The news in this publi
cation is released for 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.
JULY 6, 1927
CHAPEL HILL, N. C.
THE UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA PRESS
VOL. XIll, No. 34
Edifoi-iai Hoard; E. C. Branson. S. H. Hobbs. Jr.. L. R. Wilson. E. W. Knight. D. D. Carroll. J. B. Bullitt. H. W. Odum.
Entered as second-class matter November 14. 1914. at the Postoffice at Chapel Hill. N. C.. under the act of Aujrust 24. 1912.
TRANSPORTING CHILDREN
Again North Carolina stands near
the top. In number of school children
daily transported to consolidated schools
by motor bus only two states, Indiana
and Ohio, rank ahead of us During the
school year just closed motor school
■busses transported to and from school,
' on an average, more than eighty-
seven thousand children daily. There
were twenty-three hundred and seven
teen school busses in operation; only
two states had more. These bus
ses were engaged in transporting child
ren to'eight hundred and fourteen con
solidated schools. The miles of route
covered daily totaled nearly fifty-two
thousand, or more than twice around
the earth! In total miles of route
covered daily North Carolina stands
first. Which means that our consoli
dated districts are large and necessi
tate handling children long distances.
We spent, all told, about one and a
third million dollars transporting chil
dren to school. Again only two states
spent more.
The consolidation of many small,
weak, inefficient and ineffective schools
into large central schools necessitates
transporting to school the children who
live at a distance. In the elimination
of small schools North Carolina has
made remarkable progress. As late as
1910 there were more than six thousand
one-teacher schools in the state. There
are now about two thousand five hun
dred. The onc-teacher schools are now
being reduced at the rate of about two
hundred a year. The number of two-
teacber schools for white children is
also being reduced, at the rate of
about one hundred per year. Schools
with more than six teachers are increas
ing very rapidly. There were 146 in
1922, while last year there were 437.
Transporting children to school is a
new idea. As late as 1915 there were
only six vehicles in the state employed
in transporting children to school.
The average number transported daily
was 247. By 1920 there were one hundred
and fifty busses transporting approxi
mately eight thousand children daily.
A year ago there were 2,317 motor
busses daily transporting to school
more than eighty-seven tj;iousand chil
dren.
How Counties RanK
Auto truck transportation of children
to school is now state-wide. However,
the counties vary a great deal in the pro
portion of children transported, which
means that cons61idation has gone fur
ther in some counties than in others.
Guilford*county ranks first in number
of children transported to school daily,
according to a recent issue of State
School Facts. Granville ranks first in
number of auto trucks employed in
transporting school children, with
ninety-two. Cumberland leads in daily
mileage of all school trucks with eigh
teen hundred and seventy-six miles.
Wilson ranks high in all three items,
trucks, pupils transported, and mileage.
There are thirty-two counties each of
which daily transports more than one
thousand children to consolidated
-schools. Ten of these counties trans
port daily more than two thousand
children each.
COtiSOUOATION OF SCHOOLS
In North Carolina, the movement
towards consolidation has been pro
moted in order to provide better edu
cational opportunities for the children
in the counties. A “consolidated school”
is a school that has been enlarged or
formed through the addition of all
parts of one or more adjoining schools.
Consolidation is accomplished by joining
together a part of a district or districts,
or all of a district or districts. Before
consolidation can take place the tax
rate over the whole of the district
must be uniform and a county-wide
plan or reorganization of all schools
and districts of the county must have
been adopted. Consolidation is, there
fore, largely a rural problem.
The County-wide Plan
Simply stated, the county-wide plan
is nothing more than making the county
the unit of school support. The county
wide plan proposes to take all of the
wealth of a county wherever it may be
found and to put it equally back of
each child in the county, no matter
where he may live. This plan calls for
a survey of the educational situation in
the county in its relation to population,
location of roads, natural barriers, and
present districts, and looks toward the
reorganization of the educational sys
tem of the county in order that the
opportunities of all the children may be
equal. The act under which this plan
operates is intended to safeguard the
interests of all the schools of the county. ^
The plan, moreover, aims to make the
length of term equal throughout the |
county. Usually an equalized school j
term, in terms of length, means either
an eight or a nine months’ term, togeth
er with an increased tax rate uniform
throughout the county. In view of the ^
fact that the State Constitution provides |
only for a six months’ term, according
to law, a special election must be held
to ascertain the will of the people '
towards the county unit of taxation in
support of a specified county-wide
term. The act mentioned prohibits ^
county boards of education from mak- '
ing any consolidation or changes in
districts until after they have adopted
the county-wide plan.
