22 
 
 162 
 11 
 96 
 10 
 76 
 
 116 
 So 
 61 
 19 
 36 
 67 
 
 108 
 
 115 
 
 53 
 10 
 11 
 28 
 
 3 
 33 
 31 
 
 5 
 13 
 
 4 
 13 
 18 
 15 
 28 
 
 2 
 
 2 
 159 
 53 
 25 
 13 
 ■ 56 
 89 
 
 7 
 30 
 90 
 27 
 40 
 
 2 
 29 
 
 8 
 83 
 ^ 
 23 
 26 
 
 6 
 
 57 
 
 182 
 
 87 
 
 38 
 
 26 
 5 
 28 
 18 
 31 
 75 
 
 ""i 
 6 
 
 10 
 
 4 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 5 
 
 "io' 
 
 1 
 
 5 
 
 
 141 
 
 
 
 3 
 
 75 
 
 Benton 
 
 
 23 
 
 79 
 
 3 
 
 8 
 
 2 
 
 3 
 
 31 
 
 ""'5' 
 
 1 
 4 
 7 
 4 
 
 7 
 13 
 
 2 
 6 
 5 
 
 
 114 
 
 
 2 
 
 5 
 7 
 4 
 
 209 
 
 Clallam 
 
 
 
 101 
 
 Clark° 
 
 
 2 
 
 16 
 
 4 
 
 253 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 
 73 
 
 Cowlitz 
 
 2 
 
 3 
 4 
 
 "i' 
 
 6 
 
 1 
 1 
 2 
 3 
 6 
 7 
 2 
 
 "22' 
 
 1 
 3 
 13 
 
 ""i' 
 
 3 
 
 2 
 
 2 
 1 
 
 1 
 3 
 
 1 
 
 129 
 
 
 4 
 
 1 
 3 
 
 
 143 
 
 
 1 
 
 49 
 
 Franklin 
 
 2 
 
 ' 18 
 42 
 
 23 
 2 
 6 
 6 
 2 
 
 i 
 
 131 
 
 2 
 
 4 
 
 9 
 
 11 
 
 19' 
 1 
 1 
 
 '"'3' 
 
 1 
 
 434 
 
 2 
 
 2 
 
 71 
 
 Garfield ... . 
 
 
 50 
 
 Grant 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 9 
 
 6 
 4 
 
 7 
 
 4 
 
 
 
 
 121 
 
 Grays Harbor 
 Island 
 
 3 
 
 24 
 
 
 
 298 
 51 
 
 
 
 4 
 9 
 5 
 2 
 3 
 2 
 4 
 
 ii32i' 
 1 
 8 
 
 2 
 
 2 
 
 1 
 
 18 
 4 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 243 
 
 '""(0 
 
 59 
 
 King 
 
 1 
 
 29 
 1 
 
 39 
 6 
 
 14 
 
 18 
 2 
 8 
 8 
 1 
 
 16 
 1 
 
 68 
 5 
 
 29 
 
 13 
 5 
 
 50 
 
 56 
 
 4 
 
 66 
 
 12 
 
 22 
 
 6 
 
 2 
 
 1 
 
 25 
 
 "24' 
 1 
 9 
 14 
 5 
 5 
 
 2,076 
 
 
 189 
 
 Kittitas 
 
 
 176 
 
 Klickitat 
 
 
 4 
 4 
 
 7 
 4 
 17 
 2 
 3 
 8 
 5 
 6 
 1 
 6 
 19 
 28 
 
 130 
 
 
 
 331 
 
 
 
 9 
 2 
 4 
 6 
 
 5 
 
 1 
 2 
 
 232 
 
 Mason 
 
 
 55 
 
 Okanogan. .. . 
 Pacific 
 
 20 
 
 1 
 
 3 
 6 
 3 
 
 8 
 
 196 
 149 
 
 P°nd Oreill". 
 
 
 68 
 
 Pierce 
 
 6 
 
 12 
 
 92 
 
 1 
 
 859 
 
 
 
 31 
 
 Skagit 
 
 Skamania .... 
 
 1 
 
 4 
 
 4 
 
 2 
 3 
 5 
 3 
 
 1 
 17 
 
 13 
 
 3 
 
 280 
 37 
 
 Snohomish . . . 
 
 
 168 
 553 
 2 
 4 
 1 
 1 
 
 34 
 12 
 3 
 
 8 
 
 16 
 
 2 
 
 2 
 
 3 
 
 '"'s' 
 
 1 
 
 44 
 119 
 
 4 
 
 514 
 
 Spokane 
 
 Stevens 
 
 2 
 2 
 
 1,006 
 204 
 
 Thurston 
 
 1 
 
 
 175 
 
 Wahkiakum . . 
 
 
 2 
 
 34 
 
 Walla Walla.. 
 
 10 
 
 2 
 
 106 
 
 62 
 
 2 
 8 
 18 
 56 
 
 2 
 7 
 
 16 
 118 
 
 1 
 
 "'ii' 
 7 
 
 101 
 3 
 4 
 5 
 
 23 
 
 1 
 
 20 
 
 31 
 
 '""9' 
 
 243 
 
 Whatcom 
 
 Whitman 
 
 1 
 
 8 
 
 401 
 
 410 
 
 Yakima 
 
 3 
 
 466 
 
 
 
 
 Totals.... 
 
