COLORADO in 1948, by constitutional amendment, changed the selection of the chief State school officer from election by the people to appointment by the State board of education.

In 1949 the legislature of TEXAS changed the selection of the chief State school officer from election by the people to appointment by the State board of education.

Moreover, in 1949 the legislature of MAINE changed the selection of the State commissioner of education from appointment by the governor to selection by a newly created State board of education.

These changes reflect also a trend away from election of State superintendents by popular election in favor of appointment by the State board, as evidenced by the States of Missouri, Colorado, and Texas.

Term of Office.-Legislation affecting the term of office of the chief State school officer in Colorado, Maine, and Missouri shifted from 2-, 3-, and 4-year terms, respectively, to an indefinite tenure at the discretion or pleasure of the State board of cducation.

Salary. Legislation in Colorado, Maine, Massachusetts, Missouri, and Texas left it to the State board of education to fix the salary of the State commissioner of education; provided, however, that the salary may not exceed $8,000 per annum in Maine and $11,000 in Massachusetts.

Professional Qualifications.-The new Colorado law provides that the State commissioner of education shall have "such professional qualifications as shall be deemed appropriate." The Missouri law provides that the State commissioner of education shall possess "educational attainments and breadth of experience in the administration of public education." The new Texas law stipulates that:

The State Commissioner of Education shall be a person of broad and professional educational experience, with special and recognized abilities of the highest order in organization, direction and coordination of education systems and programs, with particular abilities in administration and management of public schools and public education generally. The Commissioner of Education shall be a citizen of the United States and of the State of Texas for a period of not less than five (5) years immediately preceding his appointment; of good moral character; shall be eligible for the highest school administrator's certificate currently issued by the State Department of Educa tion; and shall have a minimum of a Master's Degree from a recognized institu

tion of higher learning. He shall subscribe to the oath of office required of other State officials.

It is significant to note that the legislatures in all five States have declared that the State commissioner of education shall be the chief administrative or executive officer of the State board of education.

Duties. Recent legislation in Massachusetts and Missouri, with few exceptions, stipulated that the duties of the State commissioner of education shall be prescribed by the State board of education.

In Colorado and Texas it is noteworthy that, while making the State board of education the principal educational policy. determining agency, and while making the State commissioner of education the executive officer of the State board, the legisla tures of these States also prescribe certain duties for the commissioner of education. Most of these duties are of the type which are usually assigned to the chief State school officer by a State board or which are customarily expected to be performed by the chief State school officer. The merits of the duties legislatively assigned to the chief State school officer must be measured in terms of whether they will promote ef ficiency in administration and clarity of relationship between the chief State school

officer and the State board of education.

The recent legislation in Colorado and Texas affecting the relationship between the State board of education and the chief State school officer reflects a prevailing principle in American legislative procedure, namely, a disposition to separate the delegation of legislative or policy-making functions from purely administrative or ministerial duties.

State Boards of Education

Prolific changes have occurred during the past decade affecting the selection, composition, and organization of State boards of education and their functions. Legis lation on this subject has occurred in no less than 16 States. Interest in this field continues unabated. Legislative changes during the past 10 years affecting the selection and/or composition of State boards of education occurred in Arkansas and Oregon, 1941; Georgia and North Carolina, 1943; Missouri, constitutional changes in 1944 and legislative in 1945; Kansas, Indiana, and New Jersey, in 1945; and Massachusetts, Vermont, Washington, and West Virginia, in 1947. In 1948 Colorado by constitutional amendment, implemented by legislation in 1949, reconstituted its State

board of education. In 1949 Texas reconstituted its State board. Moreover, in 1949 the legislature of Maine established for the first time a general State board of education.

What are the significant changes and trends manifest in these recent legislative developments with respect to State boards?

(1) A trend towards removal of control over State boards of education by the governor. A decade ago the governor was

ex officio member of the State board of education in 15 States. Legislation within the decade removed the governor from membership on State boards in the States of Arkansas, Georgia, Indiana, Missouri, and North Carolina. In 2 of these States the governor was not only an ex officio member but was also chairman of the Board. Thus

legislative changes in 10 years have reduced by one-third the number of States where the governor was a member of the State board of education, leaving 10 States in which the governor is still a member.