There are twelve counties in North
Carolina that have adopted the county
wide plan and have provided for a
school term of eight or nine months.
These counties are: Carteret, Curri-*
tuck, Edgecombe, Gates, Guilford, Hen
derson, New Hanover, Northampton,
Pamlico, Transylvania, Vance, and Wil
son. Edgecombe and Currituck coun
ties provided for such support district
by district not holding a special elec
tion in the entire county all at one
time. —State School Facts.
THE PARENT-TEACHER IDEA
The parent-teacher movement has
certain features which make it one oi
the unique developments of modern
times. Contrary to the common mis
conception, it is not a crusade to reform
the schools; it is not a lyceum course
to offer entertainment to the community;
nor is it a federation of clubs, each
operating independently according to
its fancy and uniting forces for certain
great objects.
It is a great school for parents .and
for teachers,, with one major object,
to know the child.
It is a social experiment in coopera
tive education, carried on according to
a single standard in home, school, and
community.
It is a demonstration that not only
government but reform, mental, moral
and physical, must be conducted “by
the people for the people, ” and that
prevention by the parents will in time
do away with the necessity for cure or
correction by the state.
It is the proof that the vast, un
exploited reserves of parent power,
fully understood, intelligently directed,
applied through the simple machinery
of local interest rather than by the
more complicated systems of public
welfare agencies,'* will accomplish from
within that which no external applica
tion of civic betterment has been able
thus far to achieve.
It is an agency through whose means
local conditions may be investigated
and inproved, the value of education
and its tools and its skilled adminstra-
tors may be made clear to the public,
and the findings of experts in hygiene
and child development may be brought
within reach of the people who most
need the scientific knowledge in their
profession o'f parenthood.
It is a great democracy in which all
points of difference, social, racial, re
ligious, and economic, are lost to sight
in the united effort to reach a com
mon goal—the welfare of all the chil
dren of every state in the Union.
The National Congress of Parents
and Teachers was organized in 1897.
There‘are forty-seven state branches,
together with organizations in the Dis- ;
trict of Columbia and Hawaii. The!
total membership is approximately one I
million. North Carolina has had a |
state organization'^since 1919 and its i
total membership in,’(1926 was 13,711.— j
Department of the interior, Bureau of !
Education, Bulletin, 1927, No. 11. I
KNOW NORTH CAROLINA
5. Miscellaneous Industries
Little is ever heard of the mis-
cellane^Kis industries of ihe state.
Yet they are a very important part
of our economic structure. They
support a large part of our popula
tion and contribute far more to the
income of the state than is generally
recognized.
Miscellaneous industries include
ail industries other than textile,
tobacco, and furniture industries.
They include manufactures of
practically every commodity known
to man. They cover such industries
as millwork, caskets. Hour, meal,
feeds, ice-cream, carbonated drinks,
frames, dye plants, axe and pick
handies, cotton ginning, frames and
lumber, castings, soda water—the
above are the first dozen as listed in
tue recent report of the State De
partment of Labor and Printing.
The report lists twelve hundred
and seventy-seven miscellaneous in
dustries. The variety of enterprises
is astonishing. Yet the list is not
by any means complete. There are
hundreds of industries, many of
them fairly large, not listed at all
in the report. In fact the 1919
Census of Industry reported 6,999
industrial concerns in North Caroli
na, while not half that number are
listed in the recent state report.
However, most of those not listed
are very small.
The capital stock of the miscel
laneous industries reporting on this
item amounts to three hundred and
ninety million dollars. One third of
the listed industries failed to report
on this item, so that the aggregate
capital stock of such industries in
the state may run around a half
billion dollars, certainly well over
four hundred million dollars.
The value of plants is reported at
$83,696,026, with about fifteen per
cent failing to report on this item.
Employees number more than
thirty-eight thousand, with about
ten percent of the industries not
reporting. Approximately eighty-
five percent of the employees are
adult men. Only seventy-two^^ chil
dren are reported.