 Zi 
 
 175 
 
 1,009 
 
 2,118 
 
 1,487 
 
 748 
 
 534 
 
 1,402 
 
 263 
 
 100 
 
 1,531 
 
 340 
 
 274 
 
 10,21s 
 
 
 f70 
 or 
 Less 
 
 $71 
 to 
 
 $80 
 
 $81 
 to 
 $90 
 
 $91 
 
 to 
 
 $100 
 
 $101 
 to 
 $110 
 
 $111 
 
 to 
 
 $120 
 
 $121 
 
 to 
 
 $130 
 
 $131 
 
 to 
 
 $140 
 
 $141 
 
 to 
 
 $150 
 
 $151 
 
 to 
 
 $160 
 
 $161 
 
 to 
 
 $175 
 
 $176 
 
 to 
 
 $200 
 
 $200 
 and 
 Over 
 
 
 3,406 teachers at $900 or less per year. 
 209 teachers at $720 or less per year.
 
 106 
 
 School Code Commission Report 
 
 X •'
 
 School Code Commission Report 
 
 107 
 
 CHART NO. 34. 
 
 GK2VERAL. KXCELI.ENCE. 
 
 (First class districts not included.) 
 
 OF COUNTY SCHOOL SYSTEMS. 
 
 A Composite Ranking Chart. 
 
 COUNTY 
 
 King 
 
 Snohomish ... 
 Walla AValla . 
 Grays Harbor 
 
 Paciiic 
 
 Skagit 
 
 Kittitas 
 
 Whitman 
 
 Pierce 
 
 Benton 
 
 Lincoln 
 
 Franklin 
 
 Adams 
 
 Spokane 
 
 Jefferson 
 
 Chelan 
 
 Mason 
 
 Grant 
 
 Whatcom 
 
 Yakima 
 
 Clallam 
 
 Lewis 
 
 Thurston 
 
 Asotin 
 
 Island 
 
 Kitsap 
 
 Clarke 
 
 Pend Oreille . . 
 
 Skamania 
 
 Wahkiakum .. 
 
 Klickitat 
 
 Stevens 
 
 Columbia 
 
 Garfield 
 
 Cowlitz 
 
 San Juan 
 
 Douglas 
 
 Okanogan 
 
 Ferry 
 
 
 ALL SCHOOLS 
 
 •o 
 
 tf. 
 
 
 
 
 
 a 
 
 ^^ 
 
 o 
 
 C 
 
 
 o 
 
 *-< 
 
 c 
 
 < 
 
 a 
 
 
 W 
 
 a 
 
 s 
 
 DQ 
 
 n 
 
 3 
 
 o • 
 
 O 
 
 c 
 
 C 
 
 n^ 
 
 >. 
 
 O 
 
 u 
 
 HQ 
 
 O 
 
 ^ 
 
 t^ 
 
 ^< 
 
 2 
 
 33 
 
 21 
 
 3 
 
 1 
 
 32 
 
 26 
 
 7 
 
 14 
 
 29 
 
 31 
 
 22 
 
 7 
 
 37 
 
 30 
 
 9 
 
 20 
 
 13 
 
 1 
 
 O 
 
 4 
 
 14 
 
 4 
 
 9 
 
 26 
 
 15 
 
 6 
 
 14 
 
 19 
 
 12 
 
 9 
 
 17 
 
 6 
 
 38 
 
 36 
 
 4 
 
 31 
 
 16 
 
 19 
 
 27 
 
 30 
 
 21 
 
 7 
 
 8 
 
 18 
 
 4 
 
 17 
 
 36 
 
 23 
 
 3 
 
 2 
 
 26 
 
 10 
 
 23 
 
 22 
 
 21 
 
 22 
 
 8 
 
 3 
 
 13 
 
 33 
 
 2 
 
 8 
 
 34 
 
 9 
 
 22 
 
 15 
 
 15 
 
 29 
 
 10 
 
 25 
 
 33 
 
 5 
 
 39 
 
 39 
 
 16 
 
 11 
 
 5 
 
 28 
 
 38 
 
 17 
 
 11 
 
 11 
 
 24 
 
 12 
 
 20 
 
 13 
 
 18 
 
 16 
 
 25 
 
 34 
 
 28 
 
 38 
 
 9 
 
 10 
 
 33 
 
 3 
 
 30 
 
 14 
 
 6 
 
 8 
 
 28 
 
 18 
 
 12 
 
 13 
 
 24 
 
 27 
 
 20 
 
 15 
 
 1 
 
 o 
 
 35 
 
 24 
 
 27 
 
 32 
 
 25 
 
 27 
 
 36 
 
 20 
 
 1 
 
 32 
 
 17 
 
 24 
 
 30 
 
 25 
 
 7 
 
 16 
 
 31 
 
 36 
 
 19 
 
 12 
 
 19 
 
 35 
 
 26 
 
 35 
 
 29 
 
 28 
 
 31 
 
 23 
 
 10 
 
 21 
 
 35 
 
 33 
 
 11 
 
 34 
 
 6 
 
 29 
 
 39 
 
 37 
 
 18 
 
 37 
 
 37 
 
 39 
 
 34 
 
 38 
 
 32 
 
 HIGH 
 
 SCHOOLS 
 
 ■a 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 d 
 
 o 
 
 ^ 
 
 -o 
 
 
 2 
 
 ^ 
 
 <=>< 
 
 c 
 
 o . 
 