(2) A trend toward removal of appointment of the chief State school officer by the governor and his appointment by the State board of education, as evidenced in Maine and Massachusetts.

(3) A trend away from appointment of State boards by the governor. This was in evidence in Maine, Texas, and Washington.

(4) A trend toward removal of the State superintendent from membership on State boards of education. During the decade. legislation in four States removed the State superintendent from State boards of edu cation. These States are: Colorado, Kansas, Missouri, and Washington. In West Virginia the status of State superintendent was altered to the effect that, while remaining as a member of the State board, he was denied voting privilege on the board.

(5) A trend toward removal of all ex officio members on State boards of education. In 6 States-Colorado, Indiana, Kansas, Missouri, North Carolina, and Washington the legislatures removed other State officials as ex officio members on the State board of education. (During the past decade, however, Delaware added two ex officio members to its State board.)

(6) The trend is toward larger membership on State boards of education. During the decade 11 States increased the number of members on their respective State boards of education. These States are: Arkansas, Colorado, Indiana, Massachusetts, Missouri, New Jersey, North Carolina, Texas, Vermont, Washington, and West Vir

Current Legislative Problems With Respect to the Improvement of State School Administration

WHAT provisions and/or principles relating to education should be embodied in State constitutions generally? In dealing with a particular State, this problem is likely to present itself somewhat realistically as follows: What constitutional provisions should be added, deleted, or modified in order to improve State school administration?

SHOULD a State board and also a chief State school officer be provided for in the State constitution? If so, what provision should be incorporated with respect to them?

HOW should members of State boards of education be selected? What should be their qualifications? Also, how many members should constitute a State board?

ginia. The range of increase is from 1 additional member in Arkansas and Georgia to 11 additional members in Texas. Membership on State boards of education now ranges from 3 members in Mississippi and Oregon to 21 members in Texas.

Still other significant changes were made with respect to the State boards of education and the method of their selection.

(7) The trend is toward the abolition of constitutionally created ex officio State boards of education. This is evidenced by constitutional changes in Missouri and Colo

rado. Missouri in 1944, by constitutional amendment, abolished the ex officio State board of four members and established a new State board of eight members appointed by the governor. In 1948 Colorado, by constitutional amendment, abolished its three-member ex officio board and established a State board of education whose members are chosen by popular elec. tion, one from each congressional district (if even number of congressional districts, then one additional member elected at large).

(8) Most recent legal changes during the decade reflect a tendency toward the selection of State board members by popular vote, as was manifest in Colorado and Texas in 1948 and 1949. Both of these States adopted the system of electing by popular vote one board member from each congressional district.

(9) Finally, legislation over the decade reflects a definite trend toward vesting in State boards of education increasing responsibility for policy making in educational affairs.

SANITATION

(Continued from page 114)

older school buildings sometimes indicates a lack of awareness of the importance of sanitation in school buildings. Likewise, in many new school buildings protective

Ill ventilation and an insanitary environment for pupils.

sanitation seems to have been neglected. In too many cases the building funds are limited. The school people want space. Some patrons want to be able to point to a beautiful building. The designer with a product to sell may side with the patrons. The pupils need protection and servicethey don't vote. A frequent end result is a cheapening of inside surfaces and services and, as a result, adequate sanitation is more difficult to maintain.

In too many cases monumental facades and ornamental trim may hide dank odorous toilet rooms and interior finish that cannot be maintained in a sanitary manner.

The above is not intended as a criticism of building beauty. However, the school buildings are erected for the purpose of protecting and serving pupils. The building should be planned from the inside out. The plant design should have balance. School officials should plan carefully that the funds desired for community-sized auditoriums, tournament seating capacity for gymnasiums, or ornamental trim are not obtained by cheapening inside finish and the facilities necessary for a satisfactory sanitation program.

Rough dirt-catching surfaces should be reduced to a minimum. Floors should be nonabsorbent. Cracks, crevices, and noncoved corners that might harbor dirt should be eliminated.