The value of output was reported
to be more than two hundred and
ten million dollars, with one-fifth of
the listed industries not reporting.
This takes no account of the hun
dreds of industries not listed.* -
The importance of these miscel
laneous industries can be shown by
recalling that the value of output of
those reporting about equals the
combined value of the state’s three
great crops, cotton, tobacco and
corn.
little compared to what they mean to
the welfare of the children of that
State,” says the bureau. “The good
roads program can be considered - a
social welfare movement of wide signif
icance which materially contributes to
the welfare of the children.
“It is said that no person in North
Carolina lives farther than five miles
from a road as good as Fifth Avenue,
New York. This is breaking down the
isolation which was responsible for
many problems. As people moved from
the more isolated districts to the
vicinity of the highways, the problem
of transporting children to school was
solved and intercourse between towns
made easy. Health and welfare work
ers could cover their territory with a
minimum expenditure of time and it was
possible to organize central clinics be
cause of the ease of transporting
patients to them.
“Tourists may come and go in the
land of the sky,” concludes the state
ment, “but it is the children, after all,
who will benefit most in the long run
from the good roads which are really
State highways to health.’’’ — News
and Observer.
TRUE COOPERATION
Cooperation in agriculture is a farmer
movement. We do not deny to other
groups the right to cooperate, but any
movement which is not sponsored and
controlled by farmers is not agricultur
al cooperation. Unless an association
is composed of and controlled by pro
ducers it is not entitled to the benefits
granted associations of producers under
the Capper-Volstead Act.
We may define coonerative market
ing, as the term is used in agriculture,
as marketing by and for the farmers.
There are two essential principles
which, it seems to me, determine
whether an organization is or is not
cooperative. First, is it operated solely
to render service to the producers at
cost? Secondly, is it controlled by the
producers?
Cooperative marketing associations
are operated to render efficient market
ing service. They are not operated to
earn a profit for capital invested in
marketing facilities. They are not
operated to perpetuate an inefficient
system of marketing, or to encourage
unprofitable production. They are not
operated to assemble products ^or the
purpose of making unnecessary mar
keting facilities profitable. Assuredly,
they are not operated to reward a few
individuals financially, politically or
socially. They should be operated for
but one purpose—better service to the
j farmers. The singleness of purpose is
a fundamental test of genuine coopera
tion.
Cooperative marketing among far
mers implies also control of the coopera
tive organizations by their producer
members. It implies democratic con
trol. An organization is not coopera
tive if controlled by a few men repre
senting only a minority of the patrons,
whether these men are producers or
non-producers. It would not be coopera
tive, if it were controlled by an agency
of the government. It would not be
cooperative if it were set up and
operated by a semi-philanthropic or
ganization.
The weakness of an organization set
up and operated for the farmers by
others involves more than a mere
failure to place control in the hands of
the men for whom the business is con
ducted. Whether the business is car
ried on efficiently or inefficiently, the
ultimate effect is to smother rural
initiative and self-help.
On the other hand, what the farmers
accomplish through cooperation is a
permanent contribution to better farm
conditions. In developing their own
organizations they gain experience and
confidence. In acquiring knowledge of
marketing problems, they learn to
make needed improvements and ad
justments in production. Dependence
on the Government or on other agen
cies for direction of so-called coopera
tive organizations, to my mind, can
have but one consequence—deteriora
tion of the business capacity and
morale of the producers. —From address
by W. M. Jardine, Secretary of Agri
culture.
LUXURY EXPENDITURES
Statistics in regard to estimated
expenditures for luxuries in 1924 in the
United States are printed in the May
issue of the Journal of the National
Education Association.
Tobacco $1,847,000,000
Theatres, movies, etc... 934,000,000
Soft drinks and ice
cream 820,000,000
Candy 689,000,000
Jewelry 463,000,000
Sporting goods, toys, etc 431,000,000
Perfumes and cosmetics 261,000,000
Chewing gum 87,000,000
These figures are the estimates of the
United States Treasury Department.
The Research Division of the National
Education Association has also estimat
ed the expenditures for luxuries by
states.—Information Service.
the state during the term just closed,
according to Dr. A. T. Allen, superin
tendent of public instruction. Approx
imately 1,600 Negro students grad
uated at the same time from the
State’s Negro high schools.