 So 
 
 O 
 
 ^Q 
 
 ^^. 
 
 £^ 
 
 ^-3 
 
 ^•t^ 
 
 10 
 15 
 
 5 
 13 
 
 6 
 20 
 
 9 
 32 
 
 3 
 22 
 
 4 
 29 
 24 
 
 7 
 18 
 21 
 19 
 18 
 
 1 
 37 
 31 
 26 
 33 
 28 
 39 
 12 
 27 
 17 
 11 
 30 
 35 
 38 
 34 
 36 
 
 3 
 
 4 
 
 13 
 10 
 
 7 
 14 
 26 
 17 
 30 
 25 
 
 5 
 37 
 16 
 33 
 21 
 36 
 
 1 
 
 9 
 22 
 15 
 27 
 20 
 19 
 
 2 
 24 
 38 
 23 
 32 
 39 
 12 
 31 
 18 
 29 
 
 9 
 
 3 
 
 5 
 12 
 27 
 
 6 
 21 
 15 
 10 
 
 8 
 23 
 13 
 17 
 19 
 20 
 
 2 
 16 
 14 
 26 
 34 
 22 
 29 
 38 
 11 
 36 
 28 
 39 
 
 1 
 24 
 31 
 18 
 33 
 35 
 25 
 
 4 
 30 
 32 
 37 
 
 18 
 26 
 27 
 29 
 17 
 37 
 20 
 
 4 
 30 
 12 
 14 
 11 
 28 
 19 
 
 1 
 23 
 35 
 
 15 
 32 
 36 
 31 
 21 
 25 
 13 
 34 
 33 
 38 
 
 6.0 
 
 O 'O 
 
 oo 
 ^< 
 
 oi 
 
 CO 
 
 ® ft 
 O 
 
 11 
 
 19 
 
 3 
 
 16 
 
 15 
 
 35 
 
 27 
 
 18 
 
 10 
 
 13 
 
 14 
 
 2 
 
 6 
 
 7 
 
 4 
 
 9 
 
 24 
 
 5 
 
 25 
 
 23 
 
 17 
 
 30 
 
 28 
 
 34 
 
 38 
 
 32 
 
 26 
 
 21 
 
 1 
 
 39 
 
 12 
 
 36 
 
 22 
 
 8 
 
 31 
 
 37 
 
 20" 
 
 33 
 
 29 
 
 14 
 33 
 26 
 34 
 38 
 39 
 38 
 19 
 
 4 
 32 
 
 6 
 37 
 17 
 21 
 28 
 35 
 10 
 25 
 31 
 
 1 
 
 6 
 
 5 
 
 4 
 
 15 
 
 14 
 
 8 
 
 17 
 
 2 
 
 12 
 
 21 
 
 11 
 
 19 
 
 3 
 
 23 
 
 13 
 
 30 
 
 25 
 
 9 
 
 7 
 
 16 
 
 22 
 
 10 
 
 26 
 
 37 
 
 20 
 
 18 
 
 29 
 
 28 
 
 35 
 
 31 
 
 34 
 
 24 
 
 33 
 
 32 
 
 38 
 
 27 
 
 36 
 
 39 
 
 1^ 
 
 11 
 
 4 
 27 
 25 
 26 
 18 
 2S 
 33 
 10 
 
 9 
 34 
 24 
 37 
 20 
 36 
 19 
 21 
 22 
 16 
 
 5 
 31 
 23 
 
 6 
 15 
 
 3 
 
 1 
 12 
 17 
 35 
 
 7 
 30 
 
 8 
 38 
 39 
 32 
 14 
 29 
 
 2 
 13 
 
 See Graph Nos 
 
 22 
 
 23 
 
 16 
 
 NOTE— Add figures showing the rank of a cou nty in each of the 12 columns and divide sum by 
 to determine general rank of efficiency of county given at the left.
 
 108 
 
 School Code Commission Report 
 
 EXPLANATION OF COMPOSITE CHART NO. 34. 
 Measure of School Efficiency. 
 
 School efficiency is measured by the fundamental elements which go 
 to make up the bases of recognized successful practice. These elements are 
 named and shown in their relationship in composite chart No. 34. Each 
 element is given a ranking in each of the counties. These are brought 
 together in their proper relationship to determine the final ranking of the 
 county. 
 
 It is well to note that the ability to pay does not entirely determine 
 the efficiency of school work. Money may be provided lavishly without 
 getting good results. But only in the wise expenditure of money is highest 
 efficiency obtained. Referring again to cost graphs, you will see that county™ 
 rankings, according to value and costs, are not in accord with rankings in« 
 efficiency. We must, therefore, conclude that good administration and good 
 business management are most essential to educational efficiency. That 
 portion of school revenues used for general supervision and administration 
 multiplies the value that may come from the direct costs. 
 