Wood flooring and wood trim should be

well-seasoned and expansion joints should be protected from dirt.

In general, dark surfaces that help cover dirt are being used less and less in school buildings. Ample illumination and light surfaces are important factors in school sanitation. Some principles to observe are: Prevent dirt accumulations; if present, expose them to facilitate cleaning; remove the dirt.

Corrective Sanitation

Every school system should develop for each building a corrective sanitation program. Dirt should be removed as quickly as feasible. Suitable cleaning supplies and tools should be provided. Cleaners should be trained in the principles of and in the practices to be followed in maintaining school buildings. Cleaners or janitors should recognize the close relationship between cleanliness and sanitation. They should realize that dirt removal eliminates many of the fertile lodging spots for disease germs. They should not be permitted to use deodorants to cover up odors arising from sources that should be removed. Sanitary standards should be established for each school. Cleaners and building workers should be familiar with these standards and should be held responsible for the conditions found in the building at all times. There should be an adequate follow-up and/or inspection service that would assure constant compliance with accepted standards.

Adequate cleaning is essential to high levels of sanitary services in schools. For various reasons, school cleaning service is not always good.

In too many cases the school custodian is not a skilled janitor. School custodial service was once looked upon as a flunkytype of occupation and too many of that type of men have been employed. In some cases custodians have been employed on a patronage basis and in other places the school custodian's position and salary have been reserved as a relief or pension for men unable to perform hard labor. In addition, there has been little opportunity for custodians to be trained in their work.' The men employed had little inclination to seek training since they had no assurance of continued tenure.3

2 Viles, N. E. Improving School Custodial Service. Office of Education Bulletin 1949, No. 13. U. S. Government Printing Office, Washington 25, D. C. 15 cents.

3 Phay, John E. Custodian Personnel Administration. Reprints from American School Board Journal. March, April, May, June, July, and August, 1948. Milwaukee, Wis., Bruce Publishing Co.

Responsibility

Schools as public, or private nonprofit, institutions are not always subject to the same regulations and the same rigid inspections as are applied to some commercial activities and organizations. A few States have set up rigid rating and inspection sys

Undesirable, but still too common, for many
of the Nation's children.

tems for school lunchrooms, kitchens, etc. This service does not usually cover other phases of school sanitation. The fact that schools are not subjected to these rigid inspections contributes to the poor service often found. Schools have cherished functional and area autonomy. If schools are to have any high degree of autonomy they must accept the responsibility for providing sanitary and other essential services. If they do not have the machinery and the skills to provide such service they should turn the job over to someone or some organization qualified to handle it or go out and secure the technical help and training needed. The fact that the school is a public organization does not justify maintaining buildings that subject pupils to preventable health hazards every day they attend school. The public should realize that school sanitation is a sound investment.

OUR

UR EDUCATIONAL system has its problems the multiplicity and complexity of which tend to become greater with the increase in population and technological progress. School authorities, therefore, must be constantly on the alert for instructional methods, procedures, and types of organizations to suit changing soIcial and economic conditions. These require frequent additions and adjustments in order that youth may be better prepared to meet his responsibilities as a worker and as a citizen. Educators and lay groups in general-particularly labor-have stressed the need for an educational program which will prepare youth for employment and at the same time provide him an opportunity to complete high school.

Within the United States there are 3,464 urban communities with a population of 2,500 or over. It may be assumed that in each community either a high school or other arrangement is provided which enables boys and girls to secure a high-school education. However, many hundreds of such urban areas have inadequate facilities or none at all for students to receive vocational training. In order to meet the needs. of these high-school students better, not only in the larger cities and towns but the smaller as well, the Cooperative Part-time Diversified Occupations Program was planned and inaugurated in many local communities by State boards for vocational education. The express purpose of this type of program is to provide vocational training opportunities for high-school juniors and seniors.

