The news in this publi
cation is released tor the
press on. receipt.
THE UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA
NEWS LETTER
Published Weekly by the
University of North Caro
lina for the University Ex
tension Division.
MAY 21,1924
CHAPEL HILL, N. C.
THE UNITEKSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA PRESS
VOL. X, NO. 27
BAitorlal Board, B. C. Braoaoo. 3. H. Hobbl. Jr., L. R. Willon. B. W, Knisbt. D. D. Carrol], J. B. BalUtt. H. W. Odura.
Entered as aecond-claas matter Navembar 14. 1914, at the Postofflceat Chapel HHl, N. C.. ander the actof Aa^ast 24. 1911
OUR PUBLIC SCHOOL PROPERTY
INVESTING IN SCHOOLS
Durham County ranks first in North
CaroliRa in the value of public school
property per inhabitant in 1923, the
average being $40.08. Clay county
comes last with a per inhabitant in
vestment in public school property of
only $4.88, or about one-tenth ^the in
vestment per inhabitant in Durham
County. The rank of the counties of
North Carolina in the per inhabitant
value of school property is shown in an
accompanying table. The table is de
rived by dividing the value of all pub
lic school property in each county as
reported from the office of the State
Superintendent of Public Instruction
by the population as estimated by the
Bureau of the Census, both for the year
1923.
Buncombe leads all the counties of
the state in the total value of school
property with an investment of $2,486,-
000 and ranks second to Durham in the
value of school property per inhabit
ant. Clay county comes last, not only
in the per inhabitant value, but in the
total value of school property. Her 16
school houses are valued at $21,600, or
an average value of $1,344.
The total value of all public school
property in North Carolina in 1923 was
approximately 47 million dollars, or a
per inhabitant investment of $17^50.
Thirty-seven counties rank above the
state average, while 63 counties are
below the state average. In 21 coun
ties, mainly in the mountain and tide
water areas, the investment in school
property averages from four to ten
dollars.per inhabitant.
School Property and Wealth
As a general rule the per inhabitant
value of school property bears a close
relationship to the per inhabitant tax
able wealth. For instance, Durham
ranks first both in taxable wealth and
in school property on a per inhabitant
basis, while Clay ranks 97th in taxable
wealth and 100th in school property.
However, there are a few praise
worthy as well as discreditable excep
tions. A few counties rank high in
wealth but low in willingness to build
school houses, if we are to judge by
the value of property as reported for
1923. See News Letter Vol. X, No. 22
for Taxable Wealth Per Inhabitant.
On the othpr hand a few counties which
are ail poor in purse seem abundantly
willing to do their best in the way of
providing buildings for their children.
A few such counties are: Currituck,
Pamlico, Washington, Avery, Transyl
vania, Rockingham, Warren and others
less noteworthy. Local leadership us
ually explains the rank of such coun
ties.
Nor is it possible to say that the high
or low ranking counties are to be found
in any particular area. Counties with
large investments in school property
are side by side with counties equally
as wealthy but with very little school
property. However, the bulk of the
counties that rank highest are the in
dustrial and urban counties of the
Piedmont area, and coming first below
these are the combination cotton and
tobacco counties centering about Wil
son. Some notable exceptions to the
latter group are Franklin, Sampson,
Lenoir, and Edgecombe, all of which
rank low in school property.
Bural and Urban
It is a well-known fact that the edu
cational advantages of the country
children of North Carolina are far be
low those of urban children. The city
children have a longer school term,
superior teachers, and much better
equipment. More than three-fourths
of all the children enrolled in school in
North Carolina are enrolled in schools
classed as rural, and less than one-
fourth are enrolled in urban schools.
The 47 million dollars worth of school
property in the state is almost exactly
equally divided between urban and rur
al. This means that on the average
urban child more than twice as much is
spent on buildings and equipment as on
the average country child.
Johnston county, for instance is a
great agricultural county and a large
majority of the school children are en
rolled in rural schools. Yet in 1923 the
orban schools of Clayton, Selma, and
Smithfield were valued at $561,785,
while the 121 rural schools were valued
at $400,000.
