F. Knapp's English and German Institute, Universal Progressive School, St. Francis Xavier school, National Junior Republic, Washington College, and a number of others. The state of Virginia, in addition to the support of its state university, also subsidizes with smaller sums institutions under independent control.

This brief statement is not intended to give any complete list of the educational institutions under private control which now participate in state funds, nor is this matter mentioned now with the purpose of criticizing any of these institutions. Certainly, institutions like the Johns Hopkins University, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and the University of Pennsylvania are among the most deserving institutions of their states. It is, however, important that the political significance of this movement, which has already gained such headway, should be clearly understood. The appropriation by the state for the support of educational and philanthropic institutions over which it has no control is a questionable public policy. It does not alter the matter that many of these institutions are most useful and valuable agencies in their states, altho it can readily be shown that the obtaining of state aid by such institutions has already paved the way for state aid to less worthy agencies. The real question to be faced is this: such legislation forms an opening wedge for paternalistic and socialistic measures, whose end no man can foresee. If these institutions, whose friends are now in power, can get appropriations, a little later other institutions of assumed philanthropic character, controlled by this or that body, will have an equal claim to support. There is only one safe line that can be drawn consistently with our political traditions and experience, and that is that state aid shall go only with state control. When a commonwealth initiates the policy of state aid without state control, it embarks upon a legislative process which may ultimately put the power of the state at the disposal of any enterprise which claims to be philanthropic or educational, no matter by what sect, by what party, or by what political theorists it may be controlled. Such legislation is full of dangers, and in states like Massachusetts it requires no prophet's vision to perceive them.

IV. AN ADEQUATE STATE SYSTEM OF EDUCATIONAL SCRUTINY AND ADMINISTRATION

[Pritchett, Henry S., in the 5th An. Rept. of the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, 1910, pp. 77-80.]

These considerations bring up at once a topic often discussed in recent years, namely, the need in each state in the Union of an adequate system of educational administration and supervision. It is clear from our experience of the last twenty-five years, as well as from that of other nations, that somewhere in each commonwealth there should be an educational agency dealing with the higher institutions of learning and with the secondary and elementary institutions as well, for these schools are not unrelated enterprises, but are all parts of one thing. Such places should seek out the ablest men.

The most serious effort which has been made in this direction is in the State of New York, where the University of the State of New York has had supervision over elementary, secondary, and technical education; and its work has resulted in far greater uniformity and efficiency in the schools of New York than is to be found in most of the other states. The University of the State of New York, practically the State Department of Education, has had, however, no authority over higher institutions of learning, or at least, it has never exercised such authority. For this reason, therefore, it has been able to do only a limited work in the correlation of higher and secondary education. Recent efforts to deal with the institutions of education in Iowa and in Massachusetts were described in my last annual report. The creation of such commissions undoubtedly marks a step in the direction of an expert supervision of education in the interest of unity, economy, and efficiency, but as tried in both these states the commissions have certain weaknesses which make the ultimate outcome more or less doubtful. In neither Iowa nor Massachusetts has this body the supervision of the whole educational system. Again, even when composed of able and intelligent men, such commissions must in the end depend on expert advice; the members, being busy men, will find it difficult to give to the important questions before them the requisite time and study. It will not usually be found easy to bring busy men together for long deliberations.

In many of the western states, where public education has from the beginning been a matter of state pride, a superintendent of education has existed, with a very inadequate administrative force,

SEC. 3. Meetings. The board shall meet four times a year. Special meetings may be called by the board, by the president of the board, or they may be called by the secretary of the board, upon the written request of any five members thereof.

SEC. 4. Powers and Duties Organization. The state board of education shall have power to elect a president from their number; a president and treasurer for each of said educational institutions, and professors, instructors, officers, and employes, to fix the compensation to be paid to such officers and employes; to make rules and regulations for the government of said schools, not inconsistent with the laws of the state; to manage and control the property, both real and personal, belonging to said educational institutions; to execute trusts or other obligations now or hereafter committed to the institutions; to direct the expenditure of all appropriations the general assembly shall, from time to time, make to said institutions, and the expenditure of any other moneys; and to do such other acts as are necessary and proper for the execution of the powers and duties conferred upon them by law. Within ten days after the appointment and qualification of the members of the board, it shall organize and prepare to assume the duties to be vested in said board, but shall not exercise control of said institutions until the first day of July, A.D. one thousand nine hundred nine (1909).