Students enrolled in the program spend one-half day in employment in a chosen trade or occupation and one-half day in high school. Two periods of the time in school each half day are devoted to supervised and directed study of related and technical subjects pertinent to the student's chosen trade or occupation. The remainder of the time, he pursues the regular required high-school subjects. During the

half day spent in employment, the student secures organized and supervised work experience in accordance with a definite schedule of processes developed from an analysis of the trade or occupation. This on-thejob instruction is organized in such manner as to permit him, by the end of the 2-year period, to receive experience in all phases or jobs included in the training outline.

can

The in-school and work experience schedules may be arranged so that these students earn sufficient credits during the 2 years they are in this program to graduate at the end of their senior year. The student then possesses a high-school diploma plus 2 years of training in his chosen trade or occupation. For the Cooperative Parttime Diversified Occupations Program to function effectively, school authorities must insist that it be established and conducted in accordance with approved standards. The coordinator must have a thorough understanding and appreciation for organizing the program in conformity with such standards. Briefly stated these are in connection with:

1. Creating and utilizing the services of a representative advisory committee.

2. Determining training opportunities in the community and selecting trades or occupations which should be included in the program.

3. Determining and selecting industrial and

students for training.

4. Selecting qualified students for enrollment in the program.

5. Developing, from trade or occupational analyses, schedules of processes to be learned on the job by the student.

6. Preparing outlines of related and technical subjects, correlated with work experience.

7. Placement of students for work experience in accordance with Federal, State, and local employment regulations. The name Cooperative Part-time Diversi

UNESCO is working on a plan to standardize the Braille system in all languages. At the present time, China, India, and other countries use six or more conflicting Braille codes. Miss Marjorie Hooper, of the United States, working with a group of seven others, will endeavor to rationalize the differences in the various codes so that standard books for the blind throughout the world may be printed. Six members. of the advisory group on Braille problems are blind.

OFFICE OF EDUCATION

(Continued from page 119)

JAMES H. PEARSON, Field Representative (Central Region).

WALTER F. SHAW, Field Representative (North Atlantic Region).

SILAS M. RANSOPHER, Field Representative (Special Problems).

JAMES T. GEARON, Head Reports Analyst.

IVA G. PRISK, Educational Statistician.

Agricultural Education Service

WILLIAM T. SPANTON, Chief.

DUDLEY M. CLEMENTS, Assistant Chief.

ELMER J. JOHNSON, Program Specialist (Pacific Region).

EDWARD R. NAUGHER, Program Specialist (Southern Region); Part-time and Evening Schools Specialist.

HERBERT B. SWANSON, Program Specialist (North Atlantic Region); Teacher Training Specialist. WILLIAM N. ELAM, Specialist, Special Groups. ALVIN H. HOLLENBERG, Farm Mechanics Specialist. A. WEBSTER TENNEY, Program Specialist (Central Region); Subject Matter Specialist and Executive Secretary, Future Farmers America.

Business Education Service

B. FRANK KYKER, Chief.

of

JOHN B. POPE, Program Specialist (Southern Region); Adult Education Specialist.

G. HENRY RICHERT, Program Specialist (North Atlantic and Central Regions).

CLYDE W. HUMPHREY, Program Specialist (Pacific Region); Research Specialist.

Home Economics Education Service

EDNA P. AMIDON, Chief.

BERNICE MALLORY, Assistant Chief.

MARY LEE HURT, National Adviser-Future Homemakers of America.

RUA VAN HORN, Program Specialist (Central and Pacific Regions).

ATA LEE, Program Specialist (Southern Region). MARGARET M. ALEXANDER, Program Specialist

(North Atlantic Region).

MURIEL W. BROWN, Family Life Education Specialist.

BEULAH I. COON, Research Specialist.
MARY LAXSON, Research Assistant.

Occupational Information and Guidance Service

HARRY A. JAGER, Chief; Acting Program Specialist (North Atlantic Region). ROYCE E. BREWSTER, Assistant Chief; Program Specialist (Southern Region). CLIFFORD P. FROEHLICH, Program Specialist (Central Region); Guidance Personnel Training Specialist.

WALTER J. GREENLEAF, Educational and Occupational Information Specialist. FRANK L. SIEVERS, Program Specialist (Pacific Region); Individual Inventory and Counseling Techniques Specialist.

Trade and Industrial Education Service

WALTER H. COOPER, Chief.