 At the base of each column is shown the number of the graph that 
 furnishes the evidence upon which the ranking depends.
 
 School Code Commission Report 109 
 
 EXPLAXATIOX OF COMPOSITE CHART XO. 33. 
 
 Financial Ability to Maintain Good Schools. 
 
 In this chart, we bring together the seven basic elements which deter- 
 mine the amount of revenues which may be derived for public education. 
 Property values are not evenly distributed over the entire state nor within 
 the counties of the state. Furthermore, the children to be educated are 
 not distributed according to taxable wealth. Therefore, under an equitable 
 plan of providing free education, we must collect our revenues on a pro rata 
 basis from all taxable property, and distribute these funds in a manner that 
 will give equal advantage to all the children regardless of their place of 
 residence. 
 
 In a general way we should expect to find greatest efficiency in com- 
 munities taking high rank in property values. This does follow when good 
 administration and supervision are applied jointly with the higher cost of 
 maintenance. But in the rural section where there is least supervision and 
 • direction, we find that expenditures have little or no relationship to effi- 
 ciency in school service. If the entire school revenue plan were based upon 
 county valuations the inequalities vary as indicated by the ranking figures. 
 The district variation in available revenues multiplies the inequalities and 
 makes impossible a type and quality of school service which would mean equal 
 advantages to all children. 
 
 At the base of each column is shown the number of the graph that 
 furnishes the evidence upon which the ranking of the counties depends.
 
 110 
 
 Scliool Code Commission Report 
 
 CHART NO. 33. 
 
 FINAXriAL. ABILITY TO MAINTAIN. 
 
 GOOD SCHOOLS. 
 A Composite Ranking Chart. 
 
 a 
 a 
 K 
 
 "3 
 « 
 
 COUKTT 
 
 a 
 
 
 3 ^ 
 
 "3 S S 
 
 -a ca £ 
 
 |I3 
 
 
 % Public Service 
 Property 
 
 en Ui 
 
 3 p.<i 
 
 111 
 
 S-o 
 a— 
 
 ^ a 
 
 1 ^ • — K 
 
 03 tU 
 
 Si-) 
 
 II 
 
 hi 
 
 ^^6 
 
 1 
 
 
 1 
 
 9 
 2 
 8 
 3 
 4 
 5 
 6 
 14 
 11 
 18 
 10 
 15 
 19 
 13 
 12 
 17 
 7 
 22 
 25 
 21 
 20 
 16 
 26 
 35 
 23 
 29 
 28 
 27 
 30 
 24 
 31 
 32 
 36 
 33 
 34 
 37 
 39 
 38 
 
 1 
 3 
 
 2 
 7 
 12 
 5 
 6 
 9 
 8 
 8 
 13 
 11 
 17 
 10 
 14 
 15 
 20 
 19 
 18 
 22 
 21 
 16 
 23 
 25 
 29 
 33 
 30 
 32 
 31 
 36 
 24 
 35 
 26 
 27 
 34 
 28 
 37 
 39 
 38 
 
 3 
 
 4 
 
 1 
 15 
 14 
 32 
 18 
 13 
 
 7 
 
 6 
 33 
 31 
 
 5 
 27 
 16 
 
 2 
 22 
 29 
 
 9 
 12 
 28 
 34 
 30 
 17 
 
 8 
 26 
 23 
 21 
 10 
 11 
 25 
 19 
 24 
 20 
 36 
 
 35 
 
 3 
 
 4 
 1 
 8 
 12 
 17 
 13 
 9 
 6 
 2 
 16 
 15 
 19 
 10 
 26 
 5 
 18 
 21 
 11 
 23 
 20 
 7 
 14 
 31 
 29 
 27 
 35 
 34 
 22 
 25 
 30 
 33 
 28 
 24 
 37 
 32 
 36 
 39 
 38 
 
 3 
 5 
 
 16 
 6 
 13 
 1 
 2 
 7 
 10 
 18 
 4 
 9 
 12 
 11 
 8 
 31 
 20 
 15 
 23 
 21 
 14 
 19 
 29 
 22 
 27 
 30 
 17 
 24 
 34 
 .36 
 35 
 28 
 32 
 38 
 25 
 33 
 26 
 39 
 37 
 
 5 
 
 6 
 29 
 
 8 
 10 
 
 1 
 
 3 
 
 7 
 
 13 
 30 
 
 2 
 11 
 
 9 
 12 
 
 4 
 36 
 16 
 15 
 27 
 25 
 20 
 26 
 34 
 19 
 18 
 28 
 14 
 17 
 31 
 35 
 33 
 22 
 32 
 38 
 23 
 21 
 24 
 39 
 37 
 
 6 
 
 "> 
 
 Skamania 
 
 1 
 
 3 
 
 Franklin 
 
 
 
 4 
 
 
 14 
 
 5 
 
 Walla Walla 
 
 3 
 
 6 
 
 Garfield 
 
 8 
 
 7 
 
 Columbia 
 
 22 
 
 s 
 
 
 18 
 
 9 
 
 
 12 
 
 10 
 
 Grant 
 
 
 n 
 
 -Ipfferson 
 
 4 
 
 12 
 
 Clallam 
 
 17 
 
 13 
 
 Kittitas 
 
 27 
 
 14 
 
 
 20 
 
 Ti 
 
 Cowlitz 
 
 31 
 
 16 
 
 B"nton 
 
 13 
 
 17 
 
 
 7 
 
 IS 
 
 
 16 
 
 19 
 
 Pend Or°ille 
 
 21 
 
 20 
 
 Ch°lan 
 
 9 
 
 ''I 
 
 Pacific 
 
 15 
 
 09 
 
 
 24 
 
 OS 
 
 King 
 
 11 
 
 24 
 
 Skagit 
 
 35 
 
 ''.') 
 