SEC. 5. Board of regents and boards of trustees abolished. The board of regents and the boards of trustees now charged with the government of the state university, the college of agriculture and mechanic arts, and the normal school, shall cease to exist on the first day of July, A.D. 1909, and, on the same date, full power to manage said institutions, as herein provided, shall vest in the said state board of education. Nothing herein contained shall limit the general supervision or examining powers vested in the governor by the laws or constitution of the state.

SEC. 6. Finance committee- officers - duties - term. The said board of education shall appoint a finance committee of three from outside of its membership, and shall designate one of such committee as chairman and one as secretary. The secretary of this committee shall also act as secretary of the board of education and shall keep a record of the proceedings of the board and of the committee and carefully preserve all their books and papers. All acts of the board relating to the management, purchase, disposition, or use of lands or other property of said educational institutions shall be entered of record, and shall show who are present and how each member voted upon each proposition when a roll call is demanded. He shall do and perform such other duties as may be

required of him by law or the rules and regulations of said board. Not more than two members of this committee shall be of the same political party and its members shall hold office for a term of three years unless sooner removed by a vote of two-thirds of the members of the state board of education.

SEC. 7. Qualification. Each member of the board and each member of the finance committee shall take oath and qualify, as required by section one hundred seventy-nine (179) of the code. The members of the finance committee, before entering upon their official duties, shall each give an official bond in the sum of twentyfive thousand dollars ($25,000), conditioned as provided by law, signed by sureties approved by the governor and, when so given, said bonds shall be filed in the office of the secretary of state.

SEC. 9. Business office-employes-monthly visitation. A business office shall also be maintained at each of the three educational institutions, and the board shall hire such employes as may be necessary to assist the said finance committee in the performance of its duties, and shall present to each general assembly an itemized account of the expenditures of said committee. The members of the finance committee shall, once each month, attend each of the institutions named for the purpose of familiarizing themselves with the work being done, and transacting any business that may properly be brought before them as a committee.

SEC. 19. Biennial report. The board shall make reports to the governor and legislature of its observations and conclusions respecting each and every one of the institutions named, including the regular biennial report to the legislature covering the biennial period ending June 30th, preceding the regular session of the general assembly. Said biennial report shall be made not later than October 1st, in the year preceding the meeting of the general assembly, and shall also contain the reports which the executive officers of the several institutions are now or may be by the board required to make, including, for the use of the legislature, biennial estimates of appropriations necessary and proper to be made for the support of the said several institutions and for the extraordinary and special expenditures for buildings, betterments and other improvements. That all the powers heretofore granted to and exercised by the board of control over the College for the Blind are hereby transferred to the State Board of Education and the State Board of Education is authorized and empowered to take charge of, manage and control said College for the Blind.

VI. DUPLICATIONS IN WORK AMONG STATE HIGHER INSTITU

TIONS

[From the Second An. Rept. Iowa State Bd. of Education, 1912, pp. 7-12.]

At the time the first report of this Board was submitted, only a few months had elapsed for the board to study its problems and organize for its work. It was a reasonable request, therefore, that the Board made, namely that more time than had already elapsed should be allowed for a study of the more important problems confronting it, before anything like a definite policy should be announced.

In making this request for more time, special reference was had to the problem of the coordination of the institutions committed to the Board's care. It was recognized from the beginning that the legislature had this problem primarily in mind when this Board was established. The joint legislative committee which made a study of the whole matter and whose report ultimately led to the creation of this Board, made that document specific on this point. The debate preceding the passage of the bill, and numerous letters from leaders in the Thirty-third General Assembly, received since the Board's program was announced, prove conclusively that one of the chief reasons for the creation of a single board was to get rid of needless and expensive duplications, and to cause these stateowned and state-supported institutions to cease being rivals and become cooperating units in a comprehensive system of higher education.

The institutions as they exist to-day are the natural outgrowth of the system under which they have grown up. Governed by separate boards, each developed without much thought of the other, and the General Assembly had not time during its brief sessions to do more than get a superficial knowledge of the entire situation. It became more and more apparent, however, as time went on, that unjustifiable duplications existed, and that the institutions instead of being cooperating units in a general system, were to all intents and purposes rivals of each other. It was to put an end to these rivalries that this Board was created.

The Board early determined not to act hastily in this matter. There were those who urged immediate consideration of this problem, but it was deemed wise to wait until the members should have an opportunity to know for themselves something of the work each institution was attempting and what duplications were