in North Dakota* C. C. SCHMIDT, Professor of Education, University of North Dakota THE Country Life Commission uppointed by President Roosevelt declared in its report that "the schools are held to be largely responsible for ineffective farming, lack of ideals, and the drift to town. This is not because the rural schools are as a whole declining but because they are in a state of arrested development and have not yet put themselves in consonance with all the recently changed conditions of life." The justice of this criticism is generally admitted but the magnitude of the rural school problem is so great that advance in efficiency is almost hopeless. The solution is thought to lie in consolidation. In his last biennial report former State Superintendent Stockwell says, "The rural school ought to be a township school, a central, consolidated school with three or four departments housed in a commodious, attractive building located on a plot of ground which will lend itself to some adornment and likewise afford sufficient ground for experiment in elementary agriculture. The small oneroom school will never prove effective." No attempt can be made in the brief space allowed here to cover the whole problem indicated in the title of the article. We must even omit a statement of the benefits that are claimed for the new type of school, and we shall merely set forth a few facts showing the present condition of the movement for consolidation in North Dakota. SCHOOL ATTENDANCE UNDER THE PRESENT SYSTEM One of the strongest indictments against the present rural school is the low ratio of attendance. The census of June, 1910, showed 156,044 persons of school age in the state. This, however, counts all from 6 to 20 years old, and it may be considered fairly satisfactory that 90 per cent of them applied for admission to the schools. But of those actually enrolled during the year only an average of 65 per cent were in school at any one time. Now, it should be borne in mind that in these statistics the cities and towns are included where The investigation of this subject was begun about eighteen months ago by Mr. N. C. Abbott, Field Organizer of the University Bureau of Educational Cooperation, and the data embodied in Table II he collected in December, 1910. The other statistics contained in this paper were secured by the writer, during the last few months, from county superintendents of schools. the attendance is notably better than in rural sections. Bear in mind also that the term in rural schools was usually only six or seven months and that a good portion of the children attended the whole of this term, and we must conclude that the average attendance is so low because thousands of others enrolled attended only a few weeks during the entire year. That this is the fact is abundantly attested by competent observers, and it may also be seen by an inspection of teachers' registers and reports. The following statistics should be of interest in this connection: TABLE I Enumeration, Enrollment and Attendance for the Years Covered by the 11th Biennial Report of the State Superintendent of Public Instruction. 1908-09 1909-10 Enumeration (School Census) at the end of year 148,626 156,044 Enrollment for the year.. Average attendance.. Percent of enrollment on Enumeration.. Percent of Average Attendance on Enrollment.. The friends of consolidation entertain the hope that the large central school will, on account of its greater efficiency, attract and retain the older pupils and secure vastly better attendance, and they are encouraged in this belief by the experience of the consolidated schools already in operation in this state and in older states. THE SIZE OF OUR RURAL SCHOOLS The ideal, one-teacher, rural school still has many strong friends among experienced educators, but they generally admit that a reasonable number of pupils is necessary to infuse life into the routine of the daily work and to prevent the per capita cost of tuition from rising far above the cost of better advantages to be secured in other schools. Table II shows that during the year ending June 30, 1910, 131 schools had an average of four pupils or less, 166 had only five, 217 had six, 269 had seven, 328 had eight, 350 had nine, and 396 had ten, making 47 per cent of our schools with an average attendance of ten pupils or less. 178 7 7 14 13 23 19 17 17 7 8 10 16 7 8 9 9 II 이 40 3 7 5 14 II 15 14 8 5 9 7 10 9 I 2 81 6 II Eleven 13 40 10 5 O 6 5 15 15 57 21 17 3 3 5 8 10 7 12 20 II 23 17 II 0 20 10 30 3 2 5 8 14 12 10 21 20 16 15 7 up to 15 Over 12, Over 15, up to 20 Over 20. 16 12 7 0 15 5 16 14 22 17 8 3 14 14 II 4 4 5 17 10 32 15 174 13 16 31 23 14 26] 8 Q 2 18 14 0 |3910|131|166|217|269|328|350|396|295|262|598|557|341 THE COST OF SMALL SCHOOLS The greatest disadvantage of these small schools is no doubt the absence of the stimulus that pupils should receive from each other. But this weakness we shall not dwell upon here. Let us notice what is the expense of operating such schools. In Table III we give the cost of tuition in some of the smaller schools in Barnes and Grand Forks counties. In these counties the district system is found so that the expenditures of the individual schools are itemized. In a township-district, where there are usually several schools, some of which have a larger attendance than others, the expenses of any one school do not show separately on the records. The cost of tuition, as given here, does not include money paid for permanent improvements, such as the school house and site, bonds, and interest; it might be added, of course, that the permanent improvements also represent an outlay that is greatly out of proportion to the small number of pupils benefited. |