 
 29 
 
 ''6 
 
 Piorc" 
 
 10 
 
 07 
 
 
 30 
 
 2S 
 
 
 25 
 
 'K> 
 
 Thurston 
 
 28 
 
 .30 
 
 
 19 
 
 31 
 
 
 23 
 
 32 
 
 Clark° 
 
 26 
 
 33 
 
 
 36 
 
 34 
 
 
 33 
 
 35 
 
 
 .34 
 
 Sfi 
 
 
 39 
 
 ■^7 
 
 San .Tuan 
 
 37 
 
 ?8 
 
 
 32 
 
 39 
 
 Island 
 
 .38 
 
 
 iee Graph Nos 
 
 5 
 
 25 
 
 25 
 
 4 
 
 3 
 
 8 
 
 
 NOTE ir. — Add figures showing the rank of a given county expressed in each of the seven col- 
 umns and divide by 7 to determine general rank of that county. 
 
 * No public service property. 
 
 Note — All data based upon equalized assessed valuation. Tax levies for operation only.
 
 School Code Commission Report 
 
 111 
 
 PI BTilC SCHOOL CODE COMMISSION 
 
 Xo. 35. 
 
 Itating Sheet for Use in Connection With Statistical Tal))es for 1J>1J)'20. 
 
 .County 
 
 General Efficiency — 
 
 (See Rank in Chart Xo. 34) 
 
 1. Days of school 
 
 2. Per cent census enrolled, all 
 
 3. Per cent census in A. D. A 
 
 4. Per cent enrolment in O. D. A 
 
 5. Percent enrolled — H. S 
 
 6. Per cent enrolled in A. D. A.— H. S. 
 
 7. Per cent of total in A. D. A— H. S. 
 
 8. Professional training of teachers.. 
 
 9. Value of school property per child. 
 
 10. Cost of operation per child 
 
 11. Teachers' salaries 
 
 12. Levy per $100 of wealth 
 
 Efficiency Rank _ _ - - - 
 Rank in ability to maintain schools 
 
 County 
 Rank 
 
 County 
 Average 
 
 days 
 
 % 
 
 % 
 
 % 
 
 % 
 
 % 
 
 % 
 
 % 
 
 .mills 
 
 Financial Ability to Maintain School— 
 (See Rank in Chart No. 33) 
 
 1. Valuation per teacher 
 
 2. Valuation per child — A. D. A 
 
 3. Per cent of public property 
 
 4. School revenue per child 
 
 5. Low total levy 
 
 6. Low average levy 
 
 7. Value of school property per child. 
 
 County 
 Rank 
 
 County 
 Average 
 
 .% 
 
 .mills 
 .mills 
 
 State 
 
 Average 
 
 159 days 
 
 79.8% 
 
 58.5% 
 
 73.2% 
 
 11.7% 
 
 78.0% 
 
 42.6% 
 
 57.1% 
 
 $235.00 
 
 181.37 
 
 $1,160.00 
 
 15.41 mills 
 
 State 
 
 Average 
 
 $1,170.00 
 
 49.72 
 
 12.97o 
 
 $83.78 
 
 15.41 
 
 9.96 
 
 $2.35.00 
 
 See Chart 
 No. 
 18 
 22 
 22 
 22 
 23 
 23 
 23 
 19 
 
 26 
 
 16 
 3 
 
 See Chart 
 No. 
 
 Number of Districts Having Special Levies Indicated. See Table No. 30. 
 
 12 3 4 5 6 
 
 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 
 
 Mills 
 
 Number Districts — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 
 
 Number of Districts Expending Indicated Amounts Per Pupil A. D. A. See 
 
 Table No. 29. 
 
 Amoimts 
 
 $21 $31 $41 $51 $61 $71 $81 $91 $101 $121 
 to to to to to to to to to to Above 
 
 30 40 .50 GO 70 SO 90 100 120 140 $141 
 
 Number Districts 
 
 Number of Districts With One to Twenty Pupils in Attendance. See Table 
 
 No. 24. 
 
 Pupils 
 
 Number Districts 
 
 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 IS 19 20 
 
 Number of Teachers W^orking for Salaries Indicated 
 
 Salaries $70 
 
 or 
 Less 
 
 See Table No. 31. 
 
 $71 $81 $91 $101 $111 $121 $131 $141 
 
 to to to to to to to to Over 
 
 .■^O 90 100 110 120 1.30 140 150 $151 
 
 Number of teachers.
 
 Chapter XIV. 
 
