weaknesses previously noted in the enactments and executive machinery of some of the 30 States, there is a question as to whether Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, and Connecticut should be listed at all. The Pennsylvania statute provides that in certain districts no contract can be made for a building until "plans and specifications have been submitted to the State board of education, and any recommendations concerning the same by the State board of education have been laid before the board of school directors." The law appears to be advisory; but in justice it should be said that succeeding sections lay down some very definite standards. The Rhode Island statute directs that the State board of education shall approve standards of lighting, heating, ventilating, seating, and other sanitary arrangements in schools and communicate the same to school committees. This, too, seems to be merely advisory. The approving authority in Connecticut lies with the board of school visitors, a lay body. Very few of the States have established penalties for the violation of this sort of statute, though in nearly all it would probably be possible to reach offenders on some such general charge as malfeasance or misappropriation.

An indirect advantage.-Provisions for approval naturally lead to the extension of the function of advice. The authorities in whom power of approval is vested have in at least four cases discovered the economy of issuing model plans, specifications, or building codes for the guidance of architects and school boards. The Massachusetts inspector of buildings has prepared a sheet setting forth certain requirements in heating and ventilation of schools that must be complied with before plans can be approved; and the State board of education in New Jersey has adopted a fairly comprehensive building code. The State superintendent of North Carolina has issued pamphlets containing plans that will be accepted as satisfactory, and the State board of South Carolina has acted similarly.

C. INSPECTION.

Under the column headed "Inspection," in Table 1, have been grouped those arrangements for inspection of hygienic conditions where there is no delegated power to order correction. Since this duty in the 12 States represented has been placed almost entirely with health officials, another common function of health boards has been included under "inspection," viz, the right to frame sanitary codes. The power to frame and enforce sanitary codes has been placed in the last column of Table 1. The duty of inspection is mandatory in the case of Idaho, Iowa, Massachusetts, New Jersey, West Virginia, and Wisconsin, and is in the hands of county or other local officers. In Massachusetts State health officers also may inspect schools. The power to frame sanitary codes is optional and is lodged with the State health authorities in Delaware, Indiana, Louisiana, and Texas.

In Mississippi the State board of health shall prepare a general sanitary code; in Vermont it shall issue to local boards of health its rules regarding lighting, heating, and ventilation of school buildings and cause schoolhouses to be inspected in these particulars.

While these arrangements seem to be purely advisory in some States, in others public sentiment and the courts have given them considerable significance. In several States the State board of health has become the force in the hygienic improvement of schools. Such is notably the case in Delaware, Louisiana, Indiana, and Vermont. This has not been accomplished, however, without a struggle. The judicial trend is well summed up by the supreme court of Indiana in the case of Blue v. Beach et al. (155 Ind., 121). The following is the language of the court: "When these boards adopt rules and by-laws, by virtue of legislative authority, such rules and by-laws have the force and effect of a law of the legislature."

Again:

*

The powers conferred upon them by the legislature, in view of the great public interests confided to them, have always received from the courts a liberal construction, and the right of the legislature to confer upon them the power to make reasonable rules, by-laws, and regulations is generally recognized by the authorities.

D. INSPECTION AND CONDEMNATION (OR CORRECTION).

Strong and weak types of laws.-As the power to approve stands above the power to advise concerning new buildings, so the right to condemn or correct stands above the right to inspect old buildings. A little over half the States of the country have taken some sort of action to compel remedial measures where they are needed. The laws looking to this end are of all degrees of completeness and stringency. An illustration of the weaker type is that of Wyoming. It says in effect that managers of all public places and institutions, schools specified among others, shall remedy the sanitary defects called to their attention. Presumably the health authorities are the ones to call attention to defects. There are no penalties; no enforcing authority.1

*

At the other extreme, perhaps, stands Wisconsin, handling the situation through education officials. The law reads: "The inspector of rural schools, the inspector of State graded schools, and the inspector of high schools of the State * * are hereby made inspectors of public school buildings," under the direction of the State superintendent. Any school official, member of board of health, or even voter of a school district may complain in writing to the State superintendent

1 In Wyoming the State superintendent, "realizing the weakness of the laws regulating type of school building, has issued general circular letters to trustees and personal letters to all the school boards contemplating the erection of new buildings, offering help in drafting plans. The State department of education publishes illustrated bulletins for circulation, giving specific suggestions in regard to school buildings standard for rural and village schools of one or more rooms." (Letter from State board of health, May 15, 1915.)

of the insanitary condition of his local school or its actual imperilment of life or limb of attendants. Upon receipt of such complaint the State department shall assign one of the inspectors mentioned above to make a personal inspection. The inspector shall report to the officials in charge of said school, ordering the repairs that in his judgment are necessary, or stating that the building should be replaced by a new one. A copy of the report is also to be filed with the State superintendent, to whom an appeal may be made by the district officials concerned. Unless the order of the inspector is complied with in the specified time or is reversed by the State superintendent, the district in question shall forfeit its entire share of the general seven-tenths mill tax of the State for school purposes. Or the county superintendent may condemn any schoolhouse, the offending district to lose its share of the school fund income until conditions are made satisfactory. The State superintendent, however, may on appeal review and reverse the decision of the county superintendent. The county superintendent may also direct district boards to make any repairs or alterations which, in his opinion, are necessary to health, comfort, or progress of the pupils, provided that the cost of the same does not exceed $25. The Wisconsin law has resulted in the condemnation of a number of buildings.