An increase in the number of grad
uates of about 1,000 a year is noted.
Dr. Allen stated, and the colleges of
the state are finding trouble in absorb
ing all those who wish to continue
their education. The colleges are con
stantly being enlarged to take care of
the ever increasing number of appli
cants.
Approximately 833,000 students were
enrolled in grammar and high schools
of the state during the term just
ended, Dr. Allen says, this figure
showing an increase of about 9,000
over the number enrolled during the
1926-26 session. The average increase
in enrollment annually is placed at
about 10,000.
Dr. Allen predicted that the enroll
ment for the 1927-28 term will go over |
850,000, showing an increase of about!
20,000 over the term just closed. By j
1930 it is expected one million pupils '
will be attending public schools of the 1
State. -News and Observer. }
TRANSPORTING CHILDREN TO SCHOOL
By Motor Bus as of January 1,1927
In the following table, based on Bus Transportation, the states are ranked
according to the number of children transported to school by motor busses.
The parallel column shows the number of school busses operated in each state.
North Carolina ranks third in number of children daily transported to
schools, 87,283; third in number of busses engaged in transporting children
to school, 2,317; fourth in number of schools to which children are transported,
814; third in total expenditures bus transportation, $1,302,720; and first in
miles of route covered daily, 61,869.
Guilford county ranks first in North Carolina in number of pupils trans
ported to school, 3,297; Granville first in number of,auto trucks used, 92; while
Cumberland leads in daily mileage of all trucks, 1,876, followed closely by
Guilford. Thirty-two counties each daily transport 1,000 or more children to
school. Ten of these transport more than 2,000 each.
Department of Rural Social-Economics, University of North Carolina.
HIGH SCHOOL GFJ^iDUATES
Around eleven thousand graduates
were turned out by high scho^L of
OUR ROADS LAUDED i
North Carolina’s good roads program ^
is lauded by the federal Children’s Bu- •
reau in commenting on the work ot-ing
done by the county child welfare boards.
“What goods roads mean to the;
motorist touring in North Carolina is |
Number Number 1
Rank State busses, children!
carried [
1 Indiann 4,000 100,000 j
2 Ohio 2.560 90,000 |
3 North Carolina .. 2,317 87,283 i
^ Mississippi 1,750 66,000 j
6 California 1,600 60,000 j
6 Louisiana 1,190 37,000 |
7 Oklahoma 1,000 32,000 ;
8 Iowa 1,200 30,000 I
9 Virginia ' 1,080 ,29,409 I
10 Washington 1,119 27,900 ;
11 New Jersey 1,000 25,000 i
12 Minnesota 1,000 26,000 j
13 Massachusetts... 885 23,000, '
14 Georgia 600. ... 20,000 •
15 Alabama 629 17,280 i
16 Texas 625 16,879
17 Pennsylvania 800 15,500 |
18 New York 600 15,000 j
19 Michigan .. 562 13,724
20 Florida L. . 460 12,000 !
20 Nurth Dakota ... 750: 12,0uU '
22 Tennessee 417 11,892 |
23 Wisconsin 1,080 11,879 '
24 South Carolina 250 10,000 ;
Number Number
Rank State busses children
car\[^ied
24 Colorado 600 10,^00
26 Connecticut 400 9,^8
27 Kansas 400 7,6'VO
27 Kentucky 260 7,5W
29 Utah 220 ‘7,200
30 Illinois 260 6,000^
30 West Virginia ... 300 6,000'
32 Maryland 260 5,000
32 Idaho 250....... 6,000
32 Wyoming 200 6,000
32 Nebraska 260 6,000
36 South Dakota ... 315 4,725
37 Montana 350 ' 3,600
33 Arkansas 70 ,3,080
39 Arizona 260 ^^,000
39 New Mexico 200 S,U00
41 Oregon 81 2’,846
42 Maine 136 2,693
43 Delaware 110 2,400
44 New Hampshire. 226 .* 2,3168
45 • Missouri 75 1,6*6"
46 Vermont 76^ 1,530
47 Nevada 50 1,400
48 Rhode Island 30 45u