 The following analysis and synopsis of the bill founded upon the fore- 
 going study of conditions and subsequent recommendations are given for those 
 who may be unable to secure copies of the entire bill: 
 
 A BRIEF ANALYSIS OF THE PUBLIC SCHOOL ADMIMSTRATIVE CODE 
 COMMISSION BILL (SENATE BILL NO. 10). 
 
 The purpose of this bill is to secure the most effective results to the 
 state of Washington and its people from the operation of the public school 
 system of the state. In preparing the bill every effort has been made to 
 constructively simplify and systematize the administration of the schools, 
 to enlarge and equalize the educational opportunities of the children, to 
 provide sufficient funds while insuring business methods in their use, to 
 encourage the profession of teaching and to fairly safeguard the interests 
 of the taxpaying public. 
 
 It has been considered best to amend the present law rather than to 
 attempt the preparation of an entirely new code. The bill contains eight new 
 sections, amends sixty-four sections of the present school code and repeals 
 ninety-four sections thereof. 
 
 The first eight sections have to do with the state department of educa- 
 tion which is partially reorganized through the appointment by the governor 
 of a state board of education of seven lay members for terms of seven years. 
 Board non-political, non-sectarian, with broad constructive powers looking 
 toward the upbuilding of a strong effectual state department of education 
 with professional experts dealing with the important fields of educational 
 endeavor. The superintendent of public instruction, secretary of the board 
 with present powers. An amendment to the constitution will be proposed 
 to provide for an appointive executive head of the state school system with 
 salary, qualifications, and tenure determined by the state board of education 
 thus completing the needed reorganization of the department. 
 
 Sections eleven to nineteen provide for district reorganization: 
 
 (a) First class districts, those containing first, second or third 
 
 class cities and employing twenty-five teachers and a 
 superintendent. 
 
 (b) The county school district is the county outside of first class 
 
 districts and is under one board of five members. Rural 
 supervision provided. 
 
 (c) Sub-districts are the present school districts, for attendance 
 
 and census purposes and to pay present obligations. 
 
 (d) New districts formed, boundaries changed, first class districts 
 
 transferred to the county school district, by county board 
 of education on petition with appeal to the state superin- 
 tendent. Sub-district boundaries are readjusted by county 
 board. Assessor to keep up map of county showing dis- 
 tricts and sub-districts. 
 
 I
 
 School Code Commission Report 
 
 Sections twenty to thirtj^-five provide for school officers. The office of 
 county superintendent discontinued after September 3, 1923. Powers and 
 duties assigned to an appointive superintendent of the county school dis- 
 trict who has direct and actual supervision over all schools in the district. 
 Nomination of teachers and other employees; direction of the work of the 
 sub-district trustees and field supervisors; preparation annual expense budget 
 and development of building program for the county school district. Office 
 at county seat. 
 
 Five directors elected in each district, one each year for a term of five 
 years. Powers and duties of directors are made the same in all districts 
 except that the board of directors of the county school district constitute 
 the county board of education with power to hear and decide petitions, to 
 employ rural supervisors, to appoint one or more sub-district trustees, and 
 on recommendation of superintendent by unanimous vote to pay board of 
 certain resident pupils. 
 
 Sections thirty-six to fifty-two have to do with school finances. Board 
 may levy up to twelve mills for maintenance and up to fifteen mills for 
 maintenance and buildings, the part for buildings to be placed in separate 
 fund. May levy up to twenty mills with vote of people. Warrants are 
 issued by secretary in districts of over 10,000 population; by county auditor 
 in all other districts. Bonds may be paid in annual or semi-annual install- 
 ments; sinking fund may be invested in bonds maturing before funds are 
 needed. Apportionments from state and county funds are made, one-half 
 on the basis of teachers employed and one-half on the basis of total days' 
 attendance. Constructive attendance eliminated. Provision for equaliza- 
 tion as between districts, for the support of state department of education 
 and for vocational education. Current state school fund to equal thirty 
 dollars per census child. 
 
 Sections fifty-four to fifty-nine give a uniform election plan for all dis- 
 tricts. Nomination on petition. Where only one candidate for the position 
 or each position to be filled in a district is nominated the board may elect 
 such person without the formality of an election. Registration required 
 only in districts with cities of 10,000 or more population. Regular election 
 officers handle the school election in the year when the general election 
 occurs. 
 
 Sections sixty-six to sixty-nine provide for parental schools by a com- 
 bination of two or more districts with a population of over 50,000, no more 
 than one for each sex in any county or combination of counties; expense to 
 be borne according to valuation of districts; parents to pay board and 
 clothing of children committed; non-resident children admitted where resi- 
 dent district pays the cost of support of such children. 
 
 Section seventy-one provides for the reimbursement of a district for 
 
 the net cost of educating children residing in another district at a distance 
 
 of two miles or more from a school maintaining their grade in their resident 
 
 I district, or more than two miles from a transportation route leading thereto. 
 
 Sections nine, ten, fifty-three, sixty, sixty-one, sixty-two to sixty-five 
 inclusive, seventy and seventy-two affect minor details of administration in 
 a way calculated to improve school conditions. 
 
 —5
 
 Chapter XV. 
 