Combinations of authority. There are few combinations of authority in the matter of inspection and condemnation. In Kentucky, Michigan, North Dakota, Pennsylvania, and Virginia both health and education authorities have power, but they act independently, except in North Dakota, where a complicated system is in operation. A law of 1913 in that State reads that the county superintendent of health shall enforce cleanliness in the schools and inspect overcrowded, poorly ventilated, and insanitary schoolhouses. Another law of the same year directs that when the county superintendent reports to the county board of health that any schoolhouse or outbuilding is unsafe or insanitary, the county board of health shall at once investigate and direct the school board to take such action as may be necessary. Another law empowers the State superintendent by his deputy to require any improvement in the sanitary or ventilating arrangements of the school building unless it entails unreasonable expense. Aggrieved parties may, however, appeal within 30 days to the local health officers, whose decision shall be final. In 5 States education officers alone have power to act, and in 13 health officials are supreme. Degree of centralization. Of the 5 States where education officers are in control of school health conditions, only 1, Wisconsin, gives the State education officers any voice; in the others control is vested in the county superintendent or a similar officer. Among health authorities the State boards exercise the primary influence, and local representatives work under their direction.

Sanitary codes.-Plenary power conferred upon State boards of health to make and enforce sanitary codes is no longer an uncommon thing. Thus the Minnesota State Board of Health may adopt and enforce regulations, which when approved by the attorney general and published have the force of law. Among the general subjects on which it may rule are "the construction and equipment in respect to sanitary conditions of schools * * * * and other public institutions." Under this authorization numerous rules have been adopted regarding schools, and the State has found it necessary to enact but little specific legislation. In New York State district superintendents may condemn schoolhouses which in their opinion are "wholly unfit for use and not worth repairing." When an order is made, the district is required to vote an appropriation for a new building costing not less by 25 per cent than the amount specified in the order of the district superintendent. Such order is subject to review by the commissioner of education. The district superintendent may also order repairs and alterations to an amount not exceeding $200 in any one year.

Results in Indiana. From the side of tangible results the Indiana State Board of Health has made an enviable record, and has merited the vote of confidence that was expressed in making it the executive authority of the sanitary schoolhouse law of 1911. Gathering encouragement from the pronouncement of the State supreme court in Blue v. Beach in 1900,1 the board began a series of inspections which resulted in cases for condemnation coming before most of the quarterly meetings. A study of annual reports gives the following data, the extensions representing additional allowance of time to districts. where buildings had been condemned:

Results of work of Indiana State Board of Health.

Frequency of inspection. The frequency of the inspections is usually left to the discretion of the inspectors. In Montana, however, a rule of the State board of health commands the local health officer to inspect every school in his district once "each school term" and to close it until any insanitary condition is abated. The county superintendent of health in North Carolina during the summer

months must make an examination of the sanitary conditions of every public school, and he may prohibit the resumption of work by withholding his certificate of approval.

Limitations of power to order corrections.-Power to order repairs is limited in several of the States. The Massachusetts inspector of buildings and the State superintendent of North Dakota are forbidden to make an order entailing unreasonable expense. In New York the district superintendent, an official corresponding closely to the county superintendent in other sections, may condemn entire buildings, but he can not direct repairs that will cost a school over $200 per year. His jurisdiction covers only districts of less than 5,000 inhabitants. In Vermont the State board of health is limit by the law of 1915 to 20 per cent of the grand list (1 per cent of valuation). The county superintendent in South Dakota is held to an expenditure of $50 per year, and the county superintendent in Wisconsin, as previously noted, may not expend more than $25. In Michigan the authority of the county truant officer reaches only the inspection and correction of defects in outbuildings, and a rule of the State board of health applies merely to the school surroundings; but the factory inspectors may condemn all school buildings that they consider liable to collapse or that endanger life. The latter statute is, of course, insufficient so far as ordinary sanitation is concerned.

Penalties.-Penalties vary widely in their severity and nature. In Delaware, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and Wisconsin the district is made to suffer by losing its share in the apportionment of State or county school funds. In North Dakota a fine of $100 to $1,000 may be imposed, and two other States place a lower figure. In Ohio the penalty is definitely personal; the official may be fined or imprisoned, or both.

Comprehensiveness of the Kentucky statute.-The Kentucky law is noteworthy in that it provides that the county superintendent

shall condemn any schoolhouse which is dilapidated, unhealthy, or otherwise unfit to be occupied for the purpose of a common school, and any fence or other inclosure of a schoolhouse, when such inclosure is for any reason insufficient for the protection of the house or ground. He shall condemn all school furniture or apparatus, insufficient in quantity, or not of the required character, order the same replaced with the proper furniture or apparatus

and notify the trustees of his decision. These large powers are backed by authority to suspend or remove any trustee for neglect of duty.

III. THE SCHOOL SITE.

Factors affecting the school site and its surroundings are set forth in Table 2. Provision for playgrounds is included also, together with facts that affect the accessibility of the school to its pupils. Accessi