TOM WATSON, Assistant Chief; Acting Program Specialist (Pacific Region).

CYRIL F. KLINEFELTER, Consultant, Supervisory Training in Industry.

CLARENCE E. RAKESTRAW, Employee-Employer Relations Consultant.

WILLIAM A. Ross, Public Service Training Consultant.

HARTMAN C. DIGNOWITY, Program Specialist
(Southern Region); Equipment Specialist.
NATHAN B. GILES, Program Specialist (Central Re-
gion); Apprentice Training Specialist.
GEORGE A. MCGARVEY, Program Specialist (North
Atlantic Region); Building Trades Specialist.
ALLEN T. HAMILTON, Research Specialist.
WILLIAM P. LOOMIS, Teacher Training Specialist.
LOUISE MOORE, Specialist, Training for Girls and
Women.

Division of Higher Education

SERVICE TO the Nation's colleges, universities, and professional schools is the responsibility of the Division of Higher Education. This service is furnished through three major sections-Organization and Administration; Education for the Professions; and Liberal Arts Education.

Administrators of higher education and college and university staff members look to the Division of Higher Education for information to help improve institutional and individual efficiency. The Division's field of interest covers such problems as educational organization on institutional, State, regional, and national levels; finance, including both sources of income and purposes of expenditures, as well as systems of financial and student accounting used; and student personnel services. Also within the scope of this Division's interest and research are materials and methods of instruction in the various subject-matter fields, such as the social sciences or physics. Special attention is given to problems of professional preparation in such fields as teacher education, the health professions, and engineering. One staff member devotes full time to the special problems of higher education for Negroes.

The Morrill-Nelson and Bankhead-Jones funds for instruction in the 69 land-grant colleges and universities, are handled through the Division of Higher Education.

In addition to publishing the results of its studies, the Division is responsibile for a semimonthly publication, HIGHER EDUCATION, which is distributed to all the institutions of higher education without charge and to individuals on subscription, price 75 cents per year. The Division also prepares the annual Directory of Higher Education in which appear essential data about each of the 1,808 colleges and universities throughout the country.

Staff Higher Education Division

JOHN DALE RUSSELL, Director

Organization and Administration

ERNEST V. HOLLIS, Associate Chief, Administration.

WILLARD W. BLAESSER, Specialist for Student Personnel Programs.

AMBROSE CALIVER, Specialist for Education of Negroes.

ROBERT E. IFFERT, Specialist for Student Aid Programs.

FRED J. KELLY, Land-Grant Colleges and Universities.

GEORGE E. VAN DYKE, Specialist for Business Management.

WILLIAM R. WOOD, Specialist for Junior Colleges and Lower Divisions.

ELIZABETH N. LAYTON, Research Assistant.
THERESA B. WILKINS, Research Assistant.

Professional Education

HENRY H. ARMSBY, Associate Chief, Engineering. W. EARL ARMSTRONG, Associate Chief, Teacher Preparation.

LLOYD E. BLAUCH, Associate Chief, Health Professions.

Arts and Sciences

CLAUDE E. HAWLEY, Associate Chief, Social
Sciences.

JENNINGS B. SANDERS, Specialist for History.
BERNARD B. WATSON, Specialist for Physics.
Specialist for Sociology.

FOR 50,000,000 ADULTS

(Continued from page 115) seems required. In general, though, poor readers are not highly interested in reading and, as many are in the lower economic groups, they have less purchasing power.

Further invention in the publishing field seems needed. The answer may lie in some combination of pictures and line drawings, controlled low reading level, attractive format, large type, color, pocket size, pamphlet thickness, and low cost. Maybe each issue of a periodical could carry enough specialized material to warrant a special subtitle which could appeal to regu. lar readers and to those having specific interests. Undoubtedly a combination of distribution channels would be requiredcertainly newsstands, corner stores, and all the pocketbook outlets. Or materials especially slanted to and sold through certain organized groups such as churches, labor unions, farmers, lodges, and nationality clubs, may be the way.

The answer is yet to be found and demonstrated. A market of approximately 50,000,000 people awaits the writers and publishers who can solve the problem.

127