 SYNOPSIS OF PUBLIC SCHOOL ADMINISTRATIVE 
 CODE COMMISSION BILL BY SECTIONS. 
 
 STATE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION. 
 
 Section 1 (4303) Adds superintendent of county school district, wlio 
 after 1923 takes the place of the county superintendent of schools. 
 
 Section 2 (4307). Powers and duties of superintendent of public 
 instruction same as at present with these changes: 
 
 1st. Reports and recommendations to state board. 
 
 2nd. Is made secretary of board. 
 
 3rd. Prepares estimate of department for board. 
 
 4th. Additional duties may be required by board. 
 
 Section 3 (4308). Nominates assistants for appointment by board. 
 
 Section 4 (4309). State board of education with broad constructive 
 power; seven lay members appointed by the governor for terms of seven 
 years, the term of one expiring annually. 
 
 Section 5 (4310). Secretary of state board of education. 
 
 Section 6 (4311). Duties of the secretary of state board. 
 
 Section 7 (4312). Officers, meetings and organization of state board, 
 organizing in June, with regular meetings in September, December and 
 March^ Special meetings on call of president or ma.1ority of members. 
 
 Section 8. (4314). Powers of the state board of education: Confirms 
 nominations by superintendent of public instruction; directs, through its 
 executive officers: 
 
 1st. Classification and education of defectives. 
 
 2nd. Physical education. 
 
 3rd. Approval of buildings. 
 
 4th. Census, statistics and research. 
 
 5th. Inspection of schools. 
 
 6th. Organization of county school districts. 
 
 7th. Adult education and Americanization. 
 
 8th. Assumes the work of the board of higher curricula and that of 
 the board of vocational education. 
 
 9th. Reports to the governor and recommends legislation. 
 
 Section 9 (4408). Lengthens day twenty to thirty minutes. 
 
 Section 10 (4412). Minimum school year 180 days exclusive of 
 holidays. 
 
 DISTRICT ORGANIZATION. 
 
 Section 11 (4416). First class school district is one that contains a 
 first or second or third class city and employs twenty-five or more teachers 
 with a superintendent giving full time to supervision. 
 
 Section 12. (4417). The county school district includes all territory 
 in the county outside of first class districts. 
 
 Section 13 (4418). All present school districts, except those defined 
 in Section 11, become sub-districts. 
 
 Section 14 (4422). Designation of districts.
 
 School Code Commission Report 115 
 
 Sections 15-16 (4427-28). Establishment of new districts and changes 
 of boundaries by county board of education on petition. 
 
 Section 17 (4433). First class districts transferred to a county school 
 district by county board of education on petition. 
 
 Section 18 (new). Combination, readjustment and changes in the sub- 
 districts by county board of education and superintendent. 
 
 Section 19 (4471). Provides for county school map showing changes 
 in districts and sub-districts to be kept by county assessor. 
 
 DISTRICT OFFICERS. 
 
 Section 20 (4472). The office of the county superintendent to be dis- 
 continued after September 3, 1923. and iiis duties and powers to be assumed 
 by the superintendent of the county school district of the respective counties. 
 
 Section 21 (new). New duties of the county superintendent of schools: 
 Direction of the schools of the county district including nomination of teach- 
 ers, supervisors, and other regular employees; direction of the work of the 
 field supervisors of sub-districts, preparation of annual expense budget, 
 1^ development of building program. 
 
 Section 22 (4478). Office of the superintendent of county district to 
 be at county seat. 
 
 Section 23 (4481). The duties of boards of directors are the same in 
 all districts and contains a provision for tenure of teachers who have been 
 employed three years in a district. 
 
 Section 24 (new). Provides for board of directors for county school 
 district from five divisions of the county — -first board to be selected by con- 
 vention of representatives of the present districts. 
 
 Section 25 (new). Directors of county school district constitute county 
 board of education; to receive a per diem and expenses. 
 
 Section 26 (new). Additional powers of county board of education: 
 
 First, appoint superintendent county school district; 
 
 Second, to hear and determine petitions; 
 
 Third, to employ rural supervisors; 
 
 Fourth, to appoint one or more trustees for each sub-district. 
 
 Section 27 (4494). Provides for the election of five directors in all 
 school districts for term of five years, one to be elected each year. 
 
 Section 28 (4495). School elections to be held on the first Tuesday 
 after the first Monday in November in all districts. 
 
 Sections 29-31 (4496-97, 4500). Changes in present law to make election 
 procedure the same in all school districts. 
 
 Section 32 (4503). Provides for the ofiice of county board of educa- 
 tion at county seat. 
 
 SCHOOL FINANCES. 
 
 Section 33 (4504). Issue of warrants in certain first class districts by 
 secretary. 
 
 Section 34 (4509). Additional powers and duties for board of directors 
 uniform for all districts. 
 
 Section 35 (4510). Census taking uniform for all districts.
 
 116 School Code Commission Report 
 
 Sections oG-o7 (4512-13). Boards maj" without vote of people levy up 
 to twelve mills for maintenance, or up to fifteen mills for maintenance and 
 buildings. That part for buildings to be placed in the building fund. Twenty 
 mills may be levied with a vote. 
 
