specifically than those now offered by most secondary schools. Members of the National Commission on Life Adjustment Education for Youth were hosts to the visiting educators.

They heard two addresses at the conference-one by Dr. Robert J. Havighurst, Professor of Education and Secretary of the Committee on Human Development, University of Chicago, and another by Gordon W. Blackwell, Director of the Institute for Research in Social Science, University of North Carolina. Dr. Havighurst's subject was "How Do We Determine the Needs of Youth of High School Age?" and Dr. Blackwell took up the question, "How Do We Determine the Needs of Society?"

The conferees were brought up to date on the history and progress of the National Commission on Life Adjustment Education for Youth by Dr. J. Dan Hull, Assistant Director, Division of Secondary Education, Office of Education, and Secretary of the Commission.

Work groups were organized to discuss the study of individual pupil needs, pupil and school adjustment to the community, improving learning experiences for youth, changing administration to broaden the school program, promotion of teacher security, and what State departments of education can do in the Life Adjustment Education Program.

The opening session of the conference featured a panel of teachers describing practices which they found effective in meeting the needs of individual pupils in their respective communities

Benjamin C. Willis, Superintendent of Schools, Yonkers, N. Y., and Chairman of the National Commission on Life Adjustment Education for Youth.

and school systems. These teachers re

Forest Hills, N. Y.; Spencer, N. Y.; Wash

Bills

phia, Pa.; New Britain, Conn; Midland,

Mich.; Rockville, Md.; Ashland, Va.; and Pittsburgh, Pa.

The closing session of the conference brought forth pithy presentations of workgroup chairmen emphasizing points essential to a more well-rounded education for the Nation's youth to meet life's needs. A few high-light recommendations are offered:

Individual differences must be identified before individual needs can be met.

The needs of youngsters cannot be met in a school that functions in isolation with respect to the community.

Every teacher should be a skillful and competent person in the area of human relations, in the greater and better understanding of pupils and their problems, not as groups, but as individuals in the group. Every child should be known intimately by at least one member of the faculty, preferably more.

Find successes for pupils who have had a series of failures.

Standards of achievement should be adjusted to fit various standards of ability.

Work experience should be provided for more and more, if not all students.

Include so-called extracurricular activities in the regular school program. Expand the school program of health and recreation.

Explore the possibility of having the school open 12 months a year, and longer than 6 hours a day.

Restudy the total school program, making deletions and additions in curriculum as required.

Redefine the teacher's job to include time to study the pupil.

Give recognition in the community for significant contributions by teachers.

Allow pupils and teachers to participate in administrative decisions.

State department of education leadership is essential, with participation by lay people a cardinal principle.

Study resources available to educators to do the work assigned them.

Any decision affecting schools or their services should be made in light of the needs of the individual in the community.

A detailed report of the Work Conference on Life Adjustment education is in preparation and will be available at an early date.

URING THE FIRST session of the

Eighty-first Congress, 43 bills were introduced for the purpose of authorizing Federal financial assistance for the construction of elementary and secondary school facilities, exclusive of bills for advance planning only. Eleven of these bills, including three duplicates, pertain only to specified school buildings in connection with specific Federal projects or for Indian pupils. One is for Negro and Indian pupils; and one is for public works in Alaska, including schools. The other 30 school construction bills now pending before the Congress may be classified as follows:

1. Eight of the bills propose to authorize Federal grants through the Federal Works Agency (now a part of the General Services Administration) directly to local school districts overburdened with enrollments resulting from war, defense, and Federal activities. These bills do not include an objective means of allocation to States.

2. Four propose grants and loans, through

the Reconstruction Finance Corporation, to States in proportion to school-age population. They provide that a State could receive a grant of 50 percent and a loan of 50 percent of the cost of school facilities.

3. Four propose grants, through the General Services Administration, to States on the basis of total population, Federal tax collections, and administrative discretion, with special provisions for States with public lands exceeding 5 percent of the total area of the State. These bills require equal matching with non-Federal funds.

4. Three propose grants, through the General Services Administration, to States in proportion to school-age population for surveys, drawings, and construction. These bills require equal matching with non-Federal funds.

5. Three propose allotments, through the

Office of Education, to States in relation to school population for surveys and construction; with individual project construction grants made to local school districts in amounts ranging from 40 to 90 percent of the cost of construction as

determined by the Commissioner of Education.

6. Three propose allotments, through the Office of Education, to States for surveys and construction on the basis of schoolage population and financial ability. These bills would provide a uniform construction expenditure per child in all States from combined Federal and nonFederal sources, with Federal participation ranging from 40 to 60 percent in inverse relation to average per-capita income payments. The States would determine project grants within their allotments according to State program plans. 7. One proposes allotments, through the General Services Administration with consultation with the Office of Education, to States according to school-age population; with individual project grants made directly to local school districts for 50 percent of the cost of construction. 8. One proposes allotments, through the Office of Education, to States for surveys and construction in accordance with a formula which provides for a uniform non-Federal contribution per pupil in average daily attendance in all States; plus a Federal contribution ranging from about 0.8 to about 1.8 times the nonFederal contribution, calculated in inverse ratio to fiscal capacity of the States. 9. One proposes allotments, through the Office of Education with supervision by the General Services Administration, to States according to school-age population; and requires matching with nonFederal funds ranging from one-third to three-fourths, according to fiscal ability of States, of the total construction cost. 10. Two identical bills (S. 2317 and H. R.