The 99 rural schools of Gaston coun
ty are valued at $80,000, while the city
schools of Gastonia, Cherryville, and
Bessemer City are valued at $609,000.
In Forsyth county one-half of the
children are enrolled in rural schools,
yet the 98 rural schools were valued at
only $290,000, while the schools of
Winston-Salem and Kernersville were
valued at $1,727,000, or six times as
much per child enrolled in school. And
so it runs for the entire state. North
Carolina is primarily an agricultural
state, but the school houses that are
used by country children do not com
pare favorably with the buildings that
house urban children. A few rural
counties have done remarkably well,
but many others have failed to provide
school buildings and equipment com
mensurate with their wealth. The ten
million dollar loan fund for buildings
provided by the legislatures of 1921 and
1923 is the greatest step yet taken to
enable the country children to have
better school houses, especially the
country children in the poorer coun
ties. This loan fund should be greatly
enlarged by the next assembly.
Astounding Growth
It is to be doubted whether any state
in the Union of anything like the wealth
and population of North Carolina can
duplicate her story of public school
property increases during the last two
decades. In 1900 when the new day in
Carolina was just beginning to dawn
all her public school property was val
ued at around one million dollars, or
less than fifty cents per inhabitant. In
1904 it was reported at $1,908,676; in
1910 the value of school property was
reported to be $6,863,000; in 1916 at
$10,434,000; in 1919 at $16,296,000; and
in 1923 the total value of all school
property was reported to be approxi
mately 47 million dollars! It is much
larger today, for during the last year
North Carolina has been spending
more on school buildings than ever be
fore in her history, due mainly to the
loans made by the state to the consoli
dated rural community schools.
Forty-seven times as much school
property in the state in 1923 as in 1900
—an increase of forty-six hundred per
cent in 23 years! That is a record that
any state might well be proud of. And
yet 1924 will throw the 1923 record into
the shade.
It is interesting to note that since
1919 the value of school property has
increased from $16,295,000 to $47,000,-
000, or an increase of nearly 200 per
cent in four years. The value of
scho(»l property increased twice as
much in the four years following 1919
1 in the 19 preceeding years!
There are ten counties in North Ca
rolina, any one of which had a larger
total investment in school property in
1923 than the entire state had in 1900.
Buncombe county alone had two and
MY COMMUNITY
My community is the place where
my home is lounded, where my chil
dren are educated, where my income
is earned, where my friends dwell,
and where my life is chiefly lived. I
have chosen it, after due considera
tion, from among all the places oa
earth. It is the home spot for me.
Here let me live until death claims
me. Then let ray neighbors say I
was a friend to man. —Cotton
Grower
the state.
Instead of a new school building
every day in North Carolina, we ought
to tear down at least five houses of the
one and two room type and erect in
their stead real community school build
ings, properly equipped and properly
staffed with good teachers.
North Carolina is not likely to go
broke building school houses. While
every citizen is proud of our recent
achievements in the erection of build
ings we must not lose sight of the fact
that our present investment is not large
when we consider our population, our
wealth, and our place in the column of
states.
There are three counties in the state,
each of which has more than three
times as much wealth on the tax books
as all the school houses of North Caro
lina are now valued at. The value of
all school property in the state amounts
to only 1.7 percent of the aggregate of
property listed for taxation, and to
only one percent of the estimated true
value of the principal forms of wealth
in the state as reported by the Federal
Department of Commerce.
In conclusion let us remember in con-
EDUCATIONAL ADVANCE
The Wilkes Journal gives parallel
columns showing educational advance
of twenty years in Wilkes county. A
few outstanding items are interesting
and informing. In 1903 the value of
school property was $11,220; in 1923 it
was $349,250. In 1903 the annual school
fund was $14,368; 1923 it was $233,334.
Twenty years ago there were eight
school libraries; last year there were
148 in addition to 289 supplemental li
braries. In 1903 there were no pupils
studying agriculture while last year
there were 678 studying this fundamen
tal branch of learning. The average
daily, attendance on enrollment in 1903
was 65 percent; last year it was 91 per
cent. Wilkes educational affairs under
the aggressive leadership of C. C.