 Sections 38-39 (3927-1, 4552). Warrants issued by county auditor in 
 districts except first class with cities of more than ten thousand population. 
 
 Sections 40-41 (4563-64). Funds apportioned one-half on the basis 
 of teachers employed and one-half on the basis of the total days' attendance. 
 Provisions for equalization between districts, for support of departments of 
 state board of education and for vocational education. 
 
 Section 42 (4569). Attendance in a parental school and in school for 
 defectives to count three times the actual attendance and providing for 
 special certification of teachers in classes for defectives. 
 
 Section 43 (4573). Providing relief to schools closed by health authori- 
 ties and limiting it to twenty days. 
 
 Section 44 (4580). No attendance credit to districts for institute. 
 
 TEXT BOOKS. 
 
 Sections 45-48 (4584-86, 4590). Provides for the adoption of text 
 books by each district on the plan at present used in first class districts. 
 
 FINANCE. 
 
 Section 49 (4600). State current school funds to equal thirty dollars 
 for each child of school age. 
 
 Section 50 (4604). Apportionment of county funds the same as state 
 funds. 
 
 Sections 51-2 (4607-13). Changes in bonding law to provide for annual pay- 
 ment and for the investment of sinking funds in other bonds maturing before 
 the funds are needed. 
 
 CERTIFICATION. 
 
 Section 53 (4644). Change in certification law to permit university 
 and state college professional training to be accepted as qualification for ■' 
 applicants for teachers' examination. 
 
 ELECTIONS. 
 
 Sections 54-59 (4667-69, 4671-75, 4685). Providing a uniform elec-| 
 tion plan for all districts. Nominations on petition. No election if only 
 one candidate for a position is nominated. Registration required only in 
 first class districts with cities of the first and second class. Regular election 
 officers handle school elections in the years when general election occurs. 
 
 Section 60 (new). Membership in fraternities forbidden in elementary 
 and high. schools. 
 
 Section 61 (new). Requiring English to be used for instruction in all 
 schools except in learning a foreign language by a pupil who has completed 
 the sixth grade, 
 
 APPEALS. 
 
 Sections 62-65 (4707-11). Appeals taken directly to superintendent of] 
 public instruction. 
 
 I
 
 School Code Commission Report 117 
 
 PARENTAL SCHOOLS. 
 
 Sections 68-69 (8605-11). Provides for parental schools by combina- 
 tion of two or more districts with a population of 50,000 or more, nor more 
 than one of each sex in any county, or combination of counties; expense to 
 be borne according to valuation of districts, parents to pay board and cloth- 
 ing of children committed; non-resident children admitted when resident 
 district pays cost of support. 
 
 Section 70 (4160 '19). State board to appoint vocational experts and 
 assistants. 
 
 Section 71 (new). Providing for reimbursement of a district for the 
 net cost of education of pupils residing in another district at a distance of 
 two miles or more from a school maintaining his grade in his resident dis- 
 trict, or more than two miles from a transportation route leading thereto. 
 
 Section 72 (916). Gives school districts option to accept or reject 
 awards in condemnation proceedings. 
 
 SECTIONS REPEALED AND SUBJECTS AFFECTED. 
 
 Sections — Inclusive in groups: Subjects affected. 
 
 4370 Model school attendance 
 
 4419-4421 Definition of districts 
 
 Chap. 21, Laws 1917 Non high school districts 
 
 4440-4447 Consolidated districts 
 
 4448-4459 Joint school districts 
 
 4460-4469 Union high school districts 
 
 4514-4525 Directors second class districts 
 
 4526-4539 Directors third class districts 
 
 4540-4542 District clerk 
 
 4559-4561 County Board of Education 
 
 Apportionments for: 
 
 4564 (partly) 1. Districts under 2,000 days 
 
 4566 2. Non-resident pupils 
 
 4445 3. Consolidations 
 
 4568 4. Attendance in private school 
 
 4571 5. $100 bonus for high school grades 
 
 4580 6. Institute attendance 
 
 4370 7. Model school attendance 
 
 4587-4589 Text books in second division 
 
 4592-4597 County circulating library 
 
 4657-4663 Elections in districts other than first 
 
 class. 
 4664-4666 Special meetings
 
 Chaptee XVI. 
 
 The proposed code presents a constructive, forward-looking program 
 for education in Washington. Its aim and purpose is to meet conditions 
 as they are in a practical way and to strengthen those parts of our public 
 school system known to be far below standard, through better administra- 
 tion. Consolidation is the chief instrument of its effectiveness. The code 
 centralizes responsibility. It emphasizes the principle of the barefoot-boy 
 school law. It introduces business methods of management. It eliminates 
 politics from the selection of educational experts. It provides supervision 
 and insures trained teachers with more certain tenure for village and rural 
 schools. It will encourage community interest through better schools. It 
 distributes the burden of support equitably. It tends to equalize educa- 
 tional opportunity throughout the entire state, without being unfair to 
 any district, to any city, or to any child, within its borders.
 
 souther: 
 UNIVERSITY OF CALiFOhNlA, 
 
 LIBRARY, 
 
 tUaS ANGELES, CALIF.
 
 UCLA-Young Research Library 
 
 LB2529 .W27 
 
 L 009 616 944 6