5718) were introduced as a result of Senate hearings on school construction bills. These bills propose to authorize, through the Office of Education with technical assistance of the General Services Administration, (1) grants to States for surveys, (2) grants to States for construction of school facilities according to overall State program plans, (3) advance planning of school facilities through State agencies, and (4) grants to local (Continued on page 47)

State Departments of Education (Continued from page 35)

The desire to obtain State board members

note that all 4 States which have changed their method of selection of the chief State school officer during the last decade have

in educational matters has been a difficult problem for States to solve. The methods. which will now be used by the 3 States which have most recently changed their methods of selecting State board members may throw some light on the problem. In 1947 the State of Washington provided for the election of State board members by regional school board conventions. In 1948 Colorado and in 1949 Texas passed legislation providing for direct election of State board members by the people. Although appointment by the governor of State board members in 29 States is still the predominant method, the recent action of the 3 States in making members directly responsible to the people and free from the control of the governor may be indicative of a trend.

Trends in the Selection of the
Chief State School Officer

Authorities have repeatedly pointed out that the most satisfactory method of selecting the chief State school officer is by assigning this function to the State board of education. This procedure makes the chief State school officer, as professional executive, responsible to the State board for carrying out its policies. This method recognizes the clear-cut distinction between the lay control of education (in the hands of the State board of education) and the professional administration of our educational systems (by the chief State school officer). Furthermore, it is the only method of selection which can assure unity in policies and procedures when there is a State board and a chief State school officer.

For when the chief State school officer is appointed by the Governor or elected by the people duality of control exists. Even though the chief State school officer may be executive officer of the State board, his primary responsibility is to the governor, if appointed by him, or to the people, if elected by them. Under such circumstances it is difficult for the State board of education to have any recourse should the chief State school officer fail to carry out its policies. The impasses which have developed in the past and might easily develop to the detriment of the State educational program under this system of duality of control have led students of this problem to urge its elimination. It is important to

board of education.

Trends in Department
Internal Organization

When State departments of education were small the need for careful and scientific internal organization was not apparent. With their growth, the problem has become a real and important one.

The early tendency was often to create a new division for each newly added service, and to pay little attention to coordination machinery, with the result that thorough coordination of work frequently became an impossibility.

MILLIONS
OF ADDITIONAL
CHILDREN
TO ATTEND
SCHOOLS

MORE TEACHERS

Recently a number of States have taken steps to improve the internal organization of their departments. In these States the departments have been reorganized into a few major divisions of related services, with subdivisions constituted likewise. Coordinating machinery has been established such as policy committees composed of division heads and interdivisional committees composed of division staff members. Departmental procedures have been developed with a view to energizing the work of all the staff toward specific State department of education goals. These developments have been in accord with the generally accepted principles of sound organization. (Continued on page 47)

school. Free-textbook systems have tended to promote State or local uniformity of content and efficiency of instruction.

Trends in Free-Textbook Systems Recent textbook legislation among the States in this country indicates the following trends:

1. A distinct tendency to change from optional to mandatory free-textbook systems. (No mandatory system has been replaced by an optional plan.)

2. A tendency to provide for State purchase and ownership of textbooks rather than local ownership and purchase.

At present it appears that approximately one-third of the States provide for State purchase and ownership of free textbooks. In the remaining States, textbooks are usually purchased by county, city, or local school districts.

In all of the States having mandatory free-textbook systems, textbooks are provided for all children in the elementary grades of public schools and in a great majority of these States textbooks are also provided free to children in public high schools.

Administration of Free Textbooks The administration of free textbook systems may be summarized as follows: 1. State Administration. In approximately one-third of the States, textbooks used in all public schools of the State are purchased and paid for by the State. Funds therefor are usually appropriated from the State general treasury or are allocated from special State taxes to a State agency having charge of the purchase and distribution of the books.

2. Combined State and Local Administration. In approximately a dozen States, the functions of providing funds and the purchasing of free textbooks are divided between the State and the local school districts or the county boards of education. Some combined plans require the school districts to purchase the textbooks adopted by the State for use in all districts.

especially when their cost is compared with the total cost of free public education. The Office of Education is in receipt of textbook costs in 42 States and the District of Columbia for the school year 1947. These reports show that for the 42 States and the District of Columbia (then reporting) the average cost of textbooks in the year 1947 was $1.47 per pupil enrolled in public elementary and secondary schools. According to Office of Education estimates, the total average cost of public elementary and secondary education in the 42 States and the District of Columbia for that year was $132.86 per pupil