Wright make an uncommonly good
showing, but what has been done in
Wilkes has been done, broadly speak
ing, all over the state. Great headway
has been made. But much remains to
be done. The length of school term in
Wilkes advanced in twenty years only
from 13 to 24 weeks. Longer school
terms for the rural districts with fur
ther improvement in teaching force and
equipment are necessary. — News and
Observer.
HOME OWNERSHIP
A man who has spent most of his
life in social service work recently
said that he had practically reached
the conclusion that the most effective
way of attacking modern problems 1 Lexington Dispatch.
would be to inaugurate a permaneat,
nation-wide campaign for home owner
ship.
His idea is that the source of most of
our present day trouble is the lack ©f
family stability.
The home owner does not desert his
wife and children.
He does not suffer from wanderlust.
He takes a strong interest in his com
munity.
The purchase of his own home a-
rouses his ambition, his thrift and his
industry.
Being permanently located, he is a
better husband, a better father, a bet
ter citieen, and a better worker.
The more you think about this mat
ter, the more you will be convinced
that it is fundamental.—Statesville
Landmark.
BEAUTIFYING THE CITY
A step in civic progress and beauty
was made by the Cherryville chamber
of commerce in the purchase and deliv
ery of 200 cherry trees. A committee
of four was immediately appointed to
begin setting them out on the fojir main
highways approaching the city.
Each man of the committee will be
responsible for the planting, cultiva
tion and upkeep of the trees for the
beautification of the roads and the lus
cious fruit that may be had for the
picking in three or four year. These
trees will have an added significance in
that they will be fitting symbols to
strangers of the town Cherryville.—
INVESTMENT IN PUBLIC SCHOOL PROPERTY
Per Inhabitant in North Carolina in 1923
In the following table the counties are ranked according to the per inhabit
ant value of all public school property in 1923. The table is based (1) on the
sidering the investment in public school; value of school property.as reported from the office of the State Superintenent
buildings and equipment in the counties - ^ ■ -• '
and towns of North Carolina that the
state does not build public school houses.
of Public Instruction, and (2) on the Bureau of the Census estimate of population,
both for the year 1923.
Durham ranks first in the value of school property per inhabitant, the
Public schools are built by local com-1 amount being $40.08. Buncombe ranks first in the total value of school property
munities, and they are built in largest
numbers and involve largest expendi
tures of money in those counties and
communities that have largest com
munity pride, greatest tax willingness,
and most constructive local leadership.
-S.H.H.,Jr.
TOWN AND COUNTRY
There should always be a spirit of co
operation and friendship between town
and country dwellers. Time was (and
not so very long ago) when there was
a great gulf fixed between the two, and
it was taken for granted that what ap
peared to be in the interest of one was
per se inimicial to the best interest of
the other. Although this feeling is not
BO strong as it was it still prevails to
too great an extent.
So far as fundamental economic prin
ciples are concerned, all the people are
inter-dependent, and, therefore, what
effects the people of the towns and
cities affects to a greater or less extent
the people of the rural districts. If the
producers of cotton, tobacco, truck and
half times as much school property in | fruit do not prosper on account of cer-
1923 as the state had in 1900! Meek-1 tain adverse conditions neither will the
lenburg and Forsyth each had more | business men of the towns and cities
than twice as much, and Durham had! prosper, that is, they will not perma-
almost twice as much. There are nine I nently prosper. If the business meth-
other counties, either of which in 1923 | ods of the city and town men Work per-
could almost match the total value of j manently against the men of the rural
state school property in 1900. j districts, those business methods will
The ten counties of the state each of! in the end redound to the hurt of the
which had more than a million dollars ' cities and towns, because the fountain
worth of school property in 1923 are in | head is the all important part of the
order: Buncombe, Mecklenburg, For-' stream and must be fed to give a
syth, Guilford, Durham, Wake, Wilson, j healthy flow. But the only way in which
Iredell, Roebingham, and New Han-, a fountain head of a stream can get a
over. j healthy outlet is through good condi-
Gratifying as has been our recent tions for its passage to the sea. In
progress in the erection of new and other words, if there is to be perma-
up-to-date school buildings, we are far nent prosperity in a community, county
from being able to point with pride to i or state there must be co-operation be-
large areas of the state. The bulk of ' tween town and country,
our school property is in the cities, | Let there be co-operation between
and in towns whose schools are classed , town and country, and the best start-
as rural. For the most part the rural ing point would be in the maintenance
school buildings are still of the one and . of good roads and schools, such as we
two room type, and of very little prop-1 have in this county and state. Town
erty value. Some town children and a ' and country dwellers are benefited a-
large majority of our country children ■ like by good roads and good schools,
are still housed in small and ill-equip- j and in accordance with the fixed laws
ped school buildings that soon must go of trade all the resultant good effects
to make room for large centrally locat-! of agricultural and business prosperity,
ed community schools under the county | both of which are promoted by good
unit of administration. This is the roads and good schools. - Sanford Ex
solution of the rural school problem of press.
$2,486,000, and second in value per inhabitant. Clay ranks last both in the
total value of school property $21,600, and in value per inhabitant $4.38.
State total value of public school property approximately 47 million dollars,
and the investment per inhabitant is $17.60.
S. H. Hobbs, Jr.
Department of Rural Social Economics, University of North Carolina
Rank County School
Property
PerInhab.
1 Durham $40.08
2 Buncombe 36.88
3 Pasquotank 36.60
4 Washington 33.22
6 Wilson 33.00
6 McDowell 31.96
7 Scotland 31.66
8 Iredell 30.83
9 Montgomery 29.28
10 Pamlico 29.18
11 Carteret 28.00
12 Rockingham 24.38
13 New Hanover 24.04
14 Mecklenburg 24.00
16 Transylvania 28.66
16 Davidson 23.20
17 Craven 23.10
18 Forsyth 22.90
19 Guilford 22.07
20 Alamance 22,00--
21 Cumberland 21.03
22 Nash 20.96
23 Currituck 20.64
24 Granville 20.45
26 Rutherford 20.44
26 Caldwell 20.30
27 Halifax 20.18
28 Harnett 19.64
29 Duplin 19.66
30 Lincoln 19.06
31 Orange 18.86
32 Johnston IS.60
33 Warren 18.20
34 Chowan 18.12
36 Vance 18.06
36 Stanly 18.02
37 Wayne 17.80
38 Rowan 17.20
39 Jones 16.90
40 Avery 16.83
41 Wake 16.76
42 Greene 16.60
43 Union 16.02
44 Bladen 16.76
46 Robeson 16.60
46 Catawba 16.43
47 Moore 16,33
48 Pitt 16.06
49 Henderson 14.78
50 Tyrrell... 14.63
Rank
51
62
63
54
66
66
67
68
69
60
61
62
63
64
66
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
76
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
96
96
97
98
99
100
County School
Property
PerInhab.
Macon $14.52
Camden 14.31
Cabarrus 13.86
Alleghany 13.58-
Graham 13.30
Bertie 13.28
Anson 13.06
Hertford 12.97
Martin 12.89
Jackson 12.66
Cleveland 12.60
Randolph 12.41
Gaston 12.26
Northampton 12.21
Burke 12.13
Columbus 12.12
Haywood 11.61
Davie 11.52
Lee 11.51
Alexander 11.48
Cherokee 11.26
Person 11.17
Chatham 11.13
Beaufort 11.12
Wilkes 11.11
Edgecombe 10.84
Hoke 10.68
Madison 10.11
Gates 10.05
Richmond 9.61
Onslow 9.57
Sampson 9.56
Watauga... 9.50
Perquimans 9.06
Surry 8.88
Caswell 8.84
Polk 8.36
Ashe 8.30-
Hyde 8.24
Yancey 7.78
Stokes 7.41
Swain 7.34
Franklin , 7.30
Dare 7.10
Lenoir 6.86
Brunswick 6.72
Mitchell 6.68
Bender 5.62
Yadkin 5.47
Clay 4.88